Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 18 September 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Procedural close, 20 July 2023, see discussion. no consensus, 11 July 2023, see discussion.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

REMINDER TO ALL EDITORS—READ BEFORE COMMENTING As an arbitration enforcement action under the above sanctions, a reminder was issued to this page's editors. The following is a generalized summary of that reminder: Editors should discuss article content only, not editor behaviour. If there is concern about editor behaviour, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard. Editors with content concerns should clearly outline those concerns with quotes from the article, and from the sources if applicable. If an editor is not concerned with the quoted passage, they should explain why. Rapid back-and-forth discussions amongst two or a small group of editors is usually not helpful, especially when trying to convince the other person that they are "wrong". Instead, avoid commenting for a couple hours and let others give new perspectives. Maintenance templates should not be removed without a consensus that all relevant concerns have been addressed, either by resolving them or by reaching a consensus that a concern is not actionable. In either case, dissenting editors should WP:DROPTHESTICK.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Low‑importance Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Title

Before an WP:RM, it would be good to collate all suggested titles from interested editors. The titles I have extracted from the various discussions so far are below:

• Biological Judaism
• Politicization of Jewish genealogy
• Zionism and Jewish genetics
• Zionism and Jewish genealogy
• Zionism and Jewish race and genetics
• Zionism and Jewish biology
• Zionism and the origin of modern Jews
• Zionism, race and eugenics
• Zionist race science

Please add, delete or comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Zionist eugenics
• Scientific racism in Zionism

Per WP:AND can we think of meaningful titles that avoid the conjunction? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Eugenics is just the flawed application of a science, but it is not the science itself. 'Zionist eugenics' could be a page in of itself, based on the sources, but it is a subtopic of the wider 'Zionist race science' topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Jewish Origins and Ancestry
• Origins of the Jewish People
• Research on Jewish Origins and Ancestry
• Research on Jewish Origins
• Research on Origins of the Jewish People Drsmoo (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

:I think the title should be shortened to Race and Zionism, since it isn't really about genetics. Crainsaw (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Jewish biological racism
• Jewish eugenics
• Jewish race science
• Jewish scientific racism
• Zionist biological racism
• Zionist race science
• Zionist scientific racism

I am so far undecided about the use of "Jewish" in the title. While much of the article discusses the attitudes of certain people, many but not all of whom were Jewish, regarding real or imagined biological similarities among Jews (and perceived differences from Gentiles), the context for this research was undoubtedly the use of said research in the search for a solution to the Jewish question, on the part of both antisemites and Zionists. A few of these titles are good, but I am leaning towards Zionist scientific racism Zionist race science at this time (see this diff). While related, I don't think "genealogy" or "ancestry" covers the entire topic well. Havradim leaf a message 02:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Scientific Racism is defined as using pseudoscience to try to prove that certain races are superior or inferior. The pre-genetic research was searching for biological origin, not seeking to prove Jews as superior. And modern geneological research has nothing to do with racism. Drsmoo (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's also about the use of science to create a race consciousness in the pursuit of Jewish separateness or nationalism. Not so much about 'who is superior', as much as 'who has the superior claim on Palestine'. Havradim leaf a message 03:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But "race science" is a different thing from "scientific racism", which has a specific definition. And also differs from modern genealogical research. Also I did not intend to undo your second edit with my first, there was an edit conflict. Drsmoo (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding. It's a semantic choice for me, race science just sounds better to me than racism. Havradim leaf a message 03:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree, there is a good quote in the AfD discussion which explains the difference between “racialism” and “racism”. We are talking about the former, not the latter – exactly as Drsmoo says, this was not about superiority, but about unity and origins. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Two things. (a) A huge amount of effort was wasted in just defending the legitimacy of a topic with this 'triadic' focus. It brought a thorough revision to a standstill. I, for one, now have 54 books and articles, and extensive notes from them, lined up to help do that job. (b) To prioritize a title change discussion will put a further spanner in the works. Title changes can drastically alter editorial focus and bibliographical selection.

By all means we should keep this as an option, but to be exercised when the intense development and précising of those 50+ sources on these themes is substantially completed. (I'll add further items I have noted shortly). This should take, barring heart attacks, ictuses and mental constipation, I imagine this drive towards a comprehensive expository article should take a week to 10 days. After which, with the reference evidence before us, we can then discuss the title.

I might add I don't like the word 'Jewish' in any title.I don't believe, despite what some sources say, that it is healthy to essentialize anything 'Jews' or 'Jewishness' or 'Jewish thinking' except with caution (as opposed to Judaism - a vast cultural system).Nishidani (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. It will be a much better and clearer discussion if we wait until then. I won’t remove the remaining tag during that period either. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added a second tag to request time for these edits. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If we were talking about the lead, waiting would be eminently sensible, but the fact that the question of title might bound the article is surely the point. You said wait for the AfD to finish to have the title discussion. It is finished and workshopping the title ahead of an RM is now due. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't help the discussion, and it probably didn't help the AfD, that 'race science' currently redirects to 'scientific racism' despite the quite different connotations of the two terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with others that waiting for the article to reach some level of stability before working on the title is the proper approach. Zero 11:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought then. Next time you don't know what the subject of a page is until you have finished writing it, you might save a good deal of angst if you develop it in draft and only publish it to the world at the point you actually know what it is about. Especially true when you intend to conjoin probably the three most controversial words on Misplaced Pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Mea culpa. On the positive side, it has been a valuable exercise to hear the wide range of opinions on the topic, which will inform the development of a robustly balanced article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's the question, isn't it, what is it about, I keep thinking it is about Zionist thought in relation to race and genetics and maybe that's the title right there, I could of course be totally wrong and all those people claiming its about eugenics or Jews or something else are completely right. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That is what it is about. I've been reading this literature for over 12 years, virtually since when it started to dribble out in notable articles, and so, when the primary editor mounted his article under that title, I thought, 'Oh, finally a venue for all of this stuff' though I thought, 'damn it, this is going to need one heck of a load of work, given the variety of sources'. Still, it's up, and the task is to write it, without getting bogged down in trivial disputes, delete or no, this title or that. It's quite true that a lot of people react viscerally to discussions of this, because social taboos exist. But you can't write anything serious if you take those seriously. The principles we follow, here and in scholarship, for rersearch and coping with stubborn reactions of 'no, no, no' respectively are twofold:

(a)Le bon historien, lui ressemble à l'ogre de la légende. Là où il flaire la chair humaine, il sait que là est son gibier.(the historian is like the ogre of legend, where his nostrils flare with the scent of human flesh, he knows he's found his quarry)Apologie pour l'histoire ou Métier d'historien p.18

And if, while closing in on one's topical quarry (in both senses), exclamations of anxiety break out, then Francis Bacon's dictum kicks in.

(b)The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion . .draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises. . in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate.’ (Novum Organum)

The last dictum is cited, very appropriately, by Raphael Falk, who knew the resistance his kind of historical analysis of zionism, race and genetics would generate.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, two possibilities occur to me:

• Zionism and Jewish identity
• Zionist thought on race and genetics

The second of those is based on what Selfstudier said just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Both of these have an "and" in the title, although Zionism and Jewish Identity is narrower, perhaps to the point of being "closely related or complementary topics." My concerns about conjoining race and genetics were, of course, shared by people on both sides with the AfD , and the second suggestion doesn't address that. Yet what is wrong with this title?

• Zionist thought on race

The article continues to discuss population genetics in the context of Jewish identity, ethnic unity and descent. That is, it is used as a tool in the narratives around race. Iskander's "Zionist race science" also captures this, without requiring this juxtaposition of genetics in the title and the start of the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with it, of course, as we are (I assume) just brainstorming here. I don't like "race science" because of its association with pseudoscience, which has been mentioned above. I'm not as bothered with "and" as some other editors are, just so long as we have sources that justify the combination. I could also see going with:

• Zionist thought on Jewish identity

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that one works. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Jewish identity is a much broader topic that goes well beyond what has covered here into other aspects of culture, tradition and belief. See related literature such as , so that would be a major change in the scope, not just the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. "Jewish racial identity" might be more specific, but is also wordier. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

All three elements alone invoke, each, a very large number of books and periods. Here we are dealing with the genealogy of an idea which greatly narrows our focus to a single strain in Zionism, race and genetics, the way the concept of race inflected Zionist thought, and the impact this combination had on Israeli/diaspora studies of the Jewish people down to the present day. I don't know why this is problematical, or why the title should be changed to generate a completely different set of expectations in the reader, where content editors would, depending on the title, then be expected to substantially rewrite this highly thematically focused article, throwing out half of the sources, and dredging in dozens of different sources for the different content in a new title. It is easy to toss round suggestions, and on occasion they can be useful, but a little thought should always be given to the implications of any proposal. I.e. 'now, who is going to do a month's further reading (for example we would need an extensive section on Leo Strauss) and a lengthy outline of the historical dynamics between secular and religious Zionism's thought traditions),, and a few weeks of intensive editing to satisfy our consumer's dissatisfaction with the product on display?Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The arguments for or against the move may be kept for the RM. This is workshopping the titles themselves. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The title must faithfully reflect the article. Proposing titles that suggest different articles is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

There are clearly enough editors here who have concerns about the page that it is reasonable to brainstorm about possible improvements. In part, of course, the content of the page must be correctly reflected in the chosen title. But in part, thinking about a better title can be a good way to gain insight about how to improve the page. For a Contentious Topic like this, it is best not to try to shut down good faith discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish. I appreciate the revert, but the insult remains in the history. Perhaps I wasn't clear. How would one write 'Zionist thought on Jewish identity' when our coverage of the topic is so thin? We have no wiki articles even on basic figures for that topic's history, figures like Samuel Weissenberg, Elias Auerbach, Felix Theilhaber Ignaz Zollschan, Martin Engländer, Max Mandelstamm and Alfred Waldenburg, to name but a few. One cannot expect people who work their guts out actually writing articles to cater to expectations or desires for different content by editors visiting a talk page. If I saw any signs of a willingness to write up articles on such figures, in short, collaborative help, I'd be less, well, disappointed by the comments on alternative titles above. There is nothing contentious about the topic in Israeli and diaspora scholarship. It is only 'contentious' for some wikieditors.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As for "contentious", see Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics, which apply to all editors, not just some. I appreciate the work you have been putting into this page; I sincerely do. But you also need to keep sufficient "distance" to be willing to listen to editors who make good faith comments in talk (or if you don't want to listen, then at least don't be dismissive). There is no threshold defined in Misplaced Pages policy for an editor to have made enough edits to a page before being able to be listened to on the corresponding talk page. Part of what gets in the way is when you take the position that editors who have not become subject matter experts should defer to whatever you insist is right. Just above, Iskandar323 made a perfectly reasonable objection to a suggestion of mine, and I accepted that. It was simply a matter of stating objectively what a potential problem was. In contrast, when you post a, well, wall of text, as you often do, stating that you have read all manner of source material and this is what you have concluded and you expect the rest of us to accept your conclusion, that is unhelpful. Is it absolutely impossible to come up with a better page name? Is it absolutely the case that a better name cannot possibly exist? Of course not. Editors should be able to discuss that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw a stub for an article with this name. So, being very familiar with the topic, I decided to help improve or build it with its creator, a very experienced wikipedian editor. That means one gathers as much relevant material on the topic, reads it, and, fulfilling the promise of the title, writing up the history of Zionism's use of race and the way these formative ideas were carried over, often as an ideological substrate or unwitting premise, in post-war Israeli studies of Jewish ethnic subgroups, from blood types to genetic diseases and more recently, to population-genetic research,some of whose practitioners thought they could find a biological basis for Jewishness. So the article is generated, indeed dictated, by the title we have. Change the title, for whatever reason, means changing the subject, shifting the goalposts. People who prefer punting a football 90 degrees left or right of the traditional placement of scoring posts have every right to play a game with different rules, but not on the field where the goalposts are already established and the rucks, rovers and full forwards vie to kick the 'pill' back and forth along the standard axis. Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

If it were the case that this is an actual subject in and of itself, sources to support that would have been brought forth (there are supposedly several dozen in this article). Instead we’re seeing personal attacks, self-aggrandizement, and general filibustering. Drsmoo (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I am satisfied, based on what I see in the article, that there is an "actual subject" here.

Instead we’re seeing personal attacks, self-aggrandizement, and general filibustering. Does this include yourself or just those editors that disagree with your POV? Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me translate all this. You, Drsmoo, have complained of being 'insulted'; of being the object of Onceinawhile's sealioning; Tryptofish in a careless moment called me 'an obstacle to reasonable discussion' (but quickly retracted with the es 'screw it'); Onceinawhile stated we have 'dozens of sources', which you now spin as 'several dozen'. I said we had over 2,000 pages of sources to read and discuss, and you made that figure explode exponentially into 8,000. Apparently, either Onceinawhile or I are engaged in 'personal attacks' now. My attempt to exhaustively answer (WP:Consensus) what I privately consider frivolous objections is spun as 'self-aggrandizement' or does that refer to note that I've read several books running from 250 to 4000 pages to get a thorough handle on the topic?; that the courtesy of not ignoring each brief refrain about synth, whose meaning as used here is totally obscure, becomes 'filibustering'. No one has been insulted by either Onceinawhile or myself. On the other hand, you persist in personalizing what is adherence to procedures about collegial editing as a provocation. This last comment is another WP:NPA personal attack, which has no other function than to raise the temperature of the room. I refuse to respond in (un)kind. Insinuate and insult as you will.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

My edit summary was actually "self-revert, screw it". I'm glad that I self-reverted it, because it was an error of judgment on my part. I think that being receptive to the possibility that one can be mistaken is a useful trait, here on WP and elsewhere, and I highly recommend it to anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, can you provide examples of the multitude of sources that describe a connection between Zionism, race, and genetics as a cohesive subject? Drsmoo (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Read the sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In the interests of trying to bring an end to this, let's take this sentence from the lead:

"Since then, every generation has witnessed efforts by both Zionist and non-Zionist Jews to seek a link between national and biological aspects of Jewish identity" together with the accompanying footnote.

Does that, in your opinion, constitute a foundation for the topic? And if not, why not?

@Nishidani: Is it possible to rework the opening paras so as to provide foundational sourcing for the title? Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I already explained that the title dictates the content's scope. We have 85 sources. Choosing one for a 'foundational sourcing' doesn't make sense. In my reading, all of the objections here have one purpose, to detach 'race' from Zionism in the face of massive RS evidence that historically they were intimately conjoined. I'll reconsider of course. Despite rumours, I'm flexible, as long as people are rational in their counter-proposals, something I see little evidence of. But I, for one still have several days of hard work ahead of me to finish my review and rewrite of the stub we had. What is paramount is that the lead must faithfully cover the section contents. Without all sections in place, tampering with the lead at this point makes no sense. Once we have a complete text, we can then look at title options. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:OPEN Choose more than one, several if you like. "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic;.." Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that Sirfurboy has as well raised this (about the first para) below. I would rather nip a second AfD in the bud at this point, since we have agreed on the "topic" (if not the precise title). Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

No as it’s a single source, for one. This statement is also broader than race and genetics. There are sources that discuss differences between race science and genetics as well. Drsmoo (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately we are not relying on it solely, I have begun a rework of the opening to make things more clear, still needs work. I understand why Nishidani would rather finish up with the article content and only then the lead, that would be the usual way, however in the circumstances doesn't mean we cannot edit the article for effect in between times. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the issue raised here, about "moving the goalposts". In part, I really do understand where that's coming from. I can see and sympathize with how it can be frustrating to work hard on the page and then see other editors make suggestions that might change the direction the article moves in. On the other hand, the contention that the figurative goalposts are already at exactly the right place now makes an assumption that might not be true. Perhaps the goalposts need to be adjusted a bit, and, to mix metaphors, it's not unreasonable to try to kick the tires and see if an alteration in the page name, and thus the page focus, would or would not make sense. No one should feel threatened by that, and brainstorming about it might (or, ultimately, might not) lead to some good new ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel threatened. I'd just be more comfortable around here if the materfial were thoroughly studied by others. My perception is that the mere mention of race and Zionism has upset a lot of people, who don't appear to have ever heard of how much close study Israeli and diaspora scholarship have recently dedicated to the topic. Politics is the curse of wikipedia. Of course as Thomas Mann realized, 'in jeder geistigen Haltung ist das Politische latent.’ But in the quiet backrooms of unshackled intellectual curiosity, as I'm sure you yourself know for professional reasons, one just goes wherever the evidence leads, regardless of cultural or political fears and sensitivities. Regards Nishidani (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

My perception is that the mere mention of race and Zionism has upset a lot of people. Your perception is in error. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

why?Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The inverse of a proposition in the present perfect is trivially derived by adding "not" to the auxiliary verb. "Has not". If your "why" is asking why your perception is in error, then Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you read Alice in Wonderland? Just wondering.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support either of these Drsmoo (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of a title that wouldn't push too far in terms of shifting the focus, and by relying on the current version of the lead sentence, I thought of:

• Zionist thought on racial identity

It moves a bit away from some of the contentious terminology, but it's more specific than "Jewish identity", and I think it reflects the current focus that editors are trying to make work. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that would miss a lot of what sources discuss and the text writes up. Originally, there was a strong tendency among Zionists to redefine Jews collectively as a race, in line with the 'scientific' Weltanschauung of the period. They didn't expatiate on 'racial identity' broadly, but on Jews as a 'race' as opposed to Jews as a people adhering to a religion oras heirs to the sociocultural traditions of Judaism. The article deals with the historical parabola whereby this language morphed from the old stereotypes of race into the newer science of genetics, from making a new type of 'Jew' redeemed of putative 'defects' to a quest for evidence that would biologically 'reorientalize' the Ashkenazi by proving that the European component of the Jewish world emerged, like the Mizrachi and Sephardim, from the Midcdle East, and were the latters' genetic kin. Since 1979 at least, Zionism has shown a great capacity to dispense with 'racial identity'. For nearly a half a century, numerous groups known to have no 'racial' connection, i.e. a significant ME genetic profile, have been allowed to become Israelis in hundreds of thousands, on the basis of religious criteria. This tendency is strengthening (reviving a very ancient practice in Judaism of recognizing a Jew as anyone who converts or is descended from converts, to Judaism. We need an article on that too but it is too large a subject to be allowed to displace the quite narrow focus of the article we have.Nishidani (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Zionist thought on racial identity captures this well. Nishidani's objection that For nearly a half a century, numerous groups known to have no 'racial' connection, i.e. a significant ME genetic profile, have been allowed to become Israelis in hundreds of thousands, on the basis of religious criteria is not an objection to the title but a nuance to the discussion on the page, in demonstrating that Zionist thought on the issue has never been homogenous, static and without nuance, and that it is not only characterised in this way - a point that is captured in the use of the word "thought" here. Removal of genetics from the title removes the confusion between race and population genetics. The quoted sentence shows the issue. Race is socially constructed, and the racial concept is not only identified with an ME genetic profile (whatever that actually means in this case). Population genetics and ethnogenesis are part of the story but they must not be made to be the story in a way that propagates confusion rather than understanding.

Thus I would like to know what others think about this suggestion, which, to my view, is a good candidate for the target in a move discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is about race in Zionism and its subsequent inflection in genetics on Jewish populations. Half of the article is about that conditioning of genetic research caused by Zionist thinking about race. Titles allude to the content's main issues, and there are three, not two. Genetics therefore must be in the title, since it cannot be subsumed under 'race', a concept molecular biology has radically challenged.Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds to me like "Zionist thought on race" and "Zionist thought on racial identity" can both continue to be thought about, assessing their respective plusses and minuses, assuming one editor leaves enough breathing space for other editors to feel comfortable weighing in. I think a limitation of "race", without "racial identity" is that it can be misunderstood as about being about race in general (what do Zionists think about Black-white race relations?), whereas the word "identity" locates the topic within the identity of the Jewish people who live in or support Israel. So, like Sirfurboy, I think that remains an option worth considering. I can see some validity to identifying modern genetics separately from older conceptions of race, but I'm not really convinced, because I think that the development of more recent, genetically-influenced, lines of thought represent a change over time in how racial identity has been viewed: in other words, a trend towards seeing racial identity through a genetic perspective, but still a way of seeing racial identity (per the current lead: "these same themes"). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Mixing race and genetics is likely "a bad idea" in general but isn't that exactly what Zionist thought has been (still is?) doing, according to the sources? Saying the whole thing is merely a search for (racial) identity sounds like a bit of a whitewash. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, but the reason that it does not strike me as being a whitewash is that I don't see it as "merely a search" for that. The proposed title calls it "thought" about that. A movement can have thoughts or views on a subject without that being restricted to a search for a particular outcome. I don't think that adding genetics to the title reduces the implication that the subject is related to identity, as one can think of genetic identity just as much as racial identity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

How many Israelis (or Israeli scholars) are consciously Zionist, and think as Zionists. Geneticists in Israel, the ionist state, and abroad conduct their research trusting in the non-ideological objectivity of the methods they use. So it is embarrassing, awkward, to define what they do variously as 'Zionist thought on race', indeed offensive. And since we speak of Zionists and non-Zionists, that title excludes the latter. Eran Elhaik, for one, is an Israeli who theorized a non-Levantine origin for one component of Jews, the Ashkenazi, and he does not appear to be a 'Zionist'. He contributes to the debate on Jewish origins with his Israeli colleagues, who often disagree with him. I could name many other problems that arise with the propose but for the moment. . .Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I know you feel strongly about this, but if we are at the point where you are claiming that characterizing the work of significant thinkers involved with Zionism as "Zionist thought" is offensive, you need to stop bludgeoning this discussion and leave room for other editors to participate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not a matter of strong feelings, it is a matter of writing competently about a vein of scholarship concerned with these three themes. What you call bludgeoning, is simply a matter of asking editors to assess, in this case, the meaning of a title in terms of the content of the article. 'Zionist thought on race' does not cover much of the content of the article. Israeli geneticists may be Zionists or not, they are not thinkers of race like their Zionist forefathers. They are scientists attempting to find evidence linking the major subgroups of Jews, particularly a 'non-race' like the Ashkenazi, in terms of 'founding fathers' of Middle Eastern, hopefully Levantine origin. That innuendo in the title is the careless consequence of not thinking about, or even grasping, what the article writes up.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Innuendo... careless... not even grasping. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Bludgeoning is a euphemism for 'shut up'. Something of what I know about the topic is in the article as I rewrote it from top to bottom. I see little evidence on this talk page of familiarity with the scholarship used. It strikes me as more an index of what many editors do not know about the subject. If I spot what seems to be a misapprehension, I exercise a right to reason with the editor concerned.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

But the sources don’t say that. No one has presented the “dozens” of sources that discuss a linkage between Zionism, race, and genetics as the foundation for an article Drsmoo (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: They have been presented. I am happy to summarize them for you. How many would satisfy your concern? How many do you believe are required to satisfy WP:GNG?

These questions are intended to ensure we can bring this long-running debate to a landing, avoiding moving the goalposts or no true Scotsman-type continuations.

Onceinawhile (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Onceinawhile do you think Zionist thought on racial identity might be a good candidate for the RM discussion? At this point we are just looking for the best candidate for the discussion, no need for the discussion itself, but the workshopping is designed to prevent an RM being derailed with "wouldn't x be better" and "how about y"? So at this point, just asking your opinion of whether you think this one might be worth proceeding with or whether it is fundamentally flawed and inferior to other suggestions. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sirfurboy, I would be OK with “Zionist thought on racial and genetic identity”.

But before the discussion is opened I do think it is right to ask Nishidani how much more time he needs to get the article to roughly reflect the sources he has been working on first – if it is not a long time, I think the RM will be better for having a more fulsome article for editors to read and to refer to. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope to complete this primary recension by Saturday. My apologies for the time taken, but once you look into it the field is vast. I just noted Stefan Vogt's 2016 book, for example, a masterly survey within the perspective of what is now known as Subaltern Studies (Ah, I see we have an article on it) 'more fulsome? Yes, it is now used as a synonym for 'copious', but I always recall the mockery Colin Powell received in 2004 when William Safire smartarsedly hauled the fellow over the coals for speaking of his 'fulsome' discussions with Bush jr. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Why does the racial and genetic discourse on the Jewish people re-emerge in the 21st Century?

And one of the panels "Jews, Roma, Basks, Laps: How the Concept of "Isolates" Helped to Transfer Race Science Into Late 20th Century Human Population Genetics

It's definitely a thing. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add a final section, a brief bibliographical guide on historical lines as to how this 'taboo' subject gradually developed, until studies started tumbling out profusely after the 2000s.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, you said “dozens”. I think 10 would suffice since they’ve apparently already been presented, but whatever you think represents significant coverage. Drsmoo (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest simply "Jewish genetics" as a title, with an expanded opening section explaining to the reader that "Zionism" and "race" will be covered as necessary background reading. The lede section and title both contribute to defining the scope and there are obvious problems above in choosing a title. I think the focus should be primarily on scope and explaining that scope in the opening sentences, then choosing the most appropriate title.

• Don't think this would or should exclude any of the content currently being added. I think the major best sources and the Oxford Bibliography "Jewish Genetics" make clear that 'race' and 'zionism' are required background reading, yet not necessarily a part of all the content that should be included. Been thinking about the "Debate" and "Impact" sections and how these might actually be expanded with a genetics focus when not limited to 'zionism' and/or 'race'.
• Understand why that is currently a redirect to Genetic studies on Jews and the hesitation to have an article titled "Jewish genetics", but in my opinion an article at that title would follow the best sources and best fit the scope. It also goes to what i understand as the identified problem and why this article was created: "Genetic studies on Jews" and other articles excluded the content which is being added here, and for which there numerous sources telling use this is important context for the studies.

Think i understand what the current scope should be, and the need for the article, but in my opinion "Jewish genetics" would be best for the reader and in helping organize the content. fiveby(zero) 16:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

the hesitation to have an article titled "Jewish genetics", but in my opinion an article at that title would follow the best sources and best fit the scope. The article is not about Jewish genetics so doesn't fit the scope at all. I don't understand either what "best sources" you are referring to. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Then i've misunderstood the purpose and scope of the article and the WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV concerns carry more weight. By "best sources" i mean such as Abu El-Haj, Falk, Burton, Ostrer, with major works and supplemented with related journal articles McGonigle, Kirsh, etc. fiveby(zero) 18:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. I'm very friendly to taking our time before a formal RM discussion starts, and I want editors to feel no rush in working on content before that begins. I continue to see this discussion as just being about brainstorming. I see that pretty much as Sirfurboy described above, largely as a way to move beyond ideas that would be fundamentally flawed. I'll also say that I don't much like "Jewish genetics", because I would see that as being more like a biological page about DNA sequences that are common amongst Jewish peoples, and that's clearly not what we are doing here. I'm not strictly opposed to "Zionist thought on racial and genetic identity", but I feel like the "and genetic" part makes it wordier than it needs to be, and, as I said earlier, I feel like the "these same themes have continued to appear in genetic studies" language in the lead amounts to saying that these are the "same themes", whether racial or genetic, such that we don't need to differentiate them in the pagename. (Like genetics is the newer methodology, but a continuation of the same line of "thought".) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Same or similar themes are in numerous sources (Weizman, Vogt etc) cited on the page. We just follow sources. There's no room to invent stuff here.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"Racial-genetics" is a thing, apparently, anyone know exactly what? Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what "invent stuff" was referring to. I have a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology, so I can try to answer the "racial genetics" question from that perspective. It's really not a single thing, but can refer to a variety of things, depending on what people are talking about. In a simple sense, one can analyze population genetics in terms of racial classifications. Then, there are various kinds of pseudoscientific concoctions about race and intelligence and the like that attempt to misuse genetics. For our purposes, I would figure it's about using genetic analyses to evaluate different populations of people with respect to who might or might not be considered part of a Jewish "race" of people. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Goodness me. In response to the above (not you) where it was insinuated the areticle as drafted had problems of synth, fringe, npov, as main editor I said 'there's no room to invent stuff' because 'we' (so far Onceinawhile and myself) just paraphrase sources and don't violate synth, i.e. make up 'stuff' not in the sources. I despair sometimes that the simple meaning in context can generate misunderstandings. The point you make is as Burton stated, remarking that at least two distinct statistical models emerged for genetic analyses of human populations, one favoured by the Israel school which concentrated on the Ashkenazi, and the other by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, whose model took in all human groups, and who expressed scepticism over the competing method. The results, from his perspective, changed according to the choice of relevant input. (I might illustrate what is not in our associated articles by noting that Behar et al (2003) found a non-Jewish founder among the Levite Ashkenazi founders but couldn't ascertain if these non-Jewish forefathers were 1 or 50, a notable range discrepancy, like that between zero vs 40% in various models of European gene overlapping with Ashkenazis). There are added complications, he added, since interpretation must take in other factors in assessing the genetics of contemporary diaspora populations of Jews compared to their respective ethnic neighbours i.e., genetic drift, interbreeding with contiguous and very disparate populations, and convergent adaptive selection. Both are scientific models, but differ in both methodology and aim. Perhaps the article could be clearer, but it does cover the point.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish It's now hard to follow arguments in this section, but more like a biological page about DNA sequences that are common amongst Jewish peoples was not my intention at all, tho i can see how you would feel that way given the current content. Did you see the reviews by Lewontin posted on FTN? My suggestion was that in discussing Jewish genetics that Abu El-Haj is necassary background reading, but WP should approach from Lewontin's perspective. Likewise the current content i think is leaving the reader with some distasteful 'essentialist' viewpoint, that it really matters outside some points on the political spectrum how mitochondrial DNA etc. informs the conception of and individual, people, or nation. (that is not Abu El-Haj's argument but she has some difficulty convincing him right?) I absoulutely see the need for the content of this article for the reader's understanding and its abscence in other articles, but by segragting out the content and giving prominence to the debate is the leader left would a skewed perspective on genetics and the ethical and valid applications? fiveby(zero) 16:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. I have no problem with covering those topics and those sources here. Lewontin is certainly an authority worth citing. My comment was entirely in regard to possible page titles that we are workshopping here. I think we both agree that we don't want the page to turn into something about biology. I just don't think that "Jewish genetics", as the title of the page, is a good choice, because such a title would make the page sound like something that it isn't, and something that neither you nor I would want it to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Further reflections

@ජපස, Sirfurboy, and Drsmoo: While the period of article development Nishidani requested is ongoing, and before a WP:RM, as the three 'oppose' editors who have commented most frequently, could we take this opportunity to understand our respective positions a little further? I have the following questions for each of you:

1. Is it right to understand that your primary concern is that the article addresses an intersection of topics?
2. It is right to understand that you acknowledge that there are many sources describing this intersection, but just not as many covering the topic in full detail as you consider necessary?
3. Are you opposed to any specific parts of this topic having their own articles? For example, the obvious alternative would be splitting the article into two: Zionism and the Jewish race and Zionism and Jewish genetics, both of which would have very large subsections explaining how they are widely considered relate to each other – would you be opposed to any of this?
4. Are there any serious NPOV issues in this article, and if so can you explain them, or are we just leaving the tag as a placeholder to represent your ongoing concerns over justification for this as a separate article?

Please don’t focus too much on the specifics of the current article while it is still in development (i.e. during the remainder of the 10 day period Nishidani requested). I hope this will help us to understand each others’ positions a little better during this period of calm. I am equally happy to answer any questions to explain my position on any matters you would find helpful. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the two main problems I have is that race and genetics as well as Zionism are the two parent articles which makes me think this is at best a synthesis of the topics. If there were sources that worked on this as a coherent topic, I could better understand what was going on but, in spite of that contention being made, what I see instead are historical analyses and critiques of certain scientific interpretations which do not strike me as plain encyclopedic topics. Better to include this material in Genetic studies on Jews instead of risking the charge that this is just a WP:POVFORK of the same. Hope that makes sense. jps (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Onceinawhile. A number of editors in the AfD made a number of different (if interrelated) points, so I only talk for myself here, of course.

• For me, I think point 1 is correct. That is my primary concern as expressed in the AfD.
• The second point is not exactly correct. The sources presented, and particularly Falk, were talking about eugenics, and although that necessarily incorporates matters of race (socially constructed, as per Falk) and genetics (which gives the lie to the social constructs, also per Falk), neither of those are his primary subject. Falk et al. avoid placing the term genetics in the titling, because it inadvertently gives an initial impression, that is hard to shake, that race and genetics are talking about much the same thing, whereas an analysis of these shows that they are not the same at all.
• On your third point, not opposed - I think I even suggested that as a partial solution, but I am not convinced Zionism and the Jewish race nor Zionism and Jewish genetics are a good move. We have Jewish genetics for the genetic science, and adding Zionism onto this has two problems. Firstly, we are again contending with WP:AND, and secondly it suggests that there is a primary topic of Jewish genetics in Zionism. I don't think that is right. There is a primary topic of something I have referred to as "the Zionist hope", by which I meant the desired eugenic outcome. There is a primary topic in Zionism itself in seeing itself as the inheritance of Abraham, and these topics (no need to use my terminology) are what could be treated encyclopaedically. In discussing these topics, a section on population genetics will be very interesting, but genetics is not the head topic - it is the science that proves or disproves matters in the head topic. So some of this perhaps belongs in existing articles, but there is something here that can indeed be unpacked and presented, but that is about a line of thinking within Zionism.
• Fourthly, I am avoiding reading the article whilst giving you the time to write the subject as you believe it should be. Thus I am not going to pick up specific issues. There s the one I raised at AfD though, and still extant. The very first paragraph has

  In the late 19th century, a discourse emerged in Zionist thinking seeking to reframe conceptions of Jewishness in terms of racial identity and race science. In more recent times, genetic science generally and Jewish population genetics in particular have been used in support of or opposition to Zionist political goals, including claims of Jewish ethnic unity and descent linked to the biblical Land of Israel.

  Now this is the defining statement about what the article is about. But it makes it about two different things and these still look like Synth. It is about the reframing of Jewishness in terms of racial identity and race science. That is thing one. It is also about genetic science in general and Jewish population genetics. That is thing two. There is an attempt to defend the juxtaposition of these with recognition that genetics has been enrolled in support of Zionist political goals, except it is also about the use of genetics in opposition of those goals, etc. Now if we take a source such as Falk, this is not what he does. He frames his narrative in terms of the eugenic hope, and race science. He uses genetics ably as a critique, but his narrative is not about the genetics, it is about the Zionist narrative. Genetics is the tool he uses to hole that narrative. If this article were similarly framed, I would suggest losing genetics from the title, and having a population genetics section in the article as part of the critique, as he does. The happy outcome of such a change is that you would have a much less contentious sounding article, that would nevertheless have just as much encyclopaedic information.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't recognize what you state about Falk. Have you read his 2017 book, and the four other papers?Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: for what it's worth, I think your third and fourth points set out our challenge quite well and is roughly consistent with my own thinking. I agree that at its heart this topic, and the vast majority of the bibliography, is about a single line of thinking within Zionism. If we can find a title that sets that scope better than the current one, I would be supportive of such a change. I am interested to hear others' views; I think the RM will be difficult to find consensus without some good discussion like this beforehand. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Zionism had a theory of a state and the population to inhabit it. It formulated this in race terms, and on the foundation of the state, in various forms, there was and remains a continuity betweenm the aims, and theories of an earlier period of pseudo-science, and the modern evolution of biological sciences in Israel. There is not split and no synth because Zionist concepts of origins and racial unity influenced, per sources, the way biological science in Israel sought confirmation for these theses in various biological forms, leading to genome theory. As Falk noted, the same material is repeated and recycled for a hundred years under duifferent guises. There is no dual theme, to think so is to misunderstand the nature of what we call 'the genealogy of ideas.'Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not getting deeply involved in this page, but I've been following the disputes and commented in the AfD. I looked back here, and I agree that what is being discussed in this talk section is a good thing to discuss. And I particularly want to endorse Sirfurboy's fourth point. He expresses much more cogently than I did, what was concerning to me in the AfD. I'll add that the sentence from the first paragraph that he quotes here also incorporates "used in support of or opposition to Zionist political goals". I encourage editors to think through very carefully how – or whether – to treat both support and opposition as being within a single topic. I don't have a good answer to that question, but I think it's something that needs to be handled in a precise way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The article reads elsewhere:

"Historians and anthropologists have critically examined how the structuring assumptions of Jewish race science in early-twentieth-century Europe and North America, and their relationship to Zionist nationalism, reverberate within the genetic studies of Jewish populations by Israeli scientists from the 1950s to the present."}} Burton 2022 p.11

That is from a historian of science's review of the whole subject. The other sentence comes from Falk 2017, who dealt with the continuities as well. What's the problem?Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I decided to look back here, to see if there was a reply to me. I think what you quoted there is very helpful in addressing the concern that I had. (What's the problem? I'd say that there is a problem in your speaking to me in that tone.) However, I don't think that it speaks to the issue of support/opposition that I pointed out. I also see that the use of the distinctive word "reverberate" in Misplaced Pages's voice was far too close a paraphrase of the source, bordering on a copyright violation, so I changed it to a different word. I strongly urge editors to check the page and correct any other overly close paraphrases, if there are any. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Look. Goodness me, dear Tryptofish. Ihere is not the slightest hostility or enmity in 'what's the problem?' or in any other language I can think of (qu’y a-t-il ?/?何かありましたか/Che problema c'è?/В чем проблема, не вижу etc.etc.etc.). As the Russian idiom has it, it connotes an admission that the speaker can't see anything problematical, where his interlocutor might (and therefore implicity asks the other person to assist in clearing up the dyscrasy in perceptions. At times I can be forceful in my judgements, but that useful phrase is not an instance of provocatory innuendo. (2) when one word is repeated from a source it in no way an issue of copyright violation. To the contrary. When it a key word, it is advisable to use it in a sentence that otherwise carefully paraphrases the rest. In any case, since this is a matter of tone and style, 'appear' is not correct. 'Reverberate' could be glossed as reappear, which however is a flat word when 'resonate' would serve the same purpose. Please don't get me on to the question of tone in prose. I might, were I thin-skinned, feel the same way, but I survive here, past a first decade of insults, by never taking abuse or innuendo or even intended provocations personally. Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

From the source: "reverberate within the genetic studies of Jewish populations".

From our page, before I fixed it: "have reverberated in genetic studies on Jews". , .

I still don't see an answer about the point I raised about support/opposition. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The quote isn’t relevant to non Israeli studies Drsmoo (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish. If you have the slightest doubt about what I clarified above, i.e. that using one word 'reverberate' from the sopurce is a copyright violation, then ask wikipedia's undisputed grandmaster of that policy, Dianaa, whose judgements have quasi papal authority. As said, 'appear' is not a synonym of 'reverberate': 'resonate' is.

As to support/opposition and SirFurboy. I can't comment on his posts, since, perhaps it's a defect in my education, but I usually can't see the point he is tryuing to make, and find these remarks either (a) conceptually muddled or (b) illustrative of unfamiliarity with the topic (c) extremely repetitive in their variations on the opinion he kept giving in the AfD. You write:' I encourage editors to think through very carefully how – or whether – to treat both support and opposition as being within a single topic.' I can construe that, yes. But I don't understand its relevance, unloess you think we should analyse whether the article should deal with either proponents of race and genetic studies of Jews in iZionism or critics of those views. My approach is simple: I read the literature and paraphrase it in orderly fashion. If the scholars cover both proposals and critical reactions, I duly note both. We do that in numerous articles, and no one has every questioned giving both sides to an area discourse. It's called WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll take you up on that offer. @Diannaa: I've got a quick question for you about close paraphrasing, asking you for a third opinion.

The source says: "reverberate within the genetic studies of Jewish populations".

Nishidani cited it on this page, writing in Misplaced Pages's voice: "have reverberated in genetic studies on Jews".

I changed it to "have continued to appear in genetic studies on Jews", correcting what I believe to have been overly close paraphrasing, to the point of a borderline copyright violation. Nishidani objects to my change, saying that there was no problem to begin with, and that I lost the meaning of the source.

Thanks in advance for your take on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is 'reverberate'. The other phrasing, be it ' genetic studies of Jewish populations' or 'genetic studies on Jews' are so commonplace in the literature, any article of scores on this topic necessarily employing them several times, that no one can possibly claim copyright (in my view).Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"Reverberate" is a unique expression and should be omitted in my opinion. You could change it to "resonate" or "echo". "have continued to appear in genetic studies on Jews" is good too and more direct, and therefore easily understood by all. Currently the word "reverberate" is in quotation marks in the article, which also eliminates the copyright issue. But it's better if we write our own prose. — Diannaa (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Great, so 'resonate' it is, as I suggested if reverberate is ruled out. 'appear' , as noted above, loses the connotative thrust of repetitiveness in that 're' we have in both resonate and reverberate, which the author, as in several other sources, obviously intends to get over (in technical language, the fact that this is a kind of topos.Nishidani (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful answer. So "reverberate" should be omitted, and two out of three of us agree that "have continued to appear" is "good too and more direct, and therefore easily understood by all". And I'll add that the use of "have continued to" captures the "topos" of the repetitiveness. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Avoiding "race" and "genetics", while maintaining the scope

Reflecting on the above discussion, unless the scope is radically changed, the word genetics can’t be in the title without also including a version of the word race/racial. Given that race/racial is a sensitive word, we may have the best chance of consensus by using titles which avoid this issue – it may be that same thinking was behind Falk's choice for his book title. It also has the benefit of two components in the title rather than three.

If we take this as a base for the brainstorming, there are three decisions to make. The article covers:

(A) …the influence of Zionism / Politics / Jewish nationalism…

(B) …on studies of modern Jewish origins / genealogy / ancestry / descent / purity / biological unity…

(C) …and these words can be used in many combinations: X and Y, X thought on Y, Y in X

The preferences of editors on each of A, B, and C would be helpful to move the title brainstorming forward. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. This is helpful. My preferences would be (A) Zionism (This is more concise without being overly broad). (B) Biology (per Falk) or ancestry. I think "purity" is not quite right and probably contentious, and genealogy potentially too narrow. I don't object to the others. (C) I liked the suggestion of "thought on" in earlier discussion, but this one might need more discussion based on where the consensus on A and B lies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I would rather wait and see what Nishidani version of the lead looks like before I comment on this. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

These titles are better, re the scope, waiting to see the collection of reliable sources that establish the current scope as a “thing” in-and-of itself. Drsmoo (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this, and I, too, find it helpful. Your presentation made me think of "Zionist though on Jewish origins" as a possible alternative. One could include "modern" before "Jewish" in there. One could also use "ancestry" instead of "origins". Possibly "Biological unity in Zionist thought", although I don't think I like it as much. (I also agree that genetics should not be in the title without race/racial, although I'm still OK with race without genetics.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Count me also in the "race" without "genetics" camp. ] makes sense for many political concepts, and I agree there is more than enough literature to justify an article for Zionism and race. The problem with the current title is that it adds "genetics" in a sui generis way that implies a uniquely 21st century racialism is at work here much more than in other nationalisms; which is a valid line of discussion to include in the article, but it shouldn't be its title. See #This is two topics. Pharos (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the current title is that it adds "genetics" in a sui generis way that implies a uniquely 21st century racialism is at work here much more than in other nationalisms;

I can see no such implication, and the evidence in the text tends to exclude it. Genetics is not a 21th century discipline. This is focused on one discursive tradition, not on all nationalisms, and it it not implying in any way that this concerns 'one nation', Israel. It covers the debates as they unfolded in Jewish discourse on the topic before Israel, and after Israel's foundation, where. by all accounts, there is a continuity between pre- and post-war debates, from race to genetics. It is not about nationalism per se, but a particular strand in the immensely involved literature on Jewishness and Jewish identity in that particular vein that dealt with biological speculations. I find it rather offensive, the suggestion that this singles out unfairly Israel. That itself is a very common rhetorical device, perhaps you are unaware of, in countering human rights arguments about the occupation ('It's antisemitic to single out Israel and not mention parallel situations in Sudan, Eritrea, China, India etc., the answer to which is, 'why should any review of human rights issues, always document every instance of abuses, from the aborigines to China's treatment of Tibetans, to Canada's record with its first nations whenever Israel is the topical focus? To expect that would make books, reports, articles on human right 1,000 pages long unreadable tractates, a very comfortable political precondition to undercut any kind of publishing on Human Rights anywhere. Everybody does the job where they have expertise, and in this, expertise is always regional.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

::I agree with Pharos Crainsaw (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As do i Drsmoo (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

::::Should we start a move request? Crainsaw (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be contentious, and unlikely to find consensus as it would cut the article in half.

Pharos proposes below adding an article on "Nationalism and genetics", yet is not volunteering to write the rest of that article, so you would end up with two articles "Zionism and race" and "Zionism and genetics". They would have a great deal of overlap.

In order to save everyone else a lot of time, before you propose something so divisive, it would be ideal if those who still think this is two topics would review the below sources which cover Zionism, race and genetics together.

• Abu El-Haj, Nadia
• Baker, Cynthia M.
• Burton, Elise K.
• Egorova, Yulia
• Falk, Raphael
• Hart, Mitchell B.
• Kandiyoti, Dalia
• Kirsh, Nurit
• McGonigle, Ian V.
• Ostrer, Harry
• Schaffer, Gavin
• Tamarkin, Noah
• Weitzman, Steven
• Tanny, Jarrod
• Kohler, Noa Sophie
• Gissis, Snait

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I have no objection to a discussion on whether the title be changed or not, as long as that means calling in a substantial number of wikipedians who have no been involved in the article or discussions so far. It is somewhat premature nonetheless, because there does not seem to be any consensus as to the title, the range of suggestions is very broad. And secondly, it is not clear whether the purpose of a title change is to provide a more accurate description of the article, or simply provide a pretext for a split, which has a different set of criteria than those for a page move involving a name change. If what editors want is a split, they should say so, and not equivocate that this is just about altering a few words in the title. Thirdly, Pharos's proposal ignores what our text explicitly documents from numerous sources, some of which are concentrated in the section 1948–1960s:

In reviewing the literature of this period, Nurit Kirsh concluded that, though working within the framework of international science, the approaches adopted by Israeli geneticists at the time were ‘substantially affected by Zionist ideology’, with its notion that Jews were a non-European race whose purity was conserved despite millennia in diaspora.

If the literature frequently remarks on the continuities between pre-war racial speculations and post-war assumptions inadvertently carried over from that period into genetic studies on Jews, what is the point of splitting, or even eliding one of the three terms? No one has clarified this.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

One additional point on the question of the unique notability here in the context of Jewish nationalism / Zionism, versus all other nationalisms. Kohler covers this well here:

To be sure, “Jewish genetics” is only one of many examples for the search of origins of today’s population groups with the help of DNA analysis. Whether it is “the origin of modern Japanese populations” … the “genetics of ancient Romans”… or an analysis of the genomes from “Bronze Age Bulgaria” … to give only a few examples, ancient forefathers and -mothers are a fascinating topic for scientists as well as for the general public. In the case of “Jewish genetics”, however, scientific work can get easily politicized… But rather than dealing with politicians and their use of scientific papers for populistic ends, this essay highlights, delineates, and contextualizes the ongoing debate between various geneticists and social scientists on two main points. One is whether or how narratives impact the work of the researchers. In our case, it is the association of modern Jews as the (biological) descendants of the biblical Hebrews or today’s Cohanim as descendants of the biblical priestly caste. As the debate on the Khazars exemplifies, genetic research can be politically loaded. Scientific theories or research results about the origin of Ashkenazi Jews are used for political purposes - but interest in the topic also places the researchers into a context of ideology and identity politics, which is closely linked to real or perceived national interests… The other point is the discussion about the danger that genetic studies on population groups reify race. Neither of these questions applies only to genetic research on Jews, but for Jews they have a special meaning that is rooted in Jewish history and culture.

As does Falk when he writes:

In conflicts like those in the Balkans, in Africa, in India, in South-East Asia or in Northern Ireland, and to some extent even in the Israeli-Arab conflict, a starting point is the existence of distinct ethnic or religious entities that struggle for the same piece of land. On the other hand, except for Nazi efforts to diagnose the biological belonging of individuals to national-ethnic entities, there is no other example known to me like the Zionists’ of an intensive effort to prove the immanent biological belonging or non-belonging of communities to what is considered to be the Jewish entity.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a line could be added somewhere referencing the comparative definition in the first part of Kohler's remarks, to address Pharos's concern. But sources do state that the focus on Jewish genetics is particular intense, far outweighing, as far as one can see, what we get in other nations or peoples, and far more, so far, politicized.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, or you could open an RFC. There is certainly a strong contingent of users who have issues with this title Drsmoo (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the title. It reflects all aspects of the article after a month's development under that rubric.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pharos and Crainsaw:

@Fiveby, Bobfrombrockley, Sirfurboy, and Tryptofish:

Your thoughts on Crainsaw’s suggestion of a move request? I am open to it, or an RFC, though a move request would be bolder. Drsmoo (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't get ping, probably because you edited in the extra names. - I don't think that works for pings. However I spotted this. My thoughts on an RM are that it would be better if there were a broad agreement about what is best before we launch it, as I worry that a discussion would become bogged down in lots of alternative suggestions. However the RM has to come soon, because any editor can launch one, so if we don't do it ourselves, there will be a drive by attempt sooner or later.

In answer to Onceinawhile's it would be ideal if those who still think this is two topics would review the below sources which cover Zionism, race and genetics together. The point is an excellent one that we should review the sources, but unfortunately all we have there is a list of 16 names. There are more than 16 sources in the article. For instance, to take one of these names, Hart has 4 references in the bibliography:

• Hart, Mitchell B. (1999). "Racial Science, Social Science, and the Politics of Jewish Assimilation". Isis. 90 (2): 268–297.
• Hart, Mitchell B. (2000). Social Science and the Politics of Modern Jewish Identity. Stanford University Press.
• Hart, Mitchell B. (2005). "Jews, race, and capitalism in the German-Jewish context". Jewish History. 19 (1): 49–63.
• Hart, Mitchell B. (2011). Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880-1940. Brandeis library of modern Jewish thought. Brandeis University Press.

But although I note that none of these tag genetics in the title, I also note that the extent of the information they support in the article varies (as you would expect), so on the random sample of Hart, those 16 names becomes 64 papers to read, but leaves us none the wiser. Let's keep the discussion focussed on key and specific sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Egorova, Gissis, Hart, Kandiyoti, Schaffer, Tamarkin and Weitzman do not seem to me to be examples of sustained discussions of the three words in the title together, so I'd bring the 16 down to 9.

But there is a fallacy in suggesting that because people have written about three things together it means that the three things together constitute a topic. As a perhaps facetious example, the top headline right now on the BBC is "Fires in Hawaii leave hundreds missing", but we don't have an article here called, Fire, Hawaii and missing persons as we recognise that this isn't a topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It definitely could be if there was a long enough history of missing persons due to fire in Hawaii. It just wouldn't be the best title, in that instance. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not even headlines, still an identifiable topic tho, which the title doesn't exactly identify, and arguably even misleads, Zionist views on race and biology or something would be better. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby, Bobfrombrockley, and Tryptofish: Since ping appeared to not work (I didn't get notification either) trying again... If it's to stay as one title, I would lean towards "Zionism and Jewish Peoplehood" or "Research into Jewish Peoplehood" Drsmoo (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we're getting to the point where we should start a formal rename discussion soon. I've indicated above my preferred page names. I have low enthusiasm for "peoplehood" in the title, as it strikes me as a sort-of complicated contraption. What holds me back from feeling ready for a rename discussion is that I'm not seeing any coalescence here around a favored page name to propose. I tend to think that editors here are going to have to do some hard work, to whittle down the possibilities, rather than having each editor liking their own preference and opposing everything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Think I agree. I'm not clear what the proposed change would be. I don't see a need for a page on research on Jewish peoplehood as we have a (not great) article Jewish peoplehood that could be expanded, and an article Jewish identity. Zionism and Jewish peoplehood seems too general.

The specificity of the first half of the body is about Zionist approaches to race, and I could support an article about that. The second half of the body seems to me an unnecessary spin out from Genetic studies on Jews. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that. I could see usefulness for an article discussing population genetics from a sociological perspective. I would also support "Zionist thought on Jewish Origins" for a broad title, which I would think would be more likely to have more support, though many people want a split. Drsmoo (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we are quite there yet on a possible move. Although I am in principle, in accord with the idea of removing the word "genetics" from the title, the idea of that must not be to eliminate all the genetics "stuff" from the article or split it into some other article. Maybe we could replace genetics with biology or something of that sort. There is also the Zionism part, I am still looking for something along the lines of "Zionist thought" or "Zionist views" to link things up properly.Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I know the lead section still needs work, but in my opinion we've gotten the page to the point where I can feel confident (others of course may differ) that we have a page about a single topic, and there is enough clarity as to what the page is about that we can look some more at the page title. As I said a few lines above, I think that editors are going to have to do the hard work of whittling down the many possibilities, without having each editor liking their own preference and opposing everything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed names

Agreeing that the time has come for the RM, this will be smoothest if we have rejected any clearly problematic names and have one that looks like it has a broad consensus. I am going to make a starter suggestion based on above discussion, and on the article as it now is, but if anyone feels it is problematic. please respond with your one best suggestion. My suggestion removes "and", following wording suggested by Tryptofish, and follows the lead in presenting this primarily as a discussion of race and biology. My suggestion could be criticised for insufficient succinctness, and I am not at all precious if someone can do better. So here goes.

• Zionist thought on Jewish racial biology

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfurboy (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I do have a reaction that it should be more succinct, but I think the overall approach is the right direction to take. One option would be to omit the word "Jewish", since that is already apparent in light of it being Zionist thought.

I'll also violate my own advice by repeating something I had previously proposed myself, but I still think it might be the most direct:

• Zionist thought on race

Instead of "race", we could also use "racial identity". I'd make a case that the page is more about identity than about biology, even though genetics, as a method, is a branch of the biological sciences. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind that. I think "racial identity" has a slight benefit over "race" in that the thought is specifically about Jewish racial identity, and is not about race in general. So are there any improvements on "Zionist thought on racial identity"? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Zionist Thought on Jewish Racial Identity would be fine for the parts about that. But the article couldn’t include modern genetic studies as that would be asserting a critical aspersion of the modern studies in wikivoice. Drsmoo (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It would include that latter material because it has been proved pretty much beyond all reasonable doubt that there is a considerable weight of discussion surrounding the infusion of concepts of racial identity into genetics research. Whether sources assert or dismiss such a linkage, the fact that there is such a discussion alone makes such material valid for inclusion. This has been discussed before, and it is important that everyone understands this point. A source denying such a connection still validates the discussion itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Iskander323 is correct about that. And as I've said earlier in the discussion, genetics is simply the more recent methodology used in the same, continuing, intellectual debate. And nothing in the discussion below changes my view about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

On Google Scholar, “Jewish racial identity ” has 8 results since the start of 2023. By contrast “Jewish ethnic identity” has 42, and “Jewish peoplehood” has 83. The issue I see is applying the term race to modern genetic studies, when the term race is now antiquated, viewed as inaccurate, and rarely used in that context.

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(21)00385-2. Between 2009-2018, only 4% of articles in The American Journal of Human Genetics included the word “race”, while 33% used “ancestry” And 26% used “ethnicity”. Drsmoo (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct. And, to be very clear, Drsmoo has still not provided a single source denying the connection of race and genetics within the Zionist narrative. His source disputing the connection between race science and genetic science is not only addressing a different question (see diagram to the right to help clarify), but goes on to affirm the connection of race and genetics within the Zionist narrative. I have not yet seen Drsmoo address this distinction head on in his comments.

This quote from one of the world's most prestigious geneticists, Richard Lewontin, might help: "My own skepticism notwithstanding, the belief is widespread that knowledge about the personal characteristics of ancestors who have never directly entered into our lives is relevant to our own formation. Moreover, that relevance is seen not simply as arising from our conscious knowledge about those ancestors, but from a deeper source, our genetical inheritance, which also would operate to form us in part, irrespective of our consciousness of the past. That belief is summed up in the title of Harry Ostrer’s book, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People. It is also implied in the title of a book by Raphael Falk, Zionism and the Biology of the Jews, whose English translation from the Hebrew original has yet to appear. While the term “race” is not used explicitly in these titles, in large part because the term is so loaded, there is considerable discussion of the Jews as a race or, using a less charged word, as a “people.”" Onceinawhile (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Lewontin is correct that the term race is loaded and charged. Could you quote where Weitzman affirms "the connection of race and genetics within the Zionist narrative"? Drsmoo (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

See , from three weeks ago. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Those examples are all discussing race science and genetics. The closest Weitzman comes to affirming a connection is to say "there may be connections between the two kinds of research." Unless you are specifically referring to the quote about "Jewish origins"? Is your point that no one is disputing that race scientists and geneticists are both researching Jewish origins? Because that seems highly unremarkable. If that is the case why not just call the article "Zionism and Jewish origins", "Zionist Thought on Jewish Origins", "Zionist Thought on Jewish Ancestry", etc. Drsmoo (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I am referring to the last two quotes (p.309-310 and p.324-325), which address the sociological / anthropological angle. Correct – as you say no one is disputing that race scientists and geneticists are both researching Jewish origins… and the research was/is used for political means in an equivalent manner.

You are right that this is highly unremarkable. Which is why I find it a shame that we have spent two months discussing it. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, no to the second point. Weitzman does not allege that the research is used for political means. He says that that is an allegation by critics.

"Scholars revised their approaches in a way meant to overcome the distorting effects of political allegiance and prejudice, and they developed new approaches—new forms of textual, archaeological, and biological study—that were much more refined from a methodological and factual perspective than what earlier scholars had relied on. According to critics, however, the scholarly search for origin remained just as political as it had been before the war."

...

But it should be noted that only some scholars are persuaded by this view. Others are pursuing the question of Jewish origin in earnest, uncovering new evidence and proposing new theories. They put their faith in the methodologies of modern scholarship, empirical evidence, and the checks and balances of peer review; and they reject the idea that the results of such scholarship are irredeemably tainted by politics, ideology, or the scholar’s self-interest.

And the penultimate quote is talking about anthropologists, and again about race science and populations genetics, and it is not Weitzman affirming it. Drsmoo (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Please be more careful bringing quotes like this, as it is not a good use of community time:

• Your first quote above is immediately followed by an explanation as to why the critics are correct, describing the driving forces behind the modern politics. He doesn’t say or imply there is any form of debate
• Your second quote is not referring to the first (as it is incorrectly implied in the presentation above), but to the question of whether Jewish origins can ever be discovered with certainty. And "reject the idea that the results of such scholarship are irredeemably tainted by politics" is very narrow wording and certainly does not mean "reject the idea that there is political influence" or anything similar.

Most importantly, your second quote is immediately followed by "I find it impossible to dismiss the argument that the scholarship of Jewish origin, certainly as practiced in the past but also as it is being pursued today, is really at its core a form of political self-positioning", which is another confirmation of your request for me above. Weitzman, and every other scholar, acknowledges this fact, because, exactly as you said – it is highly unremarkable. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Accurately summarizing sources is always important on Misplaced Pages and certainly not a waste of time.

Weitzman does not state that the critics are correct. He literally says there is a debate in the preceding sentence, ie scholars revised their approach => detail, according to critics it’s still political => detail. He is explaining the position of the critics, that is not him making any assertion of his own views.

”You second quote is not referring to the first (as it is incorrectly implied in the presentation above), but to the question of whether Jewish origins can ever be discovered with certainty It is directly referring to the allegation that the work is tainted by politics and bias.

Are its results always going to be skewed by the prejudices and allegiances of the scholars doing the research, or is there some way to depoliticize the topic and to pursue it in a way that isn’t serving the interest of either the Jews or their enemies? The answers to these questions depend on one’s underlying conception of scholarship.

That is what Foucault’s “regime of truth” is, the idea that no real truth exists and that a society’s version of truth is based on biases, ideologies, and power structures. Weitzman is stating in a straightforward manner that only some researchers are persuaded by that, while others put faith in empirical evidence and modern science to “depoliticize the topic”. Ie, race science was politicized, but these researchers believe empirical methods have depoliticized it.

”I find it impossible to dismiss the argument” is not asserting it to be true, it is simply not rejecting it and is taking it seriously.

“Weitzman, and every other scholar, acknowledges this fact” You keep trying to claim unfalsifiable social theories as facts. Unfalsifiable theories are not, and can not, logically be facts.

there are now anthropologists whose opposition to the research we have surveyed has led to a sort of counter-scholarship that not only questions the results of recent genetics research but challenges its underlying premises and its claim to objectivity.

Misplaced Pages can not present “counter-scholarship” that questions the objectivity of modern genetics research as a fact.Drsmoo (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Others should comment as I don't think we are going to get any further on this point alone. I disagree with your interpretations, as I believe they continue to conflate separate issues. You accepted above that the core point here is highly unremarkable, so perhaps we can now move on. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll comment. I don't think any of that can determine the best title for this page. I disagree with using search engine hits as a method of choosing what language we should use; see WP:SET for examples of how this method can yield misleading results. Editorial decisions don't have to be unanimous, so I think it's reasonable to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

We can continue the details of that discussion in the relevant section. We should be focusing on locking down the title here. To reiterate, as it pertains to the title, we cannot use “Race” and then discuss Genetics, as that would be putting a critical aspersion cast by social scientists (not falsifiable) on genetic work in wikivoice.

My preference would be “Zionist Thought on Jewish Peoplehood” Drsmoo (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree it is best discussed in the relevant section. But since your proposed title is dependant on your assertion, which has been claimed by others to be false, we need to land the point before landing the title. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, we can continue working on the title. Another suggestion “Zionism and Jewish Ancestry” Drsmoo (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I recognize that other names have been mentioned, but my reading of this discussion is that we are heading in the direction of:

• Zionist thought on racial identity

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That title would describe the green segment of this chart (for explanation of the chart, see #Sources on Zionism, race and genetics below). The contents of this article cover the yellow segment. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Iskander323 says above, of the discussion of genetics, it has been proved pretty much beyond all reasonable doubt that there is a considerable weight of discussion surrounding the infusion of concepts of racial identity into genetics research. Whether sources assert or dismiss such a linkage, the fact that there is such a discussion alone makes such material valid for inclusion. That is quite right, and that is the part of your diagram that you say is omitted by the title (Zionism and the Jewish genes). But it is not omitted, because, per Iskander323, the discussion of genetics is a perfectly valid and expected part of a modern take on the subject of racial identity. Thus I don't see a problem with this title. Discussion of genetics is not excluded by it, but is rather encompassed within the described primary topic. However, this section is meant to get us to the best title. If you have a counter suggestion, please do state it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sirfurboy, I have been thinking through the same thing - you set it out very well here, thank you.

The goal is to find a title which:

• Reflects the core sources around which this article has been built
• Reflects those sources as the core of this article, rather than an addendum or afterthought to it

Two comments made elsewhere in this long discussion (I can look for them later) are key to finding the right solution in my mind:

• I have explained elsewhere that the article was initially intended to cover Zionism and genetics, but it soon became clear that the relevant sources all discussed Zionism and race as a core historical component of the topic
• Nishidani has explained elsewhere that to build an article focused essentially on the green part of the diagram above would require a great deal of additional sources and content, and would change the focus of the article materially

In terms of counter-suggestions, I think the best way to get consensus on a title would be to simply replace the word race with a synonym. To repeat a quote from geneticist Richard Lewontin below, in his commentary on a couple of our core sources: While the term “race” is not used explicitly in these titles, in large part because the term is so loaded, there is considerable discussion of the Jews as a race or, using a less charged word, as a “people.”". Personally I strongly dislike the idea of Misplaced Pages sugar coating things for our readers, but if it is needed to address the emotions here then so be it. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Just go with Zionism and Jewish origins if sugar coating is your thing. Shall we put up an RM for that? Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think a variation on that (omitting the "and" construction), "Zionist thought on Jewish origins" is a workable possibility. On the other hand, much of the page isn't quite about origins, so much as about identity (and it was pointed out earlier that "Jewish identity" is a much broader topic than what this page covers).

I don't think that finding a synonym for "race" is necessarily the issue. It seems to me that the concerns that have come up so repeatedly about this page are about "race and genetics". It's the combination of those two that pushes people's buttons.

I've thought carefully about the Venn diagram, and the concern that I have about it is that it is constructed with a set of labels that are chosen to predetermine the result. It's fine as an explanation of how the current pagename was arrived at, but I don't accept the premise as a way of evaluating possible renames. In a way, this discussion is going around in circles. Some of us (including me) are arguing that genetics is a subset of race, not a distinct but overlapping set. (In a diagram, draw it as a large circle labeled "race", and a smaller circle inside the larger one, labeled "genetics".) What I mean by that is that "thinking about race" is the larger set, with "genetics of human populations" being a subset of it, because it's one of the intellectual methods that are used in order to think about race (and chronologically it's the most modern). But we go around in circles when editors assert that there are sources that discuss race, and sources that discuss genetics, and they are two distinct things that overlap. To use the language of the diagram above, it's incorrect to claim that "the Jewish gene" (whatever that is) is something that exists separately from "the Jewish race". It's simply not true that "Zionist thought on racial identity" is a topic that excludes genetics. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The first para of the current lead is dancing all around the point, it refers in succession to "notions of race", "conceptions of Jewishness", "racial identity", "race science", "collective Jewish identity", "biology", "ethnonational myth of common descent" and on and on.

Idk really understand the fuss about "and", it works perfectly well with Israel and apartheid, for example, avoiding Israeli apartheid not quite yet a thing. I now prefer "views" to "thought" btw in case we do end up with that phrasing.

it's incorrect to claim that "the Jewish gene" (whatever that is) is something that exists separately from "the Jewish race" Since neither actually exist, technically speaking, I agree but I think the diagram is not attempting to do what you are suggesting, it's just a discussion framework.

It's simply not true that "Zionist thought on racial identity" is a topic that excludes genetics In the same way that the current title can be read so as to incorrectly assume the article is improperly mixing race and genetics, so can that title be misread (and likely will be) so as to exclude the genetic aspect.

It's not that it's about origins or identity only (broad subjects), it is about Zionism and those things, Zionism wanting to determine that all Jews have a common origin and first attempting that via historical assertions about race and latterly via genetics (Behar, Ostrer etc) and then the opposition to that (El-Haj, Falk etc). Imo, we cannot "lose" one or other of race and genetics, we must lose both or neither. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Tryptofish for getting us closer to the heart of the question here. Very useful. I agree with the statement that: one of the intellectual methods that are used in order to think about race. However I also agree with Selfstudier's: In the same way that the current title can be read so as to incorrectly assume the article is improperly mixing race and genetics, so can title be misread (and likely will be) so as to exclude the genetic aspect. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

And thanks to you, Onceinawhile, for being such a good listener. I'll agree with Selfstudier about how the first paragraph dances around the point, and to some extent, that's an issue with the page as a whole.

I'll rebut the argument that a title that does not contain "genetics" could be misread as meaning that the page does not cover genetics. The concern about "race and genetics" is not really a matter of misreading the existing title, so much as understanding correctly that a significant amount of the page is about how genetic arguments are used to either justify or refute claims of a Jewish "race". Well, the page deals with that subject, but when we word the title that way, in Misplaced Pages's voice, some readers can correctly be concerned that Misplaced Pages is endorsing a controversial position. In contrast, omitting "genetics" from the title has no equivalent association with a controversy. Anyone who "misreads" the title in that way will quickly be set straight, as soon as they read the page.

That said, I'm OK with "Zionist views on Jewish origins". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I can very much foresee the use of "Jewish origins" in the title as opening the door to all kinds of other aspects of Zionist thinking. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

“All kinds of other aspects” is very vague. What do you mean? Drsmoo (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

E.g. theological material. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t the article already centered on the intersection of scientific research and searching for evidence that matches theological material? Drsmoo (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, are you OK with "Zionist views on Jewish origins" ? If so, we might proceed with an RM. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes Drsmoo (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources...

Doron

The very first source from Joachim Doron, doesn't even mention anything about Jewish identity, race or genetics. It's all about Zionist "Self Criticism". The only thing that comes close to what the article was trying to say was The Zionist "self-criticism" that necessarily attended the longing for a "new Jew" has been forgotten or even deliberately suppressed. I'll be checking the other sources soon, and removing the one from Doron unless someone can explain to me why it was referenced to support the statement Many aspects of the role of race in the formation of Zionist concepts of Jewish identity were rarely studied or long forgotten, overlooked, made invisible or deliberately suppressed until recent decades. Crainsaw (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wrong. For race see Doron p.188 & n.40, p.191, n,51, p.203 (twice); Jewish identity is mentioned on pp.171(thrice), 189,194,195,201; it was referenced to support 'forgotten' in the passage you cited, because the source states:

The Zionist “self-criticism” that necessarily attended the longing for a “new Jew” has been forgotten or even deliberately suppressed over the last generation.'

All of the following sources support the selection of those adjecives. "Zionist self-criticism" is Doron's awkward euphemism for what the text shows, that it deals with Zionist criticisms of other Jews, esp. those who do not subscribe to Zionism. The reason why all of these sources are mustered in an overview is to explain to the reader that the topical thematics spanned in the article have been until recently, subject to scholarly neglect, and Doron gives four reasons for that. It is a necessary preliminary because numerous editors here appear to have never heard of this intertwined issue. Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it odd that a Misplaced Pages article start with a historical account of the scholarly works about the topic the article is ostensibly about. That aside, Doron is given a very important status as groundbreaking in the literature. However, according to Google Scholar, the article has only been cited a dozen or so times. The journal describes him as a Lecturer in history at Kibbutz Teachers’ College. I can’t access the article but I’m curious if it is really as important as the article currently suggests. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't thought that one up. I'll have to waste another bloody half hour duly responding when the answer is obvious.

Clearly you didn't search google books where "Joachim Doron"'s work is cited in scores of books.

Doron's TAU PhD was a book length study in Hebrew (title The Central European Zionism versus German Ideologies 1885–1914,1977). That alone qualifies him as an expert. He opened up the field we're exploring.

In this specific field, Doron's work is considered of great importance, and just to mention references to him in the short bibliography we use

• Efron (1994)
• Gelber (2000)
• Kaplan (2003)
• Hart (2005)
• Morris-Reich (2006)
• Olson (2007)
• Nicosia (2008)
• Hirsch (2009)
• Bloom (2011) repeatedly
• Hart 2011, who notes that, after Mosse (1967), Doron's work is the exception in a field marked by neglect
• Avraham (2013) mentions him as one of the most important sources on the topic-
• Vogt (2014)(Zwischen Humanismus und Nationalismus)
• Avraham (2017)
• Falk (2017) 11 times.Nishidani (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Morris-Reich

:Neither does the Morris-Reich article mention Zionist concepts of Jewish identity were rarely studied or long forgotten, overlooked, made invisible or deliberately suppressed until recent decades., the only thing it says is attempt to explain why parameters that were interwoven with race could nonetheless transfer relatively easily into later paradigms of Jewish demography that turned their back on race., that's incredibly vague has nothing to do with Zionism (Zionism=/Jewishness), and "Jewish demography" doesn't represent a scholarly, government or media "suppression". Crainsaw (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Again, wrong. Your assumption is that the several sources mustered for each of the adjectives noting scholarly neglect, appended at the end, should each contain the whole sentence. That is ridiculous. Perhaps you want me to shift the sources each to their adjective in the sentence?

Amos Morris-Reich writes:

(1)Why did Ruppin not express his reservations of Günther in the privacy of his diary, but, on the contrary, describe the conversation as a pleasant encounter? Ruppin's description of his meeting with Günther, the leading theoretician of race in Nazi Germany, was published in the German edition of his diaries (edited by Schlomo Krolik) but was omitted in the English edition (edited by Alex Bein). In the English edition an entry for the date of the meeting appears but without the passage relating to the meeting with Günther. The Hebrew volume (also edited by Alex Bein) entirely omits the entry for this date. Although Bein and Krolik displayed extreme sensitivity toward Ruppin's complex positions on the "Jewish Question" and the "Arab Question" in their impressive editing of his diaries, memoirs, and letters, the reader will search in vain for a reference to Ruppin's complicated and ambivalentpositions on "race".pp.1-2

(2)Certain aspects of Ruppin's legacy were studied thoroughly and comprehensively. There is no common agreement, however, on the significance of race for understanding Ruppin's work. Two important studies published in recent years almost completely overlook the racial aspect in his work. In the index to Arthur Goren's comprehensive biography of Arthur Ruppin, published in 2005, the word "'race" appears on three pages of the almost five hundred and fifty page book. Goren regards the term as marginal to Ruppin's work as a sociologist, a remnant of early twentieth century anthropological views from which Ruppin never freed himself. In an important retrospective article that appeared a few years ago marking the centennial publication of Ruppin's first book on the Jews, Sergio DellaPergola, probably the most distinguished Jewish demographer in the world today, and in a way the "grandson" of Ruppin, almost completely passed over the racial aspect of Ruppin's work.' Amos Morris-Reich pp.4-5

In short Amos Morris-Reich notes the suppression in both the English and Hebrew editions of this crucial evidence which the German edition scrupulously prints.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The pages which were linked go the Morris-Reich article were 4-5, and is "almost completely passed ocer the racial aspect" a deliberate suppression? I'd say this is a classic example on Synth. If one "Distinguished" scholar looks over something, doesn't mean other scholars do, other scholars still talk about it. Crainsaw (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope. I'm sure you know Horace's adage:parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. All you are asking for, in technical terms, is that I add pp.1-2 to the Morris-Reich note. You could have done that yourself. And, the elision from both the Hebrew and English editions of fundamental information about Ruppin's encounter with the foremost Nazi racial theorist of his day qualifies as a suppression of evidence. Perhaps it wasn't 'deliberate' though were it not it would certainly be a case of an extraordinary coincidence. But the words 'deliberately suppressed' are straight from Doron. There is no WP:Synth. I won't challenge your removal of 'long'. That's a fair call, though I disagree with it for a simply stylistic reason: preface a long list of adjectives with an adverb like 'rarely' cannot avoid extending the sense of 'rarely' to all of the adjectives, as opposed to the first one. ' The semantic function of 'long' in 'long forgotten' is to break that connotative drift ('long' refers to Doron's remark about what scholars withheld themselves from stating for a generation, 23-30 years, in the postwar years). 'rarely studied,' with out the 'long' can suggest 'rarely forgotten, rarely overlooked, rarely made invisible or rarely deliberately suppressed.' But people don't worry about the fine points of grammar these days and probably won't get the twinges of anxiety someone with my unfortunate background get in seeing such things. Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the German or Hebrew version? Do you have access to them? How do we know their discussion was about the role of race in Zionism? Why is the conversation kept in the the Hebrew and German additions, when Hebrew is the official language of Israel, so surely any suppression would also be present in the Hebrew edition. As for the stylistic part, we should also remove the statement "made invincible" from the last sentence since it's more or less a synonym for forgotten, overlooked or suppressed. Crainsaw (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the definition of Synth, A and B therefore C, A is a conversation between Ruppin and Günther possibly about Zionism and race (I haven't read the other versions), B is it was ommitted by Bein in the English version, and now your claim or assumption "C" is that the ommition means a deliberate suppression. Crainsaw (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting confused here, point to the SYNTH in the article, please. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The confusion is Crainsaw's.

You have misconstrued both Morris-Reich and my paraphrase of it. He states that

• the German edition faithfdully conserves Ruppin's description of his meeting with Günther
• The English edition conserves the date of the encounter, but without the passage
• The Hebrew edition entirely omits the entry for this date.

So when you write:-

Why is the conversation kept in the the Hebrew and German additions, when Hebrew is the official language of Israel, so surely any suppression would also be present in the Hebrew edition.

I.e. the passage is not 'kept in the German and Hebrew editions' but is missing in both the Hebrew and English editions.

That shows you completely misunderstand the plain English of the secondary source, which is a highly reliable one.

'Made invincible' is not the same as 'made invisible' which might be better put, stylistically, as 'rendered invisible'. 'Ommittion' is I guess 'omission'.

I've written about 1,000 articles for wikipedia, using scholarly sources invariably. The one area, and even there only on very 'controversial' articles, where anyone mputed an WP:Synth violation, was in the I/P toxic zone, and I can recall only 3 cases in the first years of a 17 year effort, where the challenge had some merit. I know synth like the back-of-my hand, and Onceinawhile already answered you in replying to Drsmoo above. Please don't waste our time with pointless and unfocused niggling. I have a huge load of rereading to do to ensure the article is comprehensive and consistent with the best principles of wikipedia editing guidelines.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for messing up the occasional word or sometimes not reading properly. But my point still stands, A and B therefore C is synth, and A is a conversation between Ruppin and Günther possibly about Zionism and race (Has anyone read the German version called Arthur Ruppin: Tagebücher, Briefe, Erinnerungen?), B is it was omitted by Bein in the English version, and now your claim or assumption "C" is that the omission means a deliberate suppression or it being overlooked without the source saying that. I'm not trying to be toxic, I'm just asking you where you got the "deliberately suppressed" or "overlooked" from? Crainsaw (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In the article, the expression "deliberately suppressed" is from Doron, viz

"The Zionist "self-criticism" that necessarily attended the longing for a "new Jew" has been forgotten or even deliberately suppressed over the last generation, primarily for four reasons:·" Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That's my question, why are we even citing Morris-Reich if his article doesn't even support the sentence where it is citied? Crainsaw (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a tendentious reading of Morris-Reich. He says that two important editors and two important authors neglected the specifically racial dimension of Ruppin’s views, while others didn’t neglect it.

The authors who he says neglected race here all obviously looked at “zionist concepts of Jewish identity”, so it doesn’t support the sentence at all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, Bob, that's balderdash, There is nothing tendentious in this context of neglect of a topic, to refer to Morris-Reich's observation that the major Hebrew and English critical editions of Ruppin's works omit/suppress/underplay his racism, as do 'two important studies' that 'almost completely overlook the racial aspect in his work'. If you read (downloadable) Bloom's 2011 monograph (414 pages) Ruppin's obsession with racial science is on every other page. That editors omit/edit out a crucial passage, and major experts on his work, to the time of Morris Reich's writing, almost wholly 'overlook' what lies at the core of Ruppin's thinking is obviously congruent with the sentence.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The sentence the footnote explores is not “Ruppin’s racism was underplayed” but “Zionist concepts of Jewish identity were rarely studied or long forgotten, overlooked, made invisible or deliberately suppressed until recent decades”. The texts (rightly) accused of underplaying Ruppin’s racism were about Zionist concepts of Jewish identity. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. You deftly left out 'Aspects of' heading that sentence. Read my reply to Crainsaw who made exsctly the same point, misreading the passage. Some of these objections are reaching the level of farce.Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, yes you’re right the sentence currently reads “Many aspects of the role of race in the formation of Zionist concepts of Jewish identity were rarely studied, forgotten, overlooked, made invisible or deliberately suppressed until recent decades.” But that’s not really what Morris-Reich is saying. For it to work here, wouldn’t he be need saying that race had a role in zionist concepts of identity in general (not just Ruppin’s) and that this was ignored/overlooked etc until recent decades? Even if we allow Ruppin to stand in for Zionism in general, he notes a couple of sources which overlook race, then four (publisdes in 1977, 19,4. 1991and , 20) which don’t overlook race but give it a central role. His point is there is no general agreement rather than any systematic overlooking. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Bob. Morris-Reich is not cited to back the sentence. None of those sources are. Each one instances 'aspects' of the fact that this topic was ' rarely studied, forgotten, overlooked, made invisible or deliberately suppressed until recent decades.' That is what I replied to Crainsaw. Morris-Reich makes many points, but is cited here for noting an egregious omission of a very painful fact in Ruppin's diaries. In the Hebrew and English editions, this core point is textually invisible, elided, suppressed, or whatever. I don't know why (well I do. I know the extreme precision demanded of any scholar charged with editing a book, and a repeated omission like this would led to strong remonstration in scholarly review. Once, an oversight, twice no accident, but deliberate etc. ) but this bears very precisely on the point the sentence makes. And I warmly suggest to you to download, if you haven't yet, Bloom's book (by the way Morris-Reich reviewed it, somewhat critically. I'll add that eventually in a note if I can wean myself off the talk page for a day or two) and read it.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that if none of the sources say what the sentence says, then yoking them together in this way is precisely tendentious: it’s adding two and two to make five. Better to say what they actually say, to allow readers to form their own interpretation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Nicosia

I must ask again, in the 5th reference, by Francis Nicosia, in the book Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, on the cited pp. 1-2, where does he say something which supports the statement: "Many aspects of the role of race in the formation of Zionist concepts of Jewish identity were rarely studied, forgotten, overlooked, made invisible or deliberately suppressed until recent decades."? The only thing he said was "This study looks at a somewhat different confrontation, one that was perhaps not as direct, formal, or even openly public, but that was, nevertheless, real, with significant consequences for the Jews of Germany during the Third Reich. It was the relationship of a volkisch German nationalism and anti-Semitism, and the various political movements they spawned, to Zionism, a volkisch Jewish nationalist ideology and movement that started from some of the same philosophical premises as German nationalism with regard to nationality, national life, and the proper definition and organization of peoples and states in the modern world. Few attempts have been made to consider the nature and impact of their responses to each other, within the context of the pressing questions of Jewish life in Germany prior to the Holocaust." Crainsaw (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually thanks for reminding me of that. It was a placeholder note which I intended to improve. I'll improve the page range (there's morelater in Nicosia's book) but for the moment,

Nicosia presents his study as rather different from the mass of works published on the German-Jewish relationship. Most (earlier) treatments of this encounter contrasted German ethno-nationalism and anti-Semitism to Jewish liberalism and desire for assimilation and emancipation.’ Scholarship tended to treat these two as diametrically opposed and incompatible world views. (p.1)

He describes his own new study from a different angle as one that examines this picture of a mutually exclusive face-off given in most studies(This study looks at a somewhat different confrontation p.2)

That is, he will outline evidence for precisely the opposite of what most earlier treatments have done, by examining the relationship between ‘völkisch German nationalism’ and the ‘völkisch Jewish nationalist ideology’ of Zionism. Both shared some identical philosophical premises and

Few attempts have been made to consider the nature and impact of their responses to each other, within the context of the pressing questions of Jewish life in Germany prior to the Holocaust.’ p.2, see also p.6.

If you read the rest of the chapter, you will note how Nicosia goes to great pains, because the topic touches on the inherent sensitivity in any consideration of the ideological and practical relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism in modern German history,(p.7) to clarify that this consonance of key points in these respective worldviews of German ethnonationalists and Zionists must not be interpreted maliciously. I.e.

the reluctance of post-Holocaust discourse to recognize the significant impact of völkisch ideas on German Jewry in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.p.7

And again,

in the aftermath of the Holocaust, many have found it inconceivable, intellectually and emotionally, that any Jewish interests might in any way have converged with those of German nationalism and anti-Semitism, (p.8)

I'll make a quick adjustment adding those pages. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The material presented here doesn’t show that Nicosia said previous scholars omitted/suppressed/etc aspects of race. It shows that he thinks he has a radically different interpretation of the history. Can you quote the bits that support the sentence footnoted? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Falk

Where on earth does Falk's book, Zionism and the Biology of the Jews, on pp. 100-101, did he say anything about suppression, neglect or anything similar of Zionist race concepts? Crainsaw (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Already in the early nineteenth century, “there was lively interest in the lost Jewish kingdom, especially among the Jewish Russian scholars,” and interest in Khazaria intensified in the second half of the century (Sand 2009, pp. 230–231). But, apparently, fear of compromising Russian nationalism on the one hand, and Jewish Ashkenazi ethnic group identity on the other hand, combined to suppress researching such claims both in the Soviet Union and among Jews.pp.100-101

I.e.Sensitive to Russian ethnonationalist sensitivities, Jewish scholars themselves suppressed their research on the nexus. It differs from the others because it is not self-censure of one's ethnic past's troublesome realities, but censuring one's publication of details of the past for fear such articles/books might provoke an antisemitic backlash in the Soviet Union.

That's a bit iffy, if you like, and I have no interest in defending it, even though I think it defensible in the larger perspective of how Zionist and Ashkenazi debates on Jewish origins reflect or are subject to political pressures. Theories about a putative Khazar link to Ashkenazim caused massive upset twice, in the mid-70s and 2011-2012, and what attracted my eye in reading that passage in Falk was the parallel of the way the idea Russia owed substantial debts culturally and ethnically to Jewish Khazars provoked the ire of Russian ethnonationalists to the point of clamping down on the debate, suppressing it. It's an interesting byline, but not necessary to the present article's focus.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

He’s talking about research on Khazars? This is using the idea of “the nexus” (a term he doesn’t use) in quite a stretched way. This should definitely not be here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Bob.Diannaa just told us a few days that we paraphrase rather than repeating key terms in sources. So this is fallacious. As I stated, that doesn't need to go into the article. And indeed isn't there.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sicher

@Crainsaw. What do you think of the following?

This book contributes to that discussion by opening up previously locked concepts of the relation between the terms “color,” “race,” and “Jews”, in the global discourse of multiculturalism, Hybridity, and diaspora. Sicher 2013 p.2

I take that to mean that the book explores three topics each of which had been hermetically sealed off from the other two in earlier scholarship. 'Locked up 's a rather strong term suggesting some conceptual fencing which has avoided any cross-contamination between what the contributors of Sicher's volume consider to be intrinsically related topics. I.e. many Jews are 'coloured' (but that has been ignored in the standard Ashkenazi narrative); 'race' has been kept distinct from discourse on 'Jews' (and their various skin-pigmentations as an identity marker). Actually, those elements are intertwined in the pre-1945 Zionist and anti-Semitic literature on Jews, so on reading Sicher's statement, I wasn't surprised, though happy to see that modern discourse is now confident enough to allow a multicultural vision of Jews in all of their variegated complexity. Sicher's phrase in short, is close to the kind of revision of silence the several adjectives from sources I had marshalled point to. Perhaps you disagree on its relevance as a further citation in this context, but, whatever, I can recommend that book, safe in the acquired assurance that you are an editor who does take the trouble (if it is a 'trouble' to exercise one's curiosity) to actually read up on a topic.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

:"In the global discourse of multiculturalism, hybridity, and diaspora." is the important part, it's not about the concepts of race in Zionism, but rather the wider global discourse. Crainsaw (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the whole source, Sicher and the subsequent array of articles.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m familiar with this book. It attempts to insert Jewishness into live humanities debates about critical race theory (not debates about biological race, although Sander Gilman’s preface relates the book to those debates). Although I believe Sicher is a Zionist, the book does not look at Zionism or make an argument about how Zionist history has been framed in the scholarship. It faces a completely different direction. Looking at uses of the word “Zionism” in the book, the few examples mostly refer to how non-Jews produced racist images of “Zionism” (see eg p.19). Genetics seems to be mentioned twice in the book, p.219 and pp.234-5, neither in connection to Zionism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sander Gilman's absolutely authoritative and we can take his word for it that this is part of the discourse. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yea Gilman is authoritative and his preface may have useful content for this article. However, his preface says nothing about Zionism and does not say anything supporting the sentence under discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Bob, I asked Crainsaw's opinion about a sentence. I didn't add it to the article, and have no intention of doing so. The essays deal widely with the issue of Jews and colour (race). The exercise is not one of searching for the word 'Zionist' but reading the material on how colour perceptions influence identity among Jews, which Sicher says has been a neglected issue. Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Is how colour perceptions influence identity among Jews the topic of this article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Other sources

@Nishidani: I think we should remove Avraham 2013, since his statement "This topic has not been substantially addressed in the literature so far." is in the context of Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany restating debated over a Jewish Race among German Jews, since many of them weren't Zionists, and saw themselves as Germans first, Jews second. Many of them were secular, converted to Christianity, and thought they were superior to the Ostjuden. (See Fritz Haber for example)

We should also remove Morris-Reich, as I've explained above.

On both counts I beg to disagree. I'll have to recap the methodological error I noted you made in your first objection to this sentence above for you are now questioning virtually every source used without grasping the flaw in your reasoning. I'm not an idiot, and certainly not so inexperienced as to make such a serial set of misjudgments as that would imply (not that I take it you mean that). I have met and compromised on two points. But it strikes me that you misunderstand what aspects means in the generalization. You dutifully quote one by one each source for the adjectives in terms of the whole sentence, and say no source fits. All of these sources speak about some aspect of scholarly neglect for the general subject of Zionist approaches to race, be it Ruppin, or German Jews, etc., and your last point about German Jews in the 1930s not all being Zionists misses the point made by dozens of sources I don't need to cite, but which Avraham's text is alluding to. Namely, German Jews were, in a majority traditionally opposed to Zionism and ardently assimilitionist. The Central-Verein was bitterly attacked for decades by a very militant but small band of dissident Zionists. It bowed finally and reluctantly to acceptance of the Nazi language's use of race, designating itself as a Volkstum, which was precisely the position of the new regime and, coincidentally, of the former Zionist minority. That is also pointed out by Avraham. So, you repeatedly in my view, focus on one snippet cited from the sources, and test its resonance specifically against the generalization (ignoring the aspectual point every time), without assessing each in terms of the contexts in which they are embedded (in this case, what Avraham then goes on to state pp.365ff. You did the same with Nicozia: looked at pages 1-2, since that was all I provisorially cited, without reading the whole exposition from pp.1-9, which, had you done, would have clarified what he was alluding to, how the remarks on pp.1-2 were to be taken. It was important to note the inadequacy of the page range, and I was grateful and fixed it. The new additions from both Avraham and Sicher, esp. if you read thoroughly both the article and the related chapters, make it absolutely clear that topic neglect until recently is a guiding concern of these modern publications.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me illustrate by an analogy that shows the logical fault consistently at work in these objections. Perhaps that will make the matter clearer-

A chicken’s egg is ovoid (a), encased in a shell(b), formed of calcium carbonate(c), protein-rich(d), edible(e), with a yolk(f), and glair(g), and useful for vaccinal incubation(h).

What you do is say that (a) doesn’t mention (b/c/d/e/f/g/h), (b) doesn’t mention (c and a/d/e/f/g/h), c doesn’t mention (d or a/b/e/f/g/h), e doesn’t mention (a/b/c/d/f/g/h), f doesn’t mention (a/b/c/d/e/g/h), g doesn’t mention (a/b/c/d/e/f/h) and h doesn’t mention (a/b/c/d/e/f/g), and therefore each quote doesn’t support the general description. That is the flaw in your objection. Each source is intended to support one of the aspects of the general subject.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In the modern genomic section, there's a reference to "T chromosomal". I think maybe that should be "Y" instead of "T"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting "WP:SIGCOVYNTH"

@Drsmoo: has asked a few times to be shown a list of scholars who have published works on the full topic of this article, suggesting that 10 such sources would be adequate to firmly confirm that the topic passes a novel conflation of WP:SIGCOV and WP:SYNTH. Although I doubt that such a new standard of "WP:SIGCOVYNTH" would have consensus to become part of our encyclopedia-wide policies and guidelines, I have no objection to it being applied here.

Such a list was initially provided three weeks ago, containing 12 scholars – see here. Many sources have been added to the article since then, of which the more obvious ones are below:

• Weitzman, Steven
• Tanny, Jarrod
• Kohler, Noa Sophie
• Gissis, Snait

Drsmoo, please feel free to challenge any of these 16 names, following which I will bring quotes so we can discuss in more detail. But many (most?) of them are so obvious to those of us who have been following the building of this article for the last month that it doesn’t need me or anyone else to bring more evidence to this talk page. As an act of good faith, I would be grateful if you could name which out of the 16 here that you agree cover this subject adequately. We can then focus on the rest. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not what was asked for. You were specifically asked to show how multiple sources indicate that genetic studies on Jews inherit from race science. As a starter, Weitzman explicitly details the significant differences between the two. The same is true for McGonigle.

Don’t ask others to do your work for you. As was explained before, there is no subject here. After weeks, your inability to demonstrate significant coverage speaks for itself.Drsmoo (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

An odd little straw man. That anybody, including Weitzman and McGonigle, puts pen to paper to detail the difference still makes this a demonstration that the subjects are linked in scholarship, because even in refuting a connection between fields, they affirm the discussion itself about the connection. More than that, this demonstrates that the page has balance by providing competing perspectives on the subject. So neutral too, yeah? Great! Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Well said. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If either of you had actually read the section, you would see that he is in fact explicitly rebuking Abu El-Haj. Drsmoo (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

…and in doing so confirming that this is a significant topic area. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Explain your logic Drsmoo (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to do so, but first please confirm if you have read the quote from Weitzman's conclusion that I posted above at 06:23 UTC today? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve read it, it has no relevance to his rebuking the alleged connection between race science and genetics. Drsmoo (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you think he means when he says "Present-day research is no different in this regard"? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That “in this regard” they are asking the same questions of Jewish Origins, which would address Jewish integration and Jewish indigenousness. Drsmoo (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct - except you elided the key part with the use of "they". By "they" he is referring to his detailed descriptions of the race scientists of earlier times and the genetic scientists of today. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is the current thread, I did not “elide” anything. You asserted that this passage is a reversal of him rebuking Abu El-Haj’s claim that genetics is modern day race science, which is incorrect. Drsmoo (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Weitzman seems to be entirely focused on a single cherrypicked passage of "To accept the critique of genetics as a revived form of race science, there are a lot of things one has to downplay or ignore" (p.308). Yet Weitzman clearly acknowledges the connection in multiple other places, e.g. "One of the more specific links between race science and genetics, in fact, is the prominent role that Jews play as a subject of research within each field." (p.289), "It is not clear how conscious early Israeli geneticists were of continuing the kind of research conducted by race scientists just a few decades earlier." (p.290), "From what I have read, this view of genetics and its historical relationship to race science, a perspective that stresses the lines of continuity between the two fields, is common among the anthropologists who write about genetics research, and Abu El-Haj’s argument is in line with this broader critique of the field" (p.309-310), and the "Present-day research is no different in this regard" quote above from his overall conclusion (p.324-325). Weitzman's discussion - with all its angles and nuances - is an excellent example of a scholar covering the topic of this article in all its glory. Will you acknowledge this? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re conflating Weitzman stating that the two fields are asking the same questions, with him rebuking the claim that population genetics is modern race science Drsmoo (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: bingo. This is the point. No-one except you is saying "that population genetics is modern race science". Everyone, the article, its primary editors, and the sources, are saying "the two fields are asking the same questions". You are asking people to prove that the sky is red when the article says the sky is blue. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Drsmoo: The first time you (or anyone else) used the words "inherit from" anywhere in this month-long discussion was yesterday at 11:55 UTC, in a discussion you were having with Nishidani. You were then told by Nishidani, and another editor, Selfstudier, that such a claim is a misrepresentation of this article. Whether or not Nishidani and Selfstudier are correct, what is definitely incorrect is your claim of what I was specifically asked for by you. Remember, your 28 July claim that the article’s “general thrust claim that genetic studies of Jews are "Zionist" and inherited from Racial Science” was also met with a request for proof, which a week later has still not been forthcoming. In the face of 16 high quality sources which each cover the scope of this article, you have now moved the goalposts.

Your statement of "Don’t ask others to do your work for you" applies to the unsupported claims you have been repeating here – stating that the article doesn’t support what you say it does requires two forms of clear evidence from you: (1) proving that the article really does say or imply what you claim it does; (2) confirming that such position is unsupported or even opposed by the scholarship. So far you have done neither of these, but for your claim to hold it is your responsibility to do the work.

I will wait for your response, and if it doesn’t progress the attempt at collaboration between us I will be removing the remaining tag at the top of this article as having no consensus and no remaining credible claims to support it.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of SIGCOVYNTH, though this article would still pass in my opinion. Crainsaw (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You were asked to provide “relevant quotations” to support sources attesting to a linkage between race science and genetics. You have been unable to do so. Drsmoo (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: I am happy to do so in the context of all 16 sources above. In order to save time, and to show good faith, I would ask that you list out which of the 16 you already accept makes the clear link. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Abu El-Haj Drsmoo (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: are you saying that is the only one of the 16 you believe makes the link? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m not interested in playing games. You have failed to demonstrate that this connection is notable. I am providing you an opportunity to do so. Per Weitzman it is Abu El-Haj. If you are able to demonstrate otherwise, this is a great opportunity to do so.

Regarding the warning on neutrality, I’m not sure of your point. It can easily be re-added. Drsmoo (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: unless you are willing to work collaboratively, I am not going to spend my time trying to address your moving target. There are a good number of scholars in that 16 where the link is incredibly obvious - it is not rational for me to spend time trying to prove to you that the sky is blue, if you are unwilling to acknowledge it when you see it.

As just one example, the absurdity of suggesting that Falk doesn't make this link - which his entire book is about - is evidence that discussing with you is not a good use of time, and that your claims hold no merit. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If that were the case, you would have already done so. You haven’t because you can’t, and we move on. Drsmoo (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that Falk makes the link? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the warning on neutrality, I’m not sure of your point. It can easily be re-added Yes it can and you have done so and I have removed it again because Once's point is that the onus is on you to produce evidence in support of maintaining it, continuously dodging the issue is not evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You reverted within seconds. Were you sitting there pressing refresh and waiting to undo? If so, this takes tag-teaming to a new level.

The onus is not on me as I didn’t add the tag, nor am I the only editor who finds major issues with this article. Drsmoo (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Drsmoo. The above objection is incomprehensible, the intransigence, while switching terms, in not trying to concretely meet with other editors to find 'solutions' rather than endless backchat, unwikipedian. You keep talking in two-liners about other people needing to assume a 'burden' of work/proof, while adding almost zero to the text. That last point is understandable, since you appear to reproach its very existence. A talk page aims to discuss major issues, and reach consensual solutions. When numbered, your 'major issues' have been addressed. Among new accusations there is one about 'tagteaming' suggesting you believe this is some sort of ganging-up. There is no ganging-up. A majority of active editors simply cannot see, after these exhaustive exchanges, any reason to maintain a tag that applied to a very primitive outline of this topic. If some NPOV issue can be now raised, it can go back but only after a serious attempt has been made first of all to enlist other editors in solving point by point the bulleted problems you or anyone else might still detect in the text. Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, @Selfstudier:Per Misplaced Pages:Tagging pages for problems, editors with a conflict of interest may not remove tags, and tags may only be removed when active discussion has ended or there is consensus to do so. If the tag is not restored within the next few hours this will be brought to AE. Drsmoo (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by Onceinawhile having a WP:COI. As it stands, that looks like an insinuation that one editor's private life and work is, according to your personal knowledge, in conflict with the work they do on wikipedia. And it is an extremely serious, indeed threatening, vexatious remark on a page where urbanity has been the general tone of discussions. Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus. The hollow protests of one, unsubstantiated by meaningful follow-up and unfurnished by specifics, does not an active discussion make. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There certainly is not consensus. There are multiple editors actively demonstrating that this article is non-neutral in multiple areas. Even if there were consensus, editors with a conflict of interest may not remove tags. Drsmoo (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, explain what you mean by a conflict of interest in pinging just one editor. That expression on wikipedia has a very specific meaning, and your use of its suggests you know something about Onceinawhile no one else here knows, which makes his editing suspect.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Both Onceinawhile and Selfstudier were pinged. Was there a typo? I interpret conflict of interest in this context to mean related to an interest in the article and not personal at all. It is tendentious because of the manner in which it was done. If not restored, we will see if AE agrees. Drsmoo (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, which as noted by others, has specific connotations on Misplaced Pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there an admin we can Ping to clarify this? Drsmoo (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we ask an admin to opine on the comment made above that this takes tag-teaming to a new level. That is a blockable claim, which I had expected to be retracted, but it is still there. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ll modify my comment Drsmoo (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It began as tag added by Tombah who after a few edits, disappeared, and therefore was 'not involved in the article's developmentì. It is extremely difficult to find in the edit history significant evidence that editors who think it violates POV have tried to develop the article towards NPOV. 3 weeks ago, after Onceinawhile had systematically answered and edited the text to satisfy the bulleted objections raised by Drsmoo, the latter admitted:

At a rough glance, much of the article is much more balanced now. Definitely an improvement. Drsmoo (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The article review has been completed, with a consistent rewriting taking in objections raised on the talk page from July 15 to 7 August. Active discussion has moved to changing the name, but there are, as far as I can see, no outstanding issues raised which have not been arduously discussed and addressed by modifications of the text. The logical move, as I said, at this point, since we effectively have an article totally different from the one which copped the POV badge of shame at the very outset, when it was a stub, for editors who still find NPOV problems here to list those that, in their view, remain.One should not use, as a last resort, threats of AE action against goodfaith editors, if one is not satisfied with the state of an article.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There is not consensus here yet. Several editors on this talk page are disputing neutrality. Until this subsides, the tag should remain. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there an active discussion that presents discrete, substantive issues that remain unaddressed? There are plenty of ongoing discussions bemoaning the scope and the title, but that is not the same thing as outstanding issues with balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: please could you set out your remaining concerns? If they are primarily about the scope, your thoughts on the works of the 16 scholars listed earlier in this thread would allow us to move forward. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Having taken responsibility for the tag, kindly explain the neutrality issues, there cannot be a situation where a tag is being edit warred in without the expression and resolution of said issues. Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

“Having taken responsibility for the tag”

What? This is getting bizarre. Drsmoo (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Come, come now. Stop trying to raise the temperature in the room by insistent hair-splitting. 'having taken responsibility for the tag' refers to Bob's judgment that 'the tag should remain'. In any game, if a player shouts 'foul', and several others disagree, any other party stepping in to support the claim of 'foul' takes on a 'responsibility' in the purest etymological sense of that word, i.e., he lies 'under an obligation to answer', to give reason for his support. (I guess now we are in for an humongous thread on the concept of responsibility, rather than doing something practical, i.e., responding to a legitimate request that these suspicions of NPOV violations be clarified, so we can fix them) Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday you called an editors edit “embarrassing” because they disagreed with you. And you’re complaining about “raising the temperature”? Yes it is odd to bludgeon someone into “explaining” over and over again. There is far too much bludgeoning occurring here. Multiple editors are raising serious issues with this article and each time they are bludgeoned. Not to mention removing tags mid discussion/mid bludgeon, then another editor reverts within seconds It is becoming untenable. Drsmoo (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Do comment at the talk page of any editor regarding bludgeoning or any behavioral complaint.

Meanwhile, the wait continues for input on the serious issues with this article that require a POV tag.

Multiple editors are raising serious issues with this article Please point me to where they have been raised and not dealt with? Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Drsmoo. Is that a preliminary to some AE complaint (WP:Bludgeon)? Drop the flagwaving. I read the thread through from top to bottom again today, and there is very little evidence that requests for more details about the putative defects or bias of the article, so that the ostensible issues can be fixed, have been forthcoming. Every day I talk for an hour, socially, with local tradesmen mates about how to fix things, any common piece of household technology. Mention some problem with the washer, or TV, or antennae, and they put their heads together and nut out one or two solutions. Some people at tables nearby use the occasions, as they listen in, to keep complaining about the cost of laundry, the taxes on televisions, the dysfunctional changes in antennae frequency due to the incompetence of the group controlling transmissions. They prefer to vent their exasperation rather than figure out solutions. All very interesting (and we all need at times to work some steam off), but we then get back to the nittygritty, because whingeing is pointless. The aim is to make things work. Misplaced Pages is the same. If something is wrong with an article, you fix it. And if it works for me, for one, but doesn't for you, I need to know exactly, precisely, what is wrong in the wiring, because if the complainant can't tell me, I can't fix it. Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: we were starting to make progress yesterday but you have left two questions unanswered so far – see my comments above at 14:16 and 16:00 yesterday. You have yet to convince a majority of editors that there is any substance to your concern – I am open minded but you will need to do more than just make unevidenced claims. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

a number of editors have raised concerns about cherrypicked quotations and tendentious use of sources that frame the content so as to present a thesis rather than provide neutral, encyclopaedic coverage of a topic. It is highly unusual for Misplaced Pages articles to take the fiord this article takes, with the encyclopaedic content (“History”) preceded by a long literature review (“Overview”). A small number of editors, apparently seeking to “prove” that genetics belongs in the same article as early Zionist race science, have worked hard to mine the (parts of) sources that present this thesis, rather than reflecting the weight of existing scholarship on a clearly defined topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: you appear to be using more emotive language that usual: "worked hard to mine", "fatal issues" (below). I suspect you have some understandable fatigue with this discussion, but could I ask you to try one more time to put feelings aside and work together on achieving a mutual understanding? There is no reason why we should have reached different understandings of the same sources - where I think the theme of this article is central to a significant number of sources, you do not. So rather than trading claims, could we spend some time together working methodically through the evidence? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I’m just trying to summarise the issues raised to show there is still a dispute. I do not assume bad faith and appreciate the diligence of some editors’ research here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: understood. Do you acknowledge that views from a month-old discussion where at least half the editors admitted or implied having not read the sources, and where the article has significantly changed since then, can no longer be seen as useful in ascertaining whether there is still a dispute?

What we need to be able to move forward is a diligent editor like yourself to engage in discussion to support your own view that the article is non-neutral. Otherwise we are left to shadows. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No I don't acknowledge that Onceinawhile. A month is not a long time here, given most of us have other things to do. An AfD only closed - as no consensus - on 19 July, in which roughly half the participants argued the article shouldn't even exist. It is unfair and an assumption of bad faith that these latter did not put enough time into "reading the sources" to have a valid opinion. Moreover, this a hard talk page to participate in because of the sheer volume of content, overwhelmingly from a very small number of editors. We should not misread asymmetry in the volume of words on a talk page for consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s problematic to claim there’s no dispute when multiple editors have raised concerns with the article. I’m fine with asking someone to substantiate their assertions, but it’s different when they’re asked to substantiate them over and over and over again. Particularly when under the pretext of asking them to satisfy you or you’ll do such and such. No one is obligated to satisfy you, one has to accept that editors have different viewpoints. Drsmoo (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been asked over and over again to substantiate the perceived balance issues with the page only because you have repeatedly failed to do so when asked. As such, your dispute appears to be a hollow one supported by mere conjecture. At the same time, in this thread, you pointed to the presence on the page of contrarian sources that argue against the underlying premises of the subject, thereby demonstrating that a level of balance is already being achieved. Amid this evidence for balance and a lack of evidence for imbalance, how is anyone supposed to agree that there is an ongoing issue? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually I provided a long list of article issues. The response was a string of personal attacks, followed by claims that the issues were addressed. Requesting that editors restate the same unaddressed issues (that the article reads like a thesis rather than exploring a cogent subject) is problematic. It casts the editor making the demands as their own arbiter, who can then judge in their own favor. No one is obligated to satisfy you, especially not repeatedly. You must AGF and accept that people have issues with the article. If there is an impasse, the way to resolve it is to solicit more feedback, perhaps by an RFC. Drsmoo (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

All you need to do is link the previous comment with this list that you think was left unaddressed. Doing that would literally be quicker than writing any of these other comments. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I see Bob has restored the tag without replying to a request he clarify what he thinks is a lack of neutrality. I read the article twice today, looking purely for NPOV problems. I can't see them. That may be my eyesight, so I too ask that anyone who thinks there is a lack of balance help us zero in on it, to make the necessary adjustments. As to 'no consensus', I read the whole talk page in its various threads. 95% of it consists of exchanges between Drsmoo and several other editors. Drsmoo, as the Irish say (it is a compliment) has 'fought the good fight', arguing that the page shouldn't exist, is a travesty and all WP:SYNTH. Several others have, here and there, on specific issues, raised their respective criticisms, which have been addressed. In two cases, I think it fair to say that the complaints were based on a manifest logical fallacy arising from a confusion about policy. As far as I can see, specific objections haven't singled out neutrality but suggested an original sin, a formative flaw. Pharos thinks the article should be split, or retitled in such a way a split would then be necessary. I'll tell you now: a split is technically impossible without seriously maiming the two articles that hypothetically would have to be reconstructed out of the shambles. The best solution, were that the consensus, would be to have another AfD and cancel the article. It wouldn't worry me much. I'd just make a copy and put it into my files. When I work here, one motivation is to educate myself further by filling in the yawning gaps of my sketchy knowledge of this and that, so that, at the end, the rags and tatters of a promiscuous reading finally take shape, under the pressure of method, to provide myself with a coherent grasp of a logically organized, historically informed, overview. I've learnt a lot, and I cannot allow myself to be disappointed if several other readers say there's nothing there but a clumsy patchwork* of scholarly snippets that the broader public has no need to know about.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Whoops, there I go again, making a classical allusion that no one will understand. (Wilamowitz once berated Lachmann for treating the Iliad as if it were "ein übles Flickwerk", a 'wretched patchwork'. There's nothing epic about this article, as opposed to the epical length of the talk page discussion. Just a banausic summary of an infra-Jewish controversy the broader public might be interested in. Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to expect all other editors to be able to reply to all requests within hours. It’s also difficult to respond to the volume of content on this talk page. I have now replied above. There is clearly no consensus here, as evidenced in the AfD recently closed as “no consensus”, in which around 50% of participating editors thought there are fatal issues with the page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The relevance of that AfD has all but faded into insignificance at this point given that it was launched a month ago when the page was in a formative state. Now the page is unrecognisable as the same piece of content. Whether or not the time since is short, the subsequent development of the page has been monumental, and so I fail to see how anything raised in the prior AfD, which pertained to how the page was then, addresses its present state. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The AfD closed almost three weeks ago. Since then the article has grown from 62,000 bytes to 134,000, doubled in size as it was redrafted, in response to questions and concerns at the AfD, and issues raised continually on this talk page. So we have another article, far more fully documented, and carefully crafted. Editors are still striving to isolate and address outstanding issues which some allude to as existing here. Unless, we are provided with the requested details of what remains to be fixed, continually referring to the status-quo ante constitutes disruptive stonewalling. Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a substantially different article, but three weeks is not a long time, and the core objection, that the reliable sources are framed in a way that develops an argument rather than gives an encyclopedic overview of a given topic, remains un-addressed.

For example, as I noted above without response, it's highly unusual for the body of a WP article to be preceded by a long literature review which tells the the conclusion of the article. The article would make a brilliant original contribution to the literature but is simply not a Misplaced Pages article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this discrete point, which raises potentially valid questions about page structure and accessibility, could be better discussed in its own thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

neutrality

The restored tag reads:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.

Okay, though it should read 'has been disputed'. Please list what parts of the article violate NPOV, in bulleted mode, so we can handle this one by one. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

See above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No, Bob. That is not an answer. And even were it, there is no link. It is disruptive to refer to 416,726 bytes of multiple threads as if they constitute a focused reply to a specific question. So, I repeat, could you kindly sum up, NPOV issues not addressed on the talk page which therefore remain outstanding, and require fixing. Not opinions, but evidence for imbalance.Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There are two editors supporting the tag - Drsmoo and Bobfrombrockley. They both claim that there are not enough sources supporting the core subject of this article. The only way to ascertain whether they are correct is to engage in detailed discussion regarding the sources which have been brought that explicitly cover the core subject. I have provided an illustrative list of 16 sources, but so far both Drsmoo and Bobfrombrockley have not shown willingness to substantially engage. They have not said it but I suspect the problem is that it will require a meaningful amount of time and effort from either of them. But there is simply no other way to resolve whether their claim is correct - it doesn't matter how many quotations the primary editors of this article bring, unless Drsmoo and Bobfrombrockley make the time to read each source in full they will not be satisfied that the quotes have not been cherrypicked. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll say here something similar to what I said at ANI. If the page has gotten to where the major writing is pretty much finished, save for some ongoing gnoming, then it becomes time to decide whether the tag stays or goes. But I'm not sure that we're there yet. In #Opposition to Zionism, below, you just pointed out that another author needs to be added to the page, something I'm quite happy to allow more time for. Until then, I think there's a two-way street. If some editors are still making edits that might affect the focus and scope of the page, they should have as much time as they want to work on that – but as long as that's going on, other editors should be allowed to have the tag remain. Between now and then, Drsmoo and Bobfrombrockley would do well to make as clear as possible what they want to see changed. But if their concerns remain unclear, no one else should have to worry about reading their minds. When editors feel that the page is far enough along that we know the focus and scope, then we can collectively decide whether to remove the tag. And that's not something that involves a veto. It's a matter of consensus. For now, my own input to that consensus is that the tag should stay, because I do not yet know what will be included or excluded from the page. Once we do know those things, I expect to support removing the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

In short, the POV tag should remain because we don't know if the page is stable, since further tweaks may occur that change its focus and scope. That means that all wikipedia articles should have a POV tag, because the nature of articles on wikipedia, if they are not FA, allows for continual changes and updating. So essentially, the implication is that, uniquely, this article can never shake off its POV tag as long as it is subject to modifications. The 'focus and scope' will change only if a RM alters the title, however. So the conditions set are impossible. Just as the refusal by Drsmoo and BobfromBrockley to come out and state what are the remaining NPOV problems make any goodfaith attempts to remedy putative POV problems impossible/otiose. These are two catch-22 conditions that ensure the article will be perennially paralysed. Nishidani (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There is certainly a whiff of Catch-22 in the proceedings. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not basing that on not knowing if the page is stable. All it would really take is if you, Nishidani, were to say that you are done for now with major revisions, so the focus and scope of the page are as you intended it to be when you said that you were beginning those revisions. Once we are there, there's no longer any reason to wait before discussing when to remove the tag, and no longer any reason to wait before discussing a page renaming. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

By my very rough count, something like 23 editors have commented on this talk page in the last month. Of these, I believe 9 have raised serious concerns about the neutrality of the article, while 5 have defended it from those concerns. Of the ~23, however, 8 are responsible for the overwhelming majority of comments, split 50-50 in to the two camps, although not all equally contributing to the volume of words here. I might have got those numbers slightly wrong, but there’s no reading of that which says we have consensus that the article has achieved neutrality. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the real question is how many of those 9 have actually bothered to come back in the last three weeks (after the first week of IP-curried notice board furore). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That is the same as my count. But most of them disappeared after giving their impression, and very few have 'stayed the course' for the last three weeks of hectic revision. At the moment we have three editors who see problems, and four who do not. Trypofish has been forthcoming on why he thinks the tag should remain. Neither you nor Drsmoo will do so. Both of you refer to the history of the page, reflecting comments made when it was primitive to comments, with far fewer particupants, now that it is completed more or less. So, Bob, accept that the request is in good faith and help us out. Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, are you happy with the lead as is? If so, then I think we should proceed to a formal RM discussion to see if we can produce a consensus on the title. This may help with the Catch 22 situation. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not 'happy' with the lead. I'd reduce it drastically, in summary style covering in sequence the sections of the article, without notes. Conditions of editing at the moment do not allow one to do that. Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You keep asking me this even though the concerns I've repeatedly raised have not been responded to, so I'll repeat myself again, even though there is too much repetition on this page making it hard to navigate.

In short, the article is threaded around a thesis and not an encyclopedic overview of a topic. Crudely, the thesis is that early Zionism, born partly in reaction to pseudo-scientific racial antisemitism and in a period when race thinking was dominant, had a racial view of Jewish identity and that after the war when race thinking was discredited this racial view shaped Zionist/Israeli genetics.

For example, (a) we've already looked, in the "Sources" section of this talk page, at the somewhat SYNTHy footnote 1, which adds up lots of sources to make a claim that exceeds what any of them actually say.

For example, (b) the article lead concludes with a tendentious snippet from a footnote by Falk that Zionism is unique (despite key sources on whom the article later depends, such as Burton and McGonigle, explicitly placing Zionism in comparison to other nation-building projects, e.g. in Lebanon and UAE).

For example, (c) as I've mentioned already, the body of the article is (unusually) preceded by a long literature review ("Overview"), which articulates the article's thesis.

For example, (d) the "Early Zionism" section gives a well-researched and compelling account of some Zionists (e.g. Ruppin, Nordau), undoubtedly important and undoubtedly grounded in race thinking - but gives the impression that they were exemplary of the movement as a whole, even though there is no discussion of whether similar viewpoints were expressed by e.g. Wolffsohn, Warburg, Syrkin, Borochov, Gordon, Katznelson, or Ben Gurion, or by Zionist congresses and institutions, or by organisations in the Yishuv. Without any such context, it leads the reader to assume that the Zionist movement was thoroughly raciological in orientation.

For example, (e) as several editors above have noted, the article radically changes topic in the second half of the body, veering to a fascinating discussion of genetics in Israel, premised on the thesis of continuity with earlier Zionism. Because it is entirely framed in terms of the thesis of continuity, rather than reflect the weight different issues are given in the literature, the sources are mined for elements which lean towards continuity.

For example, (f) if the article proceeded from an encyclopedic overview of a given topic (something like Zionism and race thinking) rather than a need to prove that the article has a valid topic, the weight given to sources would be rather different, with e.g. Gilman and Mosse taking up space alongside Efron and Hart, with more obscure specialist studies such as McGonigle, Lipphardt or Bloom taking up less weight.

Hope that helps. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I’d also like to add that a core issue with this article is framing mainstream, peer-reviewed, scholarly research as both “Zionist”, and connected to pseudoscientific race science. Unless the organizations sponsoring this research are explicitly Zionist organizations, and unless the studies themselves profess themselves to be race science, using Misplaced Pages’s voice, as a topic title no less, to call these studies/imply that these studies are “Zionist” and/or race science (and thereby ideological and unprofessional) is certainly a BLP violation, and arguably libelous. The same would be true of describing, for example, Abu El-Haj’s work as “anti-Zionist”. I do believe it’s possible to keep the information in the article and avoid these issues through changing the title and modifying the article’s structure. Drsmoo (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Where does anyone who had edited the article engage in 'framing mainstream, peer-reviewed, scholarly research as both “Zionist”, and connected to pseudoscientific race science'? Don't invent stuff that in rebuttal and counterrebuttal will jam this article with useless argufying. Bob has provided something to work on. Concrete, specific.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not my point alone, Pharos made the same point “The problem with the current title is that it adds "genetics" in a sui generis way that implies a uniquely 21st century racialism is at work here much more than in other nationalisms” You hand-waved that away as well. I would add that if you’re concerned about “jamming” the talk page, valid and obvious issues with the article are not a problem. What is a problem is endless WP:FORUM non sequiturs that render the talk page noisy and hard to follow. Drsmoo (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Pharos never showed where in the text it was asserted that the multipli-sourced point that in genetics, in Azoulay's words, 'The umbilical cord of racial thinking has not been severed from the project of genetic research, and the subtle racial inflection contained within genetic research harbours political implications for questions that are actually socio-biological in orientation' in the context of Jews and genetics, constitutes or implies a 'sui generis' genetics 'uniquely 21st century racialism is at work here much more than in other nationalisms'. There is no evidence, no diff, no analysis, merely an inference or an impression, whose nasty subtext seems to be that Israel is being singled out.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pharos: in case you’d like to respond. IMO, this is “Sky is blue” territory. Not only is the article title “Zionism, Race, and Genetics”, but multiple times it asserts in wiki voice that modern genetic studies on Jews are both “Zionist” and “race science”. A specific example is what in the source is specifically attributed to Kirsh, and describing studies from 60-70 years ago, in this article is actually written in plain wiki voice and applied to all studies. “The interpretation of the genetic data has been influenced by Zionism and Anti-Zionism, both consciously and unconsciously”. Whereas the source says “during the 1950s and early 1960s Israeli geneticists found many genetic differences between the diverse Jewish groups gathering in Israel. Yet Kirsh (2003) argues that an unconscious internalisation of Zionist ideology by the Israeli geneticists of the time led them to emphasise points of similarity rather than points of difference between the studied groups, thereby in tum reinforcing Zionist convictions."

I’ll also add that I’m done editing for today, so do not read into a non response. Drsmoo (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Since Kirsh's work is cited by numerous authorities it is in wikivoice. This complaint could have been addressed by a simple edit adding 'according to Kirsh'. But, no, you did not do that. You prefer to cite it as it stands as proof of an abuse. That is not how wiki articles are written. They are written collaboratively and in good faith, not by holding back something that worries you from the page, as evidence of poor editing. Really!Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to make wild assertions, whipping up fantasies out of thin air, such as:

it asserts in wiki voice that modern genetic studies on Jews are both “Zionist” and “race science”

provide evidence, diffs. That is rubbish, a gross distortion, that's beginning to look deliberate.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is very helpful. Thanks Bob. The best way to reply is, under each bulleted point, to cite sources alone. Each point you raise can be justified by the numerous sources, and for brevity for the moment, I'll cite just one.

*(I)Crudely, the thesis is that early Zionism, born partly in reaction to pseudo-scientific racial antisemitism and in a period when race thinking was dominant, had a racial view of Jewish identity and that after the war when race thinking was discredited this racial view shaped Zionist/Israeli genetics

(Ia)In chapter 6 , 1 investigate the link between science and the politics of Zionism. Zionist physicians used the language of race science to define the Jewish people, defend them against the latest wave of antisemitism, and revive what they regarded as the flagging Jewish identity of German Jews. This group, the most overtly politicized of the Jewish anthropologists, seemed less concerned with the normative methodology of race science, that is, comparative anthropometry (the results of which were often used to point to the superiority or inferiority of certain races) than it was with using the findings of science to effect internal social and attitudinal change among Jews. Elton 1994 pp.11-12; "This essay describes the effects of Zionist ideology on research into human population genetics carried out in Israel during the 1950s and early 1960s... The comparison reveals that during this period the Israeli human geneticists and physicians emphasized the sociological and historical aspects of their research and used their work, among other things, as a vehicle for establishing a national identity and confirming the Zionist narrative."(Kirsh 2003, p. 631

I guess you are intimating through italicizing and that you have spotted synth. No. When Nurit speaks of Zionist ideology's impact in the post-war period on Israeli population genetics, it is not her brief to make a divagation on what she means by 'Zionist ideology'. The context is what Zionists thought of with regard to the Jewish population, and that is explored by a dozen historical sources we use to that end. We don't make the connection. The sources do. Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This doesn’t really address my point at all. I happen to agree with the first half of the thesis (maybe even the second half - it’s not so squarely in my area of knowledge), but I don’t think an article should be organised in this way, even it’s not an accurate summary of the range of scholarship.

Some sources make this connection, but there are a range of positions and we can’t take a position ourselves. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I've bolded the passage since it contradicts precisely your point. I don't take a position. I paraphrase the positions taken by scholars who study this nexus.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

*(2)Many aspects of the role of race in the formation of Zionist concepts of a Jewish identity were rarely addressed, forgotten, overlooked, made invisible, sidelined or deliberately suppressed until recent decades

Footnote. Doron 1983, pp. 170–171; Morris-Reich 2006, pp. 1–2, 4–5; Gelber 2000, p. 133; Nicosia 2010, pp. 1–2, 6–8; Hart 2011, p. xxxiv; Avraham 2017, pp. 172–173; Avraham 2013, p. 356; Abu El-Haj 2012, p. 18.

The points you raise were made only by Crainsaw (under investigation, to what result is not yet known, for sockpuppetry by the way) at

You supported Crainsaw that this was synth. I pointed out the logical error here. No one replied. Synth is about making inferences not in the sources. The line makes no inference. It selects the adjectives used respectively in 8 sources to describe aspects of topical neglect regarding race and Zionism in scholarship. In other words, an objection was made, minutely answered case by case, and then its logical fallacy was outlined, with no rebuttal. You are taking the existence of a dispute weeks ago as proof that the dispute is unresolved. Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t reply because your response was a complex analogy whose relevance I didn’t get so replying would simply have been to repeat the point. (The sentence with the footnote is not loyal to the sources cited but exceeds them, adding up to a claim far greater than the sum of its parts.) Rather than us repeating our points to each other, I was hoping fresh editors might step in with their perspectives. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we will need an RFC, and I also think the amount of non sequiturs, WP:Forum posts and random asides are inhibiting the ability of people to comment on the article. Drsmoo (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

*(3)the article lead concludes with a tendentious snippet from a footnote by Falk that Zionism is unique (despite key sources on whom the article later depends, such as Burton and McGonigle, explicitly placing Zionism in comparison to other nation-building projects, e.g. in Lebanon and UAE)..

The text runs:-

Israeli geneticist Raphael Falk comments that he knows of no other example of an ethnic conflict where this effort to prove or disprove the "biological belonging" of modern Jews to the historical Land of Israel played such a role, suggesting that other such conflicts involved the pre-existence of distinct ethnic or religious entities that struggle for the same piece of land.

It is not tendentious. It is the opinion of one of the foremost genetic scientists of his day, and the foremost expert on the history of Zionism and the Biology of the Jews (the title of his 2017 book)

That is an informed critical assessment by the greatest expert on the topic. It does not say Zionism is 'unique'. It claims that to his knowledge as of 2016, no comparable effort of such intensity (resources, academic interest etc.,) has been conducted elsewhere so, (footnote) 'to prove the immanent biological belonging or non-belonging of communities to what is considered to be the Jewish entity.' It is an assertion of scale, not of anything 'sui generis'. It is perfectly appropriate to note that, because his authority in these connections bears far more weight than, so far, any other contributor to the debate.

If 'tendentious' means 'I don't like what this authority is quoted for,' therefore pass over it in silence, articles would collapse.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't say it's unique and only claims that to his knowledge no comparable effort was made - but the lead cited him to precisely say Zionism is unique and obscured the bit about to his knowledge until I edited it a couple of days ago to make it a little less POV.

Myself, I had to read "there is no other example known to me like the Zionists' of an intensive effort to prove the immanent biological belonging or non-belonging of communities to what is considered to be the Jewish entity" several times to try to grasp his meaning and am still struggling. It's an obscure and tangled aside in a footnote; it's not something we should be using to conclude the lead. This is an example of the article using cherry-picked quotes to push a POV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, Lebanon has had a few studies, and we duly note the fact. The more imposing effort undertaken by started to get on its feet only as late as 2015 (McGonigle p.112). 8 years not all of them engaged in a biological mapping of Qataris, who don't even have a national identity tradition. Nothing certainly to measure up against the massive output on this in two centuries of modern Jewish tradition and 75 years of nationhood. Falk's statement is more than reasonable.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

*(4)as I've mentioned already, the body of the article is (unusually) preceded by a long literature review ("Overview"), which articulates the article's thesis.

The overview was designed specifically to come to terms with the striking evidence in the AfD that many wikipedians hadn't the foggiest notion that this controversy existed. One of its functions was (a) to clarify the antisemitic context out of which this particular Jewish/Zionist literature arose. People who come to an article like this should be forearmed not to make the silly conclusion that Jewish/Zionist thinking of their community as a nation/race grew in a vacuum, unprompted. It was a defensive countermeasure. Secondly (b) most will be unfamiliar with the topic, and therefore their ignorance is not at fault. Many scholars who work on this have noted that the topic in its various angles has suffered historically from neglect. There is no 'thesis' to defend. Both those points are explicitly made by the literature we use. There is simply an indispensable background sketch to alert readers to what will follow, a careful outline of the way these interwoven themes inflected early Zionist discourse. What you keep saying is a 'thesis' is merely a summary of the (a) theses of Jewish/Zionist thinkers on Jewish identity (b) as those are interpreted in secondary sources by, predominantly, scholars in Israel and the diaspora. In a thesis one must strive to find some interpretation not in the given set of references, nudge, under your supervisor's eyes, towards some original slant. There is nothing here that is not in the sources.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems deeply problematic to me. An extensive literature review prior to the body was included, you're saying, to win an AfD debate? This is exactly the wrong way around for how we should build articles here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

*(5) the "Early Zionism" section gives a well-researched and compelling account of some Zionists (e.g. Ruppin, Nordau), undoubtedly important and undoubtedly grounded in race thinking - but gives the impression that they were exemplary of the movement as a whole, even though there is no discussion of whether similar viewpoints were expressed by e.g. Wolffsohn, Warburg, Syrkin, Borochov, Gordon, Katznelson, or Ben Gurion, or by Zionist congresses and institutions, or by organisations in the Yishuv. Without any such context, it leads the reader to assume that the Zionist movement was thoroughly raciological in orientation.

That's not a problem of synth, or a thesis. It is something that could readily be fixed, as long as we have sources which connect those figures to the story of race. The figures chosen were, per the sources, exemplary in early Zionism, the very forefront: Birnbaum the father of Cultural Zionism, Buber its premier philosopher, Nordau the man whose intellectual ascendancy was as charismatic as was Herzl's politically, who came up with muscular Judaism, Ruppin whose role in immigration policy and the development of Zionist institutions was second to none, until Ben-Gurion's ascendancy. Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism, politically, was to win the day, and dominate Israeli politics for the last four decades. On your last point the background showcases the comment made by Todd Endelman that, "ome disputed the stability and permanence of racial traits and the existence of pure races. Others internalized racial thinking and then unconsciously reworked and subverted its premises. Still others accepted the idea of racial differences but turned conventional stereotypes on their head," and that is there precisely to disarm the reader of any impression they might entertain the notion that Zionism was 'thoroughly raciological in orientation.'

In short, (5) lends itself to an easy fix, if you are unsatisfied with Endelman.

*(6) as several editors above have noted, the article radically changes topic in the second half of the body, veering to a fascinating discussion of genetics in Israel, premised on the thesis of continuity with earlier Zionism. Because it is entirely framed in terms of the thesis of continuity, rather than reflect the weight different issues are given in the literature, the sources are mined for elements which lean towards continuity.

No it doesn't. There is no 'radical break' at all, because several scholars amply quoted, note the strain of continuity between the pre-war discourse on race, which was widespread, and not just Jewish/Zionist, and what occurred after the foundation of israel. Kureit documents that continuity as does Falk. 'Race' is discarded, but the focus on Jewishness shifts towards genetics, a serious science, but like all sciences, one embedded in a socio-political and cultural reality that exercised an influence on what was studied, and how population genetics was inflected by these concerns which were (a) to establish a science that grounded all Jews in the diaspora together in terms of biological heritage and (b) by the molecular biology of vertical descent, provide history and politics with the missing proof that Jews were direct descendants on the pristine Israelite/Jewish population of Israel/Palestine. If you can cite me one historian, who in any field focused on revolutionary upheavals, denies that the new regimen of affairs quickly reabsorbed traditions anchored in the earlier socio-political world that was overturned, I'd be happy to embark on that new intellectual adventure. As Burton, Wewitzman, Falk, Kirsh and other note, there is a 'radical change' in the biomedical technologies that became available, but considerable overflow in what they targeted in research, in the models they designed, of passionate concerns that were the earlier hallmark of Zionist/Jewish thinking. And lastly it is not 'entirely framed in terms of the thesis of continuity.' That entirely distorts the opening paragraph of the section.

The effect of Nazism and its genocidal policies discredited racial science and postwar genetics worked hard to distance itself from race science for both scientific and ethical reasons. In a four point Unesco declaration in 1950, any correlation between national /religious groups and race was denied, and it was affirmed that race itself was ‘less a biological fact than a social myth’.] The use of race still lingered on, nonetheless, in the anthropological literature, and highly influential geneticists such as Leslie Dunn and Theodosius Dobzhansky, who had been critics of race science, persisted in maintaining that races did exist, and substituted 'race' by 'populations'. According to the Israeli historian of science, Snait B. Gissis, an emotional barrier caused Israeli geneticists and medical researchers from 1946 to 2003 to take pains to avoid the term 'race' in their scientific publications.

That preliminary note, which doesn't mention Jewish/Israeli scientists as subscribing to the race-genetics continuum, but two eminent foreign (goyim if you like) eminences grises of the discipline, is written to ensure that what follows must not be taken to exceptionalize what took place in Israel. I'm surprised you missed this. It is only in the second half of the second paragraph that we note the point Kirsh made, which is widely accepted as a fair historical summary of that period's genetics, that 'the approaches adopted by Israeli geneticists at the time were ‘substantially affected by Zionist ideology’. Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Re 5 (previously d): Yes, as I said this is an issue of POV not of SYNTH, and yes it easily fixed. If it were fixed, that would be one step towards making the article NPOV and thus towards removing the tag. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Re 6 (previously e): The continuity thesis you are defending seems to me to be of the "dinosaurs are not extinct because birds are descended from dinosaurs" variety. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• (7)

  if the article proceeded from an encyclopedic overview of a given topic (something like Zionism and race thinking) rather than a need to prove that the article has a valid topic, the weight given to sources would be rather different, with e.g. Gilman and Mosse taking up space alongside Efron and Hart, with more obscure specialist studies such as McGonigle, Lipphardt or Bloom taking up less weight.

Bloom, Efron, and Hart directly acknowledge the important role Gilman's assistance or pathtaking scholarship has played in their work. Lipphardt cites him. Your point is, you prefer the fathers to the sons, even if the sons, their dads' careful education behind them, strike out on their own to complete what their fathers started.

If you know of materials in Mosse (whom we do refer to) or Sander Gilman's prodigiously erudite output of 80 books that deal with Zionism and race, race and genetics in a Zioonist context etc., bring them to bear, add them to the article. I don't own the article.

When Endelman, who in fact uses two works from Gilman on the ' The double bind in which Jewish scientists found themselves' writes:-

Jewish scholars and scientists were therefore forced to confront the new race science and, in the words of Todd Endelman, "ome disputed the stability and permanence of racial traits and the existence of pure races. Others internalized racial thinking and then unconsciously reworked and subverted its premises. Still others accepted the idea of racial differences but turned conventional stereotypes on their head."

readers will find this much easier going that consulting Gilman's wonderful but extremely intense works. For example, that idea is expressed by Gilman as follows:

‘None of the Jewish physicians involved in the debate about were able to separate the premise of biological determinism from the arguments about the “Jewish race” and achieve an understanding of what “predisposition” implies as an ideological construct. There can be externalization in the form of a romantic reversal and resultant transvaluation of categories. Thus the representations of control applied to the stereotyped group are internalized and seen as a positive attribute, Certainly there is no better fin-de-siècle example than Theodor Herzl’s reversal of the pejorative sense associoated with the label “Oriental” as applied to the Jews . .And finally, there can be a recontextualization of such categories. The qualities are accepted as valid but alternative explanations are sought….etc.etc. Sander Gilman,The Case of Sigmund Freud: Medicine and Identity at the Fin de Siècle, John Hopkins University Press 1993 p.221

No doubt you and I are comfortable reading that, but Endelman's paraphrase of Gilman's point looks more accessible. In checking my copies of two of Gilman's books, further, I couldn't find, at a quick glance, any mention of 'Zionism and race' or 'Zionism and genetics'. So faute de mieux, I had to exclude consideration of the above passage. This objection only has weight if you don't add material from those sources into our article. Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is not the neglect of Gilman as such, but about the way the article has been built in a fundamentally problematic way: looking for texts which mention all three terms together. If it proceeded organically from an obviously existing topic, it would be easy to go through Gilman's work and include the relevant materials. I wouldn't mind doing that, time allowing, if we settle on a clear topic focus; it seems pointless to do it now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the 'fundamental flaw' which no one can document. There are over a dozen sources which are explicit that the topic does exist. Going through Gilman's work means selecting from 80 volumes, not to speak of articles, those passages where he links his studies to Zionism. Which book? His book on Freud just mentions that Freud like his almost nextdoor neighbour Herzl grew an 'Assyrian' beard to assert his 'oriental' origins, and not quake and conceal them. Gilman's book on Kafka mentions the Holy Land on p.230. I can see any treatment of Zionism. You would have to show which book of Gilman's deals with Zionism and race. One existing topic which has zero representation on wikipedia is the Jewish body in racial literature. There's a vast, extraordinarily detailed account of these racial stereotypes in Gilman's magisterial studies on the pathologization of Jewishness. There's an article just begging to be written. The 'clear topic focus' here is, as stated in the title, Zionism, race and genetics, which is a thematic triad authorized by Falk's 'Zionism, race and eugenics.' I'm wary of proposals that say, 'let's change the topic, and do something else'. Everybody on wikipedia is at liberty to develop a different topic focus and link it to this, with a note to the effect I'm going to do ***. See my sandbox and contribute if possible. There is no evidence, other than what you suggest you might do, that anyone here has any such intention of embarking on a project of the kind.By the way, someone should seriously look at the Sander Gilman wikibio. It is a disgracefully short stub, with no evidence anyone has ever read anything from Gilman. A genius writes 80 books on Jewish stereotypes, and nary a squeak from anybody that this huge mass of original and pathfinding reorientation of virtually the whole field furnishes anything of use to the many articles we have on these topics (I did cite him for Franz Kafka years ago, but only a snippet from a fundamental study). That is what editors should be doing, not wasting more time than is due on endless talk page litigation. Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

“Zionism Race and Eugenics” is not a book or article. Rather it’s a chapter within Falk’s book, “Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism”. Drsmoo (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"Jewish American critics"

Twice this paragraph, recently reverted, uses the weasel-phrase "Jewish American critics." Who are these nameless, monolithic critics? It's not enough to say that Burton refers to them. Andre🚐 04:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I wikilinked it, idk if that helps at all. Why do you think it is "weasel"? It's attributed and the identification is clear enough for the purpose. Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"Jewish American critics" is not an attribution. That is too vague and unspecific. Akin to "some critics." Just because we know the critics are Jewish American doesn't un-weasel it. Andre🚐 17:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Does the linked article mention the American critics? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If Burtin says Jewish American critics and she’s a reliable source (she is) then it’s technically ok, even if it might be helpful to know who (eg if mainstream or marginal). BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it's MOS:WEASEL, an unsupported attribution, biased, and unfair. It must be changed or removed. "Jewish American critics" is borderline anti-Semitic as a monolithic description. It'd be like if I wrote "the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action upset the blacks."Andre🚐 19:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

In Jewish studies, it is common to distinguish the views of American Jews from European Jews (and, later, Israeli Jews) from non-Jews, e.g., people write about the views of "American Jewish scholars" (or "supporters" or "critics", of Zionism or whatever) vs "European Jewish scholars", etc. Scholars study and write about the variation in views on Jewish topics amongst Jews and non-Jews in various parts of the world, e.g. in Holocaust scholarship, Zionist scholarship, Israeli/Palestinian conflict scholarship, etc. This isn't to say that any of these groups are monolithic; the groups are usually qualified, e.g. "some" or "most." But it's not borderline antisemitic--these distinctions are made by Jewish scholars as well as non-Jewish scholars. If a more specific attribution than "some critics" can be sourced, the Misplaced Pages article should do that, but sometimes the sources just say "some critics," so that's all there is to summarize. Levivich (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions And yes it's problematic and borderline antisemitic to claim that When Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe (1976) propounded the thesis that the origins of the Ashkenazi might be found in the dispersion of the Turkic Khazars, the book encountered an extreme hostility especially among Jewish American critics. Though the book's genetic implications are no longer regarded as tenable, this severity of critical dismissal, according to Elise Burton, reflected an inability or unwillingness to take cognisance of a tradition of a racializing logic in Zionist discussions of a putative Jewish biolog Actually, the Khazar hypothesis is used by antisemites to question Jewish heritage. Andre🚐 20:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"used by" does not mean "characterized by". Just as Wagner wrote fairly innocuous operas, yet first his music, and now his name, have taken on unsavory connotations. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

These things are determined by paraphrase of sources. Burton writes p.422

Unfortunately for Koestler, what had once been a viable, if not popular, hypothesis on the origins of Ashkenazim was received in 1976 as a polemic of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Koestler included an appendix to The Thirteenth Tribe stating, “whether the chromosomes of people contain genes of Khazar or Semitic, Roman or Spanish origin, is irrelevant, and cannot affect Israel’s right to exist—nor the moral obligation of any civilized person, Gentile or Jew, to defend that right” (Koestler 1976, p. 223). But this disclaimer fell on the deaf ears of Koestler’s critics, who noted that the potential Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim, the majority of the world’s Jewish population, had been repeatedly invoked by opponents of Zionism at the United Nations—including during a General Assembly vote in 1975, just months before his book’s debut, on a resolution that designated Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination” (Grossman 1976; Rosensweig 1977). American Zionists thus vehemently attacked Koestler’s work as a product of Jewish self-hatred. Ironically, they generally praised Patai and Wing’s The Myth of the Jewish Race (indeed, it won a National Jewish Book Award in 1976), even though Patai and Wing also acknowledged the Khazar hypothesis without as thoroughly endorsing it.'

It's nonsense to invoke 'antisemitism' borderline or not. I remember Leon Wieseltier's savage review in the New York review of Books. Burton states American Zionists not Jewish-American critics. I sometimes tire of the word 'Zionist' which means describing complex people only in terms of an ideology, something one should be careful about. The only thing that needs fixing is changing Jewish Americans to 'American Zionists'. 'some' etc. is to ignore what Burton is stating. That is the weasel word.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That would indeed change the meaning and make it less problematic, Nishidani. Please change it accordingly. As you know, Jewish Americans and American Zionists are two radically different venn diagram bubbles. You also need to paraphrase more closely to this passage which discusses that the Khazar so-called polemic was viewed and criticized as antisemitic and anti-Zionist. Andre🚐 21:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Burton's usage perfectly justifies 'American Jewish'. I'm watching a film so I didn't quote what continues. It reads:

the critical response to their works, particularly within the Israeli genetics community, revealed what the authors themselves were unable or perhaps unwilling to recognize: the significant extent to which Zionism, like any other ethnic nationalism, relies on a racializing logic of biological ancestry. The publication of their books also coincided with a sea change in American Jewish attitudes toward Israel and Zionism. Prior to the 1960s, most American Jews had cultivated only lukewarm attachments to Israel, remaining largely focused on assimilation as a strategy for survival and advancement in the United States. In that context, Koestler and Patai’s anti-racist narratives of Jews as an admixed people could be warmly received. However, by the late 1960s (especially after Israel’s June War victory), American Jewish public support for and identification with Israel rapidly increased; as a result, American Jews increasingly absorbed and repeated Zionist narratives about Jewish ethnic distinctiveness and ancestral origins in the Middle East (Shain 2002). This sea change, which accounts for the mixed reception of the two books in the 1970s, is also reflected in the political and intellectual activities of some Jewish scientists at American universities. pp423-423

These apparent problems only arise when one does not check the source, but rather relies exclusively on the text given in the article. One cannot evaluate an article's text except by comparing the source, to see if the paraphrase is faithful or distorts. I prefer my original construal.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This is quite a different statement because it's talking about general American Jewish attitudes and not specific critics. As far as Iskandar's edit, changing American Jews to Zionists is a good clarification, at least it's now broad-brushing an ideology and not an ethnoreligious identity.Andre🚐 21:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No.You can only maintain that by ignoring the sentence 'This sea change, which accounts for the mixed reception of the two books in the 1970s. That throws light on what preceded which I bolded. 'American Zionists' were part of a trend in the American Jewish public' to support Israel so that'American Jews' increasingly absorbed and repeated Zionist narratives'. You prefer to restrict this to 'American Zionists' whereas Burton is quite clear that the vehemently negative reception of Koeslter's book reflected a trend among American Jews, not just 'Zionists'. Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No. Again, you're equating American Jews and American Zionists. American Jewish public support for Israel and Zionism rapidly increased. This much is clear from what you're posting. It does not say that American Jewish critics criticized Koestler. It says that American Zionists attacked Koestler. It says that Koestler had a mixed reception (doesn't mixed mean mixed, and not negative). You've distorted all of this to claim that American Jews attacked Koestler as a monolithic group. Which does allude to an antisemitic trope. American Jews, as a whole, don't do anything. They/we are not a monolithic group. At least Zionists are united by their support for Israel, and it's conceivable that the entire body of Zionists was critical of Koestler. You're assuming that American Jewish attitudes as a generalization can be used to claim that this means that American Jewish critics attacked Koestler. Nobody said that. Andre🚐 22:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I was a reader of these things at the time. Most reviews came out from the US, and, naturally, were written by American Jews. Don't trust my memory. Just read around. E.g.

The American-Jewish reviews of The Thirteenth Tribe that I know of are very negative. Jits van Straten, The Origin of Ashkenazi Jewry:The Controversy Unraveled, de Gruyter ISBN 978-3-110-23606-4 2011 p.20

You realise all of this niggling fuss was caused by your odd belief that there was something antisemitic writing, quite appropriately, 'Jewish American critics' given what the source states? There is nothing antisemitic about 'Jewish-American critics'. The overwhelmingly majority of reviewers of Koestler's work were, naturally, Jewish-American. Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It does indeed allude to antisemitic tropes and is borderline antisemitic to claim that American Jews as a monolith criticized Koestler. and now you explicitly refer to your original research which is forbidden here. And to support your claim we have your pulling rank based on personal anecdata, accusing me of a "niggling fuss" and an "odd belief," and we have Dr. van Straten, a controversial German revisionist who also likes the Khazar hypothesis and hypotheses that Ashkenazi Jews are in fact Slavs. These are indeed borderline antisemitic and violation of NPOV that represents your own specific subjective spin. Andre🚐 22:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If it is referring to the "critics" then surely it is referring only to those "critics", not the wider population from which that criticism derives? In that context, I don't see the monolith. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Which critics? Again it's a weasel and consists of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The sentence says that the Jewish American critics were unfairly hostile. It's undue weight on a particular interpretation not borne out in the sources here. We don't have the evidence that those Jewish American critics were critical or that it was especially among them. Andre🚐 23:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I write from sources. I don't talk around, over, around speculatively about what I read. I just paraphrase. An editor should never usurp the sources, except when they are patently wrong according to better later sources, by challenging them, as you appear to do. I have given proof that my edit was quite correct. You don't accept it. Nishidani (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, you are distorting the sources. The sources do not support the statement in the article and it is too liberal of a paraphrase. Andre🚐 23:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The distortion is all yours, even if I'm fairly sure it's not intentional. One should never be complacent about interpretations that are obviously wrongfooted, so I did what any editor should do, if they were to argue that "Jewish-American critics" is a term allusive of 'antisemitic tropes and is borderline antisemitic.' (Just in technical terms 'tropes' here is misused). For it is, on the face of it, laughable in contradicting English usage. So just for the good of the English language,- I have no interest in convincing you,- any careful reader would google first (1) "Jewish-American" (7,740,000 results, then (2) Look up American Jews where the term is used repeatedly. (3) then restrict the search to "Jewish-American critics" and they will get over 5,000 hits. It is a standard phrase in this kind of discourse, and a known identity grouping. Your confusion on this is caused by misconstruing "critics" which 'American-Jewish' qualifies as referring to, a 'monolith'. In context that doesn't mean all American-Jewish critics think alike, to a man. If you are correct, standard English literary talk is seething with Jew-hatred. It's a serious, if silly, accusation.

• If you say 'American Jewish writers have written some of the best-known American novels ' that means, to no native speaker, that all American Jewish writers have written some of the best American novels.
• The writer and the Israeli readers of Noam Gil, Why Are American-Jewish Authors Obsessed With the 'Ugly Israeli'? Haaretz 18 August 2022 do not understand by that title that American-Jewish Authors, to a person, are obsessed with criticizing Israel. Were it taken that way, it would be obviously counterfactual.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• If you say:'American Jewish thinkers have grappled with the necessity for new ways of conceiving human ethics,' that doesn't imply that Saul Kripke, Jerry Fodor, Allan Bloom and Noam Chomsky address that crux, even if many of their philosophical American-Jewish colleagues have done so. Bloom and Chomsky defend a tradition, if in diametrically opposed ways (one ancient, the other modern).
• if one writes:'Japanese-Americans have made significant contributions to agricultural development in Western-Pacific parts of the United States,' no native reader would fall into thinking that Yoko Ono and Ray Yoshida spent time farming in the US Northwest.
• This is called Sprachgefühl, which means native fluency in a language such that you do not misconstrue its nuanced drift, but hear and read for context. Generally, readers of English automatically realize this is the way to construe such generalizations. You have failed to take what the context leaves no margin for doubting is the proper meaning intended by the author(ess). I won't be replying. I'm stating the obvious, which occasionally needs a rational defense when challenged, but if still denied, well . .it's time for breakfast here. Goodbye.Nishidani (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

All of your text-walling and your accusation that I am not a native speaker of English (of course I am), does not change the fact that the prose which your wrote, about the "extreme hostility" on the part of the Jewish-American critics (who still, are weasel-worded against wiki guidelines and remain nameless and unattributed, a faceless mass of these extremely hostile critics) does not appear in the sources at all. At best it discusses a mixed reception along with the growth of Zionism amongst American Jews. I have made a change as such in the article. You may choose not to engage further, but I've done nothing to deserve such aggressive disdain. Andre🚐 06:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Since there seem to be two points here: a mixed reception from the American Jewish community in general, and a hostile reception among American Zionists specifically, how about we just say that -- laying out both statements -- and bring this thread to a collegiate close? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

With that vote of confidence, I've implemented it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I add a note without being hit with the by now meme-like 'aggressive disdain' epithet thrown at me at the AE page?:) Yes, that is in the direction of a sensible solution to this pointless fuss. Unfortunately, it falsifies the source:) The words 'mixed reception' refer to the differences in the way the Patais' and Koestler's books were received. Koestler's book did not get a 'mixed reception': it was widely and hostilely trashed by Jewish-American reviewers, which was certainly not the case with the Patais' book. Just one example:

Arthur Koestler is of course free to go his own way, but not because his grandfathers roamed the steppes. He is no Khazar. The evidence for his Jewishness rests not in the ratio of his blood cells, nor in his Hungarian birth - the Magyars emigrated from Khazaria in the ninth century - but in the much less controversial fact that only a Jew could have taken so much trouble to come up with an alibi for his own self-effacement. (Leon Wieseltier cited in Iain Hamilton, Koestler:A Biography, Secker & Warburg 1982 p.363.)

That's quite funny directed at a man who militated with Lehi/Irgun terrorists, and advocated violence against Arabs to achieve a Jewish homeland. You'll get an inkling of it in the very POV-mashed up wiki page on The Thirteenth Tribe, which is almost wholly dedicated to crushing its topic and the author. It was widely reviewed at the time 1976-1977, which is what we note in our article, but most of the case against him cited on the 13th tribe page comes from comments decades later. It's not the dismissal that is the point, because that work has significant defects, but the sociology of dismissive outcries at the time of its publication which Burton captures nicely.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes. My mistake. It doesn't seem like that leaves any single statement in Burton summary that is exactly ideal in supporting the 'Jewish American' line. I wonder if there is another source that we can find summarizing the reception that doesn't require us to resort to loose paraphrasing or anecdotal examples. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. That merely complicates the page and absolves us of the responsibility to paraphrase clearly what a major source says, and there is little doubt Burton's meaning is clear. No one noticed this as problematical, save for one editor who see it as 'antisemitic'. A lot of editors here, myself included I might claim, have antennae that twitch at anything which might, even slightly, smell of that kind of shit. They never saw it. Well, on the other hand, it's not rare for many people's cognitive antennae to be more highly tuned than the others. So, if I can stir myself out of a kind of otiose tedium at this micro-issue over the next few days, I'll tweak it, though I am dead certain the original phrasing was fair to Burton's text. I might add that it is a good instance of what happens when a general expression constitutes a category in philosophical terms (i.e., defines itself in a way that excludes exceptions), but in the restless shiftiness of semantic usage, slips its anchors from pure logic (everyday language does this with stubborn and creative luxury) because language primarily functions as a social cement, where all users are assumed to recognize how to disentangle the equivocations instinct in speech, viewed abstractly. Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

if I can stir myself out of a kind of otiose tedium at this micro-issue over the next few days, I'll tweak it, though I am dead certain the original phrasing was fair to Burton's text

+ 100. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources on Zionism, race and genetics

In a review of the bibliography, I was reminded why I originally proposed the current title for this article. The diagram to the right is the reason. As I have said earlier, I originally set out to write an article on Zionism and genetics, but found that all sources which cover that in detail also cover race. This is because the way that the “Jewish race” question was used in Zionist ideology is the precursor of the way that the “Jewish genes” question is used in Zionist ideology today; for the avoidance of doubt, this last statement is confirmed by 100% of sources on the topic, and disputed by none. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

(The Venn diagram is an awesome discussion tool.) What are some examples of stuff that would be in the white "Jewish race" section that's not in the white "Jewish genes" section, and vice versa? Levivich (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Levivich, a very good question that I was thinking through in the process of making the diagram. There are a huge number of sources about race science on Jews, from European antisemitic race science, to the work of Jewish race scientists (e.g. as summarized in Fishberg's 1911 work); it really deserves an article of its own (Racial studies on Jews?). For Jewish genes, I was thinking mostly of Genetic studies on Jews. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: (I know you're watchlisting but pinging so you can more easily find this reply on a busy talk page, lmk if you'd rather I didn't.) Ok I get that, thanks. My next question is why is the yellow encompassing two sections and not just the middle section? I think that's the correct coloring, if I'm understanding it right, but it leads to another question. Are you saying that all of Zionism+genetics is the same as Zionism+race+genetics; in other words, there is no such thing as "Zionist non-race genetics"? And if so, doesn't that mean that "Zionist+genetics" is a subset of "Zionist+race", in which case... the title should be Zionism and race (already suggested somewhere on this page)? I feel like, while Jewish genetics is broader than Jewish race (there are non-race-related aspects of Jewish genetics), Zionist genetics is a subset of Zionist race studies (there are no non-race-related aspects of Zionism and race). I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong, or if you disagree or agree, but that's what the coloring of the Venn diagram suggests to me. Levivich (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Levivich: another good question, thank you. My conclusion is that all sources which cover "Zionism and genetics" also discuss race, primarily in the context of history but sometimes in the context of "reification" (to quote Kohler, i.e. "bringing to life"). The plethora of sources on just "Zionism and race" are all historical by nature - i.e. they stop the story at a certain point in history (usually WWII, sometimes before). So Zionism and genetics is a continuation rather than a subset of Zionist race studies - when making the chart I thought about this point but I couldn't figure out how to visualize this distinction between continuation and subset.

What this means is that an article called "Zionism and race" would have to stop at around WWII, whereas this article covers a topic that continues in to the present day. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Eugenics is the bridge (Falk). Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And Mendelian genetics as mentioned by a number of the sources below; both overlapped with early 20th century race science. Like all scientific evolutions, there was a grey area during the shift from race to genetics. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

(That grey area was a very, very dark shade of grey.) What about three articles, even some start as stubs: Zionism and race (up to mid-20th c), Zionist eugenics (20th c), Zionism and genetic studies on Jews (or Zionism and Jewish genetics, mid-20th to present)? Each article could summarize and link the other two (in the first, in an "aftermath" section; in the third, in a "background" section). Reader gets the same information, and it would avoid editorial difficulties (like figuring out what's DUE) encountered if Misplaced Pages covers all three in a single article (even though there are RSes that do this). Levivich (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This is why I would rather dispense with the too broad (imo) "genetics" and go with biology as in Zionist views of race and biology (I would put Jews/Jewish in there but some resistance to that). Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This has been a really helpful clarification and I think that either Levivich's split suggestion or Selfstudier's title narrowing would solve the core problem. Onceinawhile says all sources which cover "Zionism and genetics" also discuss race, which to me suggests that the "Zionism and genetics" material is a sub-category of "Zionism and race". This seems to contradcit the conclusion What this means is that an article called "Zionism and race" would have to stop at around WWII, whereas this article covers a topic that continues in to the present day. On the contrary, a Zionism and race article (ideally with a better title, such as that given by Selfstudier) could include a section on the later period. Alternatively, splitting would also work: there'd obviously be overlap between articles, but due weight could be given in each to the material actually most relevant to the identified topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bobfrombrockley: your second sentence is a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent). Whilst all sources which cover the "Politics of cars" also discuss horse-drawn carriages, it is clearly untrue to suggest that "Politics of cars" is a sub-category of "Politics of horse-drawn carriages". Onceinawhile (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

But usually as a minor anecdote, and sometimes described as controversial, or in the form of contrasting the two. Very rarely is it in the form of one coherent subject. Drsmoo (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless you are using the phrase "very rarely" in an artistic manner, this comment is evidence that you have yet to read the list of sources provided below. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I can only assume your understanding of the phrase “one coherent subject” differs from what one would typically expect. To clarify, I would consider Tekiner as an example of a source centered on arguing the three subjects are tied together. This is in contrast to Weitzman, or even more so Gissis, who barely mentions Zionism at all. Drsmoo (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. Added to your Abu El Haj comment earlier, you have now explicitly acknowledged that 2 of the 10 bolded names in the list of sources below represent core sources addressing the scope of this article. You have also added 1 which wasn’t bolded (Tekiner) and denied 1. So we are at 3 so far, and you still have 7 bolded names to comment on. Most of those are very easy to see and will take you no time at all. Thanks for engaging here. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If all articles on "Politics of cars" did cover "Politics of horse-drawn carriages" then perhaps the former would be a sub-article of the latter, but obviously cars are not a sub-category of horse-drawn carriages and obviously most sources on cars would not cover carriages. However, genetics is kind of a sub-category of race, or at least of biological descent, and you've already told us that all articles on Zionism and genetics do also cover Zionism and race, so in fact it's clear from your evidence that Zionism and genetics is a sub-article of Zionism and race (or at least Zionism and biological descent).

If, on the other hand, you want to argue that race is to genetics what carriages are to cars, then we definitely need to split the article, it's simply not sustainable to say that carriages and cars are the same, even if a some sources connect them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Surely the solution to this hypothetical conundrum would simply to have an article title along the lines of the "politics of land-based vehicular transport", i.e. one that explicitly embraces both horse-drawn carriages and cars (or the approach of "Zionism and the biology of the Jews" by Falk)?Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes exactly. This is the obvious answer. Our roads had both carriages and cars on them at the same time for many decades; the politics was ultimately about making it easy for people to get from A to B, whilst minimizing various forms of pollution. Talking about topics like this separately requires focusing primarily on modern times, rather than the whole story from the beginning, and then a large amount of duplication for the overlap period.

Bob, the sources are crystal clear that the political interplay with race science shifted over time to interplay with genetic science. Is there a good reason to hide or downplay this fact from our readers? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, Onceinawhile, You don't seem to be saying the same thing as each other. I think I've already said that I'm happy with a more general frame, as proposed by Selfstudier and others (I think "race" or "race and biology" is the equivalent to Iskandar323's land-based vehicular transport here) but that wouldn't mean focusing primarily on modern times (see WP:RECENTISM); it would mean building on the currently already strong historical section as the core of the article and precisely avoiding a presentist teleology that has genetics as the destination. Alternatively, if you want an article that focuses primarily on modern time, i.e on genetics in the state of Israel, then the split proposal made by Levivich and others is the best way to achieve that, via a focused article on the thing you seem to think we most need an article about. (The current post-1948 section of the article isn't much about Zionism so much as Israeli national identity, not quite the same thing.) As I said, I'm happy with either option. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think genetics needs to either go or be replaced in the title, not because it is wrong, but because it is simply causing confusion and causing too much emphasis to be placed on the latter. "Zionism and race" would not be too problematic as a title on it own and would still encompass most if not all of what is in the article. As it stands, the word "race" continues to appear throughout the history section, with only a few dry spells in the later parts, and this is because the language of "race" switches to the language of "genes" - one source, I can't remember which but I suspect Falk, specifically makes this point. I prefer Falk's book title, but I fear that might fail to pass muster in terms of WP:CONCISE, and "Zionism and biology" as a contraction introduces problematic vagueness and imprecision. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

From Generation to Generation: The Genetics of Jewish Populations - Rosenberg, Weitzman

“Criticism of human population genetics, especially from scholarly fields that as a premise regard the scientific endeavor with skepticism, has asserted continuity between this earlier race science and present-day genetics research— an argument that in the view of many practicing geneticists dramatically exaggerates the linkages, belies their personal orientations toward their own research programs, underestimates the consideration they devote to challenges and subtleties of issues of race in genetics, and unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics.”

Is there a good reason to hide or downplay the fact that the asserted continuity is controversial, expressed by critics of population genetics and is disputed? Do you think Misplaced Pages should be impugning a field of research by expressing a controversial view held by critics in “Misplaced Pages’s voice”? Drsmoo (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: thanks for this excellent source; 3 of its 6 pages are dedicated to the scope of this article and my point to Bob above. It is introducing and summarizing two papers from the same journal already in our bibliography - Kahn (2013) and Efron (2013). I suggest you read the text before and after the quote you brought:

Two commentaries seek to probe more directly the connections between present-day research on Jewish population genetics and other current and past areas of scholarship on Jewish populations. Historian John Efron examines the relation- ship between present-day Jewish population genetics and earlier nineteenth-century research in physical anthropology (for a sampling of the earlier scholarship, see Hart 2011). Efron’s contribution aims to fill in the historical background of this past science, noting the rationale that motivated its researchers—some of whom were themselves Jewish. He explores the historical link between topics examined then and still considered now and interprets the meaning of their persistence. Efron’s contribution includes a discussion of the history of the Khazar theory and its origins among Russian Jewish scientists of the late nineteenth century. Geneticists today work hard to distinguish their assumptions and methods from the “race science” of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a subject made infamous by its role as a rationale for Nazi eugenic policies and genocidal practice, and they do not identify at all with the race scientists’ near-extinct intellectual tradition. Criticism of human population genetics, especially from scholarly fields that as a premise regard the scientific endeavor with skepticism, has asserted continuity between this earlier race science and present-day genetics research—an argument that in the view of many practicing geneticists dramatically exaggerates the linkages, belies their personal orientations toward their own research programs, underestimates the consideration they devote to challenges and subtleties of issues of race in genetics, and unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics. Especially in the ways that it enters the public dialogue, however, present-day research in Jewish genetics has sometimes been treated as reintroducing a biological conception of Jewish identity that many may have thought permanently discredited by the Holocaust and its catastrophic racialization of Jewish identity. At the same time that such research is raising concerns among those worried that it is re-racializing Jewishness, it is also exerting a strong fascination both for Jews themselves and for others curious about possible Jewish ancestry in their own lineages…

In summary, this piece says:

• Scholars are examining the connection between Jewish genetics and race science in detail
• Geneticists themselves "work hard" to show their methods and approaches are different (no scholar disagrees with this, just as car technology is different from carriage technology)
• Some critics have apparently criticized the motives and actions of the geneticists themselves (not what our core sources or article state)
• In "the ways that it enters the public dialogue, however, present-day research in Jewish genetics has sometimes been treated as reintroducing a biological conception of Jewish identity... such research is raising concerns among those worried that it is re-racializing Jewishness" (exactly what all the core sources in our article describe in detail, and no-one disagrees with, including the authors of this piece)

It is this last bullet that has unambiguously wide scholarly consensus.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Efron 2013 does not use the words Zionism or Zionist once; it does not mention the politics of post-1948 Israel; it does not discuss any Zionist race scientists (Jacobs was not a Zionist, and Weissenberg believed in the integration of Russian Jews into the Russian nation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

And Weizmann and Rosenberg do not use the word Zionism or Zionist either, nor the politics of post-1948 Israel, nor Zionist race scientists. Our article duly notes per sources the fact that Zionists and non-Zionists (assimilationists) disagree on racde science. jacobs and Weiseenberg. Efron 2013 is largely a brief recap, for that symposium, of the results of his 1994 book which refers to Zionism 279 times. he didn't in that paper. Nishidani (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Well yes. If I recall correctly it's recapping material from the first part of the book, before he moves on to Zionism. I guess one point is that the position some of us have been querying is that all three words in the title form one topic, and here's an example with the second two but not the first. More importantly, to be NPOV it's crucial that our article is very clear that Zionist race science (as well as not being homogeneous) very much mirrored non-Zionist race science of the period. I think the excellent Background and Early Zionism sections do currently do that but it gets lost in the article as a whole because of the way it is framed around what I'm calling the continuity thesis (which it disrupts). BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I grew up puzzling over a silly story about triadic divinity. I shrugged that off quickly, but it didn't contaminate my use of the word three. The very first point of the AfD was to mock the idea that any article could encompass three aspects. I thought. Good grief, how could one write Plato's life? One has to interweave the crisis of aristocracy in a new democracy, the social impact of the Peloponnesian war, the epistemic crisis, under an emergent materialist science, between heraclitean flux and Parmenidean ontology, the culture of homosexuality etc.etc. to grasp the key aspects of the dynamics of his metaphysics. Why the uneasiness about multiple factors? Perhaps I'm an old duffer, the dull victim of an eccentric education, which used to be normal, but now suffers from the unfamiliarity of desuetude?

History, any history, is, to adopt Ostrer's own metaphor, a tapestry of distinct threads. There is nothing anomalous in writing the history of a theme - the way man over the last half century has tried to measure and, thereby, classify as distinct, human populations. The continuity lies in the project aim, the diversity stems from the great innovations in technique, from the primitive anthropometrics of cephalic indexing to, via blood serum studies, the immensely sophisticated methods of chromosomal analysis. It's not editors here, but numerous texts which establish both the continuities of thematic focus (a Jewish biological identity) and the disruptions. The racial nonsense of the first half century is clearly shown to be such, a caesura occurs after WW2. But the historians, from Lippshardt and Kirsh onwards, note the thematic hangover that bridges the rupture -i-e. the old idea of determining the differential biology and unity of distinct communities remains in the saddle. And this is not specific to Zionism or Israel: the major theorists of the general field, Dunn and Dobzhansky, exemplify the continuity of race, even under the newer dispensation of genetics. Even at the level of method, there are fractures, discontinuities, as two different approaches deploy distinct statistical approaches. We have the ongoing clash between social constructionist versus bio-ontological (scientific) engagements with the topic manifold: this tension is there in early infra-Jewish debates between Lamarckian assimilationists and Darwinian Zionists and, as the literature abundantly shows, returns to plague contemporary genetics (Lipphardt 2012 pp.579-80; Tamarkin 2015 p.1 and many others. We have continuity and rupture, just as, in any field of human scientific endeavour we have shared fundamentals but different theories. I am perplexed that we reach to ply the worry beads just because Israel forms part of this story. The same issues emerge, the same critical dissonances with genetics and race in the United States (Just to instance one of hundreds of studies, one of several I checked out a month ago before embarking on the rewrite, i.e. Kathleen J. Fitzgerald, The Continuing ignificance of Race:Racial Genomics in a Postracial Era, Humanity & Society 2014, Vol. 38(1) 49-66). Israel is an advanced industrial state, controversy is part of its lifeblood, it energizes its cultural elites, and its scholars are at the forefront of all these issues, and politics (as they do everywhere) can inflect core issues for their social implications. This article simply tells a story geneticists in this field debate among themselves, and despite the intricacies, readers don't have many venues available to eavesdrop on what is a fascinating piece of history, which is still of contemporary interest. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, the only reason the rest of that wasn’t quoted was to avoid a wall of text. There is another later part you missed as well. “Kahn calls for a shared understanding between the positions represented by Ostrer and El- Haj, critiquing both Ostrer’s provocative claims about the meaning of the scientific data and the aspersions cast by El-Haj on the science without attending to its actual content. Is Kahn’s call for a shared understanding viable? El-Haj's critique runs deep, arguing that the entire enterprise of Jewish genetics is culturally and politically self-serving. It does not matter to her perspective whether the research is scientifically sound; what is relevant for her project is the subtle apparent continuities with earlier race science, the work the research does as a part of identity construction, and the rhetorical, cultural and political practice that it entails or enables. Does such a perspective have something to discern from people that it considers objects of study? El-Haj does not clarify whether population-genetic research—for Jews or for other population groups—can be a helpful form of inquiry under any circumstance. Would she think she has anything to learn at all from such research? And what can geneticists gain from a scholar like El-Haj who questions the very premises of their work, who seems uninterested in the truth claims that they make as genuine efforts to understand the world, and who reads their scientific efforts only with a hermeneutics of suspicion?

You are confusing “has sometimes been treated as” and “has asserted” with “Is”. It is not a fact, it is an opinion asserted by critics of the field. This article can not state, claim, or infer in Wikipedias voice that population genetics is a continuation of race science without describing it as an assertion made by critics that is viewed by “many practicing geneticists” as inaccurate and as impugning their work. Edit: moved to new section here

Some editors - on all sides of the debate - have disagreed with this above, but I personally wouldn't be opposed to it. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Levivich. Why break up an article into three stubs? What is gained from that, except a huge amount of work, no one knows who or which editors will take on the tasks, picking up the splintered bits of the article, and jerryrigging them into three new topics. That we have an integral theme reflecting extensive sources that treat all elements together in a clear historical sequence is an achievement, giving clarity to the stated thematic interconnections over time. All that splitting does is disappear the continuity. The continuity is what many object to, though it is attested in the sources. Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

In would support this as well. What are your views on the title “Zionism and Jewish Origins”? The scope is a bit different from race/biology, but it could document the development of research into Jewish origins as it relates to Zionism. Drsmoo (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Zionism and Jewish origins would be like a parent article of this article, because its scope would be broader than Zionism and race/genetics, and include non-race/genetic aspects of Zionism and Jewish origins, such as archaeology Levivich (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think "Zionism and Jewish origins" is not the right parent article for the content here now, as the material on race (and I think genetics) is not just about origins but also about Jewish identity and groupness historically and in the present, so we'd be back to something like "Zionism and race" (or maybe "Zionism and biology") as the bigger category. (Jewish origins might be a useful article in its own right, though, and note re archaeology, we have a related article Politics of archaeology in Israel and Palestine.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

What would you suggest in terms of gaining traction towards this/a proposal? There are many differing proposals on this talk page (with some degree of overlap) but so far, there have only been tentative ideas scattered amongst the different threads. It may also be easier for all involved to move to a wider (and IMO, more mainstream) scope, than to split the article, as the wider scope wouldn’t necessitate having to divide the article content. Drsmoo (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You don’t need consensus to have an article with a wider scope – you can start writing it right now. When it is ready we can have a merge discussion as to whether all the detail in this article would be appropriate weight or not to be fully incorporated in the new wider article.

Let me know if you would like any help with drafting the new article. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You created a list of potential alternate titles, are you interested in moving in that direction? Drsmoo (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I am open minded. What I do feel strongly about is that before an RM discussion is opened, at least one of the editors who are actively opposed to the current title should complete a detailed review of the list of sources which cover the current scope, providing explicit agreement/disagreement on whether each of these satisfies the proposed sourcing requirements for the article. Until this happens, none of the actively opposed editors will know if the list of sources stands up to scrutiny, and thus there will not be a solid ground for the discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, as part of that , I think it would be useful to look through the list you’ve provided and document specifically how Zionism, Race, and Genetics are connected/contrasted within that source. Specifically, to ensure appropriate weight. I think there are also scenarios in which someone could completely be in agreement with you per the sources, and still think the current name is clunky or in any other way less than ideal. Drsmoo (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion for moving forward is what I always say: "forwards editing." Take that list of about 30 sources below and cut it down to just the sources that provide WP:SIGCOV of Zionism+race+genetics ... I'm guessing there will be about a dozen but I'm not sure, not having gone through all 30 ... then (re)write this article (with the current title) by summarizing only those sources (all of which would be WP:TIER1 sources with SIGCOV of the topic "Zionism, race, and genetics"), removing anything that can't be sourced to those sources as WP:UNDUE. And just to be clear: this is just what I think should be done, it's not what I'm going to do, nor do I think it's required by any Misplaced Pages policy, it's just how I think articles ought to be written. Levivich (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the goal of cutting down the source-list below to only those which represent our core. That list will then form the foundation for ongoing discussions. On 11 August (11:15 UTC), BobFromBrockley wrote that Egorova, Gissis, Hart, Kandiyoti, Schaffer, Tamarkin and Weitzman do not seem to me to be examples of sustained discussions of the three words in the title together, so I'd bring the 16 down to 9. I believe the emphasis is on sustained here.

Those 9 (referring to the previous list of 16) are: Abu El-Haj, Baker, Burton, Falk, Kohler, Kirsh, McGonigle, Ostrer, Tanny. I would be inclined to add Gissis back to this list given her detailed reviews of Burton, McGonigle and Falk.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I misread but I take your response to Levivich (whose generous impartiality and cogent reasoning at the AfD helped save the stub from deletion), as a tongue-in-cheek ironic reductio ad absurdum. If you both allow me time to shower, eat and digest a plate of Cannelloni, i will address the suggestion within a few hours to show that it has no lien in policy and good practice.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Buon appetito. For the sake of clarity, the below (I have bolded the 9+1 scholars) is what I think of as a "talk page source list", representing a focused group of core sources for those interesting in developing this article to read. If an RM is opened, I think we can assume 95%+ of bona fide voters will not have the time to read our entire bibliography. So building consensus around the core will benefit all involved. Secondly, to Levivich's core point, I also think it provides an objective foundation for structuring the article - such a list may not be perfect but it at least allows some alignment between our disparate group of editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Had all opposing editors taken note of Levivich’s keep vote in the AfD, we would have been saved a month of often pointless argufying. No one can accuse him of partisanship on a difficult topic like this. He recognized the obvious from the outset. A field of sources deals with these three topic together, a fact repeatedly denied for a month.

Onceinawhile’s list of 30 such sources below buried the scepticism, if any skerrick of doubt remained. Levivich, coherently, reafferms this by accepting the title as it stands.

So we are, not only in his view, out of the talkpage’s quagmire, He fairly suggests we leave the past behind, and ‘move forward’. I agree, but disagree with his roadmap. It strikes me as a recipé to go backwards. To employ an analogy, it means taking a musical composition based on the heptatonic scale, and arguing that we should adopt the pentatonic scale, and rewrite by eliding systematically the two notes in the earlier version. One can do that as an exercise, but it does not thereby constitute any grounds for erasing the original composition.

Let us deal with this suggestion slowly and logically.

• WP:SIGCOV refers to the minimal conditions required to create a topic, with guidelines to determine whether it is notable or not.
• Those conditions are fulfilled, and therefore Sigcov is immaterial, since its stipulations for creating articles don’t apply to established articles.
• Levivich’s proposal is to use the notability criteria to determine if an article can be created to argue how an established article should be rewritten. That is highly unusual. I don’t know of any precedent for it. As a content editor, I can see that were it policy, it would mean that at least 6 million articles would have to be rewritten and radically disembowelled of most of their content.

This article developed as the historical background article to Genetic studies on Jews , because as soon as a minimal use of the material was introduced there, it was reverted out immediately by Tombah, who said the mother article was about the science, nothing else, esp. ‘conspiracy theories’ , by which I presume he meant historical context. Now Genetic Studies on Jews is a notorious example of a POV-driven article, based on the privileging of primary sources, which are cherrypicked to construct an appearance of consensus for the ‘thesis’ of the page. It is the exact opposite of our page where high quality academic secondary sources command content. I don’t disturb that article however. I haven’t a year, in a shortening life, to waste my time on correcting it. I do note however that were the sigcov conditions proposed here applied to it, significant things in the historical background would have to be cut, beginning with

As opposed to the religion of Judaism and its formative role in shaping Jewish identity, and the slow formation of a sense of Jewish nationality from Ezra and Nehemiah down to the Hasmoneans and onwards theories on the ethnic origins of Jews, and what constitutes ‘Jewishness’ have been questioned.

The two sources adduced, a book and an article by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Steve Mason, nowhere mention genetics. But the points made are congruent with the article’s focus. I wouldn’t remove them. This is the same for millions of articles. The sigcov criteria don't apply to highly developed articdles, and to expect that they be written according to its minimalist sourcing criteria for creating an article would be to impose an anomalous condition, once more demanding that extraordinary, non-policy based, guidelines be used uniquely for this article alone.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think your paragraph beginning This article developed... is very true, much of the content here necessary for the reader, and what i'm trying to keep in mind in arguing for keeping 'genetics' in the title and as the primary driver of the scope. Zionism is "key", "raises the stakes", etc. that should be enough. All the anthropologists pointing to the dangers of what Kohler calls the 'reification of race' should be enough. The historians pointing out the "circular logic" of verifying an narrative should be enough. All necessary for the reader to know and background reading for genetic studies on Jews and other articles. The Venn diagram above is a good discussion tool, but if SIGCOV and OR are really that exacting then they are probably driving the content in bad ways and leading to some unproductive discussion. Maybe a bit more reader focus would help, what should the reader be aware of before being exposed to some of the Jewish genetics content? Plainly much of this content. fiveby(zero) 15:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. My sense of wiki is that too many important articles (save science ones) omit what the state of the art scholarship discusses. I say this as someone with a background in ancient Greek scholarship. Most of those articles are painful reading to me. So I try, invariably, to ground those articles that attract my attention in what scholarship, as opposed to newspaper reports, short easy-to-read articles, and popular books say. I felt justified in this when Bob, for one, found the outline of the conflict in method between Cavalli-Sforza and the Israeli school 'fascinating'. Should it be there? Well, eliminate that, and a lot of the rest, and the reader will be shortchanged and wikipedia the poorer. We could do without it, of course, but then, as an immediate consequence, the mess at Genetic Studies on Jews would remain incomprehensible if a reader read also that. If the information carefully culled from the best scholarship is unavailable in other wiki articles, and is of first-rate quality, I don't think it should be removed. To remove it would only leave intact the considerable bias of incomplete coverage in so many other articles.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, at least 6 million Misplaced Pages articles need to be rewritten using forward editing instead of backward editing, but don't worry, an AI will do it before the decade is out :-) You've inspired me to write User:Levivich#Forward editing article writing algorithm. My view is that this algorithm could be followed for any section of the Venn diagram, including the middle section (i.e., the current title). For the examples of Cohen and Mason, they may be (in the parlance of this algorithm) core sources for a subtopic even if they're not core sources for the topic, so following the algorithm doesn't necessarily mean removing them from the article. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice! Just noticed this. As a writer and philologist with a Greek ear, algorithm is all Arabic to me, except in the sense that it sounds like it is comprised of blending ἂλγος and ῥυθμός, a 'painful beat'. Fortunately, I'll be dead before that happens, since you speak of a decade, since the jeans I wear now have greater longevity (the one's I have now have withstood tear for 15 years) than the genes I bear, given my family's statistical average:) In any case, it may well be a fine guide for constructing articles. I doubt, as a content technician, its deconstructive value. It's a futuristic experiment, and, so far, we edit according to precedent.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you should add something to the neglected WP:BESTSOURCES part of NPOV policy. "Try the library", "look online", "ask on talk", "ask at RD" has always seemed to me pretty much useless advice (tho i wish RD could help). Would point out tho that there are often authors who do the some of the work of your algorithm for you. Bibliographic narratives, literature surveys, specialist encyclopedias, etc. fiveby(zero) 13:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I really like this algorithm Levivich. I know I've probably edited backwards several times where I think I have a good knowledge of the topic, and I'm sure most committed WP editors are guilty of it from time to time, but I don't know if I've ever seen such an extreme example of backwards editing as this article. Backwards editing is exactly what I've tried to get at by referring above to an article with a thesis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: I realize this has always been your underlying concern here. Now it has been put into clear words, so we can address it. This article, and almost all such articles in are encyclopedia, are created in the grey area between Levivich’s extremes. Two main reasons for this:

• The best sources are confirmed collaboratively over time. It is not realistic to expect all 80-100 scholarly sources are found, read in detail, tiered and cross-checked, all before an initial version is submitted. We have to take an early estimate of what the core sources are, and that was done impressively accurately here: in the very first draft here we had 9 citations, all of which had been read front-to-back before writing that initial draft, of which 5 (Hirsch, Ostrer, Abu El Haj, Falk and Kahn) still today sit proudly within our identified core sources.
• Sweeping summaries don’t work in sensitive topic areas: On potentially controversial topics, the sweeping summary style is too difficult to defend against editors who have not read the works themselves; such editors need to see a brick-by-brick buildup to confirm the citations. From the start this article has used quotations-in-footnotes, sticking close to them in the text. That is why there have been no edit-wars on this article, despite all the talk page disagreement, and we should be proud of that.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The forwards editing approach does not require that 100 sources are digested before writing begins; it simply requires fidelity to the what the core sources say rather than seeking and mining sources for the bits where they support a pre-defined thesis. Neither I nor Levivich nor anyone else is in favour of sweeping summaries; we just want the possibility of an encyclopedic overview. As well as appreciating the research work that has gone in to the article, I strongly support the usage of quotations-in-footnotes, which have indeed facilitated collaborative use of the sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

How does continuation differ from ”inherits from “ in this regard?

Per this diff Special:MobileDiff/1169167321, could you clarify why “inherits from”, as opposed to continuation is a misrepresentation? Drsmoo (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a subclass. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Not referring to computer science. I mean in plain English, what is the distinction between “inherits from” and a continuation.

If this article is about the intersection of the three points, we should also clearly delineate their differences.

To circle back, what exactly is meant by continuation? If continuation != “modern race science” what are the areas of difference? Drsmoo (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

In road transportation, the car continues the purpose of the horse and carriage (in the language of our article it replaced horse-drawn carriages). But it would be odd to say that a car inherited from a horse and carriage, even though they both have wheels and seats. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s reasonable. So if I understand you correctly, your perspective is that, per the sources provided, the uniting factor between Race Science and Genetics in this context is their purpose, with their purpose being Zionism. Drsmoo (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

History is not teleological except theologically. 'Race, science and genetics' don't aren't driven by a purpose. Zionism in this context is not a purpose. historical actors react to specific situations by making choices, those choices have unintended effects. Sometimes they assume discursive authority and executive power. The three elements in the topic show the history of developments, not any purpose.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s reasonable as well. So with regard to the history of developments, I see value in, per the sources, and if the title of the article remains the same, assessing and expressing the ways in which the three share similarities, and the ways in which they are different. Does that seem useful? Drsmoo (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The foremost problem in writing wiki articles is that one is constrained to bow to the sources. One must work within the limits of what sources state. I don't know how many times, rewriting this, I thought:'that could be phrased better' but the text says what it says, and I must stick to a close paraphrase; 'I wish the author(s) expanded more or this or that. These comments are not quite exhaustive, and beg questions'; 'Ah, I know a lot about this angle. But, dammit, mum's the word. because my other historical sources do not deal with zionism and race, or some combination of these three, so it's better left as it is', etc. What you suggest is finding ways to express the way the three share similarities'. I agree it would be great to have several 'metacritiques', rather than the few we have (I've heard some are in the wings in the not too distant future), Burton above all, which would expatiate more thoroughly on precisely the dialectics governing the similarities, but also the marked differences, between the three. We must wait. We can't invent anything. What we do have is several sources that do note aspects of these and we have to rely on them, faute de mieux. The outline they provide gives us both similarities and differences, as our article shows, though not in the detail we'd wish for. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, without looking for it, but while trying to meet Bob's request about more from Gilman, I came across a passage precisely bridging the two matters, the difference and yet the similarity between the biology of the day as it influenced Herzl's worldview and 'the appropriation of today’s racial arguments in genetic terms.' I've duly entered the point on our article. Small progress, but a step ahead nonetheless in this direction.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, could you please list which of those sources cover all three as a singular subject? I know we have the chapter “Zionism Race and Eugenics” from Falk’s book “Jewish Traditions and the Challenge of Darwinism”. Drsmoo (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Not Falk's book. He wrote an essay included in a book edited by Cantor and Swetlitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

Below are sources which cover this topic as a singular subject. This is a slight expansion on the prior list of 16 scholars. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, what’s your assessment from these sources on how the three topics are compared and contrasted? Are they treated as being of a kind, different, or a bit of both? Do you find a great deal of agreement across these sources? If not, how do they differ? Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you have perused the material yourself, why not just make your point? Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to organize the article based on a holistic sense of the way the three topics are compared and contrasted.

Ie., here are the similarities, here are the differences, here are the transition points where one field flowed into another developmentally, here is where they diverged, etc. Drsmoo (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't been shown that the article needs reorganization. It was consistently denied sources deal with all three topics, therefore, reformulate, TNT, rewrite, rearrange. If the evidence below is correct, these assumptions collapse, as do arguments it should be rewritten.19:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

• Abu El-Haj, Nadia (2012). The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology. Chicago Studies in Practices of Meaning. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-20142-9. Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
• Baker, Cynthia M. (2017). "Zionism's New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew". Jew. Key Words in Jewish Studies. Rutgers University Press. pp. 97–110. ISBN 978-0-813-57386-1. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
• Burton, Elise K. (2021). Genetic Crossroads: The Middle East and the Science of Human Heredity. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-503-61457-4. Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
• Egorova, Yulia (2015). ""Jewish genetics" : DNA, culture, and historical narrative". In Valman, Nadia; Roth, Laurence (eds.). The Routledge handbook of contemporary Jewish cultures. Routledge. pp. 353–364. ISBN 978-0-203-49747-0. Archived from the original on 2023-06-06. Retrieved 2023-07-14.
• Falk, Raphael (2006). "Zionism, race and eugenics". In Cantor, George; Swetlitz, Marc (eds.). Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism. University of Chicago Press. pp. 137–162. ISBN 978-0-226-09301-7. Archived from the original on 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-18.
• Falk, Raphael (2017). Zionism and the Biology of Jews. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-57345-8. Archived from the original on 2023-07-07. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
• Gissis, Snait B. (2022). "Is nationalizing universalizing and/or vice-versa?". History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 44 (3). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 45. doi:10.1007/s40656-022-00527-6. ISSN 0391-9714. PMID 36070029. S2CID 252784684.
• Gissis, Snait (2009). "Reviewed Work: םידוהיה לש היגולויבהו תונויצה (Zionism and the Biology of the Jews) by Raphael Falk". Aleph. 9 (1). Indiana University Press: 158–160. ISSN 1565-1525. JSTOR 40385942. Retrieved 2023-07-22.
• Gissis, Snait B. (2008). "When is 'race' a race? 1946–2003. Chapter: "Journal articles by Israeli authors"". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 39 (4). Elsevier BV: 437–450. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.09.006. ISSN 1369-8486. PMID 19026975.
• Hart, Mitchell B. (2011). Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880-1940. Brandeis library of modern Jewish thought. Brandeis University Press. ISBN 978-1-584-65717-0. Archived from the original on 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
• Hirsch, Dafna (2009). "Zionist eugenics, mixed marriage, and the creation of a 'new Jewish type'". Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 15 (3): 592–609. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2009.01575.x. JSTOR 40541701. Archived from the original on 2022-11-02. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
• Hellström, Petter (2013). "Genetic diaspora, genetic return (reviewing N. A. El-Haj, The genealogical science: The search for Jewish origins and the politics of epistemology)". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 44 (3). Elsevier: 439–442. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.05.007.
• Kahn, Susan Martha (June 2005). "The multiple meanings of Jewish genes". Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry. 29 (2): 179–192. doi:10.1007/s11013-005-7424-5.
• Kahn, Susan Martha (2011). "'Are Genes jewish?' Conceptual Ambiguities in the New Genetic Age". In Sokoloff, Naomi B.; Glenn, Susan A. (eds.). Boundaries of Jewish Identity. University of Washington Press. pp. 12–26. ISBN 978-0-295-80083-7. Archived from the original on 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-15.
• Kahn, Susan Martha (December 2013). "Commentary: Who Are the Jews? New Formulations of an Age‐Old Question". Human Biology. 85 (6): 919–924. doi:10.13110/humanbiology.85.6.0919. JSTOR 10.13110/humanbiology.85.6.0919. S2CID 201761565. Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2023-07-11.
• Kandiyoti, Dalia (2020). The Converso's Return: Conversion and Sephardi History in Contemporary Literature and Culture. Stanford Studies in Jewish History and Culture. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-5036-1244-0. Archived from the original on 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-12.
• Kirsh, Nurit (December 2003). "Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s: The Unconscious Internalization of Ideology". Isis. 94 (4). University of Chicago Press: 631–655. doi:10.1086/386385. ISSN 0021-1753. JSTOR 386385. PMID 15077535. S2CID 42708609.
• Kohler, Noa Sophie (2022). "What are Jews: interrogating genetic studies and the reification of race" (PDF). Journal of Anthropological Sciences. 101 (100). Istituto Italiano Antropologia: 1–16. doi:10.4436/JASS.10001. PMID 35302512.
• Kohler, Noa Sophie (2021-07-26). "Negotiating Jewishness through genetic testing in the State of Israel". TATuP: Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis. 30 (2). Oekom Publishers GmbH: 36–40. doi:10.14512/tatup.30.2.36. ISSN 2567-8833. S2CID 237701995.
• Kohler, Noa Sophie (2014). "Genes as a Historical Archive: On the Applicability of Genetic Research to Sociohistorical Questions: The Debate on the Origins of Ashkenazi Jewry Revisited". Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 57 (1). Project MUSE: 105–117. doi:10.1353/pbm.2014.0000. ISSN 1529-8795.
• McGonigle, Ian V.; Herman, Lauren W. (17 June 2015). "Genetic citizenship: DNA testing and the Israeli Law of Return". Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2 (2): 469–478. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsv027. PMC 5034383. PMID 27774208.
• McGonigle, Ian V. (2021). Genomic Citizenship: The Molecularization of Identity in the Contemporary Middle East. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-36669-4. Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
• Ostrer, Harry (2012). A Genetic History of the Jewish People. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-3-319-57345-8. Archived from the original on 2023-07-01. Retrieved 2023-07-12.
• Parfitt, Tudor; Egorova, Yulia (2005). "Genetics, History and identity: The case of the Bene Israel and the Lemba Culture". Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry. 29 (2): 193–224. doi:10.1007/s11013-005-7425-4. PMID 16249950. S2CID 19691358. Archived from the original on 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-20.
• Prainsack, Barbara; Hashiloni-Dolev, Yael (2009). "Religion and nationhood: Collective identities and the New Genetics: Example 2: 'Falsifying' difference: the story of common ancestry of Palestinian Arabs and Jews". In Atkinson, P.; Glasner, P.; Lock, M. (eds.). The Handbook of Genetics & Society: Mapping the New Genomic Era. Taylor & Francis. pp. 404–421. ISBN 978-1-134-12877-8. Retrieved 2023-07-22.
• Schaffer, Gavin (2010). "Dilemmas of Jewish Difference: Reflections on Contemporary Research into Jewish Origins and Types from an Anglo-Jewish Historical Perspective". Jewish Culture and History. 12 (1–2). Informa UK Limited: 75–94. doi:10.1080/1462169x.2010.10512145. S2CID 143496144. Archived from the original on 2022-10-30. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
• Tamarkin, Noah (2015), Jewish Genetics, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/obo/9780199840731-0112, archived from the original on 2022-11-10, retrieved 2023-07-14
• Tanny, Jarrod (20 May 2013). "What 'Jews a Race' Debate Means for Israel". The Forward. Retrieved 2023-08-06.
• Tekiner, Roselle (1991). "Race and the Issue of National Identity in Israel". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 23 (1). Cambridge University Press: 39–55. ISSN 0020-7438. JSTOR 163931. Retrieved 2023-08-03.
• Weitzman, Steven (2019). "Biological Approaches to the Origin of the Jews". The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-19165-2. Retrieved 2023-07-22.

Continuation of race science ...

Making a new section for this, which started in the “Sources on Zionism, race and genetics” section and has already been responded to by Onceinawhile there:

The asserted linkage between population genetics and race science is not a fact, it is an opinion asserted by critics of the field of population genetics. This article can not state, claim, or infer in Wikipedias voice that population genetics is a continuation of race science without describing it as an assertion made by critics that is viewed by “many practicing geneticists” as inaccurate and as impugning their work.

From Generation to Generation: The Genetics of Jewish Populations - Rosenberg, Weitzman

Criticism of human population genetics, especially from scholarly fields that as a premise regard the scientific endeavor with skepticism, has asserted continuity between this earlier race science and present-day genetics research— an argument that in the view of many practicing geneticists dramatically exaggerates the linkages, belies their personal orientations toward their own research programs, underestimates the consideration they devote to challenges and subtleties of issues of race in genetics, and unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics. Especially in the ways that it enters the public dialogue, however, present-day research in Jewish genetics has sometimes been treated as reintroducing a biological conception of Jewish identity that many may have thought permanently discredited by the Holocaust and its catastrophic racialization of Jewish identity.

Kahn calls for a shared understanding between the positions represented by Ostrer and El- Haj, critiquing both Ostrer’s provocative claims about the meaning of the scientific data and the aspersions cast by El-Haj on the science without attending to its actual content. Is Kahn’s call for a shared understanding viable? El-Haj's critique runs deep, arguing that the entire enterprise of Jewish genetics is culturally and politically self-serving. It does not matter to her perspective whether the research is scientifically sound; what is relevant for her project is the subtle apparent continuities with earlier race science, the work the research does as a part of identity construction, and the rhetorical, cultural and political practice that it entails or enables. Does such a perspective have something to discern from people that it considers objects of study? El-Haj does not clarify whether population-genetic research—for Jews or for other population groups—can be a helpful form of inquiry under any circumstance. Would she think she has anything to learn at all from such research? And what can geneticists gain from a scholar like El-Haj who questions the very premises of their work, who seems uninterested in the truth claims that they make as genuine efforts to understand the world, and who reads their scientific efforts only with a hermeneutics of suspicion?

Drsmoo (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Considerations such as WP:DATED apply quite strongly to this. The work referenced here is from 2013, i.e. a decade-old, which is quite a long time in genetic scholarship. Falk's Zionism and the Biology of the Jews came out in 2017. Of the bolded sources in the list compiled by Once, 8 post-date this piece by Rosenberg and Weitzman, so the information that was available then is simply not the information available now. Perhaps the only scholars addressing this topic then were indeed Ostrer and El- Haj, but that is no longer the situation, and the premise that it is is fairly moribund. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If 2013 is dated, where does that put Abu El-Haj, whom the article analyses, or many (most?) of the sources in this article? One can’t use sources from a wide range of dates, including 1991, and then assert that a source from 2013 is dated, while the older sources it analyzes are not.Drsmoo (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The Falk essay this article is named after “Zionism, race and Eugenics” is from 2006. The others are from 2014, 2006, 2007, and 1998.Drsmoo (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Edited 2017 date to 2006 Drsmoo (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The page can obviously reference all of these sources, but in drawing its conclusions about the current assessment of the topic in scholarship, we obviously want more current sources. Also, it does seem a lot like you are trying to set up and then battle the same straw man that you have waved around a few times here, i.e.: no one has said, and this page does not say, that population genetics is a continuation of race science (that statement itself is fairly daft); the topic here is the influence of Zionism on both early race science and later population genetics, and, as the lead of the page concludes, for the latter, "the interpretation of the genetic data has been unconsciously influenced by Zionism and Anti-Zionism". The only mention of "continuity" in the lead is "thematic continuity". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Zionism and the Biology of the Jews by Falk was originally published, in Hebrew, in 2006 actually. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-57345-8#about-this-book https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/science-in-context/article/abs/zionism-and-the-biology-of-the-jews/E6B2070E215F1C3D9A1CE359621431FDDrsmoo (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Hebrew version is from 2006 Drsmoo (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The later version is revised and edited, and I can't speak to the differences, being neither the editor nor publisher, but that it was republished presumes its currency. The latest version is a 2017 edition, so plenty current, and if it is good enough for Springer then it is good enough for us. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with including that the analysis is from 2013. The broader issue is that this article currently claims in Wikivoice that population genetics is a continuation of race science. It’s self evident that that’s a criticism by social scientists and not a fact that should ever be in wikivoice. That we now have a source that both A.Post-dates most of the core of this article and B. Explicitly states that many geneticists reject this connection makes reformulating the way the connection argument is presented more imperative. Drsmoo (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Your primary assertion here, this "continuation" statement, remains false. Again, there's nothing to argue against here, because it's simply not stated anywhere in wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the alleged continuation is daft, however that’s what the lead says “ these same themes have continued to appear in genetic studies on Jews in relation to studies on the genealogical origins of modern Jews. Drsmoo (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It says continuity of "themes", not race science. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The main thing is that we’re fundamentally in agreement Drsmoo (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The current version of the lead doesn't specify what the "these same themes" it refers to are, one of the reasons the current lead is poor. A reading of the preceding (first) two sentences would suggest "these themes" are "conceptions of Jewishness in terms of racial identity and race science" and "the idea that Jews are a race". In other words, it does assert continuity between race science and genetic studies. If you think the article should be reframed to avoid suggesting such a continuity is an established fact, then indeed we all seem to be in agreement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that. The lead definitely needs rewording/clarifying. "Themes" is not a phrase that actually pops up in the body, but what I see it as reflecting is Falk's assertion of the continuation of racial and eugenic notions, which I think is somewhat of a softer point than the continuation of racial identity and race science per se. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

My reflection on the earlier conversation with Drsmoo is that there has been confusion about exactly what is continuing in Zionism’s relationship with race science and genetics. All sources say there is some form of continuation, whilst some specific forms of continuity are disputed. This has been discussed above but we need to “pin it down”. This will help tighten the language in the article, ensuring we don’t describe or imply in Misplaced Pages’s voice those forms of continuity that are disputed, and use consistent language to explain the form(s) of continuity that are accepted by all scholars.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

“All sources say there is some form of continuation”

Sorry Onceinawhile, with all due respect, that statement is not correct. To reiterate, Misplaced Pages cannot use Misplaced Pages’s voice to say anything stronger than critics of population genetics have criticized it as a continuation of race science, while noting that these aspersions are considered by many geneticists to be inaccurate and impugning their work. Drsmoo (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We've had these arguments endlessly, and it is all about precision of language and method.

this article currently claims in Wikivoice that population genetics is a continuation of race science

How many times must several editors be forced to reply that nowhere is it asserted that 'population genetics is a continuation of race science'? That was asserted a month ago, and was successively rebutted.

This is getting murky again, because of unaddressed confusions, unexamined assumptions and loose language.

The study of any discipline, and particularly one like the history of any discipline,-science, politics, philosophy etc., will show evolution and continuity. This is written all over such standard works (speaking of just genetics) as Ernst Mayr's The Growth of Biological Thought, 1982 and Stephen Jay Gould's Ontogeny and Phylogeny, to cite just two masterpieces, and this is how Falk's 2017 book works.

What is happening here is to take one article, or book, then another, and target some ostensible defect, inadequacy of completeness with respect to what another states, and therefore by challenging each source on differences in emphasis, or focus, to try to put in doubt the appropriateness of covering the three related fields in this article. The assumption is false, and no one engaged in the field could get anywhere were they to subscribe to this procedural fragmentation.

In the literature we have, there are two fields that, discursively, have interacted. Pure science, and the sociology and history of science. with regard to the theme of race. The science covers early race concepts and modern genetics. The sociology of knowledge addresses the way - no one contests this - science as a human practice is embedded in an historical world, and is subject to the particular stresses and interests that the world it works in is liable to. Scientists in genetics know little of history generally, and social scientists have no formal grounding, generally, in science. Both try to grub up. You can see this in the Weitzman -Rosenberg edited issue of Human Biology. Weitzman and Rosenberg make the points they are cited for, about historians who have interpreted the social background of past science, and are sceptical. Social scientists and historians look at the documentary record (Efron, Kirsh et al.,) for the political or social impact of historical moments on scientific directions.

Concretely, genetics papers on Jewish genes almost invariably allude to what their discipline might allow them to infer about the ancient populations of the Middle East, and to that end they cite some standard historical narratives. Historians and sociologists of knowledge, who are more familiar with the complexities and ambiguities of those historical narratives, question the reliability of any science which draws naively on history to infer that it endorses their conclusions. The method, some of them (El-Haq but also Burton) involves circular reasoning). The historical premises frame the focus of research, and the methodology, and the results confirm in turn the historicist assumptions.

At the end of their piece Weitzman and Rosenberg cite (but not in their bibliography) Aaron J. Brody and Roy J. King's Letter to the Editor Genetics and the Archaeology of Ancient Israel. This is a collaborative letter by an historian and a geneticist, and in essence it is telling the scientists that any conclusions of this kind cannot draw on traditional historical knowledge, but must produce genetic evidence that is independent of those stories. They note (I've remarked on this on talk pages for years) that as of 2013, despite a mass of ossuaries, very little DNA research has been conducted on the remains of people whose bones have been uncovered in strata relating to the period of Israelite ethnogenesis. Were science to do this, we would have (a) an independent purely scientific grasp of continuities (or dissonances) between contemporary and ancient Levantine populations (b) which could then aid the historians in refining their interpretation of ancient ethnonarratives.

Ancient DNA testing will give us a further refined understanding of the individuals who peopled the region of the southern Levant throughout its varied archaeological and historic periods and provide scientific data that will support, refute, or nuance our sociohistoric reconstruction of ancient group identities. These social identities may or may not map onto genetic data, but without sampling of ancient DNA we may never know.

The repeated argument over continuity vs discontinuity between race and genetics is marked by several editors's desire to emphasize the discontinuity. But the recent genetic studies of the Jews have shown, per sources, a strong interest in establishing continuity between modern and ancient Jewish populations. Several editors are arguing: there is no continuity between this science and the earlier race science, and, at the same time, the genetics literature is saying there is strong continuity between modern and ancient Jewish populations, precisely what race science tried to determine. So the assumptions are in conflict. This makes for dramatics, and incessant challenges. The same editors who insist on a discontinuity between the early race science and modern genetics, also appear to prefer the genetics papers which affirm an essential identity between two Jewish populations separated by two millennia of history. Methodologically, this means the criteria used switch depending on what one may prefer to think in either case.

There is no need for the latter, if we simply hew to the normal practice of historians of ideas. trace continuities and discontinuities, with the constraint as wiki editors of simply paraphrasing what our relevant sources state about both. Underplaying this tidbit, overplaying some other, will get none of us anywhere fast, as per the last month.

The article can be improved in many respects. I can see no cogency in proposals that it be split, cut up, blown up, dismantled, and reassembled with whatever pieces of rubble remain. That is a recipé for endless talk page work better spent on practical improvements. A practical way to show how, nonetheless, it might be rewritten, is simply to organize a sandbox, whose version will compete with the mostly completed article we have, and show how a better alternative exists. No one is doing that. (It was the way arbs suggested we fix the chronically maimed Shakespeare Authorship Question. Three editors were asked to present their ideal rewrites. The tweaker and argufier refused to provide his version, while the other two collaborated and produced the FA article we have. Nishidani (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: this edit is explicitly against consensus. Your wording "These criticisms are rejected by many geneticists who view them as inaccurate and impugning their work" was carefully and thoughtfully contradicted above, five days ago. The key point was that some types of continuity many be disputed, but others are not disputed by anyone. You have not addressed this yet. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, that is incorrect. The source is clear. All forms of continuity are rejected by many geneticists. Even more so, the criticism is of population genetics broadly, not of population genetics as it related to Zionism specifically. As has been explained to you, Misplaced Pages can not state a critical view of population genetics in a neutral voice, and must be clear that this is a criticism that is rejected by many geneticists. Drsmoo (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We have discussed this source in detail above. You state that "All forms of continuity are rejected by many geneticists" - I have read the quotes from Rosenberg&Weitzman you provided at 04:12, 16 August 2023 and 09:50, 16 August 2023, but neither of them make this claim.

My summary of the same was 06:46, 16 August 2023. To be even clearer, Rosenberg&Weitzman's "exaggerates the linkages" is very different from your rejecting continuity, particularly when followed by their sentence "Especially in the ways that it enters the public dialogue" which sets out where the continuity lies. When Rosenberg&Weitzman say "sometimes", they mean that sometimes scholars have explained this, and nowhere do they state the opposite - i.e. that any scholars disagree that it is used this way in public discourse.

Onceinawhile (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

To be specific, Rosenberg and Weitzman write "dramatically exaggerates the linkages, belies their personal orientations toward their own research programs, underestimates the consideration they devote to challenges and subtleties of issues of race in genetics, and unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics", what are they referring to? They are referring to "asserted continuity between this earlier race science and present-day genetics research". If we are at an impasse regarding summarizing this as "are rejected"/"inaccurate and impugning their work", we can just use a blockquote to avoid any ambiguity.

"has sometimes been treated" is because the alleged continuity is theoretical, not factual. The authors are stating that critical social scientists have sometimes treated population genetics as reintroducing race science. Not that it is in fact a reintroduction. This is semiotics, semiotic arguments are not facts. Your usage of "scholars have explained this" is indicative of the confusion. Some social critics have asserted a particular criticism of population genetics. This criticism is not a fact, and Misplaced Pages can not present this criticism as a fact. Drsmoo (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As I look at it, two things occur to me. The first is that it's unclear that we can say "many" when referring to "many geneticists". It's a difficult thing to define – how many are "many"? – and it might be best to leave that one word out. The other is that there may be a way of covering this without getting into the kinds of specifics where the two of you see the sources differently. It sounds to me like the anthropologists and social scientists are saying (in effect, my paraphrase, rather than their actual words) that there are too many echos of scientific racism in genetics, and the geneticists are denying that they are motivated by scientific racism. How about shortening the sentence like this: This criticism is viewed by many geneticists as one that "dramatically exaggerates the linkages, belies their personal orientations toward their own research programs, underestimates the consideration they devote to challenges and subtleties of issues of race in genetics, and unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with that kind of thing - I think we can go a step further by paraphrasing rather than quoting in the lede. I don't think it needs attribution - we can be certain that most if not all geneticists do think it is unfair for their motives to be questioned.

On the anthropologist and social scientist position, when saying "there are too many echos of scientific racism in genetics" we need to add words like "the usage of ... in identity politics" or similar to ensure precision. This is the key distinction in the whole article - most scholars do not seek to impugn genetic science or geneticists, but rather note how the science is used by others. See Azoulay for example: "So let us not delude ourselves: the deliberate endeavour to identify a shared chromosome among different populations is not an innocent pursuit that can be interpreted outside the politics of identity. For this reason, academics and lay people – those with and without expertise in genetic studies – need to be vigilant in challenging the incorporation of a discourse of genes into the sociological discourse of group identities."

Making this distinction clear between those who comment on the geneticists themselves (disputed) and those who note how the science has been interpreted in identity politics (undisputed) would allow for a streamlining of the whole paragraph. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally fine with that approach. I just want to make sure that it's clear that when I referred to echos of scientific racism, I wasn't advocating for putting that language into the article. Also, I'm not sure what language we should use with respect to "identity politics", but I'm not comfortable calling it that in Misplaced Pages's voice, because anthropology, social science, and genetics, are all scholarly disciplines, but identity politics exists in a different space. Although maybe a significant streamlining, which I think is a good idea (I still find the lead too wordy), might make that concern go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. Rather than identity politics, the term used in this context by most of the anthropologists and social scientists is simply "Zionism". Onceinawhile (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue we have here is the presentation of criticisms of population genetics as if they were facts. Misplaced Pages can not present critical theories, semiotics, and paralinguistic theories as being true. There is only a claim (or as Weinstein describes it, an aspersion) of continuation. Statements like “scholars have explained” or “scholars have noted” are incorrect. The whole endeavor is theoretical and unfalsifiable. Drsmoo (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that you put it that way, it strikes me as problematic to devote that much of the lead to the issue. In fact, that paragraph begins as historically recounting the aftermath of the founding of Israel, but then it pivots to being about this dispute over the continuation of scientific racism. I could see deleting everything starting with "A perspective that..." and continuing through "...equal to that of the critics." Citation 13 and Note c could remain, and be placed just after citation 12. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In my rewrite the only thing I avoided (if I remember) was the lead, leaving that to the discussion underway. Would anyone mind if I had a go at rewriting it to better reflect the page's flow? (for example I don't think genetics should be mentioned in the first para, etc.) Of course, anything I propose can just be reverted back to the unsausagefactory version we have, as further discussions proceed. Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would welcome revision of the lead. In particular, I think that will be very useful in evaluating the focus and topic area of the page, which in turn is helpful in evaluating any proposals such as page renames (or splits, although I personally am not very interested in a split). I also welcome continued discussion on the talk page, in which criticisms of the then-current version of the page will be taken seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll have to drop this for a few days. The only think left to fix (for me) is the awkward para 4. Editors don't have to worry about my indisposition. By all means proceed. CheersNishidani (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead: "science provided evidence"

Beginning in the late 19th century, science provided evidence for the idea that humanity was divided into genetically distinct races.

What science? what evidence? Extraordinary. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Compare in wikivoice

Beginning in the late 19th century, the science of parapsychology provided evidence for the idea that the soul survived death)Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead appears to be getting rapidly worse, not better. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Most likely a result of uncertainty concerning the meaning of 'affirmed', which could have been taken as either 'assertion' or 'confirmation'. Don't think the current revistion is best, the notions predated 19th century of course and 'empirically' might not convey the intent appropriately to readers. Original sense was probably better in attempting to 'ground' notions of race? fiveby(zero) 15:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Advances in biological science in the late 19th century

Again, what biological science and what 'advances'? In the 600 page compendium by Maurice Fishberg (1911) that surveys comprehensively all of this literature, the methods for determining putative 'races' are those of anthropometrics used in physical anthropology, for which, to adapt a phrase from Protagoras, 'all things of man's body were to be measured' - length of noses, cranial shapes, skin colour, average physical height etc. It wasn't in the late 19th century, but in the first decade of the 20th that Karl Landsteiner discovered and introduced blood type variation as a biological principle, later used as an ancillary to calibrate ostensible differences in 'races'. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Biological science as a catch-all for, yes, biological anthropology, and later, yes blood types, genetics, etc. - the same catch-all that Falk uses with 'biology'. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure editors are very aware of the issues here and just seeking the best wording. Ascribing the worst possible reading to their changes is inappropriate. fiveby(zero) 17:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, Fiveby. When I made the edit, I explained it clearly in my edit summary. I think that subsequent edits have made it significantly better than what I had done, so thanks to the other editors who did that (Iskandar and Levivich). Under the circumstances, I'm disappointed that this talk section started off in a manor that is at odds with what the AE admins advised. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Genetics; specifically, Mendelian inheritance. (I'm not defending the lead, which is poor, just answering the question.) Levivich (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Come now, I cited a line which, in my reading of the sources, has no basis, and is, for the period, misleading. I gave two examples one fromn Fishberg, the other a note to Landsteiner, to underline that 'biological' is inappropriate. The response on my page and here is to suggest I am starting a battlefield. Levivich's point about Mendelian inheritance is again an anachronism. Mendel's work from the 1860s was only (re)discovered in the first decade of the 20th century, not in the 19th century, which is the assertion in the first line. Response? suggestions that in making a straightforward objection on technical grounds, I am creating a battleground here by maltreating editors. Whom? I didn't even check who wrote the line. This is a disturbing move in my view to rebegin personalizing what are simply technical issues, with evidence, evidence that is not being addressed.

Can I remind editors that WP:LEDE/WP:MOS requires us to draft leads as summaries of the content of the article. We are noT permitted to pluck things out of the air. If our sources use terms like 'race science' and 'scientific racism', then then we are justified in using them,The correct period term is Rassenkunde.

Die Rassenkunde ist ein Teilgebiet der physischen Anthropologie und als solche eine mit rationalen Methoden arbeitende und “respektable” Wissenschaft.(The science of race is a branch of physical anthropology and, as such, is a 'respectable' science working with rational methods.')Doron (1980:p.389)

Doron later qualifies this, but that is another story. What's my point? The lead has to be written by carefully summarizing what the various sections, sourced in every detail, state. There is no margin for suggesting generalizations that do not directly reflect a specific set of sources.Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Race science

I'll raise another issue about the lead. The lead includes a blue-linked "race science" in the first sentence: "sought to reformulate conceptions of Jewishness in terms of racial identity and the race science of the time." However, race science is a redirect to scientific racism. Per MOS:EGG, it's undesirable to have a link take the reader to a page that is unexpected, based on what the content here is. And "race science" sounds vaguely respectable, whereas it's actually referring to a form of pseudoscientific racism. I'd be inclined to change the text here to the actual pagename, but I'm unsure whether the sources would support doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "Race science" is not the right term for "genetics" (per Levivich) Andre🚐 18:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Race science and scientific racism may currently be hosted on the same page right now, but they have somewhat different meanings. Race science is the use of (pseudo)science in an attempt to determine race, while scientific racism is the use of said race science for racism, which is the direction of hate or prejudice on the basis of perceived race. Same orbit, but slightly different aspect. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that distinction (adding: , although the use of "race science" to determine race, even when not specifically motivated by racist intentions, ends up being little more than a euphemism for scientific racism). Perhaps in this case, the best solution would simply be to unlink it? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) added. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but "genetics" isn't a discredited science. There are some true genetic markers for Ashkenazi Jewishness, some of which are shared with Jews of Sephardic or Middle Eastern origin, though of course any given Jewish person may or may not be of that haplotype. They had some awareness of this in the 20th century. I think the article as written is a little heavy of the "skeptical of scientific racism/race science" side and lacks context that, there is a true genetic science which was used to determine say, Tay-Sachs carriers, etc. Andre🚐 19:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

But genetics looks at population groups, not race; it intersects with race science when someone takes a collection of overlapping population groups and then infers that the gathering is something more than a collection of overlapping population groups. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

In the late 19th century the context cannot be genetics. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe that is what is being referenced, namely the discovery of genetics around the late 19th and early 20th century. Around the turn of the century. Andre🚐 19:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No, look at the scientific racism page; it's referencing the race science in biological anthropology and onwards. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable. Biological anthropology would be an anachronism, for its predecessor was physical anthropology, dominant in the period we are dealing with. Physical anthropology did not have the technical means to do what biological anthropology now does.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I've just spent some time looking around for something else to blue-link the term to, and I'm not much liking anything I found. (Maybe someone else can come up with something.) I'm thinking that one possibility would be just to have "race science" without blue-linking it at all. An alternative that might perhaps be better would be to replace it with some other wording, also not blue-linked. Maybe something like changing "the race science of the time" to "the scientific views of the time regarding race", or something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable just leaving it unaddressed, so I made this edit for now: . --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Length of lead

I also feel like the current (work in progress, of course) version of the lead is too long, and should be made considerably shorter. It reads like a narrative, rather than a summary. I'm pointing this out, although I'm personally not sure how to revise it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that the lead is troublesome because some editors want a different article to be summarized, not the one we have. Lead writing is simple. You read the text, note the salient points in sections, and summarize them consecutively. That has been done, and compared to the article's length, the lead is succinct. We shouldn't open too many sections for discussion on different issues contemporaneously. it making resolving any one issue difficult, via distraction.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I said what my concern was. Where did I say that I wanted a different article to be summarized? (I didn't.) The talk page is for raising concerns or ideas about the page, and there is no reason for anyone to claim that it's procedurally inappropriate to discuss what they wrote, while discussing how they don't like what someone else wrote. And by the way, another editor already shortened it, and improved it by doing so (). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Law of Return

About and , if I understand correctly, the source uses the word "return" in the last sentence of the quote, in order to express skepticism about the use of the word. However, the basic idea of the Law of Return is not normally written with quote marks around the word. At least, that's my understanding, but I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. But if I'm right, then I think it's best to write the main text without scare quotes, while allowing interested readers to read the footnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your point re the law. Re the quote, I don’t believe it is to express skepticism, but rather to emphasize that the word “return” contains the key assumption that the genetic research is being used to support. I think we need to find a way of making that same emphasis in summary form. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand much better now. I've re-read the source quote repeatedly with that in mind, and I see what you mean. I'm at a loss as to how to express that succinctly in Misplaced Pages's voice, although maybe I could see quoting part of what the source says in the main text, so it gets attributed to the source. I'm not sure how to do that with sufficient brevity for the lead, although it could readily be done lower on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The source (a book review) does not actually discuss the law of return or the concept of in-gathering. It's making a more subtle point about the idea of return being implicit in the idea of common geographical origin. The lead should not be working with this level of detail so I have moved it out of the lead to the section where the book under review is mentioned. I don't think the sentence necessarily needs a citation; it's relatively straightforward as it is I think. If it does need untangling, that should be in the appropriate place in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment or view
• Article history

• ... that the genetic origin of modern Jews is considered important within Zionism, as it seeks to provide a historical basis for the belief that descendants of biblical Jews have "returned"? Source: McGonigle, Ian V. (2021). Genomic Citizenship: The Molecularization of Identity in the Contemporary Middle East. MIT Press (originally a Harvard PhD Thesis, published March 2018). p. 36 (c.f. p.54 of PhD). ISBN 978-0-262-36669-4. Retrieved 2023-07-08. The stakes in the debate over Jewish origins are high, however, since the founding narrative of the Israeli state is based on exilic 'return.' If European Jews have descended from converts, the Zionist project falls prey to the pejorative categorization as 'settler colonialism' pursued under false assumptions, playing into the hands of Israel's critics and fueling the indignation of the displaced and stateless Palestinian people. The politics of 'Jewish genetics' is consequently fierce. But irrespective of philosophical questions of the indexical power or validity of genetic tests for Jewishness, and indeed the historical basis of a Jewish population 'returning' to the Levant, the Realpolitik of Jewishness as a measurable biological category could also impinge on access to basic rights and citizenship within Israel.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gracie Graves and the Kids from Room 402

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 07:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Zionism, race and genetics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article is new enough and long enough. However, it's the subject of a POV flag and there's ongoing debate on the talk page about the article's WP:NPOV. Indeed, the article's (lengthy) lede section largely pulls from 2 journal articles that seem to not represent scholarly consensus to frame the discussion. Hook is interested, but the cited source seems to be one scholar's opinion, rather than a fact. Would suggest waiting to have more editors, especially with more specialized subject matter expertise than I, weigh in on the matter at hand in the article. Longhornsg (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Longhornsg thanks for your comment. Since you have an interest in the subject of Jewish History (WikiProject), please could you comment on the article talk page and help develop the article there? Your comments above seem intended to cast doubt (“seem to not… seem to be”), which is helpful if you are willing to provide the evidence underpinning your uncertainty. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Article is a transparent attempt to portray studies on Jewish Genetics as "Zionist" and thereby ideological/untrustworthy, without any source actually describing the studes as such. The article itself is full of Synth and assertions that are not actually in the sources. The article should be deleted, and certainly not featured on a "Did you know". Drsmoo (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: the above editor has been adding various tags to the article. When challenged to explain the above claims he wrote: Allegations of bias and synth in a wikipedia article are not substantiated by scholarly reliable sources, they are an individual judgement. The observation that an article combines disparate ideas to push an original viewpoint is not something that would be sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

After the allegations of bias were substantiated, the above editor and a supporting editor asked me to provide "sources" to prove that the article was biased/Synth. As if it has been subject to a scholarly peer review and JSTOR had articles about this wiki page. Drsmoo (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I archived reference to this nomination on the article's (very crowded) talk page as I assumed the conversation was over but that was reverted as it has not been closed. I oppose the nomination for the moment. The article is very unstable and has been under heavy dispute. Although the contention is starting to quieten, the article is nowhere near consensus-approved enough to feature. There has been a conversation for nearly two months over whether it needs to be renamed, for example. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The article's neutrality has been in dispute for over a month at this point, and the prior reviewer's assessment still seems largely correct. It reads like an essay on a particular aspect of race science, and issues are still being identified (for example, an editor just today was removing close paraphrasing from sources). The talk page still has active disputes regarding the content and presentation of perspectives. All together, I doubt that this article is "reasonably complete and not some sort of work in progress". Not presentable and given the time spent already, I find it unlikely that it will become presentable in a reasonable time frame for DYK. — Wug·a·po·des 21:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Weitzman

In Para 3, we have material sourced to Weitzman 2019 book (plus a refquote) followed by some material/quotes sourced to Rosenberg/Weitzman, a 2013 preprint refquoted at length.

The tone and tenor of Weitzman commentary in his book differ quite markedly from the material attributed jointly to him as second author in the 2013 preprint.

Given that it is a preprint and from 6 years earlier I think the sentence/refquote "This criticism is viewed by many geneticists as one that "dramatically exaggerates the linkages" and "unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics." needs to be cut back and attributed. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I support attribution (in fact, I think we should attribute more in this article: in this field of scholarship scholars disagree with each other and are making arguments, not simply reporting empirical facts). I don't see the reason to trim, though, as it's now quite short. What's the contradiction between the two statements? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "This criticism.." makes it appear as if the subsequent is referring to the part of the previous sentence that refers to Zionist thinking about race. However that is not the case, the entire sentence in the source is as follows:

"Criticism of human population genetics, especially from scholarly fields that as a premise regard the scientific endeavor with skepticism, has asserted continuity between this earlier race science and present day genetics research —an argument that in the view of many practicing geneticists dramatically exaggerates the linkages, belies their personal orientations toward their own research programs, underestimates the consideration they devote to challenges and subtleties of issues of race in genetics, and unfairly impugns the anti-­‐racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics."

This is essentially the same thing as is said in the previous sentence but sourced to Weitzman (less polemically) so is needless duplication (same thing in the associated refquote). Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not quite how I read it. However, the next part of the earlier text comes full circle, after the "impugning" part to state: "Especially in the ways that it enters the public dialogue, however, present-day research in Jewish genetics has sometimes been treated as reintroducing a biological conception of Jewish identity that many may have thought permanently discredited by the Holocaust and its catastrophic racialization of Jewish identity." The quote on page at present just extracts the middle part, rather than reflecting the full arc of the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

If the two aspects are separated, the criticism of the discipline in global and the criticism of Zionist thinking, the duplication becomes clear. I will have a go at it a bit later on. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, this is just a rough first cut at separation without any view on the final form or where the material should go in the article. The first part shows the duplication. The second part (via the 2013 paper mainly) clarifies that the "target" is El-Haj, presumably representing those others that hold a similar view, a view said to be representative of the broader critique:-

In his 2019 book, Steven Weitzman says that critiques made by anthropologists and social scientists have stressed broader lines of continuity between population genetics and race science while in a 2013 paper jointly authored with Noah Rosenberg, he says this criticism is viewed by geneticists as one that "dramatically exaggerates the linkages" and "unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics." In his book, Weitzman says that Abu El-Haj's argument is in line with this broader critique of the field while in a 2013 paper jointly authored with Noah Rosenberg, he discusses the proposition by Susan Martha Kahn "for a shared understanding between the positions represented by Ostrer and El- Haj, critiquing both Ostrer’s provocative claims about the meaning of the scientific data and the aspersions cast by El-Haj on the science without attending to its actual content." and is somewhat sceptical of the prospects for such an understanding.

References

1. Rosenberg, Noah; Weitzman, Steven (2013-12-01). "From Generation to Generation: The Genetics of Jewish Populations". Human Biology Open Access Pre-Prints. 85 (6). Criticism of human population genetics, especially from scholarly fields that as a premise regard the scientific endeavor with skepticism, has asserted continuity between this earlier race science and present-day genetics research— an argument that in the view of many practicing geneticists dramatically exaggerates the linkages, belies their personal orientations toward their own research programs, underestimates the consideration they devote to challenges and subtleties of issues of race in genetics, and unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics.
2. Rosenberg, Noah; Weitzman, Steven (2013-12-01). "From Generation to Generation: The Genetics of Jewish Populations". Human Biology Open Access Pre-Prints. 85 (6). Especially in the ways that it enters the public dialogue, however, present-day research in Jewish genetics has sometimes been treated as reintroducing a biological conception of Jewish identity that many may have thought permanently discredited by the Holocaust and its catastrophic racialization of Jewish identity.

1. "From what I have read, this view of genetics and its historical relationship to race science, a perspective that stresses the lines of continuity between the two fields, is common among the anthropologists who write about genetics research" (Weitzman 2019, p. 309) harv error: no target: CITEREFWeitzman2019 (help)

Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

As regards the 2013 paper, Weitzman in his book says "In my personal experience, however, a fusion of the two perspectives is not so easy. When I was at Stanford, Noah Rosenberg and I organized a series of talks on Jewish genetics through which we hoped to bring the two perspectives into conversation with each other, but we found it very difficult to do so. What I did not know then was that we were not the first scholars to attempt—and fail—at this kind of dialogue. In 1927 the German Jewish sexologist Max Marcuse organized an exchange published in the German medical journal Die medizinische Welt that was meant to put race scientists in conversation with anthropological critics, including no less a figure than Franz Boas himself, and the contributors there were not able to bridge their differences either. The problem is not just the challenge of how to communicate across fields or how to integrate different kinds of evidence but how to overcome an incommensurability of paradigms, a challenge that we still did not know how to overcome close to a century after Marcuse made his attempt." This perhaps explains the difference in tone between the 2013 paper and the 2019 work.Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I edited the article to reflect the above discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Continuity between "Zionism and race" and "Zionism and genetics", versus continuity between "Race science on Jews" and "Genetic science on Jews"

I have moved these two sentences from the lede here for further discussion:

Steven Weitzman says that in line with broad critiques made by anthropologists and social scientists of population genetics, it is argued by Abu El-Haj and other anthropologists that the study of Jewish population genetics has retained aspects of earlier Zionist thinking about race.{{efn|"...a study of Jewish and Israeli genetics research into the origin of the Jews that aimed to expose the assumptions and biases implicit in such research and to critique the way it has been used politically and culturally by Zionists in Israel" {{harv|Weitzman|2019|p=308}}}} In a 2013 paper jointly authored with Noah Rosenberg, he says this criticism is viewed by many geneticists as a dramatic exaggeration that unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions the geneticists may hold.{{efn|"From what I have read, this view of genetics and its historical relationship to race science, a perspective that stresses the lines of continuity between the two fields, is common among the anthropologists who write about genetics research, and Abu El-Haj's argument is in line with this broader critique of the field."{{harv|Weitzman|2019|p=309}}}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rosenberg |first=Noah |last2=Weitzman |first2=Steven |date=2013-12-01 |title=From Generation to Generation: The Genetics of Jewish Populations |url=https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/39 |journal=Human Biology Open Access Pre-Prints |volume=85 |issue=6 |quote=Criticism of human population genetics, especially from scholarly fields that as a premise regard the scientific endeavor with skepticism, has asserted continuity between this earlier race science and present-day genetics research— an argument that in the view of many practicing geneticists dramatically exaggerates the linkages, belies their personal orientations toward their own research programs, underestimates the consideration they devote to challenges and subtleties of issues of race in genetics, and unfairly impugns the anti-racist positions that they may in fact hold with an intensity equal to that of the critics. Especially in the ways that it enters the public dialogue, however, present-day research in Jewish genetics has sometimes been treated as reintroducing a biological conception of Jewish identity that many may have thought permanently discredited by the Holocaust and its catastrophic racialization of Jewish identity.}}</ref>

This content is useful for the article but probably not ledeworthy, and either way needs to be properly contextualized. Not least because the first sentence and second sentence are not talking about the same thing, although they are incorrectly presented as if one is in direct opposition to the other. As the diagram on the right shows, the connection being disputed by Weitzman and Rosenberg here (bottom half of the diagram) is not the central point in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

See https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.10041

In the case of human genetics (by which we mean the genetic study of human biology and disease) this often involves terminology inherited from anthropology and population genetics, both of which have evolved significantly in recent years. Both fields now firmly reject longstanding ideas of race as a meaningful biological category and labels which were founded in racist perspectives of the 20th and preceding centuries.

‘Race’ is particularly problematic, and its historical and political connotations, along with the fact that it is not a meaningful descriptor of genetic variation, have led many human geneticists to avoid it altogether

Race is firmly rejected by modern geneticists, along with many avoiding usage of the term altogether.

Note, Social Sciences are conceptual, not empirical. Their claims can not be presented as facts, because they are not facts, and they certainly can not be stated in Misplaced Pages as facts. The most that can be put into Wiki voice is to note that anthropologists/social scientists have asserted a continuity, which is disputed my many geneticists. Drsmoo (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Arxiv, per RSP, is generally unreliable, I am not entirely sure what point relevant to the article is being made by presenting this. As for attribution, I don't think anyone is disputing the need for that as and when appropriate, this would include genetics if interpretations of data is involved as, for example, "Ostrer’s provocative claims about the meaning of the scientific data". Remembering we are speaking here about Zionism and race/genetics, not the thinking of specialists generally on the subject of race, geneticists or otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The authors are notable experts in the field, so it fits the exception.

Ewan Birney, https://www.phpc.cam.ac.uk/people/ceu-group/ceu-senior-research-staff/michael-inouye/ (35,390 citations), Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford, https://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/directory/aylwyn-scally (21,130 citations) Drsmoo (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That may be, I still can't see what is the relevance for this article. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/03/researchers-need-to-rethink-and-justify-how-and-why-race-ethnicity-and-ancestry-labels-are-used-in-genetics-and-genomics-research-says-new-report is similar. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: please could you address the central topic – i.e. the different types of continuity being described by the literature? The quote you brought above is reiterating your prior points, not addressing the topic of this thread. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What is the topic of this thread then? You claimed the two Weitzman references are discussing different things. In fact, they are both referencing the exact same criticism by El-Haj. You continue to use words like “explain” and “describe” as if there is a “real continuity”. There is not, only an alleged one.Drsmoo (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The topic of this thread is the difference between the:

1. Continuity between "Zionism and race" and "Zionism and genetics" (a sociological or anthropological observation), and
2. Continuity between "Race science on Jews" and "Genetic science on Jews" (a biological science question)

Weitzman's critique addresses only point 2. Separately, Weitzman, and all other relevant scholars, acknowledge point 1 as a fact. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Continuity between "Zionism and race" and "Zionism and genetics"

How do you distinguish this from number 2? Drsmoo (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

1. is about how these biological sciences are used in identity politics.

2. is about the content of sciences themselves.

In other words, 1 = Sociology and 2 = Biological science.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

So your assertion is that the concept of “race” is prevalent in Jewish Population Genetics? And that this is an undisputed fact? Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No. That would be point 2. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok… so you’re asserting that genetics is viewed today in the way that race was viewed in the past within identity politics. Is that your view? Drsmoo (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

All the sources say that. Yes. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

So “all the sources say that”. Is that attested to empirically somewhere, or is that your own research/conclusion? Drsmoo (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That (a part of) El-Haj critique is in line with a broader criticism of the field doesn't mean that El-Haj position is criticized, the contrary, it supports the position she takes. That is why I separated the two things and you edited them back together again so as to present the broader argument as a criticism of El-Haj, which it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Please strike your incorrect personal attack, which is wrong as they neither criticized nor supported El-Haj. They described her viewpoint as a criticism and an aspersion and being viewed by many practicing geneticists as impugning their work. Drsmoo (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What personal attack? El-Haj is criticized but not for what you are suggesting:

"But it also has to be acknowledged that Abu El-Haj’s book reflects a criticism of population genetics that is not confined to that focused on the Jews. Similar arguments have been made about population genetics in general by Jenny Reardon, Duana Fullwiley, and many others who argue that the field was not as successful in distinguishing itself from race science as its practitioners believe. None of these scholars, including Abu El-Haj, is suggesting that genetics is a simple extension of the race science practices that led to Nazi eugenics;" Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

“you edited them back together again so as to present the broader argument as a criticism of El-Haj, which it isn't.”

“ El-Haj iscriticized but not for what you are suggesting” I did not suggest a criticism of El-Haj, nor did I edit to suggest such. Drsmoo (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The article before my edit implied criticism of El-Haj, I separated the two things so as to clarify that there was no such criticism and you edited them back together again, with edit summary "Reorganizing for logical flow". Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct, to note, they did describe her study as an aspersion and as not being based on the science, but that is not a criticism. Drsmoo (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a criticism but it has nothing to do with the race issue generally. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m confident that both papers are discussing the same point by El-Haj. Drsmoo (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not and I have provided several quotations above that support that. Here's another: "This is why, from the perspective of a critic like Abu El-Haj, the scientific rigor of the research involved in Jewish genetic history is beside the point. To become a genetic history, the data must undergo a process of emplotment, must be turned into a narrative, and that is where bias, stereotypes, and self-interest can slip in. That is true of history, archaeology, or any method we might use, but it is less obvious for geneticists, who are seen as more objective than these other kinds of scholars because of the scientific nature of their work. But even geneticists tend to favor certain narratives over others for reasons that have nothing to do with the science. For example, geneticists are inclined to think arborescently, to interpret the evidence inscribed into the DNA of Jewish populations as a tree that branches off in different directions from a common Middle Eastern root; but Abu El-Haj counters that the data, if read from a more neutral perspective, might more plausibly be conceived of as a bush too entangled to support any coherent narrative of origin." Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I see what you’re talking about, but that not actually related to race. More of a general aspersion of bias. I think all aspects of the summary can be made more clear. Drsmoo (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I like it with the passage simply left out of the lead, the way it is now, as of me posting this comment. It isn't needed in the lead, and it's better to keep the lead shorter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. If the passage needs attributing at every turn and is focusing on individual critiques rather then general narratives then it's sort of left the realm of useful summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is no consensus for the requested move. Although I opened this RM, I am taking the liberty of closing it on this basis. Should there be some objection please undo this close. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Zionism, race and genetics → Zionist views on Jewish origins – A #Title discussion arrived at some measure of agreement for the proposed title. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: as overly vague relative to the current scope. "Jewish origins" seems like an imprecise match for race and genetics. Origins could be talking about 6th century BCE theology on divine covenants. And "Zionist views" is a format that implies to a certain degree that the topic is only about the expressly stated views of ideological adherents, rather than a broader analysis of underlying trends, which is the current direction of the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  These are compelling concerns Iskandar323. Would a formulation like "Zionist views on the origins of the Jewish people" address them? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm more inclined along the lines of the recombinations attempted below. I'm not keen on "views on"-type titles for the reasons mentioned above, although "thought on" might be ok. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Zionist views" sounds like the article is cherrypicking soundbites, and anyway is wrong per Zero below (…these are not specifically Zionist views but rather traditional Jewish beliefs that Zionis adopted into its ideology.)

  Then addressing Iskandar's point above that Origins could be talking about 6th century BCE theology, Jewish origins would need to say "ancestral origins of modern Jews".

  This would convert Selfstudier's version into "Zionism and the ancestral origins of modern Jews".

  Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support - per the discussion above (the "Title" talk page section). It is "views on Jewish origins", so it is particularly the thought and beliefs about origins rather than the (theological or otherwise) thought of the time of Jewish origin. Also, it is in the nature of titles that they describe a primary topic that does not preclude that there might be secondary topics that could be described by them, and that is not a reason to oppose a clear description of the primary topic. This title clearly, on the face of it, describes modern views (i.e. from the birth of Zionism onwards) on the subject of Jewish Origins. The page subject and content thus falls within that primary topic, and this is a good title. I note that it does not itself preclude the page discussion looking at those views in the round. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support, on the principle of not letting the perfect become the enemy of at least some improvement. Strictly speaking, the choice here is between the current pagename and the proposed new one, not between those two and some unspecified perfect pagename. And I'm supporting the requested move in the interests of consensus, and because it represents what I think is a significant improvement over the status quo. The existing name, pairing race with genetics, does to some extent reflect what the page covers, but it also asserts a hot-button and dubious contention in Misplaced Pages's voice. I'm not wild about "origins", but I'm going along with it as a compromise with other editors on this talk page who pretty much oppose anything that they didn't propose first. Personally, I think the page is more about identity (racial identity or Jewish racial identity) than about origins, but I can live with this compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  This wall-of-text RM is about to reach the 7-day possible closing point, and I want to elaborate a bit on my original comment. When I referred to the current pagename asserting a hot-button and dubious contention, what I mean is that it makes it sound like there are genetic differences between races, that races are different from one another, and that there is a genetic basis for that. Of course, that's not what is intended, but some readers and some editors get that impression from the page title. For me, that makes the binary choice between the current pagename and the imperfect new proposal a reason to support the change. It looks to me like editors are divided between those that think the proposed new title is better than the existing one, and those that think the existing one is better than the proposed new one. That's not a consensus that the existing one cannot be improved upon, and shouldn't be framed as such. Going forward, I think Zionist thought on Jewish racial identity is worth looking at next. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Tryptofish, as I explained below on conjunctions, when you write:

  When I referred to the current pagename asserting a hot-button and dubious contention, what I mean is that it makes it sound like there are genetic differences between races, that races are different from one another, and that there is a genetic basis for that. Of course, that's not what is intended, but some readers and some editors get that impression from the page title.

  Which readers and which editors? One must assume that readers and editors are familiar with English. I cannot imagine any native speaker of English making the inference from those three words that 'there are genetic differences between races, that races are different from one another, and that there is a genetic basis for that.' That is simply, grammatically, not possible. of course, someone who hasn't a reasonable command of English might hypothetically conjure up such a fantastic interpretation, but we cannot write articles keeping in mind such wild guessword at meanings English usage excludes.Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Let's try to avoid a conversation, as I think I heard someone else say. Well, some editors got pretty upset at #Lead: "science provided evidence", above, when some language regrettably (and I really mean regrettably!) implied that more directly. Surely, you remember how there have been numerous attempts to delete the page. It's not an intended meaning of the title, but it's not like the current title cannot possibly be improved upon. But anyway, let's try to avoid a conversation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  By training I am a philologist. In clarifying grammar, I am not engaging in a 'conversation'. I am correcting elementary mistakes about grammar which, unfortunately, keep cropping up and causing, because of the looseness in reading, 'conversations' that should never arise in the first place among native speakers of English.Nishidani (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Check your qualifications at the door. This is Misplaced Pages. Not everyone is a native speaker. Others might have neuroatypical characteristics, or intellectual disabilities: they are all welcome here, and you must be more indulgent and charitable of this. Be civil, and be tolerant. Andre🚐 23:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Good grief. No comment.Nishidani (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  You do not need to comment on that, but you must remember that nobody WP:OWNs an article and Selfstudier's proposal for a rename topic is allowed to be discussed, even in ways you might disagree with or have some critique of. You seem to like to imply that a particular misunderstanding of the discussion is beneath you and worthy of some contempt. Let's try to elevate the discussion and approach interlocutors with an open mind and kindness, especially if they are wrong or misled. Innocent mistakes in understanding are widespread. Andre🚐 00:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Please desist from making innuendos I am contemptuous of people with neurological or intellectual difficulties, that I exude hauteur, am uncharitable, intolerant and unkind. That is deeply offensive, personalizing and, frankly, intolerable. I was sanctioned for far far less, recently, and you are lucky I refuse to report this rubbish at AE, on principle.Nishidani (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize if I offended you. But you should understand how some of your statements come across. Such as your statements someone who hasn't a reasonable command of English might hypothetically conjure up such a fantastic interpretation. Andre🚐 00:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Since all of this, somehow, comes out of my RM comment (good grief), I'll say that I appreciate what Andrevan has said (and I kind of like the characterization of exuding hauteur – and I guess it's only a conversation if someone else started it, but then again, by training, I'm only a fish). I think it's worth noting that there was no intention to express contempt of the neurodivergant, that there was no intent to express racism when writing that science affirmed a hierarchy of races, that there was no intent to express racism when that was changed to genetic differences between races, and that there was no intent to express scientific racism when naming this page "Zionism, race and genetics". No such intention. But people, at least some of them reasonable and fluent in English, nevertheless thought they detected such intent. We should be receptive to correcting language that was written with the best of intentions, to address concerns that were raised by people who were unaware of those intentions. Because we're writing for a general readership, who have no idea what editors were thinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that, Tryptofish. And to be clear I agree nobody was expressing contempt for the neurodivergent, or expressing racism. And I agree the point is that things are easily misconstrued. I do think that Nishidani's statement I am correcting elementary mistakes about grammar which, unfortunately, keep cropping up and causing, because of the looseness in reading, 'conversations' that should never arise in the first place among native speakers of English could be construed in a problematic way, and such phrasing should be avoided. But I no way feel that Nishidani meant harm by his statement. Andre🚐 01:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mostly per Iskandar323. Also, these are not specifically Zionist views but rather traditional Jewish beliefs that Zionist adopted into its ideology. The proposed title does not properly represent the content of the article. Zero 01:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Tryptofish. I'm not a fan of "X and Y"-type articles unless there is a mountain of literature on the conjunction between X and Y. But an article on "X, Y, and Z" –– barring some truly exceptional circumstance, which this does not appear to be –– is just an open invitation for WP:COATRACKing and endless debates over the scope of the article. The proposed title isn't perfect but it's a clear improvement. Generalrelative (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, as hopelessly vague, and incompatible with WP:CRITERIA. As it stands, the defined scope of the article under its present name is evidently less than clear, but with the new title it could be almost anything. One could probably write an article on 'Zionist views on Jewish origins' that made no mention of 'race' or genetics at all, if one desired, thereby erasing the existing content, along with all the convoluted discussions, entirely if one desired to do so. Per WP:AGF, I'm going to assume that isn't the intent here, but it could very well be the consequence: deletion by renaming and erasure. I have always been sceptical about the ability of Misplaced Pages to adequately cover this distinctly tricky subject matter, and accordingly advocated deletion at the AfD. If there is another AfD, I might do the same. I do not however consider backdoor deletion (intentional or otherwise) through a complete change of scope to be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Would moving to Jewishness as a racial identity, or something along those lines, be a better alternative? My reading of this discussion is that people don't prefer the current title in its "X, Y, and Z" format (and I agree, it's very poorly defined and coatrack-y), and nobody has really argued for it as much as against the proposed new title. Meanwhile, even the new title's supporters seem to agree with its opponents that "Zionist views on Jewish origins" is also an imperfect fit that doesn't really represent the actual topic (which I would also agree with). I think we might want to consider an Option C, because I don't really see a consensus in favor of either the current title or the proposed one. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment An alternative might be to take Falk's title Zionism and the Biology of the Jews together with Weitzman's book section Biological Approaches to the Origin of the Jews (Ch8, p280) and blend the two together, Zionist approaches to the biological origins of the Jews say.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  It would be long-winded, but it would remain precise while putting an end to the X, Y and Z format that has proven so unpopular. Falk's title alone is probably the best formula, but it's taken, so... Iskandar323 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would support this as well Drsmoo (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Given that it appears unlikely that this RM proposal will get consensus, and given that I'm willing to compromise a lot in the interests of consensus, I agree that we should start looking at alternatives (and will need a new RM if we can settle on one), and I'm willing to go along with the possibilities above. I'll offer the following observations and suggestions. It might be best to omit anything about "origins", given the generally negative reaction it's gotten here, so that would be an argument against "biological origins of the Jews", although, on the other hand, specifying "biological" might address that concern. Instead of "approaches to", it might be better to say "thought on" or "views about". I agree with the criticism that it would be long-winded, but I'm willing to accept long-windedness if it gets consensus. I'll also repeat some options that got some interest in earlier discussions: Zionist thinking on racial identity, Zionist thinking on Jewish racial identity, Zionist views about racial identity, or Zionist views about Jewish racial identity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  The term “race” is anachronistic and discredited. It can be used for old research that used that term, but modern research (very) rarely uses it. The standard terms used nowadays would be “ethnicity” or “ancestry”. Drsmoo (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  How about Zionist views about Jewish ethnic identity or Zionist views about Jewish genetic identity? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  "about genetic identity" has the inverse problem to "about racial identity" - the earlier writers weren't using the concept of genetics just as the later writers don't use the concept of race, so it would exclude any of the classic Zionist writers. We need a term that encompasses both. "about ethnic identity" might do that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  or "about the origins and identity of the Jewish people", which avoids any limiting technical terms, but is very wordy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's never good to use "ethnic" to imply race (or genetics) - this is already much overly abused: ethnicity is as much about culture as anything else. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  The Oxford definition of ethnicity is “the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.” which applies. Ancestry can be used as well. Drsmoo (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Both ethnicity and 'ancestry' are viewed as problematic terms within the field of genetics. See the two papers cited below from Nasem and from Birney, Inouye et al., ('The language commonly used in human genetics can inadvertently pose problems for multiple reasons. Terms like ‘ancestry’, ‘ethnicity’, and other ways of grouping people can have complex, often poorly understood, or multiple meanings within the various fields of genetics, between different domains of biological sciences and medicine, and between scientists and the general public.'Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I linked to the paper you quoted from earlier in this discussion. Here it is again: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.10041.pdf

  From that source:

  ‘Race’ is particularly problematic, and its historical and political connotations, along with the fact that it is not a meaningful descriptor of genetic variation, have led many human geneticists to avoid it altogether. Indeed, in usage outside the United States, ‘race’ is less consistently understood and ‘ethnicity’ is often viewed as a less contentious way of referring collectively to those elements of an individual’s identity and biology that are inherited through ancestry and culture.

  It then notes how ethnicity has a different meaning within the United States:

  By contrast, in the United States, and within anthropological genetics (a subfield of biological anthropology), race and ethnicity have separate and distinct meanings; the former is a socially constructed category that takes into account physical characteristics, and the latter is a explicitly category of cultural self-identification. This usage (which has itself changed considerably over the years since the United States government began collecting census information) reflects a complex history of colonialism, politics and attitudes to race.

  It then advocates for the broader usage of ethnicity due to "race" being "particularly liable to misinterpretation in a genetic context":

  Since we are primarily addressing colleagues in genetics, and because we feel that ‘race’ is particularly liable to misinterpretation in a genetic context, we have leaned towards a broader meaning of ethnicity. But the variable meanings of these words must be considered when communicating genetic research, even when these ideas themselves are not its focus, because they are central to how people interpret differences between human groups and individuals.

  I'm not sure why you responded to a suggestion to use ethnicity instead of race with a source that describes race as "particularly problematic" and "particularly liable to misinterpretation", but completely avoided that section and only posted the criticism of the usage of "ethnicity" and "ancestry".

  https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/language-used-by-researchers-to-describe-human-populations-has-evolved-over-the-last-70-years

  The study’s results show that the term “race” appeared in 22% of articles between 1949-58, and declined to 5% between 2009-18; however, in recent years, the term shows up more often when used along with “ethnicity.” Conversely, the overall use of “ethnicity” and “ancestry” has increased over time.

  Drsmoo (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would support that Drsmoo (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is to confuse 'race' as a descriptor (now discredited), with race as a concept that played an important role historically, not only in Zionism. We don't rewrite history by substituting the actual terms and concepts used by historical actors in the past with politically correct terms. The article is not about Jews, their 'ethnicity' or 'ancestry'. It is about the use of the concept of race in Zionist discourse over several decades and the residual influence of that heritage in modern genetic research. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  This seems to be the crux of the dispute to me; namely, that "race," an outmoded pseudoscientific concept, in modern parlance, actually refers to the study of or analysis of pseudogenetic prejudices and separations in human affairs. So when you write a phrase such as "Zionism and race" the question is implied: is it that Zionist attitudes considered Jews a separate race, or that there were several separate races within Judaism? Additionally, you have alluded to the fact that some German-Jewish-eugenicists were among the fathers of Zionism. Then, perhaps, the title of the article should be, Zionism and eugenics? Andre🚐 20:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is the problem with the article. You are arguing that the article is using race only in a historical sense. That is of course in no way clear from this title. In fact this title essentially gives readers leeway to edit into the title anything that relates to any conception of Zionism, race, or genetics. Drsmoo (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Adding: I agree with Nishidani below, that "race"/"racial" is not an inappropriate word to consider in the pagename. I can sympathize with the idea that present-day thinking can find the term offensive when it is used in a racist manner, but as a neutral description of the various lines of thinking covered by this page, I don't regard it as problematic (cf race relations). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nishidani claims that "ancestry" and "ethnicity" are imprecise terms. This argument is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages does not have to use to consistent definitions. Misplaced Pages should contextually contrast all the possible meanings of terminology in proportion to their weight and prominence. If most high quality research describes the Jewish genetic heritage that can be followed from various historical viewpoints, we can use any and all of the terms that are used in different context and sense. Nishidani claims that "race" is accurate while "ethnicity" and "ancestry" are imprecise. That is a specious argument. All 3 terms are contextual, and any term may be used as appropriately sourced in the source material - again, we're putting the finger on the scale here in favor of a particular interpretation or non-interpretation. The more contemporary term "ethnicity" may be scientifically imprecise. That doesn't change the fact that it's a term used by many actors such as governments and politicians, or historical thinkers. We cover what the expert analysis is of what they said and what it may have meant, but we shouldn't police language or be prescriptive about language along these lines, namely, that something lacks a precise definition. Except for highly specific terms of art and science, most terms have several definitions of varying precision. To wit: what is the problem with thinking about "ancestry" and "ethnicity" when we charitably interpret what is meant by those terms? Or if you prefer to say "Jewish genetic lineage," the fact remains there is a blurry-lined and multiethnic polity of Jews, and this article isn't purely about only one thing. No article is constrained to such narrow scope as the original thinking of its original author. Andre🚐 20:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrevan: to address one topic in your points above – "ethnicity" is irrelevant as an option here, because it is a broad / open term which can be defined as just a shared language or religion, and which can be believed into existence by a group. Thus "Zionism and Jewish ethnicity" is a non-topic, because there is no question of whether Jews are an ethnic group. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't claim things like ' "ancestry" and "ethnicity" are imprecise terms.' That is what the sources cited below, by geneticists, state. Please don't attribute to me views which I paraphrase from sources, personalizing them as though I were the source. As for the rest, 'race' was for several decades the default term, and it is the one privileged by the historical sources the article draws on. Editors are not at liberty to mess with history by euphemizing it.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Zionist thought on Jewish racial identity might be ok. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: Are there any existing pages that you can think of that use an "approaches to"-type formula, or would we be going off-piste with this? Not necessarily an issue but wondering ... Iskandar323 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - entirely agree with Zero, that is a different topic entirely. nableezy - 15:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Sirfurboy and Tryptofish, and in agreement with perfect being the enemy of the good. Would also support Selfstudier’s other proposal. Drsmoo (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iskander and Zero. There is no such thing as a 'Zionist' view of Jewish Origins, so the proposed title is meaningless. It was also claimed simplistically above that 'the term 'race' is anachronistic and discredited,'etc. That is not what dozens of high-quality RS sources have argued in the last decade. The 'term' may be discredited, the concept, per sources, is not. To name but a few:-

Race and Contemporary Medicine is concerned with the reappearance of ‘race’ as a category of scientific analysis within the world of medicine.’ Sander L. Gilman, 'Introduction: race and contemporary medicine,’ in Sander Gilman, ‘Race in Contemporary Medicine,’ ISBN 978-1-136-76455-4 Taylor & Francis 2013 p.viii.

Gilman is the foremost world authority on the '(pseudo-)scientization' of the Jewish body throughout modern history.

Troy Duster, ‘A post-genomic surprise. The molecular reinscription of race in science, law and medicine,' British Journal of Sociology Volume 66, Issue 1 March 2015 pp.1-27 18 March 2015 Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment There is no such thing as a 'Zionist' view of Jewish Origins This seems to overstate the case, Cynthia Baker's "new Jew" seems exactly about a Zionist view of Jewish origins as well as other things, p91, section Zionism’s Conflicted Claims on Jew, part Zionism’s New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew excerpt p99 "As noted in the discussion of yidn, above, Zionist narratives of ethnic identity and homeland appropriate and derogate Jew by turns, but all in service to building and sustaining a “Jewish nation-state” grounded, geographically and demographically, on claims of ancestral belonging."Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with that. I agreed above with the comment that "race" remains a credible term, but I disagree with the hyperbole that there is no such thing as views on origins. One can credibly make a case that there is less discussion of it in sources, and that sources are more focused on "identity" than on "origins", but to argue that it doesn't even exist is hyperbole. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  In the normative construal of English grammar, the use of the adjective 'Zionist' in'Zionist views on Jewish origins' means that there is something particular to Zionist thinking, as opposed to Jewish tradition or broader (at the time) contemporary Jewish thinking about Jewish origins, which sets Zionism off from Jewish traditional belief about their historic origins. There is, from your quote, nothing in Baker that makes this distinction. Zionist views on Jewish origins are identical to those maintained by a millenial Jewish tradition, so the adjective, unless proven otherwise, is supererogatory, and the title meaningless. Zionism's projected 'new Jew' has nothing to do with this. Furthermore, this specific item of the 'new Jew' is covered briefly in the article, which however covers a far larger thematic focus, as the sources demand. One cannot invent a title for a complex article by making it represent perhaps 2-3% of the text, while ignoring the overwhelming content of the article.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  But what then is the purpose of all the race and genetic high jinks? One supposes they were/are not doing it just for the fun of it.Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  And there is also a difference between "Zionist views" and "the Zionist view". The page is very much about differing views, one group of people taking one position, and another group of people taking issue with it. The existence of multiple views, presented with NPOV and balance, does not in any way imply that there is one particular kind of view. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Let's try to avoid a 'conversation'. I asked, as the suggested title demands, what is specifically 'Zionist' about asserting Jews originated in Israel? I asked what are the distinctive Zionist views about Jewish origins? This - because it is an extraordinary claim- requires multiple sourcing, not conversation.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me that there is a distinction between some number of diaspora Jews pining for Palestine and an organized effort to construct an ethnicity or nationalist narrative, because without the common descent factor, where is the nation/ethnicity/people/nationality, however one chooses to phrase that? I see this in the sources but you apparently see something else, the 96/7% of the article, presumably. If what you are suggesting is that the article be edited to show that, well I expect that can be done. Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, Self, but that is the kind of assumption that would require an extensive excursus to analyse, and I am only back here to help clarify the confusion over this title. Common descent was a generalized assumption throughout Jewish communities, not Zionist. Zionism's innovation was to assert Jews were a 'race', not a community of believers. The notion of 'nation' did not at that time require a return to Palestine/Israel. See Territorialists and Bundism. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  The race thing is a (more "scientific" as was thought at the time) means of asserting a common descent (ie Jewish origins). As is the genetic hoopla (science again), the aim is the same, establish a common descent -> polity/nation/people/blah. I only mentioned Palestine to highlight the difference between the Zionist approach and the "diaspora" approach, which was what you asked me about. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  My problem is that these notions of the past, caught up in generalizations, if pursued in depth, look simplistic. Doron argued in 1980 that 'race' was seized on as a trump card by Zionism precisely because, while they asserted the Jews were a nation, the claim was counterfactual in the language of that time, since the notion of a nation assumed a common language, territory and state, none of which the Jews had. Since the founding fathers were also secular or atheists, often contemptuous of the putative religious incredulity and superstitiousness of Ostjuden, 'race' was a powerful ersatz for the religious identity of Jews which they repudiated. It is notable that almost none of the Zionist elite for decades ever imagined renouncing their European identities to stake a new life in Palestine. They were as 'diasporic' of their assimilationist adversaries. These concepts were 'instrumental', often a means of resolving, as our article remarks, the pressure of migrating Eastern Jews on Western societies and their Jewish communities. Had I permitted myself a larger rewriting by dwelling on such elements as they emerge in studies on Zionist history (as opposed to the restricted thematics of race and genetics) this would be much clearer. But the remit was to stick to the three themes. One should remember that Zionism was very much a minority voice until way into the thirties, among the Ashkenazi and the Mizrachi. Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  The term "Zionist views" in the plural does not in any way imply that there is one single "a Zionist view". This objection doesn't make sense to me. On the other hand, if Zionist views can't be separated from Jewish views (I'd strongly disagree with that claim) then isn't our current article title (and all other article titles with Zionism in them?) also meaningless? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Viewpoints within Zionism are as varied as they are with Judaism. What we do here is not opinionize, but, I insist, act as amanuenses for what reliable scholarship states, and reliable scholarship, it has been shown exhaustively, takes the three themes of 'Zionism, race and genetics' as thematically intertwined. This article analyses in historical review those aspects of Zionism which engaged in first race and then, if implicitly, in genetic developments. We can talk around, over, under or through any number of feelings or thoughts we may entertain about this and that, but such conversational impressions lack textual cogency.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  thematically intertwined I have agreed with this all along, but intertwined in what way, exactly? What is the unifying theme? Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  There is no single unifying theme independent of the constituent parts (and to think so is to second guess the article and its sources), anymore than a triangle has a unifying theme that privileges a quartum quid to which the defining properties of three vertices and lines are subordinate. That would be a case of what Gilbert Ryle called a ghost category.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that, but for me, I see a unifying theme and I can see it in sources, it is Zionist (ideological) pursuit of a common descent, as it says at Zionism#Ethnic unity and descent from Biblical Jews (accepting that WP is not a source but it links out to this article as main)

  "Early Zionists were the primary Jewish supporters of the idea that Jews are a race, as it "offered scientific 'proof' of the ethno-nationalist myth of common descent". This "racialisation of Jewish identity in the rhetoric of the founders of Zionism" was originally a reaction to European antisemitism. According to Raphael Falk, as early as the 1870s, contrary to largely cultural perspectives among integrated and assimilated Jewish communities in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Romanticism, "the Zionists-to-be stressed that Jews were not merely members of a cultural or a religious entity, but were an integral biological entity". This re-conceptualization of Jewishness cast the "volk" of the Jewish community as a nation-race, in contrast to centuries-old conceptions of the Jewish people as a religious socio-cultural grouping." Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I overlooked this, and feel obliged to reply. The problem is, very little of the scholarship on Zionism is present in wiki articles, and the point you raise would open up a different can of worms. There were extensive debates and disagreements among Zionists about 'common descent', i.e which communities were 'pure' and which miscegenated (implying not common descent). Sephardis could be claimed to be 'Bedouin', the Mizrachi 'Arabs' etc.etc.etc. Koestler thought the Ashkenazi were of Khazar origins, lacking common descent from Hebrews/Israelites, and that theory once played a role in Zionist thinking. Neither Falk nor Weitzman are particularly good on this particular aspect. I touched on this in the section on Ruppin. This article is a general overview of the three entangled topics. The theme 'Jewish origins' is far, far more complex among Zionist thinkers for the first half-century at least, and would require a separate article. Even our sources often make generalizations that simplify these complexities. Those who want a different focus of the type you suggest are at complete liberty, if they have the time, to read widely over a few months, and then write such an article. What this article has, is a mass of information interlinking the dominant motifs and changing research models and methodologies, - the assumptions driving different approaches- and can hardly be expected to bear the added burden of another 50 books and articles going into those kinds of (for this text) subsidiary details.Nishidani (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Several questions - the first, I think, is that the practical question of 50 books or articles needed to do a topic justice isn't a reason to narrow the article scope, necessarily. "Jewish origins" versus "Jewish genetics" is largely a point of semantics I think, since origins is kind of a polite way of saying one's heritage, but is also inclusive of a slightly broader view such as that of history, which we certainly do want to cover in the article. I'm not sure what you mean about the Sephardic being Bedouin, the Mizrahi being Arabs - can you substantiate that (I assume, that is Zionists speaking?) with a more specific cite or source? I am pretty familiar with a different kind of Zionist thinking of a broad tent, type of Jewishness, which would certainly consider the Sephardic Jews to be some very authentically Jewish people indeed, many of whom were forebears of later Ashkenazis Jews as we now know, or Jews in Anatolia and Eastern Europe more generally. If anything, my interpretation is that the known authentic forerunners of both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews were European Jews, and I don't think this is new scholarship, but information such as someone being descended from Rashi or Judah Halevi, was thought to be the case by the early Zionists, was it not? Not that this article must be about folk genealogy but in terms of Zionists, which Zionists would think that Ashkenazi Jews are the "pure ones" and why? If anything, isn't there just a modern-day Israeli influx of Eastern European Jewish Orthodox sects, quite distinct from the Israeli Old Yishuv which was in large part Sephardic/Ottoman? And wasn't this known to the Zionist writers? And the Khazars again - really? Can't that be left out? Andre🚐 00:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but didn't you read the article? I wrote, alluding to this article:

  Sephardis could be claimed to be 'Bedouin', the Mizrachi 'Arabs' etc.etc.etc. Koestler thought the Ashkenazi were of Khazar origins, lacking common descent from Hebrews/Israelites, and that theory once played a role in Zionist thinking. Neither Falk nor Weitzman are particularly good on this particular aspect. I touched on this in the section on Ruppin.

  I.e. the article already states these things, albeit briefly. You reply:

  I'm not sure what you mean about the Sephardic being Bedouin, the Mizrahi being Arabs - can you substantiate that (I assume, that is Zionists speaking?) with a more specific cite or source?

  I.e. you ask me to substantiate what passages in the article, duly sourced, already state, and in my note to Selfstudier I directed sceptics to the specific section (Ruppin) where these points were made. If one fails to check, and simply responds to the talk page, we only get more reiteration. Of course, I can begin to fish out tons of further material to corroborate what I have already sourced. E.g.

  The radical decrease in the number of Sephardim is explained by Ruppin as being the result of certain deficiencies in their biological structure. As the most Semitic component of the Jewish race, they came to represent, in his analysis, a degenerate strain in the Jewish Volk. According to Ruppin, not only had the (Ashkenazi) Jews preserved their racial characteristics, they had also succeeded in improving them through a long process of selection which promoted the fittest among them: rich Jews married their daughters to the most brilliant students, thus ensuring the mental development of the race. The Sephardic- Oriental (Mizrachi) Jews, Ruppin concluded, were lacking this urge for self-selection, a fact that certainly damaged their “vital force.” Another factor which differentiated the Oriental Jews, according to Ruppin’s assertion, was that most of them were actually Arabs and Moslems who had converted over the generations.' Etan Bloom, Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Pre-Israeli Culture, 2011 p.98.

  But I am retired also because it is exasperating to keep arguing on talk pages points that anyone can access by simply reading widely in the scholarship. I frequently get the impression editors have not taken much trouble to read the articles as constituted let alone all the given sources, as opposed to reading and responding to personal opinions or general comments in the talk page threads. I am diffident of 'conversation' that suggests the relevant scholarship has not been studied. If one has an argument, it should be astringently backed, even on talk pages, by specific documented evidence. That is the only efficient way to avoid the drift into conversational opinionizing.Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's a bit of an overstatement of what they're quoting to Ruppin there. He doesn't say that the Sephardic are Bedouin. In fact in this 1907 text, as I stated earlier, he is aware of the preexistence of Sephardic Jews in Israel. the few thousand Sephardic Jews who were already to be found there a century ago. The Jewish population of Palestine consists of three distinct strata. The first is made up of those Sephardic Jews who have lived in the country for centuries, have become closely assimilated, in mores and in the general mode of life, to the local Arabs and who, side by side with Spaniolo, speak Arabic too. A good picture of the life of these Jews is furnished by the town of Saida (the ancient Sidon) where 2000 Jews -- all of them Sephardic -- may be found. They receive no 'Halukkah, earn a difficult and pitiful living as small merchants and artisans, are poorly educated and of a not particularly high moral standing. The Jews of Morocco, Persia and the Yemen, who have come into Palestine of recent years, may be lumped together with this group. You can say I'm splitting hairs but it's an important distinction. He does indeed have a German-race-science tinged view of Ashkenazi superiority, as you said, but it's an oversimplification to claim he thinks Sephardic Jews are Bedouin or equivalent to Bedouin. Nor does it say that Ruppin believed Sephardic Jews lacked Jewish descent. Andre🚐 17:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  So you wish to contest the view Arthur Ruppin endorsed in his Soziologie der Juden (Berlin 1930, vol.1, p.19). I.e. do you really believe that you understand Ruppin better than he himself did or scholarly specialists on his life and writings do?

  I cited a 2011 scholarly biography of Ruppin. It's 400 pages long, and covers Ruppin's writings down to 1941. You cite a primary source reproducing one speech made by Ruppin in 1908 as though that were more authoritative, as you interpret it. Editors must not impose their own interpretations on primary sources, in this case cherrypicked, to oppose what high quality secondary sources write summing up dozens of Ruppin's writings over decades. As I have noted repeatedly, this kind of response is 'conversation', in this case arising from a perusal of a single primary source to draw inferences that serious scholarship dismisses. That is not within our remit as editors.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that a single primary source in the author's own words trumps all the scholarship about him. But the source you provided does not say that Ruppin equated Sephardic Jews with Bedouin. Do you have a source for that statement? It's a nuanced point. He clearly, and I am not contesting, had a dim view of Sephardim and believed them to be inferior to Ashkenazi Jews, but he still considered Sephardim Jewish, despite their inferior status. Do you have a source for the contrary? Andre🚐 20:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  You appear to be trying to draw me into a 'conversation' when the answer to all of your imprecisions is readily available if you take the trouble to read the sources listed under Ruppin on the article bibliography.

  You completely misconstrue the cite from p.98. It elaborates on what Bloom wrote earlier, for example on pp.88, 96. Ruppin thought Ashkenazis were descended from an original Jewish type of Indo-European origin: they were a Nordic race. A part of this type was debilitated by growing semitic influences which produced the Beduinentypus, the 'semitic Jew' among which he classified the Sephardim. I can't keep coming back here to do your work for you if you refuse to read the core sources. If one wishes to comment on Ruppin, the absolute minimum is to read and master the contents of the secondary literature beforehand. Otherwise, we end up with chat that has no functional value.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  What I'm not disputing is that Ruppin believed that the original Jews were European and that the Semitic influence was secondary, which I guess is almost exactly backwards. However, I think this still suggests that "Jewish origins" is a good title for the article. I also don't agree that Falk or Bloom say that Ruppin was saying that Sephardim weren't Jewish. Sephardic Jews were simply made inferior, but he does not say that they lacked a common origin. According to Falk 2017, Bloom (2008, p. 13) insists that Ruppin thought of himself as a culture planner, and as such was a loyal supporter of the theories of the cultural superiority of the nations of Central Europe and of the significance of eugenic measures for the preservation of their achievements. Since the ‘original’ Semitic race was considered akin to the inferior Bedouin type, Ruppin segregated the Ashkenazi Jews from the main Semitic stock. Referring to von Luschan’s analyses of the multiracial origins of the ancient Jews, Ruppin endeavored to distance Semitism from the image of the ‘original jew’ and to bring him closer to the Indo-Germanic races. Bloom contends that Ruppin’s universal humanism was directed at the Ashkenazim, whom Ruppin identified as the definitive Jewish type in modern times. “As far as he was concerned, the original and healthy Jews, who are responsible for the virtues of Jewish culture, belong racially mainly to the Indo-Germanics.” Furthermore, Bloom claims that according to Ruppin “modern race research proved that the Semitic element in the Jewish race is degenerating, and the Zionist process of national resurrection , being eugenic in nature, gradually dismisses the Semites racial and cultural elements” (Bloom 2008, pp. 104–109) .... According to Bloom, the answer may be formulated as follows: The reason for the deterioration of the original Jews (the Urjuden) was the introduction of the racial Semitic element among the Jewish people, primarily the Bedouin or Middle Eastern type. For Ruppin, the original Jews, those who were farmers and lived prior to the destruction of the First Temple, were non-Semitic tribes. Again, this is very wrong and backwards and discredited eugenic thought but it never says that Ruppin said Sephardim weren't Jewish, lacked Jewish origin or weren't legitimate claimants to Jewish heritage or descent. Andre🚐 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I also don't agree that Falk or Bloom say that Ruppin was saying that Sephardim weren't Jewish. Sephardic Jews were simply made inferior, but he does not say that they lacked a common origin

  Sorry, but that's a strawman. Where did I ever state that Bloom and or Falk construe Ruppin as saying the Sephardim weren't Jewish? (In 1918 ben-Gurion stated that in all probability the Palestinians were of Jewish origin). I said Ruppin thought the authentic heirs of the ancient Jews were the Ashkenazi who putatively maintained like their 'nordic' forefathers their Indo-European racial characteristics, as opposed to Bedouin-type Jews who were contaminated by interbreeding with Semitic peoples. Ruppin's race theories played a significant role in blocking further 2nd aliyah Yemenite immigration, as they did in denying Ethiopian Jews, 'niggers' to perform aliyah. Eliding the concept of 'race' from early Zionism and replacing it with some generic quest for Jewish origins (academic speculations with no pragmatic value in that period's Zionism) simply obscures one of the driving forces in population selection operative for decades. Surely Onceinawhile and myself are not the only content editors who are capable of writing an article, with ample access to much wider materials, on Zionist views on Jewish origins. That is not what this article was designed for.Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, the article scope should continue to be "Jewish genetics", or "Issues in Jewish genetics" or "The content which couldn't be added to genetic studies on Jews because that is a scientific article". Should drop 'Zionism' and 'race' from the title rather than 'genetics'. That does not require excluding any of the current content, which is necessary for the reader, but maybe some expansion of the scope. fiveby(zero) 13:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Given the impasse, perhaps we should review briefly the major staging points in our discussions over the past two months, to try to sort this out. I'd be willing to give my version of this history, if editors think it might help.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support fundamentally a reasonable improvement. Andre🚐 21:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - current title is fine. The scope of the article is the intersection between Zionism, race, and genetics, and the sources for this scope are cited in the article, e.g. Baker, Efrim, Falk, etc. This title is the most concise/precise/consistent/etc (WP:AT) title for that scope that I can think of. The proposed title--like all the proposed titles I've seen on this page--is a title for a different article. "Zionist views on X" would be an article that covers all Zionists' various views of X. That is not the same thing as an article about the intersection of Zionism, race, and genetics -- that's one view held by some Zionists -- a notable view, studied by scholars, but not the full range of views of Zionists on Jewish origins. Someone could write an article about Zionists' various views on Jewish origins, of course, but it'd be a different article about a related but different topic. Levivich (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is a good argument but I think the "and" is ambiguous, in the title. You mention the "interaction" between these 3 things but it is vague. Zionism, race, and genetics aren't all 3 celestial bodies orbiting abstractly around a narrative solar system. Isn't there a better way we can frame those 3 nouns with something descriptive and not just a loose linkage? Andre🚐 20:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just on this technical issue in grammar. I should have clarified this before because it was raised earlier (and I didn't think it important at the time) 'And' here is just a coordinating conjunction between two substantives, the last two of three, and allows no margin for ambiguity or misunderstanding (cp.fathers and sons, War and Peace, or better still, Bill Miller's recent book, Politics, Economics and Religion: Socialism, Fascism, Capitalism and Religion. (2018). There is no equivocation, or implication of possible semantic confusion, in what is a normal idiomatic listing of distinct elements in a series.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a technical issue, it's a narrative issue. The article is entitled, Zionism, race and genetics. Aside from the entire ambiguity of the lack of Oxford comma, which is not worth discussion. The point is: Zionism, race, and genetics: what about it? That's not a construction that is WP:COMMONNAME of anything I know of. Therefore, may be synthetic, or original. It is indeed vague: how does Zionism, relate to race, and how does it related to genetics, and how do those two relate? Your examples such as War and Peace borrow a construction from the title of a preexisting work. Is there an extant source of the construction relating these 3 topics? Note that I am not making a grammatical argument on the technicalities of usage, or of semantics. I am simply asking if there is an extant, non-Misplaced Pages topic that frames those 3 topics together in that particular way. Andre🚐 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is essentially the same question I have, I see those three things as related in a certain way in the sources (other people might see the relationship differently) but Nishidani has it that they are related ("thematically intertwined") in some other ill-defined fashion ("There is no single unifying theme independent of the constituent parts"). Selfstudier (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I answered you below. The simple answer is, I like many others, see 3 words in a title, and understand immediately what the article is about, because the title formula used is standard in scholarly books and articles which announce their subject matter in that succinct way. The 'how' of their 'relationship' is what the reader discovers in reading any book or article with a three-word title. Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  But where is the scholarly book for this case? The nearest I see is Falk's Zionism and the Biology of Jews (or perhaps Baker's Zionism's New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew). Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  in this case? That, dear Self, misses the point. I am not talking about content, but the formal structure of titles. The terms used to fill the sequences of substantives deployed in a X,Y and Z title will vary depending on thematic focus. Love, life and death, Capitalism, communism and fascism, Husbands, wives and children, ad infinitum. All that is required to justify a version like Zionism, race(,) and genetics is that evidence be given that the three are treated extensively as a thematic ensemble in scholarship. There is a huge amount of 'conversation' here that lacks analytical rigour, so one way out is to recast the whole contention in logical form and evidential precedent, which eliminates subjective opinionizing. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose but remain open-minded, based on the discussion so far:

1) Noone has argued that the article’s scope or content should be changed. Opposition to the proposed rename has focused on the fact that the new title would meaningfully change the scope, and supporters of a change are yet to fully address this concern.

2) The core argument for a rename appears to be that a triple-conjunction is unusual on Misplaced Pages – I am sympathetic to that. Other related arguments about the term race, or race and genetics, are not convincing to me given the thorough treatment at race and genetics, and the wide sourcing in this article.

3) I wrote above of "Zionism and the ancestral origins of modern Jews”; the rest of the discussion has highlighted the additional core concept of the reformulation of Jewishness in terms of racial and genetic identity. So a title with the same scope would be more along the lines of "Zionism and the racial-genetic origin-based identity of modern Jews".

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To me, the article title "Zionism and the racial-genetic origin-based identity of modern Jews" implies there is a racial-genetic origin-based identity of modern Jews, whereas the title "Zionism, race, and genetics" does not imply anything about those three subjects or their intersection (which is a good thing). (Maybe though we can all agree to add the oxford comma.) Levivich (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at it cold, I agree. It's like "Israel and the apartheid regime" vs "Israel and apartheid" — I can’t quite explain grammatically why, but the first formulation seems to imply something where the second does not. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

'the' in 'the apartheid regime' is the culprit. There are apartheid-like regimes, each differing in details from the primary model (South Africa). I.e., the title begs a question (what or which regime?), which 'Israel and apartheid' doesn't, since it simply states that the article will deal with the literature that treats the two as having some links, or similarities or dissimilarities. Substantives in a series tell you nothing of what to expect other than that the article or book will deal with the items together. As in logic, minimalism excludes discursive equivocation. Both Andrevan and Levivich's point on the comma are well-taken. I already looked into that and found both threesome titles with or without the Oxford comma (damned impertinence. Is (the) Cambridge (University Press) to be mocked as linguistically unsubtle?) in relatively equal distribution. So its introduction or absence is not problematical.Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd also support adding the comma, if nothing else can be agreed to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, so a neutral version might be: "Zionism and racial-genetic origin in the identity of modern Jews". Onceinawhile (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That might work, "Zionism and racial-genetic origin(s) in Jewish identity" is sufficient, perhaps. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I could go along with "Zionism and racial-genetic origins in Jewish identity", if that would lead to consensus, although I find it a bit wordy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

At this point I'm embarrassed. I've nothing against adjusting titles, I just want to see 'rational' motivations for it, which means a cogent logical reason for opposing what exists. As to this discursive title: I've spend almost 2 decades trying to insist on disentangling 'Jewish/Jews'/Israel/Zionism from some intrinsic implication of identity or interchangeability. Judaism forms one of the great civilizations proven over millennia in hundreds of distinctive traditions drawing inspiration from its foundational beliefs. Zionism is a very recent blip (so far), an extraordinary experiment driven by a teleological vision that it is the logical culmination of Judaism. Whatever the merits, Jews in all of their multifarious communal and individual identities can't be straightjacketed into any political or stereotypical identity: when they are, usually by outsiders, damage has been inflicted on Judaism and Jews and disaster has frequently been in the wings. I have no idea what an 'ethnic identity' is other than political or geographical shorthand, and I just feel viscerally uneasy about, in particular, any language which pins a collectivist 'identity' on Jews, or which strengthens some reflex mental association between being Jewish and genetics or a specific state. Sorry for this foruming but 'Zionism, race and genetics' steps outside of the resonances of always classifying 'Jews' trying to pin them down, like Eliot's Prufock:

When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,

Then how should I begin

To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?

And how should I presume?

I can't bring myself to use the word with personal acquaintances for that reason, imagining the sense of fastidium it must tendentially conjure up in a friend. That is my bias, of course.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so but it seems to me that is exactly what Zionism is/has been trying to do and the hell with whoever disagrees, diaspora included. I agree that the issues are a bit of a tangle but a Misplaced Pages title here or there isn't going to make much of a difference. The issue is whether, within the bounds of WP policies, there is editorial consensus on the title and it seems pretty obvious that there isn't yet. That usually means we keep looking. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of Zionists, some of my acquaintance, who are convinced that Zionism's foundation of a state for Jews was an historical necessity and yet who are repelled by racism, within Israel or elsdewhere, precisely because Jews were its prime victims, and they take this as a particular lesson illustrating a universal principle. Whatever Zionism's tragic thrust, we should avoid strengthening the biases already contaminating public discourse. It is part of the hasbara remit of Zionism to insist the two categories imbricate.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I read Post-Zionism and some of the other flavors of Zionism and just confused myself. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

have no idea what an 'ethnic identity' is other than political or geographical shorthand, and I just feel viscerally uneasy about, in particular, any language which pins a collectivist 'identity' on Jews thanks for admitting that, but this is problematic. You may feel this way, but we can't insert that feeling into the article. Jews indeed do have a collective identity. Actually, a multitude of identities as you point out, but there are absolutely well-defined community lines, and you can't deny their existence in article mainspace text. The reason why these must exist is that they do in the source material. I do not seek to shame you or sanction you, merely to point out that you are incorrect on this point. There absolutely is, unequivocally, at least several major Jewish identities, and through their analysis we may meaningfully deduce that, yes, there's something shared among the Jewish heritage that manifests itself in all of the major Jewish groups. It's a bit hard to pin down, yes, but it exists - what we mean when we refer to the "ethnic identity" of Jewish people. It's no more real or less real than the national or ethnic identity of any other group. We have a mandate on Misplaced Pages, that it doesn't matter whether you are uncomfortable with the term "ethnic identity." All that matters is what the expert academics mean when they say that. I do not at all believe it is the case that there aren't social scientists and anthropologists and ethnologists and scholars of historical and religious studies that use this term in a rigorous, and not at all a shorthand way. Andre🚐 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

My own views are totally absent from this article. I would write something completely different were I to interpret the sources, and other primary sources, with the liberty of a scholar. Here I am a wikipedian. In real life, I was a specialist in ethnic ideology, esp. in analysing the flaws in what experts describe as a given identity that is putatively valid for all members of the named ethnic group. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

With full respect to your contributions to Misplaced Pages and your much good writing and research, I am guessing that this makes the topic very close to you. As many people do. The important thing is to reflect the scenario that we find playing out in a dispassionate way. Without accusation of any bad faith intent, I find it problematic that you believe it's a well-established and defensible view that "ethnicity" kind of isn't a real thing. It's true that labels are imprecise and that in some cases, there are exceptions that are hard to categorize. But by and large, if you slice a cross-section of say, all of the Jews who emigrated from the Pale of Settlement and the former Russian Empire (or Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc) to UK, USA, Canada, Argentina, and whatever other statistically significant locales Ashkenazi Jews emigrated to, you'd find a shared religious heritage, shared cuisine, shared language (Yiddish), songs, expressions, names, and yeah, a ton of shared DNA and yes, physical traits. A melting pot, with plenty of cultural diffusion to be sure. And they're also going to share a lot of things with a Sephardic Jewish converso or crypto-Jew. Does that mean any given person is going to check all the boxes? No. But there are absolutely real ethnic groups. No different than someone from Ghana or Uzbekistan. Frankly, it's slightly surprising that someone in 2023 could be arguing that ethnic groups are essentially arbitrary and there is no such thing as a Jewish national group. Jews all over the world are connected by shared heritage that is indeed a real thing, even though many Jews have different levels of observance or particular interpretations or adherences. Not all Jews are Zionist or Israeli, but "the invention of the Jewish people" is just a book title. We can't make the entirety of Misplaced Pages reflect that perspective because that is not what the literature reflects, as a whole. Andre🚐 22:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Read up on identity formation and theory under nationalism. There's a vast literature from at least the 1980s, familiarity with which would show the frailty, or superficialty (I say that in the specific geometrical sense, and no other) of the truisms above.Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

And in your view, are the Serbs, the Kurds, the Arabs, the Zulu, also brainwashed by the propaganda and imagining their people to have a shared culture? Andre🚐 23:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I suggest you start by reading popular books like Imagined Communities and Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Roughly the world was a spectrum of overlapping and gradually-diffused language sprachbunds, religious and cultural practices. Most people lived in rural or semi-rural areas and had no interest in who ruled some wider area they never saw, they cared only who claimed taxes from them and gave them protection. Mass media changed everything:

• The first mass media were religious books, hence some religious practices became standardized, giving the people reading those books (or listening to them being preached) an imagined connection.
• A millennium or two later, media proliferation from the printing press - particularly once the presses began printing in chosen vernaculars - we saw the standardization of "national" languages. Everyone reading the same newspapers created a new imagined connection.

The successfully self-propagating idea of "nationalism" then backfilled a romantic history for each set of "people", based either on their standardized language, religion, or - occasionally - just their political boundaries. Every "nation" built itself a story.

And here we are today. Andrevan, you and I probably have more of a shared culture than we do with random people we just passed on the street, because we both have a shared interest in building an online encyclopedia. Despite the fact we probably live in different countries, may speak different languages, and may believe different things. Perhaps we should start our own nation. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"A nation is a group of people united by a mistaken view of their past and hostility toward their neighbors." — Karl Deutsch (h/t Buidhe) Levivich (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Many scholars would argue that all national identities are socially constructed, which is not to say they aren't any less "real" than money, which is also a social construct. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I like that connection a lot; Yuval Noah Harari made the point very well. Money works because people believe in it. So do nations. Money can disappear when people lose belief in it, and so can ethnic identities and nations. They are both real, because people believe they are. This is the beauty of the highly flexible concept of ethnicity - it needs only to be believed to exist.

That is not the case with race and genetics, which require more than belief. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not averse to a bit of philosophizing, and I may agree with a lot of what you're saying, but this is not a given. National identities are real things and are treated as real things by the source material that the encyclopedia is based on. It really doesn't matter if you "redpilled" me to believe that everything from money to borders are meaningless. The point is that the material treats these things as real and therefore so do we. The fact that it happens to be about Jewish people makes it a bit more controversial and the stakes higher, but still nobody has answered my question in a straight way. Sure, I agree that lots of things are socially constructed. I never said that Judaism was given directly to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Nonetheless, the Jewish culture and the Jewish groups out in the world do exist, and reliable sources comment on and observe them and write about them, so we do as well. This is not the postmodern, progressive encylopedia, it's by its nature somewhat of a conservative work because we are essentially backward looking and writing about things like history. So yeah, in history there's a group of people called the Jewish people and you can follow what is said about the various blurry agglomerations like sprachbunds and all that. Telling me to read a book like Sapiens - a, we cannot put authoritative weight on such a work, which is a popular scientific work that is relatively recent and has been not met with universal acclaim nor acceptance, b, it's avoiding the issue here and skirting around the real issue. The Jewish people existed long before Zionism, and there really shouldn't be a factual dispute on that matter. Andre🚐 17:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You are mixing up what does exist and what did exist. Your last sentence is incongruous with the rest. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Anything that existed and was significantly covered in reliable sources should be covered here. Can you elaborate on what you mean that I am mixing up? For example, most Jewish people in the US came in to places like NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Montreal, from Eastern Europe and had nothing to do with Israel or Zionism. Israeli culture and Zionism are specific offshoots of a larger umbrella of Jewish movements. But there was an active Jewish diaspora community for hundreds of years before Zionism even a consideration. Andre🚐 18:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yugoslavism is a good thought experiment to help here. Would you say that the Yugoslav people existed long before Yugoslavia? It doesn't sound right does it, because no-one believes in Yugoslavia any more. But if I made the same statement in 1950 it would have felt totally normal.

Your sentence suggests that in medieval times, Yemeni Jews felt an ethnic bond with Polish Jews - there is no evidence for that at all. You should try reading this letter, by the only Jew in the British cabinet at the time of the Balfour Declaration: I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race. The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related through the ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they certainly do not belong to the same nation. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Strong disagree. The ethnic groups, not to leave anyone out as I am simply copy-pasting from the article, in the former Yugoslavia are Bosniaks, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Slovenes, but also Bulgarians. Each of these groups has many things from a language to a cuisine. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they diverge. You're completely wrong about your comparison, since the Jewish nation indeed did have solidarity despite the quote you offer, which is hardly a summation of all of history. In fact, there is documentary evidence to the contrary. Merchant networks such as the Radhanites operated trade networks across diverse locales such as Italy, the Ottoman Empire and the Mediterannean, see the work of Francesca Trivellato. There was correspondence among Jewish kinship groups throughout many religious and other disputes which are well-covered in Misplaced Pages if you do some cursory reading. The immigrant banks in the United States, similar to a landsmanschaft or a benevolent society, such as the Blitzstein Bank and the Rosenbaum Bank, operated systems whereby Russian Jews could obtain passage to the United States and join the exiled communities of expatriates. Many other ethnic groups have similar societies in the United States. I suspect you are hyperfocused on the 1948 time period and are missing the forest for the trees. Andre🚐 18:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Each of these groups has many things from a language to a cuisine. => when were the borders between these languages and cuisines created do you think?
• Trivellato wrote about Livorno Jews, a specific subgroup. On the Radhanites, too little is known to make judgements about ethnicity.
• On late 19th century Jewish America, see the Pittsburgh Platform which opposed Zionism: We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state.

Could we please stop this back and forth until you have had time to read a little more? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, your repeated references to the situation is America is a whole new topic - the problems of the Hyphenated American. Irrespective of the entirely absurd suggestion that Jews immigrating to America were untouched by Zionism (the World Zionist Organization knew full well that American Jewish public opinion was the most important element of getting a Jewish homeland in the 1910s), American culture encourages the retention of "old world sub-identities", and Jews in America developed their own identity within that.

You might also be interested to note that America governments in the late 19th and early 20th centuries strongly encouraged the formation of nationalisms across the world (most notably Woodrow Wilson), because it aided their wider goal of dismantling the empires they were competing against. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Most Jews leaving Romania or Ukraine to flee the pogroms were not Zionists, and maybe weren't even aware of Zionism. Sure, many Jewish people, most of them religious, also joined the Old Yishuv, or made pilgrimage to Ottoman Palestine. However, for the most part, a poor, moderately secular Jewish immigrant coming to work in American factories didn't know or care about Zionism. They did definitely know about matzo ball soup and Hine Ma Tov. American Jewish immigrants frequently intermarry, creating endogamy which shows up in DNA. At any rate, your opinions about the United States' relationship to its national pluralism and multiethnic polity especially in the 20th century are out of step with the mainstream. Andre🚐 19:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and their Christian neighbours they left behind in Eastern Europe ate Knödel (e.g. Semmelknödel) and sang Psalm 133 to music since at least the 1500s. Noone knows who influenced who. Your suggestion below that there was with Ukrainians, or Lithuanians, who were Christian or Muslim is false and absurd.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. While we may not know who invented dumplings, we do know that only Jewish people eat matzah due to that specific relationship to their custom and tradition. So if it's a matzo ball, it is not the same as a Polish dumpling. We can check that out. We can also observe that Jewish communities don't have pork bones due to kashrut. We also know that yeah, the Psalms, are you seriously claiming that the Christian communities invented the Psalms? 'Cause, I've never actually heard of that one. Andre🚐 21:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The Ashkenazi foods were similar to those of their non-Jewish neighbours, with religious modifications.

Neither European Christians, nor European Jews, invented the Psalms. They both inherited and used them for exactly the same period of time, and influenced each other throughout. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hebrew-Yiddish speakers sang a Hebrew folk song that they inherited from their ancestors. Separately, Christian Europeans might have sung folk songs that they inherited from their Romanized ancestors. These are not the same. There was no Jewish colonial empire; Jews are a people throughout history that were refugees from place to place, travelling merchants, and a class set apart by the European countries of the time. Generally, the Arab world was kinder to Jews up to a point in the middle ages. Andre🚐 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The key assumption in here is who-is-whose-ancient-ancestor. An assumption, but no evidence exists. Without it your point falls apart. Anyway, Nishidani is right - we are not progressing the article with this tangent. I am happy to continue in the userspace if you wish to learn more about where you are wrong… Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's true that this is a tangent, but when I see two editors disagreeing so diametrically, I feel the need to find a way to reconcile the difference. Perhaps Andrevan is thinking of Jewish peoplehood as deriving from the shared experience of a practice of worship, the way that Jews see themselves as a people who have a unique spiritual experience. And perhaps Onceinawhile is, instead, looking at the multiple cultural practices that Jews have engaged in, in various geographic locations, sometimes sharing those practices with other neighboring people. (And if I'm wrong – never mind!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In a historical context, the religious aspect was extremely important. In a modern context, it is of greatly diminished relevance. But there are at least 4 very different religious interpretations of Judaism. Whereas they are all united by being Jewish. See who is a Jew? for more. Andre🚐 23:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What all of that has in common is that it is either a religious experience or a religious interpretation. None of it is based on anything like food or language or other cultural aspects. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. It is not purely religious, and it is not all wrapped up in religious interpretation. That article on several points goes into the cultural, secular, and other aspects. Andre🚐 23:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried to find common ground between you and Onceinawhile, and I have clearly failed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's just a misunderstanding. Judaism is a religion, and there is also a Jewish ethnic group. The two are intertwined, but not equivalent. Andre🚐 21:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say, but apparently in the wrong words. I thought you were seeing it in terms of the continuity of the religion, and Onceinawhile was seeing it in terms of the variability of ethnic expression. And if I'm wrong about that, I'm not going to reply to your correction of me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. I appreciate you trying to be helpful and to shed more light on the scenario. I am not religious, but you can't remove the religion from the story of Jewish history, and the various religious doctrinal conflicts do influence everything from food to music to literature, just like they do in Christian Europe or in Vedic India. Andre🚐 21:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said, the borders between languages and cuisines are fluid, not fixed. They move over time, and they do not need to be fixed to be covered in Misplaced Pages. I think you are the one who must read more, perhaps about Jewish history or Misplaced Pages policy and guideline. Contradictions and ambiguities are OK and do not need be ironed out, just described as the sources describe them. Trivellato specifically talks about the Jewish relations across borders. Livorno Jews, are not a subgroup. Livorno was a place that Portuguese and Spanish Jews ended up after the exile. Sephardic Jews also ended up in the Ottoman Empire, and North Africa such as Tunisian Jews. They shared a kinship bond and a correspondence bond across national borders. And the borders kept moving. A Jewish person from Kishinev or Balta, Ukraine or from various locales throughout Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, etc., was a Jew and had a kinship with other Jews. Not with Ukrainians, or Lithuanians, who were Christian or Muslim. They came to the USA and they joined a Jewish community in the Lower East Side. Which, as you say, was often opposed to Zionism. Andre🚐 18:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You are extrapolating without evidence. Sephardic Jews in Italy and Tunisia had family connections - they are neighboring countries. Same with Poland and Lithuania. But was there really one global "Jewish people"? No evidence exists. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I've laid some of the evidence out, and indeed, Trivellato writes about their collective identity at length You are simply incorrect, and more importantly, reputable historical experts can substantiate this. I haven't read it, but Salo Baron: Salo Baron: The Past and Future of Jewish Studies in America, could be a good way to describe how the field of Jewish studies has covered the evolving field of Jewish identity over time and in different historical periods or national locations. Let's stick to the sources please, and not original revisionist hypotheses. Andre🚐 19:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Surely it is pretty subjective? What Montagu might find imaginary and daft, others might find tangible. As with many things, isn't it rather in the eye of the beholder? Although it is probable that your average Tunisia Jew and Iranian Jew in the 19th century would have struggled to speak/relate to each other just as much as your average Tunisia Muslim and Iranian Muslim might. Familiarity is tricky without shared language. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not subjective, it is just blurry, and relative. A Tunisian and an Iranian Jew would share the Sh'ma, possibly similar names (because Jews in every country have names like Benjamin and David, just like Muslims from every country might be named Muhammad), while the cuisines have differences, there would probably be some similarities. Depending on their specific journeys, they might share more. What the merchant groups did in the Middle Ages and whatnot is communicated using a lingua franca whether French, Greek, Ladino, Yiddish (which is a Germanic language with Hebrew loanwords that can be spoken in different dialects in many different countries such as Russia, Poland, Ukraine, etc), etc. But, there are indeed records from the Middle Ages of people like Benjamin of Tudela who explicitly kept track of the Jews in different places he visited. It was also common to dispatch one's offspring to move to another town to help the merchant business. I believe the difference with Muslims is that you have Arab, and non-Arab Muslims. So they might have some commonalities, and some differences, but I think there's a wider gap there due to the Islamic missionary tradition, whereas Judaism did not have much of a missionary tradition and often excluded or kept out outsiders in history (or all the Jews were kicked out of a country), but within Arab Muslims or within Bedouin tribes, I am guessing there are similar kinship lines. Andre🚐 19:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

One mistake above is the implication that the concept of an “Arab” is any different. It means someone who speaks Arabic. Is a Somali the same ethnicity as an Iraqi?

An Indonesian muslim shares prayers with a Tatar muslim in Russia. Muslim geographers counted muslims in far flung countries. Does that make them the same ethnicity?

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The answer to all of the above question is "it depends." Conventionally if I refer to an Arab Muslim, as our own article reads, They are descended from the early Arab tribes of Levant, Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia who embraced Islam in the 7th century. They carry that ethnic identity that bind ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historical and nationalist. If you don't really agree with that, WP:RGW is the direction and maybe we should both take a break. Andre🚐 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The Arab Muslims article doesn't get much attention. See Talk:Arabs if you want to see the meat of it. Those people who think that a population of almost 500 million descend from the tiny population of the inhospitable Arabian desert could at least try applying logic if they are too lazy to visit a library. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The bottom line is you are proposing what amounts to a WP:FRINGE view of history. History does not go around saying Arab just means any Arab speaker. There are many Arab speakers who were not Arab Muslims - such as the aforementioned Judeo-Arabic speaking Tunisian Jews. There were also many Muslims such as Iranian Muslims who are not Arab - they didn't speak Arabic, and weren't ethnically Arab. There were also many people absorbed into the ethnic groups of Judaism or (more frequently) Christian or Muslim groups, and we don't exactly know when. But cultural amalgamation doesn't mean there are no ethnic groups in history. It's true that there are multiple lineages, there are exceptions, and errors. Still, there is an Arab world, Arab cuisine, Arab culture, Arab people, etc. You cannot deny their existence because they appear in reliable sources. Jewish people did not start appearing in sources in 1948, and it's an absurd and offensive suggestion that the ethnogenesis of Jews was a fictionalized Zionist propaganda. There are Jews in antiquity throughout the history of the Roman and Byzantine Empire. This is elementary knowledge. Andre🚐 21:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This post suggests you are not yet able to dissociate identity construction from history. You talk about Judeo-Arabic-speaking Jews, but appear unaware of Arab Jews. Are Arab Christians Arabs? Why not Jews? It is ultimately a communal choice. You appear to have a knowledge of “popular history” but little knowledge of the scholarly views. Anyway, per Nishidani, it is time to stop this tangent. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to use the term Mizrahi Jews and I think the Arab Jews article notes that it is a loaded term in the Israel-Palestine context. Which once again shows that you are tunnel-vision like focused on the Israel-Palestine aspect and lack greater context on Jewish history. Yes, Arab Christians are Arabs. Are Arab Jews Arab? Sometimes. It depends. History and reality don't have bright lines. That is important to comprehend. Andre🚐 22:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but all this is pointless. The simplest way to show the difficulties of any assertion of a common ethno-cultural unity is, with any population, to contrast people with the same 'ethnicity' but diametrically opposed values. In this case, what is it that constitutes the shared 'Jewishness' of

Margherita Sarfatti and Rosa Luxemburg

Bugsy Siegel and Elena Kagan

Baruch Goldstein and Albert Einstein

Dov Lior and Baruch Spinoza

The answer is, nothing other than Jewish parenthood. In all such examples, each would share more in common with their non-Jewish colleagues than they would with each other. Can we drop this? It is totally irrelevant to the article.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in your examples refutes this the existence of a Jewish people or a Jewish ethnic group. I'm not sure how you would think that there being a diverse group of values or opinions in an ethnic group means that therefore there is no group. Intersectionality isn't the right word, but it's pretty fundamental. Spinoza, as you probably know, was excommunicated and notably cut off from the group by the religious authority at the time, which is a big deal at the time. In the cases of secular Jews, they were still ethnically Jewish when not religiously or culturally Jewish (I don't know, specifically, how many of the secular Jews on your list practiced any Jewish tradition or cultural practice) Einstein had a notable public and complex relationship with Judaism and with Zionism. I do not think Bugsy Siegel had a relationship with Zionism, but he was definitely Jewish. The question of the Zionism, race, and genetics article is touched upon at several points, such as the portion of El Haj, which favors the view that you are espousing here, and others, namely, that ethnicity is a fiction, or some such equivalent perspective. But that is not the majority perspective of scholarship. Andre🚐 22:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Conversation continued at User talk:Onceinawhile#Re: Evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Responding in minutes to a complex set of counterveiling contrasts that underline the immense difficulties in any slipshod generalization about a putative 'ethnic unity' signals an unwillingness to think through the exposed assumptions, while generating, in reply further misprisions which in turn would elicit other objections ad nauseam. The result is tedious, barroom level chat. You simply haven't grasped the point, and just citing stuff from wiki articles all of which share the same wildly loose premise or doctrinal meme you take to be self-evident (ergo circular reasoning) is meaningless since wikipedia is not a reliable source on this. When Einstein and Sergei Eisenstein attended a private performance of a famed Yemenite traditional singer in 1931, the former felt he detected some distant but common strain of Jewishness in the folk air, while the latter disagreed, stating that this oriental tradition struck him as totally alien to his own sense of Jewish culture. But all this chatter is an abuse of the function of the page. No one is interested in what you or I or Once may privately think about such questions. Please desist.Nishidani (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Everything I've written above with references to other Misplaced Pages articles may be sourced easily, and I am happy to do so, you need only challenge the validity of the statement, but nothing I wrote above was circular at all, and that's a WP:FRINGE view and has no place here or anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Andre🚐 03:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Recap

• To recap. This article began as a stub, and was immediately subject to 2 deletion proposals.
• The name was, it was argued, a compound of three terms. No literature covered those three terms together, ergo it was a classic example of WP:Synth.
• Three term titles do exist, i.e. Race and ethnicity in the United States, where the locative ‘in the United States’ has the same function as ‘Zionism’ (the ideological area) in our title. In any case, this argument was demolished: an ample literature exists discussing those three terms conjointly. There was no WP:Synth. Or if any examples could be pointed out, they would be eliminated.
• I stepped in, asked for three weeks to redraft the article. Some 90 sources of excellent quality were read, and harvested rigorously to respect the terms of the title. I.e. they dealt with various aspects of the nexus between the concept of race, and genetics in the history of Zionism. Despite the radical revision, the use of not 15 but 90 sources, and the expansion of text by 100,000kbs, discontent expressing the same original diffidence about the stub has persisted, as if nothing had changed.
• The article thus is written strictly to reflect the title we have. A large amount of matter extraneous to these entwined thematics was ignored for that reason.
• From the beginning of redrafting to the present only two aspects of the article were challenged: (a) the title (b) the lead.
• It is objected that (a) ‘Zionism, race and genetics’ gives the misleading impression that race and genetics are interchangeable, notwithstanding the fact that one is a subjective notion in relative desuetude, the result of a pseudoscience, the other predicated on the ideals of a pure science detached from the ideological biases of the earlier idiom of race. This is to (i) misconstrue the title, and (ii) ignore the witness of contemporary scholarship.
• (ib)If one were to write an article:’Democracy, equality and liberty,’ (this has been a fundamental question of political science at least since the 1950s), no one would infer that such a formulation cross-contaminates equality and liberty, which are distinct values, though conceptually connected. Indeed they exist in dramatic and dynamic tension in all discussions of democracy. Likewise, the juxtaposition of race and genetics in no way presupposes the two terms are either interchangeable, or being confused, with one undermining the scientific cogency of the other.

• (iib)Despite repeated denials on the talk page, the literature on race and genetics unequivocally underlines currents of conceptual continuity between the old language of race, and the newer idiom or methods of genetics. I cited Gilman and Duster. Here are two further examples. The first is just published, a joint work sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and written by experts for Nasem

• ’The misconception that human beings can be naturally divided into biologically distinguishable races has been extremely resilient and has become embedded in scientific research, medical practice and technologies, and formal education. Many elements of racial thinking, including essentialism and biological determinism, have influenced modern thinking around human genetics, to the marginalization of some peoples and the benefit of others . . racist concepts of race that are deeply embedded in science and U.S. society more broadly continue to affect scientific thinking and research, Scientists must critically examine the underlying assumptions about race—and human commonalityand difference—that shape their research studies..’‘Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research: A New Framework for an Evolving Field,’ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine/. National Academies Press 2023 pp.1,32.

• Most human geneticists are aware of the problems of imprecise or misused language, but face the difficulty that such language is embedded in many of the methods, tools and data we use. Clinical and anthropological datasets, which can be of enormous utility, often use outdated and scientifically incoherent labels to describe the individuals whose data they include . . the social categories and other groupings that individuals belong to are inescapable components of genetics research. However, within the human genetics community, some aspects of the academic language used to describe groups and subsets of people may foster erroneous beliefs beyond academia about human biology and the nature of these categories. Such descriptions frequently invoke concepts of ancestry and population structure, for reasons we will discuss below. But ancestry itself is often a poorly understood concept, and its relationship to genetic data is not straightforward. There are many implicit assumptions involved in inferring ancestry and population structure, and a similar number of pitfalls when interpreting the output of population genetic clustering analyses and algorithms. For example, the structures found in principal components analysis (PCA) of genetic variation depend strongly on the distribution of genetic ancestry included in the dataset, and is necessarily a sample-specific representation of genetic relationships. Similarly,the clusters identified by widely used methods such as STRUCTURE are often assigned ‘ancestry’ labels based on the present-day populations within the analysis in which cluster membership happens to be maximised, rather than any explicit inference of ancestral demography. The collection and sampling of genetic data - which often follows existing cultural, anthropological, geographical or political categories - also has a substantial impact, to the extent that some aspects of the clustering reflect sampling strategies rather thanany inherent genetic structure.’ ,Ewan Birney, Michael Inouye, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford Aylwyn Scally,’ ‘The language of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in human genetic research,’ Biology June 2021.

• The impasse here is that half of the editors on the talk page dislike the title, and attempts have been made to accommodate their desire for a different title. The problem with a different title is that any one alternative will implicitly question virtually the legitimacy of the article as completed, one written with a singular focus on representing the complex aspects of the three terms as covered in very high quality RS, and thus suggesting that it be rewritten comprehensively to reflecf the new title which, unlike the present one, will not reflect or summarize the content we have. As AndytheGrump noted, if that is the purpose, then it should be clearly stated, since a name-change of this kind would constitute by all appearances a kind of AfD by the back door.

Since I've retired and have a lot of work I'm more interested in doing off-line, I hope these points might spur reconsideration of the flat refusal to accept the legitimacy of the original title. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you make a lot of good points, and I'm friendly to the idea that the page has been improved to where it's legitimately a single subject. However, I want to correct one aspect of what you said about why some editors object to the current title. It isn't that it makes it sound like race and genetics are interchangeable. It doesn't make them sound like that, and that isn't a concern. It's that, by pairing them, the title makes it sound like we are saying that "race and genetics" are a "thing" in the way that scientific racism says it, and that's a problem. The fact that you put a lot of work into improving the page, and indeed you did, does not mean that, because you wrote it according to the present title, efforts to come up with a different title will inevitably change the focus and content of the page. And it does not mean that every suggestion of a new title is an underhanded attempt to delete the page. Actually, I think that the seeming intransigence of editors on this talk page to finding any kind of consensus on the page name is a bigger threat to this page continuing to be kept. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Tryptofish: Re the comment …by pairing them, the title makes it sound like we are saying that "race and genetics" are a "thing", should we infer that you also disagree with the title of the article Race and genetics, or such wording in the various Misplaced Pages articles which include the words "race and genetics" in their prose? For what it's worth, I looked through the archives of that article, and cannot see anyone actively disputing the title – the closest is this RM discussion from 10 years ago which found no support. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No, because that's all WP:OTHERSTUFF. A page about race and genetics can address how those two things have sometimes, as in scientific racism, been treated as a "thing", but how that has also been rebutted. Once we make a triple combination of those two along with Zionism, it sounds like we are attributing a scientific racist position to Zionism. The longer this discussion, and the RM discussion, go on, the more convinced I am that something like Zionist thought on Jewish racial identity is a better title, and in no way would go against the current content of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the title implies a conjunction in this manner or that people would naturally infer this. Whatever other reasons there might be too change the title, I don't think that this is a particularly strong one. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, other editors, and not just me, feel that it is a problem, or there wouldn't have been such a history of deletion proposals and rename discussions. I suspect that, as long as some editors steadfastly oppose any kind of change, the probability increases that there will be a new, and possibly successful, attempt to delete the page. I'm trying to find ways to get consensus to fix things so that this doesn't happen, but I may not be able to get such a consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

some editors steadfastly oppose any kind of change,

Please do not repeat this refrain. Two editors made enormous changes to this article, working for a month for several hours a day, mastering the sources to effect improvements (changes) while extensive and inconclusive arguments on the talk page simply about three words in the title have continued with no semblance of consensus, even among those who propose a change. The support votes, representing just half of the votes above, all admit that one proposed title is not quite satisfactory. it is also not helpful to suggest that unless your advice is taken, a third AfD might succeed. That is not the language of serene and objective deliberation. I)nflexibility in insisting on any change to a mere title, while describing as 'inflexibility' the substantial work invested in transforming this stub into a fully-fledged description of a phase in Zionist thought that has received significant coverage in recent academic sources which to date, have been ignored on wikipedia is, to put it kindly, somewhat curious.Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess I should have said it was opposition to any kind of change to the changes that they, themselves, have made – although, actually, I definitely wasn't referring specifically to the two editors you have in mind. I'm referring just as much to some editors who constantly disagree with those two editors. I'm not threatening that unless my advice is taken, bad things will happen. But I'm giving advice in good faith, trying to avoid some very possible bad results. That's not a threat, just trying to be constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no idea about who these other 'two editors' might be. I was referring to the primary drafters, Onceinawhile and myself, and I therefore haven't a clue who 'some editors who constantly disagree with' myself and Onceinawhile may be. Nishidani (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The "two editors" are the ones you referred to above: "Two editors made enormous changes to this article, working for a month for several hours a day, mastering the sources...". You said "two editors", so I said "two editors" for the same two. And yes, they are you and Onceinawhile, because it was the two of you who did the very large majority of the writing of the page. As for editors who have disagreed with you, I'm sure that you can look over this talk page and find numerous places where you reply to another editor who disagreed with you.

But that's all just noise. What really matters is the need for editors to find WP:CONSENSUS. I'll say this to anyone who reads my comment, and not specifically to you, but a lot of editors in this talk have a single preferred way to treat any given issue, such as the page title, for example, and regard any other way as unacceptable. Some editors want the current title, and nothing else is acceptable to them. Some editors want a title that includes "origins", and don't want to consider any alternative. Some editors consider "origins" absolutely unacceptable, and won't budge on that. A huge number of possible page titles have been suggested in talk, and every single one of them has one or more editors who regard it as absolutely unacceptable – but their preferred title is similarly opposed by some other editors. When I supported the rename proposal that is in process here, I said that I was supporting it despite having some qualms about it, because I wanted to find consensus and I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of some improvement. I'm glad that some editors agreed with that. But we have some editors here who have their own, personal, views of "the perfect", and for them, that's that. But their views of "the perfect" are different than those of other editors who similarly want that perfect, and that's that. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. We're supposed to be willing to compromise, to accept something that's not our first choice, but something that isn't awful and can get support from enough other editors to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was 99% written by two editors in terms of the title we have, which dictated the content. The two editors are experienced GA/FA quality content specialists. When objections were raised as to the title, they were duly answered. The strange assumption appears to be that the two who wrote the article didn't have a clue as to the nature of the content they were writing up. As far as I can recall, every objection raised to the present title was thoroughly answered. Of course talk page editors can express preference for another title. But at this point, they should also explain why, after such exhaustive replies to the objections regarding the title we have, it still remains in their view inadequate to the article's content. This is particularly important because half of the editors here have not objected to the title as it exists. title change requires cogent reasons which are what consensus is essentially about. If you can list anything I've missed, by all means . . . Nishidani (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure from the indenting who you are replying to ("If you can list..."), but I'll assume it's me. "When objections were raised as to the title, they were duly answered". But were there editors who were dissatisfied with those due answers? "But at this point, they should also explain why...". Is it true that editors have not explained why? Maybe not explained in a manner that you agree with, but that doesn't mean that they didn't explain. "The strange assumption appears to be that the two who wrote the article don't have a clue as to the nature of the content that they were writing up." I don't think that, and I've repeatedly said positive things about what you and Onceinawhile have done. And I doubt that other editors think that. But there also shouldn't be an assumption that the two who wrote the article are entitled to say what should or should not be done with the page, and that all other editors should defer to them, because the other editors don't know enough about the subject. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I make no such assumption of ownership. Indeed I have seen quite a few changes to the article I think poorly considered, but reverted nothing. The point is, many arguments for a title change were made months ago while the article underwent radical revision. We have a different textual reality now. Since there is no consensus even among editors desiring a title change, the only sensible way forward is for them is to switch from the exhaustingly inconclusive listing of different possible titles, towards a listing of what outstanding objections remain to the title as it now stands. That is a practical way forward from the impasse you worry about.Nishidani (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"I make no such assumption of ownership." But also "Two editors made enormous changes to this article, working for a month for several hours a day, mastering the sources to effect improvements (changes) while extensive and inconclusive arguments on the talk page simply about three words in the title have continued with no semblance of consensus, even among those who propose a change." And "The two editors are experienced GA/FA quality content specialists." And to repeat: "When objections were raised as to the title, they were duly answered". But were there editors who were dissatisfied with those due answers? "But at this point, they should also explain why...". Is it true that editors have not explained why? Maybe not explained in a manner that you agree with, but that doesn't mean that they didn't explain. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I am quite capable of understanding my own prose, no need to make a florilegium. The ruling assumption from the AfD onwards is that there is something intrinsically unacceptable about a title containing three terms. As far as I have managed to grasp in reading threads, conjoining 'Zionism' and 'race'/'race and genetics'/genetics and Zionism, is problematical in some obscure way. Yet the three are analysed together in over 30 high quality academic sources. Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I certainly would expect that you would understand what you, yourself, have said. Thank you for introducing me to a new word: florilegium. Of course, I wasn't seeking to create a florilegium, but rather to point out flaws in what you have been saying. But now that you have said that you understand what you have said, I suppose that you understand those flaws, even if you are evading an admission of them. If, in contrast, you don't understand why some editors say that conjoining Zionism, race, and genetics in the pagename is a problem, it's that "race and genetics" is a hot-button term, one that implies that there is a genetic difference between races, which is an offensive product of scientific racism, and something that we should best avoid saying in Misplaced Pages's voice. Of course, all three things are discussed together in 30 plus high quality academic sources, and of course it's reasonable to cover all three on this page. But it's untrue to claim that there is simply no other way to word the page title that would be consistent with those 30 plus sources, and with the content of the page as currently written.

In any case, I regret that I have gotten side-tracked from what I really wanted to say here, by getting into this back-and-forth. I should know better. I started off by saying that I agreed with a lot of the "recap", but I just wanted to correct the statement that editors were concerned that readers would think we were saying that race and genetics were the same thing. My main point after that was, and remains, that I urge editors – all editors and not just one person – to be willing to compromise and be flexible, in order to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you again desist from personalizing this, and making extraordinary inferences about what I supposedly think. When you write:

I wasn't seeking to create a florilegium, but rather to point out flaws in what you have been saying. But now that you have said that you understand what you have said, I suppose that you understand those flaws, even if you are evading an admission of them.

This is another example of the recent tendency to make offensive insinuations in my regard. I generally ignore them as fishing expeditions, but they are now repetitive. Here, you claim that you pointed out flaws, I recognize them, and refuse to come clean about them. That is a blatant WP:NPA/WP:AGF violation, the second from you alone in the last two days.

This is quite an absurd reading of the thread above, and is snarkily provocative. It doesn’t merit a reply, because correcting your misprisions on what I wrote would only lead to a pointless resuscitation of the conversational mode that is so disruptive here.

To @Selfstudier, about his last remark. Several editors (Onceinawhile, Nishidani, Iskander, Nableezy, Zero, Levivich) see nothing problematical in the title, which simply lists the three themes interlinked in current scholarship as a unified topic. I appreciate the fact that you, like Levivich, exercise an autonomy of judgment that refuses to be drawn into those 'sides' which, unfortunately, all too often, are imputed to exist and to determine voting patterns. Still, attempts here to finger me as some lone hold-out are wholly misdirected.

Several editors, yourself included, prefer an exegetic title, one that explains the content, like Designation of workers by collar color. Attempts to find an acceptable alternative falter on a lack of internal consensus among the latter as to a title that they all consider adequate to the very complex array of issues covered by the article.

When two and a half months of intense talk page discussion fails, the only resolutive procedure would be to do what is done in science, logic and chronic conflict studies: return to first principles and examine the assumptions that undergird different perspectives. Many ‘problems’ arise simply because, to quote Auden, people engage in ‘baiting with the wrong request/ the vectors of their interest’. Some should ask themselves, rather than puzzle over this Nishidani oddball, why several other editors of good standing, like him, cannot see the problem others assert exists. Why is it that they cannot see any of the putative troubling implications in the mere listing of three elements as a title, a listing that is commonplace in scores and scores of academic books whose thematizing titles list three intertwined topics unproblematically.

• Mary M. Burke, Race, Politics, and Irish America, Oxford University Press 2020 ISBN 978-0-192-85973-0
• Les Back, John Solomos,Race, Politics and Social Change, Routledge ISBN 978-0-415-08578-6 1992
• Henry A. Giroux, Race, Politics, and Pandemic Pedagogy, Bloomsbury Publishing ISBN 978-1-350-18444-2 2021
• James Jennings (ed), Race, Politics, and Economic Development, Verso Books ISBN 978-0-860-91589-8 1992
• Jean Ait Belkhir and Bernice McNair Barnett, Race, Gender and Class Intersectionality, in Race, Gender & Class, 2001 Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 157-174
• Joshua Bartholomew,Race, Economics, and the Future of Blackness, in Critical Black Futures 2021 pp 181–205
• James Boettcher, Race, ideology, and Ideal theory, in Metaphilosophy Vol. 40, No. 2 (April 2009), pp. 237-259
• Alejandro de la Fuente, Race, Ideology, and Culture in Cuba, 2000
• R. E. Nisbett, 'Race, genetics, and IQ,' In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black–White test score gap, Brookings Institution Press. (1998 pp. 86–102
• L. N. Borrell et al., • Race and Genetic Ancestry in Medicine,' The New England Journal of Medicine 2021; 384: pp 474-480 (That would yield, analogically ‘Race and Genetic ancestry in Zionism’ as a legitimate alternative title for example. But no one has suggested this obvious compromise. I wonder why?
• Lourdes Beneria, ‎Günseli Berik, ‎Maria Floro,Gender, Development and Globalization, 2015
• Gary Goertz, ‎Amy Mazur Politics, Gender, and Concepts, 2008
• Margaret Brabant, Politics, Gender, And Genre, 2019
• Ronald L. Dotterer, ‎Susan Bowers Politics, Gender, and the Arts, 1992

All objections to this title ignore English grammar and idiom, the irrefutable evidence of google books that such tripartite listings are normative. So, if some wish to continue to assert there is something wrong, they should give an adequate and cogent set of reasons why standard English usage and book titles may not apply to the present article. Why find a problem when the documented evidence that the article title is normative in English can be multiplied by thousands of similar examples, instantly, by googling?Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, that reply is full of black-and-white, absolute, statements of things that are actually much more nuanced than what you say. Editors who see the pagename differently than you do "ignore English grammar and idiom" – which is extremely personalizing and simply untrue. The evidence is "irrefutable" – well that's like telling everyone who disagrees with you that we are ignoring overwhelming evidence and should shut up. And yet – you present a list of 14 sources above, and although they all use multi-term language, 12 of the 14 do not say "race and genetics". Only 2 of them do. One, by Nisbett , makes the case that "the most relevant studies provide no evidence for the genetic superiority of either race". The other, by Borrell et al. , is the single one out of the 14 that addresses "race and genetics" as a significant subject, but in the context of health care delivery, of making sure that specific genetic factors can be used to provide the best personal healthcare – not at all in the context of defining membership in a nation state. A Google Scholar search on "Zionist thought on Jewish racial identity", , shows that this combination of words is also used in various forms in thousands of sources, and a lot of those sources look like those that are used for this page. Oh, but it's "irrefutable", so I should know my place and be quiet. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked Selfstudier to explain why titles of the type:X,Y and Z, standard in English usage, and endemic in books and articles, are not acceptable to a wikipedia article which fits the formula, i.e. 'Zionism, race and genetics'. If you are not interested in addressing the question directly and analytically, you are under no obligation to talk past it. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That's good, because I didn't talk around it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search on "Zionist thought on Jewish racial identity", , shows that this combination of words is also used in various forms in thousands of sources(Tryptofish)

Compare the correct result, i.e. one bracketing the words with inverted commas which yields zero correspondancesNishidani (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Self? Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that you originally said "no obligation to talk around it", but then changed it to "past it" after I had replied.

Here's a similar "correct" Google Scholar search for "Zionism, race and genetics": , which gets 0 results. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Which is totally irrelevant because the title is not vauntedly drawn from google books evidence. It simply alerts the reader to the topic of the page using the three terms that contemporary scholarship deals with conjointly as linked themes, scholarship which has been used to write the article we have.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion keeps getting so, well, toxic, that I really should repeat something I said earlier in this section: In any case, I regret that I have gotten side-tracked from what I really wanted to say here, by getting into this back-and-forth. I should know better. I started off by saying that I agreed with a lot of the "recap", but I just wanted to correct the statement that editors were concerned that readers would think we were saying that race and genetics were the same thing. My main point after that was, and remains, that I urge editors – all editors and not just one person – to be willing to compromise and be flexible, in order to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There are two proposals asking for consensus (a)That the title be changed because it is full of skewed implications and (b) the title is quite normal, one in conformity with widespread usage. (a) has dominated the talk page (b) has been totally ignored. As soon as I tried to break the impasse by asking the editors supporting (a) to give rational reasons for their dismissal of the present topic title, my request was ignored. To be thorough, I still think the assumption or premise for challenging what is a fact, that X,Y and Z is a normative title format in academic studies and books, be answered. There is nothing 'toxic' about being thorough, and insisting on logic and evidence.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, I and other editors actually have given rational reasons for objections, not dismissals, but objections, and those rational reasons are being ignored, and to me that feels toxic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

:I would do an RFC perhaps to get a sense of what wiki in general thinks of the title. I don’t think this current group of editors is going to come to a consensus unfortunately. Drsmoo (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

For example, I am in agreement with selfstudier re both race/genetics or neither, while you have the opposite opinion. It would be good to solicit outside feedback to see how others interpret the scope of the article and what the right title, if anything, should be. Drsmoo (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked Selfstudier to explain why titles of the type:X,Y and Z, standard in English usage, and endemic in books and articles, are not acceptable to a wikipedia article which fits the formula, Is this the latest distraction? You keep talking about everything except what I am talking about. Let me be clearer, all your objections/answers to the current proposition just seem to lend credence to the coatrack argument put forth elsewhere. I didn't have a problem with the title originally and I still don't but I also don't have a problem with the current proposition and yet you do and it is your explanations in that regard that are giving me pause with regard to the original title. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No great rewrite is needed, it's principally the same sources that are in the article right now, Falk, McGonigle, Baker, Hirsh, etc, it's only necessary to add some material that is present in these sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, in my humble opinion, even "Zionism and the politics of race" is a much better title than the current one. Andre🚐 15:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion about this (and some about the variant that only mentions genetics) and in the end I concluded that it is either both or neither. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

When you say, of race and genetics, that it is either both or neither, is that an absolute line in the sand for you, or something you would be willing to compromise on for the sake of consensus? Obviously, I'm hoping for the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In principle, I would oppose a title that only included one element, sorry about that. As you have seen, I am not averse to dispensing with both in favor of some other formulation. Selfstudier (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem remains that the people proposing new titles are seeking titles they find less objectionable, regardless of whether that title actually covers the same topic as this article. You cannot propose a substantially new scope of an article under the guise of a rename. If the scope of the article is not notable then try AFD again. If it is then the title needs to accurately encompass that scope, and the proposals above do not do that. nableezy - 12:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I don't totally sign up to this recap's representation of what happened. Specifically: From the beginning of redrafting to the present only two aspects of the article were challenged: (a) the title (b) the lead. No, I gave a long list of issues I had with the article above. Some were addressed wholly or partially; others remain. I haven't pushed them, because participation on this talk page has been exhausting. Once again, in summary, my concern all along has been that the conjunction in the title creates a "thing" where there is no "thing", and that this has led to a skewed/non-NPOV article. Being the title of one or two books or articles doesn't make something a "thing" in my view. (We don't have an article for Race, Economics, and the Future of Blackness for example.) Clearly, there is a rich literature on Zionist perspectives on race - on how race science and racial antisemitism contributed to a raciological strain within Zionism, that was shared by some non-Zionist Jewish race scholars and contested by others. This literature focuses overwhelmingly on the period of the formation of classical Zionism to the rise of the Nazis. The current article (thanks mainly to Nishidani) does a great job in setting that out (although obviously with some room for improvement still, in ways I suggested above). There is also a literature on post-war Israeli genetic science that might be briefly described in an aftermath section of an article along the lines I've just described, and which might be discussed too in Genetic studies on Jews and more briefly in other related articles (e.g. Who is a Jew?/Jewish identity). But the unhappy conjunction in the title (without assuming any deliberate intent from editors) pushed the article to sources that are more marginal in a truly encyclopedic article on whatever our article is about, which focused the article on the mysterious interconnection between the three title terms, giving the continuity between Zionist race science and Israeli genetic science enormous undue attention. Although not particularly keen on any one alternative title proposed, my instinct at the moment is that a new title would enable us to keep the best of the article, removing the skew. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for missing what you point out in the recap. As you say, this has been exhausting. Unless mistaken the gravamen of your worries is that

that the conjunction in the title creates a "thing" where there is no "thing",

Conjunctions between terms don't create a "thing": they isolate a thematically plural topic which exists to the degree that reliable sources treat them as an interrelated set of terms. There is nothing 'mysterious' about the relationship. Indeed, as several quotes I have supplied over the last week show, geneticists themselves are now analysing the assumptions of 'race' that both historians of science and cultural or social anthropologists found problematical in the way genetics came to be used, and indeed, its methodologies formed, in the last few decades. This is a pretty exciting field, and my impression is that much more will emerge in the near future (may be wrong). As to the last part, a large part of Israeli genetic science is (like Zionist policy) purely practical: how to address, analyse and cure Israeli citizens who suffer from genetically-related illnesses- People in those labs are not thinking 'Zionistically'. They are scientists pure et simple. But at the same time, the overlap between broader historical genetics and Zionist ideological concerns is patently there - Israel historians document it, and just as, say, American geneticists are now going public by talking among themselves of this historical residue of race assumptions in their technical work, their Israeli colleagues are doing the same. Whatever, the genealogy of ideas is of intrinsic merit. They didn't want any mention of this in Genetic Studies of Jews so it was only natural to create a distinct page where justice could be done to the issues. Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I should not have used the word "mysterious" for the "intertwining" of the three topics; that wasn't justified. I'll strike that out.

Meanwhile, this hit me: They didn't want any mention of this in Genetic Studies of Jews so it was only natural to create a distinct page where justice could be done to the issues.

In other words, it seems, this entire article (and talk page) was the result of content forking when consensus went against inclusion of the content desired by a minority of editors at another article? On this issue, my view is the same as that in the short essay WP:Should I fork? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I should have said that an attempt to mention this article, more or less a stub under development, on that other page was immediately cancelled. That article was, if I remember correctly, on the 'science'. It is nothing of the sort of course. That rejection and the irrationality of the AfD, with its sheer denialism of the weight of sources, spurred the effort to fill out the promise in the stub. No. It's not an essay, unless all wikipedia articles that trace the history of an idea (Democracy) are essays. It's not a fork. It's the sort of thing one has been reading about for over a decade and noting, but with no prompting occasion to actually do this rather than some other article (at least speaking for myself) Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

X,Y(,) and Z as a title format

Since my request has been ignored above, I will repropose it in a section exclusively focused on this issue. I think it fair to ask that this be addressed, because editors have responded exhaustively to all proposals premised on the perceived need for an alternative title, but so far there has been zero consideration of the obverse. The question is:-

• X,Y and Z is a normative title format in academic studies and books. What are the objections to adopting it here. (Note this is not about the contents of X,Y,Z, but simply the formal properties of such a thematic listing:)

Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have answered your question above and this hardly needs a separate section. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not see your late reply when I posted this section, which is needed because the earlier thread was getting jammed up with conversations.

Let me be clearer, all your objections/answers to the current proposition just seem to lend credence to the coatrack argument put forth elsewhere. I didn't have a problem with the title originally and I still don't but I also don't have a problem with the current proposition

Let me put that in logical terms.

• The coatrack argument was mentioned at the outset, in the AfD. It was demolished by showing that the intertwined triad announced in the title reflected a modern scholarly focus that conjoins all three. No coatrack. That was two months ago.
• My objections to the current title 'Zionist views on Jewish origins' revive suspicions the article is a coatrack. What that means is totally obscure, at least to me.
• (a)You don't find the title 'Zionism, race and genetics' problematical.
• (b)You don't find the alternative 'Zionist views on Jewish origins' problematical.

So, it is a fair inference that you agree with me on (a) and you agree with several editors that (b) which arose out of complaints that (a) was deeply tendentious or given to misinterpretation, is also acceptable. You disagree with me about the frailties of (b) and you disagree with the alternative school that (a) is problematical.

What you find most problematical is my criticism of (b), which tends to orientate you towards preferring that? Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm in compromise mode atm, I don't feel the need to defend the existing title, nor do I find your (and other) argumentation persuasive in that regard (I have a different view on what "thematically intertwined" (how?) or "intersection" (where?) means), I won't die on that particular hill. If there is a compromise to be found, it would be good to find it. If, ultimately, no such compromise exists, then I will in all likelihood defend the existing title. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't meet any of the five criteria for a good article title. It's a title i would expect to see in a specialist encyclopedia rather than a general introductory one. But regardless it's good and necessary content. I'm pretty much alone in thinking this should be a more general introductory "Issues in Jewish genetics" article. Thinking of the scope in that way it has something of the flavor of a "Criticism of..." article, taking a too narrow a perspective. There is a small discussion of modern medical genetics advantages in the "Impact" section currently. Is that confusing distraction for the reader, stating that is somehow an impact of "Zionist thinking"? fiveby(zero) 11:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

five criteria for a good article title lists four that do not appear to cause problems for the existing title I.e.

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.

•Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.

•Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.

•Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the volume of negative responses in the first AfD and up the talk page that many editors find the title un-recognisable, un-natural, and un-precise. I certainly do. It's also not very concise, although nor are proposed alternatives, and it's hard to see it as consistent but perhaps assess its consistency because it's hard to see what to compare it with. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

X,Y and Z is a natural form of English prose and idiom, and only here have I encountered opinions that it is obscure or confusing. The first AfD is of no value here because that responded to a totally different text, whereas the article has been since rewritten and completed to correspond precisely to the thematic implications evident in this title.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Bob Andre🚐 15:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've given my overall view below, but I'll just say for the record that I agree with Bob and Andre in the sense that I think a lot of the hostility directed at this page comes from editors finding the title unrecognizable; for me, that is in the sense of finding it incongruous to combine "race and genetics", with their association, when paired, with scientific racism, along with Zionism, which is something that one expects to be contrary to stuff like scientific racism. It can be a jarring pagename to read for the first time. As I said below, I realize that quite a few editors disagree with me about that, but I hope that can give some editors some insight into where the hostility to the page has come from. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Bob, it's the most concise title we have. Many editors objected to it at the AfD (which was looking, mind you, at another article, not this) , while others found it more than adequate). It's no more 'unnatural' to write 'Zionism, race and genetics' than to write 'Capitalism, race and economics'. The three terms are, again, instantly recognizable.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

"X, Y, and Z" is, IMO, the best way to title articles that are about the intersection of three things. Articles could be written about "capitalism, race, and genetics" or "democracy, race, and genetics" (Google Scholar lists plenty of works about those X-Y-Zs) and so forth. This article title scheme is, of course, concise -- in fact, it is the most concise title possible, like you literally cannot remove any words from "X, Y, and Z" -- that's the minimum possible words. It's also very natural... I mean, "X and Y" and "X, Y, and Z" are how we naturally talk. I think "X, Y, and Z" is recognizable so long as X, Y, and Z are each recognizable. "Democracy, race, and genetics" is recognizable because people know what democracy, race, and genetics are. Same with "Zionism, race, and genetics."

So the only real qualm is precision. Now, "X, Y, and Z" isn't the most precise title possible... but I think it's precise enough to identify the article subject, and moreover, any further precision would violate NPOV. For example, "Israel and apartheid" is less precise than "Israel's apartheid policies," but the latter is less neutral, as it suggests that at least some of Israel's policies are "apartheid policies". "Israel and the policy of apartheid" is in between those two, but still, IMO, less neutral than just "Israel and apartheid." So, for me, "X, Y, and Z" is precise enough and any more precision risks neutrality. This is true for "Zionism, race, and genetics" where if we get more precise in any way (e.g., something like "Race and genetics in Zionist advocacy") we will be non-neutrally presenting the topic. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the article has to do with genetics. It's definitely about Zionism and race. The genetics part seems to be pretty secondary. Andre🚐 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, think about it this way, the article was created because content wasn't allowed in genetic studies on Jews. This Oxford Bibliography entry on "Jewish Genetics" is a pretty good match to the scope of this article, raising the same issues and pointing to mostly the same core sources. fiveby(zero) 15:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, think about it this way, the article was created because content wasn't allowed in genetic studies on Jews Not entirely, there was a discussion at the Zionism article which was also relevant to article creation.

The Oxford link is merely guilty of the same thing we have been discussing, being somewhat selective about what bits of what works we include in support of what thing and while it does say from a genetics standpoint "Zionist and anti-Zionist politics significantly inform historical and contemporary Jewish genetics literatures, at times explicitly and more often implicitly in the questions that scholars ask, such as the extent to which Jews constitute a biological community, and the extent to which Jews throughout the world can trace their ancestry to the Middle East.", missing is the Zionism + race connection to any of that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the Zionism discussion if it was brought up in the Afd. Abu El-Haj presents an overview of the intersection between Zionism and eugenics as concurrent social movements..., it's just bibliography, only guilty if not a good enough job telling us where to go to find the Zionism + race connection. fiveby(zero) 18:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Zionist and anti-Zionist politics significantly inform historical and contemporary Jewish genetics literatures

I've always been troubled by that. It's in two sources, I think, certainly in Falk, and I don't know what he is alluding to. It's something that requires further research. It's there because fidelity to a strong source must trump any personal sense that this is odd. I thought it 'undue' but was aware that any elision of the obscure 'anti-Zionist' use of genetics would, with some reason, be read as POV-suppression. As to the rest, every article has one reading books or 20-30 page articles from which one 'selects' 'bits', Not cherrypicking. That is the way all scholarly endeavour operates. If you have a topic, covering its specificities means that you isolate anything in a much larger discursive literature which bears on those specificities. The first paper I wrote was on 'Dreams in Herodotus'. I read a dozen books on Herodotus, and excerpted those parts of general works which touched on the function, import or rhetorical nature of dream material he cites. This is what all content editors do here, with the difference is that we mustn't spin the stuff in any personal way, we mustn't create a topical nexus not attested in sources, but simply give the gist of what the topic scholarship states on the theme. If they connected things, we paraphrase it. Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's bibliographic narrative, meant for further research and not really intended to be used as a source, so i'm not sure fidelity is required. Do the comments on Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People help clarify his meaning? fiveby(zero) 17:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

One of the article's sources that keeps being brought up by myself and others is Baker's "Zionism's New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew." The word "genomic" is in the title of the source. Other sources have "eugenics" in the title. Another, "Zionism and the Biology of Jews." I don't understand how anyone could possibly not understand what that these have to do with genetics. The sources for the article "Zionism, race, and genetics" are about Zionism, race, and genetics. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Eugenics, and genomics, and genetics, are related, but are not equivalent. Genomics is a subset of genetics, so let's put that aside. Additionally, the historical dimension of time is involved. There's a genetic field now, studying whether the folk genealogy has any merit in reality. Zionism is a political and cultural national movement. Race is a concept, a pseudoscientific and discredited one, but also a field of political analysis and historiography and historical analysis. So "Zionism and race" makes sense to me - that's kind of this article. "Zionism and genetics" is a much narrower article. "Zionism and eugenics" could be the same article, I think, as this one, because eugenics is the term we use to describe discredited racist racial theory. "Genetics" is actually a modern field. Yes, I can, and I have, pay 23andme, a "personal genetics" firm, to get me which SNPs I have and yes, I can find my real-life cousins on such a system. But we're actually talking about the relationship between Zionism and race/eugenics, modern genetics didn't even really exist in the same timeframe. Andre🚐 18:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That just ignores the whole Ostrer, El-Haj, Falk etcetera genetics thing, can't do that. I agree it is narrower but the reasons for that have been discussed, the principal discussions are recent, it was ignored/buried for a while and Zionism involvement in that is now in the sources so restricting the timeframe makes no sense.Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

As the opening paragraph of our FA article on the subject explains, genetics is a field of biology that has been around since Mendel's beans in 1866 -- it existed before Zionism. While genetics studies individual genes, genomics studies all of an organism's genes (which is called the organism's genome). Eugenics was the attempt to use genetics to make "better" humans. Genomics is a scientific subfield or offshoot of genetics; eugenics was a pseudoscientific subfield or offshoot. Some of the sources for the article "Zionism, race, and genetics" are about Zionism, race, and genetics (e.g., Kirsh 2003); others about Zionism, race, and genomics (Baker 2017); others about Zionism, race, and eugenics (Falk 2006); others cover more than one of the above (Abu El-Haj 2012, Falk 2017). Genes, genetics, genomics, and eugenics, are all covered by the word "genetics" in this article title, which is why I think it's the right title for an article about Zionism, race, and genetics/genomics/eugenics/etc. Levivich (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, while I'm being a bit imprecise here, I am referring to molecular genetics and the postwar study of the human genome. Eugenics was the prevailing view in the 1930s and earlier. As to which existed first, that is irrelevant. The point is that until the study of DNA enabled us to actually trace historical genetic populations in a meaningful way, that was not something to do. I think as written and in your message there is a bit of overweight on Falk. Andre🚐 20:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The article isn't called "Zionism, race, and molecular genetics," although that would also be a notable topic, as there are multiple sources about Zionism, race, and molecular genetics, such as McGonigle 2021, Ostrer 2012, and, you guessed it, multiple works of Falk. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess the point is that genetics is related to eugenics, or racial theory, or scientific racism - in the same way that astronomy is related to astrology, or chemistry to alchemy. But this article isn't about contemporary Zionist views of science. In some cases, there is scholarship that has looked at historical views on race, identity, and what passed for genetics at the time, namely eugenics or the discredited 1930s view that human stock was something that could be improved through unnatural selection. We've been given the examples such as Ruppin who were essentially operating in this realm. Are there any examples of Zionists or Zionism interacting with actual genetic science and genetics? Also, I think a lot of contemporary readers would be thinking more of molecular genetics. Pre-molecular genetics such as Mendelian genetics never really interacted with Zionism, did it? I guess my point is, when Falk or others talk about genetics, they don't really mean the scientific field of genetics. They mean actual genotypes of humans. Right? Andre🚐 21:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Mendelian genetics never really interacted with Zionism, did it?

No, it did. See Hart 1999, to cite but one source.Nishidani (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've started reading it, and I see where it has Mendelianism and Lamarckism and the conflict by Jewish social scientists on the topic of assimilation, and then it later gets into the racism volkish stuff that is in the article,and of course a mention of our favorite friends, the Khazars. It doesn't seem to say that Zionism or Zionists had a view on Mendelian genetics, is there a specific page I should look at? Andre🚐 22:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is my take on the question, as it was asked. Personally, I have no objection to page names in this format, so that's not the problem with the current title, for me. It's not some sort of general problem with titles set up as X, Y, and Z, but instead it's a problem with this specific title, which just so happens to be one that is X, Y, and Z. My problem is with the way in which it places "race and genetics" together, and how that has echoes of scientific racism. I've said that before, and I know that there are other editors who disagree with me about that, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to change everyone's mind about it. That's OK, that's how things go sometimes, but I just want to make it clear that my concerns cannot be framed as a matter of X, Y, and Z. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure this is a productive suggestion, but one way to avoid the list-as-title aspect is to turn it around. Such as "Genetics and race in Zionist ideology". As to putting "race" and "genetics" together in a title, I think it is not only reasonable but essential if the historical evolution of ideas is to be covered properly. Zero 07:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews

Re: , The Ethiopian Jews are mentioned in the article already. They are mentioned in the context of the racism against them preventing their immigration to Israel. In 1991, Operation Solomon airlifted 1000s of Ethiopian Jews to Israel. This fact is clearly related to Zionism and race, and should be mentioned here. Andre🚐 14:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote is the solution here. Under the reference to Ruppin’s ‘nigger’ dismissal in 1934, one could specify that Israel formally recognized them as Jews in 1973, and subsequently mass immigration was admitted both to them, and to their converted African slaves.A similar note could be added re the blocking of Yemeni Jews in WW1.Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That is agreeable to me as an acceptable solution if others agree. Andre🚐 15:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait a few days then. If there are no objections, I'll craft the footnote, and format some sources and post it here for inclusion, since I'm not editing articles any more.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There appear to be no objections, so here's the edit, formatted according to the page's conventions.

Under ‘converted by the sword in 2,600 BCE. sfn|Bloom|2011|p=104  :::: add {{ with the following text

efn|Israel formally recognized them as Jews in 1973. Subsequently, in 1984 and 1991 Operation Moses and Operation Solomon respectively airlifted Ethiopian Jews to Israel, officially permitting mass immigration both for them and their converted African slaves.(Salamon 2003, pp. 3-32 closing the cite with) harv error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSalamon2003 (help)}}

and to the bibliography add

• Salamon, Hagar (January–April 2003). "Blackness in Transition: Decoding Racial Constructs throughStories of Ethiopian Jews". Journal of Folklore Research. 40 (1): 3–32. JSTOR 3814642.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

• It's fine by me. If nobody objects. Andre🚐 13:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If the resolution to this is a note then so be it, though I still don't really get the thrust of the issue here. If the perceived issue here is some sort of imbalance by virtue of mentioning earlier events directly relevant to the undercurrents of racial thought in Zionism, but not mentioning Israel's later backpedalling from such positions (albeit 57 years later), well ... ok, but the latter is still veering a bit off-topic, as Israel (state) ≠ Zionism (ideology). And why stop the segue there? If we want to truly reflect the entire saga of Ethiopian Jews in Israel (as a proxy for Zionism), then this is hardly the end of the story, since racism in Israel towards Ethiopian Jews persists in the present. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, we will have to draw the line somewhere, but the current title is "Zionism, race and genetics," and I do think the final acceptance of the Ethiopian Jews into Israel belongs here, if only in a footnote, if you are OK with that resolution, then I am. Because without that, I am left with simply the information that the Ethiopian Jews weren't accepted, and this seems like a pretty important event to Zionism and race. A blow to those who believe that "Ashkenazi Jews are the true Jews" or that Israel should be a white country (if indeed, such beliefs were more common back in the 20th century). I think we need to show a change over time here. Not that racism is over and done with, of course. We have a lot of racism in the USA, too. Not to mention antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-trans, anti-gay, etc. These things tend to run together. I think the story of Zionism, as with other Western institutions post 1970s, has been to attempt some reform on issues of free speech, gender, race, etc. With varying success you may say, but one of those successes, is, in my view, this footnote. Not that the article needs to trumpet that or brag of course. The Ethiopian Jews are more than a footnote, but at least as pertaining to Zionism and race, I think we owe it to that story to follow it to the next chapter that was a bit less bleak for them. Andre🚐 14:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Somewhat like Iskandar323, I'm having trouble seeing the relation to the page subject. I get that the Ethiopian Jews are racially distinct from various other Jews, but I'm having trouble drawing a straight line from this to Zionist views of race. It sounds like: here's a case of what happened when some Jews of a different race came along, but without how what happened relates to the various theorists cited on the page. I'm not saying that it's wrong to include this, but I think there needs to be a bit of explanatory text giving some context. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, the text of the article already included this prior to my edit, which was reverted, although I added the footnote as written by Nishidani above. The test, which is unmodified by me, For Ruppin, what Zionism required was to weed out inferior, As early as 1934 he successfully thwarted the implementation of a proposal by Yaakov Faitlovitch to bring Ethiopian Jews to Palestine on the grounds that they were “niggers” converted by the sword in 2,600 BCE. It ascribes to Ruppin directly what is really according to Bloom, as cited in Falk. We could choose to exclude the Ethiopian Jews altogether, but if the story is that they were excluded in the 1930s, we should also note that they were accepted in the 1990s. Similar awful atrocities and transgressions took place in the 1930s in many countries including the United States, but things changed a lot from the 60s onward. So if the article really claims to be a comprehensive treatment of Zionism and race, I think this is a part of that story. The campaign and the airlift was a major event and was widely publicized, and represents a sea change in the Ethiopian Jews' relationship to Israel, which seems fairly critical to Zionism and race in my view. Andre🚐 00:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  It ascribes to Ruppin directly what is really according to Bloom, as cited in Falk.

Actually, not so. This is a direct quote from a remark Ruppin made and which is conserved in a 'Protocol of the Zionist executive meeting' held on 14 November 1934 (N. 20210). Nishidani (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure the sentence "As early as 1934 successfully..." adds much to the article. We currently have three long (interesting) paragraphs about Ruppin, far more than any other character in our story. Clearly, as a key figure in the history of both social science and Zionism, he is important and deserves a lot of space, but does he deserve so much space? So much more than Nordau, for example, or Herzl? We don't even mention Zollschan at the moment, and have quite a bit that should be added to this section to make it more comprehensive, for which we might want to trim Ruppin to make room. So maybe we should just delete the sentence, and the question of whether it needs the note is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be amenable to trimming the whole thing as well. I'm also not sure we really need to elaborate this much on Ruppin. It's already amply established that he was a racial theorist, and at some point the examples of this just begin to become a bit redundant. The sentence could be shortened to "Ruppin also treated Ethiopian Jews with prejudice and thwarted plans to bring them to Palestine" – attributed clearly to Ruppin personally. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm amenable to those proposed trims, no objection on my side. Andre🚐 14:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand much better now. (I think I got confused by the one-sentence paragraph that had briefly been on the page.) In my opinion, it's actually OK to include the extended content on Ruppin. He's a disturbing character by modern-day standards, but I think he fits with the subject matter of the page. (I have no objection to adding more about the other figures mentioned here.) But I won't impede the trims, if that's the consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Tryptofish. Ruppin gets extra coverage because, to put it in the words of his major biographer,

Ruppin was, as the preceptor of the labor movement Berl Katznelson describes, the central “colonizer” of the new Zionist community. Between 1908 and 1942 there was hardly any large scale national undertaking in Palestine – economic, juridical, diplomatic or educational – in which Ruppin was not involved at the highest level of planning and direction. From the start, he worked to implement his vision and plan of creating a Modern Hebrew social field, in a model state.' Bloom 2011 p.2

Of course one could add more on other major figures such as Aron Sandler 1904; Elias Auerbach 1907; Ignaz Zollschan (1909) and Felix Theilhaber (1914) etc. but, unless you read German, there is precious little work on this in wikipedia. Zollschan was certainly an influence on Ruppin, but there is no need to think that we must trim Ruppin because Zollschan is not mentioned. Ruppin is the most most thoroughly documented so far, and, unlike Zollschan, had a major practical impact on policy.

I'm not 100% sure the sentence "As early as 1934 successfully..." adds much to the article

I am convinced, to the contrary, that it does. It introduces just one practical example of how this concept could affect the implementation of Zionist policies in Palestine. As a drafting editor, I left out quite a lot of stuff as uncomforting, if not more, discomforting than that single remark because the aim was to give an outline of the concepts, not lapse into the usual POV I/P scandalmongering/downplaying edit-warring.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My point was, that if we care about Zionist policy in Palestine, why does that policy only get discussed pre-1948? Is it not still Zionist policy when we're talking about Israeli government and Jewish agency activities in the 1990s? Andre🚐 17:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Depends on who is running the shop. The government at any point in time is not necessarily "Zionist" but as has been said, there are different flavors. Here we are only concerned with policies seen as Zionist (ie ideological rather than a function of variable government policy) in the context of race and genetics. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a fair point and I always welcome the reminder of factions and not to paint with too broad a brush. But we can still do the research and find out what the nationalist faction was doing at the time. Andre🚐 18:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Is "in" the magic word?

I have been looking at other "tripartite title" articles, of which a surprisingly large number include race. For example:

• Race and ethnicity in Colombia
• Race and ethnicity in Brazil
• Race and ethnicity in Latin America
• Race and ethnicity in the NBA
• Race and ethnicity in the NHL
• Race and ethnicity in censuses
• History of the race and intelligence controversy
• Race and capital punishment in the United States
• Race in the United States criminal justice system
• Race and health in the United States
• Race and crime in the United Kingdom
• Race and maternal health in the United States
• Sociology of race and ethnic relations

This is a wide base. The logical conclusion for our article would be Race and genetics in Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as well. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd have no objection either. I suggested that six weeks ago (The article is about race in Zionism and its subsequent inflection in genetics, and actually thought of precisely this formula at the time, but was more interested in writing the article than engaging in talk page discussions). No one took it up. I alluded to a solution like that a few other times, most recently yesterday with a variant that had of course one word too many, above ('the obvious compromise'). I still prefer the title we have for stylistic reasons. But it's tweedledum or tweedledee conceptually.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You know, you might have hit on something here. I'm going to have to give some thought to this before I can put my finger on why I have a favorable reaction to it, but somehow, it doesn't strike me as being a problem in the way that the current title is. I think it has something to do with the way it treats race and genetics as not being "all of race and genetics", but rather, as only being those aspects of race and those aspects of genetics that have come up in the context of Zionism, because they are the aspects that are "in" Zionism. Thanks for suggesting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's a step in the right direction. I also think "Race and ethnicity" is an improvement over "Race and genetics." Even "race and biology" might be better. Andre🚐 22:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer keeping it with "genetics", rather than "ethnicity" or "biology", because I think it stays closer to the page scope. But I'll go along with alternatives like that, as a way to get consensus, if that's the way the discussion goes.

I've though about this some more, and I can add a bit to what I said above, about how I think this is not as much of a problem as the current title. If one thinks of a diagram, with one circle representing Zionism, one representing race, and one representing genetics, and the three circles overlap in part, but not entirely, I think most editors here would agree that this page is about the part where all three circles overlap, and not about any part of the diagram where all three are not overlapping. The existing title sort of implies that, and has been intended that way, but can also be construed as the sum of all three circles, not the intersection. "Zionism, race and genetics" can be reasonably misconstrued as being about Zionism+race+genetics, which is clearly wrong from the perspective of the page we are trying to create. Until Onceinawhile proposed this new idea, I hadn't really been able to put my finger on that. In contrast, "Race and genetics in Zionism" is clearer, without losing anything: it's the subset of "race and genetics" that intersects with Zionism, because it's what's "in" Zionism. That way, the pagename doesn't give me the feeling that the page is trying to impose scientific racism upon Zionism. Scientific racism sits outside of the triple intersection. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Grammatically there is no way one can derive from three substantives 'Zionism, race and genetics' the idea that racism, scientific or not, is being imposed on Zionism. That is pure imagination, not grammar.Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You know what, I actually agree with that. It's not a matter of grammar, but rather, a matter of human subjectivity. But the public that we write for is human, with all the complexities of human nature. And it's appropriate to write for our audience, in a way that respects their intelligence while also not overlooking the fact that they are real people, not automatons (yeah, I know that ChatGPT and the like are mining us). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, but we are part of that very same public. I have always been unhappy with the pseudo-objectivism of that nutter, Ayn Rand, whose scribblings apparently influenced some of the principles of wikipedia. But working here for decades nonetheless tells me that the mini-culture of objectivism curated to elide editorial subjectivism, which includes second-guessing things, say, among ourselves, the psychological profiles we might imagine, of each other and, by extension, the readership, has its functional merits. In sum, we must suspend from our judgment on how a text is to be written all the pressures of the personal, and look exclusively at the authority of relevant sources of high quality (which often I might personally disagree with or be tempted to challenge), construe them with precision by the sharp exercise of grammatical discipline, and get, source by source, the content over. Thanks for prompting this reflection. It is a fundamental consideration.Nishidani (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that advises setting aside what you call "the pressures of the personal"? (I don't mean WP:NOR or WP:NPOV.) My understanding of policies and guidelines is that it is appropriate to consider what readers will think, and my reading of WP:TITLE is that, although page titles must reflect sources, the titles should also be understandable to real people, and not misleading. (In this case, I, as a member of that same public, had that reaction about scientific racism, and I don't consider myself to be unreasonable, so I haven't been attributing this reaction to some imagined other. I'm figuring that if I had that reaction, then other readers will, too.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't write or edit plying the worrybeads about what people might think, or get agitated that if I write this or that it may affect some political or ethnic constituency. That opens the door to infinite subjective speculations that derail the simple and yet very complex task of reading precisely what the best scholarship says, on this or that, and construing it correctly. When I wrote "affirm" I found out some very intelligent editors believed it meant something that is alien to what the English Oxford Dictionary says it means, and all sorts of confusions, even a suspension, arose from their misprision. After a huge waste of time, it was recognized that "affirm" meant what the dictionary states, not what people thought it might imply. Too many talk pages are vexed by the paralysis Shakespeare identified in such intensive overthinking, that nothing can ever be decided, in the brilliant passage on 'thinking too precisely on the event'

Rightly to be great

Is not to stir without great argument,

But greatly to find quarrel in a straw

When honor's at the stake.

What we as editors think is of little or no account. All that counts is getting what scholars write correctly paraphrased. Anything that strays from this detracts from article composition.Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You and the Danish Prince both have the right to see things that way, but other editors have the right to edit as we see fits Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

A lame insult. I co-wrote the Shakespeare Authorship Question to FA standard, meaning I wrote it not as I saw fitting wiki policies and guidelines, but according to the criteria wikipedia's experts on FA writing asked be rigorously applied. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

No insult intended, and my apologies if it came across that way. I'm just saying that I regard your approach as something that you are entitled to, but that it is not binding on other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Since loose construal is endemic here, let me construe your prior remark. I, like Hamlet, have a right to see things in a certain way. Other editors have a right to edit according to ' Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines'. The two by juxtaposed contrast ('but') are mutually exclusive, meaning I do not edit, in your view, according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. This, ironically, in the face of evidence that FA reviewers endorsed my rigorous adherence to policy guidelines. You just happen to think I, unlike yourself, don't follow wiki guidelines and those experts who have judged my work as perfectly policy-compliant, one is left to suppose, are apparently misguided. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked "Is there a policy or guideline that advises setting aside what you call "the pressures of the personal"?" You never provided one. Sigh. Now, I'm dropping it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that advises setting aside what you call "the pressures of the personal"? (I don't mean WP:NOR or WP:NPOV.)

Courtesy required that one not answer a question which explicitly excluded the obvious answer to it. Sigh indeed. I'ìll now join you in dropping this.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This title has the advantage of concision and consistency, and more naturalness than other proposed alternatives. It's probably precise enough. It only really suffers in terms of recognisability, and doesn't fully address the skewing effect I noted in my comment in the "Recap" section above, but that can maybe be addressed in editing once we finally agree a stable title. Overall, I don't object to this change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You argued there was a skewing effect caused by treating three elements as a 'thing'. I think I answered that. When numerous sources treat the three together, it is not editors here who create such a a thing, but the literature itself. And I might add, 'race' is not something that died off in Zionism with the defeat Nazism,. as you appear to suggest in pursuing the idea of ridding the latter part of 'skewed' material. It persisted, and persists to this day, as we all know. Ethiopian Jews resent being labelled as Cushi, and even within their own ranks, there is a strong race division between 'whites' and 'blacks', etc.etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Bob's post in the "recap" section above. Nishidani, I fear you may be perhaps conflating the existence of racism or the continued issue with racial discrimination being in the world at large and in Israel or in other Jewish spaces, with that somehow being germane to a Zionist view as a matter of generalizable or mainstream adherence. I agree with Bob that this article skews toward covering the early 20th century, and skews toward a specific strain of Zionist thought. Whereas plenty of things have happened in the world, such as the aforementioned airlift of the Ethiopian Jews. There is also quite a bit to talk about as pertaining to contemporary Arab-Israeli politics, and the racial politics of contemporary Israel and Palestine. For example, there are quite a few contemporary Israeli politicians who have a pretty blatant right-wing dog whistle. I continue to think the title manages to be both vague and over-broad. There's also quite a bit of weight on the thinking of El Haj, someone with specific views of genetic anthropology and biological determinism. I agree with concerns that this is a POV fork. Andre🚐 23:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about racism per se, and barely even touches on racial ideas outside of science, i.e. in the sense of engendered prejudice towards any specific group, except with respect to antisemitism. So what is all this off-topic chatter with regards to airlifts and whatnot about? ... and how is this supposed to meaningfully relate to the subject here? Iskandar323 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You think it's OK to have the portion about the Ethiopian Jews talking about how they were referred to as an offensive epithet and excluded, but not mention that they later were accepted and came in? Andre🚐 03:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

A public policy on immigration has no bearing on thematic undercurrents either within society or an ideology. You are conflating a state with the actual subject here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Really now, so your position is that the views of the Zionist movement and ideology have no bearing on the activities of the Israeli government? Andre🚐 04:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the ideology has bearing there, but that does not mean you can deduce or assume things about the ideology based on the actions of an ideologically involved government. Still, what I'm more confused with here is the overall tangential segue. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The Jewish Agency for Israel, which is the operative branch of/a parallel organization to the World Zionist Organization, was heavily involved. Drsmoo (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Andrevan. We must avoid the temptation to chat. I made an allusion to the Ethiopian case to illustrate a point (it arose because I accommodated your request that we mention Operations Solomon and Moses). That doesn't mean the page focus must now swerve into major expansions on Ethiopians in Israel, or racism in Israel or every other country in the world.Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I just posted a similar suggestion in a previous section before (consciously) noticing this section. I agree with it though I don't like "in Zionism" much as it makes Zionism sound like a place or organisation as in all of the other examples. I'd prefer "in Zionist ideology", for example. Zero 08:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As Andrevan has pointed out, there is an issue with "race and genetics" which is obviated by the alternatives they suggest, or with just "Race in Zionism". None of the examples provided by Onceinawhile have "race and genetics" and I have argued and Levivich agreed that the phrasing "race and genetics" should be avoided in article titles because of the conflation of race (a social construct) with genetics. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sirfurboy: I'm not sure I fully understand your last sentence. Per the illustration on the right (from an earlier discussion), the connection between race and genetics – far from being avoided – is standard from a sociological perspective, so should not be avoided in Misplaced Pages articles on sociology topics. This article covers a sociology topic, just as the article race and genetics does. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with "in Zionism", but I'll also go along with "in Zionist ideology" or "in Zionist thinking" if that gets consensus. As I said above, I don't have a problem with "race and genetics" in this configuration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconding Tryptofish, I think we now have a decent and commendable promise of putting an end to over two months of argument we must all find exhausting. There's been convergence to the formula 'Race and genetics in Zionism/Zionist ideology', a meeting point for editors who otherwise saw the other options from opposing perspectives. Might we not seize the chance to conclude it by agreeing on how to tweak this? (I might add, I am still strongly in favour of the title as it stands, but am happy to drop that if this last formula is adopted).Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favor. Andre🚐 17:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It sounds to me like a requested move for this version has a very good chance of getting consensus, and I think that it would be good if we could move ahead with it. However, we already have an active RM discussion. But that one looks to me to be stalled, and looks unlikely to get consensus. @Selfstudier: as the editor who started that RM, would you be willing to close it, in order that this new one can proceed? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Given this is Misplaced Pages I have BOLDly moved it to "Race and genetics in Zionist ideology" and if nobody reverts or is objecting to this, we can close the RM. Andre🚐 21:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the title and the bold move. It should be an RM to get outside opinions. This title makes it sound like race and genetics are one thing (no comma between them), and that race and genetics is an important aspect of Zionist ideology, and that there is one Zionist ideology. Imagine: "race and genetics in Christian ideology" or "race and genetics in nationalist ideology" or "race and genetics in communist ideology," etc. "In" is a preposition best used for location or an organization. All of the other "in" titles have "in" followed by a country or organization. Zionism and Zionist ideology are neither. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There was already an active RM above that failed to achieve consensus, which Selfstudier closed per Tryptofish; this proposal seemed to be coming to a good compromise consensus in this thread, but you may certainly open a new RM to solicit a new discussion, though perhaps it would be good to get some kind of alignment on what the proposed new title would be if you have one in mind. Andre🚐 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That's what you should do: open an RM to propose a move rather than boldly moving to a new title. If you don't want to self revert, I can do it for you. Levivich (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have complicated feelings about this, and my highest priority is to minimize drama. Strictly speaking, what I posted above was "It sounds to me like a requested move for this version has a very good chance of getting consensus, and I think that it would be good if we could move ahead with it", and I was asking that the older RM be closed, so that we could have a new RM. I didn't anticipate that, instead of a new RM, we would have a bold edit. I'm also not sure that we have consensus for "in Zionist ideology" versus "in Zionism". On the other hand, it is incredibly difficult to get consensus for anything on this page, and I'm very, very, loathe to undo the recent name change, unless there is a stronger case than I am currently seeing for doing so. It's pretty impressive, under the circumstances, how many editors have supported the name change, and if the few who oppose it are such a small minority that the consensus would end up being the same (or would just descend into a morass), I'd rather just leave things as they are. Only if there are enough editors opposing the new pagename that the consensus would likely change, would I now support a new RM. And, given 1RR, let's not have any reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Andre, you wrote if nobody reverts or is objecting to this, and somebody is now objecting. Kindly self-revert and open a new RM. You know that is what needs to be done. Our move procedure allows for bold moves if and only if they are uncontroversial, and once somebody, anybody, objects it is no longer uncontroversial. nableezy - 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I should take this page off my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

that seems like a personal choice not related to the article, which is what comments on this talk page are meant for. nableezy - 19:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it was a personal comment about your comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand there is an objection, however, while I would say my BOLD move lacks the consensus of a formal closed RM even though a consenus was forming, as a point of technical limitation, I cannot actually revert myself as I lack the page mover permission to move over a redirect. Also, I didn't say "if anyone asks, I'll self-revert," and I'm going to say that someone else should revert it if they feel so inclined, so it doesn't count against my 1RR in the topic area. You can certainly say my BOLD move was BOLD and the revert is proper if someone objects to it, and then a new RM can be opened, but I am not going to open it myself because I do not know what the new RM proposal should be if this one is not amenable. I would also perhaps ask that if 1 or 2 editors don't like this title they still let it stand rather than forcing an RM that will possibly likely lead to this outcome anyway. Andre🚐 19:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me add that anyone who seriously objects in favor of a different pagename, and thinks that their preferred pagename can get consensus, should feel free to open a new RM. But don't revert. Just open a discussion. Anyone who cannot in good faith be confident that their preferred pagename will be supported by other editors, enough other editors to get consensus, please don't waste everyone's time. And anyone whose only objection is procedural, please find something else to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you simply do not get to decide what the status quo should be for a new request. And you likewise dont get to insist that others not ask people to abide by the correct procedure. I mean you can do it, Im not going to stop you, but Im also not going to pretend like you decide these things. Make a new move request yourself if you please. nableezy - 21:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course I don't get to decide those things, and I wasn't. But neither do you. And you don't even seem to have an idea for what the pagename should be, just a rigid idea of what The Rules are. As a result, we are going to have another couple of weeks of discussion over something that probably won't result in anything being improved. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the current name is vastly superior to the proposed, either in Zionism or in Zionist ideology. But my understanding of The Rules is based on those rules, which say: The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies: ... someone could reasonably disagree with the move. Somebody could not just disagree with move, somebody did disagree with it. And that means the status quo ante is returned until there is a consensus to move away from it to a new title. You are free to propose whatever you like. Or not. Doesnt really matter to me tbh. nableezy - 22:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I did it for you. nableezy - 21:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Pre-RM discussion

Let's see if we can get something to stick, this time. The purpose of this sub-section is not to say why "in" is a bad idea. The purpose is only to consider what the best option, among the "in" options, would be, to put forward in the next RM. (In other words, let's postpone arguments about why the present pagename is better for the RM itself.) As I see it, there are three "in" variations that have been mentioned:

• Race and genetics in Zionism
• Race and genetics in Zionist ideology
• Race and genetics in Zionist thinking

Personally, I have a preference for Race and genetics in Zionism, because it's the simplest. I've also been doing some looking at other "in" pagenames, based upon talk comments that such titles are only used for places or organizations. And we have plenty of related hot-button pagenames where something is "in" things very akin to Zionism, as opposed to places or organizations. For example: Rape in the Hebrew Bible (sorry, that one came up when I put "race in" in the search box), Racism in sport, Racism in the LGBT community, and Race in horror films. That said, I'm willing to support any of the three above.

I realize that some editors prefer none of the above, but I'm specifically interested in what would be the best choice for a new RM discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

2 easy fixes required

• Presner in the bibliography lacks a (*) before it.
• The quote 'These irreconcilable, inexplicable antitheses make it seem as though at some dark moment in our history some inferior human material (eine niedrigere Volksmasse) got into our unfortunate people and blended with it.". should be in the footnotes, not among the citations (to be efn-harv-ed)

Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm sure whatever topic ban or self-imposed restraint you are under, would not prohibit such minor edits. If not, I suggest a modification thereof to allow such things. Andre🚐 17:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm under no topic ban. I'm not going to edit anymore. I'm here just to help resolve the one outstanding issue on the last article I wrote. People can ignore these suggestions. I'm just noting something that needs fixing. Then I'm out. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have done this. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Once. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Falk as historian

I've been following the discussions here, and I've in fact have never gotten involved in any page or talk page that relates to Zionism, Israel, Palestine, etc. I have purposely refrained from it all these years, because in my view it's all mostly politics, and a waste of time. But I follow the discussions, and some parts here have gotten a bit deeper and better lately. I also started catching up on the core items in the bibliography, particularly Falk, and I have a comment about that.

Falk may have been a respected geneticist, but I don't think that that fact makes him eminently a good historian too. And reading parts of his book, I got more convinced that he is actually not a very good historian. There are parts of it that for me read like some really shoddy, fringe history. And yet, his history book being one of the central pieces of this whole endeavor here, this is something that I believe should deserve some more serious consideration. Thank you, warshy 20:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur! Too much Falk. We should lighten up on it a bit and add better historians. Andre🚐 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Some geneticists I've spoken to think that Weitzman (2019) does not show to his advantage as an historian. Reading Falk, I came across passages I thought poorly done, and so I can grasp exactly what you are pointing to, Warshy. But I, for one, use both. What I think personally as a reader is irrelevant. They have the relevant qualifications as quality RS, and leave very small margins for that residual 'discretion' which at times leads one not to cite poorly organized material in an otherwise excellent source. Very few scholars manage to wear two hats with surpassing abilities in both (Steven Pinker comes to mind, but it's easy to tear his The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011) apart despite his marvellous erudition in several fields. All one need do is redefine violence more broadly. The statistics certainly indicate on one level that infrahuman violence has lessened. But if you define violence as infraspecies aggression, or consider the natural world the object of human violence, then the Anthropocene testifies to the opposite conclusion). I just don't think we have any right, as editors, to challenge excellent sources unless other sources show that a serious mistake has been made in the ones we draw on. Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I might agree with you about Pinker, and I thought Weitzman was perfectly fine, but I'm sure we can find more to round out the article. I'm not proposing nor is warshy presumably to entirely excise Falk, but our remit is to express proportionate weight to quality and prominence of the sources, and I agree that Falk is not definitive and has some weaknesses that should be reviewed. Andre🚐 20:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If one can find a geneticist who is also an historian, whose published work as an historian is of the same quality as Falk's, then fine. No scholar is definitive. He just happens to be the only one so far who has dual experience in both fields, and his book, so far, appears to be the standard work on Zionism and Jewish biology. I expect this will change in a few years, but until we have a source of similar authority, we make do with it. I say that having repeatedly used as basic sources scholarship I personally don't think worth a rat's arse (in the field of political history). What I think is of zero import, since RS determines what we use.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t there a circular argument here? You’ve been arguing that the three-element topic of this article is a topic because there is a book or two about it, then you argue this is the book we need to use because it’s basically the only thing that’s been written about this topic? BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

All it means is that combined geneticist-historians in this area are rare. It doesn't mean the literature is rare. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cite someone extensively just because they're the only combined geneticist-historian in the area. This article (especially under the new name) is about the history of ideology, not about the details of genetic science. Lots of historians have written about the history of Zionist ideology, and Falk is not their go-to source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No Bob. I noted that many sources treat as one topic the nexus between three themes(each of which alone could be an independent topic). Over 30 sources, not 'a book or two', approach the matter this way. Several books have been written about the overlapping quilting of Jews, their history and genetics, and by geneticists (Ostrer's book is frankly farcical historically). Only Falk addresses the matter in terms of Zionism, which is precisely what the article is about. Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Only Falk addresses the matter in terms of Zionism, which is precisely what the article is about but at the same time 30 sources address this topic (Zionism, race and genetics)? This doesn't make sense to me, but I've made my point. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bob, here. This is circular logic. Andre🚐 22:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this Warshy as I was thinking the same thing. I was familiar with most of the sources used in this article before, but not this one, and I’ve just dipped into it a few times now, and every time I do I find inaccuracies, generalisations, sloppiness, vagueness and confusing passages. I’ve just been looking for reviews to see how it’s been received by other scholars but not finding much yet. I did note in looking that the publisher’s blurb opens with: “This book offers a unique perspective on Zionism. The author, a geneticist by training, focuses on science, rather than history.” I think it’s weak history and anchors the weakest parts of our article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Weitzman is at times weak on deductions from what he takes to be the implications of genetics (he consulted two who are often criticized). Falk has some problems with certain historical generalizations, though he did some very good and pathbreaking historical work on Jewish geneticists in period context. No one uses this argument against Weitzman (he happens to says 'useful' things for one perspective that, from another seem just arbitrary opinions - some discussions touched on this, where he is out of whack with whatmany equally authoritative sources say). Like any reader, I find myself vigorously arguing (scoring the margins) with almost every book I read, but on wiklpedia in editing content, I believe we are forbidden to allow such reservations to affect what we edit, Cocking a snook at Falk, who is our only major experrt source, and widely quoted as such in the scholarship, while not doing the same with the rest of our sources, lends itself to partisanship , when we must be studiously neutral. I'll put this personally. I find a lot of very attentive verbal tiptoing in most of our sources that are otherwise refreshingly critical of this thematic trend in the Zionist tradition, This is most marked in Efron's 1994 book. One can also see shifts over 15 years in the same author towards an even more critical stance that could arguably allign with a perceived disenchantment with political developments in Israel (Hart etc) But such editorial impressions mustn't interfere with our rigorous application of the guidelines. If the source is of high quality we must accept its authority whatever our private reservations about this or that in it.Nishidani (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to find better historical sources to anchor our storyline and construct an NPOV narrative. As written, this article has a lot of emphasis on one side of the story, namely that Zionists such as Ruppin were advocating the discredited race science of the 1930s. I think we're missing a critical view at how that changed in the latter part of the 20th century as the world, and Israel/Zionists, became modern and more progressive on certain issues. This is why I keep bringing up the Ethiopian Jews. This was considered a major landmark event in the solidarity of non-white Jewish people. Andre🚐 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking forward to the presentation of these better sources, y'all are saying they exist, so let's see some. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few that look interesting, but I'm still reading, toward the point on race relations with the Ethiopian Jews specifically:

• Salamon, Hagar (2003). "Blackness in Transition: Decoding Racial Constructs through Stories of Ethiopian Jews". Journal of Folklore Research. 40 (1): 3–32. ISSN 0737-7037.
• Magid, Shaul (2012). "The Holocaust and Jewish Identity in America: Memory, the Unique, and the Universal". Jewish Social Studies. 18 (2): 100–135. doi:10.2979/jewisocistud.18.2.100. ISSN 0021-6704.
• Friedmann, Daniel; Santamaria, Ulysses (1990). "Identity and Change: The Example of the Falashas, Between Assimilation in Ethiopia and Integration in Israel". Dialectical Anthropology. 15 (1): 56–73. ISSN 0304-4092.
• Abu, Ofir; Yuval, Fany; Ben-Porat, Guy (2017). "Race, racism, and policing: Responses of Ethiopian Jews in Israel to stigmatization by the police". Ethnicities. 17 (5): 688–706. ISSN 1468-7968.
• Mendelson-Maoz, Adia (2013). "Diaspora and Homeland—Israel and Africa in Beta Israel's Hebrew Literature and Culture". Research in African Literatures. 44 (4): 35–50. doi:10.2979/reseafrilite.44.4.35. ISSN 0034-5210.

Andre🚐 18:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There are several articles on Ethiopian Jews where this has some pertinence. This material does not belong here. We have 80+ sources to 'anchor' the article already. It is not 'our storyline' but what those sources already tell us of the three themes covered by the article. If you want to develop a different article, write it.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of the controversy of Ostrer there is this review which also mentions the Ethiopian Jews, and yes it is related and they all belong here I think. Other researchers praise the work. It's the largest to date on this question, and using the IBD method to tackle it is "innovative," says geneticist Noah Rosenberg of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania, says that "this is clearly showing a genetic common ancestry of all Jewish populations." Nevertheless, says Rosenberg, although the study "does not appear to support" the Khazar hypothesis, it doesn't entirely eliminate it either. The study does not address the status of groups whose claim to Jewishness has been controversial, such as Ethiopian Jews, the Lemba from southern Africa, and several groups from India and China. But given the findings of a common genetic origin plus a complex history of admixture, geneticist David Goldstein of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, says that neither of the "extreme models"—those that see Jewishness as entirely cultural or entirely genetic—"are correct." Rather, Goldstein says, "Jewish genetic history is a complicated mixture of both genetic continuity from an ancestral population and extensive admixture." Andre🚐 19:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is Zionist thought found anywhere in this? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is Zionist thought found in most of the material in that section of the article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm also looking at From Assimilationist Antiracism to Zionist Anti-antisemitism: Georg Simmel, Franz Boas, and Arthur Ruppin (pp. 160-182) Amos Morris-Reich Andre🚐 20:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This talk page cannot become a social media site for discussions on Jews, Israeli progressivism, Ethiopians or whatnot. On that precedent next we'll have the article on slaves or race in the US, where the situation is far worse, being substantially modified by editors defensively try to add sections stating how much better things are now. Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

All of the above discussion is with an aim toward improving the article which needs improvement on the basis of NPOV. Again, as the sources above show, the issue of race relations in Zionism (which is Jewish nationalism and an Israeli social movement), the Ethiopian Jews were a major point and part of that. The above link to Science is a review of Ostrer which mentions this as well. Andre🚐 20:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Write an article, Ethnic relationships in Israel. We are just on or over the ideal limit for article length here.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that refer to race and genetics in Zionist ideology, then those merit inclusion with due weight, my initial impression subject to seeing some source saying otherwise, is that Ethiopian Jews are not going to carry much weight in this page.Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does that belong there and here we have discussion in the 1970s section of Mizrahi-Ashkenazi politics? If we make that article, do you agree I should remove that from this page? Andre🚐 22:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Cannibalizing any page to make another article is poor practice. One should never copy, or excerpt and paste material from one article to make another. Every article should be written off the sources adduced to write it up, autonomously. Otherwise, one would set a precedent of hacking an existing article to pieces to create a set of related or sister articles, not to develop A new topic, but to damage the narrative integrity of the existing article. That would be creeping deletion by the back door .Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what Misplaced Pages guidelines advise. See Misplaced Pages:Splitting. Andre🚐 22:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What wikiguideline approves of making new articles by copying or lifting and pasting material from already existing articles? Read what Andythegrump perceptively wrote some time back in these threads. If your intention from the start was to find a reason for splitting the article, you should have openly said so.Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not my intention. My intention was to expand this article in the part pertaining to the 1970s-present. Where I think Zionism gained a lot of progressive characteristics, which is why people familiar with the history of contemporary Zionism find the 1930s Ruppin stuff kind of distasteful and unfamiliar. See , Andre🚐 23:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That would be to politicize the article. It would only mean cramming pro and contra material on the issue of Ethiopians into the article, so that some articles not even dealing with 'Zionism, race and genetics' (the criterion for source selection) edged in to render the article more complex than it already is. I.e. we would have the material you selected balanced by articles like Oz Rosenberg's in Jerusalem protest racism against Ethiopian Israelis Haaretz 18 January 2012 etc. With that precedent then we would intrude general articles about the improvement in Yemenite conditions. And then someone would say these policies have have impacted Palestinian israelis, but their situation somewhat improved after the military curfew was lifted, while othe editors would inmtroduce counter-evidence of contoinuing racism. And then others could use that to expand coverage of hafrada as racist, pro and contra. There would be no end to POV battling. We have numerous articles on these aspects (many of them inadequate. but they are there for expansion, i.e. Racism in Israel. The section you allude to contains a sequentially coherent coverage of one specific issue, the interface between Zionism and genetic research- As far as I know:, nothing about that exists elsewhere on wikipedia. To disrupt it with the endemic political narratives of Zionism- good-or-bad which are omniptesent, would, I strongly suggest, displace the intended focus on the problems of science by pros and cons everyo0ne is already exhaustedly familiar with.Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I am definitely sympathetic to what Nishidani is saying here, that we need to set a limit to what the article is about and not include everything to do with race that happened in Israel. But to my mind this is the inevitable result of the "and" formula in the old and new title. At the moment, the final section is about genetics in Israel, not about "Race and genetics in Zionist ideology". There's no reason it should be about genetics in Israel and not about race in Israel. If we only want material that is about "race and genetics and Zionism, most of the final section already doesn't fit, so I understand why someone would question why this and not all the other stuff about race. (In my view, rather than expand that section per Andrevan it would be better to trim it back to what is actually about the title topic.)

But this discussion has segued quite far from Falk as historian so if we continue on this expansion topic we should either introduce a heading break somewhere in this section or open yet another new section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

the final section is about genetics in Israel, not about "Race and genetics in Zionist ideology".

Sorry Bob, but that is incomprehensible to me. What final section, and I'd appreciate you explaining the assumption here that 'race and genetics in Zionist ideology' is totally unrelated to the history of the practice of genetics in Israel, since numerous sources state and document the contrary. Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry by final section I meant the one headed "The genome era: 2000 to the present", where the "edit warring" this talk section refers to was occurring. Of course the two topics are not "totally unrelated"; they're obviously related. As I read the section, several passages in it are not obviously directly about the topic in the title. Just one example: the sentence on Ranajit Chakraborty in its current form is not about "Race and genetics in Zionist ideology", although possibly Burton talks about him in that regard - and we have a great big picture of Chakraborty as if he's a central character in our story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some radical misunderstanding here. Misplaced Pages simply sums up (ideally) what the best sources on a topic state. Scholars -who produce our documentation, do not puts blinkers on (as we do) by making hairsplitting rules about some topical austerity that must minutely hue to the general wording of their titles. They range widely, view matters from several angles, drawing on all material they find shedding light on the specific issue(s) being addressed. It seems to me that you are judging source relevance by criteria that pertain solely to wikipedia's unique protocols. Scholars can't work like that. If Burton, in analysing the work over decades of geneticists in Israel and elsewhere, finds that Chakravorty's paper cogently marks, and illuminates, a crisis in genetic studies of Ashkenazim and Jews in Israel, then as editors we accept as important her judgment that Chakravorty's paper provides an important insight into part of the discourse of genetics as it was influenced by Zionist perceptions at the time. Take out her point re Chakrovorty and the history of the development of this nexus becoes totally obscure, I'd say, incomprehensible. Burton thinks it important, and, as amanuenses we follow her, whether we like the content or not. In rewriting the first part of Hamas, I consistently found Matthew Levitt's book so politicized it looked problematical (and I could go into numerous details). But, I still put in quite a bit of stuff from him I thought dubious (in terms of what other scholarship wrote). Because it's not my job to question how an RS authority deals with the topic. To the contrary, I am obliged to respect the source, whatever it states.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he's a historian or not because his work in this narrow field is widely cited. I am not aware of any work in this field written after 2017 (when "Biology of Jews" was published) that doesn't cite Falk. Is anyone else aware of such works? If Falk is always cited in this field, then Falk is a leading source in this field. (Although, statements that can be sourced only to Falk should generally be attributed to Falk.) Levivich (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously he should be cited, and obviously statements that can only be sourced to him should be attributed (an important caveat). I don't think anyone wants him removed, just less central and not treated as the definitive source of all truth. (Note: Of the 78 citations, the following are about our topic, and it might be worth double checking if we include them all: Burton, Hirsch, Kirsh, McGonigle, Morris-Reich, maybe Novick, maybe Kohler, N Cohen. We have three of four recent texts on our current list of sources in the article that don't cite Falk.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Editwarring

I reverted this effective elision made by Andrevan, which rewrote:

(a)Jewish geneticists themselves were caught between the demands of professional commitment to objective science and their own personal emotional investments in the topic.

as

(b)Jewish geneticists were inspired by their own heritage to pursue the topic.

The error is obvious. Andrevan thinks that the generalization in (a) is based on Goldstein, the immediate, illustrative source. It wasn’t. It was based on the three successive citations to Abu-Haj (2012), Burton (2022) and Schaffer (2010) What is worse, Goldstein is a single instance, whereas the generalization in (b) retains the plural (Israeli geneticfists) which can only be justified in terms of Schaffer, Burton and Abu-Haj plus Goldstein. This is incompetent, the result of a lack of mastery of the sources.

Abu El-Haj (2012) poignantly describes how Jewish geneticists constantly navigate tensions between their professional commitments to objectivity and their openly acknowl edged personal attachments to studying Jewish populations. These tensions are par ticularly fraught given that, historically, non-Jewish scientists charged their Jewish counterparts with being too biased and subjective to speak credibly about Jewish biology (Abu El-Haj 2012, pp. 130–135). Burton p.435

Schaffer In Abraham's Children, Entine has noted that the pioneering scholar of the Priestly gene, Karl Skorecki, was 'motivated as much by his commitment to Israel as by scientific curiosity'. 59 Similarly, David Goldstein states clearly and openly his attachment to Israel in jacob's Legacy, describing his romantic ideological connection to the country as a Jew at an Israeli rock concert: Schaffer 2010 pp.86-87

That kind of careless rewriting seriously damages the article. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine, I'll restore this part, but you reverted several other of my edits, some of which were fine. Andre🚐 22:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, no.

“Jewish geneticists themselves were caught between the demands of professional commitment to objective science and their own personal emotional investments in the topic.”

Aside from the strangeness of “ Jewish geneticists themselves were caught” this is alleging in wikivoice that these geneticists were not objective or fully professional. That may be some critics opinions, but it is not a fact and can not be presented as such. Drsmoo (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The only author who describes a conflict between objectivity and research is El-Haj, as described by Burton. The others are describing choice of research. And none of the selections above allege lack of objectivity as strongly as this paraphrase does. Drsmoo (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Could someone restore the text to the shape it had which is faithful to all four sources? Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have restored that if you had simply explained about Goldstein, I would have done so rather than reverting several other good edits. Andre🚐 22:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I know I'm just talking into the wind, but "This is incompetent, the result of a lack of mastery of the sources" and "That kind of careless rewriting seriously damages the article" do not belong on this, or any, talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not talking into the wind. Calling an edit incompetent is unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That said, maybe we can remove the POV-section tag? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not when the article is calling professional geneticists less than objective by presenting critical viewpoints as facts. Drsmoo (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

If that is the only objection, then Tryptofish is right. If several core sources from 'professional scholars', many cowritten by 'professionist geneticists' note that genetics, like any other science, has had problems with pure objectivity (which doesn't exist in any discipline), they must be respected. It Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

To remind editors of what has already been extensively shown in the threads above, the following two quotes come from papers written by geneticists in the last two years or so.

’The misconception that human beings can be naturally divided into biologically distinguishable races has been extremely resilient and has become embedded in scientific research, medical practice and technologies, and formal education. Many elements of racial thinking, including essentialism and biological determinism, have influenced modern thinking around human genetics, to the marginalization of some peoples and the benefit of others . . racist concepts of race that are deeply embedded in science and U.S. society more broadly continue to affect scientific thinking and research, Scientists must critically examine the underlying assumptions about race—and human commonalityand difference—that shape their research studies..’‘Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research: A New Framework for an Evolving Field,’ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine/. National Academies Press 2023 pp.1,32.

Most human geneticists are aware of the problems of imprecise or misused language, but face the difficulty that such language is embedded in many of the methods, tools and data we use. Clinical and anthropological datasets, which can be of enormous utility, often use outdated and scientifically incoherent labels to describe the individuals whose data they include . . the social categories and other groupings that individuals belong to are inescapable components of genetics research. However, within the human genetics community, some aspects of the academic language used to describe groups and subsets of people may foster erroneous beliefs beyond academia about human biology and the nature of these categories. Such descriptions frequently invoke concepts of ancestry and population structure, for reasons we will discuss below. But ancestry itself is often a poorly understood concept, and its relationship to genetic data is not straightforward. There are many implicit assumptions involved in inferring ancestry and population structure, and a similar number of pitfalls when interpreting the output of population genetic clustering analyses and algorithms. For example, the structures found in principal components analysis (PCA) of genetic variation depend strongly on the distribution of genetic ancestry included in the dataset, and is necessarily a sample-specific representation of genetic relationships. Similarly,the clusters identified by widely used methods such as STRUCTURE are often assigned ‘ancestry’ labels based on the present-day populations within the analysis in which cluster membership happens to be maximised, rather than any explicit inference of ancestral demography. The collection and sampling of genetic data - which often follows existing cultural, anthropological, geographical or political categories - also has a substantial impact, to the extent that some aspects of the clustering reflect sampling strategies rather thanany inherent genetic structure.’ ,Ewan Birney, Michael Inouye, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford Aylwyn Scally,’ ‘The language of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in human genetic research,’ Biology June 2021.Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

IN other words, we cannot keep a POV tag here simply because one doesn't want to offend a vague 'class' of professionals, who themselves openly admit that bias exists (and that they work to eliminate it).Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect. That is why we have attribution. Misplaced Pages must not “offend” (in this case impugn/disparage) by casting unfalsifiable aspersions at the objectivity and professionalism of ”Jewish Geneticists” as facts. Drsmoo (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

OH good grief. Completely invented and a rather serious insinuation, because it suggests that this article's paraphrase of what, mostly, 'Jewish' scholars have written on the history of genetics, race and Zionist, is 'antisemitic'. Where on earth in the tetragrammaton's good name were 'unfalsifiable aspersions thrown at the objectivity and professionalism of "Jewish geneticists"? Strewth!!! Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In the article where it said “Jewish geneticists themselves were caught between the demands of professional commitment to objective science and their own personal emotional investments in the topic.”

I have already modified the section. Drsmoo (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about attribution. But that is misleading itself. It suggests this is the (informed) opoinion of just two experts. It isn't. It reflects the work of Kirsh (2003), which was recognized as a fact 'determined' by her by Falk, and which successfully was endorsed by numerous sources (most recently Mitchell Hart). The text should only make clearer that "Jewish/Israeli geneticists" (contextually, those who work on this specific issue) were, in their bias, not significantly different from population geneticists generally, whose work, as is now increasingly recognized in several studies since 2020, reflected a broader Western bias that confused nations with ethnicities. Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll just note that Andrevan, who placed the POV-section tag, removed it yesterday. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Since according to Drsmoo, that tag was justified when ' the article is calling professional geneticists less than objective by presenting critical viewpoints as facts.' Since Drsmoo himself changed that by attribution, by his own criterion, the POV tag is not longer legitimate.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to the POV-section tag that was formerly in the genetics section of the page. The POV tag at the top of the page is a different tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, this section needs quite a bit of work. Seems to be some editorialising here that could do with attribution (E.g. see words “arguably” and “admitted”), I’m not sure the sources for “important” say that, and it’s unclear how a lot of the section relates to Zionism or Zionist ideology. A lot of this material should move out of this article to Genetic studies of Jews imho. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Some editors might consider cleaning up for a few months the inept POV article on Genetic studies on Jews before worrying about that gutting proposal. This article uses secondary sources, while that is in large part patched incongruously together by paraphrases of snippets from the primary sources, mainly the abstracts, when the proper protocol should be to describe the the various results, frequently in blatant contradiction over time, only via what secondary sources state.

Words like 'arguably' are not 'editorializing'. That adverb, for example, comes straight from the source, to relieve the reader of the ridiculously repetitive 'according to' formula which many editors appear to love sticking everywhere, as if it subjectivized as an opinion what is fairly a straightfoward consensual viewpoint. I.e.

This article will consider the history of some of these arguments about Jewish ethnic and racial difference over the last century in an attempt to weigh up the potential and/or wisdom of encouraging scholarly interventions into the question of what constitutes, and marks out, Jews as a distinct group. It will argue that for all the scientific innovation and achievement of the last 50 years, much of the core agenda of these debates remains unchanged. It will also argue that the terrain of research has consistently been so clearly demarcated by intransigent ideological positions that discussions of this nature are unlikely to come to synthesis any time soon and instead are destined to remain bogged down in religious dogma and political agendas. Schaffer 2010 p.76.

I.e. 'Arguably' just flags that this has been argued, and the source of the statement tells you by whom. This is called stylistic variation, to avoid making the tedious prose recitation of 'according to' even duller than required.

What happened (in a virtual consensus of recent scholarship,not just El-Haj as claimed above) in Israel and among the overwhelmingly 'Jewish' geneticists engaging with this topic was what happened, as Burton's book and articles show, is exactly what happened with Turkish, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian etc., geneticists, all of whom pursued their science, as in the Israeli/Jewish instance we outline here, against a background of nationalist beliefs, and all of whom were affected by this cultural bias. And this national framework in turn reflects a broader set of premises in the subject of population genetics in the West, as the two quotes I cited above indicate. There has been two much editing here that looks at the page in terms of 'ethnic' sensitivities and, I would argue, a protective-defensive sensitivity(which i can well understand but think misplaced) to anything regarding 'Israel'/'Jews') while neglecting the need to master all of the sources. Much of this attributive stuff ignores that the said source is as often as not, stating variation of a point made in several other sources, not mentioned to avoid overcramming the text with footnotes and multiple sourcing that is not needed. Only if one reads and retains in one's memory the content of all of the sources can one exercise a fair critical judgment as to when to attribute and when not to. One attributes only if the particular position is exceptional. Otherwise it is just a nervous formula.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: FYI, this page was in part created because material not identical to but related to this page was ejected from Genetic studies on Jews as being too off-topic and hyper-specific. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Most teachers and academic editors will tell their students and writers to avoid the word "arguably". Someone writing a journal article should instead boldly state that they are arguing something - as in the Schaffer quote above. And then secondary and tertiary sources (like us) should tell the world that that writer did indeed argue something (e.g. "Burton argues..."). When historians establish a fact (X happened in 1952), we can say that in our voice without attribution. When historians are making an argument about their interpretation, we should attribute the argument. We shouldn't act as if a particular line of interpretation (even if "fairly" consensual) has become a fact.

You may be right that Genetic studies of Jews is inept and POV; I don't know enough about genetics to judge it. But we shouldn't use that article's problems - or not being able to win consensus for our version of that article - to fork off and create a problematic article here. Content about genetics that isn't directly about "Race and genetics in Zionist ideology" (or whatever this article is now called) simply doesn't belong here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Bob, Since it is not about editwarring, please open a separate section about this alleged fork (also mentioned in the preceding section) and we can address it there. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point but I think I will amend the title of this section, as most of the preceding section has been about what should go in the "The genome era" section of the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well 'most teachers and academic editors'(where?) should read, at least for the quality of the prose, - ignoring the political bullshit - Christopher Hitchens's last book Arguably. He was widely admired for his sensitivity to language and for his prose style. All scholars and historians are 'arguing' a position in their field. There is no such thing as a book or research paper in the humanities that is strictly factual. Were your rule to be applied, every single sentence in an encyclopedia article that cannot reflect an explicit mention of 'consensus' would be qualified by attribution. That's the reductio ad absurdum. 'Arguably', Bob, flags that what follows is not a 'fact' but an informed view that can be rationally defended. To hold that adverb hostage ('most teachers' must refer to some recent fad) while ignoring the stylistic crassness of using 17 times 'according to' when we have a dozen ways of implying attribution ('in one account/version'/ it has been argued/ 'Burton interprets this'/A number of scholars' etc,.etc,etc,

Content about genetics that isn't directly about "Race and genetics in Zionist ideology" (or whatever this article is now called) simply doesn't belong here.

There is no content about genetics in this article that does not bear directly on "Race and genetics in Zionist ideology". It's authoritative sources that determine relevance. It is somewhat of a contradiction to admit you don't know much about genetics regarding the other page, and yet claim that material by geneticists like Burton, who do the history also here, are not relevant to a page on the history of genetics in Zionist ideology. Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hitchens is a great writer, if not necessarily a model for either scholarly writing or a neutral encyclopedia. As far as I can see, the book of that title only actually uses the word once in its page. I am not in favour of constantly repeating "according to", and all in favour of using a mix of phrases such as "X argues". Arguably is a weasel word. If someone has argued something, say who; if noone has argued it, it's OR.

Please don't put words in my mouth but read what I've actually said. I don't know a lot about genetics, which is why I've not edited that page. But I am very familiar with the sources on the history of Zionism and history of race. Burton's historical writing is really rigorous and it's very proper her work on things that fall within the topic of this article are cited. As far as I can see, she is cited just once in the "The genome era" section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The point was about sensitivity to language, for which scholarly articles or encyclopedias are not well-known. I have to grit my teeth to read most wiki articles, and this is true also of this one. Hitchens in that title is summing up what his project is there, to argue for or against something. If you google 'T.S. Eliot+arguably' or 'James Joyce+arguably' or any other great writer, you will find that there are a huge number of ranking specialists in each who use 'arguably' to introduce some aspect of those writers' oeuvre. It is simply wrong to assert as though it were true that 'arguably' is frowned on in good writing.

I drew a logical inference from two related remarks. That is the impression I got, no more nor less. (b) I have a fairly strong knowledge of Zionist history: it is overwhelmingly written by scholars who appear to have a strong commitment to the world Zionism produced. Just as much of Catholic history is written by Catholics, or Japanese history by Japanese scholars. Nothing anomalous, though one cannot write these days histories of anything from within in the fold because all known scholarly fields are no longer ethnic or denominational. If I have any knowledge about a topic that I hazard to suggest is very strongly grounded in familiarity with the ongoing scholarship, and about which I've published, it is on the concept of 'race'. And it is precisely this which has long puzzled me about the relative historical silence of histories of Zionism on that seminal, formative element in the tradition. You only really begin to observe historians tackling it after a full century of prolific scholarship on the movement and its ideas, a scholarship which focused on the political dynamics of a theory which in 1913 hardly any Jews had heard much of (1% according to an estimation I once read somewhere) and yet managed by extraordinary political genius to realize its principles and win the adherence of the majority of Jewish communities the world over. It's an old dictum of historians that the 'past' of a nation only emerges in all of its troublesome undersides when a country achieves full maturation, a certain measure of confidence and security in its achievements. This is particularly true of 'race', where recognizing the problem took centuries in Australia and the U.S., and Israel is no different. When I did those 667 Australian aboriginal articles, I read scores and scores of primary sources down to the 1950s which described as an unfortunate byblow of progress the 'inevitable' disappearance of the original inhabitants of the continent. It was normal for even front-ranking scholars down to the 1970s to consider mentioning 'race' and its lethal impact as a marginal matter, not worth dignifying with the name of scholarship.

So Burton is not mentioned in the genomics section more than once? Well, while writing, I tried to avoid the temptation of using anyone source excessively. Editors always criticize relying on one source too much. She is used where she is decidedly better, and more informed, than even Falk (not to speak of Weitzman): on what the archives now yield up as the personal motives of geneticists, in-house conflicts, disputes over methodologies etc., in genetic approaches to populations/races, where Zionist cultural beliefs inflected or influenced the 'Israeli' school somewhat distinctively. I can't see the problem in doing that.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Judaism articles
• Low-importance Judaism articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Low-importance Molecular Biology articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages