Talk:Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism

Title #1

Maybe Zionism and Jewish genetics? Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The word "race" in the title gives a wider scope - population genetics in this way didn't begin until after Watson and Crick in the 50s. Prior to the 1940s the Zionist discourse of this nature was about race. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Debated origins of Ashkenazim

I am moving this out of the lead as it is really contentious: I don't think the quotes support the text and they cannot be used without attribution as highly controversial. Can we find a better way to include in the body?

and the fact that the original founding fathers of the Zionist movement were Ashkenazi Jews whose origins remain "highly debated". Footnote text:

• McGonigle's thesis: Here, the ethnic composition of Israel is crucial. Despite the ambiguity in the legal, biological, and social “nature” of “Jewish genes” and their intermittent role in the reproduction of Jewish identity, Israel is a country of extraordinary ethnic diversity. Many Jewish immigrants have arrived from Eastern Europe, North Africa, France, India, Latin America, Yemen, Iraq, Ethiopia, the United States, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and the former Soviet Union (FSU), and then there is Israel’s Arab minority of close to two million people. And while Jewishness has often been imagined as a biological race—most notably, and to horrific ends, by the Nazis, but also later by Zionists and early Israelis for state-building purposes— the initial origins of the Ashkenazi Jews who began the Zionist movement in turn-of-the-century Europe remain highly debated.'(McGonigle 2021, p. 35)
• Abu El-Haj: "There is a “problem” regarding the origins of the Ashkenazim, which needs resolution: Ashkenazi Jews, who seem European—phenotypically, that is—are the normative center of world Jewry. No less, they are the political and cultural elite of the newly founded Jewish state. Given their central symbolic and political capital in the Jewish state and given simultaneously the scientific and social persistence of racial logics as ways of categorizing and understanding human groups, it was essential to find other evidence that Israel’s European Jews were not in truth Europeans. The normative Jew had to have his/her origins in ancient Palestine or else the fundamental tenet of Zionism, the entire edifice of Jewish history and nationalist ideology, would come tumbling down. In short, the Ashkenazi Jew is the Jew—the Jew in relation to whose values and cultural practices the oriental Jew in Israel must assimilate. Simultaneously, however, the Ashkenazi Jew is the most dubious Jew, the Jew whose historical and genealogical roots in ancient Palestine are most difficult to see and perhaps thus to believe — in practice, although clearly not by definition."(Abu El-Haj 2012, p. 98)}}

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bob, please could you explain what is contentious about saying that the origins of Ashkenazi Jews are debated? I am certain there is no scholarly consensus on their origins.

It's not that the origins are not continuously debated by those who think racial origin matters. It's the synthesis in the claim, that the Ashkenazi origins of the founders of Zionism were hotly debated (back then?) and therefore they turned to race science. Even if it wasn't contentious, it shouldn't be in the lead without being in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"no scholarly consensus on their origins" I prefer this way of phrasing it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me. A version of it should be in both the body and lede, because the question of Ashkenazi Judaism was the original heart of this topic and, according to all the sources we have, remains the highest profile question in Jewish population genetics. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by “ the question of Ashkenazi Judaism was the original heart of this topic”? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean what is stated in both quotes above – that race science within Zionism was originally focused on Ashkenazi Jews due to their role in founding the Zionism, and has remained the central area for genetic studies on Jewish origins given their population represents c.60%+ of the global Jewish population. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The concept of descent within Zionism

I don't think it needs attribution to describe most of the concept of descent-from-the-Israelites within Zionism. Perhaps certain nuances on it can be attributed, but the core logic that mainstream Zionism implies descent, effected practically via the multiple references to "return" in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and the Law of Return, surely is not debated by anyone? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I threw in Sand because Bob removed the other sources, I agree it's a no brainer, if the similar is in his book or elsewhere, then we don't need attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add a cn tag after removing sources as I agree it's very non-contentious and doesn't need a source. Sand, however, is a very contentious (many would say fringe) source to add. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The whole area is contentious, for obvious reasons. Doesn't mean that he is wrong and certainly does not mean that he is fringe. Who exactly are the "many"? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sand was heavily attacked, primarily with strawmen arguments that he wasn't making. So much so that a sentence saying that "Shlomo Sand stated that 'the world is round'" would make some people wonder whether it is really true. I wouldn't attribute him for something that isn't unique to him. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We have to attribute him because the source is "Opinion". As I said, if there is similar elsewhere we can do away with attribution but I rather liked the quote so looked no further. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it needs a citation. It’s in the linked articles. Sand is worse than no citation in my view. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

See Shlomo Sand, afraid I am not impressed by your (or Drsmoo) innuendo. Given a choice between the opinions of random people on the internet or that of a notable historian, I know which to choose. That he has had a run-in with Ostrer is also of interest. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI Ostrer's attack on Sand was one of the reasons for writing his 2012 book (e.g. the JC says "In what has been mentioned as a challenge to Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People, Harry Ostrer argues in Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People..."). Onceinawhile (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m thinking that Sand should perhaps be discussed briefly in the same section as Abu El-Haj and Ostrer. All three have highly contentious positions which we should be describing neutrally via secondary sources and not using as unattributed and uncontextualised sources for statements in our voice about anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus also Jon Entine and Eran Elhaik, who seem to be the others frequently discussed in this context. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Any remaining claims of synth, POV or factual inaccuracy?

The article has changed very significantly since the two tags were added at the top of the article. Please confirm if there are any remaining points where any editor believes there is synth, POV or factual inaccuracy? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The talk in the AfD discussion focuses on this so I’d leave the tags while that continues. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to confirm at the AfD discussion that the various claims have been addressed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is still built on cherry picked sources and quotes, choosing specific sections to reference while, for example, ignoring extremely relevant sections from the same source that provide different views. There are also synth-y sections that misrepresent the quotes themselves. And there is the major issue of claiming that modern studies are ideological, and conflating modern genetics with antiquated race science. Drsmoo (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: please provide specific evidence, so that your assertions and can be confirmed and addressed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I would rather just fix the mis summaries. The other issues are structural and require adding neutral sources.

There are also relevant sources on biology and Judaism more broadly that clash with the angular, synthd together topic title Drsmoo (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No specifics then. Assuming GF here is pointless. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Noted Drsmoo (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: please confirm which sources you are referring to, so we can all help here. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I’d rather just fix it myself after 1rr. I spent hours the other day building a list only to get insulted, and then be told my suggestions had been implemented, which was odd. Drsmoo (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that your only activity this week has been discussing and editing this page, I'm sure it's not beyond you to offer a few choice examples that justify retaining the tags on this article. One good example for each would suffice. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

For one example from the lead “ so that the theme of 'blood logic'/'race' has been recently described as a recurrent feature of modern Jewish thought in both scholarship and popular belief.” From the book “Jews and Race”. Jewish thought, rather than Zionist. The article doesn’t know what it is, it’s throwing quotes together from different sources but isn’t actually a critical examination of its supposed topic. Were the topic “Biological Judaism”, there would be far more sources that would apply, and the article could actually be coherent. Drsmoo (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This kind of objection is, frankly, ridiculous. Hart's overview of race in Jewish thought 1880-1940 is widely cited, and he frequently mentions Zionism in his introduction to the anthology of texts. It is laughable to say one cannot cite Hart on Zionist race thinking as part of modern Jewish thought because the word 'Zionism' is not in the title. Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s not in the referenced material, textbook synth. Drsmoo (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

read again. It is. And read WP:Synth. Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Show me where in the quoted material he describes Zionism. Here is the quoted material: “ throughout all of the de-racializing stages of twentieth-century social thought, Jews have continued to invoke blood logic as a way of defining and maintaining group identity.” . .“race” is a significant component not only of scholarly or academic modern Jewish thought, but also of popular or everyday Jewish thought. It is one of the building blocks of contemporary Jewish identity construction, even if there are many who would dispute the applicability of biological or racial categories to Jews” Drsmoo (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hart is a great resource and shows that there is a good article topic if we focused on that 1880-1940 period and had a tighter title. However, the overly capacious title brings in genetics and forces the article to yoke this period of high race science together with a much later genetic debate, which has implications for Zionism but is very marginal to Zionism’s story. Only a couple of scholars, some very controversial, have made the link between the two periods, typically using vague words like “echoed” or “reverberated”, which is one reason the whole premise of the article feels like SYNTH. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The sentence …Only a couple of scholars, some very controversial… is simply wrong. I could list a dozen scholars making the connection. Which are the controversial ones you had in mind? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have listed an example dozen scholars who make this connection here: [1]. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That wording was added at 15:36 UTC today, after the comment that you were asked to justify.

Either way, what would be most helpful would be to see the sources the sources that you referred to above, as soon as you have time to type out their authors and titles.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: it has been a day and a half since you were asked to clarify your concerns, and a day since the comment above asking for the sources you referred to above.

I will be removing the tags shortly if no clarity is provided. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This has already been done, multiple times, not to mention the numerous commentators here and on the afd pointing out how bad the synth and OR is in this article. If you remove it, it will be highly tendentious, and the tags will be re-added. I would reach out to the editors who commented on this article’s issues, rather than continuing to bludgeon. Drsmoo (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: other editors do not need you to talk for them, and it confuses the conversation.

To my read, the only issues currently being discussed are narrower in scope and do not require article-wide tags.

Since you added the current article-wide tags, if you personally still believe that they are required, please confirm this, with evidence. In the absence of that the tags will be removed; if other editors then add them back we can discuss and address their explanations. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You can do what you like. If you decide to WP:Bludgeon and then remove tags in the middle of an AFD discussion while 10(!) editors are describing the article as SYNTH, the tags will be re-added, and you will be reported to AE. Drsmoo (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

“Biological Judaism” would be a terrible title to change to imho. Plus we already have articles on Jewish generic and What is a Jew. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What would you suggest for a title? I think there is certainly basis for an article on a conception of Judaism as being biological and the history, details, and consequences of that idea. That is in essence the concept of this article, which is running into problems due to trying to use sources broadly about Jews Drsmoo (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is about the politicization of Jewish genealogy. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think you (or anyone) can confirm anything at the AfD discussion. Editors and the closer there can read the discussion here themselves. There’s lots of threads and little consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Drsmoos. A little polite care in addressing a legitimate request. We have tags that read:

• The neutrality of this article is disputed. (July 2023)
• This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (July 2023)

Editors who actually contribute to the article, as opposed to the AfD, have a right to know (a) what in the article violates NPOV and (b) the accuracy of what facts is being disputed. The last request in particular can be easily addressed, because no editor here will tolerate factual inaccuracies. So please list them, so they may be addressed and fixed, as was done earlier.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Already been provided multiple times. I also didn’t add the tags, which makes the badgering and sealioning even odder. Drsmoo (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Come now. This looks like angling for stuff to take to AE. I am familiar with your points earlier, and Onceinawhile's systematic replies and changes to the text in meeting those objections. You said the article was improved earlier, in consequence. So it is natural to ask whether you have other examples of problems that warrant the tags and which need to be addressed. There's nothing hostile here, no baiting. Just an attempt to get some collaborative input.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The problematical quote from Falk in note to lead

both Zionists and non-Zionists seeking a link between national and biological aspects of Jewish identity

• This is ambiguous. (a) Zionists seek to link national and biological Jewishness (b)their opponents, anti-Zionists, seek to link national and biological Jewishness.
• Now having read the whole of Falk I know what he means to say, but this summary way of putting it confuses readers. What he argues is that racial and biological arguments have been used by both, adversarial camps. The literature behind this, esp. 1890s-1910s is intricately nuanced. But anti-Zionists often denied Zionist (both political and cultural) arguments about race.
• So I think we have to clarify. The point will be illuminated, I hope, in the section that focuses on that period's debates on race and Jewishness, among antisemites, assimilationists, Zionists and anti-Zionists. This note is just to notify other editors to keep their eyes out for material on this point. Hart, for example, furnishes pertinent generalizations.

Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

When he refers to "non-zionists" he is not referring to "anti-zionists". He is referring to "non-zionist Jews". As you can see from that section's footnote:

An interesting aspect is that of orthodox-religious circles that seek support of the “biological” argument for the Jewishness (or for membership in the Ten Lost Tribes) of tribes and congregations all over the world. Rabbi Eliyahu Avichail, the founder of the “Amishav” (Hebrew for “My People Return”) organization and the author of the book Israel’s Tribes, followed on his journeys “the footprints of forgotten Jewish communities, who lost their contact with the Jewish world [...] at the same time he also located tribes that have no biological relationship to the people of Israel but who want very much to join them” (Yair Sheleg, “All want to be Jewish”, Haaretz, September, 17, 1999, p. 27). In recent years, Rabbi Avichail “discovered” the tribe of Menasheh among the Koki, Mizo and Chin in the Manipur mountains at the border between India and Burma. In a TV program on “the search after the lost tribes,” Hillel Halkin, a demographer of cultures, claimed that whereas the Jews of Ethiopia converted to Judaism during the Middle Ages and are not of ancient Jewish stock, the Koki, Mizo and Chin people are direct progeny of the Biblical tribe of Menasheh.

All references to non-zionists refer to Jews:

Zionists who endeavored to impose a humanistic and universal belief on their concept of race had to face not only non-Zionists and assimilationists among their own people, but also socially conscious thinkers, Marxists and others, who considered the very idea of a revival of the national notion a threat.

At the beginning of the Zionist settlement, several other, non-Zionist Jewish communities were living in Palestine: Spanioli speakers, who were probably the progeny of Jews expelled from Spain in 1492; Jews who emigrated from Eastern Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for religious reasons; as well as other Ashkenazi Jews.

A more direct eugenic project has been established by the closed ultra-orthodox Ashkenazi (professedly non-Zionist) community for the detection of carriers of genes for hereditary diseases and their prevention.

Drsmoo (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right to correct by writing 'non-Zionist Jews', a minor tweak. There is nothing problematical about the Falk quote though. We don't need to add the footnote, which is an aside, though I'm grateful you reminded me of that, since on reading Tamar Neuman's book several years ago I had made a mental note to fix up articles like the Bnei Menashe and then, with a zillion other things on my mind, forgot to do so. Done.

Something about the Amichail Lost Tribes farce, a one-man operation by an eccentric rabbi and his friends to rope in 35 million Talibanic Pathans for a pseudo- aliyah plan to fix Israel's demographic imbalance with Palestinians could be put in a proper section, if we have sources that mention it in a direct context involving race, Zionism and genetics. The several hundred mutually unintelligible Tibetan-Burmese- speaking Zo tribal members imported so far to clean streets and toilets while getting IDF training to helpdefend Kiryat Arba's numerous American settlers from the 280,800 alien Arabs who have plagued the city and its environs of Hebron for more than 2,000 years, have no genetic ties, are not even considered 'racially' Jewish, and are essentially an anomaly sponsored by Christian evangelical funders because the ingathering is a premise for the annihilation or conversion of the Jews. We all know Zionism is such a vast ramshackle empire-state-building project crammed with a manifold farrago of interests, ideas, obsessions that virtually anything can happen, even the ludicrous situation we have here with all its fraudulence. But that is not what the article is focused on. I only wish Roy Andrew Miller were alive to enjoy the joke about his early field of specialization.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

However, Jewish race scientists generally had a very similar approach to non-Jewish race scientists, whereas this was (and remains) a minority position among non- and anti-Zionists; a more accurate take would be something like "most Zionists" and "some anti-Zionist Jews", as well as (for different reasons) "most non-JEwish race scientists". The current version makes it look like Jews in general seek a link between national and biological aspects of Jewish identity, which is very far from the truth. In general, we need to (a) be careful to locate Zionist race science within race science more broadly, as a hegemonic way of understanding humanity and peoplehood in 1880-1940, (b) show that the Zionist position was contested both internally and externally, (c) avoid over-emphasising continuity between pre-WWII race science and emergence of genetics in more recent decades. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been up to par today. When I read too much, I get sleepless, 3/4 hours a night, and, whatever the talk page mentions the next day doesn't find me on full focus, also because on waking I go straight to the pile of books and print-outs for further extensivce reading and checking. So I haven't been a good correspondent here these last two days.

When I first read that I was linguistically uncomfortable, construing A's reference to non-Zionists to mean anti-Zionists or 'antisemites'. Drsmoo took it to refer to non-Zionist Jews. Still languishing somnolently after a mealI normally do not eat, I agreed.

So, let's parse it. Source

(A)‘In every generation there are still Zionists as well as non-Zionists who are not satisfied with the mental and social notions which bind Jews together, and who seek to find the link between the national and the biological aspects of being Jews.

This is immediately preceded by the remark:

It is not in the hands of the biologists to decide the ‘Jewishness’ of one community or another, even in the face of the most sophisticated molecular devices:Judaism and biology are two domains, different in kind. It is however a fact of life that embracing ‘science’ as an arbitrator in resolving all kinds of difficulties is still common.'

There are biologists, whose business is not to clarify 'Judaism'. It is commonplace to think that such a 'science', however, can arbitrate and resolve issues of 'Jewishness'.

Our article quote is then followed by

I do not intend to present in this book an historical view or a comprehensive picture of the biological literature of the origins of the Jews and the blood relations between them.

The 'Zionists and non-Zionists' alluded to are two antithetical subcategories. (i) Of the category of Zionists, there is a subcategory that strives to link Jewishness to biology. (ii) Of the category of non-Zionists, there is a subcategory that strives to link Jewishness to biology.

(i) is unproblematical. 'Some' Zionists still think Jewishness is not defined culturally or psychologically, but requires a biological grounding. True.

(ii) is problematical, as my intuitive first reading picked up. For one, who are the 'non-Zionists'? (a) People generally outside the fold (b) Jews who do not subscribe to Zionism (c) contextually, even biologists who have no horse in the race of Zionist or anti-Zionist polemics but express their views or do research on the issues that puzzle both?

Whatever the case be, (a) (b) or/and (c) the 'non-Zionists' referred to mirror the 'Zionists' in linking Jewishness to biology. There is no way to determine exactly what Falk means by (some) 'non-Zionists'.

Our article now reads:-

(B)The question of Jewish biological unity assumed particular importance during early nation building in Israel, given the ethnic diversity of incoming Jewish populations. 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 identit

So the addition of Jews as a qualifier is an editorial interpretation no better or worse than any other. For all we know, Falk may have had in mind the community of biologists generally, with Zionist feelings or wholly indifferent to the politics of the area, or even that variety of antisemite who thinks of Jews in racial terms, but argues that the genetic evidence points to a non-Jewish origin, say Turkic Khazars) of modern (Ashkenazi) Jews.

I think the quote is important only to underline the continuity of efforts to link Jewishness to biology. I think therefore we should just state (some) 'Zionists and non-Zionists' alike. Tell me if the above still reeks of a sleepy head or not, Bob? I might sleep more soundly.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

NO need to reply. I did a word search. had Drsmoo taken the trouble to provide page numbers it would have saved me a lot of needless effort.

Zionists who endeavored to impose a humanistic and universal belief on their concept of race had to face not only non-Zionists and assimilationists among their own people,' p74

So Jew it is. Time for a stroll and a beer or three.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Kinda figures: unless non-Zionist means non-Zionist co-ethnic individuals, well that's just the whole world ... that would be a rather large net and a rather unbalanced binary opposition. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much Nishidani for the thoughtfulness and effort you put into this, as always. I agree with your reading, that he is referring to Jewish Zionists and Jewish non-Zionists and is a little unclear about who the non-Zionists are. I guess my problem still remains that "both Zionist and non-Zionist Jews" seems to me to imply Jews in general, whether Zionist or not, whereas in fact we know, from otehr sources, that most non-Zionist Jews did not pursue this biological agenda, whereas some did.

My instinct is that this does not go in the lead as it's too complex and subtle and would be better placed further down in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Per Tekiner below, "non-Zionist" (referring to Jews) was coined by Weizmann " to neutralize political opposition to Zionism by Jews who objected to the political implications of "Zionist," but nonetheless wanted to help improve the future prospects of persecuted Jews. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Roselle Tekiner was an anti-Zionist writer, married to Elmer Berger, and maybe a little dated in her treatment of race for an anthropologist. Kind of a useful snapshot in time. One thing she does do is devote quite a bit of space to an introductory discussion of "Jewish race" to provide background, even in a journal article. I think an introductory encyclopedia article for a general audience would serve the reader well by doing the same: giving up much of the immediate focus on Zionist thinking, anti-Zionism, non-Zionism. fiveby(zero) 14:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Jewishness?

Wouldn't "Jewish identity", the article the term is wikilinked to, be a better choice of words in the lede? :3 F4U (they/it) 01:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of BRD, I'll be changing the phrasing. 👍 :3 F4U (they/it) 01:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

We write according to sources. Sources on this topic repeatedly refer to Jewishness. The difference between 'Jewishness' and 'Jewish identity' semantically in this academic context is that the former connotes the concept of a (biological) essence, whereas 'Jewish identity' does not.Nishidani (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I see, I've self-reverted. :3 F4U (they/it) 05:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I felt obliged to run a check on usage of these two terms because I dislike making a judgement without evidence. It turns out that the master reference on this topic, Falk's 2017 book employs 'Jewishness' on 15 pages (pp.10.15,16,22,45,83,91,106,123,162,170,,183,191,201,202) as opposed to 8 uses of the term 'Jewish identity' (pp.pp.xi,21,49,63,144,200,202,209).Nishidani (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Agnostic on the right phrasing in the lead, but I don't think Jewishness connotes biological essence unless you already subscribe to a raciological worldview. The Yiddish word usually mis-romanised as Yiddishkeit, usually translated into English as Jewishness, has no biological implications at all. The German word used by lots of the 1880-1940 scholars we refer to here would be "Judentum", which also sometimes did and sometimes didn't have a biological connotation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Bob. That is clear from the phrasing 'reframing Jewishness' in terms of racial theory means Jewishness prexisted and race science narrowed the concept. It's everywhere in the sources on this specific issue we have listed. I noted Falk, but, just take Avraham. It's used on pp.474,476,478,480 etc. Yiddishkeit is specific to Ostjuden, not Jews. Sorry, I must look after the spaghetti sauce. Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that 'Jewish identity' has more of a personal self-identification connotation, whereas 'Jewishness' lends itself better to the broader, more abstract discussion of meaning? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline of Jewish race science?

This edit implies "racial science" died out in the 30's. I think the way this is phrased is not quite right, the Zionist movement was concerned with eugenics as a kind of bridge to genetics while distancing from the Nazi usage. Per Haaretz "In August 1952, a decision was passed by the World Congress of Jewish Physicians to establish a scientific institute dedicated to issues of eugenics in Israel. The institute was never established; eugenic theories were beginning to be abandoned by then" So that is up to the early 50's at least. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Lipphardt 2008 puts the end of the Jewish version of racial science at 1935. Avraham 2017 says it stopped around Kristallnacht 1938. It was discredited or disowned by the UN in 1946 by implication in its call to end racial discrimination, and I think a booklet came out stating race was unscientific at that time. Nonetheless, under cover, the huge thrust of these 19th-early 20th century clichés wagged its tail all politically (the US and Australia with its Whitre Australia policy) and in anthropological works for decades. We need more sources on Israeli policies in the 1950s onwards. A lot of doctors there, for example, had been trained in Germany and it was hard to shake off assumptions built into their mother-tongue and the very languages of sciences like anthropòology and biology.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You've seen Roselle Tekiner?[2][3]. Not sure how strictly authors are scrutinized in the topic are, but maybe useful for research regardless? fiveby(zero) 22:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Selfstudier and Nishidani. I meant to write more in that section, as I had a bunch of tabs open with sources commenting on this, and just ran out of time and steam so it remained/remains stubby and in need of developing and caveating. It was certainly not an overnight shift, but a gradual turn from the 1930s onwards. But I strongly think we should avoid giving the impression that there was more continuity than there was between the pre-WWII race science and the return of biology in the radically different genomic form post-WWII. My strong view, as I've already said too many times, is that these are different phenomena and yoking them into a single narrative is a form of synthesis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I can see now that the terminology around "race" is rather slippery. We have sources linking them, personal opinions that they are not linked are not relevant. As Nishidani says, perhaps the bit in the middle needs fleshing out. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The term 'race' is slippery. It is true as once formulated and developed 'race science' had its heyday and affected a lot of disciplines down to the 30s. The crowning Nazi application of what it could imply totally wrecked its credibility. But at the same time, while formally disowned, it kicked on in modified form, and there is a notable amount of material showing that in eugenics and immigration regulation, the 'quality' of the races in Israel was an abiding concern for decades, which was reflected in political, administrative and scientific practices. The Yemeni and Northern African aliyah literature shows this time and again. The Cochin Jews were blocked on race grounds, as I noted at the AfD. None of this can be understood except as the long hand of core Zionist perceptions of what was intended by the 'renewal' of the Jews on the 'soil' of Palestine (they used that term at the time). So there is absolutely no 'synth' and it all makes sense in a single linear narrative, that culminates in genetics. It is a fundamental premise of historians and their art that there are no 'clean breaks' in history, that even radical revolutionary changes take years if not decades to work through the received pressure of the ideological, religious, cultural and social traditions of the past. Your suggestion that adherence to the continuities as they are given in the literature isd a synthesis strikes me as enacting a neat break, creating a 'tabula rasa' that detaches 1948 and onwards from everything beforehand. That's good politics but bad history. It simply wasn't like that. Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We have Falk R. Zionism, race and eugenics. In: Cantor G., Swetlitz M., editors. Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 2006. pp. 137–162. (The book is in the article Biblio already)

"Although eugenics and Zionism had completely different ideological roots, both were products of the materialistic beliefs that underpinned much social philosophy in the second half of the nineteenth century. Both articulated strong utopian programs. While the former focused on the improvement (or prevention of the degeneration) of the human species, the latter addressed the future of the Jewish race. Both were based on the achievements of scientific rationality. In the present paper I will show that many Zionist writers appealed to biological conceptions of race and nation and displayed an awareness of their responsibility not only to preserve this biologically circumscribed ethnic group but also to propagate and improve it. Although never a major issue in the complex history of Zionism, I will argue that it has been a persistent one.

Before World War II the emphasis was primarily on overcoming those degenerate qualities that Jews were charged with having accumulated while living in the Diaspora. After the Holocaust and the gathering of exiles in the new State of Israel the focus changed to the search for common genetic denominators to Jewish communities dispersed throughout the world that would establish their ancient roots in the Land of Israel. Advances in genetic research endowed eugenics with a new significance." Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that too can be used, though it recurs also in his later book, as evidence against Bob's contention of a caesura between early Zionist and Israeli thinking. It is true that race discourse disappeared from official Israeli discourse, since the ingathering was conceived as a melting pot to burn out differences between Mirachi, Sephardim and the Ashkenazi, and correct me if wrong, Bob, but I think that perception underlines your comments above. However, in practice, it was retained informally, in land planning, and in the way the very stereotypes which in European race discourse were used to pin down the physical difference of (Ashkenazi) Jews resurfaced in numerous ways when the ruling managerial and cultural elite dealt with Mizrachis. Two examples. If antisemites 'effeminized' the Jew in Europe, and promoted the fantasy that Jewish women were biologically over-sexed (is that possible, an old man like me wonders) these selfsame clichés re-emerged in depictions of Mizrachi as 'effeminzed' by adaptations to 'Arab' passivity, as the perceived exotic beauty of eastern Jewish women was repackaged to insinnuate their greater sexual attractiveness. That is what I mean by the long durée of jewish stereotypes, morphing from inside/out, from marginalized victim to the master of one's own house, which eugenics and later genetics failed to shake off 8per sources). Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Zionism, race and eugenics" differs from the article title only in "eugenics", for which genetics can be substituted as a continuation in later times. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(Copying part of your post from AfD so we don't lose track of the sources) Kirsh, Nurit (December 2003). "Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s: The Unconscious Internalization of Ideology". Isis. 94 (4): 631–655. JSTOR 386385.which documents how the earlier Zionist ideas of race were absorbed into Israeli population genetics in the 1950s and abide there in the discipline as unconscious influences. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I have reviewed the talk page and AfD discussion and can see no continuing claims of factual inaccuracy relating to the content of the article.

I have removed this specific tag, and kept the POV tag for now. Not quite sure why because I have not seen any claims of POV either. The issue being discussed is one of SYNTH, but no “implied original research” has been suggested either.

We will need further explanation from some editors in order to proceed. Now that the AfD discussion is over, hopefully the discussion is now able to be clearer and more focused. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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^talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 [4], 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 [5], 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 [6] 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[7][8]? 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 Wikipedia'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". [9], [10].

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 Wikipedia'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. [[Ideology X and race]] 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.[85][at][78][86][au]

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. [11] - 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)

Research section

@Nishidani: we have two sections called “Overview of a neglected problem” and “Research into the connection”. I think these are basically the same topic, perhaps most succinctly and neutrally summed up as “Historiography”?

What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I must admit I don't even read the page. I did twice during the AfD. My working method is (a) gather the sources (b) read them, annotating by theme (c) draft the history of the concept (d) look into themes etc. (e) go slowly through the page from the top down, editing according to what I know from the sources and (e) incorporating stuff in the article later as it is covered in the earlier bits. The section I am working on now jumps a bit. I am writing up a section on the history of these debates in Israeli genetics, from 1950 to the mid 1980s. We have brilliant details analytical and historical coverage of this, esp. in Burton's work, and it draws together the imprint of Zionist ideas about the ingathering as a return, the repeated changes in scientific methodology as dictated by the necessity to prove that, the assumption feeding several distinct population methodologies, the crisis of the mid 70s, down to the arrival of the genome methods in the mid 1980s, with everything unresolved. I think that is the core to it. I'll be offwiki tomorrow, must take a friend to see the Sistine Chapel.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me put that another way (I was mowing gardens under a broiling sun, and thirsty for a beer and just checked in before going to the pub, in a haste).

The overview is, as I said, designed to address a serious problem noted in the AfD where a notable number of editors saw the title and got upset. This was not something they come across in reading around. If editors react that way, all the more so readers generally. So it struck me as indispensable to write a preamble collating the many instances where scholars speak of the race issue as something ignored or underplayed in various areas of studies on Zionism, race and genetics.

I think Research into the connection will be absorbed into the overview as we go along, as well as in the latter sections on the history of Zionist/Israeli/ or more generally 'Jewish' thinking about their origins. The whole crux there was (and is) how to reformulate the earlier endorsement of 'race', which 19th-century pseudoscience thought something of a core constituent of nationhood (the central concern of political Zionism). With the establishment of Israel, the assumptions of descent from Israelites replaced 'race', and intense efforts were made, all failing, to develop a science that would vindicate descent, via analyses of blood types, serum etc., from predominantly Mizrachi and contiguous non-Jewish peoples, Kirsh, Falk, Burton et al., stess the continuities beneath the differing thrust of innovative analytical theories and methods down through the post-war period. Thus the article can cope with this best by a chronological exfoliation of the way these ideas arose, were developed and reformulated. The sections should not be thematic, but temporal.

In anycase, one gets what one has in in a consistent outline, and, that done, one can trim, reorder, rewrite and take into account all the other subsidiary concerns. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think Research into the connection will be absorbed into the overview as we go along I sort of did that but it needs some rearrangement. In some respects it is all background/history but it is probably just as well to highlight the "connection" in the same sort of way we use an etymology section to clarify word origins. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2023

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Zionism, race and genetics → Draft:Zionism, race and genetics – This page is obviously not yet ready for primetime, indexing, etc. There is a template being used on the page which is designed solely for draft space. There is active discussion about appropriate article title. If ever there was a case for WP:DRAFTIFY, this is it. jps (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The template says " This article...or is in the process of extensive expansion or major restructuring" so it is not the case that it is designed solely for draftspace. Nor was draftification an AfD outcome. The current consensus re the title is to wait for the article to be largely completed in a week or so, This nom is an unnecessary distraction and should be closed. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you find another instance of this template being used in article space for this amount of time? It is frequently used in draftspace. jps (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - So your AFD fails and now you try to move it to draft space? No, thats not how this works. PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I am not convinced that this particular RM is the best approach here, but referring to the AfD is somehat bogus as the AfD result was not to keep the page, it was that there was no consensus. I have already stated my opinion that this probably should have been developed in draft space rather than mainspace, and the editors arguing that time is needed to write the page before we can even discuss what the page title should be really are demonstrating that this is essentially a draft. I don't really understand why there is opposition to draftification, when it is clear editors want to create some safe space in which to develop the article. Yet I also think that the quickest route to finding a consensus here might be to allow the few more days editors have requested before workshopping and launching the RM on the appropriate name. This should not be a battleground. We need to find a sensible consensus. On that basis I am refraining from supporting this RM at this time, and ask jps to consider withdrawing it. As long as there are no supports posted, the nom. can withdraw the RM themself and close as a non admin closure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I am confused why you think draftification will not be a quick route to consensus. I am concerned that the creation template being used on this page is typically reserved for draftspace. If the consensus is to include a template that indicates that the article is functionally a draft, I don't understand why it shouldn't be in draft space. Can you expand? jps (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure. In essence, I agree that this should be a draft, but there is also a more general agreement that a change of article title is required. But we cannot have a move discussion about a change of title whilst there is an ongoing move discussion about a move to draft space. It is also clear that this move discussion will have difficulty achieving a consensus, and that it may last longer than a week. So for as long as it is being discussed, it stalls the discussion that may achieve consensus, and runs the risk of exhausting the patience of those involved. I think withdrawing this request would demonstrate good faith towards finding common ground. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. However, I worry that your prediction that this discussion about moving the article to a new name is likely to have a timeframe of more than a week indicates that having that discussion first will entail putting the cart before the horse. Right now, this article is exposed to Google Juice through indexing. This is a problem, in my estimation, in part because the consensus template clearly indicates the article is not yet ready for primetime (this template, as far as I can tell, is used almost exclusively in draftspace and not in articlespace). I am sympathetic to the concern about discussant exhaustion, but I also think there is a preferred order of operations here: (1) create a draft, (2) discuss article title, (3) improve article for move to articlespace. I don't see why the discussion over the appropriate article name could not be completed in draft space just as easily as in article space. Is there some other aspect of this story that I'm missing? jps (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there some other aspect of this story that I'm missing? I have nothing further to add. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Drafts#As a result of a deletion discussion. This would require consensus in the WP:AFD. Consensus was not achieved. Reopening an equivalent discussion so soon after the WP:AFD is inappropriate. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

To my reading, this just says what to do in the instance where the consensus of an AfD is to draftify. It says nothing about what to do when the AfD is closed as "no consensus". jps (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and trout - this is an obvious abuse of process (and one of the oddest I have seen in a while at that). Evidently not content with the 182kB no consensus AfD they started, the OP is now being WP:POINTy, and this is becoming borderline disruptive. Bearing in mind that this is a contentious topic this behavior is obviously doubly inappropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• To the admin: See out of process RM request and subsequent comments above. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that this is out of process. There are no existing RFCs, RMs, deletion discussion or merge or split proposals, and the page is live in Wikipedia mainspace. Any editor is within their rights to propose a move in such circumstances. I am not sure why this request for admin intervention was necessary when I had already asked the proposer to voluntarily withdraw. They are clearly under no obligation to do so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Filed at ANI for clarification. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• See WP:FORUMSHOP. An unhelpful distraction to the work ongoing to develop the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support, there are obvious disagreements and not yet a clear path forward for the article. Draftify to better achieve consensus and get those mired in a controversial topic area to heed outside criticism seems a very rational approach. I don't see any argument above that this content should be in mainspace, but just WP:BURO opposition to asking the question. fiveby(zero) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviews of Baker

Drsmoo added a review giving a seemingly irrelevant quote. I tagged this for relevance.

I then added a review with a quote that is exactly about the "connection" so Drsmoo in turn tagged that for relevance. E The Satlow quote is undue as well as irrelevant and should be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand your argument. The source is an Ivy League professor of Judaic Studies offering a perspective on material cited right above, as well as commenting on the impact of genetic studies on Israeli Law and modern Judaism; much as other sources have, though with actual concrete examples (rather than hypotheticals).

The quote from the review you added just quotes from the same source that is already right above. Why not use original thoughts from the review? Quotes from Baker can go in the section for quotes from Baker. Drsmoo (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The section header is Research into the connection and begins "Several scholars have studied the early connection between Zionism and race science," (including Baker). The quote provided by yourself has nothing to do with that, it is just a para about genetics and says nothing whatever about the connection whereas the quote I gave is directly about what Baker says about the connection.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh? It directly describes the tangible impact (or lack thereof) on Israeli policy (Zionism). Did you actually read the full paragraph? Earlier you said it was a blog post when it was clearly a scholarly journal. Drsmoo (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Since Drsmoo is edit warring so as to include only one cherry picked and irrelevant review of only one book, I have removed it altogether.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier, you have now tried to remove highly relevant material three times. First by falsely claiming it was a "blog" when it was a reliable source, then by falsely claiming it was only about genetics, now by falsely claiming it is cherry picked. I am re-adding this information to the lead, as it is highly relevant. If it is removed again, this will be brought to AE. Drsmoo (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have made precisely one removal of an irrelevant (in the location where it was placed per above comment) cherry picked quote from a single book review. An obviously cherry picked quote from a single review by a non wikilinked author in a non wikilinked journal is not NPOV whereas I note your removal of a second review by a notable author in a notable journal containing material completely relevant to the section in which it was placed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, your argument makes no sense. Satlow is very much relevant, certainly more so than Baker, and the quotation is relevant to the topic outside of its relationship to Baker. The excerpt of the review you posted contained no new information and simply quoted from/paraphrased an existing source. It provided no benefit to the article except to seemingly hide Satlow. You’ve now made three distinct arguments for removing Satlow, and all three are demonstrably incorrect. Drsmoo (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I kept Satlow and the full quote, merely moving it to a section for book reviews where it would be relevant but you reverted that as well as restoring it to a location where the quote was not relevant and at the same time deleting a wholly relevant review. Nor is adding Satlow to the lead, where it is self evidently undue, a good idea. I will admit to confusing the issue initially, because I mistakenly looked at Satlow's blog post and did not realize that it was a copy from a published source, nevertheless I did not remove it, instead starting this discussion. What is it about that particular quote from a single review of a single book that is so relevant exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The material from Satlow is notable beyond its placement inside of a review of Baker. It is relevant as it directly describes the impact (or lack thereof) of Population Genetics Drsmoo (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

And that information is not available elsewhere? In a book or paper about the subject rather than in a book review? Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The Satlow material was previously in the Impact section. A scholarly review of a book by a reliable source is reliable. This article currently has a quote in the lead about a criticism of genetic studies that is A. Attributed to the wrong source (so much for reading source material). B. Only found in the lead. Yet it does not have an undue tag. Drsmoo (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's fix that then, point me in the right direction, please. There are so many sources now and the article has been in a state of flux since inception so it is not surprising that there are errors. This is not the sort of thing that usually interests me but in for a penny, in for a pound. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• (1) Our text

Michael Satlow notes that while some scientists on the margins have used the science of population genetics "to make ideological claims", this "has not had an impact on religious law (or the Israeli Law of Return) and remains something of a novelty item in general discourse".

• Source

The second context in which Baker places the pathologized Jew is genomics (104-110, 142-148). There has been an explosion of work on population genetics. Within this work, “Jew” – particularly Ashkenazi Jew – has emerged as a distinct population. While most scientists with whom I have informally talked (including Harry Ostrer and Gil Atzmon, who come under particular critique) believe that the science of population genetics is entirely solid, Baker is suspicious. “Genome biology,” she writes, “has been harnessed to creating and sustaining a Jewish genetic-identity discourse…”(p. 105). Elsewhere, however, Baker seems to retreat: “my interest has been in briefly examining some of the ways in which this new Jew, this genomic Jew, is being constituted both through the measuring, compiling, and comparing of genetic data and through the framing and narrating of the findings thus derived” (p. 109). I am not sure if Baker fully knows what to do with the science of population genetics, but in truth, I am not sure if any of us do. It seems to me that while some on the margins have used it to make ideological claims (whether that Jews don’t really exist, as in Shlomo Sand’s deeply flawed book,9 or that Jews remain relatively “pure”), it has not had an impact on religious law (or the Israeli Law of Return) and remains something of a novelty item in general discourse: look how Jewish I am, my friends announce on Facebook, giving the number from the results of their mail-order genetic analysis. They mean nothing by it except for a laugh.

i.e.

• Most scientists are contrasted to Cynthia Baker, a professor of religious studies, not a scientist.
• Satlow then adds his general opinion: 'while some on the margins use it (science of population genetics) to make ideological claims' , themargins does not refer to scientists but to an historian, Shlomo Sand.

So the text we had in the lead was an outright example of WP:OR, falsifying the original perhaps through hasty reading, but certainly to the effect of suggesting, that only marginbal scientists have used genetics in this field ideologically.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• (2)Satlow. Satlow's work is always highly informative. It perhaps may be used below, but not in the lead, where this edit puts it to state that genomic testing has not affected the Law of return. Thus put this is Satlow's personal view, which is contradicted by the far more detailed scholarly work precisely on this issue. For one
• Ian V. McGonigle 1, Lauren W. Herman, 'Genetic citizenship: DNA testing and the Israeli Law of Return,' Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 17 June 2015 pp.469-478

After the news of this one student’s experience made headlines, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that many Jews from the Former Soviet Union (‘FSU’) are asked to provide DNA confirmation of their Jewish heritage in order to immigrate as Jews and become citizens under Israel’s Law of Return. According to one source, the consul’s procedure, which was:

approved by the legal department of the Interior Ministry, states that a Russian-speaking child born out-of-wedlock is eligible to receive an Israeli immigration visa if the birth was registered before the child turned [three]. Otherwise a DNA test to prove Jewish parentage is necessary.

There is no mention of genetic testing in the Law of Return, so Satlow is technically correct. In actual procedures however, Israel’s official legal authorities have ruled (and the ruling has been applied in numerous cases) that exercising a right of return can be challenged by the state on DNA grounds, so Satlowe's statement is misleading.

This point can be addressed much later down the page, but not in the lead, at least for now.Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see an argument for how this information is OR, or not lead worthy. Drsmoo (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside dueness, I would like to pin down exactly what it is you are relying on Satlow for because it seems possible that the same or at least similar material can be located in a more usual source. If it is something peculiar to only this source, that's different. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you consider an Opinion Paper to be a usual source? Drsmoo (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

We regularly remove opinion from contentious articles unless by an acknowledged expert in the subject area, I have not given any consideration as to whether this exemption applies to Satlow and did not initially remove him because of this possibility, even though no wikilink.

I would like an answer to my question though, since a well sourced view can be given as fact in WP voice.Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, my edit did not mention scientists. So Iskandar323 edited my post to add a reference to scientists, and then you removed the whole thing as OR because of the reference to scientists, is that correct? Drsmoo (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The text as it stood, from whatever combination of edits, was a distortion. I'm not interested in blaming. I'm interested only in the integrity of the article. (2) I gave you a source which shows what you in particular cited Satlow for, was misleading. He had an opinion, which happens not to be correct, since Satlow fails to clarify that a Law of return is one thing, the state's legal interpretation and judicial practices produces a practice which makes the abstract principles of the Law of Return irrelevant. In practice genomics has already influenced immigration policy via government guidelines. We should not be fiddling with the leads over this, particularly in a partisan way (a) because the information given was partial, not the full picture, and (b) per WP:LEDE, we would require a substantial section in the article to warrant summarizing the issue in the lead. For that reason alone, it can't be restored to the lead unless we have a section with several sources on genomics and the Law of Return.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, after 1RR I’ll restore it to the lead and the correct body section per your feedback Drsmoo (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you link me to the 'correct body section'? I can't see what section it is supposed to summarize.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

These two papers are not conflicting, Satlow discusses population genetics. McGonigle's example from Times of Israel is DNA testing to determine a child's parents a DNA test to prove Jewish parentage is necessary, which is well established in many legal systems. fiveby(zero) 18:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No you are wrong on both counts. I agree with Selfstudier's analysis for a different reason. This article has a large body of work by historians of science on genetics and of Zionism. Satlow's paper is a solid synthesis of several directions in the discussion of what constitutes Jewishness and it is concerned with Cynthia Baker's general book Jew. I.e. two specialists in Jewish studies, neither with a science background. Satlow is cited for a statement which is misleading in its simplifications, no doubt an oversight given his general excellence. His input comes from personal talks with two geneticists known for supporting a thesis which other geneticists, and historians of science, contest, in a short paragraph which hardly amounts to a 'discussion of population genetics' (his few notes indicate no familiarity with the large literature on it, but only impressions and anecdotal evidence. Selfstudier is correct that this is not the quality of sourcing the article is striving to maintain. Secondly Fiveby's analogy is just that, an editor's analogy, find for a talk page, but not cogent for determining if Satlow's remark be included or not. It is not a commonplace in legal system the world over to deny citzenship by a DNA criterion. That is what at least one ethnic state requires, but in other legal systems, DNA testing is not about legal entitlement to be a citizen, but about determining paternity or maternity in civil suits. You looked at one primary source, one footnote of 79 used by McGonigle, and deduced that it backs Satlow. So its is a tendentious inference on your part, as well as a personal analogy.

The Law of Return was written before genetics began to impose its viewpoints on the debates. (a) Governments have instructed legal offices to require them in a number of cases, and, since 2018, rabbinical courts accept mitochondrial evidence. There are thus 2 different systems now in place, the secular state guidelines and the rabbinical religious guideline. The state in such cases accepts aliya if a parent or grandparent, regardless of sex, is genetically 'Jewish': the religious authorities only accept Jewish identity if the mother is Jewish (and of course, even there, the rule can be ignored if a person or group with zero Jewish ancestry converts). This ia all detailed in McGonicles later book, Chapter 2: The “nature” of Israeli citizenship pp.31-62 of his Genomic Citzenship (2021). In short, in usi9ng Satlow's remark that genetics

has not had an impact on religious law (or the Israeli Law of Return) and remains something of a novelty item in general discourse

three errors are introduced into the lead: (a) it has had an impact on religious law (2018,and the Supreme Court 2020 per McGonigle 22021 pp.32-33 (i.e. Satlow's point is outdated, overrun by developments) and (b) that genetics hasn't had an impact on the Law of Return is a truism only because that law was written in 1950, before molecular biology entered the fray. We know that the Law of return as interpreted in secular legal guidelines has been 'impacted' since 2013 by genetics. Thirdly for McGonigle writing in 2021, it is not a novelty in general discourse

This man's stance on the use of genetics in political action, extreme as it is, speaks to the way in which genetics has infiltrated the Israeli popular imagination'.2021 p.32

So, no. If that material is to be restored somewhere, one needs (1) consensus, and (2) a detailed multisourced section on 'Genetics and the Law of Return' where Satlow's equivocal and now dated claim has no place.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't comment on inclusion of Satlow. But you do understand the difference between population genetics and DNA paternity testing? fiveby(zero) 22:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

“His input comes from personal talks with two geneticists”

…that is not what he says.

”While most scientists with whom I have informally talked (including Harry Ostrer and Gil Atzmon, who come under particular critique)8 believe that the science of population genetics is entirely solid, Baker is suspicious.

He is including those two, they are not the only ones from which his statement is based. He names them because they are singled out in Baker’s book. And his statement “ it has not had an impact on religious law (or the Israeli Law of Return)” is not “misleading”. It’s a statement of fact. Drsmoo (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Gentlepersons. There is still a large body of evidence to be harvested and placed in an orderly exposition for this page. Let's not get bogged down in extenuating arguments over the utility of errant phrasing in dated sources. etc. One cannot construct an article by reading snippets. I'm sure more cogent objections or challenges might come if one read the several major books and articles listed which cover the whole field, as a minimum.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed – this is the key point. If we keep to the absolute highest quality sources only – peer reviewed journals and scholarly monographs, we will not need to have these debates. The nuance that Drsmoo is rightly looking to ensure is properly captured in this article can be found throughout the main sources – if one looks carefully at their work, they are all balanced in their use of words, just as we must continue to strive to be in our article. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, someone's not listening, dumping in the one thing Satlow screws up on with a misleading opinion, presumably because it is thought important because Satlow is notable and teaches at Brown University. All this means is that, since wikipedia should not purvey false information that Satlow's oversight will have to carry a note on DNA and the law of Return.Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What's the basis for "screws up on with a misleading opinion"? Are you still conflating population genetics and DNA paternity testing? A DNA test to determine a parent or grandparent is not population genetics. fiveby(zero) 12:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't play games. Satlow says

it has not had an impact on religious law (or the Israeli Law of Return) and remains something of a novelty item in general discourse:

I cited the post 2018 evidence of sources which report the impact of genetic arguments on religious law, practical applications of the Law of Return in administrative guidelines of who qualifies as a Jew for aliya and evidence that it is no longer a novelty in general discourse. Read them. Trying to shift the goalposts gets you nowhere. Satlow's remark is outdated, a fossilized opinion. and only of historic interest for Satlow's views.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You are still confused, “a DNA test to prove Jewish parentage” is not the same as population genetics. Drsmoo (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Cyril of Alexandria could be called the patron saint of hairsplitting, as he belaboured heretics with what he thought was the art of Aristotelian logic. Tibetan monks recite a prayer to Manjushri before they engage in rtsod pa, which is their equivalent to pilpul, and what we have here is pilpulling one’s leg.

Population genetics is the plural of DNA testing: the same analytical technique is used for a plurality of individuals correlated or corralled into ethnic groups for their ostensible allele similarities as is used in individual DNA analysis. You ought to know that if you want to contribute positively to this article. Since it seems you don’t. but ‘frenetise insignificance’, it is pointless to take the above seriously, since you don’t appear to have read past page 1 of McGonigle 2015, or even glanced at his discussion of how the Law of Return was amended to extend citizen rights to the zera Yisrael, ‘the seed of Israel’ which means 23 million people could technically become olim, 9 million beyond those who fit the strict halakhic criterion. Were you to trouble yourself to google around for information rather than opinions, you would find that Satlow’s view is outdated, incorrect, misleading. The amendment to the law of Return means simply, if you cannot provide proof of a birth certificate attesting your mother’s Jewishness, if challenged, you do a DNA test to ascertain what is assumed by the scrutiny of a ketubah or whatnot (adultery accounts for 2-8% of extramarital conceptions, depending on the society examined, a factor ignored consistently here).

The DNA test you do individually comes straight from the admixture analysis techniques developed by population genetics.

Drop the hairsplitting. Read up on the topic. Doing so allows one to discriminate between off-the-cuff opinionizing in book reviews and serious scholarship by competent area specialists.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you please quote the section that details how population genetics, and not paternity tests, are now used in the law of return? Drsmoo (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Read the book. One cannot expect everyone else to plough through books, and do one's work. One cannot ignore the several points showing where Satlow is obscure or misleading just to niggle away at one detail that you may think underminds everything else argued. No pilpul then when serious reading and serious commitment to an article's quality beckons. Reread the thread. If you can't grasp the point, fine.Nishidani (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, Satlow isn’t wrong, you are. Drsmoo (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The first principle of seriousness in these matters is to take in that each and everyone of us is liable to error. One cannot argue anything unless the principle of uncertainty is invited to hover over one's judgment. It should become instinctive. That applies also to scholars, but all the more so, to those who would construe and interpret them. I've never seen - it may be a personal defect - you ever backing down from an assertion. But that is neither here nor there. One is entitled to 'stick to one's opinion', but not in the face of public evidence that renders it questionable or immaterial. Please note that of several points I raised about Satlow's passage (and I am an admirer of his scholarship) - the semantic obscurity of the snippet you prize, the question-begging nature of his assertion about the Law of Return, which is challenged by later studies and developments, the fact that his information on the specific theme of population genetics is admittedly anecdotal, picking up things from private conversations with geneticists like Harry Ostrer and Gil Atzmon, one at least of whom entertains a view that numerous geneticists and historians challenge as totally wrongheaded, or testimony that, contrary to Satlow's aside, population genetic conversations do influence public opinion, -all these points you sedulously sidestep, ignore, talk past, and focus on the idea 'population genetics' to press your point that Satlow's wording does not mean what I say it means, or fails to signify adequately. It's like entertaining scepticism about Gregor Mendel's theory because a slight statistical anomaly appears, arguably, to exist in his study of heterozygous/homozygous plants - we call this proverbially, an inability to see the wood for the trees. Or rather, like admiring an old growth forest's aesthetic mass (Satlow's paragraph overall) while overlooking the ominous presence of one or two examples of Ailanthus altissima thriving amid the native trees or the knotweed quietly taking over the undergrowth which forms part of the basal ecosystem of that landscape (analogously, the slipshoddiness of Satlow's generalization here spoils what is otherwise a delightful lecturer-style excursus on the question of Jewish identity).

It is, as often, not a Manichean 'he's right, you're wrong' matter. It is simply that the source you like is visibly, when closely construed, obscure so that the author's point-of-view, thus stated, lacks the requisite lucidity, ergo cogency we should demand of texts we cite.Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that the quote is dredged out of a book review. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with that, should use best sources. The "seems to me that while some on the margins" is not something to take from a book review, opinions on that should come from a serious work. But it is incorrect to say that population genetics has somehow been incorporated into the Law of Return based on DNA parentage tests. fiveby(zero) 13:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Any careful analysis of the that phrase -"seems to me that while some on the margins"- would show that it is unquotable because (a) a mere personal opinion on a topic the author is unqualified to speak of by his own admission (b) who does some refer to and (c) on the margins of what discipline? (genetics, historiographt per Shlomo Sand). When no one can determine what an outsider kibitzer here means with such a statement, the implication is obvious. It has no encyclopedic value.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline of Jewish race science

Also see #Decline of Jewish race science? above.

Todd Endelman documents the way that the idea of Jews as a race was discredited from the 1930s by its association with Nazi race science, and Jewish support dropped away. For example, the Jewish Health Organization of Great Britain, founded by Salaman, declared by 1934 that "no such thing as a Jewish race in the biological use of the word", and Salaman himself, by 1939, concluded that "the Jews were a group 'united by a common tradition and welded by the reaction of their neighbours into a family' in which 'community of blood' was no greater than that among the citizens of the British Isles. 'Racialism,' as he called it, was 'a component in the complex of factors determining Jewish behaviour, but a weak one compared to the force of a common tradition and a similarity of environment'".

• Endelman's paper, following on Efron's chapter (1994:pp33.) is focused strongly on race and Anglo-Jewish scientists.
• As used this is not appropriate for a generalization about race science +Jews throughout the West.
• The cite is unpaginated.
• We already have touched on the decline of these studies by the 1930s, and that will be presently expanded.
• A stand-alone section with one generalization from one source is an eyesore.
• And misleading. Endelman notes Sewligman and Singer as actively opposing nazi racial theories, but concludes that Salaman persisted in his views into the postwar era.

Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I meant to expand this section and make it less UK-specific but ran out of time. If you remove it now, I’ll likely try to re-add it in a few weeks with more sources, so would rather leave it perhaps tagged for expansion, but I understand the weekness of current version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't see this when I edited out. Actually, like antisemitism, race theories varied in their development and deployment significantly from country to country. Even general histories ignore any sense of national nuance, preferring to accept as the benchamark the most extreme case, the Germanic world. So far we have no mention of race theory in the east European/Slavic world though it has a considerable literature. Soon after the height of the political success of K Lueger in Austria, coinciding with Herzl's turn to Zionism, Jabotinsky stayed in Italy for study, and found no evidence that anyone cared if he was a Jew or not. The United States at that time is another example of where we could expand.

By all means expand the English bit. My hope nonetheless is to cut back a fair bit, by tighter précis or just eliminating circumstantial excess or quote bloat, after the full picture is given.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

We currently have almost 80 scholarly works in the bibliography, and we still have some way to go in developing the article. Conscious of an upcoming RM discussion, and considering the experience at the AfD that many editors will come to !vote having just glanced at a handful of sources, I think the article would benefit from some organization in the bibliography. I also think it would help us keep a keen eye on the core sources to ensure that the overall structure and weight of the article matches them. I would propose:

• A Core subsection, containing only those works which describe (to use Sirfurboy's phrase) the whole line of thinking within Zionism, from race through to genetics
• A Pre-state Zionism and race section, containing those works which describe only the race science element (i.e. which, by definition, are time-bound by WWII and/or the creation of the state of Israel)
• A Modern genetics and Zionism section, containing those works which cover only genetics
• An Other works section, for the rest

Please could other editors confirm whether this would be helpful, and if so whether they agree with the proposed categories. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather keep everything alphabetical for easier reference. Havradim leaf a message 01:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources that deal with research into Jewish origins are focused broadly on the Jewish aspect, with Zionism being a small part. This article combines sections discussing research into Jews with sections discussing Zionism to SYNTH the Jewish research into being about Zionism. This is one of the major flaws in this article. Drsmoo (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a specific example of your claim in your penultimate sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: a gentle reminder to please provide the evidence underpinning your assertion. I am certain you are wrong, but if evidence is there to support your assertion then I will have to change my mind. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

A large number of sources in this article simply describe genetic or anthropological studies on Jews, and have no relationship whatsoever, aside from maybe/sometimes a reference or two, to Zionism or Race.

The general thrust of the article has been to Synth together a claim that genetic studies of Jews are "Zionist" and inherited from Racial Science, which, while sometimes connected to make a particular argument, are not actually related/the connection is not supported by the body of literature. This has been pointed out repeatedly. Drsmoo (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

We need specific examples please - which exact source is being incorrectly used? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Drsmoo: I assume that you have accepted that no sources are being incorrectly used, or you would have pointed out examples. You acknowledge above that "Zionism, race and genetics" are "sometimes connected", and then overlay subjective commentary to suggest that the connection is not significant in the literature.

Whether you are right or wrong on the relative significance in the literature, more importantly you are mixing up two of our policies / guidelines:

• WP:SYNTH: You have misread the policy. We have dozens of sources (your "sometimes connected") which state A+B=C explicitly, and none that say the opposite. Your objection is that we are also using sources which say A, and other sources which say B, but that objection has no basis in policy. That is why, whilst you have "pointed [it] out repeatedly", such comments do not get traction. A+B=C is explicitly confirmed by the literature, and your proposed objection would need a major change in policy to be relevant here.
• WP:SIGCOV: This is the relevant guideline about the amount of coverage ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"). But it is only about the notability of a subject and whether an article is warranted. Again, you have incorrectly conflated this question with the question of synth in your statement above (and a number of your other such statements).

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

”We have dozens of sources (your "sometimes connected") which state A+B=C explicitly, and none that say the opposite.” Both of these statements are demonstrably false. Please list the “dozens of sources” with relevant quotations. Repeatedly asking the same question over and over after being replied to in detail is tendentious. This article is WP:SYNTH, as has been pointed out in detail multiple times both here and on the AFD, including from keep voters. Until you act to address the glaring issues with this article, I will no longer respond to your sealioning. Drsmoo (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Or mine. I see nothing but flagwaving without substance. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It is true that some articles (History of Palestine is a perfect example) will benefit from having the bibliography split into subsections, but this article is not one of them. It is generally much easier to have a single biblio listing in alphabetical order. --NSH001 (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Drsmoo. Your repeated (well twice) rsponse to legitimate requests for information that will allow other editors to address your flagwaving without substance, as invariablySealioning, is becoming problematical. It is essentially a NPA violation against Onceinawhile, for his attempts at requesting collaboration are provocatively 'spun' as badgering (as you earlier put it) i.e. in your view, WP:Bludgeon, a reportable offense. If, as you say, a statement is 'demonstrably false' and no one else can see it, the onus is on you to prove it. You are shifting the goalposts. Please desist.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

”and no one else can see it”. Aside from the many editors on here and the AFD. Nishidani, Onceinawhile claimed there are “dozens” of sources that explicitly connect the disparate elements of this article. You are asking me to prove a negative, I am asking him to substantiate his claim and produce the sources. Drsmoo (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. If it weasn't self-evident here (which it is) 'no one else can see it'. The AfD is history. If you can't see the obvious point Onceinawhile made, then read the article, and tote up the number of sources which in dealing with postwar genetics in Israel, mention the impact of earlier Zionism. Those sections will be even more strongly documented in a day or two. You are not asking Onceinawhile to substantiate a claim, you are asking him/her to waste time answering your erratic comments rather than work on the article, which still requires several days of intensive work. It ain't collaborative, esp. since your view that this article should be trashed is well known.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No, most can see it, and little has changed. The claim was that there were “dozens of sources” That support “A+B=C” and connect Zionism, race, and genetics. Having read this article, it is abundantly clear that there aren’t. I am inviting Onceinawhile to substantiate his claim. I anticipate he will not be able to. Drsmoo (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am for weeding out quite a few sources once the article is in good shape. The bibliography arose in its present shape because many editors at the AfD had no idea of the topic and the scholarly range. The rationale for that - which changes the article from an historic overview to a bibliography compendium, is over.
• Drsmoo. If there has been any principle guiding the selection of sources for consultation it has been one diametrically opposed to what you assert. I have a substantial resource base on Jewish origins, and have used none of that. Your statement is descriptively false. In my own contributions, as as far as I can see, in bibliographic citations by others (I haven't read all of those yet) the material has been added only if the focus is on the next between Zionism+race+genetics. Were what you claim true, we'd have 300 books and articles in there. People who keep bandying the word 'synth' should give evidence by specific reasoned examples of that, or stop the flagwaving-
• I agree with NSH001. Since we don't need all this material, splitting the sources would be unwieldy. A second point. I imagine, given the repeated attempts to AfD it off wikipedia, that6 here will be a determined attempt to (a) break up the article or/and (b) rename it so that some new title will redefine the topic and thereby give excuses for excising substantial parts of the text. So any such bibliuography splitting would be just one more headache.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

I don’t feel strongly but just to note that this proposed split evidences the concern I’ve had all along: that this is essentially two articles that don’t go together naturally: pre-state Zionist race science and contemporary genetics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bobfrombrockley: the split above is simply time-based:

• Core = 1890s to 2023
• Pre-state/WWII = 1890s to 1940s
• Modern = 1950s to 2023

Like every single sociology article on this encyclopedia, some sources cover the whole relevant time period, others focus on just part of it. The suggestion that the time periods don’t go together naturally is provably incorrect, as every single one of the “core” sources confirm that they do, and no known sources question the continuity. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Bob, the sources disagree. Nothing that occurred post 1945 is comprehensible unless one has a thorough grasp of what preceded it. I consider the pressure to split it as, objectively, reflecting a perception that race theory in Zionism is best left as an historical artefact, and wholly unrelated to modern Israel, in the face of abundant (Israel, diasporic and otherwise) scholarship which emphasizes continuities in this as in all history. History has no clean breaks.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s like arguing that the article Taxi should only cover motor vehicles. The requirement to get from A to B without owning a vehicle was met by different modes of transport in history, with clear continuity despite horses and cars looking very different. So our article covers them together. Likewise, the requirement to get from A to B with respect to Jewish biological origins in Zionism was met by different modes of science, one outdated and the other modern, but also with clear continuity. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

An analogy closer to this article would be "Republicans, horses, and taxis" where the article cites some sources that discuss politicians and horses, some that discuss politicians and taxis, some that say specifically Republicans did such and such with horses, some saying taxi drivers are influenced by Republican policies, and some articles that say taxis are related to horses conceptually. Drsmoo (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Did you ever note how dishonest Tolstoy was in entitling one of his books, War and Peace? I mean, the blighter then goes on to delude us all by mentioning Egyptian metempsychosis, the nobility of facial wrinkles, moves in chess, the quality of women's breasts etc.etc.etc. things that disappoint readers who, looking at the title expect to read only about guns, artillery. hussar manoeuvres or breaks in the action when silence falls and no one shoots. They do the same thing with the life of Herzl, and instead of focusing on what he did day by day, divagate about financial crises in Hungary, fashion in Paris, the court of the Turkish sultan, politics in Vienna, schmisse, a chap called Dreyfus, all sorts of claptrap. Shocking.Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Drsmoo: thanks for the good idea. An article on "Republicans, horses, and taxis" will work well - I have checked the highest quality scholarly research, and as you can see from the below, this is a well studied and notable topic:

Scholarly quotes on Republicans, horses, and taxis:

1. Oxford Bibliographies, 2015: ...contemporary taxis often travel similar routes to earlier horse-cabs. Republican politics significantly inform historical and contemporary taxi literature, at times explicitly and more often implicitly in the questions that scholars ask.
2. Falk 2017: there is no other example known to me like the Republicans’ of an intensive effort to travel around urban areas in shared vehicles
3. Weitzman 2019: …[the study] aimed to expose the assumptions and biases implicit in taxi research and to critique the way it has been used politically and culturally by Republicans… From what I have read, this view of taxis and their historical relationship to horse-cabs, a perspective that stresses the lines of continuity between the two fields, is common among the anthropologists who write about taxis.
4. Ostrer 2012: the taxis of which Sand is critical have set the bar higher for travel than the horse-cabs of a century ago. The stakes in taxi travel are high… It touches on the heart of Republican politics.
5. Burton 2021: In contrast to the rest of the region, the history of taxis in America has been relatively well studied. Historians and anthropologists have critically examined how the horse-cabs in early-twentieth-century, and their relationship to Republican politics, reverberate within the taxi industry from the 1950s to the present
6. Abu El-Haj 2012: Looking at the history of Republicans through the lens of urban shared travel brings into focus a story long sidelined in histories: Republicans invested in horse-cabs as they forged an understanding of urban travel and fought to found the Republican party. By the mid-twentieth century, urban shared vehicles, although not with horses any more — had become standard for many Republicans, and, in significant ways, this commitment to such vehicles framed membership of the entire Republican party
7. Kohler 2023: In the American context, taxis are mainly criticized as being designed in the framework of a “Republican narrative", as doing the same thing as horse-cabs, or both.

I hope the above illustrates the point clearly. All these quotes, in their original form, are currently in this article for your inspection. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

History has no clean breaks. But articles have to, otherwise we have only one article to cover all of history. You have to think about where the logically coherent place for an article to end and start is. This imho is still two articles with an enormous amount of editorial effort going into the stuff that links them, even though that’s marginal to both of the two relevant bodies of literature. (I won’t speculate now what the pressure to create one article reflects.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No need for two articles if there is a cohesive whole that is not of excessive length. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Bob, 11 days ago you claimed:

the overly capacious title brings in genetics and forces the article to yoke this period of high race science together with a much later genetic debate, which has implications for Zionism but is very marginal to Zionism’s story.

There is no 'enormous amount of editorial effort' involved in 'yoking' these themes together, and, though you personally repeat that race and genetics is marginal to Zionism, that, I must infer, reflects the kind of Zionist history you are extensively familiar with. I can understand that because I know some of those general histories you allude to, and I too never noted in them any significant mention of this tradition. But I noted the silence as I followed scholarly developments over the past 2 decades. Almost all major Zionist histories have been produced by scholars working from within a Zionist framework understandably (from Nahum Sokolow down to David Cesarani, Walter Laqueur etc.etc) The effort consists simply in mastering what has become a voluminous development in post-Zionist scholarship, which openly allows that the story of Zionism has traditionally ignored the issue of race (though it focused intensively on the antisemitic environment out of which Zionism emerged. Antisemitism was to its lethal core 'racist' and grounded on a pseudoscience that had enormous traction for the first formative 50 years of Zionist thinking. And it is not we editors who link this to genetics in Israel: a dozen strong technical studies highlight the nexus between demographic calculations, Jewish population genetics and planning after Israel was founded. The connection is not contrived, it has simply been established by numerous scholarly sources which are bringing to light this consistent strain in Zionism. I think you will see this more clearly as the decade by decade survey of the continuities thickens, which I, for one, hope to do shortly (the only delay has been unusually dense social obligations here). Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You may be right Nishidani in your interpretation of the history but what you’re saying here suggests your agenda is to right great wrongs and revise the false histories promoted by the mainstream scholars who suffered from too much Zionism. The article is increasingly becoming an original essay in historiography, which may be interesting and well researched but is not a Wikipedia article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Agenda? 'right great wrongs'!!! Was SlimVirgin running a feminist agenda when she did a massive amount of source reading and wrote/rewrote from top to bottom Female genital mutilation? It is almost twice as long as this, with 3 times the notes. When she radically overhauled and brought up to snuff both 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle and Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah I might differ with her choices and relative emphases, but I didn't challenge. Sarah was privately a 'pro-Zionist'.She was always a scrupulously fair content editor, a rare thing. She wasn't '(re)(w)right-winging a great wrong'.

That caricature alludes to our page on tendentious editing. Really Bob, I'm sure a moment's reflection will remind you that historical writing year by year is constantly revising recent scholarship by expanding on something neglected in traditional accounts of this or that. A strong tendency in the transition to power of the later Protestant ascendancy in England wore its conservative Anglican and secularist bias on its narrative sleeves for centuries until people like Eamon Duffy, from a different religious background, came along and upset the applecart, by documenting in detail what the mainstream narratives ignored or underplayed, the massive cultural and social devastation on the medieval Catholic world the new men wrought. Read Macaulay et al., and there's hardly a hint of it. Your point ignores what I wrote in the overview: scholars who for two decades have worked to repair the silence in 'mainstream' histories about the interconnected themes of 'Zionism, race and genetics' are not 'righting great wrongs'. They are simply exploring what earlier scholars missed, and wiki peons like me simply 'write the wrong' (the glaring lacuna in earlier books that consistently ignored the material, or relegated it to a footnote). In many southern US states, Republicans are ridding school libraries of textbooks that, reflecting the revisions of traditional American narratives of the country's 'heroic' past, development and founding, mention the institution of slavery, and the ethnocide of the Indian wars which were given short shrift. 'That stuff is just catering to the wrong voting constituencies. It's offensive to a lot of poor white folk's American dream!'

It is now an integral part of mainstream Zionist scholarship to re-examine the records of the past dwelling on details that upset common traditional perceptions of 'the miracle', and there is no writing of great wrongs involved when we update articles to cover new scholarship. Wikipedia does not censor, it looks at the state of the art encyclopedically, and dutifully updates its knowledge base.Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Brief version. The gravamen of any split proposal of the kind which, in the logic of things, will be advanced eventually must lie in showing that the numerous high quality sources linking zionism, race and genetics provide no warrant for writing such an article. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

A core source: Noa Sophie Kohler

We have not used Noa Sophie Kohler's works yet. But this article in the bibliography is an excellent summary of this entire topic. One of the clearest we have. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It has been used. The quote in the lead with “being designed or interpreted in the framework of a "Zionist narrative” is from this article but is incorrectly attributed to a different article. The article is also an “Opinion paper” as opposed to a research paper. Drsmoo (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In case of any confusion, an “opinion paper” in a peer reviewed journal is a very different thing to an “opinion piece” in a newspaper. The Journal of Anthropological Sciences, one of the world’s most prestigious anthropological journals, holds opinion papers to the same academic standard and peer review process as its “research papers” – the only difference being that the former does not need to include new primary data, and can be a review of existing scholarship. Most journals publish such papers without specifically calling them opinion papers; this is simply a way of differentiating between primary and secondary types of publication. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Drsmoo. If you note an incorrect citation, and know the real source, the proper thing to do (this is a collaborative enterprise) is either make a corrective edit yourself or alert others who will fix it. Otherwise it just looks like one is storing ammo for later, to machinegun the credibility of the article by a bulleted list whose issues could have been addressed collegially during the work in progress. Kohler's paper is not an 'opinion' unless you underwrite the idea everything is opinionable if the writer is not a nuts-and-bolts scientist. Most of the genetics papers written by scientists, several articles by scholars doing the history state, make historical assumptions for which they have no scientific evidence, and overviews like Burton,. Kohler. Azoulay, Lipphardt etc., serve to contextualize the science in the cultural, national, historical milieux in which they were written. Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Not about “ammo”, just 1RR. It happens to be particularly funny given the meme going around about reading all 8000 pages.Drsmoo (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to do with IR. Any editor of any persuasion, if notified of an attribution error, would do the edit. It's obligatory. Facinated that there's a meme circulating about someone having read 8000 pages on this. Could you tell me who has managed that remarkable achievement? It's over 4 times what my slow brain has tried to take in these last two weeks or so, or did I miskey 8 for 2? Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism and responses

I have moved the section that prefaced the overview as originally drafted, to a section of its own.

• The move is provisory. It just didn't function, piling that material on top of the overview, which must be synthetic, and not hogged by quotes from two or three sources, without a narrative context.
• To me, the succession of quotes at the outset, dealing with critical views of the subject, looks unbalanced. There is no counterpart per NPOV. I know that is difficult because so much of the critical material is, indeed, critical, rather than approving or endorsing. But readers should be given an historical outline of how this issue came about, all of its complexities, and the predicaments unenviably faced by Jewish scientists down to the 1930s, Zionist or otherwise (I hope to expand on that in the relevant history section) before we get to developments in the postwar period.
• I'm not for long quotes from a single authority in the body of the article, as if that were the last word.
• At the end of the sequence (1) history to 1945 (b) 1948-1960s (c) 1970-85 (d) 1985 to genomics down to the present time, we can introduce a section on criticism and responses. Kohler's article, for example, is an attempt to provide a rationale or defense (it more or less acts as a channel for the Atzmon/Behar approach, which is fine by me) of the use of genetics to define Israeli or Jewish peoplehood. And there are several other sources with a similar purpose, from Efron and Endelman for example.
• This is just how I feel of course. Essentially it reflects a drafter's sense of neat orderly exposition free of piling quote on quote. The primary aim should be to paraphrase sources to give a rounded historical overview. Now, that's filled the adbreak, I must get back to The Charge at Feather River. All woik and no relaxation makes a dull Jack like me even duller.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Some stuff taken out. Can be reconsidered if thought cogent or indispensable

• Zangwill in 1909 asked, "Whoever heard of a religion that was limited to people of particular breed? Of divine truth that was only true for men of dark complexion?"

Nishidani (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Rubstein, Amnon. "The lie behind 'genetic citizenship'". www.israelhayom.co.il. Retrieved 2023-07-27. The truth becomes clear in the article, which does not refer to Israel's Law of Return, but discusses one young woman who asked to participate in the Taglit-Birthright Israel program, which offers free trips to Israel to young Jews around the world...There is no proposal to amend the Law of Return to include genetic testing.
• The name is wrongly transcribed. It is Rubinstein. Amnon Rubinstein has the credentials to speak about law,even at the venerable age of 87, but IsraelHayom is not a respectable RS. This is barrel-scraping, and falls far short of the quality standards applying here.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

A discourse emerged

Can somebody find a better word than “discourse” in the opening sentence. What does it even mean? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The second para of the history says "....notable proponents of the idea of a Jewish nation-race included...", I assume that the discourse (discussion, debate, argument) was between them at least. I understand discourse to mean that but if you want to summarize the body differently, go for it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Would "In the late 19th century, a discourse emerged in Zionist thinking seeking to reframe conceptions of" → "Beginning in the late 19th century, Zionist thinking sought to reframe conceptions of" work? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s much more understandable. But it might overstate the case: the “discourse emerged” formulation acknowledges a slow and partial process. I wonder about “some Zionist thinkers sought” or “a current of thought within Zionism emerged which sought”? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

tryptofish's suggestion is worth keeping alive.My editing practice is to write nothing without a source at hand, several preferably. So altering language requires a grounding in sources. 'Some' isd a weasel word. Any familiarity with Herzl and his time, and his collaborators, will tell you that discourse at that time was thoroughly saturated by concepts of race. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

As discussed above with Drsmoo and in addition mentioned by Sirfurboy, the first and second paras likely both need some work for a final version. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 30 July 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 Wikipedia 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)

Impacts and McGonigle

The "Impacts" section content didn't really seem to match the section title, so i went through McGonigle's Genomic Citizenship. He took an ethnographic look at concepts of citizenship, nation, and genetic in Israel and Qatar; "a book about the relationship between science and identity". He provides an overview and survey much in line with other sources. There's some possible content there, but probably better sources available. His work is looking at NLGIP, talking with geneticists and others to see if the reality matches the rhetoric and mythological imaginings.

• As an ethnographer, I was disappointed by my experience at the NLGIP. In the context of the wide circulation of gene talk and the potential biopolitical role of genetics in Israeli society, I had expected the NLGIP to be replete with research and discourse concerning the genetics of Jews. I was expecting to find work on the genetic nature of the Jewish nation and perhaps also on the genetic basis of a return to Zion. But these expectations were not met. It turned out that the NLGIP is tightly woven into the fabric of Israel’s burgeoning secular technoscience. It is concerned with an unmarked global science and the imagined move toward a future era of precision medicine. The Zionist pioneer at the NLGIP is, rather than a religious-nationalist fanatic, the secular humanist scientist pushing the boundaries of global biomedical progress forward. This is the Zionism of twenty-first-century secular global modernity—in Tel Aviv, global scientific hotbed.
• Ultimately my expectations for the biobank were supplanted: although the work I observed in the lab depended on certain racial or ethnic categories, I could not identify a clear moment when the framing national context swayed the research in a particular direction or became an identifiable influencing factor in scientific reasoning. This is a crucial ethnographic finding that has relevance for the methodology of studying science and society. It also problematizes the idea of a local “site” when studying the globalized discourses of science. I found that the discursive social life of genetics and Jewish identity vastly exceeds the science that underpins it. In fact, it raises the question of whether credible biological science underpins the imagination of genomic citizenship at all. The “National Laboratory,” I realized, was somewhat like a genetic Holy of Holies: a hollow, empty symbolic space to which is attributed a powerful truth value, coordinating a set of mythical beliefs about the nature of the Jewish nation. Inside the labs, however, there was no Jewish essence to be found. Not only was there no research focus on Jewish origins or the genetics of the Jewish nation, but the work of the biobank and the labs I visited focused predominantly on contemporary trends in biomedicine and an unmarked global rush to precision medicine.

There is other possible content: resistance to genetic and biological concepts of identity, the 2018 rabbinical courts, etc. So why was it that the particular content was chosen from this source? There are now some 13 quotes in the text 55 in footnotes and 11 in citations. Looks like a real failure to read and summarize sources, and a lot of quote mining to belabor a particular POV. fiveby(zero) 19:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a recurrent problem with this article is that it is organised around an argument rather than a topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You think quotations in a citation summarized in the body is a real failure to read and summarize sources, and a lot of quote mining to belabor a particular POV? Huh. nableezy - 18:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If there is a recurrent problem, then it suffices to identify it more clearly so editors can fix it. I for one don't understand what is meant, in the context of this article, that its organizing principle is 'an argument' rather than a 'topic'. yes I know 'argument' as in 'the argument of this book' means a POV, but the topic of the article is not a personal thesis: it is a reasonable thorough survey of the scholarly literature covering the 'arguments' in a different sense, that emerged when Zionism reformulated Jewish identity in racial terms, and, once Zionism became the dominant voice of Israeli political culture, the way this tradition re-emerged in genetics. A survey is not an argument. This survey studies the arguments in this kind of entangled discursive tradition, following what the scholarship on it does.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

“once Zionism became the dominant voice of Israeli political culture, the way this tradition re-emerged in genetics.”

That is a POV, but it is not a statement of fact, and not a foundation for an article.

Wikipedia would need very strong and unambiguous consensus to base an article on the claim that a scholarly and sound field of genetic research is actually based on debunked racial pseudoscience. It may be a theory espoused by few, but it can not be the basis of an article unless it is well established that the above actually happened.

So far it has been claimed that the quoted sentiment is supported by “dozens” of reliable sources, but no substance to support that has been forthcoming. Drsmoo (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually that is not my POV, as you must know. The words you cite with a shiver of protest paraphrase a truism, repeated a zillion times by the major Zionist organizations since Basel. If you're worried about my reference to this on the talk page, perhaps you'd better fix dozens of articles on wikipedia that actually state that Israel is founded on Zionism, such as, to quote just two:Zionism and Politics of Israel (shockingly, the latter states:Politics in Israel are dominated by Zionist parties. The rest of what you ascribe to the article is nonsense. It nowhere states the absurd notion that 'genetic research is actually based on debunked racial pseudoscience'.Nishidani (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion, to clarify: The notion that a “Jewish identity in racial terms”, “re-emerged in genetics” is a POV, but it is not a statement of fact, and not a foundation for an article. Wikipedia would need very strong and unambiguous consensus to base an article on the claim that a scholarly and sound field of genetic research (genetic studies on Jews) is actually based on debunked racial pseudoscience. It may be a theory espoused by few, but it can not be the basis of an article unless it is well established that the above actually happened.

So far it has been claimed that the quoted sentiment is supported by “dozens” of reliable sources, but no substance to support that has been forthcoming. Drsmoo (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever confusion exists here arises from, I guess, trying to ignore the mass of evidence from scholarship cited on the page, in main text and footnotes, and saying that my talk page comment which summarizes it reflects my POV, and not the results of a vast amount of contemporary scholarship. I think, rather than make an extensive copy of all of these quotes here, I should ask you to (re)read the article, where you will find ample evidence that scholars can speak of the "racialization of Jewish identity"(Egorova). Falk, if you actually take the trouble to read him, speaks of Zionism as 'a national sociocultural doctrine'(Falk 2017 xi) formulated in a period when 'Jewish identity became “biological” . . . in the last decades of the nineteenth century' (Falk 2017 p.xi) when '(t)oward the turn of the twentieth century, .. the Zionist movement granted a kind of approval to the national social alliance of Jews, rather than merely to their traditional religious or cultural uniqueness,' as 'the flood of studies that ascribed to Jews a biological essence as a race swelled.'(Falk 2017 p.29) If you are upset that a 'racial Jewish identity' of the kind developed in early Zionism dragged over into some genetic studies, take it up with the scholars who remarked on this, amply cited here, and not with the hapless amanuensis who duly paraphrased several academic papers on this phenonmenon. This has nothing to do with my POV.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

“take it up with the scholars who remarked on this, amply cited here” The opinion that genetic studies on Jews inherit from racial science, which is the thesis of this article, is not amply cited here, or anywhere. It is SYNTH’d together in this article by different sources saying completely different things. To be clear, there is no preponderance of scholarly work making the claim you are making, and if there were, you would have been able to easily provide it. Drsmoo (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The opinion that genetic studies on Jews inherit from racial science, which is the thesis of this article That's not the thesis.

Per the lead. "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." Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you stubbornly refuse to read the text, or, if you have read it, distort it. The article does not say that 'genetic studies on Jews inherit from racial science'. The article cites several scholars of the discipline of the history of genetics who document that 'genetic studies on Jews' in the post-war period carried over some ideas and suppositions characteristic of earlier race studies on Jews. We quote Falk (2007 p. 154) specifically to this end:'These notions have persisted, though in a thinly disguised mode, in post-Second World War Israel.' Your persistence is making an argument where none exists, unless by conjuring up a phantom idea from twisting words, works only if one ignores the evidence of the scholarship quoted. If you won't accept the evidence, replying seems pointless.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

And since you just edited the article, changing 'concluded' to 'writes', what do you make of that quote? I.e.

"the history of the relationship of Zionism and scientific biology, which has made an effort to single out Jews from non-Jews on the one hand, and to unite the distinct Jewish communities on the other hand, provides a problematic case of the utilisation of biological arguments as “evidence” for whatever social, economic, or political notion that has been put forward."Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Arguments over whether the Ashkenazi are primarily of Middle Eastern or European descent, McGonigle argues, fuel fierce controversies in what are the politics of Jewish genetics: if the latter were true, critics of Israel, could find genetic grounds for contesting Zionism as a settler colonial project. That is a very poor summary of McGonigle, who includes much running counter to the narrative being established in the article. To pick that out from the source, yes, i do feel is a failure to read and summarize sources, quote mining, and non-neutral editing. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(a)One quote doesn't make a theory, i.e. citing a paraphrase of McGonigle, one of 80+ sources, doesn't furnish a reason to make the generalization that the article shows a 'failure to read and summarize sources, quote mining, and non-neutral editing.' This is elementary.

(b)the point for which McGonigle is quoted is also made by several other sources, it is not unique to him

(c) So let's examine whether or not the passage is a poor summary of the source. Our text:-

• (i)Arguments over whether the Ashkenazi are primarily of Middle Eastern or European descent, McGonigle argues, fuel fierce controversies in what are the politics of Jewish genetics: if the latter were true, critics of Israel, could find genetic grounds for contesting Zionism as a settler colonial project.

The source

• (ii)Interest in the topic of Jewish origins is hardly universal among the world’s Jews or the communities in which they live. But in Israel, the stakes of the debate over Jewish origins are high, because the founding narrative of the Israeli state is based on exilic “return.” If European Jews have descended from converts, the Zionist project can be pejoratively categorized 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.

If you don't think the article at this precise point (i) represents the text as cited in the footnotes (ii) the simple solution is to offer your own improving paraphrase of the passage, which, on the face of it, cannot be more than a tweak.

You shouldn't certainly be jumping on this one item to proffer some 'proof' that the article is a travesty of the sources.

I might add that the metaphorical phrasing 'the stakes of the debate . .are high' recurs at least four times in our sources, but I've been striving to keep notes to a minimum, and overlook a mass of points like that for economy.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand. Fiveby wasn’t calling out the summation, they were calling out the selective use of citing that section only. The same happened, for example, with Weitzman. One of the only sources that actually does discuss Zionism, race, and genetics, he called out how different the fields are. After originally not being not included, the quote I added was silently removed in it’s entirety, with no edit summary, and reduced only to him making a “similar point” to Falk. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes,"The source" is not the excerpt above but the whole work. I'd like to ask Nishidani if you do have access to the full work beyond the Google preview, for instance chapter 6 and what he says is the ...ultimate lesson from my ethnographic work in Israel.? If so, what is the reasoning behind picking this one particular statement out as opposed to all the other content which tends to contradict the article narrative? fiveby(zero) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This is all so predictable, AfD, doesn't work, so trash the title, doesn't work either, so trash the sources, question editor motives, etcetera. Edit the article so as to add balance if that's all that's needed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"The epistemics of Jewish genetics fall short of its mythic circulatory semiotics. This is the ultimate lesson from my ethnographic work in Israel."

What has it to do with anything? Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood anything. All citations are 'selective' by definition.

I've been professionally trained in two distinct disciplines where you are taught to read masses of material, often translate it, and make paraphrases, before venturing beyond. (Of course I have McGonigle's Genomic Citizenship and have read chapter 6 pp.143-158. Selfstudier's quote above comes from p.150. If you don't believe me, ask me to quote the first passage of any page chosen at random, in that book)

Now, rule of thumb when you do this comprehensive reading: use index cards to note, over say 30 or 50 books and a 100 articles, content under thematic headings. The other day, my nephew finally retrieved from storage our uncle's files on Aristotle, two boxes, about a yard of cards indexing by book and theme everything he read in six languages on Aristotelian logic. Do people do this anymore? Apparently no. No doubt computers, and googling for keywords, has changed all this, but I for one can't shake the habit, so that I indexed, among scores of others, a theme, 'zionism, race/genetics, political repercussions'. When I came to write that paragraph, I simple gave some samples from that index's listing of sources and their pages touching on that aspect, reread them, and paraphrased. So, to ask me, when I added McGonigle p.36 under that heading, along with the others, 'but what about the whole book?' I fail to understand what your point is. I'm tempted to think you haven't a clue about how these things are done. perhaps I'm wrong. One simply, in the world of scholarly practice, does the above. It utterly misses the point of topical citation. Any of the 80+ sources, if you read them, are 'bespate' (I've been thinking of Browning's Child Roland) with passages like:

whether Jews constituted a single race or ethnicity and whether their present genetic traits represented those of the biblical Israelites (see, for example, Efron 1994; Hart 1999; Steinweis 2006; Hirsch 2009; Falk 2017) Burton 2022

Or more cogently for the precise context of that passage:

Nevertheless, scholars coming from the perspective of social sciences and humanities disciplines have suggested that this work indicates a worrying trend in DNA research, as they appear to naturalise social and cultural differences (Abu El-Haj 2007, Palmie 2007, Palsson 2007, Reardon 2005, Simpson 2000, Skinner 2006, Smart et al 2008) Egorova 2011

All that paragraph does is register several comments in the sources which all deal with aspects of a perceived 'worrying trend' in genetics, and that is what McGonigle p.36 is cited for.

It's called methodology. No cite represents a whole book or article. It represents what it is cited for. I thought everyone who reads knows that. Apparently I'm wrong. Wikipedia talkpages never fail to surprise.

Since you appear not to have the book, you may be interested in p.52., which like loads from other sources, I don't quote in order not to burden the article:

In brief, Israeli Jews’ imagination of a unified Jewish race has its roots in European diaspora host nations, twentieth-century biology, and essentialist nationalist imaginaries. Addressing the ways in which Jewish race science has transformed, and reemerged, in the twenty- first century, anthropologist of medicine Susan Kahn has identified three key ways in which Jewishness has now entered the molecular realm, with genes being defined as Jewish in three major ways: population genetics, genetic testing for both disease and Jewish identity, and human ova and sperm donation in the domain of assisted conception (2010, 21). In these different conceptual arenas, “Jewish genes” and Jewish inheritance are determined in markedly different ways.

It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I see, then what does not match a theme, 'zionism, race/genetics, political repercussions', where he finds generally the opposite is then excluded. ok. fiveby(zero) 21:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

fiveby, that is not what Nishidani wrote above, and frankly is disappointingly rude in the context of his 600-word effort to address your concerns.

I started writing a response to your 30 July post about McGonigle when you first wrote it, but got distracted before I submitted it. I also have read his whole book, and his 2018 PhD thesis. I found, and find, your implied suggestion that the thrust of McGonigle's work has been misrepresented to be incomprehensible.

You are presumably focused on McGonigle's (frankly, misplaced) surprise that biobanks are scientific (and financial) rather than nationalist organizations:

I was expecting to find work on the genetic nature of the Jewish nation and perhaps also on the genetic basis of a return to Zion... Inside the labs, however, there was no Jewish essence to be found. Not only was there no research focus on Jewish origins or the genetics of the Jewish nation, but the work of the biobank and the labs I visited focused predominantly on contemporary trends in biomedicine and an unmarked global rush to precision medicine.

Yet in the very same excerpts he writes:

I found that the discursive social life of genetics and Jewish identity vastly exceeds the science that underpins it. In fact, it raises the question of whether credible biological science underpins the imagination of genomic citizenship at all. The “National Laboratory,” I realized, was somewhat like a genetic Holy of Holies: a hollow, empty symbolic space to which is attributed a powerful truth value, coordinating a set of mythical beliefs about the nature of the Jewish nation.

What he is saying here, in this excerpt that you personally provided as supposedly-opposing evidence, is about how politics and propaganda extrapolate science in this topic area. This is right at the very core of this article. It is what all the other scholars are saying, from Abu El-Haj, to Burton, to Falk, etc etc. And he explains what he means here throughout the rest of his monograph. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby: so you don't just need to take it from other editors here, I suggest you read the 15-page detailed review of McGonigle's book by Dr. Snait Gissis of Tel Aviv University, in our bibliography entitled: "Is nationalizing universalizing and/or vice‐versa?". It is a comparative review together with Burton's book.

In her concluding comments on p.13, Dr. Gissis writes of McGonigle's and Burton's works:

If I were to offer an inclusive frame for both books, with differing time-range, emphasis and methodology, I would suggest “the varieties of nationalizing style of human population genetics” — the genetic (and genomic) transmutations of ‘race’ and the genetization of ‘nation’. The combined result of the endeavor of the two books, which relate to the Middle East, exposes and explicates the emergence, existence and significance of this style of reasoning, its non-Western agents and users, its significance within the historical narrative of twentieth / twenty-first centuries genetics of human populations. Both authors cast light on the changing conceptions and classifications of Middle-Eastern populations in the 20th–21st centuries by focusing on how ’race’, ’nation’, later on combined with ‘ancestry’, have framed the localized / national social and political deployment of genetics and later on of genomic research, using ever-changing and constantly updated investigative technologies.

She continues with further detail - it is well worth reading. This exact topic is the core of this Wikipedia article.

Sorry it took me a week to write this, as we could have saved a lot of time. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've stated multiple times that the content is valuable, and missing from other articles. The 'Genomic Citizenship' of McGonigle and other concepts are not unique to Israel yet of particular importance to what is hotly debated in some quarters due to the founding history. No need to reiterate on the talk page. In my opinion, and what i would hope would be that of a encyclopedia article would be that race science and the misappropriation of genetics is fundamentally flawed at the outset. McGonigle is very concerned with the ethical application of genetics, and has some useful content. But look at what is selected for use: Arguments over whether the Ashkenazi are primarily of Middle Eastern or European descent, McGonigle argues, fuel fierce controversies in what are the politics of Jewish genetics: were the Ashkenazi to turn out to be descendants of converts of European origin, he continues, critics of Israel could find genetic grounds for contesting Zionism as a settler colonial project. The conclusion of the article. He does not 'argue' this in the sense implied as an 'impact' but is pointing out another side of the fundamentally invalid debate. The content looks like it was chosen to get "settler colonialism" (where i notice the quotation marks have been removed and no longer a "pejorative categorization") into the conclusion as an "impact". The narrative of the article and focus of editing appears to be engage in exactly the manner he calls out. It looks like you are trying to "find genetic grounds for contesting Zionism as a settler colonialism pursued under false assumptions". fiveby(zero) 17:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not really bothered about the "settler colonialism" aspect, we have an article for that, Zionism as settler colonialism and it can go in there. Whether there are or not "genetic grounds", there is absolutely no need for them in order to advance that thesis.

If this is the sum total of your objections to this article, it is easily resolved. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You made that point several times, and were comprehensively answered. No need to restate it. This is about what 80+ sources discuss, not about one quote from McGonigle. By all means suggest a further tweak to that single item among 200 sourced items. 'pejorative connotation' could be added as 'negative implication' for instance.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I think there is consensus to fix that point - please feel free to be bold. Any other points like this which you think require amendment to achieve full balance, please do make the changes. I think everyone here wants the article to be 100% neutral. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The same with Weitzman, where he offered a detailed examination of the differences between race science and genetics, which was first omitted, and then after I added it, removed with no edit summary. Drsmoo (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You've mentioned that twice. I don't know how that happened, and I never have the time to do diff searches to find who did this or that. I don't know how to do that quickly and it takes me an inordinate amount of time to do so, time stolen from serious reading. I do distinctly remember using an edit summary announcing I was trimming Weitzman's quote under Falk to make them closer in length, and that I would reintroduce what i excerpted, in another place. Apparently I never got round to that. Any reader might read into that two possibilities (a) I'm a POV pushing swine stealthily ensuring stuff that upsets my perceived (anti-Israeli) POV doesn't get a hearing, or that exhaustion (this month ended up with flashes in my eye, and perhaps retinal problems, some days ago) and the natural disattention of an ageing mind are responsible. I know that the latter explanation fits better, but I don't deny independent minds the right to prefer the former hypothesis. No one is a complete master of the unconscious.Nishidani (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It would lead us too far afield to expatiate on the point in McGonigle's book which Onceinawhile eloquently makes, the conflicting vectors between the politics of nativist nationalism and hi-techn start-ups, which are driven by market forces. Nishidani (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the various quotes of Weitzman that Drsmoo added to the article some time ago and felt that they stopped in a misleading place. Weitzman explores all directions of the topic at the heart of this article, and the additional angles that Drsmoo added are valuable in that regard. But Weitzman's conclusion on the topic is on pages 324-325:

What made the question of Jewish origin such an insistent one for many of the scholars we have looked at was its perceived implications for their own identities as Europeans, Christians, Jews, cosmopolitans, Israelis, or Palestinians. These scholars believed that their answers to the question of Jewish origin addressed pressing questions of their times: Is it best to try to integrate Jews into Europe or to exclude them? How to resolve competing claims of indigenousness among Israelis and Palestinians? Present-day research is no different in this regard. Always there seems to be something beyond historical curiosity that motivates the scholarship: insecurity about the ambiguities of one’s identity, the trauma of having been uprooted, a need to recover something that feels like it has been lost, a fear of being dislodged from one’s place by another people, or profound discontent with some other origin account and what it implies about the present. It is to these kinds of considerations—the psychological, sociological, and political motives for scholarship—that we must look if we are to understand what makes the lost origin of the Jews appear as a relevant absence to scholars, why they see a mystery worth solving… The inconvenient truth, however, is that there is no way for scholarship to close the gap. Scholarship has done a good job coming up with new evidence, and it is quite expert at debunking existing origin accounts for the Jews, but it has failed to generate an alternative narrative that can do the kind of work the Book of Genesis does in helping people to comprehend themselves and their places in the world. What we have seen suggests that leaning on scholarship to play the role of creation myth leads to claims that are tendentious at best, and sometimes quite destructive. This is the only honest way I can describe where the scholarly search for the origin of the Jews has led after so many centuries of effort, and yet I do not think it suffices to leave a hole at the beginning of Jewish history.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, cherry picking quotes to push a POV is a theme throughout this entire article Drsmoo (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is two topics

After reviewing and some thought, I think this should be two topics:

• Zionism and race, an article about modern (since 19th c) ideology
• Origin of Jewish ethnic divisions, an article about deeper Jewish history rather than just genetics

Of course these topics are related, and they are also related to what should be a more science-oriented article on Genetic studies on Jews, but I think they work better as distinct articles. Pharos (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for both reading carefully the article and for your suggestion. There is a discussion above where, so far, a large majority of talk page watchers think anything might do as a title, so long as 'race' is never mentioned, even though as you perceive race in Zionism is what all of the 80+ sources focus on. Your suggestion perfectly parallels the distinction we make by having two articles regarding Race and the United States

• Racism in the United States That is not about ideology as much as historical practice.
• Race and ethnicity in the United States This is about ethnic divisions in the United States.

Both are twice as long as this article, and more heavily footnoted, as one would expect.

• This article appears to have arisen when editors at Genetic studies on Jews expressed their dislike of any historical or non-scientific matter being included there. The particular form it takes is that of tracing the genealogy of a concept. It would be a very difficult task - I think impossible - at the present state of knowledge and scholarship to write something on the Origin of Jewish ethnic divisions. At the moment we just have an article classifying them, Jewish ethnic divisions. It could be improved by a sister article describing how these ethnic distinction arose historically, but that would command another and rather intricate historical survey of the rise of historical terminology for the taxonomy within Judaism, and would have nothing to do with Zionism, or 'race'. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  anything might do as a title, so long as 'race' is never mentioned - Again you mischaracterise and misread the discussion. The only person who raised any significant objections to Zionist thought on racial identity was yourself. Also, you can't have it both ways: talk page watchers is a bad faith description of those who are giving you the space that you asked for [12] to develop the article. Until you are talking to us and not past us, a meeting of minds is impossible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is not clear that we want an article that is something of a spinout from Who is a Jew? (which itself is proposed for merger with Jewish identity). The question of who is talking past who is an open one I think. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding “space to write”, that seems like a bad case of WP:OWN

Wikipedia:Collaboration first Drsmoo (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I see minded here is that the simple, most concise title we have for the content of the article, Zionism, race and genetics has generated a massive flow of deletion discussions and talk, most of it prepossessed to find some alternative wording, all proposals for which exclude one of the three terms. It is extraordinary to me that so much ingenuity can be expended for a month when no one finds anything problematical about such articles as Race and ethnicity in the United States.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be "Jewish race", not just race. Ditto "Jewish genetics". And the Zionist take on those things over time. It's not obvious from the current title that's what is meant. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly protest against any title mentioning the 'Jewish race'. We are dealing with a sociocultural and ideological construction, not a reality. Genetics about Jews are not therefore 'Jewish genetics' (an ambiguous phrase in any case). Jews were the object and subjects of a huge amount of thinking, conducted by ethnologists, scientists, anthropologists, social scientists, historians of every description all over Europe, regardless of ethnicity.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The Myth of the Jewish Race (isbn 9781611460339), right? Still, that's what it is about, not race in general. And not genetics in general. Selfstudier (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Discourse on Jews furnishes the palmary example in Western history of how stereotypes fuel enmity to the point where slurs and clichés, that your historical average man-in-the-street takes as the smart quipping of social backchat, of short-hand joshing, or abuse, under the right ideological conditions and social hysteria, can precipitate beyond control to a warrant for genocide, and a quiet bystanderish complicity in mass murder. And this was possible because a vast, intricate mosaic of multifarious cultures and communities, often with little other than a shared ritual language and common stories drawn from biblical thematics and narratives of social parlousness passed on through folk memory, was all put into a churn, ground down, mish-mashed, into 'the Jew', an essence, and ontology reft of nuance, gutted of that historical variety in continuity that is the hallmark of the immensely complicated world of individualities which make up Judaism. So to tell the full story of how even Jewish accommodations to the rhetorical sciences of the majority in whose bosom they strove to be accepted, of how suited in the narrative straightjacket of Western science, they did their best to cut the cloth of the straightjacket in a way that would fit the sartorial thinking of the times, and make them suitable interlocutors for the non-Jewish, racially-minded masters of their world, is important. The story has a tragic twist in the way Zionism sought to meet anti-Semites on their own ground, by transforming an identity based on a je ne said quoi sensibility combining religion and culture, and, asserting that Jews were a race, had, by virtue of that, a right to self-determination by expatriation from Europe. The Holocaust wiped out one of the most vital folk civilizations in history, and under Zionist direction, the 'Jew' was reconstituted in Israel. But no one can shake off the past, and Zionism, which is ideologically thin, as opposed to tactically rich, carried over a positive conceptualization of race because the symbolic evocativeness instinct in the notion of a redemptive 'return' to one's ancestral lands, and the recreation of an identity, a 'Maccabean' people equal to those of the forefathers in the deep past and one capable of defending themselves collectively, had a persuasiveness few could deny.

What Doron and others picked up, drew scholarly attention because of a crisis internal to the Ashkenazi elite, and gave urgency to the need to ground Jewish identity firmly in a science compatible with modernity, in genetic evidence that would prove Jewishness had an ineludible biological substrate, which, while Jews themselves could never concur on what constitutes being a Jew (that, and it is true of all ethnicities, is ineffable), science could establish an empirical benchmark for that otherwise secure yet indefinable sense of communal identity. Yet all these endeavours lead to haziness, indeterminacy, partial insights and politicval constraints or liabilities that have failed to resolve the riddle: it's a riddle because the question is a dubious one in the first place. (Were I a Jew and some one asked me to define what being a Jew is, I would reply, 'None of your (effing) business' and reach for another beer.) Schaffer writes that after a half-century of strenuous research and thinking, anideological intransigence in all parties to the dispute persists, and 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 2010:76).

I apologize to the page for this excursus but something like that cannot be avoided now that I am (give me until midday tomorrow) close to finishing my rewrite after wading this last month through so much scholarship dedicated, precisely, to 'Zionism, race and genetics'. That is the natural title for an historical actor (the ideology), the topical focus (the myth of race) and the technology of modern research used to reformulate the discarded and discredited myth (the science of genetics). It is a fascinating byway, when all three strands are shown, to use Ostrer's metaphor, to make a recurrent pattern, a weave in the tapesty of just one of many stories of Jewishness that has persisted for nearly a century and a half. Take anyone weave out of the loom, and the narrative carpet will be duller. Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani about “Jewish race” being a bad phrase. I agree with Pharos that this is two articles and roughly agree with the first, but the second is definitely not what it’s about. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the only way out of using the current terms is the way out used in Falk's Zionism and the biology of the Jews - I imagine that this title was arrived at through a highly similar process of editorial discourse as we are seeing play out in the discussions on this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I cannot see any issue with using race (or "Jewish race" for clarity) as part of the title because the article is completely clear about that. The genetics bit is a transition from the earlier theories and less clear so if we are going to do away with something then I would rather do away with that part (in the title, not in the article). The continuing claims of synth or shortage of sourcing are complete bunkum. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

We live, in discourse on this, in a resonantly contaminated world. The choice of the primary editor here, Onceinawhile, to avoid 'Jews/Jewish' in the title remains wise. Zionism is a particular movement within the modern Jewish world, and though, once successful in forming a nationstate, Zionist leaders have tried to make Zionism synonymous with Judaism or the Jewish people, the distinction between an ideology and people is fundamental. We don't speak of the 'Russian race' or 'Chinese race' or the 'white race', though there is a substantial, if long negelected, literature on each of these topics, now revived in the respective fields because when you don't master the past, as the germans put it, it comes back to haunt you, as we see under Putin or recent Chinese re-evocations of the racial character of the majority Han people (mínzú.民族), a term inflected in modern times by Western racial theories.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree here. (But am not familiar with the concept of “primary editor”.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My second suggestion isn't what the current article is about, but to fill a lacuna on Wikipedia that's been recognized by the article creators. My philosophy is go for article titles that apply to other topics too, for example Socialism/Liberalism/Fascism and race would all be appropriate articles with lots of potential sources. As to fulfilling the other part of what this article is actually about now, I would suggest Nationalism and genetics, which of course can include examples from individual nationalisms. Pharos (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As someone who wrote a well-received monograph on a nationalist ideology, continuously in print till I stopped its republication (it's dated in my view), I can't but agree. The problem you pose is technical: in the rewrite I have tried to boil down a massive literature to readable length, aiming not to go beyond the ideal length proposed for wiki articles. I think we're about 15% over that rarely observed limit. considering the main text and excluding the footnotes, and even then, much that might go in has been withheld. This is just on the very narrow focus adopted in the provisory title. To me Nationalism and genetics would be a fascinating article to serve as the mother for what we have, but that would require, if adequately comparative in scope and focus, at least three times the length we have dealing with just this one case. Content writers who have the leisure and means to tackle from go to woe a topic are relatively hard to come by on wikipedia. Personally, I have limited time and a mass of interests, each of which must be sacrificed when I get absorbed in just one article or one topic area. If this demanded a month, the topic you propose would call for at least three to outline the basics, kicking aside the piles off books, thematically sorted, which I hope to read, and perhaps even write about. One gets selfish in old age.Nishidani (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Lipphardt 2012, p. 570

@Nishidani: I think this ref has a typo in it - can you confirm what it was intended to be? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Nah, it's just I forgot to put that item in the bibliography. Check it now. Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 4 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 [is a] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia’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 [13]

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, "[s]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,[ap] 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, "[s]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."[32]

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. 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)

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.

My reading of the above

• Point 1. Sources state that Zionist thinking about race carried over into post-war genetics on Jews in various ways. I didn’t state anywhere that ‘it shaped it’. The sources state that it influenced it unconsciously or otherwise-. The distinction is crucial. So a thesis is not being advanced. Sources are paraphrased for that continuity.
• Point 2.You say one sentence is WP:Synth, following Crainsaw. I examined it and gave an answer in terms of logic. You say you couldn’t grasp the logical point, and that the claim ‘is more than the sum of its parts’. The simple solution is to add ‘either’. i.e.

were either rarely addressed,or forgotten, or overlooked,or made invisible,or sidelined or deliberately suppressed until recent decades

That is ugly stylistically, but each adjective is in one of the sources given. One could even add the exact source behind each adjective. I don’t think your objection valid, but if tweaked that way, the compromise dissolves any shadow of doubt that might stick from the accusation of synth.

• Point 3.You say the Falk quote states Zionism is ‘unique’. It doesn’t, as shown
• Point 4. You state the article has an overview. Yes it has. You claim it is my thesis. No. It is written up according to what is stated in the following sources we use authoritatively elsewhere in the article and no one has challenged them:Weitzman, Endelman, Efron, parfitt & Egorova, Hart, Burton, Avraham, Vogt, Mosse, Leff, Sokoloff-Glenn, Doron, Kieferf, Gelber etc. All these books and articles deal with the topic announced in the title. It is my paraphrase of those works, not my thesis.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Point 5. You say 4 figures, Nordau, Burnbaum, Ruppin and Jabotinky, are not enough. They played dominant roles compared to the other figures you cite, but by all means add the others.
• Point 6. This is a recycling of (1), arguing that there is no legitimate link between earlier race discourse and an undecurrent of the same in a certain vein of postwar israeli population genetics and genetics. The sources contradict you.
• Point 7. You prefer Gilman and Mosse, over the later research of scholars who were directly influenced by the two. That's your preference. nothing stops you from adding relevant material from either, of course under the provision that in both cases, the material cited refers to Zionism and race and or Zionism and genetics. Mosse, as used, is a text written 50 years ago. We have so far privileged critical scholarship written within the last 2 decades, which builds on Gilman and mosse. So that is not a cogent objection, but rather a diffidence perhaps about assisting the article's drafting, when you are at liberty to do so.

In sum, your 7 objections are 6. Three of them can be fixed by small tweaks (2)(4)(5). That leaves 3. (a) You clearly misinterpret Falk, in asserting he thinks the case in Israel is 'unique' (3) You claim the overview is my thesis. No. It is my paraphrase, sentence by sentence of what I found in the relevant sources for this period, (b) Two (1)(6) claim there is no continuity, and therefore I invented it, between pre-war race discourse and postwar undercurrents in the focus of genetics on Jews. The sources state that there is, there is no getting around them. (c) You want to add Gilman and Mosse. Again, that is not an objection. it is a preference, and you are free to work that up.

So, this is not an NPOV issue. We can fix to your satisfaction 3 point by mere tweaks. There is no merit to your claim I am writing a thesis when everything written here is from paraphrases from the pertinent academic studies drawn on. And lastly in regard to two complaints, you state something is incomplete. You have sources for these lacunae. So edit them in. The evidence is far too thin to seriously call into question the very nature of a 135,000 byte article composed on the basis of 95 academic articles? Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See my replies above.

You are right that lacunae can be fixed by editing stuff in, and that I can take responsibility for that (in the time I have). But that doesn't mean it's NPOV in its current form; until such edits are made it will be POV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Bob, that means that, in the meantime, the article will remain POV in your view in good part because you haven't the time to fix it.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project among non-professionals. If editors think an article is POV, it is surely appropriate to flag it is such whether you have the time to fix it or not? Hopefully flagging encourages other editors to consider how to improve as well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any good path right now to making changes without having an agreement on scope and title. I would make changes to the "Impact" section, but impacts of what exactly? fiveby(zero) 13:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Example (b), which you list as point 3, i am unsure why this awkward footnote is given such prominence. It is also a misreading and misrepresentation of Falk. First he does know of another example which he states: except for Nazi efforts to diagnose the biological belonging of individuals to national-ethnic entities. The contrast he is making is show by his emphasis which has been removed from the quote: the existence of distinct ethnic or religious entities vs. effort to prove the immanent biological belonging... The footnote is further explanation for his view of a change in the second half of the century, from regardless of whether these so-call Jewish characteristics to {{tq|...heredity pool of the various Jewish parishes and eidoth. Your addition of belonging of modern Jews to the historical Land of Israel is unjustified.

If the point to be made is scale or factors which contribute to the effort which you seem to say above, then i think that is something that probably should be made in the lead section and probably could be stated outright w/o needing attribution, depending on wording. fiveby(zero) 14:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is a footnote intrinsically awkward. Falk is not misrepresented. The Nazi bit was left out, it can be included, as one could (I'm not interested) add what he states on the preceding page:

A blunt, unfortunate example of the adherence of the Zionists to the nineteenth-century notion of Blood and Soil as ground for their territorial rights is the statement by the poet Chaim Nachman Bialik at a press conference at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the beginning of 1934: “I too, like Hitler, believe in the power of blood.” In Bialik’s opinion, the Jewish race’s will-power and Jewish blood are what could successfully undermine “the remnants of paganism in the Christian world”. Falk 2017 p.5.

I've always been dissatisfied with the second part of that sentence in our lead. I know what it means, but it is a very poor rephrasing of what Falk states at that point. The simplest solution is to elide it, and leave curious readers to look a the quote it is sourced from.(Done)Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Footnotes aren’t intrinsically awkward, but this one is awkwardly worded, and the fact that is basically an aside is a good indicator it might not be due in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a subjective spin on the function of footnotes. As an inveterate footnoter, I follow the usual practice of concentrating many details in a footnote to ease the narrative flow. I don't find it awkwardly worded. A footnote can be an aside. If it is a detailed generalization like this, there is no reason to challenge it as some secreted parenthesis. It is a summary of a lifetime's study of a problem of which Falk was the foremost historian of his time. Editors should not secondguess a world authority. That is quotable.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Well, I've opened a request for administrative assistance since I believe we have a stonewalling problem here. See here Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Opposition to Zionism

If I understand correctly, the major rewrite is winding down, so I think it's OK to start looking over the focus of the page, now that it has been improved. One of the concerns that have been raised about whether or not this is a single topic relates to where the current version of the lead section says: "genetic science generally and Jewish population genetics in particular have been used in support of or opposition to Zionist political goals". I'm referring specifically to the "opposition to" part of it. I've gone through the current version of the page (and please correct me if I missed something), and I see some passing mentions of opposition to Zionism, and there are certainly some quotes from sources that refer to both support and opposition, but it looks to me like the very large majority of the content is about the variety of views of people sympathetic to Zionism, and even when people who are not Zionist are referred to, they are generally not using racial/genetics arguments to argue against Zionism.

So if I'm right about that, it might be appropriate to take some of the language about "opposition to Zionism" out of the lead. I think that would help establish the focus of the page and strengthen the arguments against there having been SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I kept searching for material to indicate how genetic arguments are used against Zionism. There are several references that use precisely this language, but none give details. When Falk speaks of non-Zionists, he is referring to assimilationists who were wary of race arguments by Zionism, and we do deal with that. I'm still searching for examples, for example, of such uses in anti-Zionist approaches. Unfortunately, we are strictly bound to state what the sources state, and if the sources fail to elaborate, there's nothing we can do. We can't invent stuff. Perhaps someone can come up with quality references to this. It's not for want of searching.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As I see it, I'm not finding a problem with the main text of the page, just in terms of the lead. And I agree with continuing to quote sources as they exist, even if the source does not elaborate. If there's consensus, I'd be satisfied for now with just deleting "or opposition to" from the one sentence that I quoted from above, and leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As to taking 'opposition to Zionism' out of the lead, that would be deleterious with regard to NPOV, for the race and genetics positions in the article cover (a)Zionists (b) non-Zionist assimilationists (c) scholars who are critical of this aspect of Zionism while remaining Zionists (Falk, Weitzman etc.,) (d) critics of Zionism tout court and (e) esp. many scholars who simply look at the evidence on Zionism, race and genetics as a topic of research, whose positions about Zionism are unknown.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. But I'm wondering how much those are actually positions in opposition to Zionist goals. Some of those are views of non-Zionists that critique the racial/genetic analyses, as opposed to citing racial/genetic data as evidence that Zionism or Zionist political goals are wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The work of Eran Elhaik should be mentioned. He himself stated that it has been used by anti-Zionists. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Elhaik's page here, it sounds like his genetic findings have been seized upon by anti-Zionists and anti-semites, as opposed to there having been a scholarly use of genetic data as an argument against Zionist political goals. Perhaps there is something in his publications that goes beyond that, that I'm not aware of. This goes to my basic concern above. It seems to me that there is obviously a large history of racial and genetic argument by anti-semites, that goes way beyond the specific bounds of Zionism, and it seems to me that this should be outside the scope of this page. I'm, personally, satisfied that there is a single (not SYNTH) topic about how race and genetics have played into thinking about Zionism. But that's a much narrower topic than everything where racism has been raised against the Jewish people. That's why I'm trying to find a clear boundary between the subject of this page, and some broader topics that relate to "opposition to Zionism". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Tryptofish: you might find the paper of Elhaik listed in the bibliography of this article interesting; it is the editorial overview for a set of papers in Frontiers in Genetics. In it he writes:

In reconstructing the past from the distribution of genetic variation, population geneticists oftentimes rely on narratives. To decide between scenarios, geneticists have a multitude of accessories ranging from evolutionary theories to advanced computational tools applicable to modern and ancient genomes (Veeramah and Hammer, 2014; Morozova et al., 2016). In their efforts to understand human origins, geneticists also reach out to other disciplines like anthropology, linguistics, archeology, and history. However, as with any historical reconstruction, the inferred past remains a subject of controversy due to the subjectivity of the data, tools, assumptions, and, most importantly, the narratives that guided the scientist (Sand, 2015). Genetic studies of Jewish communities are especially vulnerable to such controversies as these communities have adopted various narratives since their inception (e.g., Patai and Patai, 1975; Kirsh, 2003, 2007; Kahn, 2005; Falk, 2006; Sand, 2009).

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. In my reading of it, it does not support us saying in Wikipedia's voice that such research methods "have been used in... opposition to Zionist political goals" (but if I'm missing something, I'm happy to be corrected on it). I can see how the source covers the concept of how genetic studies are significant, and how they have been "vulnerable to such controversies" about "various narratives", and I could probably do a bit of original research to say that opposition to Zionism is one of those "various narratives". But I still think it would be an improvement to find language for the lead section that omits the "opposition to" language. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Beware of WP:BLP. The devil can cite scripture for purpose. Antisemites have cited Zionists and anti-Zionists, indifferently, just as Zionists have approved of antisemitic judgments about Jews as reflecting a putative racial reality(and I presume this is what sticks in the craw, and which no one wants any readership outside of academia to be reminded of). There is nothing in Elhaik's papers, anymore than there was in Koestler's book, to warrant that abuse, and yet they were subject to a merciless onslaught of critical hostility from within certain sectors of the Jewish communities. Wikipedia is chock-a-block with extensive pages covering antisemitism. The story of racial oppression in Jewish history is in virtually every historical article on Jewish history. What is vastly underplayed on wikipedia, as opposed to what the very substantial historical scholarship documents, is the dynamics of disagreements, of rifts, within both Zionist and between assimilationists and Zionists. It is all basically a narrative of (we) Jews and them (the oppressive non-Jewish majority), which is the tabloid version of history, what Salo Wittmayer Baron famously described as the 'lachrymose view of Jewish history', a POV that has political uses. One could write a good page on any number of these issues. Opposition to Zionism, for example, would generate a sjgnificant set of sister articles like Zionists disenchanted with Zionism, Dissent within Zionism covering a very large number of historical figures. I for one know a lot about both, but it's not my mission in life to invest what time remains in studying the history of Zionism or jumping at every opportunity to 'attack' it. Every article means a good deal of time reading stuff I'm really interested is put on the back-burner. Why don't editors do more content work? Everyone here has plenty of alternative proposals. I see no evidence that these different versions or aspects of so much Jewish and Zionist history that are neglected have any prospect of being written by anyone around here. Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

All I'm really saying is that "opposition to Zionism" is probably, for the most part, outside of the proper scope of this page, and probably should not have much weight in the lead section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The example Falk gives for non-zionists is of “orthodox-religious circles that seek support of the “biological” argument”.

These are not “assimilationists”, quite the contrary.

In the example given, by non-Zionist Jews, he is referring to religious Jews who are indifferent to Zionism. Drsmoo (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording could simply be clarified as "certain Zionist political goals", since Zionism is inherently a political ideology and anyone Zionist cannot remain a Zionist while forsaking all Zionist political goals. The actors in support and opposition could also be clarified as "Zionists and non-Zionists alike" - that is already somewhat implied, even if not directly stated, but maybe stating it would help clarify. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Well the problem is one of words again and what they mean. 'Zionism', like so many political terms, lapses into a humpty-dumpty logic of meaning something and its opposite depending on the speaker (compare Liberalism, which can range from describing a free-market minimal state to a communist or socialist type regime (the latter in American rightwing usage)). I have Israeli friends who accept Zionism only in one sense, that used by Walter Lacqueur, who said the objectives of Zionism were completed in 1948, and everything else done in that cause since is a tragic excess. This is actually quite common in certain circles, from Daniel Barenboim to Avraham Burg, and I think even Falk. And it essentially consists of the idea that Zionism achieved a state where any Jew can go if endangered, with a sense while in diaspora that there exists a haven or sanctuary offering them 100% security if they suffer harassment. In that sense, I am a Zionist, for that matter, but it ends there. (As Hannah Arendt said in her masterpiece on The Origins of Totalitarianism 1948 solved the 'Jewish Question' and, in doing so, created the 'Palestinian Question').Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Surely a judicious "certain" would still cover the bases? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I was pondering how the Jewish Question morphed in to Palestinian Question just the other day. Hannah Arendt really was the most fantastic of 20th-century minds. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 10 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 [group] critics" can be sourced, the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia: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 [Israel’s] 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

Academic publications 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia should be impugning a field of research by expressing a controversial view held by critics in “Wikipedia’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 Wikipedia 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[9] and onwards[10] theories on the ethnic origins of Jews, and what constitutes ‘Jewishness’[11][12] 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 Wikipedia 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". 29 (2). Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry: 179–192. doi:10.1007/s11013-005-7424-5. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• 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.

Fixes to the lead

First off, Onceinawhile, in your reversion, you only reverted the lead, thereby producing what is now duplicated information across the lead and body, as my edits had moved content around. Drsmoo (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It would have been better to have had a discussion about the lead prior, particularly as Nishidani has commented on the question in response to my question about it, viz:

"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."

Let's stick with addressing the POV issues first then we will get the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you state what your specific objections were to the edits I made? Drsmoo (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Mine is above, I would have reverted some or all if Once had not. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

But what are your specific objections? I'm somewhat surprised as I don't think this trimming was particularly bold, just removing redundancy and taking opinions out of wikivoice.

Here is the modified lead:

Beginning in the late 19th century, Zionist thought sought to reframe conceptions of Jewishness in terms of racial identity and race science. Early Zionists were the primary Jewish supporters of the idea that Jews are a race. With the development of human population genetics from the 1950s onwards, some researchers have described Jewish Population Genetics as continuing or reifying these themes in support of or opposition to Zionist political goals.

The question of Jewish biological unity assumed particular importance during early nation building in Israel, given the ethnic diversity of incoming Jewish populations. 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. The theme of 'blood logic'/'race' has been described as a recurrent feature of modern Jewish thought in both scholarship and popular belief. Drawing a relationship between the sciences of race and genetics has been common in anthropology, with questions surrounding connections between race and population genetics having a special meaning in Jewish history and culture.Drsmoo (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I was clear that, apart from manifest error, there should be edits only that address the alleged POV issues, you will get little objection from me if you dedicate editing to that objective. It is of interest that you make much of these supposed POV issues that presumably exist first in the body of the article and yet you choose to first edit the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Which manifest errors? Regarding POV, I think, as one example, changing wikivoice to "some researchers have described..." to be a step in the right direction re POV. Or, are you saying that the body should be worked on, or the entire article worked on holistically, before treating the lead? Drsmoo (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to reach an agreed position on the body before moving on the lede. And the scope for that matter - I don't think it is logically possible to reach agreement on a lede if we have different views on the scope. We can all agree the lede will benefit from improvement, but I objected to cutting it in half. I also didn't like "some researchers have described Jewish Population Genetics as continuing or reifying these themes", for a variety of reasons: "Jewish Population Genetics" is not the actor here, but rather political / Zionist ideas of Jewish biological unity, and all (not just some) researchers who have written on this topic note a continuity of these ideas in their interpretation of the evolving anthropological sciences. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The second. Changing wikivoice to some might be OK, although in general I would prefer material identifying a different view, since all material is the product of "some", is it not? In general, fixing up the body first and only then hitting the lead is the usual way and in this case, Nishidani, who has been mainly editing the body, says that he is currently unable to visit the lead because of "conditions of editing", which I take to mean the alleged POV in the body. Why not wait and see what he has to say? Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok so, fyi I am about to step away for the day, but, that raises the important question of "what's next for the article?" In that regard, a focused discussion of how to proceed re Move/Split/Broaden/etc, I think, would be worthwhile to try to coalesce into a single discussion thread. Currently, these discussions have been spread throughout the page and buried within sub discussions, making identification of common themes/requests difficult. Drsmoo (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No argument from me. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I missed this debate. This edit has created some problems, as there is now a massive amount of repetition, with some of the most contentious material now verbatim in both lead and body. Should have reverted to earlier state or gone through it more carefully. As there have been several subsequent edits, reverting to an earlier version is unwise now, so it's going to take some work to remove the repetition, and I've run out of time. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Onceinawhile. My view at the moment is that the lead is really in need of a huge amount of work, but I don't think it's worth touching until the various focus debates settle down and we have strong consensus on the topical focus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:14, 16 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 Wikipedia 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.[14] 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)

Hard to read/ way too many footnotes

The article is poorly formatted and written in such a way that is too dense and general to follow clearly. Also, the sheer amount of footnotes is brain melting.^a It seems that too much information is introduced and smashed together for any of it to make sense. Much of it is also phrased in a biased and non informational way that it seems more like a poorly written opinion piece than a wiki article.

^a do they need to be included ^b

^b included in the article ^c

^c that is, the Wikipedia article ^d

^d The one called "Zionism, race and genetics" ^e

^e Seriously why so many Hawar jesser (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

[15]

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 Wikipedia’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, Wikipedia cannot use Wikipedia’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)

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)

Admin reminder as result of AE thread

As the result of an AE thread, all editors to this page are reminded of the following (wording by Z1720):

• On the article talk page, editors should discuss article content only, not editor behaviour. If there is concern about editor behaviour, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard.
• Editors with SYNTH concerns should clearly outline (with quotes from the article and quotes from the sources) where they think SYNTH is occurring in the article. 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.
• I [Z1720] think that the banner should not be removed until there is consensus on the talk page that all SYNTH concerns have been addressed. "Addressed" does not mean "resolved" or "fixed", as an editor might think a sentence is SYNTH while consensus disagrees. If consensus is that there is no SYNTH concern with a specific passage, then editors should WP:DROPTHESTICK.

A more generalized (i.e., more future-proofed) version of this has been added to the talk banners as a standing reminder. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)