Jump to content

Talk:Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Some review and revision notes

In the AfD some complaints were made about WP:NOR, connecting this suggestion with the rich embarrassment of extended notes, adding the rider that copyright was possibly violated. As I review what we have, The WP:NOR remarks reflects a common misperception about that policy, confounding the idea in WP:Synth with the fact that, to write articles, any editor must read widely from numerous sources and patch the results together without making inferences. Research is what editors have to do and should never be confused with original research, the drawing of conclusions not present in the source material. I am retaining the notes for the following reason.

  • In an intrinsically controversial readers with less time than committed content editors are thereby given immediate access to the sources used for each statement. They can judge at a glance whether the paraphrase reflects the evidence from the sources in the accompanying notes.
  • The retention serves a further purpose because, as the article runs from stub to GA status (that is the aim at least) formally or otherwise, the material in the notes can be harvested for admission into the body of the article itself. That kind of possibility becomes clearer as the reorganization proceeds, and the thematics are more cogently framed.

Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the retention of the notes for this reason (although I believe there are other OR issues here). BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
What OR issues? People keep saying that (or the equivalent synth) but appear reticent when it comes to specifying said synth/OR. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
See the discussion on the AfD page, where this is the main topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I already commented there to say that afaics there is no synth. I was asking what you mean by "OR issues" above, if you just mean as alleged in the AfD, that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

RSN Discussion

At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Hassan Haddad, Journal of Palestine Studies Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Selfstudier, I meant to flag this here and forgot. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Egorova

Maybe https://dro.dur.ac.uk/14291/ as a later work should be used, I think it contains the same quote that appears to be duplicated in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Bit of a toss-up. That is paginated 1ff.
The ref we use has a different pagination.
There's also
  • Egorova, Yulia (2017) [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 978-1-135-04855-6.
I dunno. Bit busy at the mo' and such details can wait, unless anyone wants to pitch in.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
It's the same, the link is the chapter of the book. I'll fix it tomorrow. Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks indeed. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 Done Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Religious views subheader

I have added a sub header for religious views regarding this topic where people can improve this article with specific knowledge (competence is required) regarding the linkage between Zionism, genetics and race. Maybe something about how being ethnically Jewish doesn't mean you practice Judaism etc. This is the sanctified place where religious views can be displayed and taken seriously, without the overall secular reading of the article which is beneficial to the logical understanding of religious concepts within this article. JJNito197 (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this not already covered in Who is a Jew? and/or Jewish identity? If not, that's where it should be. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have 'sanctified places'. And nor should we be imposing our own arbitrary constraints on the structure of articles. I shall remove the subheader until it can be demonstrated that the sources we cite justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
That's fine by me, as it being secular is what it should be being free from religious sensitivities. I was just trying to accommodate those that want to add in religious views regarding the perception of the linkage between race, Zionism and Judaism. This is not explored fully on other articles. When one wants to improve an article, one adds not strips it of potential. JJNito197 (talk) 10:36, 14 July 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)

(
)
  • ... 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.

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.[1] 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)

List of Egregious article issues

@Onceinawhile, Tombah, JJNito197, Ffffrr, Nishidani, Iskandar323, Crainsaw, Achmad Rachmani, Zero0000, Selfstudier, and Onel5969: Tagging involved users Drsmoo (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is a hodgepodge of accusations that Zionists and Israelis are obsessed with genetics, synthed together with casting aspersions connecting it to racism, along with minority viewpoints that falsely claim the genetic results are wrong. One would expect in an impartial and fact-based analysis of Jewish and/or Zionist views of genetics, to have actual secondary sources describing actions taken by such groups. None of that is found in this article. It follows the well-known pattern of not actually doing a literature review and drawing conclusions from that, but throwing together sources to build a narrative.


The most pernicious and unacceptable claims being that:

  1. "Early Zionists were the primary Jewish supporters of the idea that Jews are a race" - Which "early Zionists"? There were multiple competing ideologies within early Zionism, the statement attempts to paint them all with the same brush.
  2. "as it "offered scientific 'proof' of the ethno-nationalist myth of common descent". - Without attribution, unacceptably uses Wiki voice to claim an idea as a myth.
  3. "The application of the Biblical concepts of Jews as the chosen people and "Promised Land" in Zionism requires the belief that modern Jews are the primary descendants of the Israelites" - In which forms of Zionism, and where are the examples? Isn't analyzing that supposed to be the purpose of this article? The article is presenting the (false) idea that all forms of Zionism have the same opinions.
  4. "the so-called "Land of Israel" - Unacceptable POV use of "so-called" prepended to "Land of Israel"
  5. "building on the belief that modern Jews in the diaspora are the ethnic descendants of the Israelities mentioned in the Bible, and are thus allowed automatic citizenship under the Law of Return." - Neither source relates to the content of the sentence, which combines the two to create a new meaning aka WP:SYNTH. Oddly links to an advocacy organization, Adalah. With that link itself being just a criticism of the law of return, but no relation to the material in the sentence. Blatant POV to link to a criticism of a law, rather than neutrally linking to the law itself. And all the more strange to do it as part of a Synth.
  6. "The connection between Zionism and early 20th century race science and, since the 1950s, genetic science, has been widely studied by historians and anthropologists." - WP:Synth, the source does not claim it has been "widely studied".
  7. "A recent study by a team of international psychologists showed that such research contributed to the "chronic otherization of Palestinians", encourages less support amongst Israeli Jews for political compromise, and could even inflame political violence." - Blatant POV misrepresentation of the study by only discussing half of its conclusions. This is the actual study: "Living in a Genetic World: How Learning About Interethnic Genetic Similarities and Differences Affects Peace and Conflict" - "Our findings indicate that learning about the genetic difference between oneself and an ethnic outgroup may contribute to the promotion of violence, whereas learning about the similarities may be a vital step toward fostering peace in some contexts." Also misrepresents the study, which found that both positive and negative outcomes were theoretical, "could", while the quote falsely presents as having happened. Additionally, the quotes presented are not actually in the study itself, despite being quotations. Has nothing to do with actual ideas regarding race and genetics, and instead attempts to scare the reader into associating "such research" with bad outcomes.
  8. "the leading scientists into Jewish genetic roots, including the "priestly gene", have openly Zionist agendas." -Claiming that reputable scientific researchers are instead pursuing a political agenda is a blatant and unacceptable BLP violation.
  9. "Since ancient times, Jews have believed that they share a common ancestor, in the person of Jacob/Israel." - Unacceptable and ridiculous generalizing of an entire ethnic group.
  10. "the Zionists-to-be stressed that Jews were not merely members of a cultural or a religious entity, but were an integral biological entity" - Who are "Zionists-to-be"? non-Zionists? Proto-zionists? How did they stress it? There were and are multiple branches of Zionism that had/have radically different views.
  11. "Notable proponents of this included Max Nordau, Herzl's co-founder of the original Zionist Organization, and Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the prominent architect of early statist Zionism and the founder of what became Israel’s Likud party. Jabotinsky wrote that Jewish national integrity relies on “racial purity", whereas Nordau asserted the need for an "exact anthropological, biological, economic, and intellectual statistic of the Jewish people" - The only actual relevant example in the article related to race is Jabotinsky. Nordau's assertion is standard anthropology. The anthropology statement is Synth'd together with the racial one to create a bizarre guilt by association.
  12. "The phenomenon of casting modern Jews as the primary descendants of ancient Israelites is similar to the controversial concept of Phoenicianism" - The use of "casting" is a POV weasel word using Wikivoice to proclaim the descent invalid, as is associating it with a concept deemed "controversial".
  13. "The Jewish race science which developed within early 20th century theories fed into Zionist nationalism and has influenced Israeli population studies since the inception of the state, down to the present day." - No examples are actually given of it feeding into Zionist nationalism.
  14. "In contemporary political history, supporters of Jewish nationalism have focused on the search for "Jewish genes" and the identification of the "original Jews", in order to strengthen the Zionist claim to the so-called Land of Israel." - Uncited, which "supporters of Jewish nationalism"? Scare quotes around "Jewish genes" are weasel words and not acceptable to use in Wiki voice. The phrase "So-called Land of Israel" is odious POV not acceptable on Wikipedia. BLP violation by associating Harry Orster with "Jewish nationalism" and a search for "Jewish genes" by following the above with a large quote that puzzlingly has no mention of any form of nationalism, nor of Jewish genes. In fact it's a fairly milqetoast statement: "The issues that preoccupied the Jewish intellectual leaders of 1911 are the same ones that preoccupy the leaders of today. Who are the Jews, a religious group or a genetic isolate?". Yet the article attempts to WP: Synth that by way of a false summary into impugning the work of a professional researcher.
  15. "Harry Ostrer disagreed with criticism of proposed genetic evidence for Jewish unity" - Article does not actually discuss Ostrer's findings, which do not actually claim "Jewish unity" (more WP:SYNTH) and only frames them as a defense of criticism, thus manipulating the reader by presenting him as an apologist in an attempt to discredit him, while normalizing "criticism" and using the weasel word "proposed" before genetic evidence to bias the reader.
  16. "and noted that the question "touches on the heart of Zionist claims for a Jewish homeland in Israel" - Uses an out of context quote to portray him as politically motivated, ignoring the relevant lines right afterwards. "Non-semitic lines of inheritance may absolve Jews from Christ killing - it really wasn't them and their ancestors; it was someone else. And glorious lineages with genetic lines of descent from a king - even a Messiah - may become even more prized than the purported Cohanim modal hapolotype was prized over the last decade. And yet to look over the genetics of Jewish groups and to see the history of the Diaspora woven in is truly a marvel. Co-religionists all, her is what happened as the Jews migrated to new places and saw their numbers wax and wane, as they gained and lost adherents and thrive or were buffeted in these locals by abundance or famine, infectious disease epidemics, and wars and persecution."... "Jewish genetics is unlikely to replace the hegemony of Jewish law and Jewish culture, nor should it. But as population genetics against a foothold in the community, with Jews and non-Jews alike wanting to know about their origins, ancestors, and relatives, it will take its place in the formation of group identity alongside shared spirituality, shared social values, and a shared cultural legacy." Somehow, this crucial context was ignored in the article.
  17. "In absence of biblical primacy, "the Zionist project falls prey to the pejorative categorization as ‘settler colonialism’ pursued under false assumptions" and "right-wing Israelis look for "a way of proving the occupation is legitimate, of authenticating the ethnos as a natural fact, and of defending Zionism as a return". - An assertion made with quotes but without attribution in the text, thereby putting a POV statement in Wiki voice, without any contrasting statement.
  18. "most Israeli population researchers have never doubted that evidence will one day be found, even though so far such facts have "remained forever elusive". - Synthesizes a statement describing researchers during the "Mid 20th-Century" into the present tense to use Wiki voice to claim that multiple modern studies of Jewish genetics are inaccurate. Also synthesizes "most" in describing the population researchers, which is nowhere in the source.

Drsmoo (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you really should start reading a few pages at least in the multiple sources. Take

"Early Zionists were the primary Jewish supporters of the idea that Jews are a race"

You comment:-

There were multiple competing ideologies within early Zionism, the statement attempts to paint them all with the same brush.

Off the top of your head and irrelevant, because we are talking about 'race' and Zionism, and you would need a RS showing that early Zionists had multiple views on race. So supply one.
Numerous sources state Zionists, as opposed to assimilated Jews, jumped at the race angle.

'The Zionists claimed that Jews maintained their ancient distinct “racial” identity, and that their regrouping as a nation in their homeland would have profound eugenic consequences, primarily halting the degeneration they fell prey to because of the conditions imposed on them in the past.' (Falk 1998)

Note that Falk both an historian and biologists, plainly states 'Zionists' not 'some'
I don't know whether there's any point in replying to your points because much of the abovesuggests either unfamiliarity with the literature over the last few decades, or a sense that one's traditional sense of what Zionism may be is being challenged. Most of your objections appear to protest things that could be fixed, if just, by a tweak of phrasing. I am of the view that nothing should be added to any wiki page without a fair paraphrase of a reliable source. So here, it is simply a matter of (unlike Tombah's Palestinian screed) checking everything against the sources. If you can point to dissonance, by all means.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Not a meaningful response. Drsmoo (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Since there is no evidence you have any familiarity with the topic literature, and since, when you make an objection, and are replied to, you simply dismiss it as 'not meaningful', your seriousness here is questionableNishidani (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually you explicitly said that "don't know whether there's any point in replying to your points", and then didn't. So your non response was ignored. I'm not surprised that you didn't respond to them. This article is fundamentally broken at the base, and is a combination of misrepresentation of sources, cherry picking sources, and synthesizing sources, all of which has been documented. If you could reply, you would. I don't expect any meaningful replies, but perhaps I'll be surprised. It's fairly clear that third-parties will need to be involved. Drsmoo (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
No, that is sheer distortion. You wrote out a series of ostensible objections. I read them. They struck me as unfocused. I cited the first, and gave you a close analysis of why it was pointless niggling, since only someone unfamiliar with the literature could taise that objection. Therefore, I concluded that the rest of the bulleted points were equally ill-focused or unserious. You haven't responded to the meat of my first objection to your point, and therefore I concluded again that this is not serious. Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Initial responses point-by-point:
1. This can be easily addressed via a minor copyedit; please feel free.
2. What does "claim an idea as a myth" mean? The article National myth is all in Wikipedia’s voice - do you object to that article? Myth is not a pejorative, it is the common scholarly description of these narratives.
3. I agree this needs nuance. Of all the points on your list, this is the most important. We need to find a way to communicate that not all forms of Zionism believe that Jews have a right to the land because of supposed ancestral descent. Some of the sources talk about the ancestral right being part of “popular consciousness” or similar - perhaps that is the correct route. Interested in your views here.
4+5. For @JJNito197: to comment on[2][3]
6. Fine, we can remove the word “widely”
7. This was sourced to Burton, not to the underlying study, and it was an accurate summary. As you have found the underlying study, feel free to add it to the article with the wider conclusions.
8. This is almost a direct quote of Schaffer who writes "the seekers of the priestly gene have an openly Zionist agenda"
9. For @Tombah: to comment on.[4] Tombah would be within his rights to raise a complaint against you for describing his good faith edits as "ridiculous".
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this will need external input, either in the form of an AfD or an Rfc. Drsmoo (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Giving up so quickly and throwing the ball or burden into someone else's court. You raised objections and editors are dutifully replying to them and, you just throw in the towel. One is supposed to work diligently here, no just protest and huff off to call for some external intervention.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Drsmoo: "an AfD or an RfC" because you raised 18 challenges but don't want to address any of them yourself? Look at one of our most fundamental guidelines WP:FIXIT - in the lede it says clearly: Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it.In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it.
Of the first nine points that I have worked through, three were added by other editors (4, 5, 9), four are minor copyediting points (1, 6, 7, 8) and two need further discussion to clarify changes but with no meaningful opposition to the thrust of your points (2, 3). Onceinawhile (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That's entirely ridiculous, an RFC needs to be a more or less straightforward discussion of simple clear questions. Not a response to a list of things that mostly can and should be resolved in the usual editing process. While an AfD is possible, I would assess the likelihood of deletion as remote given the absence of sensible arguments and the available sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Some more:
10. This is a quote in quotation marks. You are welcome to clarify this - the source is there for everyone to inspect.
11. Re Nordau and race, see Fishberg, 1911, p.474. Fishberg also notes that Zangwill held the opposite view (Zangwill had to leave the ZO because he became aware of the existance of the Palestinian population): "Meanwhile, it is important to inquire in detail into the fundamental problems of Zionism. The question of race has already been discussed, and we arrived at the conclusion that the alleged purity of the Jewish race is visionary and not substantiated by scientific observation. [Footnote: Max Nordau, an avowed disciple of Lombroso, knows that anthropological research has dissipated the notion of Jewish racial purity, but he places more confidence in the acute powers of observation of the street loafer who recognizes a Jew by his nose. "To be sure, the street loafer's diagnosis is not infallible, still it fails him only rarely. But then the scientific diagnosis is not always reliable. The acute eye of the street loafer," concludes Nordau, " is sufficient proof that the Jews are a race, or at least a variety, or, if you please, a sub-variety of mankind." (Le Sicle, 1899; Zionistische Schrifien, p. 305). Zangwill asks, " 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?" (Jewish Chronicle, June 18th, 1909).]"
12. The underlying source says "reconstructions of “ancient races”"; we could replace "casting" with "reconstructing as an "ancient race"". Re the addition of "controversial" (which is certainly true regarding Phoenicianism), @JJNito197: to comment.
13. For examples, see Jabotinsky and Nordau in your point 11. More can be provided as necessary.
14a. The citation for your first point is Falk - it is lower down below the quote. It puts ‘Jewish genes’ in quotes, so we follow.
14b, 15, 16: Ostrer - I simply don’t understand your point here (and see comments a few threads above re Baker and her quote). This needs further discussion.
17. Then attribute it. No objection here.
18. You have read the quote wrong. Mid-twentieth century was the “legacy” point. The quote supports the statement.
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Re 18. You are incorrect, it is referring to the mid 20th century. I haven’t gone through your other responses yet. Drsmoo (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The entire section is referring to the mid 20th century. Later on in the book he analyzes modern genetic studies. The entire article is constructed like this, synthesis built out of cherry picked quotations. Drsmoo (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The section is the Introduction! She runs through a brief history up to the present, that ends around the point of the citation we are referring to. The word "forever" cannot possibly refer to a point fixed in the mid 20th century. Anyway, it is clear from reading her whole book – again this is just the introduction – that this is fully consistent with the conclusion that her work draws. This is a good case study of the rest of your comments about synth – it seems they are constructed without having actually checked the overall conclusions of each of the authors. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect, “remained” is explicitly past tense. As is the entire sentence and section, which is explicitly discussing genetic studies of the 50s and 60s. I’ll make an RFC at a later point. Drsmoo (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The sentence is clear "By the mid 20th century...". No shared origin through mid 20th cos no evidence, just a belief that this will be found.
Later on p 65, the question is put "what evidence is there that the Jews are a nation with a shared origin
in ancient Palestine?" Note that "shared origin" has little or nothing to do with self identification as a "group".
We don't need an RFC for an evidentiary question, it's just a matter of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
It is best to approach this subject in a somewhat detached manner. NPOV is fundemental, and the prose should be free from religion-specific senstivities and unrequited 100% truths. This article should not be approached like articles solely concering religon, but instead read as a logical, secular scrutinization of a race-based policy stemming from an antiquated belief system. The second paragraph could perhaps lose the "so-called", but the terminology "Land of Israel" should be kept in parentheses. We could change the reference to Israelites and refer to the Jews instead in order to cater to the source more, although it is synonymous regardless. JJNito197 (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the Adalah cite per recommendation and replaced with inline citations for readability JJNito197 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, most of Drsmoo's comments have now been addressed. It would be helpful if Drsmoo could provide clarification on the Ostrer (14b, 15, 16) challenges which I still do not understand, and confirm which of their other comments remain unresolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, they haven’t. Please explain how the comments have been addressed. You can do it in the same way I did, as a numbered list. Drsmoo (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure. The article has changed a lot since your list was written three days ago, and most of the below are by-products of edits by other editors addressing other improvements:
1. This is detailed in the section "Early Zionism".
2. Attributed
3. The variety of views within Zionism have been significantly expanded upon; there is still more to do in all directions.
4+5. "so-called"s have been removed, as has Adalah, and the sentence has merged into another
6. “Widely” removed
7. The Burton quotation has been changed into a paraphrase, the original study has been added, and the other half of their conclusion added.
8. Attributed to Schaffer.
9. Wording removed.
10. Quote reduced to just the last three words.
11. Nordau quote changed to make more clear, more sources added, and Zionists with different views added
12. "casting" changed to "reconstructing" per source. "Controversial" removed and sentence restructured.
13. Many examples now given in the history section
14a. Citation fixed.
14b, 15, 16: Ostrer section restructured.
17. Attributed.
18. In the 20th century section.
@Drsmoo: please confirm if any of these have not been addressed to your satisfaction, and ideally please be bold and make further changes yourself.
Onceinawhile (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Can someone buy this man a beer?! Iron-willed patience/attentiveness. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
At a rough glance, much of the article is much more balanced now. Definitely an improvement. Drsmoo (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

How not to start an article...

Zionism, race and genetics is the use of racial theories and genetic studies on Jews in support of or opposition to Zionist political goals.... Even if ignoring (or attempting to ignore) the question of whether 'Zionism, race and genetics' is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia in the first place, that isn't how to start an article. Or a sentence in general, if one is trying to write in a style of English one might expect in an encyclopaedia. There may very well be a discourse around 'Zionism, race and genetics' (along with all the perm-any-two-from three alternatives...), but if the discourse is the subject of the article, we should say so, rather than mangling the English language in order to conform with the Wikipedia-speak Bolded-X-is-Y article-lede conventions far too many article ledes are blighted with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Quite right. For is the use of, one should have written refers to. There rather a very substantial amount of work to be done on the article's content, so style took a back seat. Had not so much useless argufying and negative across several pages invaded the issue of the article to distract attention from building it within two days of its appearance, we'd have probably had a far better piece of work, with due attention to such niceties. There is, however, not a shadow of a doubt that the topic as framed by the title is extensively studied. The mystery is, why does the mere mention of the existence of such studies, which I for one have been reading through desultorily for over a decade, stir such anxiety?Nishidani (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but 'refers to' is Wikipedia-lede-speak too, in my opinion. A lede, for anything but the most obvious topics, should start be explaining, in clear language, what the article is about, for the benefit of a reader one should assume doesn't already know. Which in this case isn't the specific phrase 'Zionism, race and genetics', but rather a whole slew of debates over the conjunction of three contested concepts. Inventing shorthand for something may well be useful when everyone agrees what it is, but isn't Wikipedia's job, and in circumstances what the distinct 'somethingness' of such amorphous subject matter is open to debate, might very well be seen as editorialising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Also agree with Andy here, per MOS:FIRST. Even though I was the one who wrote the sentence and bolded it in the first place. Moving too fast perhaps. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I have had a go at this. No pride of authorship though if others disagree. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
"Discourse" is good - I've added another fronting sentence containing "discourse" and links that most directly relate to all the key terms in the title, while also adding in the missing 'when' part of it all. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Andy for this intervention which has sparked a good step forward in the framing. As of right now, the opening sentence is "As early as the late 19th century, a discourse emerged within Zionism seeking to reframe conceptions of Jewishness in terms of racial identity and later in the products of genetic science." (I'm not sure the relevance of "as early as" but that's another issue.) So is this the actual topic of the article? If so, this definitely has a "somethingness" about it, which would swing me towards supporting its existence. I'd frame it as something like early Zionist race science, focusing it on Nordau, Ruppin etc.
However, the next sentence goes on to talk about "Since then", and my personal view is that at this point the "somethingness" starts to break down, unless it is framed as the legacy of this body of work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
For 'since then,' read 'In every generation since' cited to {{sfn|Falk|2017|p=16}} (In every generation (since its foundation)Zionists have striven to link Jewish nationality with a biological foundation).
Actually leads in a developing article have, of necessity, a provisoriness because, as the article is fleshened out by taking in all major elements mentioned by the relevant topical literature, the lead inevitably will per WP:MOS have to be reformulated to reflect accurately what the sections state. There is a whole section to be written up on what is amply discussed in our sources, about early Zionism's rift with the larger Jewish European communities over what constituted a Jew for example, religion or ethnicity; about the overlap between early Zionist conceptions of 'race' and those of antisemites. It would have already been done, if people had been a little less hasty and allowed the article to build itself out of its humble stubbiness. Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Much improvement i think on the approach, the historical treatment working to provide a better foundation for the reader (and maybe one somewhat surprisingly lacking in other articles). Part of the push back was maybe seeing 'Zionism', 'race', and 'genetics' as filtering words in the title, and a distasteful imagined confluence of content. The historical side-by-side treatment should i think alleviate some concerns. Question now is maybe how much can/should 'Zionism' be given up as a filtering word as discourse...seeking to reframe conceptions of Jewishness in terms of racial identity and race science could also be seen as a statement of scope. I don't know if that's useful or a horrific piling-on of work for you, but i'll try and make up for it with finding sources for Batsheva Bonne-Tamir as circa 1980 looks interesting. fiveby(zero) 17:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Using geneticists for content about non-geneticists

Currently, some of the claims we make about Zionists' beliefs cite sources which are articles by contemporary geneticists such as Ostrer. Ostrer's book is a (controversial) genetic history of the Jews; it is not a history of genetic science, of Jewish thought, or of Zionism. He should be cited in articles about Jewish genetics, but I'm not sure he belongs here. Further, his book mentions Zionism a total of 8 times, so we also need to be concerned about SYNTH if a significant amount of this article hangs on his work.

Raphael Falk is better, as he is a historian of science as well as a geneticist, but it's important to bear in mind that his historical work is not his primary area of expertise and his perspectives on history follow from his genetic agenda so may not follow the weight of opinion in the mainstream historical literature. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on now. Niggling away dunam by dunam at this and that is not constructive, esp. when as the above, remarks objecting to material seem grounded in a habit of forgetting what sources say. Secondary scholarly works deal with Ostrer precisely in this context. The topic is about 'Zionism, race and genetics,' and Ostrer is a Zionist, believes in a Jewish 'race' of sorts, and is a well-known geneticist. All this is noted in sources we draw on. Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but I think niggling away is constructive; it's how we collaboratively create good articles. This is a new article so obviously it has a huge amount of work ahead of it if it passes AfD. Susan M Kahn's excellent short commentary relates Abu El-Haj to Zionism, showing how her scholarship is grounded in an anti-Zionist politics. There is no mention of Zionism in her discussion of Ostrer. Yes, "The topic is about 'Zionism, race and genetics,'" because that's how its recent creator framed it; but the discussion on this page and the AfD shows that there is not yet consensus that such a topic exists in a way that legitimates a WP article.
The idea that we need to talk about Ostrer because Ostrer is a Zionist and a geneticist feels very much like SYNTH at the moment, as there is no source cited here making that connection (Kandiyoti implies something a little like it, but it's a stretch). BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Niggling means hair-splitting. One can make any number of sensible suggestions, just as one can nag away, gnaw at some trivial or imagined bone of contention. Logical analysis to a propositional end is one thing, but it degenerated into disquisitions on how many angels could fit on a pinhead. You queried 'since then', and I gave a solution, already inj our sources. You ignored the suggestion and rewrote the passage as 'More recently' jumping a century- That was ugly in terms of a reader's sense of topical development, in my view.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The point re Falk is again pointless. Falk was a geneticist who wrote a history of his discipline, just as Ernst Mayr was a molecular biologist who also wrote, hang on, let me walk across to my other library stack . . .yes,The Growth of Biological Thought' Bellkap 1982, a masterpiece of its genre. There it stands next to another book, C. D. Darlington's The Evolution of Man and Society,(George Allen & Co.,1969). Like Mayr, Darlington was a biologist who wrote an historical work on the biological constraints (he thought) affecting human history. Really, one should not persist in drawing content editors off their job - writing up, or reshaping, articles that need a good deal of positive review - with frivolous time-wasting challenges. Sorry for the slight intemperance, but, there's 2500 pages of stuff so far in our bibliography begging to be analysed and paraphrased into a representation of the state of the art of this topic, and a week has passed with just endless talk page argufying. Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's a hurry. I'm absolutely not against widening the number of sources we actively draw on. I'm saying that historians of Zionism and historians of race thinking are better starting points than geneticists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
In the history or science, surely a history of genetics by a historian of science specialized in genetics is mainstream literature? Are there more general historical works covering this topic that you can provide? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I would say the sort of literature that would be mainstream here (in the sense of the core, recognised body of work on the history of Zionism and history of racialisation of Jews) would be scholars like George Mosse, Sander Gilman, Zeev Sternhell, Mitchell B Hart, John Efron. Some of them are in the bibliography here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Mainstream, mainstream'. I sigh when I see that word mechanically alluded to, almost as often as i do when I see WP:Synth mentioned by editors who don't appear to know how to write articles, but love deleting them, not troubling, not only to read the sources, but also to grasp what that policy entails. I know what people think they wish to mean by mainstream, but they should familiarize themselves - it will help them tweak the drift of the usage of the word to appreciate how easily it can be abused -with the academic literature on the sociology of knowledge, systemnc bias, and the disciplines that deal with newspaper coverage analysis, which consistently show that editorial choices tilt reportage as often as not, often in ways that deprive the readership of access to neutral balanced presentations of news. Any emerging discipline will have several competing theories vying for ascendency, with some attracting more heft that others. Often less than a generation separates the dominant model from a marginal one which then gains ground (Molecular biology has several instances of this. See for example the cases of The stories of people like Carl Woese and Lynn Margulis in David Quammen’s recent The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life regarding horizontal gene transfer). Mainstream is used as a synonym for 'orthodoxy' something science, which is always provisional for methodological reasons, is uncomfortable with.
One of the ornaments of my library are 15 volumes of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China, perhaps opne of the greatest encyclopedic works ever written. If you look at his degree, he graduated in biochemistry. Then he wrote a masterly history of embryology. A decade later he wrote another historical masterpiece on morphogenesis. The charm and sexual attractiveness of Lu Gwei-djen, seduced him into studying Chinese privately. No degree in sinology either. So he was neither a sinologist nor an historian, and is regarded as, not a biologist primarily, but as the foremost historian of Chinese science, in all of its branches, the world has ever seen. No one ever grumbled that this Needham chap's off-base. His scholarship showed irefrageably that he was inimitably at home in any discipline he chose to work on. One can go on giving examples. E. T. Bell now comes to mind. A first rate creative mathematician, he wrote a 2 volume history of most areas of that vast topic,Men of Mathematics (1937). Or take Norman Tindale, he chanced on getting as a youth a librasry cadetshiop in Adelaide, and got fascinated by insects- he took no tertiary studies in Entomology but became a recognized expert and one thing led to another and he turned himself into the leading anthropological scholar of aboriginal Australians of his day, and wrote the standard overview of 600+ tribes (1974). The list is endless. This might seem anomalous to recent eyes but only because, as Arnold Toynbee wrote (no formal training as an historian in the modern sense, just a degree in classics) in his overture to his 12 volume A Study of History, the modern insistence on a formal degree in a set and restricted discipline has been devastating in its specialized industrialization of knowledge.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 14 July 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)

(
)
  • ... 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.

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.[5] 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)

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: [6]. 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?[7][8]. 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)

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)

(
)
  • ... 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.

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.[9] 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)

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)

(
)
  • ... 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.

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.[10] 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)

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)
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)

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)

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'".[1]

  1. ^ Endelman 2004.
  • 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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racial_conceptions_of_Jewish_identity_in_Zionism/Archive_2&oldid=1183937566"