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

My reading of the above

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

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

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

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

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

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

See my replies above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixes to the lead

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

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

"Nope, I'm not 'happy' with the lead. I'd reduce it drastically, in summary style covering in sequence the sections of the article, without notes. Conditions of editing at the moment do not allow one to do that."

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

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

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

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

Here is the modified lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Onceinawhile. My view at the moment is that the lead is really in need of a huge amount of work, but I don't think it's worth touching until the various focus debates settle down and we have strong consensus on the topical focus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hard to read/ way too many footnotes

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

^a do they need to be included ^b

^b included in the article ^c

^c that is, the Wikipedia article ^d

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

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

Admin reminder as result of AE thread

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

• On the article talk page, editors should discuss article content only, not editor behaviour. If there is concern about editor behaviour, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard.
• Editors with SYNTH concerns should clearly outline (with quotes from the article and quotes from the sources) where they think SYNTH is occurring in the article. If an editor is not concerned with the quoted passage, they should explain why.
• Rapid back-and-forth discussions amongst two or a small group of editors is usually not helpful, especially when trying to convince the other person that they are "wrong". Instead, avoid commenting for a couple hours and let others give new perspectives.
• I [Z1720] think that the banner should not be removed until there is consensus on the talk page that all SYNTH concerns have been addressed. "Addressed" does not mean "resolved" or "fixed", as an editor might think a sentence is SYNTH while consensus disagrees. If consensus is that there is no SYNTH concern with a specific passage, then editors should WP:DROPTHESTICK.

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

I am happy to answer any questions or concerns: please ping me as I am not watching this page or post on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Recap

• To recap. This article began as a stub, and was immediately subject to 2 deletion proposals.
• The name was, it was argued, a compound of three terms. No literature covered those three terms together, ergo it was a classic example of WP:Synth.
• Three term titles do exist, i.e. Race and ethnicity in the United States, where the locative ‘in the United States’ has the same function as ‘Zionism’ (the ideological area) in our title. In any case, this argument was demolished: an ample literature exists discussing those three terms conjointly. There was no WP:Synth. Or if any examples could be pointed out, they would be eliminated.
• I stepped in, asked for three weeks to redraft the article. Some 90 sources of excellent quality were read, and harvested rigorously to respect the terms of the title. I.e. they dealt with various aspects of the nexus between the concept of race, and genetics in the history of Zionism. Despite the radical revision, the use of not 15 but 90 sources, and the expansion of text by 100,000kbs, discontent expressing the same original diffidence about the stub has persisted, as if nothing had changed.
• The article thus is written strictly to reflect the title we have. A large amount of matter extraneous to these entwined thematics was ignored for that reason.
• From the beginning of redrafting to the present only two aspects of the article were challenged: (a) the title (b) the lead.
• It is objected that (a) ‘Zionism, race and genetics’ gives the misleading impression that race and genetics are interchangeable, notwithstanding the fact that one is a subjective notion in relative desuetude, the result of a pseudoscience, the other predicated on the ideals of a pure science detached from the ideological biases of the earlier idiom of race. This is to (i) misconstrue the title, and (ii) ignore the witness of contemporary scholarship.
• (ib)If one were to write an article:’Democracy, equality and liberty,’ (this has been a fundamental question of political science at least since the 1950s), no one would infer that such a formulation cross-contaminates equality and liberty, which are distinct values, though conceptually connected. Indeed they exist in dramatic and dynamic tension in all discussions of democracy. Likewise, the juxtaposition of race and genetics in no way presupposes the two terms are either interchangeable, or being confused, with one undermining the scientific cogency of the other.

• (iib)Despite repeated denials on the talk page, the literature on race and genetics unequivocally underlines currents of conceptual continuity between the old language of race, and the newer idiom or methods of genetics. I cited Gilman and Duster. Here are two further examples. The first is just published, a joint work sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and written by experts for Nasem

• ’The misconception that human beings can be naturally divided into biologically distinguishable races has been extremely resilient and has become embedded in scientific research, medical practice and technologies, and formal education. Many elements of racial thinking, including essentialism and biological determinism, have influenced modern thinking around human genetics, to the marginalization of some peoples and the benefit of others . . racist concepts of race that are deeply embedded in science and U.S. society more broadly continue to affect scientific thinking and research, Scientists must critically examine the underlying assumptions about race—and human commonalityand difference—that shape their research studies..’‘Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research: A New Framework for an Evolving Field,’ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine/. National Academies Press 2023 pp.1,32.

• Most human geneticists are aware of the problems of imprecise or misused language, but face the difficulty that such language is embedded in many of the methods, tools and data we use. Clinical and anthropological datasets, which can be of enormous utility, often use outdated and scientifically incoherent labels to describe the individuals whose data they include . . the social categories and other groupings that individuals belong to are inescapable components of genetics research. However, within the human genetics community, some aspects of the academic language used to describe groups and subsets of people may foster erroneous beliefs beyond academia about human biology and the nature of these categories. Such descriptions frequently invoke concepts of ancestry and population structure, for reasons we will discuss below. But ancestry itself is often a poorly understood concept, and its relationship to genetic data is not straightforward. There are many implicit assumptions involved in inferring ancestry and population structure, and a similar number of pitfalls when interpreting the output of population genetic clustering analyses and algorithms. For example, the structures found in principal components analysis (PCA) of genetic variation depend strongly on the distribution of genetic ancestry included in the dataset, and is necessarily a sample-specific representation of genetic relationships. Similarly,the clusters identified by widely used methods such as STRUCTURE are often assigned ‘ancestry’ labels based on the present-day populations within the analysis in which cluster membership happens to be maximised, rather than any explicit inference of ancestral demography. The collection and sampling of genetic data - which often follows existing cultural, anthropological, geographical or political categories - also has a substantial impact, to the extent that some aspects of the clustering reflect sampling strategies rather thanany inherent genetic structure.’ ,Ewan Birney, Michael Inouye, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford Aylwyn Scally,’ ‘The language of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in human genetic research,’ Biology June 2021.

• The impasse here is that half of the editors on the talk page dislike the title, and attempts have been made to accommodate their desire for a different title. The problem with a different title is that any one alternative will implicitly question virtually the legitimacy of the article as completed, one written with a singular focus on representing the complex aspects of the three terms as covered in very high quality RS, and thus suggesting that it be rewritten comprehensively to reflecf the new title which, unlike the present one, will not reflect or summarize the content we have. As AndytheGrump noted, if that is the purpose, then it should be clearly stated, since a name-change of this kind would constitute by all appearances a kind of AfD by the back door.

Since I've retired and have a lot of work I'm more interested in doing off-line, I hope these points might spur reconsideration of the flat refusal to accept the legitimacy of the original title. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you make a lot of good points, and I'm friendly to the idea that the page has been improved to where it's legitimately a single subject. However, I want to correct one aspect of what you said about why some editors object to the current title. It isn't that it makes it sound like race and genetics are interchangeable. It doesn't make them sound like that, and that isn't a concern. It's that, by pairing them, the title makes it sound like we are saying that "race and genetics" are a "thing" in the way that scientific racism says it, and that's a problem. The fact that you put a lot of work into improving the page, and indeed you did, does not mean that, because you wrote it according to the present title, efforts to come up with a different title will inevitably change the focus and content of the page. And it does not mean that every suggestion of a new title is an underhanded attempt to delete the page. Actually, I think that the seeming intransigence of editors on this talk page to finding any kind of consensus on the page name is a bigger threat to this page continuing to be kept. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Tryptofish: Re the comment …by pairing them, the title makes it sound like we are saying that "race and genetics" are a "thing", should we infer that you also disagree with the title of the article Race and genetics, or such wording in the various Wikipedia articles which include the words "race and genetics" in their prose? For what it's worth, I looked through the archives of that article, and cannot see anyone actively disputing the title – the closest is this RM discussion from 10 years ago which found no support. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No, because that's all WP:OTHERSTUFF. A page about race and genetics can address how those two things have sometimes, as in scientific racism, been treated as a "thing", but how that has also been rebutted. Once we make a triple combination of those two along with Zionism, it sounds like we are attributing a scientific racist position to Zionism. The longer this discussion, and the RM discussion, go on, the more convinced I am that something like Zionist thought on Jewish racial identity is a better title, and in no way would go against the current content of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the title implies a conjunction in this manner or that people would naturally infer this. Whatever other reasons there might be too change the title, I don't think that this is a particularly strong one. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, other editors, and not just me, feel that it is a problem, or there wouldn't have been such a history of deletion proposals and rename discussions. I suspect that, as long as some editors steadfastly oppose any kind of change, the probability increases that there will be a new, and possibly successful, attempt to delete the page. I'm trying to find ways to get consensus to fix things so that this doesn't happen, but I may not be able to get such a consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

some editors steadfastly oppose any kind of change,

Please do not repeat this refrain. Two editors made enormous changes to this article, working for a month for several hours a day, mastering the sources to effect improvements (changes) while extensive and inconclusive arguments on the talk page simply about three words in the title have continued with no semblance of consensus, even among those who propose a change. The support votes, representing just half of the votes above, all admit that one proposed title is not quite satisfactory. it is also not helpful to suggest that unless your advice is taken, a third AfD might succeed. That is not the language of serene and objective deliberation. I)nflexibility in insisting on any change to a mere title, while describing as 'inflexibility' the substantial work invested in transforming this stub into a fully-fledged description of a phase in Zionist thought that has received significant coverage in recent academic sources which to date, have been ignored on wikipedia is, to put it kindly, somewhat curious.Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess I should have said it was opposition to any kind of change to the changes that they, themselves, have made – although, actually, I definitely wasn't referring specifically to the two editors you have in mind. I'm referring just as much to some editors who constantly disagree with those two editors. I'm not threatening that unless my advice is taken, bad things will happen. But I'm giving advice in good faith, trying to avoid some very possible bad results. That's not a threat, just trying to be constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no idea about who these other 'two editors' might be. I was referring to the primary drafters, Onceinawhile and myself, and I therefore haven't a clue who 'some editors who constantly disagree with' myself and Onceinawhile may be. Nishidani (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The "two editors" are the ones you referred to above: "Two editors made enormous changes to this article, working for a month for several hours a day, mastering the sources...". You said "two editors", so I said "two editors" for the same two. And yes, they are you and Onceinawhile, because it was the two of you who did the very large majority of the writing of the page. As for editors who have disagreed with you, I'm sure that you can look over this talk page and find numerous places where you reply to another editor who disagreed with you.

But that's all just noise. What really matters is the need for editors to find WP:CONSENSUS. I'll say this to anyone who reads my comment, and not specifically to you, but a lot of editors in this talk have a single preferred way to treat any given issue, such as the page title, for example, and regard any other way as unacceptable. Some editors want the current title, and nothing else is acceptable to them. Some editors want a title that includes "origins", and don't want to consider any alternative. Some editors consider "origins" absolutely unacceptable, and won't budge on that. A huge number of possible page titles have been suggested in talk, and every single one of them has one or more editors who regard it as absolutely unacceptable – but their preferred title is similarly opposed by some other editors. When I supported the rename proposal that is in process here, I said that I was supporting it despite having some qualms about it, because I wanted to find consensus and I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of some improvement. I'm glad that some editors agreed with that. But we have some editors here who have their own, personal, views of "the perfect", and for them, that's that. But their views of "the perfect" are different than those of other editors who similarly want that perfect, and that's that. That's not how Wikipedia works. We're supposed to be willing to compromise, to accept something that's not our first choice, but something that isn't awful and can get support from enough other editors to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was 99% written by two editors in terms of the title we have, which dictated the content. The two editors are experienced GA/FA quality content specialists. When objections were raised as to the title, they were duly answered. The strange assumption appears to be that the two who wrote the article didn't have a clue as to the nature of the content they were writing up. As far as I can recall, every objection raised to the present title was thoroughly answered. Of course talk page editors can express preference for another title. But at this point, they should also explain why, after such exhaustive replies to the objections regarding the title we have, it still remains in their view inadequate to the article's content. This is particularly important because half of the editors here have not objected to the title as it exists. title change requires cogent reasons which are what consensus is essentially about. If you can list anything I've missed, by all means . . . Nishidani (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure from the indenting who you are replying to ("If you can list..."), but I'll assume it's me. "When objections were raised as to the title, they were duly answered". But were there editors who were dissatisfied with those due answers? "But at this point, they should also explain why...". Is it true that editors have not explained why? Maybe not explained in a manner that you agree with, but that doesn't mean that they didn't explain. "The strange assumption appears to be that the two who wrote the article don't have a clue as to the nature of the content that they were writing up." I don't think that, and I've repeatedly said positive things about what you and Onceinawhile have done. And I doubt that other editors think that. But there also shouldn't be an assumption that the two who wrote the article are entitled to say what should or should not be done with the page, and that all other editors should defer to them, because the other editors don't know enough about the subject. That's not how Wikipedia works. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I make no such assumption of ownership. Indeed I have seen quite a few changes to the article I think poorly considered, but reverted nothing. The point is, many arguments for a title change were made months ago while the article underwent radical revision. We have a different textual reality now. Since there is no consensus even among editors desiring a title change, the only sensible way forward is for them is to switch from the exhaustingly inconclusive listing of different possible titles, towards a listing of what outstanding objections remain to the title as it now stands. That is a practical way forward from the impasse you worry about.Nishidani (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"I make no such assumption of ownership." But also "Two editors made enormous changes to this article, working for a month for several hours a day, mastering the sources to effect improvements (changes) while extensive and inconclusive arguments on the talk page simply about three words in the title have continued with no semblance of consensus, even among those who propose a change." And "The two editors are experienced GA/FA quality content specialists." And to repeat: "When objections were raised as to the title, they were duly answered". But were there editors who were dissatisfied with those due answers? "But at this point, they should also explain why...". Is it true that editors have not explained why? Maybe not explained in a manner that you agree with, but that doesn't mean that they didn't explain. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I am quite capable of understanding my own prose, no need to make a florilegium. The ruling assumption from the AfD onwards is that there is something intrinsically unacceptable about a title containing three terms. As far as I have managed to grasp in reading threads, conjoining 'Zionism' and 'race'/'race and genetics'/genetics and Zionism, is problematical in some obscure way. Yet the three are analysed together in over 30 high quality academic sources. Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I certainly would expect that you would understand what you, yourself, have said. Thank you for introducing me to a new word: florilegium. Of course, I wasn't seeking to create a florilegium, but rather to point out flaws in what you have been saying. But now that you have said that you understand what you have said, I suppose that you understand those flaws, even if you are evading an admission of them. If, in contrast, you don't understand why some editors say that conjoining Zionism, race, and genetics in the pagename is a problem, it's that "race and genetics" is a hot-button term, one that implies that there is a genetic difference between races, which is an offensive product of scientific racism, and something that we should best avoid saying in Wikipedia's voice. Of course, all three things are discussed together in 30 plus high quality academic sources, and of course it's reasonable to cover all three on this page. But it's untrue to claim that there is simply no other way to word the page title that would be consistent with those 30 plus sources, and with the content of the page as currently written.

In any case, I regret that I have gotten side-tracked from what I really wanted to say here, by getting into this back-and-forth. I should know better. I started off by saying that I agreed with a lot of the "recap", but I just wanted to correct the statement that editors were concerned that readers would think we were saying that race and genetics were the same thing. My main point after that was, and remains, that I urge editors – all editors and not just one person – to be willing to compromise and be flexible, in order to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you again desist from personalizing this, and making extraordinary inferences about what I supposedly think. When you write:

I wasn't seeking to create a florilegium, but rather to point out flaws in what you have been saying. But now that you have said that you understand what you have said, I suppose that you understand those flaws, even if you are evading an admission of them.

This is another example of the recent tendency to make offensive insinuations in my regard. I generally ignore them as fishing expeditions, but they are now repetitive. Here, you claim that you pointed out flaws, I recognize them, and refuse to come clean about them. That is a blatant WP:NPA/WP:AGF violation, the second from you alone in the last two days.

This is quite an absurd reading of the thread above, and is snarkily provocative. It doesn’t merit a reply, because correcting your misprisions on what I wrote would only lead to a pointless resuscitation of the conversational mode that is so disruptive here.

To @Selfstudier, about his last remark. Several editors (Onceinawhile, Nishidani, Iskander, Nableezy, Zero, Levivich) see nothing problematical in the title, which simply lists the three themes interlinked in current scholarship as a unified topic. I appreciate the fact that you, like Levivich, exercise an autonomy of judgment that refuses to be drawn into those 'sides' which, unfortunately, all too often, are imputed to exist and to determine voting patterns. Still, attempts here to finger me as some lone hold-out are wholly misdirected.

Several editors, yourself included, prefer an exegetic title, one that explains the content, like Designation of workers by collar color. Attempts to find an acceptable alternative falter on a lack of internal consensus among the latter as to a title that they all consider adequate to the very complex array of issues covered by the article.

When two and a half months of intense talk page discussion fails, the only resolutive procedure would be to do what is done in science, logic and chronic conflict studies: return to first principles and examine the assumptions that undergird different perspectives. Many ‘problems’ arise simply because, to quote Auden, people engage in ‘baiting with the wrong request/ the vectors of their interest’. Some should ask themselves, rather than puzzle over this Nishidani oddball, why several other editors of good standing, like him, cannot see the problem others assert exists. Why is it that they cannot see any of the putative troubling implications in the mere listing of three elements as a title, a listing that is commonplace in scores and scores of academic books whose thematizing titles list three intertwined topics unproblematically.

• Mary M. Burke, Race, Politics, and Irish America, Oxford University Press 2020 ISBN 978-0-192-85973-0
• Les Back, John Solomos,Race, Politics and Social Change, Routledge ISBN 978-0-415-08578-6 1992
• Henry A. Giroux, Race, Politics, and Pandemic Pedagogy, Bloomsbury Publishing ISBN 978-1-350-18444-2 2021
• James Jennings (ed), Race, Politics, and Economic Development, Verso Books ISBN 978-0-860-91589-8 1992
• Jean Ait Belkhir and Bernice McNair Barnett, Race, Gender and Class Intersectionality, in Race, Gender & Class, 2001 Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 157-174
• Joshua Bartholomew,Race, Economics, and the Future of Blackness, in Critical Black Futures 2021 pp 181–205
• James Boettcher, Race, ideology, and Ideal theory, in Metaphilosophy Vol. 40, No. 2 (April 2009), pp. 237-259
• Alejandro de la Fuente, Race, Ideology, and Culture in Cuba, 2000
• R. E. Nisbett, 'Race, genetics, and IQ,' In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black–White test score gap, Brookings Institution Press. (1998 pp. 86–102
• L. N. Borrell et al., • Race and Genetic Ancestry in Medicine,' The New England Journal of Medicine 2021; 384: pp 474-480 (That would yield, analogically ‘Race and Genetic ancestry in Zionism’ as a legitimate alternative title for example. But no one has suggested this obvious compromise. I wonder why?
• Lourdes Beneria, Günseli Berik, Maria Floro,Gender, Development and Globalization, 2015
• Gary Goertz, Amy Mazur Politics, Gender, and Concepts, 2008
• Margaret Brabant, Politics, Gender, And Genre, 2019
• Ronald L. Dotterer, Susan Bowers Politics, Gender, and the Arts, 1992

All objections to this title ignore English grammar and idiom, the irrefutable evidence of google books that such tripartite listings are normative. So, if some wish to continue to assert there is something wrong, they should give an adequate and cogent set of reasons why standard English usage and book titles may not apply to the present article. Why find a problem when the documented evidence that the article title is normative in English can be multiplied by thousands of similar examples, instantly, by googling?Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, that reply is full of black-and-white, absolute, statements of things that are actually much more nuanced than what you say. Editors who see the pagename differently than you do "ignore English grammar and idiom" – which is extremely personalizing and simply untrue. The evidence is "irrefutable" – well that's like telling everyone who disagrees with you that we are ignoring overwhelming evidence and should shut up. And yet – you present a list of 14 sources above, and although they all use multi-term language, 12 of the 14 do not say "race and genetics". Only 2 of them do. One, by Nisbett [1], makes the case that "the most relevant studies provide no evidence for the genetic superiority of either race". The other, by Borrell et al. [2], is the single one out of the 14 that addresses "race and genetics" as a significant subject, but in the context of health care delivery, of making sure that specific genetic factors can be used to provide the best personal healthcare – not at all in the context of defining membership in a nation state. A Google Scholar search on "Zionist thought on Jewish racial identity", [3], shows that this combination of words is also used in various forms in thousands of sources, and a lot of those sources look like those that are used for this page. Oh, but it's "irrefutable", so I should know my place and be quiet. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked Selfstudier to explain why titles of the type:X,Y and Z, standard in English usage, and endemic in books and articles, are not acceptable to a wikipedia article which fits the formula, i.e. 'Zionism, race and genetics'. If you are not interested in addressing the question directly and analytically, you are under no obligation to talk past it. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That's good, because I didn't talk around it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search on "Zionist thought on Jewish racial identity", [4], shows that this combination of words is also used in various forms in thousands of sources(Tryptofish)

Compare the correct result, i.e. one bracketing the words with inverted commas which yields zero correspondancesNishidani (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Self? Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that you originally said "no obligation to talk around it", but then changed it to "past it" after I had replied.

Here's a similar "correct" Google Scholar search for "Zionism, race and genetics": [5], which gets 0 results. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Which is totally irrelevant because the title is not vauntedly drawn from google books evidence. It simply alerts the reader to the topic of the page using the three terms that contemporary scholarship deals with conjointly as linked themes, scholarship which has been used to write the article we have.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion keeps getting so, well, toxic, that I really should repeat something I said earlier in this section: In any case, I regret that I have gotten side-tracked from what I really wanted to say here, by getting into this back-and-forth. I should know better. I started off by saying that I agreed with a lot of the "recap", but I just wanted to correct the statement that editors were concerned that readers would think we were saying that race and genetics were the same thing. My main point after that was, and remains, that I urge editors – all editors and not just one person – to be willing to compromise and be flexible, in order to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There are two proposals asking for consensus (a)That the title be changed because it is full of skewed implications and (b) the title is quite normal, one in conformity with widespread usage. (a) has dominated the talk page (b) has been totally ignored. As soon as I tried to break the impasse by asking the editors supporting (a) to give rational reasons for their dismissal of the present topic title, my request was ignored. To be thorough, I still think the assumption or premise for challenging what is a fact, that X,Y and Z is a normative title format in academic studies and books, be answered. There is nothing 'toxic' about being thorough, and insisting on logic and evidence.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, I and other editors actually have given rational reasons for objections, not dismissals, but objections, and those rational reasons are being ignored, and to me that feels toxic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

:I would do an RFC perhaps to get a sense of what wiki in general thinks of the title. I don’t think this current group of editors is going to come to a consensus unfortunately. Drsmoo (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

For example, I am in agreement with selfstudier re both race/genetics or neither, while you have the opposite opinion. It would be good to solicit outside feedback to see how others interpret the scope of the article and what the right title, if anything, should be. Drsmoo (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked Selfstudier to explain why titles of the type:X,Y and Z, standard in English usage, and endemic in books and articles, are not acceptable to a wikipedia article which fits the formula, Is this the latest distraction? You keep talking about everything except what I am talking about. Let me be clearer, all your objections/answers to the current proposition just seem to lend credence to the coatrack argument put forth elsewhere. I didn't have a problem with the title originally and I still don't but I also don't have a problem with the current proposition and yet you do and it is your explanations in that regard that are giving me pause with regard to the original title. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No great rewrite is needed, it's principally the same sources that are in the article right now, Falk, McGonigle, Baker, Hirsh, etc, it's only necessary to add some material that is present in these sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, in my humble opinion, even "Zionism and the politics of race" is a much better title than the current one. Andre🚐 15:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion about this (and some about the variant that only mentions genetics) and in the end I concluded that it is either both or neither. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

When you say, of race and genetics, that it is either both or neither, is that an absolute line in the sand for you, or something you would be willing to compromise on for the sake of consensus? Obviously, I'm hoping for the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In principle, I would oppose a title that only included one element, sorry about that. As you have seen, I am not averse to dispensing with both in favor of some other formulation. Selfstudier (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem remains that the people proposing new titles are seeking titles they find less objectionable, regardless of whether that title actually covers the same topic as this article. You cannot propose a substantially new scope of an article under the guise of a rename. If the scope of the article is not notable then try AFD again. If it is then the title needs to accurately encompass that scope, and the proposals above do not do that. nableezy - 12:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I don't totally sign up to this recap's representation of what happened. Specifically: From the beginning of redrafting to the present only two aspects of the article were challenged: (a) the title (b) the lead. No, I gave a long list of issues I had with the article above. Some were addressed wholly or partially; others remain. I haven't pushed them, because participation on this talk page has been exhausting. Once again, in summary, my concern all along has been that the conjunction in the title creates a "thing" where there is no "thing", and that this has led to a skewed/non-NPOV article. Being the title of one or two books or articles doesn't make something a "thing" in my view. (We don't have an article for Race, Economics, and the Future of Blackness for example.) Clearly, there is a rich literature on Zionist perspectives on race - on how race science and racial antisemitism contributed to a raciological strain within Zionism, that was shared by some non-Zionist Jewish race scholars and contested by others. This literature focuses overwhelmingly on the period of the formation of classical Zionism to the rise of the Nazis. The current article (thanks mainly to Nishidani) does a great job in setting that out (although obviously with some room for improvement still, in ways I suggested above). There is also a literature on post-war Israeli genetic science that might be briefly described in an aftermath section of an article along the lines I've just described, and which might be discussed too in Genetic studies on Jews and more briefly in other related articles (e.g. Who is a Jew?/Jewish identity). But the unhappy conjunction in the title (without assuming any deliberate intent from editors) pushed the article to sources that are more marginal in a truly encyclopedic article on whatever our article is about, which focused the article on the mysterious interconnection between the three title terms, giving the continuity between Zionist race science and Israeli genetic science enormous undue attention. Although not particularly keen on any one alternative title proposed, my instinct at the moment is that a new title would enable us to keep the best of the article, removing the skew. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for missing what you point out in the recap. As you say, this has been exhausting. Unless mistaken the gravamen of your worries is that

that the conjunction in the title creates a "thing" where there is no "thing",

Conjunctions between terms don't create a "thing": they isolate a thematically plural topic which exists to the degree that reliable sources treat them as an interrelated set of terms. There is nothing 'mysterious' about the relationship. Indeed, as several quotes I have supplied over the last week show, geneticists themselves are now analysing the assumptions of 'race' that both historians of science and cultural or social anthropologists found problematical in the way genetics came to be used, and indeed, its methodologies formed, in the last few decades. This is a pretty exciting field, and my impression is that much more will emerge in the near future (may be wrong). As to the last part, a large part of Israeli genetic science is (like Zionist policy) purely practical: how to address, analyse and cure Israeli citizens who suffer from genetically-related illnesses- People in those labs are not thinking 'Zionistically'. They are scientists pure et simple. But at the same time, the overlap between broader historical genetics and Zionist ideological concerns is patently there - Israel historians document it, and just as, say, American geneticists are now going public by talking among themselves of this historical residue of race assumptions in their technical work, their Israeli colleagues are doing the same. Whatever, the genealogy of ideas is of intrinsic merit. They didn't want any mention of this in Genetic Studies of Jews so it was only natural to create a distinct page where justice could be done to the issues. Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I should not have used the word "mysterious" for the "intertwining" of the three topics; that wasn't justified. I'll strike that out.

Meanwhile, this hit me: They didn't want any mention of this in Genetic Studies of Jews so it was only natural to create a distinct page where justice could be done to the issues.

In other words, it seems, this entire article (and talk page) was the result of content forking when consensus went against inclusion of the content desired by a minority of editors at another article? On this issue, my view is the same as that in the short essay WP:Should I fork? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I should have said that an attempt to mention this article, more or less a stub under development, on that other page was immediately cancelled. That article was, if I remember correctly, on the 'science'. It is nothing of the sort of course. That rejection and the irrationality of the AfD, with its sheer denialism of the weight of sources, spurred the effort to fill out the promise in the stub. No. It's not an essay, unless all wikipedia articles that trace the history of an idea (Democracy) are essays. It's not a fork. It's the sort of thing one has been reading about for over a decade and noting, but with no prompting occasion to actually do this rather than some other article (at least speaking for myself) Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2023

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

---

Zionism, race and genetics → Zionism, race, and genetics – There have been a lot of discussions here about renames, but this proposal is simply to put a comma after "race", and before "and genetics". This is something that was raised earlier, during the previous requested move, and it appeared to be non-controversial then. Although just a comma, it has the effect of breaking up the phrase "race and genetics". My hope is that it will be acceptable to editors who approve of the existing pagename, while also being at least a small and incremental step for editors who dislike the current title. -- Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources on triplets using or avoiding the Oxford comma are about even. So there is no problem either way.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral leaning Oxford. Academic, in my mind. Leaning slightly toward Oxford vs no Oxford, but I do not see it as material or impactful. Andre🚐 22:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support adding the Oxford/Harvard comma for better clarity per WP:PRECISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support, the comma clarifies that race and genetics are two things. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Oxford comma is completely unnecessary. It makes perfect sense without. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. I disagree that it changes the meaning and so I don't care either way. Zero^talk 13:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Distinction without a difference, both are valid and both mean the same thing. nableezy - 13:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RETAIN/MOS:OXFORD. Scanning the text of the article I found about 6 lists of more than two items outside of quotes. Of those, 5 did not use an Oxford comma, and 1 did. This suggests that, absent a wider consensus to switch to using the Oxford comma throughout the article, we should not change the article title on its own. —siroχo 04:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is "in" the magic word?

I have been looking at other "tripartite title" articles, of which a surprisingly large number include race. For example:

• Race and ethnicity in Colombia
• Race and ethnicity in Brazil
• Race and ethnicity in Latin America
• Race and ethnicity in the NBA
• Race and ethnicity in the NHL
• Race and ethnicity in censuses
• History of the race and intelligence controversy
• Race and capital punishment in the United States
• Race in the United States criminal justice system
• Race and health in the United States
• Race and crime in the United Kingdom
• Race and maternal health in the United States
• Sociology of race and ethnic relations

This is a wide base. The logical conclusion for our article would be Race and genetics in Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as well. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd have no objection either. I suggested that six weeks ago (The article is about race in Zionism and its subsequent inflection in genetics, and actually thought of precisely this formula at the time, but was more interested in writing the article than engaging in talk page discussions). No one took it up. I alluded to a solution like that a few other times, most recently yesterday with a variant that had of course one word too many, above ('the obvious compromise'). I still prefer the title we have for stylistic reasons. But it's tweedledum or tweedledee conceptually.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You know, you might have hit on something here. I'm going to have to give some thought to this before I can put my finger on why I have a favorable reaction to it, but somehow, it doesn't strike me as being a problem in the way that the current title is. I think it has something to do with the way it treats race and genetics as not being "all of race and genetics", but rather, as only being those aspects of race and those aspects of genetics that have come up in the context of Zionism, because they are the aspects that are "in" Zionism. Thanks for suggesting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's a step in the right direction. I also think "Race and ethnicity" is an improvement over "Race and genetics." Even "race and biology" might be better. Andre🚐 22:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer keeping it with "genetics", rather than "ethnicity" or "biology", because I think it stays closer to the page scope. But I'll go along with alternatives like that, as a way to get consensus, if that's the way the discussion goes.

I've though about this some more, and I can add a bit to what I said above, about how I think this is not as much of a problem as the current title. If one thinks of a diagram, with one circle representing Zionism, one representing race, and one representing genetics, and the three circles overlap in part, but not entirely, I think most editors here would agree that this page is about the part where all three circles overlap, and not about any part of the diagram where all three are not overlapping. The existing title sort of implies that, and has been intended that way, but can also be construed as the sum of all three circles, not the intersection. "Zionism, race and genetics" can be reasonably misconstrued as being about Zionism+race+genetics, which is clearly wrong from the perspective of the page we are trying to create. Until Onceinawhile proposed this new idea, I hadn't really been able to put my finger on that. In contrast, "Race and genetics in Zionism" is clearer, without losing anything: it's the subset of "race and genetics" that intersects with Zionism, because it's what's "in" Zionism. That way, the pagename doesn't give me the feeling that the page is trying to impose scientific racism upon Zionism. Scientific racism sits outside of the triple intersection. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Grammatically there is no way one can derive from three substantives 'Zionism, race and genetics' the idea that racism, scientific or not, is being imposed on Zionism. That is pure imagination, not grammar.Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You know what, I actually agree with that. It's not a matter of grammar, but rather, a matter of human subjectivity. But the public that we write for is human, with all the complexities of human nature. And it's appropriate to write for our audience, in a way that respects their intelligence while also not overlooking the fact that they are real people, not automatons (yeah, I know that ChatGPT and the like are mining us). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, but we are part of that very same public. I have always been unhappy with the pseudo-objectivism of that nutter, Ayn Rand, whose scribblings apparently influenced some of the principles of wikipedia. But working here for decades nonetheless tells me that the mini-culture of objectivism curated to elide editorial subjectivism, which includes second-guessing things, say, among ourselves, the psychological profiles we might imagine, of each other and, by extension, the readership, has its functional merits. In sum, we must suspend from our judgment on how a text is to be written all the pressures of the personal, and look exclusively at the authority of relevant sources of high quality (which often I might personally disagree with or be tempted to challenge), construe them with precision by the sharp exercise of grammatical discipline, and get, source by source, the content over. Thanks for prompting this reflection. It is a fundamental consideration.Nishidani (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that advises setting aside what you call "the pressures of the personal"? (I don't mean WP:NOR or WP:NPOV.) My understanding of policies and guidelines is that it is appropriate to consider what readers will think, and my reading of WP:TITLE is that, although page titles must reflect sources, the titles should also be understandable to real people, and not misleading. (In this case, I, as a member of that same public, had that reaction about scientific racism, and I don't consider myself to be unreasonable, so I haven't been attributing this reaction to some imagined other. I'm figuring that if I had that reaction, then other readers will, too.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't write or edit plying the worrybeads about what people might think, or get agitated that if I write this or that it may affect some political or ethnic constituency. That opens the door to infinite subjective speculations that derail the simple and yet very complex task of reading precisely what the best scholarship says, on this or that, and construing it correctly. When I wrote "affirm" I found out some very intelligent editors believed it meant something that is alien to what the English Oxford Dictionary says it means, and all sorts of confusions, even a suspension, arose from their misprision. After a huge waste of time, it was recognized that "affirm" meant what the dictionary states, not what people thought it might imply. Too many talk pages are vexed by the paralysis Shakespeare identified in such intensive overthinking, that nothing can ever be decided, in the brilliant passage on 'thinking too precisely on the event'

Rightly to be great

Is not to stir without great argument,

But greatly to find quarrel in a straw

When honor's at the stake.

What we as editors think is of little or no account. All that counts is getting what scholars write correctly paraphrased. Anything that strays from this detracts from article composition.Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You and the Danish Prince both have the right to see things that way, but other editors have the right to edit as we see fits Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

A lame insult. I co-wrote the Shakespeare Authorship Question to FA standard, meaning I wrote it not as I saw fitting wiki policies and guidelines, but according to the criteria wikipedia's experts on FA writing asked be rigorously applied. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

No insult intended, and my apologies if it came across that way. I'm just saying that I regard your approach as something that you are entitled to, but that it is not binding on other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Since loose construal is endemic here, let me construe your prior remark. I, like Hamlet, have a right to see things in a certain way. Other editors have a right to edit according to ' Wikipedia's policies and guidelines'. The two by juxtaposed contrast ('but') are mutually exclusive, meaning I do not edit, in your view, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This, ironically, in the face of evidence that FA reviewers endorsed my rigorous adherence to policy guidelines. You just happen to think I, unlike yourself, don't follow wiki guidelines and those experts who have judged my work as perfectly policy-compliant, one is left to suppose, are apparently misguided. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked "Is there a policy or guideline that advises setting aside what you call "the pressures of the personal"?" You never provided one. Sigh. Now, I'm dropping it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that advises setting aside what you call "the pressures of the personal"? (I don't mean WP:NOR or WP:NPOV.)

Courtesy required that one not answer a question which explicitly excluded the obvious answer to it. Sigh indeed. I'ìll now join you in dropping this.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This title has the advantage of concision and consistency, and more naturalness than other proposed alternatives. It's probably precise enough. It only really suffers in terms of recognisability, and doesn't fully address the skewing effect I noted in my comment in the "Recap" section above, but that can maybe be addressed in editing once we finally agree a stable title. Overall, I don't object to this change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You argued there was a skewing effect caused by treating three elements as a 'thing'. I think I answered that. When numerous sources treat the three together, it is not editors here who create such a a thing, but the literature itself. And I might add, 'race' is not something that died off in Zionism with the defeat Nazism,. as you appear to suggest in pursuing the idea of ridding the latter part of 'skewed' material. It persisted, and persists to this day, as we all know. Ethiopian Jews resent being labelled as Cushi, and even within their own ranks, there is a strong race division between 'whites' and 'blacks', etc.etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Bob's post in the "recap" section above. Nishidani, I fear you may be perhaps conflating the existence of racism or the continued issue with racial discrimination being in the world at large and in Israel or in other Jewish spaces, with that somehow being germane to a Zionist view as a matter of generalizable or mainstream adherence. I agree with Bob that this article skews toward covering the early 20th century, and skews toward a specific strain of Zionist thought. Whereas plenty of things have happened in the world, such as the aforementioned airlift of the Ethiopian Jews. There is also quite a bit to talk about as pertaining to contemporary Arab-Israeli politics, and the racial politics of contemporary Israel and Palestine. For example, there are quite a few contemporary Israeli politicians who have a pretty blatant right-wing dog whistle. I continue to think the title manages to be both vague and over-broad. There's also quite a bit of weight on the thinking of El Haj, someone with specific views of genetic anthropology and biological determinism. I agree with concerns that this is a POV fork. Andre🚐 23:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about racism per se, and barely even touches on racial ideas outside of science, i.e. in the sense of engendered prejudice towards any specific group, except with respect to antisemitism. So what is all this off-topic chatter with regards to airlifts and whatnot about? ... and how is this supposed to meaningfully relate to the subject here? Iskandar323 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You think it's OK to have the portion about the Ethiopian Jews talking about how they were referred to as an offensive epithet and excluded, but not mention that they later were accepted and came in? Andre🚐 03:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

A public policy on immigration has no bearing on thematic undercurrents either within society or an ideology. You are conflating a state with the actual subject here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Really now, so your position is that the views of the Zionist movement and ideology have no bearing on the activities of the Israeli government? Andre🚐 04:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the ideology has bearing there, but that does not mean you can deduce or assume things about the ideology based on the actions of an ideologically involved government. Still, what I'm more confused with here is the overall tangential segue. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The Jewish Agency for Israel, which is the operative branch of/a parallel organization to the World Zionist Organization, was heavily involved. Drsmoo (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Andrevan. We must avoid the temptation to chat. I made an allusion to the Ethiopian case to illustrate a point (it arose because I accommodated your request that we mention Operations Solomon and Moses). That doesn't mean the page focus must now swerve into major expansions on Ethiopians in Israel, or racism in Israel or every other country in the world.Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I just posted a similar suggestion in a previous section before (consciously) noticing this section. I agree with it though I don't like "in Zionism" much as it makes Zionism sound like a place or organisation as in all of the other examples. I'd prefer "in Zionist ideology", for example. Zero^talk 08:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As Andrevan has pointed out, there is an issue with "race and genetics" which is obviated by the alternatives they suggest, or with just "Race in Zionism". None of the examples provided by Onceinawhile have "race and genetics" and I have argued and Levivich agreed[6] that the phrasing "race and genetics" should be avoided in article titles because of the conflation of race (a social construct) with genetics. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Zionism, race and genetics, vs other topics

Hi @Sirfurboy: I'm not sure I fully understand your last sentence. Per the illustration on the right (from an earlier discussion), the connection between race and genetics – far from being avoided – is standard from a sociological perspective, so should not be avoided in Wikipedia articles on sociology topics. This article covers a sociology topic, just as the article race and genetics does. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with "in Zionism", but I'll also go along with "in Zionist ideology" or "in Zionist thinking" if that gets consensus. As I said above, I don't have a problem with "race and genetics" in this configuration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconding Tryptofish, I think we now have a decent and commendable promise of putting an end to over two months of argument we must all find exhausting. There's been convergence to the formula 'Race and genetics in Zionism/Zionist ideology', a meeting point for editors who otherwise saw the other options from opposing perspectives. Might we not seize the chance to conclude it by agreeing on how to tweak this? (I might add, I am still strongly in favour of the title as it stands, but am happy to drop that if this last formula is adopted).Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favor. Andre🚐 17:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It sounds to me like a requested move for this version has a very good chance of getting consensus, and I think that it would be good if we could move ahead with it. However, we already have an active RM discussion. But that one looks to me to be stalled, and looks unlikely to get consensus. @Selfstudier: as the editor who started that RM, would you be willing to close it, in order that this new one can proceed? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Given this is Wikipedia I have BOLDly moved it to "Race and genetics in Zionist ideology" and if nobody reverts or is objecting to this, we can close the RM. Andre🚐 21:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the title and the bold move. It should be an RM to get outside opinions. This title makes it sound like race and genetics are one thing (no comma between them), and that race and genetics is an important aspect of Zionist ideology, and that there is one Zionist ideology. Imagine: "race and genetics in Christian ideology" or "race and genetics in nationalist ideology" or "race and genetics in communist ideology," etc. "In" is a preposition best used for location or an organization. All of the other "in" titles have "in" followed by a country or organization. Zionism and Zionist ideology are neither. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There was already an active RM above that failed to achieve consensus, which Selfstudier closed per Tryptofish; this proposal seemed to be coming to a good compromise consensus in this thread, but you may certainly open a new RM to solicit a new discussion, though perhaps it would be good to get some kind of alignment on what the proposed new title would be if you have one in mind. Andre🚐 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That's what you should do: open an RM to propose a move rather than boldly moving to a new title. If you don't want to self revert, I can do it for you. Levivich (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have complicated feelings about this, and my highest priority is to minimize drama. Strictly speaking, what I posted above was "It sounds to me like a requested move for this version has a very good chance of getting consensus, and I think that it would be good if we could move ahead with it", and I was asking that the older RM be closed, so that we could have a new RM. I didn't anticipate that, instead of a new RM, we would have a bold edit. I'm also not sure that we have consensus for "in Zionist ideology" versus "in Zionism". On the other hand, it is incredibly difficult to get consensus for anything on this page, and I'm very, very, loathe to undo the recent name change, unless there is a stronger case than I am currently seeing for doing so. It's pretty impressive, under the circumstances, how many editors have supported the name change, and if the few who oppose it are such a small minority that the consensus would end up being the same (or would just descend into a morass), I'd rather just leave things as they are. Only if there are enough editors opposing the new pagename that the consensus would likely change, would I now support a new RM. And, given 1RR, let's not have any reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Andre, you wrote if nobody reverts or is objecting to this, and somebody is now objecting. Kindly self-revert and open a new RM. You know that is what needs to be done. Our move procedure allows for bold moves if and only if they are uncontroversial, and once somebody, anybody, objects it is no longer uncontroversial. nableezy - 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I should take this page off my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

that seems like a personal choice not related to the article, which is what comments on this talk page are meant for. nableezy - 19:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it was a personal comment about your comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand there is an objection, however, while I would say my BOLD move lacks the consensus of a formal closed RM even though a consenus was forming, as a point of technical limitation, I cannot actually revert myself as I lack the page mover permission to move over a redirect. Also, I didn't say "if anyone asks, I'll self-revert," and I'm going to say that someone else should revert it if they feel so inclined, so it doesn't count against my 1RR in the topic area. You can certainly say my BOLD move was BOLD and the revert is proper if someone objects to it, and then a new RM can be opened, but I am not going to open it myself because I do not know what the new RM proposal should be if this one is not amenable. I would also perhaps ask that if 1 or 2 editors don't like this title they still let it stand rather than forcing an RM that will possibly likely lead to this outcome anyway. Andre🚐 19:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me add that anyone who seriously objects in favor of a different pagename, and thinks that their preferred pagename can get consensus, should feel free to open a new RM. But don't revert. Just open a discussion. Anyone who cannot in good faith be confident that their preferred pagename will be supported by other editors, enough other editors to get consensus, please don't waste everyone's time. And anyone whose only objection is procedural, please find something else to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you simply do not get to decide what the status quo should be for a new request. And you likewise dont get to insist that others not ask people to abide by the correct procedure. I mean you can do it, Im not going to stop you, but Im also not going to pretend like you decide these things. Make a new move request yourself if you please. nableezy - 21:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course I don't get to decide those things, and I wasn't. But neither do you. And you don't even seem to have an idea for what the pagename should be, just a rigid idea of what The Rules^TM are. As a result, we are going to have another couple of weeks of discussion over something that probably won't result in anything being improved. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the current name is vastly superior to the proposed, either in Zionism or in Zionist ideology. But my understanding of The Rules is based on those rules, which say: The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies: ... someone could reasonably disagree with the move. Somebody could not just disagree with move, somebody did disagree with it. And that means the status quo ante is returned until there is a consensus to move away from it to a new title. You are free to propose whatever you like. Or not. Doesnt really matter to me tbh. nableezy - 22:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

As for "vastly superior", you do know, don't you, that most editors agreed that if the pagename should stay sort-of like this, then there should be a comma, as in Zionism, race, and genetics? I'd fix that myself, but I don't have the page-mover permission. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Dont think you need it, nableezy - 22:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

(I assume you mean page mover, not the comma.) I actually tried to make the move, but it didn't go through. Apparently too many things that need to be deleted to make way, or something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I did it for you. nableezy - 21:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Pre-RM discussion

Let's see if we can get something to stick, this time. The purpose of this sub-section is not to say why "in" is a bad idea. The purpose is only to consider what the best option, among the "in" options, would be, to put forward in the next RM. (In other words, let's postpone arguments about why the present pagename is better for the RM itself.) As I see it, there are three "in" variations that have been mentioned:

• Race and genetics in Zionism
• Race and genetics in Zionist ideology
• Race and genetics in Zionist thinking

Personally, I have a preference for Race and genetics in Zionism, because it's the simplest. I've also been doing some looking at other "in" pagenames, based upon talk comments that such titles are only used for places or organizations. And we have plenty of related hot-button pagenames where something is "in" things very akin to Zionism, as opposed to places or organizations. For example: Rape in the Hebrew Bible (sorry, that one came up when I put "race in" in the search box), Racism in sport, Racism in the LGBT community, and Race in horror films. That said, I'm willing to support any of the three above.

I realize that some editors prefer none of the above, but I'm specifically interested in what would be the best choice for a new RM discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We already had a preRM discussion, lots of them. In other words, attempts to get preagreement have largely failed. So I think that any editor that feels like taking a shot should put up the RM they think will fly based on all those previous discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean that you will support any of these three? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I am reserving my comments for a formal RM discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see this as "taking a shot" and seeing what "will fly", but as trying to use discussion to get the strongest possible result. Other editors may have other priorities. Anyway, if other editors have any advice, I'd welcome that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Read what I actually said. Selfstudier (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as well. ([7]) So I'll take that as support for Race and genetics in Zionism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I find all these better than the current title. Andre🚐 22:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Although I still think a construct based on "in" might work, I can no longer support these versions, for the reasons given in #Zionism, and which race?, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The subsequent resolution of the issue in #Zionism, and which race?, below, means that I no longer have the objection that I expressed in the sentence just above. But given that we cannot even get past "no consensus" over a comma, I'm reluctant to start another RM over Race and genetics in Zionism, although I'd support it if someone else does. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own fun special policies about Oxford comma and the like, and I consider them pedantry and not worthy of consideration. A substantive question in my view is, why is the article still called "Zionism, race and genetics" which is just still a jumbly hodgepodge of a title. How about, "Zionist conceptions of Jewishness in terms of racial identity." Andre🚐 21:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Flogging a dead horse. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Horse is kickin, and a live WP:NOCON means more discussion. I thought you were retiring, though. Is it that you are retiring from edits, but not editorial oversight? Andre🚐 21:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Also: nay. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In a sense, it's accurate, but it's awfully verbose. I could maybe see "Zionist conceptions of Jewish racial identity", although other editors have objected strongly to "Jewish racial identity". Or maybe "Racial conceptions of Jewishness in Zionism". Similarly, "Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism"; I actually kind of like that one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I like that one too. Andre🚐 22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

De horse is thoroughly flogged but continues to be beaten regardless. Selfstudier (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Well look I mean, clearly you and Nishidani consider the horse dead, but Tryptofish resurrected it and I agree frankly. The title isn't good. That's my humble opinion. Andre🚐 23:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If editors don't want to discuss this on the merits, perhaps they would like to have an extended discussion on why it upsets them to see other editors discuss it on the merits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion but it needs to be something which hasn't been discussed at length already. The situation hasn't really changed, any RM will need to propose a title that has a chance at gaining a consensus and the discussions to date set boundaries on that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't discuss pagenames that have already been discussed and shown to be inadequate, but that doesn't mean that anyone should assume that it's impossible for editors to come up with new and better ideas. And just because there hasn't been consensus for previous ideas about new pagenames, no one should make the logical fallacy of assuming that there is a stable consensus in favor of the existing pagename. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

For WP:CCC, a new RM will be needed. I tried one with a few editors on board and it went nowhere so that's the problem, any significant pushback will result in nocon and we stay where we are, a consensus by default if you like (or inertia). Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You tried an RM and that happened, and then I tried one and the same thing happened, so I very much understand how you feel. I agree, a new RM is the only way to actually effect a change. But it's reasonable to have some preliminary discussion among interested editors before starting a new RM, and uninterested editors need not participate in that if they don't want to. In a sense, we have what could be called a consensus by inertia, in the sense that there has not been a consensus to change to any particular new title, and that means that no one has consensus to simply move the page unilaterally to a new title. But I want to emphasize that this is not a consensus that the existing pagename is OK. A few other potential titles have been discussed, resulting in no consensus. So there isn't an active consensus that those few potential titles were better than the existing name. But nowhere has there been a consensus that the existing name is really good, and every discussion about that has revealed significant dissatisfaction with it among some editors, even while some other editors support it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So, that said, there's an idea for Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism. I like that it gets rid of "race and genetics". I also think it's useful to re-read the lead paragraph of this page, with that possible title in mind. It seems to me that it matches extremely well with the lead paragraph, and actually matches with it better than the existing pagename does. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

While I don't know if it will gain consensus, I'd be interested to try. Andre🚐 17:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Have done, so alerting this thread to continue the discussion in the new RM i started. Andre🚐 18:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for having done so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)