Talk:Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Title

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

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

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

• Zionist eugenics
• Scientific racism in Zionism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both of these have an "and" in the title, although Zionism and Jewish Identity is narrower, perhaps to the point of being "closely related or complementary topics." My concerns about conjoining race and genetics were, of course, shared by people on both sides with the AfD [1], and the second suggestion doesn't address that. Yet what is wrong with this title?

• Zionist thought on race

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

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

• Zionist thought on Jewish identity

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

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

Jewish identity is a much broader topic that goes well beyond what has covered here into other aspects of culture, tradition and belief. See related literature such as [2], so that would be a major change in the scope, not just the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The inverse of a proposition in the present perfect is trivially derived by adding "not" to the auxiliary verb. "Has not". If your "why" is asking why your perception is in error, then [3] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Zionist thought on racial identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tryptofish It's now hard to follow arguments in this section, but more like a biological page about DNA sequences that are common amongst Jewish peoples was not my intention at all, tho i can see how you would feel that way given the current content. Did you see the reviews by Lewontin posted on FTN[4][5]? My suggestion was that in discussing Jewish genetics that Abu El-Haj is necassary background reading, but WP should approach from Lewontin's perspective. Likewise the current content i think is leaving the reader with some distasteful 'essentialist' viewpoint, that it really matters outside some points on the political spectrum how mitochondrial DNA etc. informs the conception of and individual, people, or nation. (that is not Abu El-Haj's argument but she has some difficulty convincing him right?) I absoulutely see the need for the content of this article for the reader's understanding and its abscence in other articles, but by segragting out the content and giving prominence to the debate is the leader left would a skewed perspective on genetics and the ethical and valid applications? fiveby(zero) 16:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Further reflections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article reads elsewhere:

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

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

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

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

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

From our page, before I fixed it: "have reverberated in genetic studies on Jews". [6], [7].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reviewing the literature of this period, Nurit Kirsh concluded that, though working within the framework of international science, the approaches adopted by Israeli geneticists at the time were ‘substantially affected by Zionist ideology’, with its notion that Jews were a non-European race whose purity was conserved despite millennia in diaspora.[85][at][78][86][au]

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

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

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

As does Falk when he writes:

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

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

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

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

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

@Pharos and Crainsaw:

@Fiveby, Bobfrombrockley, Sirfurboy, and Tryptofish:

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

I didn't get ping, probably because you edited in the extra names. [8] - I don't think that works for pings. However I spotted this. My thoughts on an RM are that it would be better if there were a broad agreement about what is best before we launch it, as I worry that a discussion would become bogged down in lots of alternative suggestions. However the RM has to come soon, because any editor can launch one, so if we don't do it ourselves, there will be a drive by attempt sooner or later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed names

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

• Zionist thought on Jewish racial biology

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

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

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

• Zionist thought on race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zionism, race and genetics, vs other topics

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

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

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

See [9], from three weeks ago. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Zionist thought on racial identity

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

Academic publications of Zionism, race and genetics

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

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

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

The goal is to find a title which:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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