Talk:Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism/Archive 3

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

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


 * I don’t understand your argument. The source is an Ivy League professor of Judaic Studies offering a perspective on material cited right above, as well as commenting on the impact of genetic studies on Israeli Law and modern Judaism; much as other sources have, though with actual concrete examples (rather than hypotheticals).
 * The quote from the review you added just quotes from the same source that is already right above. Why not use original thoughts from the review? Quotes from Baker can go in the section for quotes from Baker. Drsmoo (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * I have made precisely one removal of an irrelevant (in the location where it was placed per above comment) cherry picked quote from a single book review. An obviously cherry picked quote from a single review by a non wikilinked author in a non wikilinked journal is not NPOV whereas I note your removal of a second review by a notable author in a notable journal containing material completely relevant to the section in which it was placed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, your argument makes no sense. Satlow is very much relevant, certainly more so than Baker, and the quotation is relevant to the topic outside of its relationship to Baker. The excerpt of the review you posted contained no new information and simply quoted from/paraphrased an existing source. It provided no benefit to the article except to seemingly hide Satlow. You’ve now made three distinct arguments for removing Satlow, and all three are demonstrably incorrect. Drsmoo (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, I kept Satlow and the full quote, merely moving it to a section for book reviews where it would be relevant but you reverted that as well as restoring it to a location where the quote was not relevant and at the same time deleting a wholly relevant review. Nor is adding Satlow to the lead, where it is self evidently undue, a good idea. I will admit to confusing the issue initially, because I mistakenly looked at Satlow's blog post and did not realize that it was a copy from a published source, nevertheless I did not remove it, instead starting this discussion. What is it about that particular quote from a single review of a single book that is so relevant exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The material from Satlow is notable beyond its placement inside of a review of Baker. It is relevant as it directly describes the impact (or lack thereof) of Population Genetics Drsmoo (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And that information is not available elsewhere? In a book or paper about the subject rather than in a book review? Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Satlow material was previously in the Impact section. A scholarly review of a book by a reliable source is reliable. This article currently has a quote in the lead about a criticism of genetic studies that is A. Attributed to the wrong source (so much for reading source material). B. Only found in the lead. Yet it does not have an undue tag. Drsmoo (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's fix that then, point me in the right direction, please. There are so many sources now and the article has been in a state of flux since inception so it is not surprising that there are errors. This is not the sort of thing that usually interests me but in for a penny, in for a pound. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

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

"The second context in which Baker places the pathologized Jew is genomics (104-110, 142-148). There has been an explosion of work on population genetics. Within this work, “Jew” – particularly Ashkenazi Jew – has emerged as a distinct population. While most scientists with whom I have informally talked (including Harry Ostrer and Gil Atzmon, who come under particular critique) believe that the science of population genetics is entirely solid, Baker is suspicious. “Genome biology,” she writes, “has been harnessed to creating and sustaining a Jewish genetic-identity discourse…”(p. 105). Elsewhere, however, Baker seems to retreat: “my interest has been in briefly examining some of the ways in which this new Jew, this genomic Jew, is being constituted both through the measuring, compiling, and comparing of genetic data and through the framing and narrating of the findings thus derived” (p. 109). I am not sure if Baker fully knows what to do with the science of population genetics, but in truth, I am not sure if any of us do. It seems to me that while some on the margins have used it to make ideological claims (whether that Jews don’t really exist, as in Shlomo Sand’s deeply flawed book,9 or that Jews remain relatively “pure”), it has not had an impact on religious law (or the Israeli Law of Return) and remains something of a novelty item in general discourse: look how Jewish I am, my friends announce on Facebook, giving the number from the results of their mail-order genetic analysis. They mean nothing by it except for a laugh." i.e. So the text we had in the lead was an outright example of WP:OR, falsifying the original perhaps through hasty reading, but certainly to the effect of suggesting, that only marginbal scientists have used genetics in this field ideologically.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Source
 * Most scientists are contrasted to Cynthia Baker, a professor of religious studies, not a scientist.
 * Satlow then adds his general opinion: 'while some on the margins use it (science of population genetics) to make ideological claims', themargins does not refer to scientists but to an historian, Shlomo Sand.


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

After the news of this one student’s experience made headlines, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that many Jews from the Former Soviet Union (‘FSU’) are asked to provide DNA confirmation of their Jewish heritage in order to immigrate as Jews and become citizens under Israel’s Law of Return. According to one source, the consul’s procedure, which was:
 * "approved by the legal department of the Interior Ministry, states that a Russian-speaking child born out-of-wedlock is eligible to receive an Israeli immigration visa if the birth was registered before the child turned [three]. Otherwise a DNA test to prove Jewish parentage is necessary."

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

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


 * I don’t see an argument for how this information is OR, or not lead worthy. Drsmoo (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside dueness, I would like to pin down exactly what it is you are relying on Satlow for because it seems possible that the same or at least similar material can be located in a more usual source. If it is something peculiar to only this source, that's different. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you consider an Opinion Paper to be a usual source? Drsmoo (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We regularly remove opinion from contentious articles unless by an acknowledged expert in the subject area, I have not given any consideration as to whether this exemption applies to Satlow and did not initially remove him because of this possibility, even though no wikilink.
 * I would like an answer to my question though, since a well sourced view can be given as fact in WP voice.Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my edit did not mention scientists. So Iskandar323 edited my post to add a reference to scientists, and then you removed the whole thing as OR because of the reference to scientists, is that correct? Drsmoo (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The text as it stood, from whatever combination of edits, was a distortion. I'm not interested in blaming. I'm interested only in the integrity of the article. (2) I gave you a source which shows what you in particular cited Satlow for, was misleading. He had an opinion, which happens not to be correct, since Satlow fails to clarify that a Law of return is one thing, the state's legal interpretation and judicial practices produces a practice which makes the abstract principles of the Law of Return irrelevant. In practice genomics has already influenced immigration policy via government guidelines. We should not be fiddling with the leads over this, particularly in a partisan way (a) because the information given was partial, not the full picture, and (b) per WP:LEDE, we would require a substantial section in the article to warrant summarizing the issue in the lead. For that reason alone, it can't be restored to the lead unless we have a section with several sources on genomics and the Law of Return.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, after 1RR I’ll restore it to the lead and the correct body section per your feedback Drsmoo (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you link me to the 'correct body section'? I can't see what section it is supposed to summarize.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * These two papers are not conflicting, Satlow discusses population genetics. McGonigle's example from Times of Israel is DNA testing to determine a child's parents a DNA test to prove Jewish parentage is necessary, which is well established in many legal systems. fiveby(zero) 18:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No you are wrong on both counts. I agree with Selfstudier's analysis for a different reason. This article has a large body of work by historians of science on genetics and of Zionism. Satlow's paper is a solid synthesis of several directions in the discussion of what constitutes Jewishness and it is concerned with Cynthia Baker's general book Jew. I.e. two specialists in Jewish studies, neither with a science background. Satlow is cited for a statement which is misleading in its simplifications, no doubt an oversight given his general excellence. His input comes from personal talks with two geneticists known for supporting a thesis which other geneticists, and historians of science, contest, in a short paragraph which hardly amounts to a 'discussion of population genetics' (his few notes indicate no familiarity with the large literature on it, but only impressions and anecdotal evidence. Selfstudier is correct that this is not the quality of sourcing the article is striving to maintain. Secondly Fiveby's analogy is just that, an editor's analogy, find for a talk page, but not cogent for determining if Satlow's remark be included or not. It is not a commonplace in legal system the world over to deny citzenship by a DNA criterion. That is what at least one ethnic state requires, but in other legal systems, DNA testing is not about legal entitlement to be a citizen, but about determining paternity or maternity in civil suits. You looked at one primary source, one footnote of 79 used by McGonigle, and deduced that it backs Satlow. So its is a tendentious inference on your part, as well as a personal analogy.
 * The Law of Return was written before genetics began to impose its viewpoints on the debates. (a) Governments have instructed legal offices to require them in a number of cases, and, since 2018, rabbinical courts accept mitochondrial evidence. There are thus 2 different systems now in place, the secular state guidelines and the rabbinical religious guideline. The state in such cases accepts aliya if a parent or grandparent, regardless of sex, is genetically 'Jewish': the religious authorities only accept Jewish identity if the mother is Jewish (and of course, even there, the rule can be ignored if a person or group with zero Jewish ancestry converts). This ia all detailed in McGonicles later book, Chapter 2: The “nature” of Israeli citizenship pp.31-62 of his Genomic Citzenship (2021). In short, in usi9ng Satlow's remark that genetics
 * "has not had an impact on religious law (or the Israeli Law of Return) and remains something of a novelty item in general discourse"
 * three errors are introduced into the lead: (a) it has had an impact on religious law (2018,and the Supreme Court 2020 per McGonigle 22021 pp.32-33 (i.e. Satlow's point is outdated, overrun by developments) and (b) that genetics hasn't had an impact on the Law of Return is a truism only because that law was written in 1950, before molecular biology entered the fray. We know that the Law of return as interpreted in secular legal guidelines has been 'impacted' since 2013 by genetics. Thirdly for McGonigle writing in 2021, it is not a novelty in general discourse
 * "This man's stance on the use of genetics in political action, extreme as it is, ''speaks to the way in which genetics has infiltrated the Israeli popular imagination'.2021 p.32"
 * So, no. If that material is to be restored somewhere, one needs (1) consensus, and (2) a detailed multisourced section on 'Genetics and the Law of Return' where Satlow's equivocal and now dated claim has no place.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't comment on inclusion of Satlow. But you do understand the difference between population genetics and DNA paternity testing? fiveby(zero) 22:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * “His input comes from personal talks with two geneticists”
 * …that is not what he says.
 * ”While most scientists with whom I have informally talked ( including Harry Ostrer and Gil Atzmon, who come under particular critique)8 believe that the science of population genetics is entirely solid, Baker is suspicious.
 * He is including those two, they are not the only ones from which his statement is based. He names them because they are singled out in Baker’s book. And his statement “ it has not had an impact on religious law (or the Israeli Law of Return)” is not “misleading”. It’s a statement of fact. Drsmoo (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gentlepersons. There is still a large body of evidence to be harvested and placed in an orderly exposition for this page. Let's not get bogged down in extenuating arguments over the utility of errant phrasing in dated sources. etc. One cannot construct an article by reading snippets. I'm sure more cogent objections or challenges might come if one read the several major books and articles listed which cover the whole field, as a minimum.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed – this is the key point. If we keep to the absolute highest quality sources only – peer reviewed journals and scholarly monographs, we will not need to have these debates. The nuance that Drsmoo is rightly looking to ensure is properly captured in this article can be found throughout the main sources – if one looks carefully at their work, they are all balanced in their use of words, just as we must continue to strive to be in our article. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, someone's not listening, dumping in the one thing Satlow screws up on with a misleading opinion, presumably because it is thought important because Satlow is notable and teaches at Brown University. All this means is that, since wikipedia should not purvey false information that Satlow's oversight will have to carry a note on DNA and the law of Return.Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the basis for "screws up on with a misleading opinion"? Are you still conflating population genetics and DNA paternity testing? A DNA test to determine a parent or grandparent is not population genetics. fiveby(zero) 12:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't play games. Satlow says
 * "it has not had an impact on religious law (or the Israeli Law of Return) and remains something of a novelty item in general discourse:"
 * I cited the post 2018 evidence of sources which report the impact of genetic arguments on religious law, practical applications of the Law of Return in administrative guidelines of who qualifies as a Jew for aliya and evidence that it is no longer a novelty in general discourse. Read them. Trying to shift the goalposts gets you nowhere. Satlow's remark is outdated, a fossilized opinion. and only of historic interest for Satlow's views.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are still confused, “a DNA test to prove Jewish parentage” is not the same as population genetics. Drsmoo (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Cyril of Alexandria could be called the patron saint of hairsplitting, as he belaboured heretics with what he thought was the art of Aristotelian logic. Tibetan monks recite a prayer to Manjushri before they engage in rtsod pa, which is their equivalent to pilpul, and what we have here is pilpulling one’s leg.


 * Population genetics is the plural of DNA testing: the same analytical technique is used for a plurality of individuals correlated or corralled into ethnic groups for their ostensible allele similarities as is used in individual DNA analysis. You ought to know that if you want to contribute positively to this article. Since it seems you don’t. but ‘frenetise insignificance’, it is pointless to take the above seriously, since you don’t appear to have read past page 1 of McGonigle 2015, or even glanced at his discussion of how the Law of Return was amended to extend citizen rights to the zera Yisrael, ‘the seed of Israel’ which means 23 million people could technically become olim, 9 million beyond those who fit the strict halakhic criterion. Were you  to trouble yourself to google around for information rather than opinions, you would find that Satlow’s view is outdated, incorrect, misleading. The amendment to the law of Return means simply, if you cannot provide  proof of a birth certificate attesting your mother’s Jewishness, if challenged, you do a DNA test to ascertain what is assumed by the scrutiny of a ketubah or whatnot (adultery accounts for 2-8% of extramarital conceptions, depending on the society examined,  a factor ignored consistently here).
 * The DNA test you do individually comes straight from the admixture analysis techniques developed by population genetics.
 * Drop the hairsplitting. Read up on the topic. Doing so allows one to discriminate between off-the-cuff opinionizing in book reviews and serious scholarship by competent area specialists.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please quote the section that details how population genetics, and not paternity tests, are now used in the law of return? Drsmoo (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Read the book. One cannot expect everyone else to plough through books, and do one's work. One cannot ignore the several points showing where Satlow is obscure or misleading just to niggle away at one detail that you may think underminds everything else argued. No pilpul then when serious reading and serious commitment to an article's quality beckons. Reread the thread. If you can't grasp the point, fine.Nishidani (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Satlow isn’t wrong, you are. Drsmoo (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The first principle of seriousness in these matters is to take in that each and everyone of us is liable to error. One cannot argue anything unless the principle of uncertainty is invited to hover over one's judgment. It should become instinctive. That applies also to scholars, but all the more so, to those who would construe and interpret them. I've never seen - it may be a personal defect - you ever backing down from an assertion. But that is neither here nor there. One is entitled to 'stick to one's opinion', but not in the face of public evidence that renders it questionable or immaterial. Please note that of several points I raised about Satlow's passage (and I am an admirer of his scholarship) - the semantic obscurity of the snippet you prize, the question-begging nature of his assertion about the Law of Return, which is challenged by later studies and developments, the fact that his information on the specific theme of population genetics is admittedly anecdotal, picking up things from private conversations with geneticists like Harry Ostrer and Gil Atzmon, one at least of whom entertains a view that numerous geneticists and historians challenge as totally wrongheaded, or  testimony that, contrary to Satlow's aside, population genetic conversations do influence public opinion, -all these points you sedulously sidestep, ignore, talk past, and focus on the idea 'population genetics' to press your point that Satlow's wording  does not mean what I say it means, or fails to signify adequately. It's like entertaining scepticism about Gregor Mendel's theory  because a slight statistical anomaly appears, arguably, to exist in his study of heterozygous/homozygous plants - we call this proverbially, an inability to see the wood for the trees.  Or rather, like admiring an old growth forest's aesthetic mass (Satlow's paragraph overall) while overlooking the ominous presence of one or two examples of  Ailanthus altissima thriving amid the native trees or the knotweed quietly taking  over the undergrowth which forms part of the basal ecosystem of that landscape (analogously, the slipshoddiness of Satlow's generalization here spoils what is otherwise a delightful lecturer-style excursus on the question of Jewish identity).
 * It is, as often, not a Manichean 'he's right, you're wrong' matter. It is simply that the source you like is visibly, when closely construed, obscure so that the author's point-of-view, thus stated, lacks the requisite lucidity, ergo cogency we should demand of texts we cite.Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the quote is dredged out of a book review. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with that, should use best sources. The "seems to me that while some on the margins" is not something to take from a book review, opinions on that should come from a serious work. But it is incorrect to say that population genetics has somehow been incorporated into the Law of Return based on DNA parentage tests. fiveby(zero) 13:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Any careful analysis of the that phrase -"seems to me that while some on the margins"- would show that it is unquotable because (a) a mere personal opinion on a topic the author is unqualified to speak of by his own admission (b) who does some refer to and (c) on the margins of what discipline? (genetics, historiographt per Shlomo Sand). When no one can determine what an outsider kibitzer here means with such a statement, the implication is obvious. It has no encyclopedic value.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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


 * It has been used. The quote in the lead with “being designed or interpreted in the framework of a "Zionist narrative” is from this article but is incorrectly attributed to a different article. The article is also an “Opinion paper” as opposed to a research paper. Drsmoo (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In case of any confusion, an “opinion paper” in a peer reviewed journal is a very different thing to an “opinion piece” in a newspaper. The Journal of Anthropological Sciences, one of the world’s most prestigious anthropological journals, holds opinion papers to the same academic standard and peer review process as its “research papers” – the only difference being that the former does not need to include new primary data, and can be a review of existing scholarship. Most journals publish such papers without specifically calling them opinion papers; this is simply a way of differentiating between primary and secondary types of publication. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Drsmoo. If you note an incorrect citation, and know the real source, the proper thing to do (this is a collaborative enterprise) is either make a corrective edit yourself or alert others who will fix it. Otherwise it just looks like one is storing ammo for later, to machinegun the credibility of the article by a bulleted list whose issues could have been addressed collegially during the work in progress. Kohler's paper is not an 'opinion' unless you underwrite the idea everything is opinionable if the writer is not a nuts-and-bolts scientist. Most of the genetics papers written by scientists, several articles by scholars doing the history state, make historical assumptions for which they have no scientific evidence, and overviews like Burton,. Kohler. Azoulay, Lipphardt etc., serve to contextualize the science in the cultural, national, historical milieux in which they were written.  Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not about “ammo”, just 1RR. It happens to be particularly funny given the meme going around about reading all 8000 pages.Drsmoo (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with IR. Any editor of any persuasion, if notified of an attribution error, would do the edit. It's obligatory. Facinated that there's a meme circulating about someone having read 8000 pages on this. Could you tell me who has managed that remarkable achievement? It's over 4 times what my slow brain has tried to take in these last two weeks or so, or did I miskey 8 for 2? Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Some stuff taken out. Can be reconsidered if thought cogent or indispensable
Nishidani (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Zangwill in 1909 asked, "Whoever heard of a religion that was limited to people of particular breed? Of divine truth that was only true for men of dark complexion?"
 * The name is wrongly transcribed. It is Rubinstein. Amnon Rubinstein has the credentials to speak about law,even at the venerable age of 87, but IsraelHayom is not a respectable RS. This is barrel-scraping, and falls far short of the quality standards applying here.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The name is wrongly transcribed. It is Rubinstein. Amnon Rubinstein has the credentials to speak about law,even at the venerable age of 87, but IsraelHayom is not a respectable RS. This is barrel-scraping, and falls far short of the quality standards applying here.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Title #1
Maybe Zionism and Jewish genetics? Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


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

A discourse emerged
Can somebody find a better word than “discourse” in the opening sentence. What does it even mean? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The second para of the history says "....notable proponents of the idea of a Jewish nation-race included...", I assume that the discourse (discussion, debate, argument) was between them at least. I understand discourse to mean that but if you want to summarize the body differently, go for it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Would "In the late 19th century, a discourse emerged in Zionist thinking seeking to reframe conceptions of" → "Beginning in the late 19th century, Zionist thinking sought to reframe conceptions of" work? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s much more understandable. But it might overstate the case: the “discourse emerged” formulation acknowledges a slow and partial process. I wonder about “some Zionist thinkers sought” or “a current of thought within Zionism emerged which sought”? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * tryptofish's suggestion is worth keeping alive.My editing practice is to write nothing without a source at hand, several preferably. So altering language requires a grounding in sources. 'Some' isd a weasel word. Any familiarity with Herzl and his time, and his collaborators, will tell you that discourse at that time was thoroughly saturated by concepts of race.  Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As discussed above with Drsmoo and in addition mentioned by Sirfurboy, the first and second paras likely both need some work for a final version. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Lipphardt 2012, p. 570
I think this ref has a typo in it - can you confirm what it was intended to be? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's just I forgot to put that item in the bibliography. Check it now. Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Impacts and McGonigle
The "Impacts" section content didn't really seem to match the section title, so i went through McGonigle's Genomic Citizenship. He took an ethnographic look at concepts of citizenship, nation, and genetic in Israel and Qatar; "a book about the relationship between science and identity". He provides an overview and survey much in line with other sources. There's some possible content there, but probably better sources available. His work is looking at NLGIP, talking with geneticists and others to see if the reality matches the rhetoric and mythological imaginings. There is other possible content: resistance to genetic and biological concepts of identity, the 2018 rabbinical courts, etc. So why was it that the particular content was chosen from this source? There are now some 13 quotes in the text 55 in footnotes and 11 in citations. Looks like a real failure to read and summarize sources, and a lot of quote mining to belabor a particular POV. fiveby(zero) 19:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As an ethnographer, I was disappointed by my experience at the NLGIP. In the context of the wide circulation of gene talk and the potential biopolitical role of genetics in Israeli society, I had expected the NLGIP to be replete with research and discourse concerning the genetics of Jews. I was expecting to find work on the genetic nature of the Jewish nation and perhaps also on the genetic basis of a return to Zion. But these expectations were not met. It turned out that the NLGIP is tightly woven into the fabric of Israel’s burgeoning secular technoscience. It is concerned with an unmarked global science and the imagined move toward a future era of precision medicine. The Zionist pioneer at the NLGIP is, rather than a religious-nationalist fanatic, the secular humanist scientist pushing the boundaries of global biomedical progress forward. This is the Zionism of twenty-first-century secular global modernity—in Tel Aviv, global scientific hotbed.
 * Ultimately my expectations for the biobank were supplanted: although the work I observed in the lab depended on certain racial or ethnic categories, I could not identify a clear moment when the framing national context swayed the research in a particular direction or became an identifiable influencing factor in scientific reasoning. This is a crucial ethnographic finding that has relevance for the methodology of studying science and society. It also problematizes the idea of a local “site” when studying the globalized discourses of science. I found that the discursive social life of genetics and Jewish identity vastly exceeds the science that underpins it. In fact, it raises the question of whether credible biological science underpins the imagination of genomic citizenship at all. The “National Laboratory,” I realized, was somewhat like a genetic Holy of Holies: a hollow, empty symbolic space to which is attributed a powerful truth value, coordinating a set of mythical beliefs about the nature of the Jewish nation. Inside the labs, however, there was no Jewish essence to be found. Not only was there no research focus on Jewish origins or the genetics of the Jewish nation, but the work of the biobank and the labs I visited focused predominantly on contemporary trends in biomedicine and an unmarked global rush to precision medicine.


 * It seems like a recurrent problem with this article is that it is organised around an argument rather than a topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You think quotations in a citation summarized in the body is a real failure to read and summarize sources, and a lot of quote mining to belabor a particular POV? Huh.  nableezy  - 18:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is a recurrent problem, then it suffices to identify it more clearly so editors can fix it. I for one don't understand what is meant, in the context of this article, that its organizing principle is 'an argument' rather than a 'topic'. yes I know 'argument' as in 'the argument of this book' means a POV, but the topic of the article is not a personal thesis: it is a reasonable thorough survey of the scholarly literature covering the 'arguments' in a different sense, that emerged when Zionism reformulated Jewish identity in racial terms, and, once Zionism became the dominant voice of Israeli political culture, the way this tradition re-emerged in genetics. A survey is not an argument. This survey studies the arguments in this kind of entangled discursive tradition, following what the scholarship on it does.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "“once Zionism became the dominant voice of Israeli political culture, the way this tradition re-emerged in genetics.”"That is a POV, but it is not a statement of fact, and not a foundation for an article.
 * Wikipedia would need  very  strong and unambiguous consensus to base an article on the claim that a scholarly and sound field of genetic research is actually based on debunked racial pseudoscience. It may be a theory espoused by few, but it can not be the basis of an article unless it is well established that the above actually happened.
 * So far it has been claimed that the quoted sentiment is supported by “dozens” of reliable sources, but no substance to support that has been forthcoming. Drsmoo (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually that is not my POV, as you must know. The words you cite with a shiver of protest paraphrase a truism, repeated a zillion times by the major Zionist organizations since Basel. If you're worried about my reference to this on the talk page, perhaps you'd better fix dozens of articles on wikipedia that actually state that Israel is founded on Zionism, such as, to quote just two:Zionism and Politics of Israel  (shockingly, the latter states:Politics in Israel are dominated by Zionist parties. The rest of what you  ascribe to the article is nonsense. It nowhere states the absurd notion that 'genetic research is actually based on debunked racial pseudoscience'.Nishidani (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion, to clarify: The notion that a “Jewish identity in racial terms”, “re-emerged in genetics” is a POV, but it is not a statement of fact, and not a foundation for an article. Wikipedia would need  very  strong and unambiguous consensus to base an article on the claim that a scholarly and sound field of genetic research (genetic studies on Jews) is actually based on debunked racial pseudoscience. It may be a theory espoused by few, but it can not be the basis of an article unless it is well established that the above actually happened.
 * So far it has been claimed that the quoted sentiment is supported by “dozens” of reliable sources, but no substance to support that has been forthcoming. Drsmoo (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever confusion exists here arises from, I guess, trying to ignore the mass of evidence from scholarship cited on the page, in main text and footnotes, and saying that my talk page comment which summarizes it reflects my POV, and not the results of a vast amount of contemporary scholarship. I think, rather than make an extensive copy of all of these quotes here, I should ask you to (re)read the article, where you will find ample evidence that scholars can speak of the "racialization of Jewish identity"(Egorova). Falk, if you actually take the trouble to read him, speaks of Zionism as 'a national sociocultural doctrine'(Falk 2017 xi) formulated in a period when 'Jewish identity became “biological” . . . in the last decades of the nineteenth century' (Falk 2017 p.xi) when '(t)oward the turn of the twentieth century, .. the Zionist movement granted a kind of approval to the national social alliance of Jews, rather than merely to their traditional religious or cultural uniqueness,' as 'the flood of studies that ascribed to Jews a biological essence as a race swelled.'(Falk 2017 p.29) If you are upset that a 'racial Jewish identity' of the kind developed in early Zionism dragged over into some genetic studies, take it up with the scholars who remarked on this, amply cited here, and not with the hapless amanuensis who duly paraphrased several academic papers on this phenonmenon. This has nothing to do with my POV.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * “take it up with the scholars who remarked on this, amply cited here” The opinion that genetic studies on Jews inherit from racial science, which is the thesis of this article, is not amply cited here, or anywhere. It is SYNTH’d together in this article by different sources saying completely different things. To be clear, there is no preponderance of scholarly work making the claim you are making, and if there were, you would have been able to easily provide it. Drsmoo (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The opinion that genetic studies on Jews inherit from racial science, which is the thesis of this article That's not the thesis.
 * Per the lead. "In more recent times, genetic science generally and Jewish population genetics in particular have been used in support of or opposition to Zionist political goals, including claims of Jewish ethnic unity and descent linked to the biblical Land of Israel." Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, you stubbornly refuse to read the text, or, if you have read it, distort it. The article does not say that 'genetic studies on Jews inherit from racial science'. The article cites several scholars of the discipline of the history of genetics who document that 'genetic studies on Jews' in the post-war period carried over some ideas and suppositions characteristic of earlier race studies on Jews. We quote Falk (2007 p. 154) specifically to this end:'These notions have persisted, though in a thinly disguised mode, in post-Second World War Israel.' Your persistence is making an argument where none exists, unless by conjuring up a phantom idea from twisting words, works only if one ignores the evidence of the scholarship quoted. If you won't accept the evidence, replying seems pointless.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And since you just edited the article, changing 'concluded' to 'writes', what do you make of that quote? I.e.
 * "'the history of the relationship of Zionism and scientific biology, which has made an effort to single out Jews from non-Jews on the one hand, and to unite the distinct Jewish communities on the other hand, provides a problematic case of the utilisation of biological arguments as “evidence” for whatever social, economic, or political notion that has been put forward.'Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)"
 * Arguments over whether the Ashkenazi are primarily of Middle Eastern or European descent, McGonigle argues, fuel fierce controversies in what are the politics of Jewish genetics: if the latter were true, critics of Israel, could find genetic grounds for contesting Zionism as a settler colonial project. That is a very poor summary of McGonigle, who includes much running counter to the narrative being established in the article. To pick that out from the source, yes, i do feel is a failure to read and summarize sources, quote mining, and non-neutral editing. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (a)One quote doesn't make a theory, i.e. citing a paraphrase of McGonigle, one of 80+ sources, doesn't furnish a reason to make the generalization that the article shows a 'failure to read and summarize sources, quote mining, and non-neutral editing.' This is elementary.
 * (b)the point for which McGonigle is quoted is also made by several other sources, it is not unique to him
 * (c) So let's examine whether or not the passage is a poor summary of the source. Our text:-
 * "(i)Arguments over whether the Ashkenazi are primarily of Middle Eastern or European descent, McGonigle argues, fuel fierce controversies in what are the politics of Jewish genetics: if the latter were true, critics of Israel, could find genetic grounds for contesting Zionism as a settler colonial project."
 * The source
 * "(ii)Interest in the topic of Jewish origins is hardly universal among the world’s Jews or the communities in which they live. But in Israel, the stakes of the debate over Jewish origins are high, because the founding narrative of the Israeli state is based on exilic “return.” If European Jews have descended from converts, the Zionist project can be pejoratively categorized as “settler colonialism” pursued under false assumptions, playing into the hands of Israel’s critics and fueling the indignation of the displaced and stateless Palestinian people. The politics of “Jewish genetics” is consequently fierce."
 * If you don't think the article at this precise point (i) represents the text as cited in the footnotes (ii) the simple solution is to offer your own improving paraphrase of the passage, which, on the face of it, cannot be more than a tweak.
 * You shouldn't certainly be jumping on this one item to proffer some 'proof' that the article is a travesty of the sources.
 * I might add that the metaphorical phrasing 'the stakes of the debate . .are high' recurs at least four times in our sources, but I've been striving to keep notes to a minimum, and overlook a mass of points like that for economy.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you misunderstand. Fiveby wasn’t calling out the summation, they were calling out the selective use of citing that section only. The same happened, for example, with Weitzman. One of the only sources that actually does discuss Zionism, race, and genetics, he called out how different the fields are. After originally not being not included, the quote I added was silently removed in it’s entirety, with no edit summary, and reduced only to him making a “similar point” to Falk. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes,"The source" is not the excerpt above but the whole work. I'd like to ask Nishidani if you do have access to the full work beyond the Google preview, for instance chapter 6 and what he says is the ...ultimate lesson from my ethnographic work in Israel.? If so, what is the reasoning behind picking this one particular statement out as opposed to all the other content which tends to contradict the article narrative? fiveby(zero) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all so predictable, AfD, doesn't work, so trash the title, doesn't work either, so trash the sources, question editor motives, etcetera. Edit the article so as to add balance if that's all that's needed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "The epistemics of Jewish genetics fall short of its mythic circulatory semiotics. This is the ultimate lesson from my ethnographic work in Israel."
 * What has it to do with anything? Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't misunderstood anything. All citations are 'selective' by definition.
 * I've been professionally trained in two distinct disciplines where you are taught to read masses of material, often translate it, and make paraphrases, before venturing beyond. (Of course I have McGonigle's Genomic Citizenship and have read chapter 6 pp.143-158. Selfstudier's quote above comes from p.150. If you don't believe me, ask me to quote the first passage of any page chosen at random, in that book)
 * Now, rule of thumb when you do this comprehensive reading: use index cards to note, over say 30 or 50 books and a 100 articles, content under thematic headings. The other day, my nephew finally retrieved from storage our uncle's files on Aristotle, two boxes, about a yard of cards indexing by book and theme everything he read in six languages on Aristotelian logic. Do people do this anymore? Apparently no. No doubt computers, and googling for keywords, has changed all this, but I for one can't shake the habit, so that I indexed, among scores of others, a theme, 'zionism, race/genetics, political repercussions'. When I came to write that paragraph, I simple gave some samples from that index's listing of sources and their pages touching on that aspect, reread them, and paraphrased. So, to ask me, when I added McGonigle p.36 under that heading, along with the others, 'but what about the whole book?' I fail to understand what your point is. I'm tempted to think you haven't a clue about how these things are done. perhaps I'm wrong. One simply, in the world of scholarly practice, does the above. It utterly misses the point of topical citation. Any of the 80+ sources, if you read them, are 'bespate' (I've been thinking of Browning's Child Roland) with passages like:
 * "whether Jews constituted a single race or ethnicity and whether their present genetic traits represented those of the biblical Israelites (see, for example, Efron 1994; Hart 1999; Steinweis 2006; Hirsch 2009; Falk 2017) Burton 2022"
 * Or more cogently for the precise context of that passage:
 * "Nevertheless, scholars coming from the perspective of social sciences and humanities disciplines have suggested that this work indicates a worrying trend in DNA research, as they appear to naturalise social and cultural differences (Abu El-Haj 2007, Palmie 2007, Palsson 2007, Reardon 2005, Simpson 2000, Skinner 2006, Smart et al 2008) Egorova 2011"
 * All that paragraph does is register several comments in the sources which all deal with aspects of a perceived 'worrying trend' in genetics, and that is what McGonigle p.36 is cited for.
 * It's called methodology. No cite represents a whole book or article. It represents what it is cited for. I thought everyone who reads knows that. Apparently I'm wrong. Wikipedia talkpages never fail to surprise.
 * Since you appear not to have the book, you may be interested in p.52., which like loads from other sources, I don't quote in order not to burden the article:
 * "In brief, Israeli Jews’ imagination of a unified Jewish race has its roots in European diaspora host nations, twentieth-century biology, and essentialist nationalist imaginaries. Addressing the ways in which Jewish race science has transformed, and reemerged, in the twenty- first century, anthropologist of medicine Susan Kahn has identified three key ways in which Jewishness has now entered the molecular realm, with genes being defined as Jewish in three major ways: population genetics, genetic testing for both disease and Jewish identity, and human ova and sperm donation in the domain of assisted conception (2010, 21). In these different conceptual arenas, “Jewish genes” and Jewish inheritance are determined in markedly different ways."
 * It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see, then what does not match a theme, 'zionism, race/genetics, political repercussions', where he finds generally the opposite is then excluded. ok. fiveby(zero) 21:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * fiveby, that is not what Nishidani wrote above, and frankly is disappointingly rude in the context of his 600-word effort to address your concerns.
 * I started writing a response to your 30 July post about McGonigle when you first wrote it, but got distracted before I submitted it. I also have read his whole book, and his 2018 PhD thesis. I found, and find, your implied suggestion that the thrust of McGonigle's work has been misrepresented to be incomprehensible.
 * You are presumably focused on McGonigle's (frankly, misplaced) surprise that biobanks are scientific (and financial) rather than nationalist organizations:
 * I was expecting to find work on the genetic nature of the Jewish nation and perhaps also on the genetic basis of a return to Zion... Inside the labs, however, there was no Jewish essence to be found. Not only was there no research focus on Jewish origins or the genetics of the Jewish nation, but the work of the biobank and the labs I visited focused predominantly on contemporary trends in biomedicine and an unmarked global rush to precision medicine.
 * Yet in the very same excerpts he writes:
 * I found that the discursive social life of genetics and Jewish identity vastly exceeds the science that underpins it. In fact, it raises the question of whether credible biological science underpins the imagination of genomic citizenship at all. The “National Laboratory,” I realized, was somewhat like a genetic Holy of Holies: a hollow, empty symbolic space to which is attributed a powerful truth value, coordinating a set of mythical beliefs about the nature of the Jewish nation.
 * What he is saying here, in this excerpt that you personally provided as supposedly-opposing evidence, is about how politics and propaganda extrapolate science in this topic area. This is right at the very core of this article. It is what all the other scholars are saying, from Abu El-Haj, to Burton, to Falk, etc etc. And he explains what he means here throughout the rest of his monograph. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * so you don't just need to take it from other editors here, I suggest you read the 15-page detailed review of McGonigle's book by Dr. Snait Gissis of Tel Aviv University, in our bibliography entitled: "Is nationalizing universalizing and/or vice‐versa?". It is a comparative review together with Burton's book.
 * In her concluding comments on p.13, Dr. Gissis writes of McGonigle's and Burton's works:
 * She continues with further detail - it is well worth reading. This exact topic is the core of this Wikipedia article.
 * Sorry it took me a week to write this, as we could have saved a lot of time. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've stated multiple times that the content is valuable, and missing from other articles. The 'Genomic Citizenship' of McGonigle and other concepts are not unique to Israel yet of particular importance to what is hotly debated in some quarters due to the founding history. No need to reiterate on the talk page. In my opinion, and what i would hope would be that of a encyclopedia article would be that race science and the misappropriation of genetics is fundamentally flawed at the outset. McGonigle is very concerned with the ethical application of genetics, and has some useful content. But look at what is selected for use: Arguments over whether the Ashkenazi are primarily of Middle Eastern or European descent, McGonigle argues, fuel fierce controversies in what are the politics of Jewish genetics: were the Ashkenazi to turn out to be descendants of converts of European origin, he continues, critics of Israel could find genetic grounds for contesting Zionism as a settler colonial project. The conclusion of the article. He does not 'argue' this in the sense implied as an 'impact' but is pointing out another side of the fundamentally invalid debate. The content looks like it was chosen to get "settler colonialism" (where i notice the quotation marks have been removed and no longer a "pejorative categorization") into the conclusion as an "impact". The narrative of the article and focus of editing appears to be engage in exactly the manner he calls out. It looks like you are  trying to "find genetic grounds for contesting Zionism as a settler colonialism pursued under false assumptions". fiveby(zero) 17:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not really bothered about the "settler colonialism" aspect, we have an article for that, Zionism as settler colonialism and it can go in there. Whether there are or not "genetic grounds", there is absolutely no need for them in order to advance that thesis.
 * If this is the sum total of your objections to this article, it is easily resolved. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You made that point several times, and were comprehensively answered. No need to restate it. This is about what 80+ sources discuss, not about one quote from McGonigle. By all means suggest a further tweak to that single item among 200 sourced items. 'pejorative connotation' could be added as 'negative implication' for instance.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is consensus to fix that point - please feel free to be bold. Any other points like this which you think require amendment to achieve full balance, please do make the changes. I think everyone here wants the article to be 100% neutral. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The same with Weitzman, where he offered a detailed examination of the differences between race science and genetics, which was first omitted, and then after I added it, removed with no edit summary. Drsmoo (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned that twice. I don't know how that happened, and I never have the time to do diff searches to find who did this or that. I don't know how to do that quickly and it takes me an inordinate amount of time to do so, time stolen from serious reading. I do distinctly remember using an edit summary announcing I was trimming Weitzman's quote under Falk to make them closer in length, and that I would reintroduce what i excerpted, in another place. Apparently I never got round to that. Any reader might read into that two possibilities (a) I'm a POV pushing swine stealthily ensuring stuff that upsets my perceived (anti-Israeli) POV doesn't get a hearing, or that exhaustion (this month ended up with flashes in my eye, and perhaps retinal problems, some days ago) and the natural disattention of an ageing mind are responsible. I know that the latter explanation fits better, but I don't deny independent minds the right to prefer the former hypothesis. No one is a complete master of the unconscious.Nishidani (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It would lead us too far afield to expatiate on the point in McGonigle's book which Onceinawhile eloquently makes, the conflicting vectors between the politics of nativist nationalism and hi-techn start-ups, which are driven by market forces. Nishidani (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed the various quotes of Weitzman that Drsmoo added to the article some time ago and felt that they stopped in a misleading place. Weitzman explores all directions of the topic at the heart of this article, and the additional angles that Drsmoo added are valuable in that regard. But Weitzman's conclusion on the topic is on pages 324-325:
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, cherry picking quotes to push a POV is a theme throughout this entire article Drsmoo (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, cherry picking quotes to push a POV is a theme throughout this entire article Drsmoo (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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


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

Of course these topics are related, and they are also related to what should be a more science-oriented article on Genetic studies on Jews, but I think they work better as distinct articles. Pharos (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for both reading carefully the article and for your suggestion. There is a discussion above where, so far, a large majority of talk page watchers think anything might do as a title, so long as 'race' is never mentioned, even though as you perceive race in Zionism is what all of the 80+ sources focus on. Your suggestion perfectly parallels the distinction we make by having two articles regarding Race and the United States

Both are twice as long as this article, and more heavily footnoted, as one would expect.
 * Racism in the United States That is not about ideology as much as historical practice.
 * Race and ethnicity in the United States This is about ethnic divisions in the United States.
 * This article appears to have arisen when editors at Genetic studies on Jews expressed their dislike of any historical or non-scientific matter being included there. The particular form it takes is that of tracing the genealogy of a concept. It would be a very difficult task - I think impossible - at the present state of knowledge and scholarship to write something on the Origin of Jewish ethnic divisions. At the moment we just have an article classifying them, Jewish ethnic divisions. It could be improved by a sister article describing how these ethnic distinction arose historically, but that would command another and rather intricate historical survey of the rise of historical terminology for the taxonomy within Judaism, and would have nothing to do with Zionism, or 'race'. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * anything might do as a title, so long as 'race' is never mentioned - Again you mischaracterise and misread the discussion. The only person who raised any significant objections to Zionist thought on racial identity was yourself. Also, you can't have it both ways: talk page watchers is a bad faith description of those who are giving you the space that you asked for to develop the article. Until you are talking to us and not past us, a meeting of minds is impossible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not clear that we want an article that is something of a spinout from Who is a Jew? (which itself is proposed for merger with Jewish identity). The question of who is talking past who is an open one I think. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding “space to write”, that seems like a bad case of WP:OWN
 * Collaboration first Drsmoo (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The only thing I see minded here is that the simple, most concise title we have for the content of the article, Zionism, race and genetics has generated a massive flow of deletion discussions and talk, most of it prepossessed to find some alternative wording, all proposals for which exclude one of the three terms. It is extraordinary to me that so much ingenuity can be expended for a month when no one finds anything problematical about such articles as Race and ethnicity in the United States.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be "Jewish race", not just race. Ditto "Jewish genetics". And the Zionist take on those things over time. It's not obvious from the current title that's what is meant. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would strongly protest against any title mentioning the 'Jewish race'. We are dealing with a sociocultural and ideological construction, not a reality. Genetics about Jews are not therefore 'Jewish genetics' (an ambiguous phrase in any case). Jews were the object and subjects of a huge amount of thinking, conducted by ethnologists, scientists, anthropologists, social scientists, historians of every description all over Europe, regardless of ethnicity.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Myth of the Jewish Race (isbn 9781611460339), right? Still, that's what it is about, not race in general. And not genetics in general. Selfstudier (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Discourse on Jews furnishes the palmary example in Western history of how stereotypes fuel enmity to the point where slurs and clichés, that your historical average man-in-the-street takes as the smart quipping of social backchat, of short-hand joshing, or abuse, under the right ideological conditions and social hysteria, can precipitate beyond control to a warrant for genocide, and a quiet bystanderish complicity in mass murder. And this was possible because a vast, intricate mosaic of multifarious cultures and communities, often with little other than a shared ritual language and common stories drawn from biblical thematics and narratives of social parlousness passed on through folk memory, was all put into a churn, ground down, mish-mashed, into 'the Jew', an essence, and ontology reft of nuance, gutted of that historical variety in continuity that is the hallmark of the immensely complicated world of individualities which make up Judaism. So to tell the full story of how even Jewish accommodations to the rhetorical sciences of the majority in whose bosom they strove to be accepted, of how suited in the narrative straightjacket of Western science, they did their best to cut the cloth of the straightjacket in a way that would fit the sartorial thinking of the times, and make them suitable interlocutors for the non-Jewish, racially-minded  masters of their world, is important. The story has a tragic twist in the way Zionism sought to meet anti-Semites on their own ground, by transforming an identity based on a je ne said quoi sensibility combining religion and culture, and, asserting that Jews were a race, had, by virtue of that, a right to self-determination by expatriation from Europe. The Holocaust wiped out one of the most vital folk civilizations in history, and under Zionist direction, the 'Jew' was reconstituted in Israel. But no one can shake off the past, and Zionism, which is ideologically thin, as opposed to tactically rich, carried over a positive conceptualization of race because the symbolic evocativeness instinct in the notion of a redemptive 'return' to one's ancestral lands, and the recreation of an identity, a 'Maccabean' people equal to those of the forefathers in the deep past and one capable of defending themselves collectively, had a persuasiveness few could deny.
 * What Doron and others picked up, drew scholarly attention because of a crisis internal to the Ashkenazi elite, and gave urgency to the need to ground Jewish identity firmly in a science compatible with modernity, in genetic evidence that would prove Jewishness had an ineludible biological substrate, which, while Jews themselves could never concur on what constitutes being a Jew (that, and it is true of all ethnicities, is ineffable), science could establish an empirical benchmark for that otherwise secure yet indefinable sense of communal identity. Yet all these endeavours lead to haziness, indeterminacy, partial insights and politicval constraints or liabilities that have failed to resolve the riddle: it's a riddle because the question is a dubious one in the first place. (Were I a Jew and some one asked me to define what being a Jew is, I would reply, 'None of your (effing) business' and reach for another beer.) Schaffer writes that after a half-century of strenuous research and thinking, anideological intransigence in all parties to the dispute persists, and that 'discussions of this nature are unlikely to come to synthesis any time soon and instead are destined to remain bogged down in religious dogma and political agendas' (Schaffer 2010:76).
 * I apologize to the page for this excursus but something like that cannot be avoided now that I am (give me until midday tomorrow) close to finishing my rewrite after wading this last month through so much scholarship dedicated, precisely, to 'Zionism, race and genetics'. That is the natural title for an historical actor (the ideology), the topical focus (the myth of race) and the technology of modern research used to reformulate the discarded and discredited myth (the science of genetics). It is a fascinating byway, when all three strands are shown, to use Ostrer's metaphor, to make a recurrent pattern, a weave in the tapesty of just one of many stories of Jewishness that has persisted for nearly a century and a half. Take anyone weave out of the loom, and the narrative carpet will be duller. Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nishidani about “Jewish race” being a bad phrase. I agree with Pharos that this is two articles and roughly agree with the first, but the second is definitely not what it’s about. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the only way out of using the current terms is the way out used in Falk's Zionism and the biology of the Jews - I imagine that this title was arrived at through a highly similar process of editorial discourse as we are seeing play out in the discussions on this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I cannot see any issue with using race (or "Jewish race" for clarity) as part of the title because the article is completely clear about that. The genetics bit is a transition from the earlier theories and less clear so if we are going to do away with something then I would rather do away with that part (in the title, not in the article). The continuing claims of synth or shortage of sourcing are complete bunkum. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We live, in discourse on this, in a resonantly contaminated world. The choice of the primary editor here, Onceinawhile, to avoid 'Jews/Jewish' in the title remains wise. Zionism is a particular movement within the modern Jewish world, and though, once successful in forming a nationstate, Zionist leaders have tried to make Zionism synonymous with Judaism or the Jewish people, the distinction between an ideology and people is fundamental. We don't speak of the 'Russian race' or 'Chinese race' or the 'white race', though there is a substantial, if long negelected, literature on each of these topics, now revived in the respective fields because when you don't master the past, as the germans put it, it comes back to haunt you, as we see under Putin or recent Chinese re-evocations of the racial character of the majority Han people (mínzú.民族), a term inflected in modern times by Western racial theories.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I totally agree here. (But am not familiar with the concept of “primary editor”.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My second suggestion isn't what the current article is about, but to fill a lacuna on Wikipedia that's been recognized by the article creators. My philosophy is go for article titles that apply to other topics too, for example Socialism/Liberalism/Fascism and race would all be appropriate articles with lots of potential sources. As to fulfilling the other part of what this article is actually about now, I would suggest Nationalism and genetics, which of course can include examples from individual nationalisms. Pharos (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As someone who wrote a well-received monograph on a nationalist ideology, continuously in print till I stopped its republication (it's dated in my view), I can't but agree. The problem you pose is technical: in the rewrite I have tried to boil down a massive literature to readable length, aiming not to go beyond the ideal length proposed for wiki articles. I think we're about 15% over that rarely observed limit. considering the main text and excluding the footnotes, and even then, much that might go in has been withheld. This is just on the very narrow focus adopted in the provisory title. To me  Nationalism and genetics would be a fascinating article to serve as the mother for what we have, but that would require, if adequately comparative in scope and focus, at least three times the length we have dealing with just this one case. Content writers who have the leisure and means to tackle from go to woe a topic are relatively hard to come by on wikipedia. Personally, I have limited time and a mass of interests, each of which must be sacrificed when I get absorbed in just one article or one topic area. If this demanded a month, the topic you propose would call for at least three to outline the basics, kicking aside the piles off books, thematically sorted, which I hope to read, and perhaps even write about. One gets selfish in old age.Nishidani (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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