Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zionism, race and genetics: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:04, 11 July 2023 editජපස (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,448 edits →Zionism, race and genetics Tag: 2017 wikitext editor ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:16, 11 July 2023 edit undoNishidani (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,504 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:::::Your comment above dismissing the SIGCOV was made within 1 minute of being shown the sources. You are expected to try to read them before commenting on them. ] (]) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		:::::Your comment above dismissing the SIGCOV was made within 1 minute of being shown the sources. You are expected to try to read them before commenting on them. ] (]) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::You think I didn't go through the sources at your article already? You think this is the first I'm seeing your list? Please, don't flatter yourself in thinking that because you've looked at timestamps you are somehow clever. I've done my due diligence. You have not. ] (]) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		:::::::You think I didn't go through the sources at your article already? You think this is the first I'm seeing your list? Please, don't flatter yourself in thinking that because you've looked at timestamps you are somehow clever. I've done my due diligence. You have not. ] (]) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes, I know you didn't go through the sources, and you are fudging. One fundamental text on this in the bibliography, on its own, runs to 416 pages. It took me 3 days to read that closely, some years ago. So no, you have not read the sources.] (]) 20:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Form a research programme? Huh? What do you mean? The only aim here is to produce a page on a pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources. That the page title contains three words that you perceive as three separate subjects is incidental. There was already a discussion raised about whether the title was apt; one that you could have participated in. There are several ways on which the article could probably be phrased as just two things, if that is your peccadillo. It could just as equally have been named 'Zionism and race science' or 'Zionism and racial politics'. These would both have been dualistic titles for much the same material already presented. That the title as it stands uses three terms is by-the-by, and if that is your only complaint then it is a naming issue, not a notability one. ] (]) 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		:::::Form a research programme? Huh? What do you mean? The only aim here is to produce a page on a pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources. That the page title contains three words that you perceive as three separate subjects is incidental. There was already a discussion raised about whether the title was apt; one that you could have participated in. There are several ways on which the article could probably be phrased as just two things, if that is your peccadillo. It could just as equally have been named 'Zionism and race science' or 'Zionism and racial politics'. These would both have been dualistic titles for much the same material already presented. That the title as it stands uses three terms is by-the-by, and if that is your only complaint then it is a naming issue, not a notability one. ] (]) 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
	::::::{{tq\|pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources}} No one has demonstrated that the subject ''as stated in the title of the article'' exists! It is bizarre that you think it does. As I stated above, compound topics ''themselves'' are fraught. The ones you are describing are somewhat less problematic than the identified synthetic subject of this article, but I have a hard time imagining any of them being legitimate research topics either. BLANK and BLANK typically are not the kind of things Misplaced Pages hosts because they are necessarily ]. Only when that synthesis is recognized ''as a synthesis'' do we host articles on the subject. I see no sources which identify these two topics (e.g. ] and "]" (shudder)) as topics that are studied ''as a pair''. ] (]) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		::::::{{tq\|pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources}} No one has demonstrated that the subject ''as stated in the title of the article'' exists! It is bizarre that you think it does. As I stated above, compound topics ''themselves'' are fraught. The ones you are describing are somewhat less problematic than the identified synthetic subject of this article, but I have a hard time imagining any of them being legitimate research topics either. BLANK and BLANK typically are not the kind of things Misplaced Pages hosts because they are necessarily ]. Only when that synthesis is recognized ''as a synthesis'' do we host articles on the subject. I see no sources which identify these two topics (e.g. ] and "]" (shudder)) as topics that are studied ''as a pair''. ] (]) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:16, 11 July 2023

Zionism, race and genetics

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Oh my, this article is ostensibly on a triply compound topic Zionism, race (human categorization) and genetics. Wow. To be clear, doubly compound topics in Misplaced Pages have had a history of being interrogated carefully. Only when there are significant and serious treatments which identify a compound topic as significantly addressed as a topic in reliable sources (Science and technology studies, for example) do we ever have a way for Misplaced Pages's intentionally conservative and non-innovative reference machinery to document the subject. In this case, the article reads a lot like a original research program that is not indicative of active tripartite treatments combining these three subjects. As such, the article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. It is not for Misplaced Pages. jps (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Biology, and Israel. jps (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment For WP:SIGCOV see, for example:

List of sources
Baker, Cynthia M. (2017). "Zionism's New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew". Jew. Key Words in Jewish Studies. Rutgers University Press. pp. 99–110. ISBN 978-0-813-57386-1. Retrieved 2023-07-10. Burton, Elise K. (2021). Genetic Crossroads: The Middle East and the Science of Human Heredity. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-503-61457-4. Retrieved 2023-07-08. Efron, John M. (1994). "Zionism and Racial Anthropology". Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-siècle Europe. Yale University Press. pp. 123–174. ISBN 978-0-300-05440-8. Falk, Raphael (2017). Zionism and the Biology of Jews. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-57345-8. Hirsch, Dafna (2009). "Zionist eugenics, mixed marriage, and the creation of a 'new Jewish type'". Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute . 15 (3): 592–609. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2009.01575.x.

List of sources

Baker, Cynthia M. (2017). "Zionism's New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew". Jew. Key Words in Jewish Studies. Rutgers University Press. pp. 99–110. ISBN 978-0-813-57386-1. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
Burton, Elise K. (2021). Genetic Crossroads: The Middle East and the Science of Human Heredity. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-503-61457-4. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
Efron, John M. (1994). "Zionism and Racial Anthropology". Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-siècle Europe. Yale University Press. pp. 123–174. ISBN 978-0-300-05440-8.
Falk, Raphael (2017). Zionism and the Biology of Jews. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-57345-8.
Hirsch, Dafna (2009). "Zionist eugenics, mixed marriage, and the creation of a 'new Jewish type'". Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute . 15 (3): 592–609. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2009.01575.x.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

None of those sources discusses a tripartite project called "Zionism, race, and genetics". None of them. What possesses you to think otherwise? jps (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Why does there have to be a tripartite project? Whatever that is. Anyway

Abu El-Haj, Nadia (2012). The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology. Chicago Studies in Practices of Meaning. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-20142-9. Retrieved 2023-07-08.

Discusses all three elements.

Quote from the source
"As I argue through a reading of scientific studies of “the genetics of the Jews” published in the 1950s and 1960s, while Zionism presumed the existence of the Jewish people, the founding of the Jewish state put that ideological commitment to the test. What is evident in the work in Israeli population genetics is a desire to identify biological evidence for the presumption of a common Jewish peoplehood whose truth was hard to “see,” especially in the face of the arrival of oriental Jews whose presumably visible civilizational and phenotypic differences from the Ashkenazi elite strained the nationalist ideology upon which the state was founded. Testament to the legacy of racial thought in giving form to a Zionist vision of Jewish peoplehood by the mid-twentieth century, Israeli population researchers never doubted that biological facts of a shared origin did indeed exist, even as finding those facts remained forever elusive."

Quote from the source

"As I argue through a reading of scientific studies of “the genetics of the Jews” published in the 1950s and 1960s, while Zionism presumed the existence of the Jewish people, the founding of the Jewish state put that ideological commitment to the test. What is evident in the work in Israeli population genetics is a desire to identify biological evidence for the presumption of a common Jewish peoplehood whose truth was hard to “see,” especially in the face of the arrival of oriental Jews whose presumably visible civilizational and phenotypic differences from the Ashkenazi elite strained the nationalist ideology upon which the state was founded. Testament to the legacy of racial thought in giving form to a Zionist vision of Jewish peoplehood by the mid-twentieth century, Israeli population researchers never doubted that biological facts of a shared origin did indeed exist, even as finding those facts remained forever elusive."

Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There has to be a tripartite project because that is the subject of the article! Wow! What are you doing here? Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT for novel research projects like this. The quote you include indicates nothing about there being a coherent subject called "Zionism, race, and genetics". In fact, I see instead an analysis that may be relevant to any number of articles we have at Misplaced Pages that are about genetics, Judaism, Israel, Zionism, etc. But this particular combination of three subjects is absolutely an attempt to shoehorn a thesis that these three subjects are somehow able to combine to form a legitimate research program. The very sources y'all are trying to cite say nothing about that, and this one doesn't either. jps (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your comment above dismissing the SIGCOV was made within 1 minute of being shown the sources. You are expected to try to read them before commenting on them. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You think I didn't go through the sources at your article already? You think this is the first I'm seeing your list? Please, don't flatter yourself in thinking that because you've looked at timestamps you are somehow clever. I've done my due diligence. You have not. jps (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know you didn't go through the sources, and you are fudging. One fundamental text on this in the bibliography, on its own, runs to 416 pages. It took me 3 days to read that closely, some years ago. So no, you have not read the sources.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Form a research programme? Huh? What do you mean? The only aim here is to produce a page on a pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources. That the page title contains three words that you perceive as three separate subjects is incidental. There was already a discussion raised about whether the title was apt; one that you could have participated in. There are several ways on which the article could probably be phrased as just two things, if that is your peccadillo. It could just as equally have been named 'Zionism and race science' or 'Zionism and racial politics'. These would both have been dualistic titles for much the same material already presented. That the title as it stands uses three terms is by-the-by, and if that is your only complaint then it is a naming issue, not a notability one. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources No one has demonstrated that the subject as stated in the title of the article exists! It is bizarre that you think it does. As I stated above, compound topics themselves are fraught. The ones you are describing are somewhat less problematic than the identified synthetic subject of this article, but I have a hard time imagining any of them being legitimate research topics either. BLANK and BLANK typically are not the kind of things Misplaced Pages hosts because they are necessarily syntheses of two topics. Only when that synthesis is recognized as a synthesis do we host articles on the subject. I see no sources which identify these two topics (e.g. Zionism and "race science" (shudder)) as topics that are studied as a pair. jps (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want to deal with the racial politics surrounding Zionism, a good place to start would be to work on Anti-Zionism#Allegations_of_racism. You could use the sources here. You could help improve that space. Maybe it would expand greatly. Then you could then spin-out an article from that section. That's not what is going on here. jps (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This morning I created a list of egregious issues with this article Talk:Zionism, race and genetics#List of Egregious article issues

The article is a collection of cherry picked sources WP:SYNTHd together to push a POV narrative. It disparages the work of prominent researchers by claiming they have a “Zionist agenda”, which appears to be the insinuated thesis of the article. It completely ignores findings of mainstream research and only highlights research that pushes a non-mainstream POV of disputing Jewish genetic studies. Drsmoo (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete - per nom.'s thorough analysis, and looking at the page content, it is full of SYNTH. This is textbook SYNTH, and a neutral encyclopaedic article is not going to fly based on this proposed synthesis of subjects. The appropriate place to encyclopaedically discuss this subject would be Zionism, which page does have a short section on ethnic unity. That seems appropriate, but there seems to be no good reason to spin that short section out into a full article, and then to add in race and make genetics part of the head subject. As things stand, SYNTH is baked in, and the only solution is deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. And per WP:IAR, as even if it could be shown that this questionable conflation of three different topics is actually 'notable' per Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, the chances of an actual encyclopaedic article coming out of it seem statistically indistinguishable from zero. The inevitable fate, should this whatever-it-is be kept, is it to become a permanent battleground for POV-pushers of all persuasions. If people want to fight amongst themselves over controversial conflations (I'm sure some do), they should find somewhere else to do it. Save the article-space-as-battleground perpetual bunfights for the topics an actual encyclopaedia might consider worth covering. This isn't. It isn't a single topic. It is an argument over at least three different things - two of which only exist in people's heads - over which there is no possibility of agreement over scope, over legitimate sources, or over what the hell it all means anyway. We are under no obligation to provide an arena for article-warfare, and shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories: