Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Khan

Munir Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable criminal; nothing found about the individual. What's given here for sourcing is simply confirmation of the arrest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article was created for POV anyway. I concur with above. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable fraudster. The original version of the article [15] shows a pretty clear attempt at a promotional article. Given other articles created here and on Simple, article creator is quite probably a
  undeclared paid editor. Ravensfire (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per our rules because the sources establish this person is clearly notable. Comment enjoy keeping because the subject and his paid editor will rue the day they created this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG as a notable health fraud. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a dispute about the notability of this individual whose notability rests on being a fraudster.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking notable fraudster to me per the sources provided in the article. Googling Munir Khan fraud reveals [16], [17], [18] [19]. Okoslavia (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes
  WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. And, sorry to say this, Phil, but that ring! Wow, that was mighty impressive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swa Diamonds

Swa Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable business, the award won does not appear significant. Poor sourcing otherwise, nothing found we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking significant and reliable coverage. Guinness World Records holders are not inherently notable. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 17:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

1. They have 150 stores all over India now. It's been reported by Fashion Network when they reported about their store opening in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
2. I have removed the sentence about the award as per oaktree b's input.
3. As you well know, the Guinness World Records is not insignificant(I have included the links from Guinness world records themselves, and media outlets like CNN, Fox Business, etc.). After I removed the 'Swadesh National Award', I believe the article stands.
4. The article only has 4 sentences now, with 9 links for citation.

I request you to reconsider the nomination for deletion.

--Libinthathappilly (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider Guinness Records notable, as you can pay to have them certify your "record". Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have only added details that are factual. I believe the language is neutral. And have provided several relevant citations from- including and not limited to - CNN, Guinness Book of Records official website, fox business, International Gemological institute, and several Indian news and articles. I don't understand what the issue is, and the reason for nomination for deletion. Please tell me what it is. They are a credible start up brand from Kerala, India who created a Guinness record winning ring. A growing startup business from a small city in a small state of India, who garnered international media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libinthathappilly (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. Plus, if this discussion is closed as a Soft Deletion, I imagine it will be immediately restored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry informing them of this discussion.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My search for reliable sources to prove notability come up empty except for that big diamond ring. Maybe we should have an article about the ring instead of the company.

@Libinthathappilly, I understand your assertion that the company should be notable - I think with 150 stores it should be, too. But Wikipedia needs in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet our requirements to prove a business's notability. Why? It's all about reliability. Wikipedia requires that kind of in-depth reliable coverage to make sure we produce a quality, neutral article. So Wikipedia requires we prove the company is notable in order to keep the article. Here are the relevant rules:

• Wikipedia:Notability - general rules
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Read over these. If we get good references we can keep this article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Phil Bridger (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A Google Books search only seems to find coverage of diamonds from Namibia, which used to be known as South-West Africa (SWA). A Google News search excluding the publicity stunt just shows me one press release and two passing mentions in lists.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Benika Bisht

Benika Bisht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable actress, only having minor roles in a few productions, no sources found to support keeping the article Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the article Benika Bisht as it is posted from reliable sources.. I have added many other sources as references that I could found. Please improve the article, don't delete it. 116.206.202.14 (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable actress that has only had minor roles in notable productions. Fails
  WP:NACTOR. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Oh my, this article is ostensibly on a triply compound topic

• 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)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For
  WP:SIGCOV
  see, for example:

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

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)[reply]

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

ISBN 978-0-226-20142-9

. Retrieved 2023-07-08.

Discusses all three elements per quote below:-

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

There has to be a tripartite project because that is the subject of the article! Wow! What are you doing here? Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's not how this works. You can look at the books and the chapters and even do a quick search through those texts that are scanned for relevant sections. If we want to write an entire article on a subject, it should be absolutely apparent at a glance that there is something there. There isn't. You have to strain to come up with a quote that combines all three subjects at once. They just aren't in those books in a serious fashion. If they were, they'd be obvious and easy to point to. jps (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani and ජපස: Can you try to talk about the notability of the article rather than whether the other person is "thinking you are somehow clever" or "fudging" or whatever? jp×g 07:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I don't want to personalize this, yes. One thing, it's not really a question of notability to me because the topic is so pregnant that I think one can argue in good faith that lots of scholars are talking about all three in a variety of sources. The real question is whether a distillation in this fashion is something that doesn't run afoul of

WP:NOR. If others had done this distillation before, it wouldn't be a question. I guess I just don't think every AfD has to boil down to a question of notability even though I know that this tends to be the way the winds blow these days. jps (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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 Wikipedia hosts because they are necessarily

race science" (shudder)) as topics that are studied as a pair. jps (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I see no sources which identify these two topics (e.g. Zionism and "race science" (shudder)) as topics that are studied as a pair. The third source posted by Onceinawhile above, a 30-year-old book published by Yale University Press, says at page 11: In Chapter 6, I investigate the link between science and the politics of Zionism. Zionist physicians used the language of race science to define the Jewish people.... Levivich (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is there! However, I see no discussion of genetics in the chapter. As I intimated, an article on Zionism and race science is a bit more defensible. This is not this article. jps (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Falk's 2017 book, published by Springer, is the 4th source on Once's list. It says, at page 3, the introduction: Correspondingly, as the conflict of the Zionist State with the Arab world intensified, so did the wish to prove "scientifically," by biological-genetic means, the immanent physical, historic connection of the Jewish people to Zion. Genetics, it was hoped, would uphold not only the historical evidence, but would also provide biological evidence that the dispersed Jewish ethnic groups (eidoth) of today are indeed one people whose roots trace back to

Eretz-Israel

.) This book from 5 years ago cites and discusses at length the other book I quoted above from 30 years ago.

If you think Zionism and race/genetics is not a topic covered by these books, I don't know what to tell you, other than to ask if you've actually looked at them or not. It's taken me minutes to find these quotes just by searching in Google books for "Zionism", "race science," "genetics", etc. Levivich (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, where is the "race" in that quote? Race/genetics is itself a fraught compound topic. It's not dealt with in a serious fashion in that text that I can see. jps (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the bottom of the same page, page 3: Jews were considered to be a different "race" -- a socio-cultural invention of a presumed "biological entity" ... If you are arguing that this book does not discuss Zionism, race, and genetics, then you clearly have not read or even searched it for those keywords. FFS, the title of the book is Zionism and the Biology of Jews, and you contend that this book does not discuss Zionism, race, and genetics. Rather unbelievable. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that these three large topics are not being connected as a coherent whole. I am arguing that the three topics are arbitrarily chosen as connected to create a

WP:SYNTH article even as absolutely none of the scholars cited mention a topic like this. We're not just talking "synonyms" here. We're talking taking specific threads in rather large and considered academic works and then jamming them into what is supposed to be a tertiary source. I'm sure this piece could be a great college paper topic. But as an encyclopedia entry? There is no there there for a subject called "Zionism, race and genetics". C'mon. Content worth rescuing can and should be shunted off to articles that need improving. If one of them gets unwieldy, I'm sure some less triply compound articles can be spun out. jps (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

These topics are connected as a coherent whole on page 3 of the book called Zionism and the Biology of Jews, which I quoted above, where the author says some Zionists hoped genetics would prove that Jews were a race, and in other sources cited on this page. It's pretty ridiculous to accuse Onceinawhile of combining these topics, as if the sources don't discuss them together, especially in the face of quotes from sources directly on the subject, using the exact same verbiage, entire monographs about this. Levivich (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not understanding my point. But no matter. I'll just say that Zionism and the Biology of Jews looks to be a source that can be used to support many articles, but to me its existence does not demonstrate that there is a broader research project out there looking at Zionism, race and genetics in a distilled fashion. jps (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are already articles on Jewish Peoplehood and Genetic Studies on Jews Drsmoo (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

How have you got this so turned around that you think the subject has anything to do with anti-Zionism? This is about Zionism and the politics of race. If you think 'race science' is too racey, try: Zionism, race, and eugenics and Zionist eugenics, mixed marriage, and the creation of a ‘new Jewish type’ - also related articles that are sitting out there in plain view, hosted by scholarly publishers.

Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If I am turned around here, it's because the only place I see discussion of racism in relation to top-level discussions of Zionism is on the Anti-Zionism page. That's Wikipedia's fault, not mine. If it is more properly commentary on Zionism -- there ought to be a section in that article. jps (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The science or politics of race aren't equivalent to racism; they are topic areas where the theories and the polemics often just treads a very fine line nearby. And a relevant

Iskandar323 (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Why isn't the main article of that section Zionist ethnic unity or something of that nature? jps (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

science or politics of race aren't equivalent to racism this is true in a literal sense, but it is also the case that the science and politics of race essentially only exist because of the observed effects of racism. If racism did not exist, there would be no "science or politics of race". jps (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I created a list of egregious issues with this article

Talk:Zionism, race and genetics/Archive 2#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)[reply]

Like the proposer, Drsmoo is evidently unfamiliar with the topic and the sources, which would take a sedulous reader at least a week of concentrated study to master, and they merely are the iceberg's tip. Any familiarity with the inception of Zionism, its primary and the multitude of secondary sources, will tell anyone that, predictably, since it was embedded in universal Western cultural discourse that classified people by races, Zionism's fundamental proponents from the outset were deeply concerned with race. They were no different in this than liberal thinkers of that period.

At the outset of his Zionist activity, in July of 1895, Herzl met with the celebrated writer Max Nordau, who was to become Herzl’s most stalwart ally. Herzl noted in his diary that the two men agreed that Jewishness had “nothing to do with religion” but that “we are of the same race.” What they meant by race was vague, and could, as was common at the time, have been a way of describing what would later be called ethnicity. The conflation of ethnic and racialist discourse characterizes another diary en try, from 21 November 1895, in which Herzl describes Israel Zangwill as of a “longnosed, Negroid type, with very woolly deep black hair.” Despite this racialized description, Herzl posits that it was Zangwill, not himself, who defined peoples by racial criteria, a view that, Herzl writes, “I cannot accept if I so much look at him and at myself. … We are an historical unit, a nation with anthropological diversities. This also suffices for the Jewish State. No nation has uniformity of race.Derek Penslar,'Theodor Herzl, Race, and Empire,' 2020 p.196.

So, Zionism and race, since it has been a serious topic esp. in the last 2 decades, is a natural topic for wikipedia. Since genetics, in some hands, now constitutes a relatively new 'scientific' redemption of the theory's assumptions, it is clearly part of the topic. The tripartite rubbish is just that. One could simply elide 'and genetics' and nothing would change, except the title on a legitimate topic covering modern research, would not flag the fact that a major section of the article would paraphrase a large body of genetic papers since the 1990s which aspire to establish a genetic proof for Zionism's central thesis. So the objection is ill-informed about the topic, and disingenuously quibbling over the length of the title.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As kind of a point number one, the people who write an article have a duty to get the subject right. If you think removing genetics will make the article work, then move the article to the new title, reframe it, and show your work. jps (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that at all. It was the obvious proposal someone uneasy at the three words could have suggested to overcome your dislike of tripartite titles. This is pointless niggling.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think we're looking at

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Which is pretty close to a first for me. jps (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

  @Sirfurboy: please confirm which of the sources listed under SIGCOV above you have read? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An odd question, especially one that required a ping. Did you have a question about my rationale above? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The article is already pushing the limits of

  WP:AND

  :

  Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased.

  Better to keep this subject within the page and context that allows it to be understood, rather than mashing up new

  WP:SYNTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Again, it can't really be synth if reliable sources discuss it in this way.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That you can say that does suggest you may not be listening. You have sources about eugenics, yet this article uses them to talk about genetics. Maybe Zionist eugenics would be a better title. But then, what would you object that we lose? That is where the synth lies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those were just a couple of related sources that make clear the overall interrelationship between Zionism and the politics of race. I have said below the title is likely not ideal, but that could have been addressed with an RM, not an AfD belying a clearly extant corpus of subject-matter. The full body of sources is available for anyone to peruse above, on the page, and simply through searching relevant terms.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply
  ]

Keep - Are you editors actually reading these sources? They all talk about Zionism and race/genetics. I'm not commenting on the title or the content of the article, but the topic is an obviously notable topic that has received significant coverage in academic works, such as those posted by Once and Self above. It's a perfectly valid spinoff of Zionism. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normally spin-offs are done by improving the parent article first. Not always, but I also do not see the relevant work done to summarize the ostensible subject of this article elsewhere in a coherent fashion. I do see some edit wars over links, but that is it. jps (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a spin-off? I've collected very substantial files, articles and books touching on this for a decade, since Bloom's monograph appeared, because is a recurrent theme in my reading in this area. It's not a topic one can jump into after a few arbitrary scraps attracting one's attention when googling with a POV mission to 'hit', say, Israel. That, a natural concern to handle a touchy topic by first of all thoroughly reading up on it sometimes over a decade without intemperate haste, and laziness/so many other interests, are the only reasons why I hadn't yet written an article on this topic wikipedia ignores. But now a sketch of one is up, I commend the main editor and, though it needs considerable thickening and development, am amazed that merely the title itself can stir up deletionist fervour. As Levivich states with great integrity, sources on the intertwining of these three elements are abundant and there is no evidence so far objections reflect a careful reading of the small sample of sources so far noted in the bibliography.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a spin-off? A spin-off of what article exactly? :3 F4U (they/it) 02:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a spin-off. Levivich says it is, however. jps (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Zionism? nableezy - 13:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I gathered from what is written. There is a {{main}} template in a section of

guessed that a different article subject would have been the main article for that section. jps (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Levivich, thanks. But the point being made is not about whether a topic exists, but rather whether this topic is a single topic that can be dealt with encyclopaedically, or whether it is a synthesis of more than one topic - and more to the point, whether this new article, as it is construed, will inevitably continue to be a synthesis unless more carefully envisaged. So looking at the bibliography provided by Onceinawhile above, there are five sources above. Yet these five sources are not on the same thing, and therein lies the problem. Whilst Burton (2021) is talking about human heredity as science, of which Jewish genetics is a part, other sources are looking at different issues. Efron (2021) looks at the historic response to 19th century scientising of anti Jewish prejudice and includes material on the appropriation of race science by Zionists. Focussing on this aspect of that book takes us from science to pseudoscience, and then we have Falk (2017) who looks at the zionist hope, that "regrouping as a nation in their homeland would have profound eugenic consequences, primarily halting the degeneration they fell prey to because of the conditions imposed on them in the past." That work is a discussion of zionist eugenics, as is the discussion in Hirsch (2009), self evidently just from the title. Now it seems to me that yes, there is definitely a subject of Zionist eugenics, of which genetics would merely be a sub-section of the discussion. There is also a subject of

Jewish genetics, a scientific subject that is properly treated elsewhere. The problem with this article is that it purports to be both, as demonstrated by the source selection, and by the title. It conflates race (socially constructed) with genetics (a subject of scientific study), along with a strand of zionist thought on eugenics. The result bakes in synthesis. It is for this reason I think this article clearly needs deletion. This view is without prejudice against the creation of properly focussed articles on either the science or the pseudoscience - but not both. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. "Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-siècle Europe" by John Efron, professor of Jewish History (1994). "Zionist race science" == "Zionism, race, and genetics", because "race science" == "race and genetics". This book was written 30 years ago, and it has entire chapters about Zionism and race science. This book was reprinted last year (2022), and has been cited almost 500 times. From page 11: In chapter 6, I investigate the link between science and the politics of Zionism. Zionist physicians used the language of race science to define the Jewish people...
2. "Zionist Eugenics, Mixed Marriage, and the Creation of a 'New Jewish Type'" (2009) in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, first sentence of the abstract: The application of racial categories to the Jews by Zionist physicians and anthropologists in the first half of the twentieth century has been the focus of several recent studies. That was 14 years ago. "Zionist eugenics" == "Zionism, race, and genetics" because "eugenics" == "race and genetics".
3. "Zionism and the Biology of Jews" (Raphael Falk (geneticist), 2017) == "Zionism, race, and genetics". It's written by a geneticist! The whole f'ing book is about Zionism, genetics, and race. The whole book! "Biology of Jews" == "race and genetics"
4. "Zionism's New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew" (2017) (a section in Jew by Cynthia Baker, whose "research explores ideas about gender, race/ethnicity, and nationalism in the formative periods of Judaism") From page 99, the beginning of the "Zionism's New Jew" section: Zionism’s new Jew was formed at the intersection of nineteenth and early twentieth-century race science/eugenics with romanticized, racialized, ethnic nationalisms. "race science/eugenics" = "race and genetics". This entire section is about this. FFS, "The Birth of the Genomic Jew", is in the title. "Genomic Jew" = "race and genetics".

I'll say it again: anyone who claims this topic is not the subject of scholarly study is lying. There isn't a "good faith" explanation. It's not a content dispute. Just concede that this is a topic of scholarly study. If you want to argue some other reason for deletion -- POVFORK, TNT, whatever -- go ahead, but don't misrepresent the sources by suggesting they are not about Zionism, race, and genetics, as a single cohesive topic, discussed by many academic sources, for decades. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And conflates race (socially constructed) with genetics (a subject of scientific study) ... that's what

Zionism, race, and genetics. But it's the same topic, it's about the intersection of scientific racism and Zionism, or, as the lead of the article says, various people have tried to use race pseudoscience (which includes genetic pseudoscience) to argue for or against Zionism. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This deserves a longer reply than I can give right now, but I note again that I am not saying there is no topic here, I am saying that the topic that is here is not encapsulated in the framing, which is sloppy and bakes in contentious editing. On the sources, they are not all saying the same thing. (Burton, 2021), which you don't address there, is talking about the use of genetics from the early 20th century to construct national origin myths in the middle east as a whole. It is not talking about zionism in particular, although yes, that is covered. It also goes on to talk about genetics today, both how it is used for nationalistic purposes and more progressively. But the subject there is not just genetics in zionism, and the thesis is not so easily divorced from its context.

What of the other sources? Well if we agree with the equivalence you posit: "Zionist race science" == "Zionism, race, and genetics", and also "Zionist eugenics" == "Zionism, race, and genetics" then we have a==b==z. We have a subject. Equivalence is reflexive, so it follows that "Zionism, race, and genetics"=="Zionist eugenics". That is the subject you believe is covered here. That is also, I think, the primary subject that the page creator wishes to cover, and that is thus the best page title.

My problem with this is that I don't think that the terms are equivalent. You see, Falk (2017) argues that the very concept of the Jewish race is harmful and misleading, and he covers the history of the eugenics to dismiss it, but what he dismisses is still race and still genetics, and so what another editor will find is that Zionism, race and geentics is not neutral because it doesn't cover (makeyuppyname, 2024) whose genetic studies say this, and you get a bunch of primary sources being inserted like here Early European Farmers#Studies#Studies (that one less contentiously). You get calls for balance and understanding of both Falk and what Falk argues against, and, indeed, the latest research that approves or disproves Falk. What you get is synth, because I think "Zionism, race, and genetics" > "Zionist eugenics".

Thus a more careful framing is perfectly good. It is THIS framing that is wrongheaded. If the page were on Zionist eugenics or some other wording that entirely avoids

WP:AND then the deletion reason goes away. As others have noted, perhaps an RM would have been better, but we are where we are. If the narrower framing is objected to, that shows where the synth is coming in. Hmm that is a longer reply than I intended. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - per Levivich. Not liking a notable topic doesnt make it less notable. A number of sources clearly discuss this as a topic, and give this topic significant sustained coveraged, making this a notable topic suitable for a Wikipedia article. nableezy - 20:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For what it's worth, genetics is a factor when Israeli officials evaluate ethnic groups claiming to be Jewish. There are many of these groups globally, some legitimate and others either misguided or cynically trying to get to a more affluent country. See Category:Groups claiming Israelite descent. ^(permalink) As for "race" that's a whole different topic. These different groups hail from multiple so-called "races" and Israel's determination has not been based on "race". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My gut reaction to the claim that this is not a notable topic was something like "what planet do they live on?" Of course it is a notable topic and there is a very large literature. Does jps think that race and genetics are unrelated concepts? Does jps not know that race was an important theme in Zionist thinking from the beginning, both through origin traditions and fear of miscegenation? Does jps not know that genetics plays some of the same roles in modern Zionist thinking as what race played in the past and that this was a natural progression that is well studied? If the title doesn't fit the article well enough, argue for a change of title. If there is OR in the article, engage with it. A cogent argument for deletion simply has not been presented. Zero^talk 02:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't a notable topic. I said it was a

synthetic one. Can you think of a better title? Maybe that would solve it (who am I to say?) But when I read the article it looks like it is doing the kind of rhetorical hoops you are jumping through as the subject. I think this is a misapprehension of how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. We look for big subjects and then narrow down. We don't present unique analyses worthy of term papers. It's a question of genre. jps (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, this is gobbledygook. The topic can be either notable or synthetic, not both. Notable means already covered in reliable sources; synthetic is the opposite. What are you saying? That the page or its title is synthetic? The page is a work in progress. It was only just begun. The title is a naming issue. And title's are actually allowed to be created out of nowhere by editors if the shoe fits. That's what a descriptive title often is. A subject can be clear, but there can equally be no common name for it out there in the literature. Here, the titular naming is distinctly varied, even where the contents come around to the same subjects. What I personally think might be the most on the mark topic is 'Zionism and the politics of race', since this embraces both the aspect of politicization of race and encompasses the later genetic science that was dragged into the same political arena in the effort to ground the same substance. But again, you're not necessarily going to find existing sources by that title. It's just descriptive. So is that synthetic too? You can find chapters like "Race, Zionism, and the Quest for Jewish Authenticity" in books like Jews, Race, and the Politics of Difference, there is Israel, Palestine, and the Politics of Race, and an assessment of Zionism is also present in

Iskandar323 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Friend, we see things differently. "Notability" has become something of a catch-all at Wikipedia in ways that I do not appreciate. I see

WP:OR. There are original research topics that are notable, but cannot be included in Wikipedia because the sources don't (yet) exist that treat the topic as a coherent subject. What you say is "gobbledygook" I say is a fundamental way to judge article potential. Original research isn't bad. It just isn't for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, but the sources do. Read just the abstract of Falk's Zionism and the Biology of the Jews. You will find references to all the pertinent terms, "Zionism", "racial" (race) and "gene" (genetics), all there. In just the abstract. The term "biology" in the title is clearly used intentionally as a catch-all for all of the above.

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the problem is that I see a difference between separate terms that are referenced and a coherent combination of terms. I get it. There are books that use three words or their derivatives. But do they argue these three words are connected as a subject? I don't see that. jps (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided The compound topic itself completely meets
  WP:TNT. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Moving to keep as large improvements of the article have been underway. Potentially rename as well to better match the scope of the article. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an shoddily written attack page. More importantly, the topic is SYNTH, as evidenced by the use of and in the title. If this article were to stand, one could bundle together any loosely written topics. We would have Ice cream and sex, and hey I've got a source! And another one! And another! and even this! Would would also have topics like Ski lodges as hookup locations or Olympic athletes and QAnon conspiracies, both of which are trivial to find sources seemingly tying them together. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, you definitely could write a Wikipedia article on ice cream and sex. There is everything to be written about there from people for whom ice cream is a kink to companies selling ice cream specifically for sex to academic commentaries on the sexualization of ice cream advertising. You chose silly examples, but it's a valid topic. That the use of 'and' in a title is a daft assertion, and I think you probably know it. Are you claiming you have never seen an 'and' article before. 'and' in a title is not only allowed; it is policy.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  And you may wish to note the use of the phrase "closely related" (examples "yin and yan", "promotion and relegation" etc.) or indeed the rest of WP:AND which states: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. "Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources." The concepts used in the title here are all commonly combined in legion reliable sources. And it's "closely related or complementary concepts", and here the complementary nature of the topics is reliably sourced.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. My impression is that negationist editors (asserting the topic does not exist in reliable sources) are utterly unfamiliar with the sources, indeed with the topic area's scholarship and are reflecting a knee-jerk reaction to the words in the title itself, as if this were some devious attempt to smuggle into wiki the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism, 30 years after it had been revoked by the General Assembly. That is the only explanation I can give myself for this extraordinary response. Objectors must be 'reading between the lines' and suspecting some ulterior motives in writing up such a thematic weave. Well, no. It is something Israeli and diaspora scholarship in particular, with its characteristic steady nerves, has explored in some depth over the last decades. Here is one of the sources, which the objectors obviously have not cared to glance at, which alludes to the numerous scholars exploring this nexus in recent scholarship.

Francis Nicosia

has argued recently that secular and racial antisemitism generated a national-separatist Jewish response. And while civic emancipation and assimilation sapped Jewish religious identity, a more organic perception of nationhood began to crystallize. It incorporated ethnic and volkisch elements that were widespread in German nationalist circles These romantic elements, as demonstrated by George Mosse, strongly influenced nascent Zionist organizations throughout Germany. Since the early nineteenth century, the German concept of Volk had denoted a metaphys ical and eternal entity which was constituted of all the German people - a people with absolute values. It reflected the natural, wild, and emotional character of the people, while the family was regarded as its biological founda tion. The late nineteenth-century volkisch concepts were of neo-romantic mysticism and foregrounded the irrational forces of nature and genuine essence of the people, in contrast to the present, 'artificial' one. Among rising Jewish national groups this concept included the idea of a 'community of one's blood' as defined by Martin Buber, which helped to forge a Jewish national consciousness. Beyond the examination of the volkisch-cultural nature of early Zionism, several studies have considered the Jewish, and especially Zionist, discussion of race since the late nineteenth century. I might mention here the early research of Joachim Doron, Annegret Kiefer, and John Efron, while among recent studies the most relevant are those of Mitchell Hart, Todd Endelman, Raphael Falk, and Veronika Lipphardt. This work has exposed the 'scientific' racial aspects embedded in the emerging Jewish national ideology. Moreover, it contended that in particular Zionist scientists in Germany, and to some extent also in England, Russia, and the United States, employed the language of science and academic research in the fields of anthropology, biology, medicine and sociology in order to reaffirm the distinctiveness of the Jewish people.' Avraham 2017 p.473.

So the scandalized expostulations are totally misplaced. We don't censor here, we don't get our knickers in a twist over treatments of sensitive issues, screaming 'I don't wanna know!' Since scholars write of the historic nexus between 19-20th concepts of race and Zionist formulations (themselves often arising as a (misplaced) defense against antisemitists who denied Jews were a people), and this again inflects the rise of genetic endorsements of a Jewish identity, it is not only natural, but obligatory to carefully represent this debate on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the scandalized expostulations are totally misplaced. We don't censor here, we don't get our knickers in a twist over treatments of sensitive issues, screaming 'I don't wanna know! It would be better if you focussed on the actual arguments rather than the editors. This is not a

WP:BATTLEGROUND. Suggest you read that through and strike the straw man and ad hominem lines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

How many policy flags are being waved here furiously? There is no argument just editors flaunting unfamiliarity with the topic as opposed to reliance on vague winks at a putative policy abuse outlined in guidelines. So we have

WP:BATTLEGROUND etc. Such links are not arguments and if,Sirfurboy to advise others : 'It would be better if you focussed on the actual arguments' then try for once to do so yourself, rather than walking past things like the quote from Avraham above which contradicts all of the uninformed assertions from the deletionist camp.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The BATTLEGROUND concern is that you characterise the three delete !votes above as "negationist editors... utterly unfamiliar with the sources...knee jerk reaction.... scandalised expostulations... knickers in a twist... screaming 'I don't wanna know!' when in fact none of that describes nor argues with the actual points raised. If anything it makes the point that the subject as formulated here creates "an arena for article-warfare." In engaging in battleground behaviour and transparently personal attacks, it seems to me you have reinforced the argument for this article's deletion, which you don't seem to have noticed is not ignorant of a clear body of literature that there is some subject here, but that the subject that is here is not the subject as formulated in this article.

As for your remarks about policy that has been cited: you may not participate in many deletion discussions but you have participated in enough that you ought to be aware that deletion reasons must be policy based, and that we don't just have a vote based on personal opinions. Thus citing

WP:AND, for instance, which says: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. are exceptionally pertinent to the actual discussion. A title that focuses on one thing (e.g. Zionist eugenics) makes sense. A title that allows multiple issues to be conjoined, both scientific and pseudoscientific, is a recipe for... well, BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Don't you think? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: The precise formulation of the title aside, this page reflects a topic that clearly exists in reliable sources, with the page being created expressly to reflect those hitherto ignored and unreflected reliable sources.
  Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment re title: looks like it is worth having a WP:RM discussion in due course. I was originally going to write an article about “Zionism and genetics”, but it would have needed a large background section about “Zionism and race”, because all the recent sources cover both together. I figured the tripartite title would fit well, following the parent article Race and genetics. The topics can’t be coherently separated, which is presumably why Falk’s book went for "Zionism and biology", which is an option for us here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. This reads a little bit to me like you leapfrogged over what I would consider to be necessary intermediary steps in this. Zionism as settler colonialism exists as an article and the sources seem straightforward. Zionism as racism does not. And yet, accusations that Zionism is racist abound in certain commentary (and, I'm sure, claims it is not racist/racialized are easily discovered as well). jps (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Zionism as racism" is about Zionist attitudes towards Palestinians. That has nothing to do with the topic of this article. If that needs making clear, we can add the word Jewish, so it becomes "Zionism and Jewish race and genetics". To my mind that is less elegant, but the title is much less important than the content. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I think you are talking about are arguments about

race science. While this is something that scholars have studied as demonstrated in your sources, I do not think we have strong indications from those sources that this is separate from the racism accusations involving Zionist attitudes towards Palestinians. In fact, it seems many of your sources argue there is a direct connection between these ideas. Why are you separating them? jps (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The only connection with the Palestinians in this topic area is the historical beliefs amongst some early Zionists that Palestinians were also descended from ancient Israelites and thus the two peoples were "cousins", and modern day genetic science on Jewish origins which often compares Jewish genetic connections to those of Palestinians. But to your comments above, none of this has anything to do with "racism", which is primarily about discrimination and thus an entirely separate subject. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Racism is the primary if not the only motivation for the

social construction of race. jps (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@ජපස: that is not the case here, and it is not what the sources say. Zionism was founded as a positive ideology to lift Jews out of the oppression they faced in 19th century Europe, and the concepts of race (and later genetics) were used to bind them together and justify the ideology of a “return” to another land. It is this latter topic that this article is focused on.

Remember, Jews were not the original constructors of the concept of the Jewish race. The “Jewish race”, and almost all other races constructed in early modern European race science, were constructed with exactly the motivation you describe – racism against Jews and other “non-white” races.

The topic of this article, as the sources go through in detail, is about how Zionism took this theory, turned it on its head, and used it to justify that original wider ideology. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good news - some solid evidence to confirm the above: Mark H. Gelber, p.126 (full cite in article): It is fair to say that a racialist orientation was fundamental to German Cultural Zionism… In this context, it is essential to distinguish carefully between "racialism" and "racism." Invariably, German Cultural Zionism presented a view of racial difference and uniqueness within the framework of the equality of races and the common dignity of all humans to develop their own potentialities within racial groupings. Racialist formulations which tended toward racism and claims of racial superiority of one race over others were avoided as a rule within Cultural Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why the article is WP:SYNTH, first comes the opinion, and then search for keywords in Google scholar to try to support it (Good news!)(like applying a section about “German Cultural Zionism” to the entire movement) then slop it into the article; rinse, repeat.

After finding your keyword in Google Scholar, loudly accuse those criticizing the article of not having read every word in all the sources. Drsmoo (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the content not the contributor. I would be happy to share how I find sources with anyone who asks. The imaginative characterization above is inappropriate (“slop”, “rinse, repeat”, “loudly accuse” etc). Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GNG is easily met. The impetus for this article is a discussion at
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any reasoned analysis.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oh dear, I don't think that it is a good idea to write articles to try to win talkpage debates. I guess there aren't any rules against it, per se, but it strikes me as a kind of motivation that can lead to less-than-ideal editorial practices. jps (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of a glass half full perspective. The alternative description is that a talk page discussion highlighted a topic whose coverage on Wikipedia represented a glaring omission. That's actually how the community is supposed to work. Editors discuss things and expand the encyclopedia to fill gaps. That's productive and constructive. If you had simply joined the page to brainstorm the name and scope, instead of launching this AfD, all of this community time spent on this discussion could have been spent actually making sense of the sources in a meaningful manner.

Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair. I don't think we should have a rule against this motivation because, hey, people can get good inspiration from anywhere. But I still think there are major dangers and easy-to-fall-into traps when taking this kind of approach. jps (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Levivich. Reflecktor (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tombah, the article is a POV-Fork of Genetic Studies on Jews and functions as an attack page unacceptably targeting mainstream researchers by insinuating through synth, and claiming without attribution (in Wikipedia’s voice), that their work is ideological. The scope of this article is an attempt to synth together cherrypicked sources that attack Jewish researchers (the original version of the article SYNTH’d the neologism “Jewish Scientific Racism”, which was not in any source) with 150 year old anachronisms about race that have no relation to contemporary research. There is no subject covered by this article title that is not already covered by Genetic Studies on Jews and Jewish peoplehood. (Contrary to this attack page, Jewish genetic research is not “Zionist”). The article would need to be TNTd and retitled to approach NPOV, and then would simply become a duplication of existing articles. Any neutral article has to actually discuss its subject, ie., it would need to dispassionately discuss studies on Jewish genetics, and the changing conceptions of Jewish peoplehood. Both of which are already covered. Drsmoo (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. 'cherrypicked sources that attack Jewish researchers.' Have you examined the 'ethnicity' of most of the writers of these sources? Check it out. I have had to, now that you have raised this insidious NPA insinuation.They would appear to be overwhelming of Jewish background and therefore you are saying, Onceinawhile deviously cites Jewish researchers to attack Jewish researchers. Bejaysus. That's a new one.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The religion of the writers is not relevant to me, I’m not sure why it’s relevant to you. To repeat, since you manipulated what I wrote (similar to this article ironically)

“The scope of this article is an attempt to synth together cherrypicked sources that attack Jewish researchers (the original version of the article SYNTH’d the neologism “Jewish Scientific Racism”, which was not in any source)”

For example, taking a quote from an article discussing the Jewish priestly gene, and misrepresenting the source to claim “the leading scientists into Jewish genetic roots, including the "priestly gene", have openly Zionist agendas.” which is not in the source. There is also taking statements explicitly describing studies from 70 years ago as if they were describing the modern field. The entire article is like that: cherry picked sources summarized incorrectly and synthd together to push a POV. Drsmoo (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, yall can not like this topic as much as you want to, but since it is manifestly reliably sourced material sourced to the best quality academic sources, its either going to be covered in a child article of Zionism or all of this material is going to be in the parent article. Not liking what the sources say has never been a valid argument for exclusion of content. Sorry. nableezy - 13:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There is barely lick of information about the interaction between genetics and political ideology at

Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

More broadly, proper coverage of this topic will benefit the integrity of our encyclopedia as a whole, since poor editorial understanding of this specific area continues to undermine important areas across a number of vital articles. See for example the high traffic articles Israelites, Jews and Who is a Jew?, all of which state in Wikipedia's voice that modern Jews are descended from ancient Israelites. That might be true, and it is widely believed in popular consciousness, but it is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars and makes our project look crude and unsophisticated. In my experience, the best way to minimize edit wars on contentious topics in the long term is to go a level deeper, to a more specific article topic, and build consensus around the scholarly underpinnings to a subject. A bit of effort from everyone now to build a perfectly neutral and well-sourced assessment of the topic (the article is just four days old), will improve editorial understanding and reduce disagreements much more widely across the project. Anyone who thinks deleting an article on such a foundational subject like this will stop edit wars (per AndyTheGrump’s comment) is holding the wrong end of the stick.

Just to show the consistency of my position on this, when this article was first created, another editor immediately created Origin of the Palestinians as a stated "response”.[21] Whilst tit-for-tat doesn’t make our project look good, I think both articles are important; I was the editor who removed the deletion prod notice on that new article. For exactly the same reason: a well-developed article covering a foundational subject in more detail will bring wider benefits to the topic area. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all of which state in Wikipedia's voice that modern Jews are descended from ancient Israelites. That might be true, and it is widely believed in popular consciousness, but it is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars and makes our project look crude and unsophisticated. This reads a bit cryptic to me and, I hope you know, this kind of statement has in the past been something that has fed directly into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as British Israelism, for example. Can you perhaps expand or clarify what you mean by this? jps (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I do not understand your comment – please be more specific on what you do not agree with? Perhaps bring this to the article talk page if you want to dive deeper into the content debate – I doubt this line of discussion is going to help resolve the AfD. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it has anything at all to do with article content per se. I'm confused if you don't think it will help resolve the AfD why you made the statement in the first place. Here is what I read, and forgive me if you think that's not what you intended, that modern Jews are descended from ancient Israelites... is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars. jps (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understood it was, that while it might be commonly assumed that modern Jews do indeed "descend" from the ancient Israelites (or, more precisely, from the

Children of Israel, there are nevertheless other claimants, as you have alluded to. And some of these claimants are surely depending on similar flimsy genetic legacy ties (see the Pashtun theory for example). Havradim leaf a message 21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I wonder at the statement some of these claimants are surely depending on similar flimsy genetic legacy ties. What makes a genetic legacy tie not flimsy? A critique of all genetic legacy ties would require a new definition of "descend" -- in which case, fair. But I'm a little perplexed by use of the term "proof" as though the context of this discussion is a courtroom or something. I guess the question is simple: Are we really to believe that the "mainstream view amongst scholars" that "Jews descended from ancient Israelites" is doubted? Even ideas such as the

WP:FRINGE. Also, the existence of other claimants of descent from ancient Israelites are only relevant inasmuch as these claimants have played a zero-sum game with respect to the question (e.g. British Israelism). The Pashtuns may or may not descend from ancient Israelites, but their claim of such is not predicated on Jewish descent being incorrect. The question is not "who are all the people descended from the ancient Israelites?". The question is "are the Jews descended from the ancient Israelites?" jps (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the question who are all the people descended from the ancient Israelites becomes an important one based on the premise of this article, and illustrates well why it should be kept. Because if the Zionist claim is based partly or mostly on genetics, then what is stopping any other group with a similar genetic argument to lay claim to lands they feel a connection with? What prevents an Englishman (or most of Britain?) who professes "Norman heritage" to lay claim to the northwest part of France and claim it for Britain? ... are the Jews descended from the ancient Israelites? The vast majority probably are, as are many of the Palestinians, but the question this article seeks to analyse is, how much of this descent idea was used to justify a Jewish nationalistic movement. Havradim leaf a message 03:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the focus of your last paragraph may have relevance to bear on article text, my concerns were over specific points made in this discussion. What do the discussants contend is "mainstream view among scholars" over the contention "Jews descended from the ancient Israelites"? You seem to be answering that the "vast majority probably are". But then what am I to make of the line that "it is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars"? jps (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is between popular supposition and scholarly writ - the former requiring no substantiation and the latter being held to an altogether higher bar.

Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

No one (and now there are three different users responding to me in this discussion) has yet answered my straightforward question. What do you contend the "mainstream view among scholars" is over the contention "Jews descended from the ancient Israelites"? jps (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: the mainstream scholarly view is “we do not know”. Regarding the various alternate hypotheses which you rightly mention have not been accepted, they were not accepted because the evidence for them was not strong enough, not because there is another compelling theory of which science is close-to-certain on.

The sources and quotes in the article will show you that. A good example, which I now realize I have not yet added, is Fishberg, 1911, p.474, discussing two of the leading early Zionists -

Jewish Chronicle

, June 18th, 1909).]" The debate has evolved (into genetics) over the last century, but the same uncertainty remains.

As Havradim wrote elegantly above, this side conversation is a perfect illustration of the importance of this article. Science simply doesn’t know either way whether modern Jews are the primary descendants of the Israelites – Wikipedia must be neutral and factual on the question, whilst recognizing that it is a belief held by a large number of people, who are entitled to that belief.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak DeleteKeep The article, as it exists, is effectively a product of
  WP:SYNTH. I am open to the possibility that a reliable body of literature on the topic might exist but so far it's not demonstrated by the article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

DO you mean that Israel's former leading geneticist and historian of genetics, Raphael Falk, whose work Israeli scholarship took up and developed vigorously over the last 2 decades in an abundance of academic studies, and which the page follows carefully, got it all wrong, and the judgement he expressed here, simply by being paraphrased, in a violation of WP:Synth?Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote per the statement provided by Nishidani I still think the article isn't necessari ly reflecting the body of work in its best light but we don't delete notable subjects that can be improved. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that willingness to reconsider on the evidence and arguments as they evolve here. Your last concern is shared by several editors, and is reasonable. The problem was and is, that the AfD was initiated far too quickly, before the outline/stub had scarcely got on its feet, within a few days. There was no time for the improvements, and the considerable expansion, the article requires. What one sees now is nothing like what the article will be if it survives deletion and editors are allowed - the more eyes the better - an opportunity to make adjustments and exploit to the full the dozens of strong secondary sources that discuss this topic.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is not Wikipedia worthy.CarlSerafino {talk) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please show me where it says an IP cannot participate in an AfD discussion. I am not interested in opinion in this matter. Where on Wikipedia is this stated? Please provide a Wiki Link. Also, Ivotes and AFD comments should not be removed from the AFD discussion, as what happened here. Please refrain from this type of behavior. It only lends credence to the belief that editing the subject article of this AFD is not on the up & up and may be the result of some sort of agenda. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ....non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I forgot to say that I added back the removed IP ivote, the striking out of it, and follow-up comments. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @

  WP:PIA which has the 500/30 rule for anything related to Palestine-Israel articles. To quote Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. So the IP is short the 500 rule and can be reverted. This article also certainly has to do with Israel. PackMecEng (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  And I removed it again, please dont restore ARBPIA violations to this discussion. That would be PROXYING and is itself prohibited. nableezy - 18:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have EC protected this AfD so this does not happen again. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously impeccably sourced and notable article per
  WP:NOTCENSORED. Havradim leaf a message 18:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Ah yes, I was wondering why my figure differed from yours. In any case, as you correctly pointed out, the present article in its entirety would only burden the parent if it were to be included there. Havradim leaf a message 20:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is a great improvement to the project being that there is not one, single article covering this multifaceted topic. Article is strictly adhering to NPOV, which does offend some, but it is well sourced and a great improvement to nothing. Nothing is true on wikipedia until it's verified by reliable sources, and reliable sources do verify this article to be notable enough for keep. This comes to mind Wikipedia:I just don't like it to some of those editors against this article on this page, given the reluctance to improve the article and specific wording even when offered, and instead choosing to remonstrate it from the sidelines. JJNito197 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see this as a notable topic, so much as two opposing notable topics. The page treats positive things like Jewish ethnic unity, and fringey racist things like antisemitic tropes, as being a single topic, but they aren't. Bogus and nasty pseudoscholarship that promotes antisemitism, and legitimate scholarship that rebuts antisemitism, linked together by their relationships to Zionism. Putting them together involves some
  WP:COATRACK. But I could envision splitting the page into two pages, although we seem to already have pages that cover the subjects properly. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hey, yeah! I myself noticed how, astonishingly, it's goingunder the world's radar that places like

Protocols of Zion, uh? Perhaps there's meat here for some article in Israel Hayom or Arutz Sheva to bring to public awareness the conspiracy afoot in the world's most prestigious ivory towers? Nishidani (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Those crazy kids! As they say, career professors will be career professors.

Iskandar323 (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm a career professor who had tenure before I retired. And I don't much appreciate the badgering. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this, so I'll give you a serious answer. Your delete statement contrasts 'bogus scholarship' promoting antisemitism to legitimate scholarship rebutting antisemitism, and says the synth lies is mixing up the two with Zionism. A mere fragment of the very complex historical picture was sketched in an article no one has accused of synth or using bogus scholarship while examining the nexus. See here. That is just one small temporal focus on the historical theme which, with a much broader scholarship, is addressed in the article. The aut/aut judgment, (either something is philosemitic or antisemitic - and it is a logical contradiction in terms for a Zionist to engage in virulent racial attacks on 'the inner enemy' of Jews who diagree with the movement) above appears to ignore that complexity Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize and accept that the adoption of views that some would characterize as antisemitic has occurred by some proponents of Zionism, a documented fact that introduces a significant complexity into the issues discussed in this AfD. But there is also the use of race and genetics in pseudoscientific discourse for the purpose of promoting antisemitic and anti-Zionist agendas. And my reading of the page (at the time that I made my delete statement) indicated that the latter is part of what the page is about. On the other hand, the page is also about what I described as legitimate scholarship that looks into race and genetics as a way of supporting Zionism and rebutting antisemitism. I've seen an awful lot of text on this AfD page, but I have not seen (or at least have not been successful at picking it out of all the verbiage) a clear explanation of how secondary sources have treated the pseudoscientific discourse and the legitimate scholarship as being a single topic, as opposed to being two topics that editors have brought together by SYNTH. And it offends me that your (apparently unserious) reply to me sarcastically cited what I was trying to describe as legitimate scholarship as though I had said that it was the pseudoscientific antisemitism. It should be obvious that I'm not calling tenured Jewish academics at serious institutions antisemites, and to caricature my good-faith comment as some sort of laughable conspiracy theory a la the Protocols of Zion makes me uninterested in taking such a reply seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My flippant remark first remark, I now see, was taken as being personally offensive, and even if that was not my intention, I apologize for giving that impression. And I thank you for the courtesy of replying to my clarification. This is necessary also because my surprise at your initial remark owes much to the fact that I have a certain (small but sticking in memory) familiarity with your record and have respected the quality of your judgment. The AfD doesn't give, even in rebuttals, readers any close notion of what the academic literature is doing in this field. Those absorbed in these historical reconstructive studies are reduced to rebutting fairly short statements by eliciting snippets from an extensive body of serious work, and a page stopped in its tracks while making its first steps out of the cradle/stub gives editors who check it no idea of the topic's range as covered by legitimate scholarship which, precisely has taken up recently a neglected and difficult area of Zionist history - what is called variously the 'rancorous internal dialogue' (Sokolff and Glenn 2011 p.3.) or 'attacks on the internal enemy', much of its mirroring the old antisemitic stereotypes, which were long conducted among various factions in the Jewish communities. So I thought the distinction you drew odd. Antisemitism is always pseudoscientific by definition, and has had a vast literature devoted to it, which ignored however its subtle and insidious mirroring in defensive discourse by the primary victims of its xenophobia, Jews. The bibliography of 45 titles addresses, scientifically, the painful fact that such pseudoscience also inflected Zionist perceptions of who Jews were. When one of its most important figures, Ze'ev Jabotinsky states, '"A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German customs, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-facial type are Jewish." (Jabotinsky|1961|pp=37-49), he like nmumerous other Zionists used 'mutatis mutandis' the standard race tropes of antisemites, only, and understandably in context, turning the negative connotations on their head. It is this considerable and overlooked paradox that Jewish and diaspora scholarship is now putting under the microscope, and what the article aspires to introduce to those unfamiliar with the cusp of this modern scholarship, which studies the heritage of this discourse from 1895 down to its variations in genetic identity debates in recent times. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]