Talk:african American–Jewish relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

African-American Jews

African-Americans and Jews are not mutually exclusive groups. I've noted that in the lead. But there seems to be editorial disagreement. I think there is a problem with the title. It is potentially absurd. Unless we are talking about the relation between a person and himself we do not always have African-American – Jewish relations even if we have present African-Americans and Jews. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, you're preaching to the choir here... but your sentences in the lede come out of nowhere and seem unrelated to the rest of the article. There should probably be some discussion in the article about African-American Jews with a sentence in the lede that summarizes it.

Also, the New York Times article is a little parochial and anecdotal. In Jews and Judaism in the African diaspora#North America, you'll see that there are between 20,000 and 200,000 Black Jews in the U.S., participating in all Jewish religious movements (or not participating at all). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BusStop: I am in agreement with you that the article could & should contain some discussion of African-American Jews. However, as M. Shabazz says, the lead paragr must summarize the body of the article. So the steps you should take are: (1) find some reliable source that discuss African-American Jews (preferably in the context of AA/J relations); (2) write a section in the body of the article that captures the essence of those sources; and (3) put a sentence into the lead summarizing that body paragraph (but only if that section seems significant in the context of the entire article). Does that sound okay? --Noleander (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Noleander—Wikipedia doesn't create reality. Wikipedia reflects reality. The body of the article is not sacrosanct. It must adhere to reality. The reality is that anyone can be a Jew. You are putting the cart before the horse. One cannot speak of the relationship between someone and himself, except in a different, psychological sense—but I don't think this is an article about self-reflection. Not only should this point be made in the lead, but this point should be made in the first sentence of the lead. Wikipedia cannot under any circumstances run roughshod over reality. I think the most relevant fact relating to the "topic" that this article attempts to address is that "African-American" and "Jew" are two attributes of identity that are not mutually exclusive. Bus stop (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop: Your reply did not address the issues raised above by two editors. The lead should not contain material that is not in the body (see WP:Lead). Even then, the lead should not contain material that is relatively unimportant (measured by how often the sources discuss it). I'll remove the sentence from the lead. Please find some sources and put content in the body, first. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Noleander—when the premise of the article is absurd, or contains an element of absurdity, the lead does take precedence over the body of the article because the body of the article is in that instance a contradiction of reality. You are failing to understand that Wikipedia cannot create reality nor should it attempt to. That is a misuse of Wikipedia. No matter what snippets of referenced material editors gather together to fill up the body of the article, the overriding fact that is derived from reality is that Jews and African-Americans are anything but mutually exclusive. The article is based on a premise that is absurd—you can't have an article on the relationship between people and themselves. Whether the article persists or is deleted, there is an overriding point that has to be made. This is arguably a situation calling for a hatnote to call attention to an inconsistency that is being tolerated in order to write the article. Logic takes precedence over editorial will to present a particular picture. In this case what we have is illogic built into the very title itself. Wikipedia is not in the business of pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. We cannot speak of the "relationship" between two identities that are not distinct—African-Americans are Jews, and Jews are African-Americans. The first order of business is setting this inconsistency of logic before the reader. We must admit the problem that we recognize with our article so as not to mislead the reader into reaching the understandable conclusion that Jews and African-Americans are basically distinct—they are not distinct groups of people. We can accomplish that in the lead. And no, this is not dependent on what is in the body of the article. This is the use of the lead to spell out the basic applicable parameters to the concept of the article that we've chosen to write, including any flaws that it might contain. A hatnote could also be useful for this purpose. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete article

There is no article here. It should be deleted. This is a catchall for snippets of negative aspersions about stereotypes of people that is akin to gossip. You can't write a Wikipedia article on an amorphous topic. This page is a misuse of Wikipedia. Consensus prefers mudslinging but the article should nevertheless be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for AfD. But before you do, please read the sources (listed at the bottom of the article) which discuss this topic. --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Noleander—the sources are necessarily selective. This is essay writing. Authors publish books expressing highly subjective commentary. This is not an article. This is an arena for argumentation. That is the transformation of Wikipedia from a resource for solid information into a setting for editorial sparring. The resulting product only reflects editorial sparring skills. The most that we can hope to do in an article such as this is to mislead readers to our own particular point of view, in violation of neutral point of view. It is in the final analysis ludicrous to address the issue of African-American – Jewish relations in a Wikipedia article. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote—African-American Jews

I have added a hatnote reading: "Note: African-Americans of course are Jews and Jews of course are African-Americans when the two identities coincide." There is editorial disagreement. The article title is problematic. It contains illogic that must be cleared up. African-Americans and Jews are sometimes one and the same. A person can, and many do, have the identity of both Jew and African-American. Implied in the title is that the identities are distinct. How else are we to understand that there can be a "relation" between African-Americans and Jews? I believe we want to point this out both to the reader that sees the illogic in the article title as well as to the reader that does not. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, the hatnote approach may be a good solution, but I think we should discuss it before you restore it. Your wording needs improvement because it suggests that all African Americans are Jews (which certainly isn't your intention) and phrases like "of course" don't belong in an encyclopedia. I have to give the matter some thought, because I'm not sure what the best approach is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—the reader should not be subjected to something as illogical as that which is suggested by this article's title. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly that readers shouldn't be "subjected to" this article, please nominate it at AfD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—I objected to the article's "title". The article's title suggests that African-Americans and Jews are two separate groups. They are not. In the instances that the two referred to identities apply, they are one and the same group. A relation of a group to itself is probably nonsensical, unless we are talking about some kind of psychological phenomena such as introspection, which this article doesn't seem to be about. Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BusStop: the latest hatnote is not acceptable. See WP:Hatnotes. Hatnotes are for pointing the reader to other, similar articles. Your hatnote is explaining a fact that you feel is important. I will revert the hatnote. You should do the following: (1) get some sources on this topic; (2) read the sources; (3) add material to the body of the article, based on the sources. --Noleander (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Noleander—hatnotes are more often used for purposes other than the narrow use you describe. We find here and here uses of hatnotes that do not follow the narrow use that you are suggesting as the only use for hatnotes. I happen to object to the two uses that I just linked to, at the Judaism and the Jews articles. But they have been deemed to be acceptable by editors at those articles. Policy language found at WP:HATNOTE allows for more than one use of hatnotes.

Note the language:

"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

Note the language:

"Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article (hence the name "hat"), normally to provide links to other similarly named articles or disambiguation pages."

Note that "exceptions apply" and that this is "normally" the case. Note that "common sense" is a possibility. In practice hatnotes are used in a variety of ways. As concerns this article we need to clear up a problem in the title. The problem concerning the title is a not insignificant problem. The present title foists an untruth on the reader. You cannot blithely refer to "African-Americans" and "Jews" as if they were two distinct groups. They are not necessarily two distinct groups—there are Jewish African-Americans, and there are African-American Jews. The title is the problem. If you know of a better way of addresssing the problem which is the title please suggest it here on the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion: I suggest that you (1) find some sources on the topic "some African-Americans are Jews ... "; (2) read the sources: (3) add a new section into the body of the article on that topic, supported by footnotes; (4) THEN we see if a hatnote is needed, based on that section. --Noleander (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Noleander—the problem is that the title is at the top of the article. The hatnote is necessary to address the problem where it exists. Can you please tell me a reason why you would not want the hatnote that I have placed atop the article in this edit? Try not to make reference to policy. Please tell me in your own words any reasoning that you might have for not wanting the hatnote that I suggested at the top of the article.

The title is a problem because it speaks of a relationship between "African-Americans" and "Jews" when in point of fact "African-Americans" (some) are "Jews". Conversely "Jews" (some) are "African-Americans". Not in all instances, and not even in the majority of instances. But you can't have a title that contains a kernel of nonsense, especially without even addressing it. I've only suggested a hatnote as an expediency. Why are you reverting it? Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained my reasoning. If you do not understand it, I suggest that you initiate an RFC to solicit input from uninvolved editors. I'm certain they will also find the proposed hatnote to be inappropriate. --Noleander (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the hatnote is inappropriate. Plus the two article pointed out as "exceptions" have perfectly standard hatnotes, regarding redirects and links to related articles. They do not attempt to state any "facts". Yworo (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing?

Malik Shabazz, I appreciate that you are 'busy', and have a dislike for expressive thought, but do you need to be so abrasive?

What did you find a problem with in my editing that you reversed on 05:31, 26 January 2011? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see.

1. Changing "Palestinian territory" to "Judea and Samaria territory", which is bad English, POV-laden, and counter to consensus. After an arbitration ruling, there was a community discussion that concluded that when referring to modern times, "Judea and Samaria" is to be used only when referring to the Israeli administrative area. But in this instance, the term "Palestinian territory" is more accurate than "West Bank", because the territory occupied by Israel includes Gaza.
2. Changing "Palestinians" to "Palestinian Arabs" is gratuitous and smacks of POV. There have been no Palestinians but Palestinian Arabs since 1948.
3. Changing "Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat" to "PLO leader Yassir Arafat" is also gratuitous. If Arafat was a leader of a major Palestinian organization, he was a Palestinian leader.
4. Changing "Palestinian land" to "Arab land" and "Palestinians" to "Arabs". More of the same.

There was no good reason for the changes you made, except to advance a particular POV. In short, you were POV-pushing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Replies in point-fashion (as you prefer):

1. The paragraph says (in part)

After Israel occupied Judea and Samaria territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, some American blacks supported the Palestinian Arabs and criticized Israel's actions, for example by publicly supporting PLO leader Yassir Arafat and calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. Immediately after the war, the editor of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee's (SNCC) newsletter wrote an article criticizing Israel, and asserting that the war was an effort to regain Arab land and that during the 1948 war, "Zionists conquered the Arab homes and land through terror, force, and massacres". - The subject of this paragraph is Israel. It is my understanding that the use of Judea and Samaria was the official Israeli reference to the territory so occupied, and remains as such as an administrative area of settlements. The West Bank, in case you may have missed it, is a geographical reference and not an administrative one. It is used ad interum because there is a dispute don't you know. Since the Oslo Accords there now exist Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority, but the paragraph doesn't talk about this period, but one Immediately after the war.

2. Changing "Palestinians" to "Palestinian Arabs" - Excuse me, but look at the article about any Arab village in Mandate Palestine, and you will see it says "a Palestinian Arab village", where the article links to "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha`b al-filasTīni) also referred to as Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs". Now the thing is that before 1948 Palestinian Arabs were not the only Palestinians in the British-occupied territories, and the paragraph (and the article in general) clearly notes support for Palestinian Arabs, quote "asserting that the war was an effort to regain Arab land and that during the 1948 war". So what is your problem?

3. Changing "Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat" to "PLO leader Yassir Arafat" - Are you at all familiar with the history of the conflict? How can you say that "If Arafat was a leader of a major Palestinian organization, he was a Palestinian leader." where as in fact he was a leader of just one of several organizations representing Palestinian Arabs before 1967, not all of them terrorist. Your version suggests that Arafat was the only Palestinian Arab leader, and that his call for the destruction of Israel was the only solution offered to the Palestinian Arabs! This is ahistorical and counter-factual. So who is being more gratuitous in POV-pushing, the earlier version of the article, or me?

4. Changing "Palestinian land" to "Arab land" and "Palestinians" to "Arabs". - Let me explain something to you "Malik". Palestine is a British borrowing, of a Roman word for a province, named after a tribe identified in Hebrew! It can not possibly have been the cultural identity that Arab speakers in the area use it for. Palestinian land refers to the land administered under the British mandate. There are records that clearly state which plots had who on them. It is my understanding that the British records list no less than 50+ ethnicities in the Palestine Mandate! In this case it seems to me perfectly justifiable that the reference should be to Arabs in the context of the article.

So it seems to me that my reasons were perfectly reasonable and justifiable, but you failed to: A) consider that my intentions may be good, and B) failed to give me the benefit of doubt by not communicating prior to reverting (a frequent occurrence in Wikipedia), and C) exhibited bad faith by making accusations that are unjustified because you didn't even think about the reasons why I may have made these edits. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the wordings suggested by M. Shabazz. The primary reason those phrasings are better is because they are the wordings used by the sources that discuss this topic. We must follow the sources, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise. --Noleander (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Your support is irrelevant. The sources provided are unreliable. All I have said is a matter of historical fact. I'll be returning to revise the sources Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have given good reasons for the changes I made, showing that they were not "POV-pushing" as "Malik" assumed. Given no reply to these, I suppose that there is agreement with my earlier edits. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I still disagree, for the reasons explained above. If you want to persuade me (or other editors) that your suggestion is good, you should (1) provide some WP:Reliable sources that discuss the topic of "African-American – Jewish relations" which use your suggested terminology; and (2) demonstrate that the terminology is more commonly used in those sources than the existing article's terminology (for example: show that the sources use "Judea and Samaria" more than "Palestine"). --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at my edits? Not only did they have nothing to do with "African-American – Jewish relations", but they referenced have Wikipedia articles! Did you read the section? Can you see it is written with the perspective of opposing Israel's occupation of the area? If Jordan can rename the area when it occupied it, so can Israel. Renaming occupied territory is a historical fact. You probably live in such a territory. Please stop wasting my time with trivial questions before you read the section and my edits Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't agreed to anything, and stop putting my "name" in "quotes".

Among other things, you haven't provided a satisfactory answer why the Judea and Samaria consensus does not apply. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I thought your name was in honour of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, but you are using your real name here that only resembles it. Consensus does not apply. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not read the whole thing, but "There have been no Palestinians but Palestinian Arabs since 1948" is actually a very wrong statement. As a matter of fact Arabs started calling themselves Palestinians somewhere in 1960s. Jerusalem Post was called The Palestine Post up to 1950, and the only people, who called themselves Palestinians before that time were Jews.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Zionism (review)

(when we are done with point 1., I will proceed with next point) 1. After Israel occupied Palestinian territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, - there is no mention of "African-American – Jewish relations" in this part of the sentence, and there is no reference to this statement. Nor do I suspect is it mentioned in the reference attached to the sentence (as a whole) because the source deals with 17th century manuscripts. However, the article Judea and Samaria Area explains the reason they are called that by Israel, and why. Samaria was an administrative part of the British mandate territories, and the West Bank, the incomplete geographic name of The west bank of the Jordan River, was adopted by the Kingdom of Jordan in 1950, but has since been relinquished. Since the context of the sentence is based on the subject being Israel, and the time-frame being immediate post-1967 period, calling the area by the name it was called by Israeli military administration seems the logical thing to do. There is no consensus on this since its a matter of fact that Israel, in the post-1967 period, called the area "Judea, and Samaria". Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep this up and you're going to be at WP:AN/I before you know it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Do you always answer with demands and threats? You asked for an explanation, and you go one. Either participate in the discussion, or stay away. I have noticed that you are more frequently participating in AN/Is than article editing. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since Malik is an administrator, it is expected that he may need to join in discussions at ANI. I see that he has posted the matter for review at WP:ANI#User:Koakhtzvigad. I, too, am concerned about Koakhtzvigad's paragraph above, since the Judea-and-Samaria thing has been the subject of past edit wars in articles related to the Palestine-Israeli dispute. The only way to keep editors from spinning in endless argument is to patiently work for talk page consensus. This may call for you to engage in dialog to learn what previous editors have found to be a workable compromise on the terminology to be used. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Really EdJohnston? So what if Malik is an administrator? He is supposed to be an editor first. Does that prevent him form participating in a discussion here? It seems to me that he and you both jumped to conclusions before careful consideration of above. Malik's tone is definitely threatening, so I suppose he seems to have gotten used to dealing with editors away from the talk pages after he became an administrator. And by the way, Malik so far has shown little inclination for "patiently work for talk page consensus" attitude you call for Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Motivations and Causes

I propose that we delete this entire section. Basically everything in it is stated elsewhere in the article. Dolphincradle (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just going to do it, then. Dolphincradle (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

African-Americans and Zionism

I think it should be noted that not all African-Americans are Anti-Zionist. Martin Luther King Jr. was a supporter of Israel.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Judaism a race??

This article does not explicitly confirm or deny the assumption, but I somehow got a strong impression the article assumes Judaism is a race... maybe I'm just going batty and paranoid, but I really feel the article is in some way implying it. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Roles of Jews in the slave trade

Regarding this edit, undone by Monochrome monitor with this edit summary: Reverted, jewish ties to slavery are just antisemitic Nation of Islam canard. Saying "alleged" is a misuse of language here. When we talk about "controversy involving...the roles of Jews in the slave trade" we are not in fact claiming that Jews had any role in the slave trade whatsoever. It's parallel to controversy over the role of Martians in the killing of JFK. The semantics of the sentence do not insinuate that Jews had any role in the slave trade whatsoever. Merely that there is controversy over their role, if any. How is this not obvious?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

What concerned me is that the rest of the sentence is objective, ie "black power, Zionism, affirmative action"... these are all real things. "The role of Jews in the slave trade" seems to imply that it's an accepted fact. Shouldn't there be some disclaimer? Anyway, I understand your point, I will not make the edit again. I apologize!

--monochrome_monitor 01:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You think those are real things and the role of Jews in the slave trade is not. Other people think differently. If we start putting in hedges, people are going to want hedges in front of every word. Then what shall we do? It's going to be "the communist-influenced anti-american revolutionary tantrum known as 'black power,' Zionism (voted to be illegal racism by the UN), the lib-dem-hippie neo-racist conspiracy to hire the unqualified known in the Jewish press as 'affirmative action,' and the alleged role of Jews in the slave trade." You think it's obvious that "the rest of the sentence is objective." On a practical level it's a very, very bad idea to forget that a lot of people agree with you that it's possible for some parts of that sentence to be objective while disagreeing on which parts they are. On a theoretical level, it's very important that the English language doesn't make hard distinctions between things which exist and things which don't exist, especially in phrases like this. It avoids very horrific and unwinnable conversations. There's still a controversy over the flat earth theory, you know. That's just how we say it. Your edit count is low, but you'll learn how this discussion goes, believe me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. My concern was that the allegation resembled antisemitic literature by the Nation of Islam.

--monochrome_monitor 20:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Hacker

Is it just me or does this article refer to "Andrew Hacker" a lot? Like three times? And many of its citations are from Andrew Hacker. Doesn't that conflict with POV? --monochrome_monitor 01:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No quality sources.

Some recent scholarship suggests that the "golden age" (1955–1966) of the black–Jewish relationship was not as ideal as often portrayed.

Philosopher and activist Cornel West asserts that there was no golden age in which "blacks and Jews were free of tension and friction". West says that this period of black–Jewish cooperation is often downplayed by blacks and romanticized by Jews: "It is downplayed by blacks because they focus on the astonishingly rapid entry of most Jews into the middle and upper middle classes during this brief period—an entry that has spawned... resentment from a quickly growing black impoverished class. Jews, on the other hand, tend to romanticize this period because their present status as upper middle dogs and some top dogs in American society unsettles their historic self-image as progressives with a compassion for the underdog."

Historian Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz points out that the number of northern Jews that went to the southern states numbered only a few hundred, and that the "relationship was frequently out of touch, periodically at odds, with both sides failing to understand each other's point of view."

Political scientist Andrew Hacker wrote: "It is more than a little revealing that whites who travelled south in 1964 referred to their sojourn as their 'Mississippi summer'. It is as if all the efforts of the local blacks for voter registration and the desegregation of public facilities had not even existed until white help arrived... Of course, this was done with benign intentions, as if to say 'we have come in answer to your calls for assistance'. The problem was... the condescending tone... For Jewish liberals, the great memory of that summer has been the deaths of Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner and—almost as an afterthought—James Chaney. Indeed, Chaney's name tends to be listed last, as if the life he lost was worth only three fifths of the others."

The counterpoint to black antisemitism is Jewish anti-black racism.[99] Some black customers and tenants felt that the Jewish shopkeepers and landlords treated them unfairly or were racist.[100]

Political scientist Andrew Hacker documented an African-American author who said: "Jews tend to be a little self-righteous about their liberal record, ... we realize that they were pitying us and wanted our gratitude, not the realization of the principles of justice and humanity... Blacks consider [Jews] paternalistic. Black people have destroyed the previous relationship which they had with the Jewish community, in which we were the victims of a kind of paternalism, which is only a benevolent racism."[101]

Historian Taylor Branch in his 1992 essay "Blacks and Jews: The Uncivil War", asserted that Jews have been "perpetrators of racial hate," citing the case of three thousand members of the "African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem", founded in 1966 in Chicago, Illinois, were denied citizenship as Jews when they moved en masse to Israel, claiming that they were returning to their ancestral homeland, claiming their right of citizenship as Jews under the Israeli law of return; Branch saw this as an example of what he described as anti-Black sentiment among Israeli Jews.[102][103] Branch was criticized by Seth Forman, who said the claims seem baseless, particularly in light of Israel's airlift of thousands of black Ethiopian Jews in the early 1990s.[104] A group of American civil rights activists led by Bayard Rustin investigated and concluded that racism was not the cause of the Black Hebrews' situation after they had emigrated from the U.S.[105]

Historian Hasia Diner writes: "Never a relationship of equals, [many blacks] assert, Jews sat on the boards of black organizations and held power in black institutions but never allowed for the reverse. [Jews] gave money to civil rights organizations and demanded the right to make decisions by virtue of the power of their purses."

Entire sections either come self published sources, are opinions not actual facts and mainly coming from a POV not actual facts. With permission and if no one has a problem with it, i'm going to make these entries a little bit more npov and edit out anything that only cites one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveandpeace=happy (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what a self-published source is. There is also no problem with POV statements from notable individuals. You might want to read WP:Self-published sources and WP:Neutral point of view. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Religious hatred is about religion

Blacks are antisemitic for the same reason that Ukrainian or Arab peasants are antisemitic. 1)They hear about it every week in church/ mosque, 2) it flatters their own lowly position in society without making any dangerous challenge to the elite, 3) it marks the boundary between what is acceptable and unacceptable in a conformist Christian/ Muslim society in a way that is clear to an illiterate peasantry. Routinized violence against Jews demonstrates the penalty for nonconformism.

You can't write about black antisemitism without considering what Christianity, Christian hatreds in particular, means to blacks. Blacks are also leaders in the hatred of homosexuals. They arrive at this hatred by the same route as they arrive at their hatred of Jews. Once again, Ukrainian and Arab peasants are right there, standing by their black sides.

This article repeats as fact, classic antisemitic stories about the worthy Christian peasants, and the sharp Jewish traders. At that point, the article crosses into traditional Christian-Muslim antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.43.65 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue

The Jewish Defense League was a fringe terrorist organization, and the source for its view toward black civil rights is its founder, Meir Kahane, not a secondary source. Thomas Matthew and "NEGRO", the group with which Kahane formed his "alliance", have never been heard from before or since. By mentioning the JDL and its "alliance", we're giving undue weight to fringe groups. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if there is truth in what you claim, it is still a very relevant detail to the subject matter of the page. The source for a view from the very founder of a group is probably the best source for the views of a group, so I am unsure of why that is seen as not credible. Additionally, the JDL was one of the most popular Jewish organizations during the late 60s and throughout the 70s, with JDL activities frequently appearing on the front page of newspapers worldwide. A popular Jewish organization's alliance with a Black rights group during that era is certainly worthy of mention on a page titled "African-American-Jewish relations," and any censoring of that fact is merely to cover up a truth due to biases of those censoring history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRM001 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. Just because something has been reported by a source doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. You need to build consensus to include it.

And Kahane being "the best source"? Maybe for self-promotion, but not if one is interested in facts. Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have a credible, conflicting source - then publish it. Unlike you, I wouldn't erase it. The fact that you don't like something doesn't make it go away and the fact that a popular Jewish group formed an alliance with a Black rights group at a time when that was unpopular is so relevant and meaningful for this topic that it is clearly a bias of yours to cover a truth that drives you to erase this over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRM001 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're prepared to present secondary sources that discuss the importance of this "important" "alliance" between two fringe organizations, please let me know. I'm not interested in your theories about my motivation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African American–Jewish relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704190022/http://www.blacksandjews.com:80/TonyMartin.html to http://www.blacksandjews.com/TonyMartin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

...only Jews born to Jewish mothers qualified for this right of return

This clearly not true.As even grandchildren of a Jew are eligible.--Shrike (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Shrike. I didn't think it seemed right, but the previous language -- "Jews descended from Jewish women" -- seems overly vague and even less correct. I'm pretty sure the reference to Orthodox Jewish law applying is also incorrect. I'm sorry I didn't follow up by reading Law of Return and fixing the paragraph. Please feel free to do so, or I'll do it the next time I have access to a PC. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the sentences, using some of the language from the Law of Return article. I hope it's better now. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Leo Frank: Conley

Not sure it is relevant to the article to mention Conley's guilt or not although it is very relevant to mention that both men were considered as suspects and the racist aspects of Frank's attorney's presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.99.82 (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

seems flawed

This article is full of modern perspectives being presented as truth. It just paraphrases perspectives and provides no historical substance. Is anything being done to remedy this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AD0:51D0:C9A0:176D:AAD1:24E8 (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

19th Century Section

It doesn't seem right that the colonial era of America and slaves should be part of the "Early 20th Century" section of the article. Perhaps we should designate a new section for pre-20th century historical background? ItsDaBunnyYT (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits - A change of this magnitude needs outside input, and I'm extremely concerned by the phrasing of "perspective of a jewish person" in previous edit summaries (RW 16.1) undo Tag: Rollback

Did you read this article before I edited it? There is a literally a line in it that speculates that a Black person actually committed a murder that a Jewish person was convicted for. How is that not biased POV? Why is that speculation allowed in a Wikipedia article? This is what I"m talking about. This is what I meant when I said "Jewish perspective" I understand why that phrasing might make someone defensive but to deny that an article writer can't have a clear bias towards one of the two subjects in this article is nonsensical and there is a clear bias. Please tag your other wiki friends so they can weigh in if you feel you can't be neutral yourself. 2601:140:8B80:5F50:90AA:E2AD:38A4:CC83 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be deleted, written with a biased voice

This article focuses on Black antisemitism with a tiny stub about Jewish racism at the bottom. An article like this needs to be presented in a fair and balanced way. This is heavily slanted towards the POV of Jewish people as of right now

Update 11/11 So I tried to start a dialogue before deleting things but this entire article is written from the perspective of a Jewish person. What is and isn't included is heavily affected by selection bias and the work itself does not give a comprehensive representation of the subject. I'd argue it does more damage to understanding the subject than it does good. 2601:140:8B80:5F50:28D6:318B:1FB:1474 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Me again so this article is beyond repair. Its got a lot words that have no substance in terms of understanding the relationship between Jewish and Black Americans and doesn't quite understand the difference between African-American and Black Americans. The article proudly quotes Marcus Garvey, who was a prominent black scholar but was not African American so that confusion needs to be sorted out. I'm going to take some time to rewrite this and add FACTS and not conjecture. 2601:140:8B80:5F50:9D48:D176:1B18:C87F (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I provided very clear edit summaries for why this article is extremely problematic. If you have an issue with that please bring it to the talk page and don't revert my work. I've been trying to have a civil discussion about this for a month. This page unacceptable as is. Numerous people have said that. 2601:140:8B80:5F50:90AA:E2AD:38A4:CC83 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest adding viewpoints you feel are under-represented in the article but have good support among reliable sources. Often that is an easier approach than removing large sections of material. If you are set on removing material and it is contested (and it has been contested), then it is often a better approach to discuss that on the talk page (here) rather than in edit summaries (see Wikipedia:BRD). Freelance-frank (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not bonded to the article but I am opposed in general to removing large chunks of referenced material. I echo Freelance-frank's opinion that addition of referenced, balanced material is a better option than deletion. Ifnord (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither the NOI nor the Black Hebrew Israelites belong in this article. Which is why the entire sections were deleted. Again I came to the talk page first but no one paid any attention until I started making changes. 2601:140:8B80:5F50:90AA:E2AD:38A4:CC83 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay just want to be clear. So I'm pointing out that the article should not give undue weight to Black extremist groups (All of that can go under Black Antisemitism) but your solution is for me to instead do what? Add sections about Jewish extremist groups that hate Black people? Why? Who does that help? It makes much more sense to just delete the extremist views or at the very least not give them entire sections. 2601:140:8B80:5F50:90AA:E2AD:38A4:CC83 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

I made this partial revert. The reason is that sourced content was removed and unsourced content was added.

For example of unsourced additions, the description of the group had the segment added, "...Christianity, similar to the more accepted Messianic Judaism. Some sources believe that the reason Black Hebrew Israelites...". This does not appear to come from any of the cited sources.

For example of sourced removal, the paragraph beginning "Many Black Hebrews consider themselves—and not Jews—to be the only authentic descendants of the ancient Israelites..." got removed without explanation.

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for an explanation of what neutrality means on Wikipedia. Neutrality is based on statements from reliable sources. Freelance-frank (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The small amount of Black Jew hatred cited here as evidenced in the weekly attacks on Jews by Blacks in cities like Brooklyn, NY, is nothing short of extraordinary.

The small amount of Black Jew hatred cited here as evidenced in the weekly attacks on Jews by Blacks in cities like Brooklyn, NY, is nothing short of extraordinary. The article limits this subject to Farrakhan. Is this some kind of bad joke? 2600:1017:B82C:2522:C0ED:4D51:6EE3:AAF7 (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please suggest a specific change to the article. Thanks postleft on mobile! 17:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion is for you to delete this incredibly biased information 2601:140:8B80:5F50:2CF7:101D:C85D:189E (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)