Talk:Jews and Judaism in Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Judaism
 Judaism Portal
Jews and Judaism in Africa is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Africa
 Africa Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Lemba

Does anyone have a citation for the recently, anonymously added section on the Lemba? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, some of it I recognize as accurate, other parts I have no idea about. Here's a link. [1] However, I can't vouch for the reliability of that link; on other groups, like the Beta Israel, the site is filled with misconceptions about their origins, as was IZAK when he entered all sorts of information into this article about them on Oct 20 2004. I've cleaned it up to accord with the NPOV and the available research. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Further information about the Lemba can be found at the following web-sites.
  • Interview with Tudar Parfit on PBS [2]
  • Information about the DNA testing done on the Lemba[3]
  • Forensic Biology: Priestly Caste of Jews Linked to Aaron and South African Tribe Might Actually Be Jewish [4]
  • African Tribe Presses Bid [5]

There is also a book written by Tudar Parfat that talks about his research with the Lemba. It proves, along with other sources, that genetically and historically the Lemba are descendents of Jews. The only issue is that their seperation from the rest of world Jewery has placed them in the position of Anusim. According to the Rambam in the Mishnah Torah (Mamrim) 3.3 all that would need to happen is a Giyyur to return Benei Anusim to the Laws of Israel. The Lemba have made it clear that they have no problem with going through a Halakhic return. The book by Tudar Parfit is called Journey To The Vanished City. It can be found at Amazon. [6] --EhavEliyahu 18:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Igbo Jews?

Similarly, I am even more concerned about the citability of the sources for the Igbo material. A mailing list and a book review in an obscure publication? The claim that "Maghrebim" refers to Igbos strikes me as just plain wrong: they are a long way south of the Maghreb. The "Kal Tamasheq" would be Tuaregs. I've never heard of Jewish Tuaregs, although they may exist.

Does anyone have some solid citations on this (preferably from a peer-reviewed journal)? Or is this just one person's theory, from one book? If the latter, it still belongs in Wikipedia someplace, but presented as one scholar's theory, not as accepted truth. -- Jmabel | Talk June 30, 2005 22:31 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about this as well; it is all extremely dubious and has very poor quality sources. Jayjg (talk) 1 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)
I'm looking into this rather diligently. As a sidebar to relevant discussion about it's Wikipedicity, if it is just a theory, it's one I wondered about myself (independently) a couple of years ago as a result of reading Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart. I'll be sure to let y'all know what I find out as soon as I find it out. As Matt Drudge says, "Developing..." Tomer TALK July 1, 2005 06:44 (UTC)
As far as I know, of the various Black Africans who claim Jewish descent, only the Ethiopian Jews are generally acknowledged as such by the rest of world Jewry. I'd really like to see solid citations on the others: I think the quality of the best available citation on each claim would speak volumes. -- Jmabel | Talk July 6, 2005 00:59 (UTC)
Ditto. Finding citations is still a work in progress. I spoke tonight w/ a Rabbi in Ukraine who said at least that he's heard that this is going on, but doesn't know the details. I'm still on the job... :-p Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 09:22 (UTC)

Information from the person who posted Ibo (Igbo) info B"H Shalom unvorakh kulam, My name is Ehav Eliyahu and I added the information about the Igbo Jews of Nigeria. Just to give some background on myself I am an Orthodox Jew of mixed Sephardic and West African descent (of course I am halakhically Jewish), and I pray at the Teimani Beith Kenesseth Tifereth Yisrael in New York. I recently added some citations for the information, and am in the process of adding a bit more information. There are several organizations like Kulanu who are working with the Jewish communities in Nigeria, and number of the people there, in America, and a few in Israel are Halakhically Jewish, while the rest are on that path (I am currently trying to get Chabad and several Sephardi Beith Kenesseth invovled for the part of the community that is not halakhically Jewish). The Giyyur Khelqi for Igbos is different than that of the Beta Israel in several respects that is done on either on family or individual basis. It is also being done on a case by case situation, at a slow pace. As you know this is how it started out with the Beta Israel, before the ruling of the Rabbi Ovadia in 1975. There was already though a ruling from a Sephardic Rabbi though on the Beta Israel, before 1975. The following information is where Rabbi Ovadia Yossef based his opinions about the Beta Israel.

The Tunisians asked the Gaon Rabbi Zemakh about Eldad and Ethiopian Jews. He bases his opinion on the wisdom of Rabban Yitshaq ben Mar and Rabban Simkha who both met Eldad. He bases his opinion on biblical passages. He bases his opinion on Hhazal (the Sages) who find no mention of Dan in any of the 10 exiles. the Gaon says: "But the tribe of Dan is not mentioned in any of the exiles because it went of its own accord to Æthiopia."
600 years later, in 1434 CE, Italian Rabbi Eliyahu of Ferrara writes what he heard straight from the mouth of a Beta Israel. In 1488 another Italian Rabbi Obadyah of Bertinoro writes about Beta Israel and he met two of them in Egypt. He says: "They are somewhat black... They claim descent from the tribe of Dan...".
Rabbi Dawiyd ben-Zimra of Egypt in two seperate responsum says: "... she was Jewish, a member of the tribe of Dan ..." and "... among the kings of Kush, where there are three kingdoms ... one of Israelites of the tribe of Dan." "... the Kushites are undoubtedly of the tribe of Dan." Rabbi Ya`aqob Castro also ruled "... the Abyssinian Jews ... are of the tribe of Dan ..."
The former Sepharade Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yossef in 1973 ruled,
"I have therefore reached the conclusion that the Falashas are descendants of Israelite tribes which migrated southward to Ethiopia. The aforementioned authorities who determined that they are of the Tribe of Dan undoubtedly investigated the matter thoroughly and came to this conclusion according to the most reliable testimony and evidence."

So as I mentioned the situation with the entire populace of the Nigerian Jews is of a different nature than that of the Beta Israel. Some Igbos are recognized Halakhically as Jews by various individual Beit Din's, due to the current push to return Benei Anusim. A few live in Israel. There is currently no overall ruling though, but that could change based on some things going on with the re-established Beith Din HaGadol (Sanhedrin).

In terms of the mention fo the Maghrebim and the Kal Tamesheq I added information to clear up the misunderstanding there. I was not making the claim that Yehudim Maghrebim is an exclusive term to Igbo Jews in Nigeria. Also, according sources in the Timbuktu Islamic library there were Jews who came from the upper and northern Maghreb into Mali. There was also a migration of Portuguese Jews into the islands off the coast of West Africa as well as in Senegal. Also, the information does not claim that ALL Kal Tamesheq were Anusim. There is a certain group, that from intial research seem to be. The book refernced now one the site "Jews in Places You Never Thougt Of" references an encounter with this group. That is some lay-over from the Jewish Berbers that existed during the time of El Kahina's revolt against the Arab invasion of North Africa. Tomer has joined the web-list that was posted for some of the information. If need be I can provide anything more, and am more than willing to answer any questions on this topic and give more Rabbinic contacts. Kol tuv.--EhavEliyahu 19:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

More information information on the subject matter can also be acquired from the people and sources. I will list more contacts as they are needed.

  • Dr. Jack Zeller contact email Jack@kulanu.org
  • Rabbi Capers Funnye contact email RavFunnye@sbcglobal.net

A paper written by a Jew of Nigerian descent will be presented at the Society of Crypto Jewish Studies conference in Florida next month. Information about this

News letters from various sources of North American Jewish, and Israeli visitors to Nigeria can be found in the Kulanu newsletters.

--EhavEliyahu 21:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings again all. I have added some more citations for the information presented about the Igbo. I also updated some of the previoius citings with more information on the books mentioned. I will add some more sources for the Lemba today also. Also, the following website of Rabbi Howard Gorin talks about his experience with the Igbo of Nigeria. Rabbi Howard Gorin's web-site [7] --EhavEliyahu 11:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tutsis

Should not perhaps some mention be made of the sizeable number of Tutsis claiming Jewish heritage? Tomer TALK 09:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Got something citable? If so, sure. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
All I "know" about it is what I've read at kulanu.org... TShilo12 06:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


I think all this idea of Tutsi Jews can go no further than John Hanning Speke's discredited Hamitic Hypothesis which colonialists used to divide Africans into "true negro" and "mixed negro" categories. Of course Tutsi are as welcome to `Am Yisra'el as anybody else but beside enthusiast points of view there's no historical references for them being b*nei Yisra'el or practitioners of Y*haduth.

al-Takruri

--AlTakruri 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate article

I am in the process of redirecting Ancient Jewish Diaspora in Subsaharan Africa to this article. The information is largely duplicated, except for two sentences describing a group of Jewish converts to Islam in Somalia. I am not familiar with such a group myself, and the editor did not provide any more detail (e.g. a name for the group). If there is such a group, can someone add verifiable information about them to this article? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You also neglected to merge the West Africa section, where it said:
The Bnai Ephraim ("Children of Ephraim") of Nigeria numbered, in 1930, about 2000 people in 400 families in 20 small villages in the Ondo District of Southwestern Nigeria. According to their traditions, they came to Nigeria by way of Morocco. Indeed, their language is a mixture of Moroccan Arabic with Yoruba (see The Ten Lost Tribes a Myth by Dr. Allen Godbey, 1930), but also with a bit of Aramaic, such as ima for "mother." In their aspect and most of their customs they cannot be distinguished from their Yoruba neighbours, but the Yoruba call them Emo Yo Quaim - the "Strange People." They call themselves Bnai Ephraim and keep copies of portions of the Torah in their sanctuaries.
It'd be nice if someone could verify this information and find a somewhat more modern source, so that it can be re-added to the article... TomerTALK 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a more recent book I found in Israel that mentions a group of Jews in the Ondo forost, but even that book didn't give a source of the information. The book didn't go into the detail mentioned above, it only mentioned that they had one Torah scroll that did not have ink for the letters, but the words were instead burned into the parchment with a hot iron so it could not be changed. The book also had it as a quick mention not telling anything about who reported the informaiton. I will look again tonight to see if there is some reference.
I asked a few Jews of the Igbo ethnic group in Abuja, Nigeria if they had heard of such a group among the Yoruba, and they could not verify that such a group existed. What they did suggest though was that a number of Kohanim from Nri, Nigeria a number of years ago moved to a region near the Ondo forest in the Yoruba territory, and at some point mixed in with the local population. That was about all I could find out from people living in Nigeria itself, this was all oral legend to them.--EhavEliyahu 19:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mali

I've restored the remark about "undoubted" Jewish descendants in Mali. If there is doubt, no one has cited any indication of that doubt. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in this. The Haidara family in Timbuktu has tax records, Hebrew documents, etc. in their library from the Kahath family.--EhavEliyahu 22:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenya Jews

There have been reports of a small native community of Jews in Kenya. Does anyone have information on this?

Well, someone's added to the article, but didn't bother to supply a source. It's a potentially interesting development, but as far as WP is concerned, until it's sourced, what that means is that it's a potential development that's interesting, rather than a development that's potentially interesting. Tomertalk 04:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bnei Ephraim

Does anyone have sources for this? All of the people I know in Nigeria have never heard of such a group. Also, the only source I have seen about this comes from a book that never shows where the information came from. --EhavEliyahu 06:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The closest thing I know of are the Bene Ephraim (a.k.a. "Telugu Jews") of India. Tomertalk 16:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The information in the article talks as if a group of people still exits in Nigeria called Benei Ephraim and that they have a Torah scroll. I have seen no evidence that such a group exits in the Ondo forest. The account that is mentioned comes from 1930, and it does not describe the source of the info.--EhavEliyahu 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature re: User:208.54.95.129

Don't change the use of the terminology unless there appears to be some sort of consensus- I don't think your changes are valid. Why can we not describe Jews as Jews? Ekrub-ntyh 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly why there is someone going in and changing things from Jew to Israelite or Hebrew, but I think it is being done by someone who believes that they are using more correct terminology. The problem of course is that the words "Israelite" and "Hebrew" are actually not the original terms. Israelite in is correctly pronounced in Hebrew as "Yisraeli" and Hebrew is actually pronounced "Ivri" or "Ivrim" (plural).--EhavEliyahu 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have gone in and made corrections to the changes that User:208.54.95.129 made for the following reasons.

1) The words that the words "Israelite" and "Hebrew" are actually not the original terms. Israelite in is correctly pronounced in Hebrew as "Yisraeli" and Hebrew is actually pronounced "Ivri" or "Ivrim" (plural). The majority of Igbos in Nigeria also refer to themselves.

2) The word Gad is English. In Ancient Hebrew the Tav without a dagesh was pronounced as a "th" sound like in the word "the."

3) The word "Maghreb" is Arabic and not Moroccan. Maghreb/Maghrib in Arabic means "West." Jews of Nigeria is not a term created by Europeans, it is one that the Igbos living in Nigeria use for themselves.--EhavEliyahu 22:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beta Israel/Ethiopian Jewish section reflects a non-NPOV, biased Afrocentric perspective

" The practices of the Beta Israel differ significantly from those of other forms of Judaism. Probably because Beta Israel (Ethiopians) practice a correct form of Ancient Hebraic ways while "Judism" is of European origin and not African. Therefore, Judism is foreign to them. One significant difference is that they lack the festivals of Purim and Hanukkah. This is probably because they branched off from the main body of Judaism before these holy days were developed. Further emphasizing the correctness of their ancient hebraic way of practice."

In writing "Beta Israel (Ethiopians) practice a correct form of Ancient Hebraic ways while "Judism" is of European origin and not African", the writer makes an explicit value judgment in contending that one way of practising Judaism is more "correct" than another, and additionally errs by stating that "Judaism is of European origin and not African", ignoring the fact that rabbinical Orthodox Judaism and Talmudic law have been followed by Jews in Europe, Africa and the Middle East (the latter being where it originated) and the first Talmudic academies in which Orthodox Jewish law was developed and studied have their origins in ancient Eretz Yisrael/ Palestine and Babylonia (present-day Iraq, and *NOT* Europe, although in subsequent generations and centuries rabbinical learning continued in Europe and North America, in addition to their Middle Eastern cradle. This is the Judaism which the writer seems to be discussing (and dismissing) as "not correct" and "European" in contradistinction to the Beta Israel's traditional practices prior to their mass aliyah to Israel.

Also, the person who inserted that information doesn't seem to have much direct knowledge of the Ethiopian Jewish community's history. The Ethiopian Jews had several Halakhic texts of their own, which were similar to various Jewish codes of Halakhah. Also, there is an Ehiopian scholar Prof. Ephaiam Isaacs who claims that Ethiopian Jews did celebrate Hanukah, but in a different way.--EhavEliyahu 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Igbo Corrections

Several corrections seem to be in order for the section on the Igbo; there are numerous grammatical errors (I counted, while skimming, at least 14). Additionally, there seems to be a strong emphasis on an "Ancient Hebraic" label, and over-use of the term "Israelite". This is a bit faulty for one of two reasons:

One, no anthropological or scholarly studies have been conducted in-depth as to the origin of the Igbo people, though they are certainly Jewish. They could be descended from any number of Jewish groups from various areas, or a combination thereof. While external evidence seems to indicate they are pre-rabbinical and perhaps even pre-Hasmonean in origin, we should stick to the facts, people.
Two, this seems to be partially based on afro-centric ideas and devaluation of modern Israel. The common phrase repeated throughout is "not to be confused with", usually contrasting with modern Israel and other Jews. While I initially thought this to be little more than [helpful] clarification, the sheer number of times such a qualifier is brought up indicated that they are probably trying to disassociate the Igbo as much as possible from the modern Israelis, and may represent an ideaology similar to some "Black Israelite" groups in the U.S. and Zimbabwe who claim that modern Jews have usurped Judaism from Black Africans, who they believe are the sole descendents of the ancient Israelites (and which, consequently, except for scattered groups like the Lemba, Ibo, etc... is completely unsupported by any genetic, linguistic, historical, anthropological or archaeological evidence). They're additionally trying to over-emphasize this so much that many of their qualifying terminology (Ancient Hebraic Israelite, etc) is inserted almost indiscriminately in the section, making it almost non-sensical at times.

I welcome any revisions to this material from any contributers. I would have corrected the information and sourced it myself, except that I'm a bit short on time and don't have the leisure to correct the grammatical mistakes as well. But I thought I would give a heads up; if there are no major revisions, I'll do the edits myself.

Kaelus 12:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


I've made some of the necessary corrections, and removed some of the more erroneous and unsupported terminology and claims in the section. I've kept the assertions of the original author intact, but this section (and the entire article, for that matter) needs to be sourced and citations need to be inserted, as a lot of this material may be based on unsupported original research and opinion, which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. I highly doubt there are 30,000 practicing Jews of Nigerian descent within the country (let alone among the Igbo people); that number is pretty substantial to have only been quoted here. If anyone would wish to collarborate on searching for sources, leave something on my Talk page. Kaelus 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The Israelite or Hebrew Israelite mentions were not originally a part of the article. There is someone who keeps adding Hebrew Israelite to everything. The number of 30,000 Igbos practicing Judaism is based on the assessment of a Conservative Rabbi and a Reform Rabbi who travel to Nigeria quote often. The sources at the bottom of the page serve as the sources for this information.--EhavEliyahu 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the previous discussion about the Igbo you will find the information that I inserted about the Igbo. The 30,000 number comes from Rabbi Gorin's site at [8]. --EhavEliyahu 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that explains why I didn't recall seeing the information earlier. Many thanks for the information, Eliyahu; I'll help keep an eye on the article to make sure such qualifiers aren't re-inserted into the article. As for the 30,000 estimate, as long as it's cited, and clarified that it's neither an exact estimate nor based on polling/sociological data, I think it's permissable to have in the article, since it does nothing but add information users might want.

On a side note, this article is in desperate need of clean-up, primarily formatting. This is true of most Judaism-related pages outside of the more popular articles, but this article particularly needs it, especially as it is link-heavy. I have no objection to numerous links in an article... In fact, I prefer it so that users can sift through related information as needed, but it looks a bit sloppy here. If anyone else would like to help with this, your help is more than encouraged; I'll be doing the same once I've completed a few projects that unfortunately take precedence over editing Wikipedia at this point in time. Kaelus 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Repeated Vandalism

69.203.141.217, a.k.a 130.127.92.227, your repeated edits to this article constitute vandalism according to Wikipedia's policies. I can't speak for EhavEliyahu, but I for one am tired of having to revert your edits, especially when valid information has been incorporated into the article after you've inserted your academically unsupported and idealogically motivated terminology. In addition, you are acting against concensus, and never explain or try to justify your edits on the talk page; you simply keep undoing the author(s) original work. If this continues, I will contact an admin to have your various IPs banned from editing Wikipedia, as per policy, and your repeated vandalism may result in this page being protected (which we be unfortunate for those who regularly contribute something notable to this article). You've been warned. Kaelus 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Kaelus. I am with you 100% on this I am getting tired of reverting the article back to an older version. The information that 69.203.141.217, a.k.a 130.127.92.227 is inserting also takes away from the credibility of the article. I don't think they check the Talk pages, for the reasons you mentioned. This page may need to be locked so it can be cleaned up.--EhavEliyahu 18:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I've reverted the article back to Ehav's former corrected version; if any valid information that was added by other users after the vandal's edits has been lost, I apologize, but from looking at the entries in the "History", it seems most of the edits were corrections to vandalism.

There are still several "weasel-words" and terms which constitute what Wikipedia terms 'sneaky vandalism' that remain, many of which EhavEliyahu seems to have missed when he corrected the vandalism earlier. I'll try to amend these tomorrow if someone else hasn't done so. If the vandalism happens again, I'll petition an admin to have the IPs blocked. If it continues after that, I will request semi-protection for the article so that the article may continue to be edited. Also, for any of you who are interested in preserving the integrity of the articles on Wikipedia from vandalism, I suggest you look at the other similar edits by the vandal in various related articles, and help out the regular editors there.

If anyone wants some discussion on this matter, you should hop on over to my talk page, though I do watch this talk page as well. Thanks. Kaelus 09:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I have been reverting the article back to a saved version I have. In the saved version there are some areas that need to be corrected and edited. The problem is that someone keeps going in and added Hebrew Israelite to everything. The problem is this:
None of the groups mentioned in the article call themselves Hebrew Israelites. The Igbos are the only ones that I know of that prefer Israelites, but they also use the word Jew. Ethiopian Jews have NEVER called themselves Hebrew Israelites. The Jews of Uganda started practicing Judaism in the early 1900's. Many of them converted to Conservative Judaism in the 90's and later. According to them they have no Israelite past or ancestry. Also, the vandel went as far as to change title of articles and such.
Also, the statement "Hebrew Israelite" does not show up in the Hebrew text of the Tanakh anywhere. Because the person or person's who keep inserting Hebrew Israelite everywhere aren't logged in users there is no way to engage them on their changes. I agree that somehting has to be done because there are to many vandelisms to this particular page. I personally can't devote to much time to the article until there is more control over it.--EhavEliyahu 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The vandal struck again, Ehav. I've reverted it to your more recent and polished version. And, for the record, I completely agree with you. My guess is that the vandal is someone who wants to dissassociate the African groups with other ethnic groups that are considered Jewish, such as the Ashkenazim and Sephardim. It's definately not rooted in any academic research, as his terminology, as you have said, is completely unsupported. It's probably idealogically or politically motivated; probably to disassociate groups of African origin with those usually associated with Israel, given their placement of the bogus term in the article. While the nomenclature of "Jew" originally referred to those who were thought to be from the tribe of Judah, it is accepted internationally as the term to describe both those with ethnic ties to Eretz Yisrael (including both Judah and Israel) and the practitioners of the religion associated with both areas, but primarily Judah (Samaritans, for example, are found only in the former northern kingdom Israel and the bulk of their ancestry is not from the tribe of Judah. Their geographic seperation from the Kingdom of Judah shaped their religious beliefs significantly). Descendants of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, Manasseh, and possibly Dan have been tenatively identified in the Jewish population, but exact figures are impossible, since modern Jewish ancestry is so mixed and Judah and Levi comprise the only readily identifiable tribal pedigrees, as they are dominant in nearly every Jewish population. I highly doubt the vandal is trying to make this point, for the reasons already mentioned, and that they seem clueless as to the way the terminology is used. As it stands, "Jew" is the ONLY acceptable general nomenclature for practitioners of any form of Judaism except Samaritanism: And this means the only acceptable term culturally, linguistically, and religiously.

I can try to get the IPs used by the vandal blocked; it doesn't seem that they use a computer that dispenses multiple user IPs given their edit history, but rather uses different computers. This is pure conjecture though. Even if we banned every IP that pops up, I doubt that would stop them. When I have time, I will be contacting an administrator to put the page under semi-protection, so that only registered users can edit. If the vandal tries to implement their malicious edits by registering for an account, they can be stopped in their tracks with little difficulty. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if people just used the talk page. I'd like to expand this page significantly (as I've gathered some good information), but I'm afraid to do so only to have that version of the page vandalized and have to do more than a simple revert to correct it. If I don't get to contacting an admin in a timely manner, feel free to contact one yourself in the meantime and explain the situation. Oh, and thank for your tireless edits to Judaism-related pages. In my opinion, you've done a great job, EhavEliyahu. Kaelus 05:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kaelus and Ehav, I've been noticing what's going on here. In my fairly limited experience of these things, I don't think there's any chance of getting this page protected and the only way this vandal will be blocked is if he breaks the three reverts rule (something he's not yet been anywhere close to doing) - it's fairly blatant vandalism but probably more of a content dispute in the eyes of admins. Anyway Ehav, please don't let this person stop you doing the work you want to do on this article. Much better to ignore him, especially while the vandalism is relatively infrequent and he fails to provide any justification whatsoever for what he is doing. If you're worried about the page being vandalised while you're editing, perhaps you could copy it to a subpage of your own page, say User:EhavEliyahu/Arican_Jews and edit in safety there. It'd be really good to see an expanded and improved page. Good luck to both of you.--Lo2u 23:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK he's now in violation of the three revert rule. Any more and he can probably be blocked.--Lo2u 11:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't look like he heard your plea for discussion on the talk page either, Lo2u. He's already vandalized the article. Again. Anyone wanna report the bastard? Kaelus 14:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure he heard. There are requests and warnings in so many places and I notice he switched IPs after the three reverts warning. Never mind. I've added something here. Not sure it's the right place but hopefully something will be done. And this has gone on so long that I don't think a few more days makes any difference. Best.--Lo2u 14:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, we were both editing the page at the same time. Well, I appreciate you taking some official action on it, regardless of whether it bears fruit or not. Still, my talking point below I think is still valid... Anyone may weigh in with their thoughts regarding the issue. Like I said, I strongly advocate vying for semi-protection. I don't mind reverting every day as much as one might think, to be honest, but I know it will become a major migraine to all of us in the future. It ruins the presentation of the page for users and random viewers alike, and contributes to the misinformation problem already present on Wikipedia... That's my primary concern. And, of course, that's along with having to go in and manually edit the page when someone edits the article after the vandal has struck. As the page gets expanded, proofing the article will almost require a much more coordinated effort, should the vandalism continue. I'd like to avoid this. Kaelus 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Vandal

Alright, Lo2u. I followed the proverbial "paper trail" and read your pleas with the vandal, on the FedEx anonymous Talk Page, the edit history, et al. I'm sure you've seen my messages and/or tags submitted to the user under their various aliases. The user has violated Wikipedia policy, knowingly, I'm sure. Whether or not they've seen our messages here or elsewhere is irrelevant; They seem to have enough knowledge of Wikipedia workings to probably have checked it, and we can't really continue to assume good faith indefinately in the hopes that they haven't read our requests for discussion and that once they do (if they indeed haven't), they'll reform their methods. The user seems intent on adding their edit to this article, no matter how many reverts we do. If they haven't caught on that it isn't considered appropriate by now, they must be pretty thick.

So the question is.. what can be done about this? I'd prefer a somewhat static solution, whatever that may be, rather than this endless cycle of reverts. I'm open to suggestions... As far as I know, virtually any avenue I've already suggested is feasible, and as of now ultimate depends on the admin we bring to the table and the results of our discussion amongst ourselves. Arbitration is obviously out of order. Blocking the IP address seems futile... One, because the user uses multiple IPs, seemingly logging onto Wikipedia at any random terminal. Secondly, because no sanctions against the FedEx IP have been fruitful regarding past vandalism. I'd like to suggest semi-protection. It seems the only non-futile course of action to me. Ideas, anyone? Kaelus 14:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of semi-protection. The only thing is I don't think we'll find an admin willing to do it. Looking here the conditions are fairly strict:

"Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page, if the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with. Like full protection, it is usually a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure."

The Tony Blair article gets vandalised many times a day and has just been unprotected. And reqeusts here seem generally to get refused. Obviously for a page like this with far fewer interested users it's harder to keep up with the reverts, so by all means go ahead and try if you want to. My worry is that the alternative to page protection, repeated reversion, might actually be as problematic for us as for the vandal, and maybe worse because we're using a static account and he's using a shared IP. There's a small chance if we revert too often we could be blocked under the three reverts rule and it's a risk I don't think we should take. This puts us in a fairly awkward position. My hope is that an admin will warn this user to stop his reverting or at least provide an explanation and this will put us on firmer grounds when we revert and maybe get him quickly blocked in the future. We need to wait a few more days though.--Lo2u 15:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Kaelus you were right. I contacted Slim, mostly because I wanted assurance that what I was doing wasn't revert warring, and the page is now semi-protected. This might be the end of our problems or at least a four day respite while the vandal's sock puppets grow to maturity. Best--Lo2u 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear that this is being taken care of. I will gradually go in a make some corrections to certain areas I know need some clean up. Good work guys.--EhavEliyahu 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tutsi

How can one refer to the Tutsi, and not their neighbors, being "genetically related" to anyone, when Tutsi and Hutu identity were fluid at the time of European conquest? As out article Tutsi remarks, '…one finds Belgian colonists conducting a census, and defining "Tutsi" as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose, while a "Hutu" meant someone with less than ten cows and a squashed nose.' - Jmabel | Talk 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this section. Here's the link if anyone wants to double check but, of the books on my shelf, only one mentions this. Mahmood Mamdani, in When Victims Become Killers, p. 46, refers to the migration hypothesis, stating: "The central myth concerns the Bachwezi dynasty in the kingdom of Bunyoro in western Uganda". The migration hypothesis was basically framed by Archie Mafeje in The Theory and Ethnography of African Social Formations, and Bwejeri in the linked article appears to have added on a Jewish hypothesis as well. The fact that there was a migration around the 15th century of pastoralists is generally accepted. Specifics about the Bachwezi or a Horn of Africa origin are pretty speculative, and I don't know of any credible source that argues that the proto-Tutsi were Jews before their migration perhaps from the Horn. - BT 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Igbo Jews: Benei Gath, Benei Zevulun, Benei Menashe

I propose to move the details of the 3 lineages from the African Jew page to the Igbo Jews page. Let me know if there's a good reason to leave it where it is. Fayenatic london 10:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Fayenatic london 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

For an article so much of which is about controversial claims, this is pitifully short on citations. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is because everyone agrees that the article needs to be cleaned up, but no one has time to do it. I personally am concentrating on the Bilad es-Sudan and Beta Israel articles since there is more concrete informaiton. Many of the books listed at the bottom of the page list information for some of the claims of the articles, but it would take someone who is interested to go through and list the page numbers. The thing to remember that a majority of the information in the article is based on claims that particular groups are making about themselves regardless of what anyone else believes about them.--EhavEliyahu 03:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claim vs. Assert

OK, excuse my ignorance of wikiquette if I've put this in the wrong place, but this is my elaboration on why I changed "claim" to "assert." Claim immediately invites dispute, such as if I claim your land, you'll shoot me (or passive resistance me to death). One can assert, however, regardless of whether anyone else challenges the assertion or not.

This is important because these groups, and I know many of their members personally, aren't submitting a claim for admittance in mainstream Judaism but are asserting Jewish ancestry whether anyone else accepts it or not.

I know this is headed for trouble but before anyone changes it back or goes into another direction, please try to look at my point mathematically - geometrically, really - in that the assertion of one group, rightly or wrongly, exists independent of the definitions of another. A case in point: Both Catholics and Protestants, as well as many other groups, use the word "bishop," but it hardly means the same thing. Certainly mainstream Catholics would not extend diplomatic recognition to a female storefront minister as a bishop. Yet both exist and are recognized, however tenuously, by the wider world. Judgment is left to intereested parties to dispute. Thanks for listening - User talk:robinbirk (October 29, 2006)

An excellent elucidation in defense of a completely uncontroversial wording change. :-) Tomertalk 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with, and and change of title to, "Judaism in Africa"

[edit] Proposed merger

I suggest that the content of Judaism in Africa be merged into this page.

[edit] Proposed change of title

I also suggest that the title of the combined page be Judaism in Africa, because (i) that has a clear meaning, whereas (as this article states at the start) African Jew has a variety of meanings; (ii) there are also articles on Christianity in Africa and Islam in Africa. Fayenatic london 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community response

Please note your support or objections below.

  • Sound good to me. Ayin/Yud 12:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If we merge, what are we going to do about the people (e.g. in São Tomé and Príncipe who are ethnically, but not religiously Jewish? There is, once again, the distinction between Jews (ethnicity) and Judaism (religion). I don't dount that some refactoring would be in order, but I'm skeptical about a merge. - Jmabel | Talk 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I agree. I'll do it some time in the next month, unless anyone else beats me to it. Fayenatic london 09:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's done! CharlesMartel had removed half the content as unencyclopaedic, and that made it easier. Fayenatic london 01:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Response- Firstly- clunky is fine. Accuracy is more important -the article discusses both Jews and Judaism. Secondly, you're a bit late. The article has already been moved, in case you haven't noticed, and Judaism in Africa now serves as a redirect to Jews and Judaism in Africa. Ayin/Yud 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-sentence

"The Igbos of Nigeria from East African Jewish communities." This sentence no verb. - Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what the correct verb would be, but I would propose "assert descent" between "Nigeria" and "from" ... Tomertalk 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
OMG. I just out laughing. I didn't before exactly what the original sentence. That hilarious. Thanks Jmabel for my day brighter. We more of this kind of discussion here.  :-) Tomertalk 08:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was good, and not wasted -- I spotted it the first time! Fayenatic london 12:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hebrew Israelite" changes rolled back

An anon went through the article and inserted a bunch of "Hebrew Israelite(s)" for "Jew(s)", as well as a few other questionable changes. Until the anon or someone else can show good cause for how this usage is more accurate, I have removed the changes via rollback. Cheers, Tomertalk 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So this has started back up again. That is the difficult thing about an article like this. There are people who for the most part of no direct knowledge of said groups mentioned in the article, but will continue to go through and add Hebrew Israelite everywhere. I wonder if this article needs to be locked again.--EhavEliyahu 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ya, Ehav...sadly, this kind of "crapfixing" constitutes probably about 30% of Wikipedia edits. :-\ Tomertalk 08:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodoxy among African Jews

"Although not all African Jews are religious, most of the practices found in African Jewish communities are Orthodox in nature, enabling the communities to remain strong and united in spirit and belief."

Is this accurate at all? The Abayudaya Jews of Uganda certainly affiliate with Conservative Judaism, and I'm not sure denominational labels like "Ortho., etc" can be accurately applied to most Jewish communities with these kinds of histories. Ethiopian Jewish tradition, for instance, could almost be called Karaistic. The comment seems more like rah-rah-ing for Orthodoxy than actually a description of African Jews. (non-registered user, Alan from Maryland)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.108.8.5 (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

  • It actually sounds more like unqualified editorializing. As with a great many other things in this article, it needs some work... Tomertalk 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/w/Talk%7EJews_and_Judaism_in_Africa_1f0c.html"