Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Black Hebrew Israelites is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Black Hebrew Israelites was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: January 31, 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Hebrew Israelites article.
Article policies

An article by this name was deleted under VfD fairly recently (it was a POV rant) - but this new one seems to be a different article - it is still awful and needs cleaned up - but it does seem to deal with a real group. Perhaps it needs attention rather than deletion. I think this should perhaps be sent back to VfD rather than speedied. --Doc Glasgow 00:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Scratch that - an article already exists under Black Hebrews perhaps redirect--Doc Glasgow 00:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

the Hebrew Israelites differ from the Black Hebrews. (131.212.113.198 - article's creator)

I removed the speedy nomination; it is not clear to me that there is anything inherently wrong with this article. Take it through vfd if you believe it should be deleted. Thue | talk 07:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think it merits deletion - seems OK - although I'm ot sure that 'racist' is a neutral adjective, seems like an evaluation - would the group describe themselves as racist? --Doc Glasgow 08:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Is "Black" redundant or racist in "Black Hebrew Israelites"?

An anonymous editor has been vandalizing this article and making this claim. Is it true? Well, the term does get almost 2500 Google hits. Included in those hits are sites like this: [1] [2] [3] obviously people who self-identify that way. Jayjg (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Unfortunately for the Jews, most of the Hebrew grammar and vocabulary corresponds closelt with that of Northern Africa the so-called land of Ham whilst the natural Jewish language, Yiddish is an obscure dialect of German ." - Africa is divided into White Africa and Black Africa, so land of Ham is the former; Therefore, the similarities between the Hamitic languages and Hebrew do not prove that blacks are descended from the Israelites. Of course, Yiddish is not the natural Jewish language, but the old Ashkenazic language.--1523 08:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, how is that strange and factually incorrect quote relevant? Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My point is that the ancient Israelites were usually not black, so "Black" in "Black Hebrew Israelites" is not redundant at all. Indeed it is absurd to insist the Jews generally are not descended from the Israelites - It might be quite possible that the Ashkenazim are not descended from the Israelites though.--1523 06:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The genetic evidence shows the opposite; that Ashkenazi Jews are indeed descended from Israelites. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism

Currently:

As well, because of their focus on Jews, who they insist are not Israelites at all, but rather Edomites and Khazars acting on behalf of Satan[2] and secretly controlling the United States[3], they have been accused of anti-Semitism.

Accused of anti-semitism? If these are their beliefs, then they are anti-semitic. Would we say that Karl Lueger was "accused of anti-semitism." Or that it has been accused that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were anti-semitic? These kind of beliefs are by definition anti-semitic. We shouldn't tiptoe around it. john k 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to be neutral when I wrote it. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I understand, I just think it's going way overboard. I don't see a problem with calling a group anti-semitic when they explicitly preach what are explicitly and obviously anti-semitic doctrines. If it walks like a duck... john k 05:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

ur just mad cuz they might be right,lol.

[edit] Sorry about the Controversy

I am Jewish (Modern Orthodox), and came accross this stub while I was creating the Template:African American. Please notice that I've added little to this page other than formatting, as I know little about this faith, and its principles.

I originally found this stub via the disambiguation page Black Jews.

When I added the link to the template (pointing to this stub), I did not realize that there was already a clean, and more complete page representing NPOV – Black Hebrews. I did not mean to start edit wars.

I am happy to see that there *is* NPOV information that was added to this page that appears sound and valid. I encourage you to bring your edits to that page. I am going to move this page there, and correct the double-redirects.

If this article, and Black Hebrews are not the same topic, please let me know on my Talk page. If it is solely a matter of what the title should be please bring it up on Talk:Black Hebrews.

Again, sorry about the unecessary controversy I created.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    

The articles discuss different groups, and I see nothing POV about the current version. The Black Hebrews of Dimona are just one group, there are others. A merge might make sense, but only one which retains the current information, not simply a re-direct. Jayjg (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for setting it straight (no one sent any flames! that's rare, and I appreciate it.) I can't recall the link changes I may have made before the holiday weekend (US). Please look at my contributions page to hunt them down and revert.
— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     16:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV (Neutrality)

After seeing the same paragraph reverted back and forth, I have posted the Template:POV and have added this article to Requests for a Third Opinion prior to any official mediation. For reasons I've stated above, I don't feel compitent to be the third editor. If I do not see that my request has been followed on in a day or two, I will file an official request for mediation.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     22:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW the edit war seems to be between User:155.232.250.51 and User:Jayjg. The first is an anonymous IP from a university proxy server, which has had many warnings about vandalism. The second being a registered user and respected Wikipedian administrator.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     6 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same group as Nation of Yahweh? I wouldn't think so, but the Religious movements site listed this as an alternate name for the NoY.--T. Anthony 06:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Different group, related ideas. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I have
added specific Black Hebrew Israelite congregations (many of whom are not anti-semitic)
developed sepearate pages or linked to existing pages on specific groups
issues of anti-semitism should be put on pages relating to specific groups, otherwise its like saying all Christians are anti-semitic. Harrypotter 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and Antisemitism

First of all, looking over this page, it's very POV in a lot of areas (the part about the BHI living in Israel sounds like an advertisement!) someone should definitely go over this and make it more neutral. I'm not denying that there are stable communities, but it's more complex than thay they're perfect. I'm not really knowledgable enough either way.

Second, the BHI phenomenon isn't so well organized and homogenous. There's a lot of variety. I've met guys on the street who have exhibits about why the Nazis were right and how killing the Jews shows they're not the chosen people, how I am somehow both an Amalekit and an Edomite and so on. These BHI people are definitely anti-semetic, and, as is clear from the origin of the term in the 19th century and the "Arabs can't be enti semites because they're semites too" issues show, anti-Semitism is really a fancy word for anti-Jew. I don't think anyonce can deny that. HOWEVER, I have also met black guys on the subway with some tzitzit like things who are definitely not Beta Israel act really friendly and tell me how the Jews and the Blacks are brothers. I think what it's fair to say is that there's variety, some are clearly anti-semitic and others just as clearly not. When I have tme, I'll (BEH) edit the page, but for now if anyone wants to, go ahead. Avraham 21:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article a complete pov

This article is a travesty, as a citation it sites the groups own website. I will do major npov edit.Incorrect 01:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Finished first round of edits, other editors are welcome to do more, this now more reads like an encyclopedia article and less like a puff piece from a pr firm. And btw, it is not proper to cite a groups own wedbsite to demonstrate their superior characteristics.Incorrect 02:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, made a few more edits, I have no idea whether the substance of this article is correct (which I didn't change), but I did remove the puff pieces and extreme pov statements contained in the article. While much of it rings false, since I don't know the facts I have left the substance alone.Incorrect 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UT
An editor, Q, without any discussin, has reinserted a total pov (unsourced except by the groups owns website) puff piece on this subject. If this continues (I will reedit to remove the pov postions) I will suggest this article be deleted.Incorrect 14:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of the term anti-Semite

Black Hebrew Israelites have been accused of “anti-Semitism” a term they say cannot applied them because they are (in fact) Shemetic.

The above sounds like the same pseudoreasoning used again and again ad nauseam by Arab extremists when accused of anti-Semitism. Yes, Arabs are technically Semites, but anti-Semite in this context means anti-Jew, or, in this article more specifically, anti-“white Jew”.

Arabs aren't just technically Semites, they are most definitely Semites in every reasonable way, and given that "Semitic" is a language family and not an ethnicity, they have a much better case for being Semitic than Yiddish (or other Indo-European language) speaking Ashkenazim. Which doesn't change the fact that the word "Anti-Semitic" in any context means "Anti-Jewish." It was coined in the 19th century with that meaning, and has never meant anything different. Furthermore, Jewish in this context means "the people who have been accepted as 'Jews' for the last several millennia, not various tiny extremist black groups that have decided they are the true Jewish people." It would include prejudice against the Ethiopian Jews, for instance, even though they are "Black" (although it wouldn't include racial prejudice against them by other Jews, just prejudice against them as Jews). john k 16:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just some more of the nonsensical original research Deananoby keeps adding to this article; here's another classic example of his editing: [4], and note his recent comment in the #Anti-semitism section above. I generally just revert when I notice his edits; I suppose if he continues to insert nonsense sterner measures will have to be taken. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed "racialism" to "racism", why the need for the longer word when we have an appropriate and common one readily available?

[edit] Residency vs Citizenship?

This article says the Black jews were recently given residency in Israel, does that imply citizenship? It says they are eligible for the draft (I though everyone in Israel *had* to be drafted), do they have voting rights? When were they granted residency?

See the article on the Israeli Defense Forces about exemption from military service. For example, Hasidic men can be exempt from service if they are currently enrolled in yeshiva. Pterodactyl katya 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First to follow the ten commandments?

The Church of God and Saints of Christ is a Black Hebrew Israelite religious congregation organized in 1896 by William Saunders Crowdy. This organization is the oldest congregation started in the United States that follows the tenets of the Biblical Jews and adheres to the Ten Commandments.

I don't know if this was just worded oddly, but it seems like a strong and innaccurate claim to make...

I agree. Their website actually states:"Our religious organization is the oldest African-American congregation in the United States that adheres to the tenets of Judaism." I will correct the article to match that claim, as the present statement is entirely inaccurate (earliest known congregation in the US is 1658 in Rhode Island)Dlgoldstein 13:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do more Research

While I do believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I also believe that before anyone post comments regarding a person or a group of people, they should have their facts right. As with every type of religion, there have always existed several denominations within a sect. For example, Christianity has many denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Episciples). Do we group all these people together and say they are the same and have the same beliefs? No. There are certain Hebrew groups who don't believe in the Messiah and there are certain groups who do. There are certain groups who believe in the Messiah but don't believe it's Jesus. Now, Is a group of people racist because they believe they are descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? What about that belief that makes them racist? Howbeit then that we choose to accept another group of people who call themselves Jews (which is only from one tribe of Israel) and not be racist? One person made a comment that the so called Jews have been accepted as the real Israel for years. Does popularity in a belief make it truth? Come now and let us reason together! Do your research before you create another document about a people you haven't a clue about. To the person that said Black Hebrew Israelites are evil and racist again, I would suggest you do more research. I will not deny that there are fanatics out there who teach hatred and are misleading people. This exist in just about every religion around the world. However, if those who made comments did more research they would find that there are Hebrew Israelites that are not racist but are a people who are commissioned to teach the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam the commandments and the word of God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tinydbyrd (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Are any Hebrews helping to edit this page here?

Well, im a Hebrew Israelite and im black so i guess this page would be talking about me. i see a list of groups here with thier views and standings (Most likly wellknown groups which made it easier to find the info on them). although i could say alot now, i just wanna know the sources for the information displayed here. just like anyone of earth, i can only speak for myself and maybe partly my group. looking around on the net is making me realize just how many different views and groups we hebrews have. i hope this page gets more attention in the future, its a long way from being even half done.

--Enixspirit 16:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction and template

Somebody reverted my removal of the Jews and Judaism template and also removed the introduction paragraph again. I think this is wrong but I am happy to discuss it.

Can anybody see anything incorrect in the introduction paragraph? If so, it can be changed but we can't not have one at all. I am unsure why the Jews and Judaism template was ever on this article. Do most BHIs regard themselves as Jewish? If they do (and there are references to prove it) then the template is valid and should be put back but, as I understand it, this this is the case. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the template again because there is no proof offered the BHIs consider themselves Jewish. If anybody has proof then the template can be put back on but I will keep reverting it unless proof is supplied. I also reverted "who are the descendants of the ancient Israelites" back to "who claim to be descendants of the ancient Israelites". This is because this is an claim that simply can't be proven (either true or false). If people feel that "claim" implies excessive sceptisism then I guess an alternative wording like "believe themselves to be" could be used. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Prehaps this source and this source might help clear things up. They consider themselves jews; whether or not they really are jews is where there is controversy. Yahel Guhan 06:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. This is a good start although it would be good to have some clear references which show the main BHI groups self-identifying as Jewish. That would legitimise the template beyond any question. Currently, the template is second after the "African American topics" one. That seems sensible to me. I think we should stick with that. I am also wondering whether the Christianity template should be on as well, given that one organisation is called the "Israelite Church of GOD in Jesus Christ"? Clearly this is a complicated matter. It now seems to me that some BHIs are Jewish, some are Christian and there is a BHI identity that can encompass both. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Christianity probably shouldn't, because even though "Jesue Christ", and "Church" are in the names of the titles, most do not adhere to the religon of Christianity. Take a look at the prospective articles, and read their beliefs in their home page. They almost all claim not to be "Christians." The one you mentioned seems to be more of the exception, rather than the rule. Yahel Guhan 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

I am no expert on this topic, but I do know of some reliable verifiable sources that editors active on this page might find useful, specifically,

Fran Markowitz , Sara Helman , Dafna Shir-Vertesh, 2003 "Soul Citizenship: The Black Hebrews and the State of Israel" in American Anthropologist. Vol. 105, No. 2: 302-312.

I know Markowitz has written some other articles on the topic, I imagine the bibliography of this article will provide other good sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israelite Church of GOD in Jesus Christ

I can't seem to find any sources on this. I nominated the article for deletion for this very reason. There are basicly two choices on what to do with it. I could either source it to their own website (the only source that seems to exist on this topic), or I can outright remove it, which is the best solution in my opinion, as it doesn't appear to be notable. Other than this issue, I think it might be ready for a GA nomination. Yahel Guhan 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    There are still some problems with the prose, though most of them relate to grammatical or stylistic errors. As an example, it is not generally advisable to place “however” in the middle of a sentence. While this is fine for conversation, “however” needs to be placed at the start of a sentence in academic writing. Other than this, the editors should make sure they are using commas properly throughout the text.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    In my opinion, some statements should be sourced. For example, the article states that the Church of G-d and Saints of Christ claim they are the oldest Black Hebrew Israelite Group. This is a statement that should be sourced, even if the claim can ultimately be demonstrated as incorrect.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This portion is the most serious for me because it raises the most questions. For example, can groups outside the United States be called “Black Hebrew Israelite,” groups like Beta Israel or Lemba and the Jews of Rusape? If so, they need to be included in the article, and if not, perhaps someone should state why. Second, what about the Commandment Keepers group? You talk about their origins, but what about in the present? Do they still exist, and if not, what happened to them? What about the Church of G-d and Saints of Christ? You say that there are congregations in Africa, Jamaica, and the US, but you only mention one in Suffolk? Why leave all these other out, and what’s so important about this one? Thirdly, there are other groups besides the ones mentioned here that are Black Hebrew Israelites in the United States that aren’t even mentioned. I read the discussion on the Israelite Church of G-d in Christ and why it was eliminated, but they at least rate a mention as existing somewhere if the article is to be comprehensive, which it seems is the aim of the editors. That being the case, any GA would need to include at least a mention of these other groups, even if no verifiable information could be found on them other than their existence.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    The article shows some evidence of editorial conflict in the past, but the article seems to have stabilized at this time.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Are there other photos that could be placed with this article? A group of people walking isn’t very interesting.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The problems with Criteria 2a and 3a and 3b are serious enough, in my opinion, to warrant failure at this time. The article is a good start, and I think that with some more work, it could be promoted. However, the present state does not, in my opinion, meet the necessary criteria and the problems are significant enough to not simply place it on hold. jackturner3 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article looks promising, and should be improved so that it can be a GA. Let's all work together for that purpose.

One issue that I do see is that some sources don't appear to be reliable enough, but maybe I'm mistaken. For example why is "Harris, David A. (2001). In the Trenches: Selected Speeches and Writings. KTAV Publishing House" reliable?Bless sins (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because he's the executive director of the American Jewish Committee. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Then that makes him notable, but still not necessarily reliable. Are there any academics that you can replace the source with?Bless sins (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
lets be honest about your obvious intentions here. You are here to create troble; you are here becasue you are stalking me, and looking for ways to make improving this article a bit harder for me, looking for something to challange, something to get in my way. It is pretty clear to me that you intend to challange whatever you can, so you can argue and be disruptive. You are only here because I am editing here. Yahel Guhan 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about your past dealings with Bless sins, Yahel, so for the time being I'm going to continue to assume good faith. Bless sins, please look at the sentences for which Harris' book is being used as a source. I don't think there's any reason to question his reliability as a source for those statements. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if acted in a civil manner with each other. "You are here to create troble;" is not appropriate here. Harris is definitely a notable source - I give you that. But why is he a reliable source? To be the top bureaucrat doesn't make one authoritative. This would be similar to me claiming that the head of CAIR is a reliable source on Muslims.Bless sins (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Response?Bless sins (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Some American civil rights leaders visited Israel to study the Black Hebrews' situation in 1981; they determined racism plays no role in the dispute." Harris is the executive director of one of the oldest Jewish civil rights organizations in the United States, and he is being cited as the source for the statement that American civil rights leaders determined that racism plays no role in the dispute. Do you question his qualification to describe what American civil rights leaders concluded after their visit to Israel? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also a contradiction. The lead says "Black Hebrew Israelites (also Black Hebrews, African Hebrew Israelites and Hebrew Israelites) are groups of people of African ancestry situated mostly in the United States who claim to be descendants of the ancient Israelites." But the first section says "Traditionally, Black Christians have perceived a metaphorical relationship with Israel, but never claimed to be descendents of the Israelites." So do Black Israelites claim, or not claim to be descendents of the Israelites?Bless sins (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the contradiction? Black Christians have felt a strong emotional bond with the Biblical Israelites but never claimed to be their descendants. Black Hebrew Israelites, who generally are not Christians, do claim to be descended from the Israelites. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New section

I'm thinking for a new section, we should create a comparision between the Black hebrew religon, and traditional Judaism/christianity, partially based on the GA reviewer's thoughts on the questions raised by the article. Any thoughts? Yahel Guhan 04:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that introduces a lot of problems, because there is no single Black Hebrew religion. In each section, I think we're trying to show which parts of traditional Judaism the specific group adopted and which traditional Christian elements it retained. We can write more about each group if necessary, but I don't think a meaningful comparison between Black Hebrew beliefs and practices and traditional Judaism/Christianity can be made in general terms (i.e., with respect to what all or most Black Hebrews do or believe). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, point taken. In that case, I'm not sure how we should address the part where the reviewer stated: For example, can groups outside the United States be called “Black Hebrew Israelite,” groups like Beta Israel or Lemba and the Jews of Rusape? They are not BHI's, yet are jews. Yahel Guhan 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on finding sources that pinpoint the differences between Black Hebrews vs. Black Jews, not so much in practice or beliefs, but in sociological terms such as historical origin and acceptance by the Jewish mainstream. I found one source, for example, that distinguishes between what the author calls "Black Judaism" (Black Hebrew movements) and "black Judaism" (halakhic Judaism among people who are Black). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Way Of God Church Of The Lord Jesus Christ

This should be added too after listening to many of his sermons I have come to the realization that he sees black people as the original Jews or Hebrews. In fact they are indeed Sabbath keepers in some degree and regard the Tanakh with enough authority to see themselves in such a fashion. I plan on adding this section after talking about it here. I have tried adding something before under another name but it was deleted for no reason even though I gave clear sources and even provided a link. The link for this, in question, is www.thewayofgodchurch.com and the Pastor is Elder Tony Smith. In fact, on his home page, he shows how they are to follow the Sabbath day. They even have a Sabbath day service. This is not the only reason why I say they are Black Hebrews though. I say this because he claims it in a historical manner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by QODESH TABERNACLE (talk • contribs)

Do you have any sources to prove their notability? Yahel Guhan 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)