Talk:African American–Jewish relations

There are two Black extremist groups (with a very small amount of members) included in this article and yet no Jewish ones.
This is what I meant when I said its written from a biased perspective. For the record neither Black nor Jewish extremists should be mentioned in the article but certainly not one without the other 2601:140:8B80:5F50:90AA:E2AD:38A4:CC83 (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have read the article. Everything is properly sourced and nothing in the article is off-topic. You are more than welcome to *improve* the article - I can't imagine any serious editor would oppose attempts to improve an article. Removing large chunks of information backed by reliable sources doesn't improve an article, however. It actively makes the article worse. If your problem is that not enough attention is being paid to racism against African-Americans by Jewish people, then you should add information on that topic - I'm sure there are reliable sources that touch on that issue. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 00:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is amazingly hypocritical and anti-Black.
 * Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Jackie Mason, Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, Roseanne Barr, The Levitt Brothers, Robert Moses etc have either said or done things deemed anti-black. I cited everyone of them, yet with a day, it was swiftly removed. Gemdog (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They're not backed by reliable sources if they're speculation though.The source itself is even saying that its speculation. Sometimes when it comes to attempting to characterize entire groups of people and their relationships, less is more. You can source all the speculation you want but its still speculation.This is a very poorly written article. As in if its not definitive statement about African-American Jewish relationships, and not the opinion of literally one person from that group, then it shouldn't be in an article about their relationships with each other. I said before the article just needs to be deleted because there is no way its ever going to actually be able to discuss the topic it intends to. Also when sentences start with things like "many Black people" or "Many Jewish people" those sentences are worthless because they are not specific enough to actually characterize the group the article characterize. This is extremely difficult and precarious because you have to be careful not to treat both groups as a monolith nor give too much weight to extremist views. NOI and Black Hebrew Israelites do not deserve their own sections. Doing so give much more weight to their views than is proportional to their influence. That is my compromise. Delete those two sections and I"ll leave it be for now. 2601:140:8B80:5F50:90AA:E2AD:38A4:CC83 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The source itself is even saying that its speculation - Which source? The article has 125. If there's a specific one, we can certainly look at that, but it's a big generalization otherwise.
 * This is a very poorly written article. As in if its not definitve statement about African-American Jewish relationships, and not the opinion of literally one person from that group, then it shouldn't be in an article about their relationships with each other - Far more than one person's opinion is represented in this article.
 * I said before the article just needs to be deleted - that's not how the deletion process works. We don't delete articles that meet our notability guidelines simply because they aren't perfect, instead, we improve them. Even at first glance, this topic meets WP:GNG. Among the sources are several books and articles looking explicitly at this topic. Again, if your problem is that not enough attention is being given to racism against African-Americans from Jewish Americans, you should expand that section with the relevant material - That'll help create a far more balanced article.
 * those sentences are worthless because they are not specific enough to actually characterize the group - Those sentences are supported by inline citations to reliable sources. There's no editorializing going on, we're reporting what the sources tell us. If reliable source about affirmative action says that many Jewish people do not support the policy, then that's being reported. It's also explicitly not charactizering those groups as monoliths, quite the opposite - "many" is not the same thing as "all".
 * NOI and Black Hebrew Israelites do not deserve their own sections - This is probably true. They should likely still be mentioned, as they each speak to one specific issue under the pretty broad category of "race relations," but probably don't need as much detail since both are on the fringe.
 * The last thing I'll comment on here is that a better way to go about this is probably not to just remove vast chunks of material, but instead work on restructuring (especially in smaller doses). Very large changes to articles on topics where tensions will probably be high are often reverted in favor of slower, more gradual change. There's also some other outlets to voice these concerns - You might think about posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination to find other editors willing to help in the effort. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 00:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So using terms like "many" or "few" is a considered cardinal sin in fact reporting institutions (its just considered laziness in the journalism world) because they are not definitive enough to actually take a stance on an issue. Its interesting how the principle is carried over into at dozens of Wiki articles but this one, is just speculation. If article is going to speculate it needs to be clear when its doing so. Saying "many" people in one category act this way is almost never accurate unless we're discussing something that's recorded through statistics. So if a "reliable" source uses such terms to characterize groups on something as specific and immeasurable as Jewish feelings towards African Americans and African American feelings towards Jewish Americans. Unless there's an actual poll done and that polling is reputable and consistent, then everything here is going to be speculation. That's why the whole thing is problematic. And that's not even considering the very real fact that African-Americans and Jewish Americans, throughout history haven't even lived in the same location. Historically, African-Americans have been overwhelmingly Southerners. In contrast, the Jewish Diaspora in the US has been predominantly located in the Northeast. So at very best this article can characterize specific incidents in states. I would not be opposed to renaming the "Landlord Tenant relationship" section to something specifically focused on New Yorkers from both groups, because that relationship was mainly a New York invention. It didn't exist in the South, where most most African-Americans have lived throughout US history. That being said I stated I would compromise on deleting the sections about the NOI and Black Hebrew Israelites so if we agree then I'd like those sections removed and given a few sentences under African-American anti-semitism. 2601:140:8B80:5F50:90AA:E2AD:38A4:CC83 (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "Antisemitic expressions by high-profile African Americans" section
This section had no clear inclusion criteria. Level of coverage, quality of sourcing, longevity of significance, etc. varied, and this was a substantial portion of this article.

There was nothing discussed except an ever-growing list of examples, which does not serve an obvious encyclopedic purpose. These examples could of course be relevant on the public figure's articles or on the articles of those accusing them, but there was no connection made to this general category among these examples.

I support removal of this. I would support discussion of this general phenomenon if a source discusses the general circumstance, rather than a specific case. Alternatively, discussion of inclusion criteria to help guide selection would be useful. Freelance-frank (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Similar page created last month
Hi! I left a comment on the page Talk:Jews in the civil rights movement that mentions this article. I was hoping someone more experienced and confident could take a look at the page. I was wondering if there is a reason for having two separate articles when this one seems fine? The newer article feels a bit own research-y to me with the subjective editorial wording throughout. Soyembika (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * They do seem to have different focuses. The new page seems a bit lighter/less rigorous than this one, but relevant context can be added in time. Lewisguile (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)