Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites/Archive 1

Untitled
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)

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:   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)

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)

Some black hebrews are not only anti-semetic, they are extremely racist. If someone wants to put together a controversy section, be my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.24.178 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the Controversy
I am Jewish (Modern Orthodox), and came accross this stub while I was creating the Template:African American topics sidebar. 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.

&mdash; &lt; T A L K JNDRLINE T A L K &gt;


 * 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.
 * &mdash; &lt; T A L K JNDRLINE T A L K &gt;      16:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

&mdash; &lt; T A L K JNDRLINE T A L K &gt;     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.

&mdash; &lt; T A L K JNDRLINE</b> T A L K &gt;     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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Why don't you add http://www.thewayofgodchurch.com/archives.php as one of those non anti-semitic Black Hebrew Israelite organizations. At first glace it seems 'Christian' but it is not if you study the site itself. In fact the 'Pastor' himself said we are supposed to be Jews/ Israelites according to scripture. One reference for this is found on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7XUZQ5hdzo

I think this should be included here. He loudly declares that we should be Israelites/ Jews. --BenAhava (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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 (BE''H) edit the page, but for now if anyone wants to, go ahead. Avraham 21:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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:, and note his recent comment in the 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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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?

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)

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)

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).

Actually Jewish claims would imply every tribe of Israel, not merely one tribe. There appears to be confusion over the etymology of the word Jew. Jew would be more aptly associated with Judea the southern half of Israel as opposed to the Tribe of Judah. Judea had within it several tribes other then Judah. The reason the current Jews are considered Israelites is because of Genetic, Cultural, linguistic and religious history. (Nazrael (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

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)

I am also a Black Hebrew Israelite (follower of the teachings of Mowreh: Elisha Yisra'El). I added a link to his group because it was lacking. He is one of the few Israelite leaders who follows the Tanakh only. I think those who follow the New Testament should not even be called Israelites because a true Israelite would reject the teachings of Jesus.

--AMEN.CHAY (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes I have sources to back this up Yahel. Here is one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7XUZQ5hdzo if you need more please ask. I do think you should add it. They are from racists or anti-semetic--BenAhava (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's a black Israelite?
I see the black israelites in time square and other urban centers in Nyc and they have some type of chart of 12 countries that states who they are/ where ther are from.

Most of the countries listed are mostly countries where slaves were brought to be the so called "white man".

Puerto Rico   Haiti Colombia     Jamaica Domincan Republic Panama Bascially countries in south america and the carribean.

Any one who viewed them in their preachings has seen this chart. if any one can include this in the article it would be wonderful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlushinQwnzNyc (talk • contribs) 20:44, August 4, 2008


 * Judah: African Americans
 * Benjamin: West Indians
 * Levi: Haitians
 * Simeon: Dominicans
 * Zebulon: Guatemalans - Panamanians
 * Ephraim: Puerto Ricans
 * Manasseh: Cubans
 * Gad: Native American Indians
 * Reuben: Seminole Indians
 * Asher: Colombia - Uruguay
 * Napthali: Argentina - Chile
 * Issachar: Mexicans

http://www.saintsunit.org/12tribes.html

This edit I've entered yesterday was removed from the article, but stored in the article history section and my additions are from other Black Hebrew or Israelite congregations. They strongly felt all Africans (i.e. Ethiopians, Sudanese and Somalians), non-white peoples worldwide are descendants of the Hebrews of supposedly African ancestry.
 * Judah — African Americans and Arabs they also perceived to be descendants of "African Semitic" peoples.
 * Benjamin — West Indians such as Jamaicans and the Garifuna, black Caribs of Central America.
 * Levi — Haitians and some Native Americans as described in the Book of Mormon.
 * Simeon — Dominicans and possibly North African peoples such as the Egyptians.
 * Zebulon — Guatemalans, Panamanians and descendants of either the Maya and Aztec empires.
 * Ephraim — Puerto Ricans and Southern Europeans of alleged "Moorish" African backgrounds, like the Moroccans.
 * Manasseh — Cubans and other Caribbeans, but includes Mediterranean peoples of possible Afro-Arab descent.
 * Gad — Native American Indians but includes Turkic peoples, Mongols and Siberian peoples to also extended to Alaskan Natives.
 * Reuben — Seminole Indians, Cherokee Indians and Native Americans of North America.
 * Asher — Colombians, Paraguayans and Uruguayans, as well native Brazilians.
 * Napthali — Argentines, Chileans and Peruvians, including Polynesians.
 * Issachar — Mexicans and some Native Americans indigenous to Mexico and Central America.

The Book of Mormon spoke of another Israelite tribe, the Nephites who went into extinction or that their descendants are Native American Indians. But the Black Hebrews may or may not agree with the mythology of Israelites of "Caucasian" racial backgrounds lived in the Western Hemisphere at the time of Christ. Some of the Black Hebrews strongly believe the Nazi Holocaust eliminated "true" or "authentic" African-descended European Jews from the face of the earth, thus the congregation membership is the only real Jews (or in theory, African-descended Israelites) to exist as a race. + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the material you added to the article yesterday because it was unsourced. It would have been different if you had provided a reliable source that supported your additions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hate Groups
It has been my personal experience of Black Israelite groups, through their public presence in major American cities that they are, in many instances, hate groups. In fact through researching their various contributions to Youtube just now I have yet to find one that isn't laced with hateful and abusive rhetoric. But for some reason?, in spite of all the regular contributors here, there is no mention of that in this article. While I don't have any sources at this moment with which to improve the article, I am curious if other editors share a concern that this article has been "whitewashed", saying very little about the groups actual nature.EyePhoenix (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources that describe Black Hebrew Israelites in general, or the specific groups mentioned in the article, as hate groups? If you do, please add the information to the article.
 * As one of the major contributors to the article, let me assure you that I did the best research I was able to do. I haven't tried to hide anything unflattering about the Black Hebrews. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I just answered your first question. So I understand you are saying that in your research you found no information about their hateful rhetoric, criminal histories, violent threats or Supremacist politics. In other words, no, you don't share those concerns. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the Church of the Living God, the Pillar Ground of Truth for All Nations, the Church of God and Saints of Christ, the Commandment Keepers, and the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem are known for hateful rhetoric, criminal histories, violent threats and Black supremacist politics? No, none of the academic sources I consulted mentioned any of that.
 * As I wrote, if you can find reliable sources that describe Black Hebrew Israelites in general, or the specific organizations discussed in the article, as hate groups, please add that information to the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you haven't spoken directly to the question I raised, but you have made it clear that you don't share those concerns. And that is what I was attempting to clarify. Thanks. EyePhoenix (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I found some reliable sources that describe a Black Hebrew group as Black supremacists. I'm adding it to the article. As I wrote, if you find more, please add it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why thank you Mr. Shabbaz. I am grateful you took the time to do that. It's nice to know we have some common ground. Nice work! EyePhoenix (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Africans are not among the twelve lost tribes
Unfortunately I don't have the twelve memorized and I was unable to find a legitimate list on the internet, but I speak the truth. As mentioned above, the true peoples of Israel are calling all brothers to them throughout the country in the most public of places. For what it's worth, I can attest to the so-called Puerto Ricans and Mexicans as being among the twelve tribes, but not the Africans, who despite their dark skin are not so-called Negroes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.96.197 (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree; Africans are not among the twelve lost tribes. If one visits the page HebrewIsraelites.org, and reads some of their documents (a specific link I will have to seek because there's a ton of reading to be done on their site but I assure you the information is there!) they say that the Israelites, when dispersed into the diaspora, went south into Africa and resided in Western Africa. The majority of slaves brought over to The Caribbean and the Americas were from this area. Therefore, it is their belief that the majority of blacks in these areas that are the descendants of slaves are Israel. I'll read up and in the next week I hope to have the actual link. If anyone feels this counts as a proper cite reference, at that time they can let me know! Shalom, Rivka (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there also a DNA test that showed the Israelite being of African Decent? the Book of Moses has a similar story correct, of slaves traveling from Africa's Egypt into Israel.--Knighthonor (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism on this group
The Black Hebrew Israelites have claimed that the Israelites are a group of Ethiopian race, yet in the Bible, Avraham the ancestor of the Israelites is stated to be a Semite who came to the Land of Canaan from Ur of Mesopotemia, therefor both Israelites and the biblical Jews should be looking like Semitic People. The Black Hebrew Israelites had claimed that the african slaves on Egyptian wall paintings are the enslaved Israelites, yet it is known that Ancient Egypt enslaved people from Kush (which is modern day Sudan) who may be those slaves and probably other African slaves alongside the Lybian slaves. There are also prooves for the presence of Semitic people in Ancient Egypt, some had claimed that the Hyksos and the Habiru are Semitics or related to the biblical Israelites. While the Israelites of the Bible were Monotheists, it is known that the African people (including the ancestors of the Black Hebrew Israelites) were pagans and polytheists, then some part of them converted into Islam, and after they arrived to America by the slavers, they were exposed to Christianity and converted into it. During all those years they had never claimed to be Israelites.

While the Black Hebrew Israelites claimed to be the 12 Tribes of Israel, it is known from history that the Israelites from the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) were exiled to Assyria by the Assyrian Empire in the years of 733-722 BC and settled there, while the Jews from the Kingdom of Judah were exiled to Babylonia and returned to the Land of Israel 67 years afterwards due to the statement of Cyrus the Great on 538 BC.

The Black Hebrew Israelites are also criticized for attacking modern day Jewish people for no reason. They claim that the Jews are imposters of the biblical Jews and calling them: "Israel-lies" and claimed that the Jews are descendants of the Khazars. However, modern DNA testing between various of the world's Jewish communities shows a common link, with most communities sharing similar paternal genetic profiles. Furthermore, the Y-chromosome signatures of the Jews are also similar to those of other Middle Eastern populations, while the ammount of Jews with European genes contributions (including the Khazars) is now estimated between 5% to 8% out of all the Ashkenazi Jews (previously it was assumed 12.7% to lower than 12% out of all the Ashkenazi Jews). . --DXRD (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you cite reliable sources that make this criticism of Black Hebrew Israelite groups? This sounds like your own original research.
 * There is a section of the article that mentions allegations of racism and antisemitism that have been made by reputable organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No Mention of GMS
Im surprised theres no mention of Great Millstone one of the most militant and "outspoken" groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Native Hawaiians - Tribe of Naphtali
In the correspondence to the 12 Tribes of Israel, it does not mention Native Hawaiians. The Black Hebrew Israelites also believe the Native Hawaiians are from Naphtali. http://www.macquirelatory.com/Tribes%20of%20Israel.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtkalehua (talk • contribs) 05:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The correspondence in the article is based on this source. It's an example of a correspondence, of which there are dozens. Please don't confuse matters by adding or removing groups based on another source's correspondence. The result won't be true to either source. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Black Hebrews but African Hebrews
I have seen more self-references to African Hebrews than black Hebrews. So why is the majority references to black? When they say they are African Hebrew Israelite especially the community in Dimona Israel (which is correctly titled). And who is a black African, that term is colonial? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We use the terms used by reliable sources, which are not always the same as those used by the groups themselves. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Correspondence with the Twelve Tribes of Israel
This section of the article attracts a lot of unsourced additions and original research. I think the article might benefit from its removal. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I support removing the entire section unless this sentence can be sourced reliably: "Some groups of Black Hebrews believe that various groups in the Americas correspond to the Biblical Twelve Tribes of Israel." It's not reasonable to list a particular group's correspondence, and it's not reasonable to claim that some groups do this without a source.  Even if we could come up with more examples, claiming that "some groups believe.." would seem like synthesis to me.  Also, I think it's unsupportable to wikilink the names of the groups if we leave the information in.  It seems like a violation of the principle that words in quotations should not be wikilinked, (WP:BUILD) since we have no reasonable way of knowing what "tribes" are meant by the groups of BHIs making the correspondence.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the amount of time that's passed with no other comments, I'm just going to take the section out and see if anyone hollers. I think that the article would benefit from some material on the idea of correspondences, though.  I'll put it on my to-do list with all the other stuff.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to working with you
This page has a redundancy and an exclusionary tone that contradicts Israelite Heritage. Although most Israelites realize the ORIGINAL Israelites were of dark skin, they also know that over time by way of mixing with lighter nations, the diaspora lightened and became various RECOGNIZED ethnic groups ie. Taino Indians, Native Americans, Aboriginees and various Indigenous persons in all lands of Earth. If there's a focus on ONLY Black Hebrew Israelites, it causes the public who view this information to think that Israelites are a black supremacy group like the claims at the bottom of the article and places us at risk of death and at the very least stained appearance worldwide. Hopefully, we can work this out together. If not, legal actions will be started.67.235.34.57 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Additions based on reliable sources are welcome. Your own thoughts on the subject are not.
 * Also, do not make legal threats unless you wish to be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/losttribes3.html



How do Black Hebrew Isrealites establish the claim that they are these "lost tribes"
Seems it would be prudent and fair to include in the definition of this group their reasons and any documentation as to why Black Hebrew Isrealites believe that they are these "original" lost tribes of the Abraham, Issac and Jacob bloodlines spoken of in the Torah and thusly of the 12 tribes. Since most African Americans have not been able to trace very far back in their linage due to slavery, How do they know these claims are true? Is there DNA evidence? Historical written documentation that substantiate these claims? If they can prove this, why or how is does it matter? Why is it important to so many groups who claim this heritage to do so to the exclusion of others? Are there some special privileges or gains to be had by being thusly bloodline?" as opposed to being converted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.184.86 (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand
I don't understand why aren't Black Hebrew Israelies considered as Jews? If they follow the laws of Judaism and the Jewish religion shouldn't they then be considered Jews, no matter what color they are? Why don't Jews accept black Jews as being Jewish? Please some one answe, thank-you. :) (120.149.114.124 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Street Preaching
The main article should include a discussion about the aggressive preaching in the street of NYC and many other major cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamLowenstein (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This article's awful.
Utterly, utterly inaccurate representation of a group as bad as the KKK. --140.32.16.3 (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Care to clarify? Any specific issues you'd like addressed? Personally, I'd have to agree with the "good article" assessment; at a glance, I don't see anything particularly inaccurate or non-neutral in the article, and all claims appear to be sourced. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if you're referring to the nascent racism, hate speech, and black supremicism practised by some members of the movement, there is a brief (if tempered) mention of that in the article. I agree, anecdotally, that it's far more prevalent than the source makes it sound (and not confined to a tiny minority or an "extreme fringe" movement), but that's what the source says. We quite simply can't add anything without citations from reliable sources. And due to the fact that these are rather insular groups, aside from their street preaching, there aren't really any reliable sources that examine this phenomenon in depth. I'm certainly not aware of any neutral scholars that have an "in" with any of these groups that allows them to examine their beliefs and practises from a sociological, theological, or anthropological perspective. There are likely more reliable sources that make brief mentions in passing, and you're free to add those to the article, but drawing any in-depth conclusions from it would be WP:SYNTH. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Um. . . I think this article is kind of racist. It treats black people's claims to descent from the Israelites as self-evidently less valid or immediately intelligible than white people's. Imagine if the article on Jews or Israelis began "Jews are groups of Europeans and European Americans who believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites." White religious Jews' claims to be directly descended from the ancient Israelites is no likelier to be genetically true, after all. Maybe this group is itself hateful as the earlier Wiki'er opines (I don't know anyone who belongs to this group), but that's no reason to write this article as though they are some kind of special hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:200:500:1558:4E11:2A74:4AE5 (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We would need citations, sources and suggestions/a rationale for changing it, otherwise it's just a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GABHello! 22:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting that they are a hoax. They clearly really do believe this stuff and we acknowledge this belief without either endorsing it as fact or refuting it as non-fact. This in line with the WP:NPOV policy and in line with the way we talk about religious beliefs in general. It is not for us to endorse any particular religious viewpoint so we don't. It is not like anybody thinks we are qualified to speak for God anyway. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is racist
First of all why are there no critical examinations on their claims like there is on the British Israelites that seems completely unfair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.17.215 (talk) 23:05, April 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * Religious beliefs are not subject to scientific scrutiny. We note that they believe what they believe. It is not for us to say whether it is wrong or right, just to say what it is. Anything else would be original research. There is nothing racist about this. I have no idea why anybody might think that there was. It certainly is not clear from your message. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Why does they show arabian peninsula ?
what arabian peninsula have to do with the black hebrew israelites ? arabian peninsula is part of asian continent,arabian people have J semitic haplogroup when african have E haplogroup ? even the israelites jews of arabia are not even black like the jews of yemen so why they put arabian peninsula who have no link with africa with the african continent ? when we know there is two ethnical different population,langage,origine,culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiane2k6 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The comment above is gibberish, so I'm not actually replying to it, just adding a reference to the facts on the Lemba tribe - there was a fascinating documentary on PBS, I think, a while back; the Lemba believe that Jewish ancestors migrated from the Arabian peninsula, and the documentary explored that belief. As for the larger controversies in this article, as noted below, "they believe what they believe", and that's worth discussing on Wikipedia. One might also read Hitti's "History of the Arabs." http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/09/us/dna-backs-a-tribe-s-tradition-of-early-descent-from-the-jews.html GXIndiana (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Black Hebrew Israelites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060310213246/http://www.brown.edu:80/Students/INDY/archives/2005-09-29/articles/arts-fox_israelite.php to http://www.brown.edu/Students/INDY/archives/2005-09-29/articles/arts-fox_israelite.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 09:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Checked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of black supremacy and racism
I reverted this edit because I think it was incomplete. It left the sentence like so:
 * On the other hand, the SPLC also said that "most Hebrew Israelites are neither explicitly racist nor anti-Semitic and do not advocate violence".

I think the editor meant to say:
 * On the other hand, the SPLC said, "most Hebrew Israelites are neither explicitly racist nor anti-Semitic and do not advocate violence".

Without those changes (the deletion of "also" and addition of the comma), the sentence casts aspersions on the reliability of the SPLC. But I don't know the editor's intention because he didn't use an edit summary.

In any event, I reverted because I think the original sentence, which follows, says the same thing:
 * The SPLC also said that "most Hebrew Israelites are neither explicitly racist nor anti-Semitic and do not advocate violence".

If anybody, especially the editor who made the change, disagrees, I welcome comments. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Black Hebrew Israelites. 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/20071025044853/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/mfa/facts%20about%20israel/people/the%20black%20hebrews to http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/facts%20about%20israel/people/the%20black%20hebrews

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017
S Delano K (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You need to tell us what you want changed or we can't know what is being requested. Please say and then somebody will either do it or explain why it is not a good change to make. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Blank request. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 23:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black Hebrew Israelites. 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/20070801060421/http://www.cogasoc.org/history/index.html to http://www.cogasoc.org/history/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070801060125/http://www.cogasoc.org/leaders/jacrowdy.html to http://www.cogasoc.org/leaders/jacrowdy.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080130002542/http://www.cogasoc.org/main.html to http://www.cogasoc.org/main.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130112220712/http://joi.org/bloglinks/black%20synagogue%20Jewish%20Week.htm to http://joi.org/bloglinks/black%20synagogue%20Jewish%20Week.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent Revert
User:MShabazz recently removed a plethora of sourced information explaining how the Black Hebrew Israelite movement came into existence, including its early founders, as well as a 1999 FBI report sharing information about their theology. Both Frank Cherry and William Saunders Crowdy are mentioned in academic sources as founding the earliest Black Hebrew Israelite religious organizations, also in the article itself. I simply brought a summary of this information to the introduction of the article, per WP:LEDE. The 1999 FBI report is also of significance and I have restored that information, although in a different section, rather than the lede, as a WP:COMPROMISE. I would encourage others who are involved in editing this article, like User:Doug Weller, to share their thoughts. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, please read WP:LEAD. Why are you repeating information already in the text twice (in the "Overview" and "Groups" sections) for a third time in the opening section? Why are you adding accusations about the "extremist fringe" of the movement, most of whose adherents, the SPLC says, are "neither explicitly racist nor anti-Semitic and do not advocate violence" to the lead? Why are you pretending that a 20-year-old FBI report is important. Nobody else (i.e., none of the reliable secondary sources cited in the article) thought the FBI report was important enough to mention, but you think it belongs in the lead? Are you for real? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The founders are only mentioned once in the article, not thrice as you claim. Is there a reason you do not want to mention them, along with the first Churches, in the lede? I agreed to move the information about the FBI report to a lower section but you deleted it entirely. I would like to hear the opinions of others on this matter and if no one comments in the next few days, I will start an RfC about this topic. Cheers, AnupamTalk 20:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Anupam that scholarly literature, such as the citation published by Indian University Press, refer to Cherry and Crowdy as the founders of the first Israelite congregations. Since that's also mentioned in the body of the article, it should also be mentioned in the lede. Even though Anupam has suggested moving the FBI information out of the lede as a compromise, I also think that properly belongs in the lede as well, since it summarizes a section of the article about the Black Hebrew Israelite movement's connection to black supremacy. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Overview]
"This identification with the Israelites was a response to the sociopolitical realities of their situation in the United States, including slavery and racial discrimination. For African-Americans, appropriating Jewish history was a response against an American racial hierarchy that deemed Africans inferior. It was also a means of fulfilling their desire to know their origins and regain their lost history." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mztriz (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mztriz, and welcome to Wikipedia. Could you please explain how you think the sentences you quote violate WP:NPOV? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, Malik Shabazz. I believe it is not neutral to say that Black Hebrew Israelites are "appropriating Jewish history". They are simply reading the Bible and have the view point that they are the Children of Israel. It is disputed as to whether or not this is true, yes, but to say it is appropriation implies they are wrong and is not a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mztriz (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mztriz. I hadn't noticed that before, but I agree that "appropriating" is inappropriate (no pun intended). Unfortunately, that's the word used by the source (see the bottom of the seventh page of the PDF file). I can't think of a good synonym, can you? (My instinct would be "identifying with", but the two preceding sentences both talk about identification.) Does it sound better to say "For African-Americans, writing themselves into Jewish history was part of a rebellion..."? Please let me know what you think, or if you can think of a better alternative. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "Appropriating" sounds appropriate at the very least. Over on the article for British Israelism<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism/ref>, a similar phenomenon to Black Hebrew Israelites, the introduction contains this paragraph: "The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern archaeological,[3] ethnological,[4] genetic, and linguistic research.[5]"


 * There is even less evidence to support the belief that black Americans are descendants of Israelites or that there was any historical contact whatsoever between Subsaharan West Africa and the Israelites or Jews aside from the possible circumnavigation of Africa by Phoenician sailors (the non-Jewish northern neighbors of the kingdom of Israel) hired by Pharaoh Necho II (610-595 BC, over a century after the fall and exile of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC).


 * Any NPOV problems in this article stem from the lack of detail debunking the unverified and unverifiable claims of Black Hebrew Israelite. 2601:480:4101:C546:FD0C:BDAD:BD47:E3E8 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Just_Concerned_for_Historical_Facts


 * We don't need to "debunk" people's religious views. It is not like we have a disclaimer on every article about religion saying "Warning: Nobody can prove any of this stuff!". That's implied by the fact that it is an article about religion. Our job is to state what their beliefs are and to prove, with reliable references, that we are summarising them correctly. Our job is not to arbitrate whether those beliefs are correct. I'm not saying that we can't include a statement that history, archaeology and generics offer no support for their theory of descent but we shouldn’t whack them over the head with it. We should not be holding smaller religions to a higher standard of proof than the larger and more established ones. I think we all know what would happen if you genetically analysed a communion wafer, even after it was blessed, but that is no reason to start annoying the Catholics by telling them that they have been "debunked".
 * As regards the word "appropriating", that's a tough one because the word seems to have shifted its meaning quite fast over the last decade. It is taking on quite negative connotations, which is weird given that there is already a word for that idea: "misappropriating". I'm not sure if this change will stick, and I'm not saying that we are using it incorrectly, but it is something to be a little careful of. Some people may read the word with strong negative connotations and others none at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2019
"the riginal Israelite tribes" => "the original Israelite tribes"

"knwn" => "known" Libby Kane (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. <b style="font-family:verdana;color:#084D45">aboideau</b><sup style="color:#474647">talk 13:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Cult or no cult?
The only hesitation I have to use the word "cult" is that we're talking about a diversity of (mutually hostile) groups. Kleuske (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Brittanica "Critics in Israel labeled the Black Hebrew Israelites a cult"
 * NY Times "Rustin has urged Israel to move quickly to resolve the status of the black Hebrew cult"
 * SPLC "black supremacist sect"
 * Daily Beast "He defines the Black Hebrews as a cult because..."
 * Religiuos Cult Info2
 * Apologetics Index "Many of the groups are polygamous and many have authoritarian leaders along with cult-like characteristics."
 * The Blaze


 * That's true. We can say something about being some of the groups being described as a cult perhaps. I'd like more quality sources though. And sect isn't a cult. Islam has sects. Doug Weller  talk 19:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If we say something about some Black Hebrew groups having cult-like features, we should say the same thing about Christianity or the Democratic Party, either of which has a thousand times more "cults" than any Black Hebrew has ever dreamed of. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is best to avoid the word "cult" when talking about the BHIs in general, as clearly it does not apply to all of them, but to keep the option to use it in connection with any specific BHI groups that have been described as cults by serious and reliable commentators. It certainly does not belong in the lead. As you say, lots of things have cults at their fringes. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd say no especially because it seems to "violate" WP:Label Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites on the pop charts
Didn't they have some marginal pop hit around 1970? I remember some news report on some precursor to NBC's Dateline or something like that covering the rash of murders connected to the Nation of Yahweh that showed a clip of a performance of their song. -User:DanTD (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Page views reached over 100,000 on January 21 and 22

 * Congratulations to, , , and other contributing editors to this featured article that reached 448,443 page views from January 21 to January 30, 2019. It reached 432,380 views in 2018 with a daily average of 1,185. Following the release of the video about the 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident which included the Black Hebrew Israelites, the page views chart (2018-January 2019) spiked to 834,743 with a one-day spike of 110,000 viewers on January 21.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Oceanflynn. This is a good article, by the way, not a featured article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How can we work together to include at least one sentence or two sentences that reflects that this incident happened with links to the incident article, while maintaining your featured article status, and not "tarring a religion"? Wikipedia readers went looking for some answers and they would not find them in the current article.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)