Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites/Archive 2

Section on national attention and verbally abusive tactics
Not sure why User:Malik Shabazz insists on repeatedly deleting (January 25 January 26) well sourced content about the national attention brought to the BHI from the Incident at the Lincoln Memorial last week. It is not only a notable event involving BHI, but it adds context to the rest of the "allegations of racism" section. User:FloridaArmy already tried to restore it, and I just now restored it again in its own section. Let's talk about it before anyone blanks the paragraph again without justification. Peace MPS (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You're not sure? Do you know how to read an edit summary? "Please use the article's talk page to explain why this paragraph on steroids doesn't violate WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENT, three policies". Add WP:ONUS as well.
 * Does George W. Bush have a paragraph about choking on a pretzel? Does Barack Obama have a paragraph about swatting a fly? Both were news stories covered in thousands of reliable sources. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You blanked the section again. I think you are wrong to delete this section. In my editorial opinion, mention of "the incident" is ABSOLUTELY relevant because it is many people's first foray into the world of BHI. The incident section is a great follow on to the "allegations of racism" section, because it sheds light on why the allegations of racism may have happened. . January 18 was a nationally significant event that brought a lot of national coverage to the history and tactics of the BHI. A Wikipedia reader who has questions like "why do people like SPLC call the BHI a racist hate group" would find a lot of clarity in the face that these men basically followed BHI protocols and instigated a nationally significant interracial incident that the reader probably heard about. It seems that BHI are known as a racist hate group in part due to their tactics, which they openly admit as including yelling offensive racial slurs and epithets at random passers-by. Further, a recent USA today analysis of the January 18 event sheds a lot of light on BHI... and says how these video incidents are increasingly frequent... USA today quotes SPLC in saying "Confrontations between Hebrew Israelite street preachers and their perceived enemies are growing uglier and gaining increasing attention through video clips circulated to legions of views on websites like Youtube" ... meaning that this incident is a great case study and epitome of BHI tactics and their consequences. It is also worth noting that while WP:RECENT is not wikipolicy, it actually does not prohibit "current events" from being mentioned in articles. Lastly, the content you are deleting is actually not that long... When you look at the length of the section most of it is REFERENCES. An abundance of reliably sourced references does not merit accusations of WP:PROPORTION. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted Malik's deletion. From looking at the history of the article, Malik has tried removing any mention of criticism that the BHI have received. desmay (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of speculating about things you know nothing about, why don't you try to explain how the inclusion of this material is  not  a violation of the policies I cited above.? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * (Edit clash with MShabazz)
 * Desmay. That personal attack on MShabazz is simply not true and attacking a well respected editor is not going to get you anywhere. If you think the reversion was a mistake then you need to say why. Once you say what your objection is then maybe people will agree with you. Who knows? In the meantime, I see two key points here:
 * Just because that pathetic namecalling incident was the first time that a lot of people will have heard of the BHIs that does not define them as a whole.
 * We do not define religious groups by their worst adherents, unless those are the ones in charge of it. Pick any religion with more than, say, a dozen followers (including Atheists) and I can assure you that it won't be hard to find a few of their adherents who are complete jerks. (This also works for other types of groups as well as religions.)
 * So, we do need to cover the bad things that some BHI groups have done but we should not be treating all BHI groups as the same or treating the jerks like they are the main deal. Above all, we should not be giving this sort of ephemeral news incident coverage above what it deserves. A small addition to the "Allegations of black supremacy and racism" section seems reasonable. Giving it a large section of its own does not. That is the right way to write an encyclopaedia, and also we don't want to big the jerks up any more than they already have been. It might only encourage them and while making things tougher for other BHIs who have nothing to do with this. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, that section is not just about "the incident" it is about the national coverage of BHI that the incident created. It is kind of like how Al-Qaeda was founded in 1980s but all of a sudden in 2001 they became a household name when a handful of people did something that brought them worldwide attention. It is kind of like how the floss dance was not a thing until a certain kid with a backpack made it famous on SNL, even though that dance existed beforehand. BHI has received significant coverage, analysis, and national awareness from this incident, and it is worth noting in this article. Peace, MPS (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm just saying that we shouldn't overdo it. I think that it should be covered in the existing section. I think the first half of the removed section is OK but I don't like the second half. I'd be a lot happier if it identified which specific group was involved. I also don't like the way the press coverage is worded. It starts off with what the press said about the incident but then implies that the press said that these are BHI tactics more generally, which is not demonstrated. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh Look MShabazz just reverted two MORE times (Revision as of 10:57, 28 January, Revision as of 17:25, 28 January) within a 24 hour period. There should be a rule against that. Anyways... I think I understand your position, DanielRigal, as saying you don't want to label all BHI adherents as behaving like what these particular 4 or 5 men (e.g., Ephraim Israel and Shar Yaqataz Banyamyan) were doing on that one day. I think we can reword some of it to ensure balance... we have some sources from the incident that say this group was one of the more independent groups affiliated with the One West tradition. ... I am all for balancing out the narrative in the interest of WP:NPOV and giving the overall BHI members the benefit of the doubt... it is also important to point out that the loud and obnoxious few have attracted a media reputation for BHI being offensive street-corner preachers in Philly and Manhattan, even if that reputation is in error. source. As to MShabazz's comments about how many paragraphs in Wikipedia are devoted to arguably inconsequential presidential incidents, I would refer him to beer summit and George H. W. Bush vomiting incident. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * support inclusion in some form,  This type of incident is not new, and coverage of it is easy to find in reliable sources. Its exclusion from this article violates WP:NPOV.  although the particular edit in question may be undue in that it focuses too much on the 2019 incident, and not the general pattern.


 * Agree that it needs be included back. Clearly a major event that has thrown the Black Hebrew Israelites into the limelight. XavierItzm (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

ResultingConstant (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.villagevoice.com/2011/03/30/black-hebrew-israelites-new-yorks-most-obnoxious-prophets/
 * https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2008/racist-black-hebrew-israelites-becoming-more-militant
 * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/black-hebrew-israelites-winnipeg-1.3268348
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6386799/Dozens-Black-Israelites-say-true-descendants-Hebrews-descend-Capitol-Hill.html


 * Strongly support inclusion of a section on Black Hebrew Israelites in the 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. The Incident article does not yet contextualize these street preachers who are quite familiar in many American cities in black communities. They are widely mentioned in RS references. The New York Times described them as "sidewalk ministers" whose outreach method for their gospel, is to use provocation and confrontation. When videos of them went viral as they "profanely" clashed with "dozens of mostly white Catholic schoolboys", Shar Yaqataz Banyamyan was cited as saying that, "Our God did that to expose what this country is coming to, to expose what we’ve been teaching." They usually preach in "predominantly black communities".Oceanflynn (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC) NPR reported that Banyamyan, said that their own "profane", "fiery" language" was just rhetoric. The Times article cited University of Southern California professor Todd Boyd, in Los Angeles where Hebrew Israelites are considered to be a "harmless part of their communities" by "many black people". Boyd said that, "More alarming to many African Americans is "seeing a white guy in a 'Make America Great Again' hat."Oceanflynn (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

These RS speak of their role in black communities as street preachers:




 * Thanks. I'm currently not focussed on it, but maybe wants to give it a try. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC).


 * A dedicated section for a January 2019 viral video would be WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE in the extreme.--Pharos (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

BHI street preachers
Aren't (some) BHI's particularly known for their street preaching? I think this article needs a paragraph on that, and the event discussed here could be mentioned there. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC).
 * This makes more sense than the other proposal, if it was like Jehovah's Witnesses.--Pharos (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This tactic actually seems to belong to Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, of which the group in the viral video is apparently an off-shoot. Washington Post--Pharos (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion os the widely.noted vitriolic rhetoric spouted by street preachers affiliated with the group and this incident in particilar which garnered national attention. Seems in fact to be what they are most known for. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be coming from a specific subgroup only, not most branches of Black Hebrew Israelites.--Pharos (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Big deal. Let's tar the entire religion based on a group of outliers. Then we can include Hitler as a typical Christian and Benjamin Goldstein as a typical Jew. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But: are you saying the BHI street preachers should be excluded from Wikipedia, or are they up for a seperate article? Should they not be mentioned in the article on the religious group they tie themselves to, ties which are not denied by the larger group itself? You can't mean Wikipedia should not pay attention to a movement with a sometimes quite prevalent presence. Are they some sort of taboo? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC).
 * I'm saying that an article that was written based largely on scholarly books shouldn't have a section about the incident in Washington, D.C., and if it covers it at all, it should clearly indicate that the people involved are a fringe. That's why my edit summary almost a week ago cited WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENT. Do you think the next scholar who writes a book about Black Hebrews is going to mention it? If not, why should we? We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article, not an article for a tabloid newspaper. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the next scholar doesn't mention it, he's worth peanuts. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC).
 * The protesters in DC were from a subgroup of a subgroup of Black Hebrews, I agree they don't belong in this article,--Pharos (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion - they have been compared to the Westboro Baptist Church for their "hateful" rhetoric by mainstream sources [] [] []
 * No, that would be like mentioning a WBC protest on Baptists or Primitive Baptists, when the WBC are a sub-subgroup.--Pharos (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Subgroup of a subgroup?

 * If the protesters were indeed "from a subgroup of a subgroup" then the inclusion is WP:UNDUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They were a sub-, not a sub-subgroup. The main point here is anyhow that the street preachers in general should have a place in the article. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC).
 * The protesters in DC were indeed from a sub-subgroup — the subgroup is the "One West" movement, and the sub-subgroup is "House of Israel", an NYC-based group that traveled there for the protest.--Pharos (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference is they each have their own articles to put information in. Since the One West movement and House of Israel do not have their own page it would normally go on the parents page. Which is this one. Unless you could think of a better target for this information. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (after edit-conflict) As far as I understand, the BHI comprise of several groups, one of which is One West. If I'm correct, One West is not a subgroup, but just one of the groups that form the BHI, which makes "House of Israel" a subgroup. Please tell me if I understand it incorrect. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC).
 * One West is a subgroup that includes Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge, House of Israel and others. It's named after the original location in Harlem, but today it includes several rival sub-subgroups, that do share some ideology.  I think it's probably a notable topic, though House of Israel by itself probably isn't by Wikipedia's current standard.--Pharos (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ states otherwise: "The group formerly had its headquarters at One West 125th Street in Harlem, then known as the Israeli School of Universal Practical Knowledge, and its wider movement is known as "One West", including off-shots such as the modern Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge." Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC).
 * Yes, I wrote that part very recently, in order to explain there is a wider movement called "One West" that derives its name from their original location.--Pharos (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose it comes back to where that information should be placed. Both 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident and Nathan Phillips (activist) point here. If this is not the correct place where should be? PackMecEng (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ is a more relevant article, since it discusses their beliefs about Native Americans — the protesters in DC were actually evangelizing to what they consider another tribe of Israel. Ideally there should be a One West movement article though that may not be practical because of limited sources.  Perhaps there should be a section about the wider One West movement and other groups on the ICGJC page as a half-measure.--Pharos (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * @Pharos: Well, but did you also write the part just before that, stating that the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ (ICHJC) is the "second largest Black Hebrew Israelite organization in the United States"? Combine that with the knowledge of BHI being comprised of several groups among which ICGJC and you cannot really say that One West is a subgroup. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC).
 * I didn't write that part, and it also has no citation. Please see Help:Page history.--Pharos (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is: Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ seems not to be a subgroup but one of the groups forming BHI. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC).
 * But I guess we differ in logic. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC).

ADL
Re: "Also, the Anti-Defamation League has written that the "12 Tribes of Israel" website, maintained by a Black Hebrew group, promotes black supremacy." Actually the source doesn't say who maintains this site.

What it says is]: "In 1987, ADL reported on Black sects holding these (that blacks are the chosen people) views, such as the Yahwehs and the Original African Hebrew Israelite Nation of Jerusalem. Today, this form of Black supremacy is promoted on the Web by the 12 Tribes of Israel site, which cites hundreds of Biblical passages to prove that Blacks are the children of Israel and whites the Satanic offspring of Esau."

So yes, the ADL thinks/thought in 1987, that some BHI groups are/were black supremacist, though that is implied rather than stated - and nowhere does the ADL say who maintains/runs this site. Either the text needs better sourcing, or it is several jumps of WP:SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Is a paragraph about a single incident involving fewer than a dozen Israelites WP:UNDUE?
In an article about a religious movement that spans more than 125 years and includes tens of thousands of adherents, does the inclusion in the article of the following paragraph about a single incident involving fewer than a dozen people violate WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENT? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In January 2019, five men affilitated with the Black Hebrew Israelites were involved in the 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident, where they were recorded verbally abusing nearby Native Americans as "savages" and idol worshipers. Then verbally abusing teens from Covington Catholic High School with racial and anti-homosexual epithets, prior to the teens standoff with Native American Nathan Phillips.

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey
Yes or no answers only, please
 * Yes I don't know much about these people but lets say that they are an ethnic group. We definitely arent gonna put an incident that happened by 5 people from that group in their article. Just like we aren't going to put incidents done by Europeans in America in Europeans article. or incidents that are done by 5 Muslims in Muslims article etc. If you take a look at the "Allegations of black supremacy and racism" section none of the paragraphs there talk about any incident except about their ideology, belief etc not what 5 people did what 2 people did. Also from the article I think it would be appropriate to put it in this article January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation--SharabSalam (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No - Two sentences tacked on the end of the section on their racism is far from undue. Especially given the wide breath of coverage. PackMecEng (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't know much about these people but lets say that they are an ethnic group. We definitely arent gonna put an incident that happened by 5 people from that group in their article. Just like we aren't going to put incidents done by Europeans in America in Europeans article. or incidents that are done by 5 Muslims in Muslims article etc. If you take a look at the "Allegations of black supremacy and racism" section none of the paragraphs there talk about any incident except about their ideology, belief etc not what 5 people did what 2 people did. Also from the article I think it would be appropriate to put it in this article January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation--SharabSalam (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Much of the information is in that article. But it should also be here given the amount of RS on the incident. While not that many members, unfortunately we do not get to decide what is notable. RS have decided that this was notable so that is all that matters. It also serves to illustrate issues the group as a whole has with race and gender. PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've tried to explain to you repeatedly, notability has nothing to do with this. The incident was notable, that's why it has its own article. Now come up with some good reasons why it should be mentioned in this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been explained by myself and several people all over the talk page and the history of the article itself. At this point if you are failing to understand it, there is a WP:CIR issue or a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Neither are particularly good and perhaps it is time for you to hang up the edit warrior hat and WP:DROPTHESTICK. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. You're not listening, nor do you appear to be capable of reading. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - obviously. We dont include in say the article Catholic Church that one of its followers committed the deadliest school shooting in US history. Fails WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Sure, its notable, and thats why we have an article about it. Does that mean that it should be included in this article? Obviously not. WP:N explicitly is not about the content of articles, arguments based on that completely miss the point.  nableezy  - 03:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No- UNDUE only applies if this is an isolated incident. But there is a history of this, to the point the FBI has written reports about them and the SPLC has noted the extreme elements of this group. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If there "is a history of this" (behaviour), then the proper thing to do is to record that widespread tendency, not to use individual incidents to imply general trends. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. This very small group of Hebrew Israelites would have not made the news were it not for the confusion that surrounded the Covington incident, and the national press coverage it received. To pick up on this seems to me to be out of proportion to its importance. Jzsj (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No – Certainly the behavior of a few members does not rise to be a defining characteristic of the group, and therefore does not belong in the lead, but like it or not, this incident is a key part of this group's notability, so that the paragraph under dispute fits in well in the existing section about allegations of black supremacy and racism. — JFG talk 08:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I was fairly torn on this. It is well covered and fits into the section. But we shouldn't have the actions of a very few members of such a large group be part of the definition of that group.  Basically, per nableezy. Hobit (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes The actions of a few individuals are not representative behaviour of a group. We wouldn't include Tommy Robinson in English people. Number   5  7  11:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes This is clearly UNDUE, and as I mentioned is comparable to a whole paragraph on funeral-picketing on the Primitive Baptists article. It is not unreasonable to link to the DC incident in some capacity, but this should be at most an example as part of a larger sentence on protests by fringe elements.--Pharos (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No – This group is known for racial and homophobic slurs. The fact their actions made the news cycle and had a significant impact, it should stay.Gregnator (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - For one, the proposed inclusion is, at least in part, based upon a patently unreliable garbage source (FrontPage Magazine, which is the mouthpiece of a fringe right-wing group). For two, it's not apparent from the cited reliable sources that the actions of these five people actually represent the group's viewpoints or behaviors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I remind everyone to maintain a WP:NPOV. This news is recent and should be allowed time. The actions of some should not define the majority especially in today’s political climate.Manabimasu (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Objection to RfC. Please re-write more neutrally. R2 (bleep) 19:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes for all the reasons articulated by M Shabazz and others above and because sources aren't great. Does BHI have fringe elements that hold pretty objectionable views? Yes, that's why the concise and balanced criticism by SPLC and others is included here and why this group is mentioned in the Black supremacy article. Do the actions of 5 individuals in this incident (individuals affiliated in some way to BHI) warrant inclusion in this article? Clearly not, unless we are going to adopt a policy of adding to the XYZ Church article every time a member of said church gets into a 'slanging match' in the street/beats his wife etc. The wish to do so is difficult to separate from a wish to imply that "the 5 = the whole". Their involvement clearly belongs in the 'incident article', where the whole picture can be related. Pincrete (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, per Nableezy, Number 57 and Shabazz.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Objection to RfC. Per R2. See also discussion below. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Objection to RfC. In all honesty I would probably be a "yes" vote but this RfC is written so biasedly I end up not trusting my instincts here...--Calthinus (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Objection to RfC. Does not provide a straightforward neutrally phrased question (or statement). The RfC should only have been something like "should the following be included in the article?" or "is the following UNDUE?" Also demanding that there be only yes or no answers violates the prerogative of other editors to give different opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes; from the article I gather the movement is quite heterogeneous, with subgroups & congregations tending to manifest the idiosyncracies of their leaders. And although some editors have clearly acquired a contrary impression, the sources cited in the criticism section seem pretty emphatic in attributing racist or violent tendencies to only a fringe element. (I agree the RfC could have been framed more neutrally, but I don’t think it falls to the “have they stopped beating their spouses yet” level that would preclude fairly-judged responses.)—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes this is undue - A single sentence with a link to January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation would be acceptable, but I think that article is also bloated. This was a viral news thing that happened, but so what? This is WP:NOTNEWS which has very little encyclopedic significance to the larger topic. Spreading this into multiple articles is excessive. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I want to make an objection to this RfC. It is focused on a particular edit, on two not very well written and sourced sentences. I'm afraid an outcome that rejects these sentences will be used by the requester as ammunition not only to fight any reference to what is an iconic event, but to any possible negative news surrounding individuals that identify as BHI, or indeed to any reference to the rather prevalent presence of BHI street preachers, about whom the article is deafening silent. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Object all you want. The fact that you finally recognize that the two "sentences" are not well written—and cite unreliable sources—says much more about you and the other editors who have been fighting for their inclusion than I could ever write. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall specifically defending a particular phrase here, but if my objection pleases you, better so. Maybe some time you will also be happy in understanding that it is a failure to not mention the street preaching practice in the article at all. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC).

Definitely would seem like WP:RECENTISM. Imagine if this same incident, with the exact same amount of press occured in say, 1970, or 1825. Would we even devote even a sentence to it? Don't think so. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, yeah we probably would have one or two sentences about it. Just like this, especially if it expanded on an already established aspects of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Create a page called “Criticism of Black Hebrew Israelites”. This creation would parallel with Criticism of the Catholic Church. The incident would be better suited in the new criticism article if created. This could satisfy both parties. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, I would not be opposed to that actually. Might be a workable compromise. PackMecEng (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. There is enough material for such an article and I don't think it would have the same UNDUE problems. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As an alternative idea, I have started One West Camp for the larger grouping to which the 5 protesters in DC belonged. (Yes, I need to put in the references!)  As far as I can tell, all of those alleged to be hate groups are either part of One West Camp or the Nation of Islam-related Nation of Yahweh.--Pharos (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems the best approach to me, to include the content in an article on the smallest notable subgrouping of the movement that includes the participants.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * regarding your latter objection above, the yes-or-no clearly applies to the Survey subsection; it’s not at all uncommon for RfC-draughters to try and keep extended discussion separate.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Cultural Appropriation Tag?
Why exactly is this page tagged "cultural appropriation"? This seems to be a politically motivated tag and I don't believe there is any evidence of this. This is especially true since there is quite a bit of this article dedicated to Black people who have converted to Judaism. --Peacekeepurwar (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * see the Overview. Doug Weller  talk 16:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I read the overview. The cultural appropriation tag still does not appear appropriate. Peacekeepurwar (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Page protection
There have been multiple hacks on this wikipedia page to remove all references to terrorism/attacks by members of this group. Please institute protections on this page to prevent this cover-up by BHI sympathizers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.53.198 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me or another admin know if changes to the protection are in order. Other admins should feel free to adjust or modify as necessary. Tom Harrison Talk 15:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, protected.

The paragraph[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Hebrew_Israelites&type=revision&diff=896727401&oldid=896683956&diffonly=1 ] begins "In January 2019, five men affilitated with the Black Hebrew Israelites were involved in the 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident, where they were recorded verbally abusing nearby Native Americans as "savages" and idol worshipers."

Who wants it in, who wants it out, and why? Tom Harrison Talk 18:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I will repeat myself once again:
 * The material violates WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENT.
 * Its addition violates WP:ONUS because there is no consensus to include it—in fact, I think the consensus is to exclude it. However, some editors mistakenly assert that consensus is determined by headcount, not by the strength of the arguments made or their relationship to policies and guidelines.
 * Some of the sources are shitty. Why is FrontPage Magazine being used as a source for facts? As an opinion journal—and I'm being kind—it's only a reliable source for its authors' opinions.
 * Also added was this source, which doesn't add anything to the sentence to which it was added. It merely repeats what the first source, the SPLC, says.
 * I see a whole lot of editors who have never made a single edit to this article are very concerned about shoe-horning this material in. As the editor who brought this article to Good Article status, I discount their opinions when they say "that's what the Israelites are known for". Just because it's the first time you heard about Black Hebrew Israelites doesn't make an incident involving a handful of people sufficiently important for a paragraph in an encyclopedia article. Unless George Bush's biography gets a paragraph about the pretzel and Barack Obama's about the fly. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the protection to halt the edit warring. Judging by the past discussion there is clear consensus to include this notable information. It is still the main incident that comes up when looking up information on the group after all this time as well. Given that it is well sourced and past discussions enjoyed strong consensus for inclusion I think it should remain. Pinging all the people involved in the past discussion and reverts., , , , , , , , , , , . Apologies if I missed anyone, feel free to add them to the ping list as well. PackMecEng (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am admittedly new to this discussion and have been reading up on the BHI group. This event certainly shows up prominently when researching them. The paragraph inserted by another editor having being mentioned in six sources including the Washington Post, NPR and NBC seems to make this NOTABLE and worthy of inclusion. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course the incident was notable; that's why it has its own Wikipedia article. That's a straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with this article. If either of you claims to have done research and found that this is prominent, you're lying. Google searches are not research. Visit a library. Crack open a book. Today's and yesterday's newspapers are not what determines the relative importance of hundred-year-old subjects in an encyclopedia article. If you don't understand that, maybe you should be editing Wikinews instead. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The incident absolutely is related to this article, it is absurd to think otherwise. The rest of your comment is not worth responding to as it is just a string of personal attacks and a failure to assume good faith. I really hope you reconsider the way you collaborate. PackMecEng (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is your reading comprehension always this bad? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha! Sure, whatever you say champ.{ Just keep digging. PackMecEng (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The incident continued to be notable in May 2019, as lawsuits asking for hundreds of millions of dollars brought against major media corporations by lawyers for Covington Catholic High School and an individual student from the school, were just being settled in the courts. Media outlets were again citing the involvement of the Black Hebrew Israelites. The RS already included are solid.  While the wording of the sentences could be improved with the addition of contextualized accounts that are deeper, more complex and therefore more useful and less simplistic, this incident itself is significant and I would vote for them to remain.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. As I said in my edit summary this is how most people know them. We should think about adding it in the lead. Cestlavieleir (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments;


 * Could the title of the section be improved?
 * Does anyone else think that the paragraphs in this section that precede the paragraph on the incident, depend too much on articles that are outdated? They are useful historically but what do their more recent investigations say? Has nothing changed in 20 years? The FBI report was based on the 1999 Project Megiddo?
 * The Anti-Defamation League article is from 2001.
 * The SPLC has published a lot about the Black Hebrew Israelites since 2008.
 * Is the Frontpage Magazine published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center considered to be RS?

Please note that while I have contributed to related articles, I don't think I have actually contributed to this article nor do I intend to in the future. These questions are just questions. Oceanflynn (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Editors continue to confuse notability, which determines whether a subject qualifies for an encyclopedia article of its own, with whether mentioning it in another encyclopedia article constitutes undue weight. ("An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Not my words, part of WP:NPOV.)
 * The section of the article was about allegations that some Black Hebrew groups are black supremacist or racist. How would you improve the title? "Allegations of black supremacy and racism and, oh yeah, 2019 incident involving a half dozen Black Hebrews at the Lincoln Memorial"?
 * This is an article about a religious movement that spans more than 125 years. Do you think it should be written using articles from yesterday's newspaper as its sources, or articles that are "useful historically"?
 * No, Frontpage is not a reliable source for anything but the opinion of its authors. See WP:RSOPINION. When in doubt, search the archives at WP:RSN. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Malik here, a whole paragraph on the January 2019 thing would be very WP:UNDUE - it would be roughly comparable to adding a whole paragraph about Westboro Baptist Church funeral-picketing to the main Primitive Baptists article. At most, I would suggest this might be mentioned as an additional phrase in the second paragraph of the 'Allegations of black supremacy and racism' section.--Pharos (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We could roll the two sentences into the previous paragraph if you prefer. I am not sure I agree with the comparison Westboro though. PackMecEng (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, I agree with your ideas, but I am at the end of my rope with editors here who think they own the page and refuse to allow editorial consensus to make any changes that EVEN MENTION the January 2019 incident. I don't know what the solution is but you are up against entrenched opinions that refuse to admit that even NYT, slate, NPR, and Village Voice are reliable sources. IMHO you will have to get wikipedia admins involved. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Malik, I would agree with you if this was an "isolated event" as per WP:UNDUE. However, It seems it is not. The fact that the the Southern Poverty Law Center (back in 2008) and the FBI (back in 1999) have noted the same characteristics as mentioned in these news articles, just makes this recent incident the most well publicised of an established pattern and deserving of inclusion. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But it is a very isolated event, by 5 people in a sub-subgroup that probably doesn't have 50 members total. 'Allegations of black supremacy and racism' is a legitimate section heading, and noone is arguing for its removal, but we are arguing against this viral event with literally 5 participants getting a whole paragraph in an article on an over-century-old religious movement.--Pharos (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Two sentences is all that is included for an event that got more coverage than most things in the whole article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful to ask for input from other editors. Tom Harrison Talk 18:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This group has been named in the most recent shooting
There's no mention in this article that this group is the same as this one, only under a different name -- I think this should be made clear in the article.

Nation_of_Yahweh

See also Yahweh_ben_Yahweh

108.200.234.93 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Yahweh

The SPLC has criticized the beliefs of the Nation of Yahweh as racist, stating that the group believes that blacks are the true Israelites and whites are devils. The SPLC also claims that the group believes that Yahweh ben Yahweh had a Messianic mission to vanquish whites and that it held views similar to those of the Christian Identity movement, which believes that "Aryans" are the true Israelites and non-whites are devils. The SPLC quotes Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance as saying, "[Groups like the Nation of Yahweh are] the Black counterpart of us."[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.234.93 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! Can you provide a source for the Nation of Yahweh being named or taking part in the Jersey City shooting? If so, that seems like material that should be added to the Nation of Yahweh page. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Jersey City concern
I am undoing additions regarding the Jersey City shooting, because the claims (that the shooters were members of a BHI sect) do not match the source, which suggests a BHI connection and is vague about it. Other sources indicate just that one suspect was a "one-time" (i.e., former) member. Being that the newly dead qualify for WP:BLP protection, this is a place where we should tread carefully (and consider weight; we don't put every former Catholic who ever committed a crime on the page for Roman Catholicism). --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think, per the earlier discussion on this talk page, it might be worthwhile creating a separate page entitled Criticism of Black Hebrew Israelite movement, and adding content there. It would include both the stuff that's already on this page, and perhaps references to the Covington incident and the Jersey City shooting, as well as other material from the SPLC reports, etc. This would be analogous to Criticism of the Catholic Church, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , that wouldnt be an appropriate place to put attacks or crimes by individuals in it.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a long article and the BHIs are not a very major religious grouping. There is no need to split the article. Notable criticism of them should be included in this article. If a significant and genuine link to the shooting is established by Reliable Sources then that can be included in the article but not otherwise. As always, we should not go beyond what the sources say. If there is a link to a specific BHI group then we mention that rather than try to tie it to the BHIs in general. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , even if there are links between the shooter and the "BHIs" there is still no reason to add it here. Who knows what the motivation is? Maybe he was mentally ill or something like that.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends what the link is (if there is one at all, of course). It would have to be a lot more than just the shooter being a member of a BHI group. I don't see that as a significant link at all. So, basically, I agree with you. We shouldn't put it in the article based on what we know now and probably never. I'm just saying that if it is found that there is a significant enough link to mention then that should be mentioned here rather than in a spin-off article. I think the spin-off article is a really bad idea. That would just be a dumping ground for people to document every minor bad thing any BHI ever did and that would be completely non-neutral and unfair. We don't do that for other religions and this is no exception. Anyway, this is all hypothetical for now. My only real point was to say that we don't want a spin-off article bashing the BHIs. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think your concerns regarding a spin-off article are very sensible, and, having thought about it a bit more, agree that it's probably not necessary. But we do do that for other religions - there are criticism pages on Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's witnesses, and several others, as I linked above. Whether those articles should be kept or integrated somewhere else is a bigger discussion for another day, of course. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Yes. I should have said comparable small religions. Those are all far larger groups. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So if a Christian or a Muslim committed a crime we are going to link that to Christianity? The motivation is still unknown and also the attack is CURRENT in this article.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As the person being addressed, I neither see a need for a WP:POVFORK of this article nor do I see how this event would be considered criticism of the group. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's true, this doesn't really fall under criticism. Perhaps the section should be renamed - maybe "Criticisms and controversies"? Ganesha811 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , we dont have a controversy just because someone who made a crime was a member of a group doesnt mean that there is a controversy around the group. Any addition should have consensus first.-SharabSalam (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

BHI is a terrorist group that has been involved in many anti-semitic attacks over the last 20 years. Why are you so intent on protecting a fringe terrorist group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.53.198 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. It is a minor fringe religion with lots off little subgroups. All religions have a few violent criminals in, yes, even yours (and I can say that without knowing which one yours is because it is literally all of them). Some of the BHI subgroups have been anti-Semitic but it seems that most are not. We are not turning this into a hit piece on a whole religion just because somebody did something awful. We don't do that to other religions and we are not going it to the BHIs either. Besides, we don't want to spread the blame onto other people when it should be concentrated on the people who actually did this. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 December 2019
One of these members or followers perpetrated a mass murder on civilians in a Jewish grocery store in Jersey City in December 2019. 68.194.211.54 (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Await the outcome of the "RfC: Should this article include any mention of the Jersey City shooting?" discussion right above this section. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation
Just wondering why the article makes no mention of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation? The WP article about the incident is clear about the role played by members of the BHI. JezGrove (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 December 2019
Add this line to the end of the lead section:

As of December 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center "lists 144 Black Hebrew Israelite organizations as black separatist hate groups because of their antisemitic and anti-white beliefs." Loksmythe (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Looks good. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of WikiProject Judaism
I would like to make the case here of the relevance of WikiProject Judaism, not primarily because BHI are a part of Judaism (most are not), but because it is important to have the Jewish religious perspective in this article. Of course there are people in the movement who are also part of Judaism, most prominently Capers Funnye, who both serves on the Chicago Board of Rabbis and also leads the International Israelite Board of Rabbis.--Pharos (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , absolutely relevant to the project. I have readded it.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism?
Why does this article have a section titled "Terrorism" that says that Israelites are not likely to engage in violent acts? Do articles about other religions include similarly mis-titled (and irrelevant) sections?

And why does the article mention two people who had expressed interest in the Israelites? If they had registered to vote, would the article on politics mention their interest in politics? If they had library cards, would the article about reading mention their interest in reading? Why are they relevant to an article about the Israelites? Are Al Capone and John Gotti mentioned in the article about American Catholics? Are Meir Kahane and David Berkowitz mentioned in the article about American Jews? They call me the Big Pill (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing that out. I think the reason is that there were a lot of disruptive edits in this article recently and a lot of IP editors came here after the incident and started editing this article while expressing their anger. I will try to update the article(I think they condemned the attack, not sure if this is mentioned) and move that part to another section.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , There is an ongoing RfC about whether to include this incident or not. (See ). You can vote there. Currently, the article includes the incident and we need to seek consensus if we want to remove it. And I agree with what you said per WP:PROPORTION.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Al Capone was not motivated by his religion to kill, but the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, The Troubles, and Wars of Religion (and etc.) were motivated by religion so they would be mentioned in articles related to Catholicism. The allegation here is that there is some connection between the anti-semitism of BHIs and the attack. If current reliable secondary sources are correlating an attacker's religion with an attack, it is relevant for mention here.
 * I think this subsection is appropriate because the two paragraphs are specifically about anti-semitism-motivated terrorism. I have changed the heading for the entire section to neutrally represent what it includes. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your comments. I didn't realize the discussion above was on-going. DIYeditor, I noticed that you ignored Meir Kahane, who _was_ motivated by religion. They call me the Big Pill (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have modified the section heading to 'Relation to extremist fringe' based on the SPLC and FBI quotes, and paralleling British Israelism.--Pharos (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * From where do you derive that Capers Funnye is a "leader of a Black Hebrew Israelite congregation", ? Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Their website: "Beth Shalom B’nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation (Beth Shalom) is the oldest Temple in the Chicago area serving the Israelite Community ... Beth Shalom is an affiliate congregation of the International Israelite Board of Rabbis Inc ... Our particular religious practices were formulated from several sources by our late Honorable Chief Rabbi Wentworth A. Matthew. He was one of the progenitors of our faith, formally called 'Black Jews.'--Pharos (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * —you write "Rabbi Capers Funnye, leader of a Black Hebrew Israelite congregation..." That requires a source supporting the assertion that Capers Funnye is a leader of a Black Hebrew Israelite congregation. I have reverted that unsupported assertion. Bus stop (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

One West Camp theology should not be included in definition
I've removed the idea of other groups besides those of African descent being of Israelite origin from the defining sentence, as this is a belief unique to the One West Camp subgroup. While a couple of uncareful journalists writing about recent violence have mentioned this, this is clearly an outlier in regard to the vast majority of longstanding scholarship on this topic, which discuss this as primarily a belief in the Israelite origin of those of African descent.--Pharos (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources that refute all the sources you removed? PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Every source give the African descent definition, except for a couple of recent ones by uncareful journalists. They don't "refute" the other belief, they don't even mention it, as it is not even a common misconception, just a recent journalistic error.--Pharos (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article include any mention of the Jersey City shooting?
There has been a recent discussion and small edit war ongoing on this page about whether or not to include any material related to to the 2019 Jersey City shooting on this page. It appears that at least one of the suspects in the shooting was a member of the movement, and expressed his ideological attachment to it on social media. Should this article include any mention of the Jersey City shooting, which may have a connection to this religious movement?

Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Don't include per WP:PROPORTION. Also he was an ex-member of this group. There is no proof that him being an ex-member of this group played any role in making him do what he did. In other words, there is no proof or evidence that there is a connection between the attack and this group. Yea, there is connection between the attacker and the group and there is probably a connection between the attacker and the company where he works? Does that mean the company played a role in making him do what he did? No, because correlation is not causation.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Include important to mention, especially considering this isn't the first time something violent happened from the group (January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation, that January incident should be included as well. Tomasz Magierowski (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not include, at least for now. If the shooters were religiously motivated then that is reasonable to mention in the article about the shootings. To merit inclusion here the shooting would have to be significantly and unambiguously linked to a BHI group, either ideologically or organisationally, and for that to be a legitimate part of a wider narrative about terrorism. So, if there was a BHI group in which anti-Semitic terrorism was being actively encouraged, nurtured and planned then that could merit inclusion although only in a way that draws the link between the shooting and that specific group, not to BHIs in general. (We don't blame Baptists as a whole for the Westboro Baptist Church and we should not be blaming the BHIs as a whole even if one of their individual groups has gone off the rails.) I don't think that we have anything even close to providing that sort of link at the moment and, in all probability, we never will. The most likely narrative here is that of unstable people attracted to various fringe religious and political beliefs, not of people radicalised by a BHI group. Obviously, we can rethink this later if additional information is released but, at least for now, I agree with SharabSalam on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Include, shouldn't even be a question. Top notch media is reporting on the connection to this hate group. See The Philadelphia Inquirer:, The New York Times: . The New York Times describes this group as follows: "A suspect in the deadly attack on a kosher market in Jersey City was connected to the Black Hebrew Israelites, which has been labeled a hate group." and "The Black Hebrew Israelites are known for their inflammatory sidewalk ministers who employ provocation as a form of gospel". This article needs to rewritten from scratch, it is disconnected from the manner they are covered. --900Mike (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Include. Very recently, a member of the Black Hebrew Israelites has made headlines in London for ranting at a Jew in the tube: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jewish-father-wants-to-meet-hero-muslim-woman-who-stood-up-for-his-family-during-antisemitic-tube-a4295486.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No mention of BHI, nor any other group in the source given.Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Include It should at the least be made note of somewhere in the article. Other group pages have had similar incidents included on their pages. Edit5001 (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Include New Jersey Attorney General, after taking his time, confirmed that they were both followers of the group https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2019/12/12/jersey-city-attack-investigated-as-domestic-terrorism-hate-crime-1231535 Listen folks, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. The tendency to constantly to give the benefit of the doubt to anti-Semites is really getting tiring. And to remind all those who need this reminder (unfortunately), anti-Semites are not just blue-eyed skinhead punks singing odes to Fuhrer. 37.71.137.194 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Include per sources cited by User:900Mike above. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Include as per sources, it's note worthy that members have committed such crimes. We rightly mention it when members of far-right groups are involved in similar violent incidents. There's a clear link between these kinds of radical race ideologies and violence, even if the perpetrators are ex-members, they were most likely radicalised within the group as per sources. Bacondrum (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you have a reliable source that says it has been proven that they were radicalized by the movement or are you just assuming? Also it was one of them who was a member of this group.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When a member (Members/former member etc) of an extreme group goes rogue, we still mention group affiliations and memberships as per sources, even if the groups didn't sanction the act. Anything else is obfuscation. Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , no we don't. Also this is a sect(I think) not an organized group. It's like adding an attack that happened by a former Catholic to the Catholic church article which is something that we definitely don't do (see WP:PROPORTION).--SharabSalam (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If a member of the Christian Identity movement who was not a member of any specific group shot up a synagogue would we not make note of the terrorism in its article? This is no different. An ideology already connected to anti-Semitism in the article has been linked in reliable secondary sources to a major terrorist incident. This seems like an open and shut case to include. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Include Sorry I did not notice there was an RfC ongoing about this or there had been edit warring. The connection to Black Hebrew Israelites has been widely reported in the media. In any case where a political/religious/whatever movement has been connected in published reliable secondary sources to an act of this magnitude it should be covered. DUE weight in this case falls in favor of terrorist incidents that receive wide coverage and their connections. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not include See the section titled "Terrorism?" below. They call me the Big Pill (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not include connection, if any, between BHI and the one/two perps seems unclear and tenuous (member? ex-member? follower - whatever that means?). According to SPLC: "The extent of the suspects’ connection to the BHI movement remains unclear. Anderson published antisemitic posts online, The New York Times reported, citing an unnamed law enforcement official familiar with the case. The official did not say where the information was published or provide any additional specifics" The ultimate source (unnamed official) hardly seems a strong - or clear - enough link on which to say anything. There may well be (or have been) some connection between at least one perp and a branch of BHI at some time, but info is not strong enough to warrant inclusion here on this page yet. Pincrete (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not include at this time. The section includes two news sources. In one source the only mention of BHI is "Authorities said the two shooters expressed interest in the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, a collection of groups unaffiliated with mainstream Judaism whose members often preach anti-Semitism." -- expressed an interest in??? Not "motivated by," not "acting on behalf of," not even "current members of". It looks like subsequent reports said one had been a member, not just "expressed interest in", but wasn't a member at the time. The second of the two sources is a Times of Israel article about how a BHI leader condemned the act. So no, when someone who "expressed interest" in a particular belief system, and someone who used to be a member commits a crime, we should not include that crime in the article about the organization. Yikes. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a question of DUE weight for the article. Now that the Monsey attack has also been linked to BHI, we have two attacks against Jews now that are being linked to the topic of this article in the media, how can we avoid mentioning it? BHI is a broad ideological movement, not an organization with rolls of members. SPLC and ADL say there are anti-semitic elements, terrorists are being linked to the ideology - cries to be included. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's about DUE. In the body of literature about BHI, how much coverage is there of this incident? The question isn't "in coverage of crime X, is it due to mention Y". That's the question for an article about the crime. And what coverage there is isn't about BHI but people who "expressed an interest" in it. I find it quite strange that it seems like a majority of people here really want Wikipedia to have an article about a group of people with a big negative paragraph about two people who "expressed an interest" in it... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a good point. I am partly going by what comes up in searches on this topic which isn't a great metric. What is the right way to establish DUE weight on this topic - what part or percent of coverage is about connections to these two terrorist incidents? To me if this is an obscure movement that has come to light significantly because of these incidents, that should be mentioned here. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Include. It would constitute a contrivance to omit because Black Hebrew Israelites are known for their antisemitism. This is not unsupported by sources. "They mostly trade in anti-Semitism; they view Jews as impostors...[t]hey call them [Jews] sometimes devilish impostors or devils, because they think of themselves as the true Israelites" "[M]any Black Hebrew Israelites subscribe to an extreme set of anti-Semitic beliefs" Mention in this article of the Jersey City shooting is warranted. The connection is strong between a "fringe movement known for its anti-Semitic strain of street preaching" and the Jersey City shooting incident. "An assailant involved in the prolonged firefight in Jersey City, N.J., that left six people dead, including one police officer, was linked on Wednesday to the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, and had published anti-Semitic posts online, a law enforcement official said." Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , my brief statement is: "Should this article include any mention of the Jersey City shooting, which may have a connection to this religious movement?" Sorry for the formatting issues - this is the first time I've started an RfC! Thanks for your help. How do I fix this? Ganesha811 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove arguments advanced against and arguments advanced in favor. Not needed and not neutral.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Time has brought more information. See this analysis in the NYT. Doug Weller  talk 18:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * has indeed shortened the statement, but not by far enough - at 2,500 bytes it is still too large. Do you need three lengthy references (the first is 370 bytes, the second is 315 bytes and the third weighs in at no less than 428 bytes for a combined total of 1113) in what is supposed to be a brief statement - in fact, why do you need references at all? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think I initially misunderstood the purpose of the statement. What does Legobot count as the end of the statement? Everything before the signature, or something else? In any case, I've shortened it again, so hopefully that will be sufficient. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is covered at WP:RFCBRIEF which I have already linked. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2020
I wanted to suggest that Covington Catholic High School's mention in the "History" section be linked to their Wiki page. In 2020, readers may remember the incident and its context well, but future visitors 10, 20, 30 years from now may not. Thank you! Leninboarrir (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the link now, Leninboarrir. JezGrove (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Serious NPOV problems
Why does an "encyclopedia article" refer to two people involved in a shoot-out with police officers who had "expressed interest in the Black Hebrew Israelite movement" and somebody else whose journals, a police officer alleged off the record, "included what appeared to be a reference to Black Hebrew Israelites". Is there really nothing of any real substance that can be written about the Black Hebrew Israelites, so the article has to be padded with rumor and innuendo?

According to the opening section, the SPLC considers 144 Black Hebrew Israelite organizations to be hate groups. Is that a large number or a small number? How many Black Hebrew Israelite organizations are there? Without some context, that's a factoid that fails to convey any useful information.

The SPLC considers some Christian organizations to be hate groups. Somehow the "encyclopedia" editors neglect to mention that factoid in the article about Christianity. No mention in the article about Judaism of Baruch Goldstein or Yigal Amir or other Jews who were inspired by their religion to murder. But it's okay to "other" the Black Hebrew Israelites because Wikipedia editors don't know any of them. You should be ashamed of yourselves. 173.90.247.103 (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The article tries to balance coverage of these issues, explaining that some fringe BHI groups are hate groups but it makes it clear that this is not the mainstream. One problem we have is that news sources tend to ignore smaller religions until they do something bad, so there is a lot of source material about the problems and less about the normal day-to-day beliefs and activities of the the BHIs. The BHIs have had a lot of bad publicity and, in the past, we have had to fend off people who wanted to turn this article into nothing but coverage of the various problems. The media has sometimes taken quite tenuous connections between criminals and BHI groups and tried to make a story out of it about the BHIs as a whole, in a way that they would not do for more mainstream religions. We have tried to be careful not to do that here but we can only use the sources that we have.
 * If you have any specific suggestions for improvements then you can make them but you need to trust that we are trying to be fair here. Personally, I think the best approach would be to expand coverage of their beliefs and practices so that coverage of the problems is not such a large proportion of the article. I don't think any of the coverage of the problems should be removed, unless anybody spots anything that is actually in error, of course. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)