Talk:Jews in the civil rights movement

Question re page creation
Hello, I am confused why this page was created a month ago, when the page African American–Jewish relations has been on wikipedia since 2010? Like, why is this a separate new page, when in the lede of African American-Jewish relations the civil rights movement is mentioned. Soyembika (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Because there is need for a specific entry. This is a focus article on the issue which is not widely enough covered. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * the article African American–Jewish relations is far wider in its scope. This article is specific in its scope, referring specifically to Jews and the Civil Rights movement which is notable enough a topic to warrant its own article. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What is in this article that is not covered in Civil rights movement#American Jews and African American–Jewish relations#Civil rights movement ? I feel like this article contains less information and detail than the other two. Soyembika (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is 40,000 bytes+. Of course further information can be added. And from what I saw from both articles this article covers more than each one individually. Either how, there is no question of notability. On the contrary, I invite you to add further information and make this article more informative. You're most welcome to do so. Please feel free to ask any other questions. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because there is a large amount of american Jews telling black people "you owe us one" re. the Israel situation. This page creation is just as cynical as a right-winger compiling a screed on "Judeo-Bolshevism." Sheila1988 (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I do not fully understand your comment, it does seem inappropriate and disconnected. Please raise actual problems regarding the topic of the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about synthesis and lack of scholarly sources
Hi @Homerethegreat, following up on our discussion at ERRORS. As I said there, I have a significant concern about this article's reliance on newsmedia sources for very impactful claims, especially given the healthy academic discourse that exists about this topic. When editors are built out of less-reliable sources like newspapers and magazines, it's easy to fall into WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE traps, even if one is proceeding with the best of intentions. That's what's happened with the use of "pivotal role" here, which is, at best, an over-simplification of the academic view on the topic, and at worst risks presenting a false narrative.

I am lucky enough to count as a relative one of the preeminent scholars of Black–Jewish relations, Cheryl Greenberg. (To avoid any accusation that that assessment is biased by kinship: Her Troubling the Waters: Black–Jewish Relations in the American Century is very widely-cited in academia [moreso than almost any other text in the field], and she is also cited quite a bit here on Wikipedia, including 9 citations and two in-text mentions in African American–Jewish relations.) I asked her for her expert opinion on this article, and her feeling was that none of it is wrong , but that it presents an overly simplified view of interactions between Black people and Jews at the time. And she feels that pop-culture-oriented sources on Jews' role in the civil rights movement tend to overemphasize the role of faith and Jewish ethics in accounting for Jews' disproportionate role in the movement, rather than looking at more practical factors.

Moving back to my own analysis for a moment, there's a risk here of POV-forking, inasmuch as there is no article on Jews during the civil rights movement, so this article's scope by definition restricts itself to the more positive half of a complex dynamic. It may be worth discussing whether this article should be rescoped that way, as a time-based sub-article of African American–Jewish relations rather than an ethnicity-based sub-article of Civil rights movement. In either eventuality, though, since I see you plan on bringing this to GA, in my opinion this cannot meet GA standards (specifically 2b, 2c, and 4) without being based primarily on scholarly sources, and to that end I bring the following recommendations from Dr. Greenberg: -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 19:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The writings of Marc Dollinger. (His most notable work on the subject is Black Power, Jewish Politics.)
 * The writings of Clive Webb. (Most notable work Fight Against Fear: Southern Jews and Black Civil Rights.)
 * The controversial essay "Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They're Anti-White" by James Baldwin, and this 2022 analysis of it by Terrence L. Johnson and Jacques Berlinerblau
 * And, of course, her own writings


 * Wow! I'm delighted for all the constructive criticism. I'm very happy you asked the expert opinion of Ms Greenberg. I do think due to the extensive discussions on the topic that it merits a stand alone article. Regarding scope regarding current relations, I think that is best in African American-Jewish relations page. I thought it was best that this article deal with Jews in the Civil Rights movement specifically and not current politics etc which I feel this page should not cover. Of course, I'll be very happy for your continued help in the matter as well as understand what Mrs Greenberg thinks ought to be included in the article in order for it to be well versed, more informative and accurate and thus deal with the full scope of the matter. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * the concerns about synthesis and own research re: this pages creation are shared by me too. homer, this feels like a personal project of yours rather than something that belongs on mainspace Soyembika (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as an update: I recently went through this to remove the "personal essay" elements, such as summations and editorial commentary. It felt like someone was making an essay for history class and building to a thesis, rather than presenting encyclopedic content. (Not @Homerethegreat's fault, mind. I think it's easy to lapse into learned habits.)
 * I had actually missed this discussion but am heartened that many of the sources Cheryl Greenberg suggests have already been covered by me. (I also did a lot of work on the African American–Jewish relations article, which I felt also had some issues re POV, such as leaving out a lot of African American sources.)
 * I will take a look at the sources I missed and will see if there's anything else to add. It looks like Clive Webb is the main one (but maybe also some more of Greenberg's work). In the meantime, @Tamzin and @Soyembika, do you think this article is now headed in the right direction? It feels a lot more neutral to me, both in tone and balance of information/perspectives. There might be a couple of spots where we could clean up tone/POV still and the critique might be a tad too gentle still, but it avoids controversy. Lewisguile (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By "controversy", I mean "anything too controversial"/likely to be contested or offensive. I think the broad controversies are now covered in a reasonably balanced fashion. Lewisguile (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you! :) and thank you for the ping, this page is def moving in good directions! i appreciate your edits! Soyembika (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to hear it. Thank you for responding! Lewisguile (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede/lead expanded — note removed
There was a template to expand the lede (or lead if you're in the US) to better cover the entirety of the article. I have now done this, and I think it reflects the major issues and nuances in broad stokes. Feel free to re-add the relevant template if you think this issue still needs addressing, or add specific suggestions/critiques here if you're not sure. Lewisguile (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)