Talk:Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America

Stop creating confusion and stop creating positive discussions.

Why are we linking this book to Kyrie Irving. He did not write it, he did not produce the documentary. All he did was watch it and made a comment like any American citizen would do if they wanted to talk about a book or a movie. How about you talk about the author, Ronald Dalton Jr., who wrote the book. maybe talk about some of his previous work and possibly why he believes what he believes. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill. Create a positive discussion and communication about the topic let each other come together and explain their views and why they believe what they believe and let's come to some understanding not you against me me against you. Create a positive 2600:8807:5463:9700:84E9:B06:AEAA:B42F (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Please mention the specific changes you desire in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The bias represented in this entry are shameful and not at all scholarly. 184.101.61.212 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Please mention the specific changes you desire in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

External link promoting the film

The external link "Video interview with author Ron Dalton" is a promotional interview recommending the book/film from an obscure Black Hebrew Israelite YouTube channel. Is this an appropriate external link? 115.64.250.62 (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks for the heads-up. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

We need the article to remain neutral in order to comply with WP:5P5. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral presentation of reliable sources. It doesn't mean articles cannot be critical of a subject if RS contain that criticism. To move forward, I suggest you specify which statements are not supported by RS. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Freelance-frank: We cannot state in a wiki voice that it is absolutely one thing or another. Obviously there are enough believers and supporters of the movie who do not agree. So we present this subject in a wiki neutral voice. Lightburst (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"Obviously there are enough believers and supporters of the movie who do not agree." This is a POV claim. I see nothing to indicate any plausible credibility, as you insinuate. The New York Times, CBS News, Rolling Stone, Forbes, Variety call it antisemitic. I am reverting you due to your unsupported claims. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If this downplaying continues, it may be necessary to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erik: WP:WIKIVOICE is very clear. You probably should do what you think you need to do. I am attempting to comply with policy not as you say "downplaying". We are an encyclopedia not a Jewish advocacy group. It is appropriate to say "Critics say." It is for sure a POV to use the language that you have reinserted. At this point I have to leave your incorrect edits rather than catch a block for reverting the obvious POV push. As it is the article is terribly unbalanced and recognizes no alternative viewpoints. You have also moved the citations back to the lead: please read MOS:LEADCITE - I moved them for a reason. You have left a very misleading edit summary - you essentially inserted a POV and made it appear you were reverting one. tsk tsk. Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not see what your mention of "Jewish advocacy group" has to do with this. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and what I have linked to has them calling it an antisemitic film. You have not provided anything to the contrary and continue to insinuate that "alternate viewpoints" are needed. You are a fellow editor, and you need to follow WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Erik is correct, Lightburst. If there was true disagreement, found in reliable sources, about the contents of the film and how the film is characterized then saying "Critics say" might be appropriate. However, virtually every RS is in agreement that this movie is extensively filled with antisemitism. Since there is no real disagreement, we are allowed to use WP:WIKIVOICE, which states: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion.... Voice also states: Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.. In this case, Director Ron Dalton's views are regarded as the fringe, minority views. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: A few determined editors can go against policy, that is the weakness of Wikipedia. I looked back at your edits like this and you are one of them. Here you use what looks like an editorial to get in your edit. "Kyrie Irving's non-apology is as empty and incoherent as that stupid movie: Drew Magary watched all 3-plus hours of the movie so you don't have to" Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What exactly makes me the "weakness of Wikipedia"? Drew Magary is a noted journalist. Such a notion has been extensively debunked and other sources can easily be found to support that. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Lightburst, your comment is a personal attack. Cut the nonsense. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.37.99 (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality – Specific challenges to Drew Magary’s article

Wikipedia is legitimizing a synopsis that cites to a link to a ‘review’ by Drew Magary that states “I don’t feel enlightened watching Kyries dickhead Nazi movie.” These type of references challenge the credibility of the Wikipedia platform.

Of the 21 paragraphs of Magary’s article 14 of them discuss Kyrie Irving (11 mention him by name). Thus, the majority (66%) of the Magary article is dedicated, not to reviewing (or even attacking) the documentary but attacking Irving. The article discusses Irvin, his vaccination status, and six paragraphs (28%) are dedicated to discussing antisemitism generally. This leaves only five paragraphs (417 words) that discuss the actual documentary.

Among these remaining paragraphs an entire paragraph is wasted on a petty critique of the Minutiae of the production value including, fonts, graphics, text animation, and broken URL links. Magary states that the Director sounds like he is “playing Call of Duty while narrating the film." Of the remaining four paragraphs, only one contains quotes which can be directly contributed to the documentary’s director, which is the following:

“Black people are now finding out that they are the real lost children of Israel in turn, they are realizing that Sephardic, Ashkenazi, and Israeli Jews are just religious converts with no biblical connection to the ancient tribes of Israel.” - Dalton

Scholarship should promote discussion not censorship. So far no one has argued that mainstream academic, historical, or scientific literature which recognizes African/Diaspora-African connection to Beta Israel is hateful and antisemitic. Similarly, no one has argued that mainstream academic, religious, and scientific literature treating the ‘convert’ roots of modern Sephardim, or Ashkenazim are antisemitic discussions.

Even Margary’s article mentions that the most controversial part, the holocaust denial claim by William White, was displayed briefly 30 minutes into the film and “never appeared again.” Thus, informed readers trying to escape the propaganda of commercial news want to know what the rest of the two and a half hours of the film were about?

Therefore, I looked to Wikipedia. But instead, all I learned from 14 of the 14 sources quoted was how much money Kyrie Irwin lost, and how bad of a person he is by tweeting it.

So, without an objective review of the film, readers/thinkers have only one option left which is to purchase the book or watch the DVD for themselves. If censorship was the goal, not the unfortunate by-product, then bias articles like these have the opposite effect. Hence, the documentaries explosion in sales.

As bad as Magary’s analysis was, the user included even less information about the film than Magary included himself. Magary at least links to the directors disclaimer about the film, even if just to attack it. Drew Magary is not a scholar or even a serious journalist, but a comedian/actor/sport columnist and humorist. His analysis of the NBA and sports is extensive, and some of what he says is funny, however, his credentials are not what is at issue. The issue is the non-neutral inflammatory tone of his writing which is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and more importantly the fact that he never makes an actual analysis the film. Rdjackso (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It is obvious that you don't like Magary's review, but it is basically one of the best sources we have for this WP:FRINGE documentary. What other sources do you wish Wikipedia used? I think it is pretty clear that the primary notability for this particular piece of media is the Irving controversy, so it is not surprising that the sources are going to focus a lot on that. You might be able to make a WP:NOTINHERITED argument to delete this article entirely or merge it into the controversy section of Irving's article, but simply asserting that an article is not neutral does not make it so. jps (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

‘What other sources should wikipedia use?’

Thank you for your response. It was brave to try and put together an article especially on such specious information. And NO I don’t want to attempt to delete your article, despite you giving me instructions on how to do so. I attempted to include more information with credible sources but someone deleted my entries before I even completed them.

The issue is a simple declaration by Magary which is unfounded.

“Such a notion (Black People are the original Hebrews) has been debunked.

Magary is a sports columnist not a religious scholar, historian, anthropologist or geneticist. None of the experts have taken such a rejectionist stance. The discussion of Africans in Beta Israel is what informed Operation Joshua, Operation Moses, and Operation Solomon. These discussions still occur at the highest level of the Israeli government.  If you search the term “African Jews” there are over 17,639 pages of results in Wikipedia alone. So it's disingenuous for sports humorists and other non experts like Magary or SPLC to declare it to be such an open and shut case.  

A better sentence would be:

Although controversial to some  

The notion that Black people are the original Hebrews is not a new discussion among Africans, African descendants, or members of the Jewish diaspora.

In my notes I have 20 credible mainstream academic sources I can include which present arguments for and against. Rdjackso (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are under the misapprehension here about what I mean by sourcing. Our job is to find sources about this particular work. It is not our job to evaluate the contentions within those sources unless and until they are directly addressed by other sources (and by "directly" I mean that the source must address Magary's article in particular and not just be about a related subject). To do otherwise would constitute original research which, sometimes to the surprise of those looking into this website, is not an allowed means by which we write articles. I would welcome you to provide "credible mainstream academic sources", but please be aware that in order to be relevant to this page they need to directly address the subject of this page which is the film and the work from which it was derived. If the sources do not mention this film, then I'm afraid they aren't usable here per WP:SYNTH. I hope that makes sense. jps (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment This Rdjackso account was started in 2009 and has made a grand total of 31 edits to articles in 13 years - and displays a downright astonishing knowledge of Wikipedia policies despite that edit count. If this user doesn't have multiple accounts, I'll eat my hat. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I prefer to assume good faith here. Obviously the user does not know about our original research rules. If you suspect something more, do feel free to discuss it at their talkpage which I note has a lot of commentary about Wikipedia policies and guidelines from previous actions, as limited as they are. jps (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rdjackso: is correct in their analysis. It is impossible for editors to follow policy if it requires them to go against a group of determined editors. A few editors are determined to edit the article with an eye toward damning the book, the movie, the author etc. @Fred Zepelin: we should be asking if Rdjackso is right, instead of investigating their contributions. I started the article and I thought it was very neutral, and then the group of determined editors showed up and I left. Lightburst (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which document the antisemitism in the film. I just read one yesterday: [1]. I have yet to see a source which convincingly states that the film does not promote antisemitism. Have you any? jps (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ජපස Sigh...you brought in another editorial? Since when do we use opinion pieces to support encyclopedic articles? Bruxton (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sigh...Michael Eric Dyson is a reliable source that can be attributed. If you can't admit that, I'm not sure what you're doing here. jps (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We can not use editorials as RS WP:RSEDITORIAL. That seems to be a bright line and common sense. Bruxton (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not a blanket prohibition nor a bright line. Attribution to the author is fine. Odd that you think it isn't. jps (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Genetic Fallacies and censoring the "why" in favor of asserting the "what."

OK @Lightburst, now I see what is going on. I was wondering why @jps was so quick to give me information on how to delete the article. We can all agree that Antisemitism is a branch of ignorance we all should be bothered by. It is understandable that some may want to make it clear that the film promotes antisemitism. The point was well made ad nauseum and I, for one, am not questioning it. But sorry @jps I wont help you in censorship because the cure to ignorance is knowledge and the fuel of ignorance is censorship. I think there is too much conflation between the “what is so” versus the “why” or “how is it so.” People generally go to wikipedia to read the “how” and “why”. They don’t necessarily go to discover the “what.”

By including so many links to the Kyrie Irwin controversy you stated a “what” (H2N = Antisemitism). I am not challenging the “what.” But when I tried to elucidate on the “how” or “why”, I was censored. The censorship efforts are followed by an invitation to a circular challenge to disprove the “what.”

I didn’t question the “what” I just wanted to know the “how.” As a moderately educated reader, I already know the “what” concerning the antisemitism of works like the Protocols, Ford’s -International Jew and Holocaust denial. The H2N article links the reader to those articles, which all do a good job of explaining “how” and “why.” But they do this effectively by not simply stating a what, but instead stating a "how" and "why." This is accomplished by providing an analysis the content and themes. This is not the case with the H2N article in its current format. Even the wiki entry on Mein Kampf, provides a “how” and “why” of its antisemitism, by including an analysis of its content.

To dismiss or validate based solely on their source of origin rather than their content is called a genetic fallacy. A millennium of academic/religious (and recent genetic) scholarship on African/Beta Israel connection does not instantaneously become illegitimate because it was cited to in a 2018 film that was otherwise deemed to be antisemitic in tone. I am only challenging (Margary's assertion) that this narrow scholarship was "debunked". Rdjackso (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Rdjackso (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your critique of the analysis is not something upon which we can base any argument. We need sources and not original research. Wikipedia certainly is guilty of the genetic fallacy when it comes to its composition. But that's just the way things are here. I'm communicating the rules that the community, for better or worse, have made up. If you want to fix the situation you either need to argue for a change in the rules (WP:RS, WP:OR, etc.) or you should get your analysis published and then we can include it here. jps (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point by prefering the what in favor of the "why" or "how."

Again you have defaulted to a pattern of not addressing what I wrote in the talk page. A reader can see that what you have done in each instance is avoid addressing my commentary in favor of giving it a strawman name. (A what) In the previous case you called it an “assertion” in this instance you call it “a critique of the analysis”.  Whatever the name it seems to neatly coincides with a rule that you have defaulted to for that purpose. You have not stated evidence for your assertions by explaining why my commentary runs against the letter or spirit of that rule. You simply cite the rule with no analysis. And of course, leave a hyperlink to said rule.

I didn’t make a critique of any analysis. And I didn’t provide any original research. I cited to 6 sources that speak to the assertion made by Magary which directly address the derivative work of the film.  Because you ‘accused me’ (in a previous post) of have an “astonishing knowledge of the rules” I went out and looked for the rules. I found no rules but instead Pillars. And ironically the final pillar was that there are no “firm rules.”

So what is to be said of the practice of pretending pillars into firm rules and never addressing the content of what was included or deleted? Rdjackso (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems you just haven't understood what I'm saying. If you would like to get further input, feel free to post on WP:RSN, for example, to see if my position is out of line. jps (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality + fake sources

The synopsis section is definitely not neutral in tone and has many commentary adjectives like "false" interspersed. Furthermore, refs 9 + 10 are bogus and do not support the claim that the radical Hebrew Israelites' claims have been debunked, only that the SLPC considers them hate speech. 73.172.27.99 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022

Change the article to include information about the film, and move the claims of the film's antisemitic messaging to its own heading or article. The article fails to inform the reader what the film is about, but prefers to focus on labelling the film ant-semitic. There is a distinct lack of examples, details, information about the film. 1.145.248.108 (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CRISIS COMMUNICATION

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Klm757 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Klm757 (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)