![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
We need the article to remain neutral in order to comply with WP:5P5. Lightburst ( talk) 22:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
We need the article to remain neutral in order to comply with WP:5P5. Lightburst ( talk) 22:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)