Talk:The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews

Why is it impermissible to link to authorized copies of the text in question?

Links to online copies of these books, uploaded by the publisher, were removed on the pretext that they "don't add anything to the article", a claim which is absurd on its face.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Blacks_and_Jews&diff=962662833&oldid=962642016

It is further claimed that they "Fail WP:EL", which is simply a lie. see here:

"An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked

This is simply censorship, so that readers are not able to evaluate for themselves whether the negative review which constitutes the body of the article is valid.

On that basis, the links are restored.

Wrong reason. I hadn't noticed that you could download the books, I thought it just summarised them. But it's clearly a pirate site - the OUP didn't give them permission to host their books. We don't link to sites that violate copyright like that. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

now the story changes -- "copyright violation". nevermind that the uploader is listed as "The Nation of Islam", and they have uploaded all four of their books in this series, and several others as well. when there's censorship to be done, any disingenuous pretext will suffice. keep up the good work, Wikipedia -- the word is getting around.

Idiot, you didn't even try to deny it's a pirate site. We don't link to them. If the word is getting around that we don't like bigots, great. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Why "volume 1" in title?

The issue has been solved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why was the title changed to include "volume 1"? I know there are 2 volumes, but can you name any other multi-volume work that has individual articles for each individual volume? A Study of History, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, etc, are all one article. Any differences between the two volumes can be addressed within the article by appropriate explanatory material, no? --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Seeing no objection, implementing the re-name. --Noleander (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There are three volumes of this book, the third one deals with Leo Frank. TonyMorris68 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Two aspects of criticism

I think the more important aspect is whether the book is revisionist or objective. It is only of secondary importance that it is called "antisemitic", since antisemitic means "criticizing Jews". Our readers are probably more concerned with determining what scholars say about the books thesis, in terms of whether Jews were disproportionately involved in the slave trade. (It's obvious that the charge, whether true or not, is a criticism of Jews, but that has no bearing on whether it's true or not.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism is not criticism of Jews. It is hatred toward Jews, and a form of racism. See the difference? Marokwitz (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, which changes do you suggest should be made to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that "any criticism of X" is considered hate speech by pro-X advocates. Since there's nothing in the article about hatred of Jews let's just say that scholars rejected the book's thesis as false.

On the other hand, if anyone is suggesting that hatred of Jews was a motivation for making false charges, then by all means put back what I took out and expand on it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a longstanding, academically studied form of racism. It is not mere "criticism". Reliable sources describe the work as antisemitism. Which changes do you suggest should be made to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you read the sources, that's exactly what well known scholars are saying, antisemitism was a motivation for the deliberate distortion of history by the authors of this book. Antisemitism is hatred of Jews, not mere criticism. Marokwitz (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't read all the sources. When I read an encyclopedia article, I must either trust the contributors to summarize the sources or (when possible) enjoy the benefit of reading extracts from the source material as quotations placed in the article.

Would any of you have the time to put in a direct quote from a well known scholar, specifically saying that hatred of Jews was a motivation for the deliberate distortion of history by the authors of this book? I personally think you are probably right, but I wouldn't want my own opinion used as the basis for such a charge (see, e.g., WP:SYNTH). --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the second paragraph of the lede, which quotes Henry Louis Gates? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncle ed, did you find in the sources what they say about what the jewish researchers that was quoted and used by farrakhan for his book?

An interesting aspect is what are they names and see if they are self hating jews or bigoted jewish scholars. if they arent or are acording to other sources, then said sources about "distortion of history" is correct or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.83.237 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The preceding comment is interesting in that it ass/u/me/s the book used its sources honestly, which is a large part of the issue of Jew Hatred. Many of the those remarking on it in the entry article say that very selective, out-of-context quotation was used to misrepresent the views of those quoted.Saintonge235 (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews Article

After reading the Wikipedia article "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews," here are a few questions that I have for the writers:

1. Is this an encyclopedia article about the book, or is it an attempt to discredit the work, through smear tactics (propaganda)? The reasoning behind the question would be the totally subjective manner that the writers handle this article. It would seem that the main objective of the writers, in producing the article, was to persuade readers that the book is "anti-semitic" than to allow interested parties to arrive at that decision by themselves.

2. Why no excerpts from the book? Is this a book review, or is it a smear campaign? Did the writers of this article even read the book, or did they just compile all of the criticisms of the book; accentuating the criticisms with their own biases as to what is contained therein? After reading this article several times, I can't seem to find one real quote that stems directly from the book. All I can seem to find are quotes of people who utter what they believe is the book's premise. It would make for a more balanced, objective article to provide an actual review of what is in the book, and include discourse on both sides of the debate. In simpler terms, this article is one-sided. It alleges that the book takes liberties with information from credible scholars, yet fails to give readers actual examples of how.

3. I've read both "Secret Relationship" books (Volume 1 and 2). I found nothing in either book expressing hatred towards Jewish people, or Judaism. All I encountered, in reading this book, was an objective, scholarly, well organized and referenced, piece of material. To say that liberties were taken with facts obtained from reputable Jewish scholarship may be plausible, if there were but a few facts from a few scholars. However, this book is full of facts from numerous reputable, Jewish scholars. Were all of the facts misused, mishandled, or misquoted? If so, it is binding upon the writers of this article to show the readers how, since this article is but a criticism of the book, as opposed to a review of it.

4. Finally, to consider something "anti-semitic" would take more than a lot of people repeating their belief that the book is anti-semitic. Especially when most of these people are come from the same school of thought. First of all, there is no Anti-Semitic content in this book. Criticism of Jewish involvement in the slave trade is no more Anti-Semitic than criticism of White complicity in the slave trade is anti-White, or criticism of Arab or African involvement in the slave trade is anti-Arab, or anti-African. One would have to prove that the reasons for compiling the book was for Anti-Semitic purposes. To do that, one would have to prove that the compilers of the book were Anti-Semites. Here are the main arguments:

a. Farrakhan called Judaism a "gutter religion." Despite the Minister defending himself on this point countless times, the media still asserts that he called Judaism a "gutter religion." Farrakhan has even played the clip of what he actually said, however what he says is ignored, unless it lends credibility to the "anti-semitic" charge. Here is what he really said:

"Israel has not had any peace in 40 years and she will never have any peace for there can be no peace structured on lying, murder, and injustice, using the name of Allah (God) as a shield for your dirty religion."

If one would be honest, they would admit that this is speaking in a completely political context. Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous. In fact, there are many Jews who disagree with Zionism, and harbor a similar position to Minister Farrakhan, as relates to the State of Israel. Are they anti-semitic too? Anyway, most of the Zionists who inhabit Israel are not Semitic anyway, considering the fact that a vast majority of them are Jewish by conversion, and not descendency. This fact is well documented.

b. Farrakhan praised Hitler: This is another point that people blindly attribute to the Minister. However, his words were totally taken out of context, and he was misquoted. Here is what he actually said: "...So I said to the members of the press, "Why won't you go and look into what we are saying about the threats on Reverend Jackson's life?' Here the Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler.' Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't great for me as a Black man but he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the first world war. Yet Hitler took Germany from the ashes and rose her up and made her the greatest fighting machine of the twentieth century, brothers and sisters, and even though Europe and America had deciphered the code that Hitler was using to speak to his chief[s] of staff, they still had trouble defeating Hitler even after knowing his plans in advance. Now I'm not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don't compare me with your wicked killers."

Calling a man a "wicked killer" could hardly being construed as praising him. These are the two main points that the media has used to charge Farrakhan with anti-semitism. Both of which, you can see here, are misquotes. That would be the foundation for saying that the source of the book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, is anti-semitic. Since it cannot be shown (Without manipulation and misquotes) that the Minister is anti-semitic, then the book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews cannot be called anti-semitic, simply based on who compiled it. Minister Farrakhan didn't compile the book anyway. The Nation of Islam research team did, under his instructions. They compiled it as a reply to attacks that the Nation of Islam was receiving from the Zionist community.

To sum all of this up, the article on "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews" is not a true encyclopedia article. It is propaganda, geared towards keeping interested parties away from information that is contained in the book.

(Kareemabdullah (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Kareemabdullah) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareemabdullah (talk • contribs)

Questions about the Book

1. Is there an author or authors?

2. Is it about much else other than the slave trade? The article seems to indicate that but the title implies that it might cover other topics.--Jrm2007 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

1. It is credited to the "Nation of Islam Historical Research Dept."
2. The first volume was about Jews and their involvement in the African slave trade. There was a second volume published more than a decade later that focused on other aspects of the relationship between Jews and African-Americans. I don't recall reading anything about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There is now a third volume, published in 2016, which concerns the 1913 murder of Mary Phagan, a teenage white girl, a crime that Leo Frank was convicted of, and later lynched for.Saintonge235 (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What is factually wrong in the book?

Based on the Critical Reception section, the main thesis of the book and its use of data must have been debunked in at least a few of those critics' responses.

Wouldn't it be worthwhile shedding at least some light on an actual refutation of content instead of just displaying a bunch of vague rumors about how horribly "anti-Semitic" it is?

Just a suggestion. 70.16.208.6 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No you cannot do that, you see when you write something negative about Africans, Christians, and esp Muslims it is okay. But some topics on Wikipedia you just can say it was antisemitic and there is absolutely no need for any refutation. NONE. So Gates did not have to even read the book, he got told what to say and responded to the title in a knee jerk fashion. I will be honest and say the book has some major issues, but is a very powerful book on a hidden topic. I see the critical reception is (like other topics critical of Jewish issues larger than anything else-- See Israeli Lobby ) Yet Tony Martin, Molefi Asante all prasised the book (and most authentic African scholars). HOWEVER, none of them are RS to be mentioned against Fox and his clean record of fighting Defamation. --Inayity (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The wiki article states "and only identified certain regions (such as Brazil and the Caribbean) where the participation was "significant."[13]

Brazil and the Caribbean is where most of the slaves went, thus the Jewish activity was disproportional afterall.

Retards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.245.77.7 (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Any positive reviews?

Anyone? The Critical section seems a little negative, any good news on the book from African scholars like Asante?--Inayity (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Some" historians -- The use of "some" suggests there are significant numbers of historians that disagree

"Some" historians -- The use of "some" suggests there are significant numbers of historians that disagree, are there? Is the consensus of historians that this book is **not** an anti-semitic canard? Is the consensus of historians that the Jewish role in the Atlantic slave trade was not minimal?

If so, that should be documented with citations. If not, if the consensus is that the book is not factually true and is an anti-semitic canard, "some" should be removed. It's only purpose is to deny what the article actually says by framing it with doubt. 208.53.112.162 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

LMFAO

POV much? There is one small paragraph about the general theme of the book and the rest of the page is aimed at denouncing the book as anti-semitic propaganda. Clearly, the Zionist editors are hot on this one, so I won't even bother to try to alter this page. Been there done that. Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.2.55 (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the book is quite anti-semetic, as the Nation of Islam usually is. The whole point of the criticism of the book is not just the "Zionist Editors" trying to influence Wikipedia, but the book actually does have some very anti-semetic tones to it. I think that a Wikipedia article calling an overtly prejudiced book prejudiced is perfectly fine as long as there is evidence that can back it up. ItsDaBunnyYT (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Secret Relationship Between the Normans and Jews.

William Mamzer and all that.

Was not the late prof. Tony Martin writing a follow-on inspired by the Blacks and Jews one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:A956:103:F8BF:42CB (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Reasons for lack of scholarly acceptance

The book doesn't get good reviews from professional historians because it selectively ignores facts which don't bolster its predetermined agenda, which is never a good way to write history. For example, the book completely ignores the Arab-Muslim Indian Ocean slave trade (which was going strong 700 to 800 years before the Atlantic slave trade even existed) solely and exclusively because it's a dogma of NOI theology that Muslims and Arabs are always good and Jews are always evil, and for absolutely no other reason. Another big fact which is completely ignored is that until about 1800 AD, Jews had exactly and only those roles in Christian (and Muslim) societies which Christians (and Muslims) allowed them to have. Also, it makes a big deal of the reluctance of Jewish congregations to speak out publicly against slavery before 1865 but it omits the main reason for this, namely that the members of such congregations overwhelmingly felt that they were tolerated guests in a foreign land who should not stir up unnecessary trouble for themselves (or even attract unnecessary attention to themselves). Episcopalians were also notoriously reluctant to say anything about slavery during the same period, but they didn't have the excuse of feeling like sojourners (exactly the opposite, in fact), and the NOI never wrote a book on the "The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Episcopalians" (I wonder why that is?)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Part 3: Leo Frank the Lynching of a Guilty Man

Jayjg, The anti-Semitic nation of islam has produced part 3 of their pseudoscholarly series on the Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Called "Leo Frank, The Lynching of a Guilty Man". I added Leo Frank as a category for further reading, but you removed it claiming it wasn't relevant. NOI is currently publishing a audiobook serial of the third book about Leo Frank at The American Mercury https://theamericanmercury.org/tag/the-lynching-of-a-guilty-man/ and they sell their book on Amazon. I think it's fair to mention Leo Frank in the article. TonyMorris68 (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The article didn't mention the third book, so the connection wasn't apparent. Do you have any sources that discuss the book? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is mentioned on ADL website. I recollect coming across an article there about it. TonyMorris68 (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

ADL website about 'The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews Volume 3, Leo Frank the lynching of a guilty man (2016)' https://www.adl.org/resources/profiles/the-nation-of-islam stating, "The third volume alleges that early 20th century “Jewish businessmen” worked to subjugate black people and enrich themselves by masterminding the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan. NOI also claims that Jews were secretly responsible for the lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish man accused of murdering a white Christian girl in 1913." TonyMorris68 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of relevant link to official audiobook secret relationship volume 3

Doug Wheeler (sp) Under the guise of no platforming, the following link was removed from the article.

• Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3: Leo Frank the Lynching of a Guilty Man at The American Mercury in audio book format.

These seems more political than under any relevant Wikipedia guideline, can we please discuss. TonyMorris68 (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• No you can't cause you're blocked, and as far as I'm concerned the one who seems more "political" is you. Please take this opportunity to read WP:EL, besides all the other policies and guidelines you violated. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• • If a consensus is reached that a disgusting dishonest racist neo-Nazi website with a global Alexa ranking of 7,216,296 belongs here, I guess I'll have to go along. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Write a section about the actual contents

SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Useful review in The Atlantic

[1] A review. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)