Talk:Nation of Islam/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

We may not hide beliefs of any group or religion

A major task of any encyclopedia is to explain the beliefs and teachings of religions. We are obligated to do this even if their beliefs make us uncomfortable. This is true for the NOI: One of the basic tenets of NOI teachings is that only blacks are fully human. White people are considered to be genetically and spiritually inferior to black people. They have been preaching this publicly for many years, and it simply is not honest or acceptable to deny this reality. Please do not censor this article by removing information on this point, especially since this point is already sources in three ways within the article, and more sources can readily be added.

An article can explain why its adherents accept these beliefs as true; it can explain how the adherents of this faith justify their beliefs, we can offer varying sources from the groups leaders, but we may not deny that these central teachings exist. RK

We have never said that whites aren't fully human. We say that they are not original. When you get a cd it is not the original cd but it is a copy. It still plays just as well but it just isn't held in as high a standard because you can go and create more cd off of the original. Black people are the original people so we are naturally made better equipped to handle the rough terrain of the earth better then white people. They're still human and even though scientifically the copy isn't as strong as the original we still treat the copy just like we treat the original, with justice.

OPPOSE: White people, brown people, black people regardless of who you are... are just as original as the person who precedes them. Just as you are just as original and human as your parents who preceded you or their parents who preceded them. The Nation of Islam is what it is... A black nationalist movement deadbent on the uplifting of the spirits of the black man and woman. Just as the Revolutionaries, Black Panthers and other such movements made noble efforts in. "The Nation" cannot attribute itself to "Islam" without the basic tenets of Islamic belief. Believing that there is "There is nothing worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger and last prophet." When Muslims speak of God they speak of Allah, not a man who claimed he was God or God incarnated in person. When Muslims speak of Muhammad they speak of Muhammad ibn Abdullah of 1400+ years ago who received the revelation from the Angel Jibril given orders from Allah NOT of Elijah Poole turned Elijah Muhammad after receiving enlightenment from another man who preached aggression and transgression. If the Nation of Islam was the "correct" way then why is it that the "Nation" was not the original practice of the Muslims? The obvious reason is because it is not the correct way at all. The original man was Adam. Not some race of pre-Adamites the Nation beliefs were here before Adam and Hawaa (Eve). Our Prophet Jacob is not some wild deranged scientist who wanted to "get back" at his people and came up with an elaborate scheme to develop "white" people by cancelling out the black gene... cross breeding lighter and lighter until white people became the majority and the rulers. Bogus, unintelligible rhetoric and feeble thoughts. We are not on Dr. Zhivago's Island! No man is greater than another in other than piety is the true belief of Islam. "You are not a true muslim until you want for your brother what you want him what you want for yourself" is what the true Prophet Muhammad said. "Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved for you Islam as religion. . ." The Qur'an 3:19, ... not "Nation of Islam", not the "Lost Found Nation", and not "The Nation of Gods and Earths (5% Nation of Islam)". Our Holy book is the Holy Quran NOT the "Message to the Black Man". Our examples of correctness is in the Sunnah and Hadith's of the Prophet Muhammad not in "Muhammad Speaks". I protest against the Nation and its wicked ideologies under the guise of "Al-Islam" and all who read should do the same, learn of their lies and if you are in then remove yourself immediately. The last 3 questions in the grave are "Who is your lord, who is this man and what is your religion?" At NO TIME!!! will my answers involve W.D. Fard Muhammad, Elijah Muhammad or Nation of Islam and God Willing none of yours will either or a horrible torture will befall us all. ----VeiledOne

OPPOSE:

That is the dumbest bullshit I have ever heard...

You NOI people are so delusional. Makes good sense why your cult is so damned small like Scientology or such.

We can all look up what Farakhan has said. What your ministers have said. The racist, and crazy statements about White People being created by a mad scientist and blah blah blah. Come on.. Why do NOI people get a say in how this is written. Just as I think it is advantageous for Libertarians to not write articles about Libertarianism or Mormons to write about Mormonism. Or Jews to write about anti-semetism.

AGREE:

We didn't say Yacub was a mad scientist, he was quite sane. Lets look at it this way, if you can't get black people from white or blacks from yellow or black from brown or black from red and black was first and the rest came and black have been here for millions of years before 6,094 years ago then white people came then there had to have been a conscious decision in bringing white people to this earth right?

OPPOSE:

YOur gonna get a crappy article with lots of bias, and over time the article becomes a propoganda page with edit wars and such. Let us find fact. We should use only fact to write about something. Save the bias for criticism sections or criticism pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satv365 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire notion of "the Blackman (sic) is the Original Man and whites must be inferior copies" is profoundly devoid of logic. The current population of sub-Saharan Africa is not the unchanged, direct scion of the original homo sapiens of 200,000 years ago, and in fact no one knows what the first humans looked like. Most anthropologists guess that they were something like the Bushmen of the Kalahari, who have traits of many modern "races" of man. In Northern Europe natural selection favored fair skin that was able to absorb more vitamin D from limited sunlight, it makes perfect evolutionary sense and in no way demands ancient genetic engineering as an explanation. By claiming to be "Original", the NOI is ironically suggesting what has fueled white supremacist pseudo-science for centuries, the idea that blacks are closer than whites to the lesser great apes with whom we share common ancestry, that they're somehow "less evolved" and therefore less human. 76.19.26.248 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"New and Improved White People!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.139 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Zebra Murders Whitewash

The Zebra Murders were a natural result of NOI's racist pseudo-theology which dehumanizes whites. Naturally they aren't mentioned here. (And naturally no one atlks about them in San Francisco anymore.) This page is propaganda.

Could you please clarify? If you have some specific criticisms and suggestions, we are very willing to listen. Thank you for your time. RK
If you read the most thorough and credible works on the subject (see below), you will see that not only did the so-called Zebra murders flow directly from NOI theology, but that they were an NOI operation, directed from Chicago (aka New Mecca), and run out of the San Francisco mosque. The San Francisco death squad had pep rallies run by dignitaries from New Mecca after hours at the NOI-owned moving and storage where most of the killers worked, and all of them worked for NOI-owned businesses.
The apprentice Death Angels had to reach a certain quota from killing either four white children, five white women, or nine white men, in order to become full-fledge Death Angels, and receive free passage to Mecca. The practice of paying free passage to Mecca for killing “white devils” had been instituted during the early 1930s by NOI founder Wallace Fard.
The NOI even paid for the defense of the three killers who refused to confess (Larry Green, J.C.X. Simon, and Manuel Moore), but refused to pay legal fees for the one killer, Jesse Lee Cooks, who confessed to murder (the Frances Rose killing), and went so far as to disown Cooks. The NOI considers it a mortal sin to confess to any crime in the white man's courts.
To get an indication of how tightly the NOI operation was run, the case was only broken when one of the killers, Anthony Cornelius Harris, came forward, in order to collect the $35,000 reward, get police protection, and new identities for himself and his family. One day, when Harris & Family were in a motel under police guard, and Harris was in the shower, his foolish wife telephoned the wife of her minister, at the San Francisco mosque, and told her where they were holed up. In no time flat, a squad of NOI assassins (Fruit of Islam types, not the raggedy characters in the “Zebra” death squads) showed up at the motel, and Detectives Gus Coreris and John Fotinos just managed to escape with the Harris family seconds ahead of the assassins.
Had the squad managed to kill Harris, the SFPD would never have broken the San Francisco cases (or at least, the 15 official San Francisco cases; there were more killings than that in the city by the bay). As it is, the convictions of Larry Green, J.C.X. Simon, Manuel Moore and Jesse Lee Cooks “cleared” only 15 killings, and the SFPD was convinced that at least three other men were part of the SF squad alone. However, the San Francisco DA, convinced that it had too little evidence to go to trial against the other three, dropped the charges against them.
The NOI is so tightly knit in its devotion to killing whites, whom it variously teaches are “white devils,” “blue-eyed devils,” and “grafted snakes,” that no one else came forward with information.
Not only did the NOI organize the death squads (there were many more than the one that went down), but the killings went on up and down the State of California, with different squads working different areas, and according to the FBI, even (though apparently, or rather, hopefully, to a lesser degree) on the East Coast. Dick Walley, the head of the Intelligence Analysis Unit at the California Department of Justice, had a dossier of 71 black-on-white murders committed across the state that he was convinced were NOI killings (Howard). (Walley died of cancer before the trial.) Clark Howard, the author of Zebra, was convinced that the NOI had murdered “just under 270” whites across California, but never named the other 255 victims, or explained his rationale. Since the murders were through and through an NOI operation, and only a small minority of them (even using Walley’s figure, which did not count non-California NOI racial killings) were committed in San Francisco, I suggest that we dispense with calling them the “Zebra Murders,” and simply call them the NOI Murders.
Contrary to those who have claimed that the NOI was seeking with the killings to cause a race war, the NOI was prosecuting a race war. The real story of how that war was stopped is one that I’m afraid we’ll never learn.
Howard, Clark. Zebra: The true account of the 179 days of terror in San Francisco (New York: Richard Marek Publishers, 1979).
70.23.199.239 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
And YEARS later no change in the article... Yep... really the way to move forward towards a better future. Encourage black hate groups to murder whites and then just pretend it doesnt happen because, hey, there is a bad history. Never mind that the people doing the killing are psychopaths and the victimes are just working schmucks picked at random. Nah... That doesnt matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.35.35 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


I think there's a point to this complaint. The Zebra murders were a major historical event and the relationship between the murders and NOI is still a festering controversy that shouldn't be ignored. If there is a more authoritive source on the Zebra murders than the Clark book, I haven't been able to find it. Unfortunately, the book is a New Journalism effort, and often hides its sources and dramatizes events, thus obscuring what solid evidence existed. But it appears he did do considerable original research. I propose that we add something such as this:

There is considerable controversy over the existence or the extent of NOI involvement in the Zebra killers of 1973-'74 in San Francisco. Howard Clark's book "Zebra" cites Richard Walley of the California Department of Justice Intelligence Analysis Unit as believing that the conspiracy and the murders were more widespread than those attributed to the four convicted members of NOI and that they were NOI inspired [pp. 238,264]. He also quotes the Imam of San Quentin Prison (of World Community of Islam, which Clark says at the time of his writing, 1979, had replaced the NOI), as stating "although it will take us quite some time to erase our old image we will do just that by promoting brotherhood among all men" (14). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.23.156 (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Double Standards

The article is shockingly biased in favour of the NoI in that it describes the orginization as merely existing to help the "condition of black men and women". At the same time, there are multiple examples of high ranking NoI members stating that whites are unevolved, subhuman, demonic, inferior, and that white women and children need to be murdered. NoI members have been guilty of race based serial killing (DC sniper was for example, a NoI member as were many other men convicted of violent hate crimes), and yet NoI is not classified as a racist or hate group of any sort? The KKK has stated that it is not a racist or hate group, only looking out for white interests despite its violent past, yet nobody believes them. This is mirroring the NoI, yet the NoI seems to be fully pardoned, the articles introduction could even be considered praise and describing NoI as a civil rights group. Why is this? Can we please create a new introduction fitting for such a violent, hateful group closer to that of the KKK, regardless of what each one publically 'states' its 'goals' are despite all of their activities and history. And can we please learn the difference between hate groups like NoI and black activist groups that instead publically oppose racism such as the original black panther party, rather than advocate murder based on skin color the way NoI does?

Ive added that they are a racial segeregationist orginization in the intro, this is the very least that should be said in such a misleading article that paints a group who openly support genocide as a human rights resistance of some sort. If you need any justification for my claim that they are segregationist then here is one of their demands: "9. We want equal education -- but separate schools up to 16 for boys and 18 for girls on the conditions that the girls be sent to womens' colleges and universities. We want all black children educated, taught and trained by their own teacher."


—HOW IS THIS EVEN AN ISSUE??? I am a white American Muslim. I have read the Qu'ran in English and am on my way through it again. I am also taking Arabic classes, in part to learn to read this sacred text in its original Arabic form. My husband is a Sunni Muslim from the Middle East. We have regular discussions about the Qu'ran. I know for a fact that the Qu'ran NEVER states anything about black people being original and white people coming from black people. It is the LITERAL WORD OF ALLAH and it states that Allah, in his magnificent creativity, created people of all colors. Allah is the Creator, not humans. Allah made all that is on the earth and all that is in the universe. White people did not come from black people. All people were created by God. That is what the Qu'ran really says. If you don't believe this then you don't really understand a whole lot, do you? If you claim to follow Islam, maybe you should read the Qu'ran to get the facts about the creation of humans. We were not created to fight each other over who is or is not original or copied. We are all from Allah and all equally and beautifully created. Islam teaches thoroughly that Muhammad is the FINAL messenger of Allah. THERE WILL BE NO ONE ELSE. We are equal. Real muslims are peaceful and do not care about the color of skin, only the condition of heart. Instead of trying to fight about who is better or who is and is not racist, try seeking Allah. The Qu'ran is packed with scientific proof to back up all its claims. Where is the scientific proof that black people are original and white people are copied? The closer you get to the equater, the darker the inhabitants skin is. This is due to the fact that the suns rays are less blocked than in, say North America or England. The skin MUST be darker to protect the body from sun damage to the skin leading to CANCER, in this region of the world. In England, the sun is almost never out, which leads to paler skin because protection from the sun is not as vital. There you go. All this is scientifically proven, so go research it. -R Al-Tbour

You must have forgotten about genetics and how the dark genes are dominant and light genes are recessive. You can't get a dark color from a light color but you can get light colors from dark colors. The Earth was also once all connected and mostly every continent was near the equator so all would've been dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool Rell (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And except for evolution you would be correct. Unfortunately the other side of the genetic argument that people forget is the "evolving to suit your environment" part. Things like growing taller to provide more skin to sweat with, darkening of the skin to accommodate harsh sun conditions, widening of the nasal passages to allow more warm air to pass through. And every one of those has a corollary so there's no telling who came from what genetically, so drop the act. padillaH (review me)(help me) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

SPLC classification

User:JohnBlaz removed the classification of NOI as a hate group by the SPLC citing it as POV. I restored it. Other hate groups are noted as such in the lead (see KKK or New Black Panther Party and the SPLC is a widely-respected source when it comes to labeling groups as hate groups. I also added the ADL classification of NOI as racist and anti-semitic. I'm bringing this here in order to avoid an edit war and if there's a consensus that it doesn't belong, then so be it. Lordjeff06 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated in edit note, the subjective categorization by the SPLC and ADL was removed from the intro because it indeed already exists in mutiple locations in the article body which is where they appropriately belong. This issue was dealt with in the past. --JohnBlaz (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the refimprove tag?

Why does this have a {{refimprove}} tag at the top? Is there a doubt about the veracity or notability of NOI? Sure, if certain elements are being contended, hit them with a {{cite}} or {{fact}} tag, but the entire article has enough citations to support it, doesn't it? Padillah (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That tag doesn't refer to the notability or veracity of the organization at all. It's basically the same things as a "fact" tag, except there is one at the top of the article instead of several scattered through the article. You will probably have to ask Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs), who added the tag in the first place, as to his/her specific reasoning, but most likely he/she saw several unsourced statements and thought they should be sourced. Natalie (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Removed outdated tags. There are refs and they are well placed.--YakbutterT (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

"From 1978 to the present, Louis Farrakhan has been the leader of a reconstituted Nation of Islam, the original organization having been renamed and dissolved by Warith Deen Muhammad. The Nation of Islam's National Center and headquarters is located in Chicago, Illinois, and is also home to its flagship Mosque No. 2, Mosque Maryam."

...so, what "Nation of Islam" actually is? A country? A religion? A fast food chain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinist (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya, the intro to this article is terrible. TastyCakes (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 66.57.187.206 (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


The intro should be near the end, at least. An editor should correct this so no edit wars will occur.--neolandes 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolandes (talk • contribs)

Nation of Islam Temples

Temple # 1

Location: Detroit - 11529 Linwood Ave
In June 1953, Malcolm X was named assistant minister of the Nation of Islam's Temple Number One.

Temple # 2

Location: Chicago - 7351 S. Stony Island (Mosque Maryam)
In either late 1933 or the start of 1934, Temple No 2 was founded.

Temple # 3

Location: Milwaukee, WI - 2507 N. 3rd. St.

Temple # 4

Location: Washington, DC - 1525 Ninth Street, NW
Nation of Islam Temple #4, established in the early 1940s by Elijah Muhammad, was the first place of worship for Black Muslims in Washington, DC. The Nation of Islam was founded in the early 1930s as a religious movement grounded in the teachings of the Koran and adapted to the experiences of African Americans in the United States.

Sources: Claude Andrew Clegg, An Original Man: The Life and Times of Elijah Muhammad (New York: St. Martin's University Press, 1998). Cultural Tourism DC: African American Heritage Trail

Temple # 7

Location: New York (Masjed Aqsa)
Founded in 1946. In May 1954 Malcolm X was selected to lead the Nation of Islam's Temple Number Seven in Harlem.

Temple # 11

Location: Boston
1952 - Malcolm X begins preaching for the Nation at Temple 11 in Boston

Temple # 12

Location: Philadelphia
In March 1954, Malcolm X expanded Temple Number Twelve in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

By the time Elijah Muhammad died in 1975, there were 75 Temples across America. Muhammad's Temple of Islam, Information taken from the October 4, 1974 edition of Muhammad Speaks Newspaper

Temple # 28

Location: St. Louis

Temple # 55

Location: Memphis, Tennessee

Temple # 95

Location: Saint Petersburg, Florida

James Baldwin

Having read 'The Fire Next Time' recently, I am displeased with the nature of the James Baldwin quote. Although Baldwin did express his recognition of the positive aspects of NOI, the essay from which the article quotes is much more critical of NOIs views, attitudes and strategies than complimentary... thus this to me is misleading, and only seems to support peoples comments about the lack of NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.41.26 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mfm2.jpg

The image Image:Mfm2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who follow the teachings of the NOI are NOT true Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine20 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Organization

This article should really have a section on the organization and hierarchy of the NOI. I've been looking around for a source for this without much luck. I know there is an NOI constitution (and a new one under review), though I cannot find a copy online. I think the temple operate independently and kick up an administrative fee to the national organization, but again, no source. I read that there is a board of directors but finding it's membership has proved tricky. Any ideas? Links? NOI's website isn't much help.Njsamizdat (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Why is Elijah Muhammad completely missing from the opening paragraphs?

Excuse me, but it seems that the opening paragraphs are missing any mention of the most dominant force in the NOI history, namely Elijah Muhammad (born Elijah Poole). Why?! Why leave out the person who controlled (some would say molded and dominated) the NOI for more than 40 years? It seems like a ridiculous omission. Thank you.123.218.147.5 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Child molester"?

In the History section of the article, W.D. Fard was referred to as a "child molester". I suspect this is vandalism, so removed it. If there's any source to this, it can be re-installed with ref. Papppfaffe (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yakub (Nation of Islam)

Anyone knowledgeable on doctrine should help out making revisions to the Yakub (Nation of Islam) page. --YakbutterT (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

NOI is most certainly NOT Islam

From NOI.org "WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."

This statement clearly admits that the nation of Islam does not believe in one of the fundamental beliefs of all muslims that There is nothing worthy of worship but God and that Muhammad is His last messenger. That Allah is one and has no partners.

This should be addressed in the FIRST paragraph as one of the CORE beliefs of the Nation of Islam and "mainstream muslims" do NOT even believe the Nation of Islam to be muslims. If they do then they are clearly mistaken and have not researched the ideologies of the Black Nationalist Movement group. There is no Islam without the belief that Allah is God, without partners and Muhammad ibn Abdullah is his last servant, prophet and messenger. NOT MISTER Fard Muhammad or Elijah Poole Muhammad. VeiledOne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veiledone (talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not so. I've heard some of those lectures by that Farrakhan guy, and they don't worship any man's flesh. What they worship is actually something called "the spirit of allah". When I say spirit I don't mean a ghost, but some kind "spiritual development". So just to be clear, although different, they are muslims.AwesomePeopleMakeClay (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And also, they don't hate anyone because of their color. I know plenty of muslims on the NOI who have white friends. Even Farrakhan has white friends. So if their leader has white friends, they can't hate white peAwesomePeopleMakeClay (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)ople.

OPPOSE: Awesome the nation believes that. I have heard what was said also. In 1997, for example, the Clarion-Ledger reported Farrakhan's characterization of "the white man" as the "anti-Christ." In March 2000 the Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Farrakhan saying, "White people are potential humans ... they haven't evolved yet." At other times, he has referred to whites as "vicious beasts" and "the skunks of the planet."

They also do believe in God in the flesh according to such books as How to Eat to Live and Message to the Blackman and Comer by Night, where they repeatedly state "Allah, who came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad" and that Elijah Muhammad is the messenger. So NO they are not muslims because of the basis of their shahadah (testimony) that states I believe in Allah who came in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad and I believe in the messenger of Allah, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad and his warner Louis Farrakhan". That is not the shahadah of the muslims. The NOI commits shirk (associating another being with Allah, as the NOI does!). Therefore Shirk takes them out of the fold of Islam. --Veiled One

I tried to be nice... yes, Farrakhan did say whites haven't evolved yet. But he also said that blacks weren't complete humans either. And yes, they do believe that Fard Muhammad is god. But, as I said, they worship Allah, not him. What about before Fard was born?

Also, why do you keep taking quotes from magazines? Is it that you don't hear Farrakhan with your own two ears? The magazines always take whatever he says and leaves part of it out to make it sound racist. This...means that something got left out. That's why they put it there.

And wherever you got that testimony from, it's wrong. The testimony is "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad(meaning Elijah Muhammad) is his Messenger". So that means that they believe that Fard Muhammad is Allah, not paired with Allah. And they sometimes also say "Allah, who came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad". That means that Allah is literally in the person of Fard Muhammad, not that he is with Fard Muhammad. So shirk does not exclude the NOI from the fold of Islam.AwesomePeopleMakeClay (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


OPPOSE APMC: Again you are clearly mistaken again with the assumption that "I" am white and thus calling Fard and the Nation of I followers racist. I am quite African American and blatantly saying that they commit Shirk. So where in the Quran does it say that Allaah is "IN" a person? That is heretical in belief. Humans are fallible, Allaah is infallible. In one Surah it wipes out the entire belief of the Nation of I, Suratul Ikhlaas Qul huwa Allaahu ahad - SAy Allaah he is one Allaahus Samad - Allaah is ABSOLUTE Lam Yalid wa lam Yulad - He does not give birth, nor was given birth to (pay attention here) Wa lam yaqullahu kufuwan ahad There is NONE likened unto him. And FYI Muhammad in the actually Shahadatain of the Muslims upon al-Islam is referring to Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim etc. etc. whose lineage can be traced down to Ibrahim (The Prophet Abraham) and then to the tribes of Adam. This is proof of the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad not just some random joker who claims Islam (and a mixture of Masonic beliefs, Christian beliefs, Moorish Temple beliefs and a boatload of others). Where it is also mentioned in the Quran that the belief of the Christians are complete shirk and falsehood... so why doesthe "Nation" still teach out of the Bible that has been rudely tampered with and includes every kind of falsehood and NO you cannot discern what is falsehood and what is not when you are living in shirk and falsehood. And while Farrakhan speaks a great game to assist the African American brothers in uplifting themselves and strenghtening the race... this is not religion but rather a Black Nationalist Movement as I stated before. ONE quote I made came from a magazine... THE REST came from the books printed by the Nation of I and also from the FINAL CALL the actual newspaper printed for the Nation of I members. No I TRIED TO BE NICE... now you have brought nothing but ridiculous conjecture and feeble whims. Again incorrect information. SHIRK excludes ANY muslim from the fold of Islam. The Shahadatain is incorrect. Since the Shahadah is the first pillar of Islam and what ACTUALLY makes a Muslim into a Muslim.... the Nation of I are most definitely NOT Muslims. Whether they state Fard is Allaah, walks beside Allaah, has Allaah in him... is a God himself or whether they state that Elijah Poole Muhammad is the Messenger of the Fard Muhammad "spirit"... either way... the Shahadah is incorrect and therefore they are not MUSLIMS. Period... either way you look at it. Oh and FYI... the spirit or "Ruh" of Allaah that the Quran speaks about is the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) who brought Muhammad ibn Abdullaah (not Elijah Poole) the Quran. Without the REAL HAQQ, the true Islam... the Nation would have nothing to stand on. 98.233.105.177 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)VeiledOne Veiled One 20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)VeiledOne

Prove what you keep saying

Reading this page, most of what I see is people talking about how racist the NOI is, and how all they want to do is kill white people. You all sound more racist than anything I've ever heard from the NOI. I especially hate how veiled one keeps taking quotes from magazines, but doesn't want to say anything in full sentences, or take it from where it really came from. I really don't like to argue, but I won't sit here and let you keep lying without saying something. So Tell me ANYTHING Farrakhan said that you think is racist, and I'll explain why it's not.--AwesomePeopleMakeClay (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple Question

What you say is that God appeared in Wallace D. Fard then what god is that which needs an assistance in appearence?????

What type of your god is that is dead himself????

If he cannot control his death than he is not the GOD?????

What is the proof Elijah Muhammad is the prophet?????

Does he did any miracle which he shown to the whole world that proves his prophecy?????

Was that miracle been recorded and shown to the rest of the world?????

If black race is superior than why does the black race wants any other race to live in this world?????

What is god doing when scientists needs to make plans for the rest of the world?????

What Black scientists did because neither in Quran and nor in Bible anything discussed about your Wallace D Fard (god),Black Scientists or anything else?????

IN MY OPINION nation of islam IS ON FALSE BELIEFS AND THEOLOGY

IN MY OPINION nation of islam IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO MISLEAD PEOPLE AND TO THE MANKIND

IN MY OPINION nation of islam IS MISGUIDING AND UNTRUTHFUL

Firstly, God does not need assistance in appearance, because as I said earlier, Allah and Fard Muhammad are the same man. Allah appeared in the person of Master Fard Muhammad just means that Fard Muhammad is Allah.

Secondly, the Nation of Islam does not believe that Fard Muhammad is dead. They believe that he is on the mother plane, or as they are better known as, UFOs.

The Muslims believe that he will live to be at least 400 years old, but that he still has to die, because although he is God, he is still Human, and anyway, no one would want to live forever. Everyone you knew would die, and to keep everyone alive would eventually overcrowd the planet.

Even from a non-Muslim viewpoint, Elijah Muhammad can be considered a MESSENGER (not a prophet, because, according to the Muslims, he come to tell of things that WERE happening, not things that WOULD happen) because nothing he has ever said has been disproved. It has all been disputed, but never disproved.

A few months ago, I was on vacation in Chicago, and I saw six UFOs, and when I drove to the spot they seemed to be hovering over, I found that they were over MOSQUE MARYAM IN CHICAGO.

Very few incidents like this have been recorded, and unfortunately I did not have my camera at the time, but I have heard plenty of stories, most with many witnesses.

They do not believe that blacks are superior to any other race. According to the NOI, all races are equal, blacks just came first(technically blacks and Indians as well, but the NOI deals with mostly blacks, so they normally just say blacks, or they may consider blacks and Indians as one race, I'm not completely sure). And evolution actually supports this, because according to evolutional theory, the first people were from africa and had dark skin, but as they traveled away from africa, the temperatures became colder, any they no longer needed melanin as much, so their skin became lighter in color.

As for the question "What is god doing when scientists needs to make plans for the rest of the world?????" I can't really understand it because of how you said it, but if it means what I think it means, then God has his own plans for the world, and if God is independent, as you so heavily emphasize, then why would he need some scientist or Bill Gates or some other rich man to do it for him.

As to your last question, you just sound stupid. If Fard Muhammad is Allah, then more is discussed of him that anything else in the Quran or Bible. Of course, it says Allah, not Fard Muhammad, why I could not tell you, but it does, this question makes no since. Also, according to the NOI, it was the 23 scientists(of that time) that wrote the Quran, which was written to summarize the events of the next 25,00 years, and they would not be alive in the next 25,000 years, so they had no reason to write about themselves. AwesomePeopleMakeClay (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Islamic sects

Why on Earth is this article placed in this category? These people are certainly not Muslims, regardless of what they call themselves (that is not opinion; it is FACT - read the Quran, and compare its contents to what these people believe). Josh (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nation of Islam Views of Whites and of Mainstream Islam

I always thought that Nation of Islam didn't saw themselfs as part of Islam, but this article by Elijah Muhammad says that the whites should have joined Islam and criticizes them for not doing that. [1] So, from this article, there are some questions the entry should develop. What was generally speaking the view of whites according to the Nation of Islam? This article doesn't say they are naturally "evil" but that they should join mainstream Islam, obviously not the Nation of Islam that even today only is open to people from black origin. This entry needs someone with a better knowledge of the Nation of Islam that can clarify what are the current views of the Nation of Islam about whites and mainstream Islam, both Sunni, Xiite and Sufi. It also should show a bit more about their tenuous expansion to other countries.Mistico (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has multiple violations of WP:NPOV. The talk page is nothing but biased arguments that have no place on Wikipedia. The article should follow Wikipedia's standards and that's all that matters.That's my two scents 21:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

SPLC

Why has all mention of the Southern Poverty Law Center's classification of Nation of Islam as a hate group been removed? SPLC does an extremely serious analysis before making this classification. Any organization that meets their criteria should be noted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.214.157.157 (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Article needs reliable references

The article is flawed by over-reliance on quotes from the NOI website and statements of leaders. Editors are not supposed to use such primary sources, as their selections of material are essentially Original Research (OR), which is prohibited. Wikipedia defines "Reliable references" for editors to use as third-party sources, preferably in peer-reviewed (academic) or reliable publications. The NOI has been around long enough for substantial studies and articles to have been written about it. Editors need to use these rather than quote from the website and transcripts of speeches for material. This is why the banners for more citations and sources have been posted. In addition, when books or other sources are used, editors need to indicate the page of the reference, not just the overall source. Other readers need to be able to find the content themselves in the sources.Parkwells (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Issues

It makes sense to add to the entry the stances of the Nation of Islam in several controversial issues. They are similar to mainstream Islam, since Nation of Islam also condemns abortion, euthanasia and same-sex unions. I think they also oppose the death penalty, from a article I once found in their official website.Mistico (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of homosexuality, the Nation of Islam view is very similar to mainstream Islam. Louis Farrakhan speaks for his religious group, when he states that he believes in the sublimation of homosexual instincts, according to his source [2]: "In his speech in Boston in August 1997, Farrakhan made the following statement about homosexuals: 'It seems like being gay or whatever sin you wish to be a part of is okay ... but I have the duty to lift that gay person up to the standard to ask if they want to live the life that God wants them to or live the lifestyle that they want to live."Mistico (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Nation of Islam is also pro-life. Louis Farrakhan and other members openly support pro-life movements in the United States. Louis Farrakhan is quoted at the Priests for Life official website as having stated at the Milliom March Family [3]: "Now, my dear sisters, I want to say something specifically to you, all the women that are here. Sisters, your womb is sacred./(...) Your womb is the workshop of the creator. I want you to hear me clearly. Every human being that we love and admire came from the womb of a female./How do your prayers get answered? Every one of us say a prayer. And those of us who saw loved ones die from cancer, have not you prayed that somebody would find a cure? Look at the children suffering from muscular dystrophy, from sickle cell anemia, from multiple sclerosis, those suffering from prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, but there are some medicines, but not cures. Wouldn't you like to find the cure for all these diseases? Where do you think the cure is going to come from? It's going to come from the womb of some woman, maybe some sister that is in this audience today./My dear sisters, I understand why you fight for pro-choice./Because you are tired of men using you for procreation and pleasure, and you want the right to say, "I don't want this life." I understand that. But don't let the extreme ignorance of the male cause you to react in a way that is not good for yourself or the future of humanity. You have the right to choose. Choose well the man that you're going to give yourself to./(...)Make a good choice, sister. Don't give yourself to a man just because he asks for you. Make sure he's the right man. That's pro- choice./(...)Now listen, in the Bible it says, "I set before you this day two signs, one of life, one of death. Choose life that you and your seed may live." Beloved sisters who are listening to me this afternoon, if you are now expecting a new life, I'm begging you, on behalf of almighty God, do not abort that life./(...)For that life that you are carrying, I promise you in the name of Allah, that life will be a blessing to you and a blessing to this nation and a blessing to the world. Every woman that is pregnant, put your hand on that life and hear me. I am telling you, in the name of almighty God, Allah, that what you are carrying in your womb is an answer to the prayer for peace./Because peace cannot come unless there's a peace- maker, and all peace-makers have come from the womb of a woman. Keep your hand on your womb and say, "I vow what is in my womb to almighty God, to serve him and to serve my people and humanity." And if you will let that life live, your seed will be blessed from now into the future." This is quite eloquent about their stance.Mistico (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This is their view on euthanasia [4]: "The nation of Islam says, "...the concept of a life not worthy living does not exist in Islam."(Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide) They do not agree with the fact that some doctor can come along and inject something into you and your dead. Even in cases of extreme human suffering, where you would expect a normal compassionate person to side with the man who is suffering, they say that the suffering is necessary, and part of God's plan." It's not the best source but confirms their oposition to euthanasia.Mistico (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Nation of Islam seems to support the death penalty from what can be found in this book: [5]. I don't know if they changed their official stance in the issue but some individual Nation of Islam members already took stances against the death penalty.81.193.26.125 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Chart seems a bit biased

The chart comparing the beliefs of mainstream Islam to NOI seems accurate but a bit POV to me--rhetoric like "Not followed, created own, such as 4-6pm meal or avoid white-flour cake meals" contrasting the NOI with mainstream Sharia seem to characterize mainstream Islam as a more legitimate belief system. 131.191.106.197 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not biased against Nation of Islam at all. The chart is there to show how Nation of Islam has unique beliefs, not shared by orthodox Islam. It would be like showing the main differences between the Church of Latter-Day Saints and orthodox Christianity.85.240.20.167 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as we are advertising in the article and especially in the lead can we please do it correctly? Listing the time Sunday school starts is good but probably not a complete list of church schedules. We could also list other church functions that surely would fall under the auspice of a good encyclopedia. I will concede that maybe the lead is not the best place but surely the second paragraph in the main body. I realize someone may think my comments facetious but I think the same thing of advertising church times in an article let alone the lead. I would think this article was well watched and would also think someone would question this. I am fairly new and learning every day so if there are exceptions to the advertisement policy for religious articles I apologize and my beginning suggestion for a complete list still stands. Other than that I think someone should look at WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, #1, and #5. #1 states, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious...", and #5 states, "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.". Otr500 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculously biased article, needs serious revision.

This article is a joke. It amounts to an extensive denial of the well established fact that the Nation of Islam is a racist and anti-Semitic organization. Farrakhan hasn't 'modified' his views on race and in fact his anti-Semitic ravings have actually intensified over the past few years, with the NOI newspaper "The Final Call" regularly featuring 'articles' drenched with paranoid anti-Semitism. Every issue promotes the anti-Semitic tome "The Secret Relationship of Blacks and Jews", which makes the absurd claim that Jews were the main driving force behind the enslavement of blacks, a book aggressively promoted by Farrakhan.

The people quoted defending the NOI against charges of racism do not represent the mainstream view of the organization, creating a dishonest image of the organization and how it is perceived.

The Nation of Islam's teachings on race are well documented. They teach that whites are devils created 6000 years ago by a mad scientist named Yakub.

Aside from his racism, Farrakhan has repeatedly made statements which suggest he is mentally unstable, such as his statement about being abducted by a UFO in the 80s (he's told many different versions of this tale over the years, changing it based on current events at the time).

In short, this article needs to be radically improved or else nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannotFindAName (talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Article needs reliable sources

The article is flawed by over-reliance on quotes from the NOI website and statements of leaders. Editors are not supposed to use such primary, self-serving sources, especially as other academic studies are available. Wikipedia defines "Reliable sources" for editors to use as secondary sources, preferably in peer-reviewed (academic) or reliable publications. Editors need to use these rather than quote from the website and transcripts of leaders' speeches for material. This is why the banners for more citations and sources have been posted. In addition, when books or other sources are used, editors need to indicate the page of the reference, not just the overall source. Other readers need to be able to find the content themselves in the sources.Parkwells (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverse on table

I was reverted by an admin asking me to discuss the change on the talk page. I believe the table should be removed, again, for what I stated in my edit summary: "poorly sourced (possibly plagiarism), poorly worded, and not very enlightening ("all men are equal" - "all men are equal, but Blacks were first" - is that a divide?))"

The table is completely unsourced and it's not clear to me what it contributes to the article but an air of amateurism.　126.59.94.251 (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed it again. User:Will_Beback could do better than reverting and asking somebody to "take it to the talk page" when he has 0 interest in actually discussing the merits of the edits. 126.59.94.251 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for raising the issues here. I'm not sure of the exact contents of the table, but I do think that a summary of similarities and differences would be useful. Do you know of any sources we can use? If plagiarism is a problem then we could go to the source that was plagiarized and re-write the material, for example.   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Your edit summary said the paragraph was "irrelevant to Muslim-NOI divide" when you removed the sourced statement saying "NOI founder Farad Muhammad (W.D. Fard) taught the white race was produced thousands of years ago in a failed laboratory experiment by an evil wizard named Yacub", but most Islam does not actually teach that - That seems rather relevant to the divide to me? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The table comes from here. Pg 90. While the organization of the table is somewhat similar, the wording is substantially different - so I don't think it's a copy vio. To some extent even, I think the article table differs from the book table in a way that can't really be supported by the source. For example "Black people are pre Adam and Eve" is not in there (I don't know if this is a accurate statement about NOI beliefs).VolunteerMarek 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is a POV mess. It doesn't even use the word religion to define the Nation of Islam. Many of its sources are nonsense—this is cited, as are opinion columns—and it's a cherry-picked diatribe. I wonder if it would be better to blow it up and start over with a new article, using neutral sources like The Black Muslims in America, The Nation of Islam: Understanding the Black Muslims, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, etc. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A hate group is a hate group is a hate group, would you suggest to do the same to the klan article? 'Nuff said. As for your sources, they're not even linked to anything, and the titles don't even look remotely neutral. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"My" sources are the standard sociological works on the group. (Try Google. It works!) What are your sources? Newspaper opinion columns and ADL press releases? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Sociological works, which are more reliable than known newspapers and ADL... by whom? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you asking who wrote the books? I'm not your Google monkey.
If you're asking why books published by academic presses are preferable to newspaper articles, see WP:IRS. But in some instances, we're not even talking about newspaper articles, we're talking about opinion columns and other nonreliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The Southern Poverty Law Center source largely talks about NOI's racist and anti-semitic views, but until I intervened, only used the sentence-and-a-half that describes the organization in nothing but a positive light, disregarding the vast amount of "that other stuff". Aside from ADL (which is actually a reliable source), the other sources I added are: two books published by reputable companies and a university research, some of which second the ADL claims (further confirming their findings as reliable). As for "I'm not your Google monkey", see WP:CIVIL and WP:BURDEN... but should I really remind an admin of such basic stuff? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize that you were responsible for the sorry state of the lede.
The first sentence of the article, which I see that you wrote, defines the NOI as a black supremacist organization. That is not their defining characteristic. They are a religious organization; black supremacy is one of many beliefs they espouse. Do you understand the difference?
As far as the authors go, I'm sorry that I was rude. C. Eric Lincoln wrote The Black Muslims in America. The Nation of Islam: Understanding the Black Muslims is by Steven Tsoukalas, and Edward E. Curtis wrote Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The sorry state of the lede... hehe. Funny guy! The lede was an appraisal piece, and so was (and largely still is) the rest of the article. How, with all the abundance of evidence in reliable sources (pretty much everywhere), there was no coverage of the fact that NOI's main agenda is teaching hate for non-Blacks in general and Jews in particular? The "Antisemitism" section only covered the denial of antisemitism by NOI leaders (took me exactly one minute of searching your buddy Google with the terms "Nation of Islam antisemitism" to find plenty of sources to support the antisemitism claims). Black supremacy is not "one of many beliefs they espouse", it's the predominant one, and denying that is the mother of POV pushing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: you still haven't answered the KKK question. According to the Hartford Seminary, it "[b]egun as a society club designed to relieve boredom for former Confederate soldiers[...]Demographic studies have shown that two of the prominent professions in the Klan were Protestant minister and police officer. In the original Organization and Principles of the Klan (1868, written by General Forrest), the 'Creed' praised the 'majesty and supremacy of the Divine Being and recognize[d] the goodness and providence of the same.' The 'Character and Objects of the Order' also focused heavily on the need to protect the weak and innocent as well as uphold the law." Now imagine taking just that quote and building the lede around it, while ignoring the fact that the Klan is probably the most prolific white supremacy group in America. This is exactly how the lede to the NOI article looked before I got around to it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Another comment: read this, then replace "White" with "Black" and "Christian" with "Muslim". Am I getting to you yet? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The Klan is a red herring. We're talking about the Nation of Islam, not the KKK.
I'm glad you improved the article, I'm just saying it needs more improvement to comply with WP:NPOV. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: The banner at the top of this page suggests that the French article about the NOI, which is a Featured Article, may be helpful in improving this article. That article's first sentence identifies the NOI as "une organisation politique, religieuse américaine" (an American political and religious organization). Black nationalism isn't mentioned until the second paragraph, and hostility toward Jews and white people in the fourth paragraph. I think those issues should be more prominent than that, but I agree with French Wikipedia that the group is fundamentally a religious organization. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I removed two sources that didn't mention black supremacy. A third is missing a page number. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't do it again. This states the following: "The solution proposed by the Nation of Islam was a separate nation for blacks[...]In contrast with Malcolm X's black separatism" while mentioning X's involvement with NOI; the title also suggests that "Black separatism" represents X while "beloved community" represents MLK. The end of white world supremacy must have it on a page that's not available for preview, as I could previously see it... strange. The "missing page number" book? Read the title. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between black supremacy and black separatism? The first source doesn't mention black supremacy and needs to go. The second source, the one you "could previously see", mentions white supremacy, not black supremacy on page 177 (the page you cite). Finally, the title of the book means nothing. Are you saying that Cornel West and bell hooks are also black supremacists, because their names are in the title? Sorry, but you need to better than that.
I expect you to (a) undo your edit and (b) find a page number or remove the third book. I would also appreciate if you would read WP:No original research, because using a source that "suggests" something but doesn't say it is original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize the sources you keep adding bolster my argument that the NOI is a religious organization? Just saying. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you think the introductory sentence is better now? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I have been avoiding this argument and the reverting on purpose due to how heated this is getting, like I suspect Will Beback has since his last comments above - but I thought someone else should chip in here: There is no difference between racial supremacy and "racial separatism", no different than how racists prefer to call themselves "racialists", I have dealt with people from very racist websites before attempting to push their crap... Sure, the KKK may say they don't want to kill people but just put everyone who doesn't fit their standards on a boat somewhere "separate", but that's still racial supremacism... Do you really really think anyone would agree with you Malik that apartheid is NOT a kind of racial supremacism? MLK would be ashamed to have his picture attached to your defending of these kind of people "NOI founder Farad Muhammad (W.D. Fard) taught that the white race was produced thousands of years ago in a failed laboratory experiment by an evil wizard named Yacub. (“The Nation of Islam: The Relentless Record of Hate.” Anti-Defamation League (New York):1995. p.3) They state that it is impossible for blacks and whites to co-exist. (“The Nation of Islam: The Relentless Record of Hate.” Anti-Defamation League (New York):1995. p.22)" (the userbox on my page used to be MLK before "the userbox wars" started) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 05:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOR requires that we edit based on what the sources say, not what we "really really think". My point is that a source that says the Nation of Islam taught black separatism can't be used in support of a claim that it taught black supremacy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There is also WP:COMMON SENSE and WP:BUREAUCRACY, or is No Original Research (which, in turn, also has WP:NOTOR as a counter measure) the only true Gospel? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Since there are sources that say the NOI advocated black supremacy, I don't understand why you're so wedded to using a lesson plan (!) that doesn't include that fact. I don't see how the essays and policy you cite have any bearing here. Your inability to distinguish between black supremacy and black separatism astounds me. Talk about common sense! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I was specifically referring to the following remark:

WP:NOR requires that we edit based on what the sources say, not what we "really really think".

Wikipedia encourages us to think rather than blindly copy (or paraphrase) sources. I actually happen to agree that black separatism does not necessarily mean black supremacy, so I will go ahead and remove the "lesson plan" (still not sure what you mean by that). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You don't know what a lesson plan is, or you don't know that you're using one as a source (footnote 2)? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Malik, WP:CIVIL, accusing someone of following a "plan" in their editing may skirt WP:NPA but as an administrator you should know better...
Do you have a WP:COI issue with this article?
"Separatism" is one and the same as supremacy as I said, it is intrinsically connected to a racist viewpoint of the world, I don't see how you could have taken my comments any other way or are choosing to misunderstand... Do you think separatism, apartheid is not racist? Because nearly anyone else would disagree... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'll have to side with Malik on this one. The source I used was an actual lesson plan from a university website (I didn't even notice that until Malik pointed it out). Also, separatism and supremacy are not always the same. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't think of anyone outside the internet who would agree with you there... As well as apartheid, the nazis used to explain away concentration camps to the majority of the populace as "sending Jews away", and then you have all the modern racist organisations constantly talk about "separating" people that don't fit the race they want by "sending them away" too... It's one and the same... Different methods, same ideology --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to get sucked into this debate (not being sarcastic), may I remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a bit insulting, my point is as I already said before the argument as to whether people calling for separating races because they think they are inferior are racial supremacists, or not, is a red herring when it is racism by definition... You are saying that sources saying they want to divide people up on race cannot be used to prove they are racists, when it is racism by definition... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Move to Nation of Islam (religious movement)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nation of Islam → Nation of Islam (religious movement) – I moved this article to Nation of Islam (religious movement). Please discuss why this is controversial? 'Nation of Islam' as a primary topic per its literal meaning refers to the Muslim world or the Islamic world. It can also refer to Ummah / Muslim Ummah, which is its literal Arabic translation and a notable term - and I see that it has a separate article from Muslim world for its use as a term (an insight for the consensus about its notability). This should be moved back. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of challenging the editor who undid the move (who may not be watching this page), you may want to follow the procedures at WP:Requested moves. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually the editor who reverted has given no reason why this should not be moved other than saying "its controversial" and "discuss first" which is exactly opposite of WP:BRD-NOT. Normally it should be moved back, but I've added that. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguations are only needed when there are two or more meanings to the exact title. What else is called "Nation of Islam" in English? (For what you wrote above, an {{other uses}} template will work just fine.) Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Nation of Islam, in English, is also means Muslim world which is the primary topic. Actually if this article had a section for where the title for the org came from, directly or indirectly, it would probably be mentioning this. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We are not debating the meaning of the words, but rather the use of the expression as a whole. Are there official sources that confirm that "Nation fo Islam" is an acceptable substitute for "Muslim world"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It is the literal meaning. I think this is simple dictionary search and common sense issue if that is what you mean by sources. The original meaning is definitely the primary topic. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPOV means neutral with global perspective. Even in US, the term is in English language which literally means Muslim world. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Are there any sources consistently using the term "Nation of Islam" for anything but the American religious movement. A quick perusal of the usual internet search options turns up nothing. —  AjaxSmack  04:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As I explained above, those would be dictionary sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, here's some reading material to get you started. Also, ignoring this comment by reiterating your previous statement here is considered disruptive. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
And who says dictionaries are non RS? This is simple English. You're five years late to welcome me now. I reiterated my comment for emphasis and because the point was possibly missed in the question asked. That is not disruptive. But anyway, it is getting a trend on wikipedia to start a discussion about the discussion itself in the middle of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, in case the point was missed, I'll explain again: THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT A DICTIONARY. As I (also) explained earlier, you may use the {{other uses}} template (for instructions on how to use it, please click here). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That is why I emphasized on it being the primary topic and not just a dictionary definition. I already placed the other uses template on the target article which can point to the moved article. The template is placed on the primary topic... I've made my point I guess so I'll wait for comments from others. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Problem solved, can we close this and move along? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I still stand by my claim, but this is a good second preference. I've improved it a bit... in case the consensus doesn't come to be in favour of a move, this will be appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UCN. The principal meaning in English of "Nation of Islam" is the American religious movement, not any literal Arabic–English translation of Ummah. (I was the user who moved it back.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UCN, and per comments by Good Ol’factory above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you google "Nation of Islam" -wikipedia, Farrakhan's outfit is the topic for the entire first page of hits that comes up. Kauffner (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quotations

If a quote is overly long, we usually trim it to leave the essential parts. In Farrakhan's case, as any other successful public speaker, there are many "decorative" words that should be omitted when presenting the quote in an encyclopedia. This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NPOV, as long as it does not change the actual meaning of the quote – and in the Hitler quote case, it doesn't. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If this gets no adequate response soon, I'll revert back per WP:SILENCE. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is the quote you are using:
Hitler was a very great man[...]he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat[...]Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing[...][29][30]
Here is the quote containing the surrounding context which you have removed (my emphasis):
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 chiefs 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. ----- Taking the material out of context violates WP:NPOV. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's pure demagogy, and on Wikipedia, quotes should be boiled down to their essence whenever possible. Besides, stop reverting mid discussion – which you "forgot" for some time, didn't you? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me explain the demagogy here:
    • He says: "they call me 'Hitler'. Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man." That does not go well with "don't compare me with your wicked killers." He either prides being compared to Hitler, or he doesn't. Ain't no rocket surgery. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't re-add the information unless you can show that it doesn't violate WP:NPOV, which you haven't done. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes I have, ignoring that is not a legitimate technique. Also, I asked you to stop reverting per WP:BRD, as a consensus must be established in controversial cases, your next revert will be reported in accordance with WP:EW. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Black supremacy/anti-Semitism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The movement's statements and practices correspond to the definitions of black supremacy and anti-Semitism, and that is covered by more than enough secondary RS. Therefore, saying "its critics accuse" is kind of like saying that "critics of lemons accuse them of being sour", naturally, violating WP:NPOV. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at other articles. Such accusations are never made in Wikipedia's voice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to elaborate, here are some organizations in Category:Antisemitism in the United States:
  • The American Nazi Party (ANP) was an American political party founded by veteran U.S. Navy Commander George Lincoln Rockwell. ... The party was based largely upon the ideals and policies of Adolf Hitler's NSDAP in Germany during the Third Reich but also expressed allegiance to the Constitutional principles of the U.S.'s Founding Fathers[citation needed]. It also added a platform of Holocaust denial.
  • The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American organization that describes itself as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." Critics have accused it of being an antisemitic "pseudo-scholarly body"[1] with links to neo-Nazi organizations, and assert that its primary purpose is to disseminate views denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others.[2][3][4][5][6] It has been described as the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization."[7][8]
  • Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right[5][6][7][8] organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration, historically expressed through terrorism.[9]
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
...and you don't see anything wrong with describing the American Nazi party as just a "political party"??? Or saying that "critics accused" IHR of being anti-semitic? If an organization clearly states an agenda that it racist at its core (which is also covered by secondary/tertiary sources), it is no longer Wikipedia's voice. NOI preaches for inferiority of white people as having been created in a lab by a black scientist (WTF???), and their leaders have made numerous anti-semitic statements, including Farrakhan, who published a book filled with deceitful stories that allegedly tie Jews (as if we were a small clan of like-minded evil doers) to the enslavement of blacks. According to all that, they are first and foremost a racist (black supremacist and anti-Semitic) movement. Besides, mistakes in other articles do not make wrong right. Maybe this is a wake up call for us to adjust those articles instead of the other way around, don't you think? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you take the matter to WP:NPOV/N, since the rest of the encyclopedia is so obviously wrong and you're the only one who's right. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for avoiding the subject by resorting to cheap sarcasm. Silly me, thinking that we could have an actual debate aimed at bettering Wikipedia... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine, but unless a better reason than WP:OSE is provided, I will revert back per lack of WP:CONSENSUS. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC

See closing notice at the bottom of this thread. TL;DR summary: the consensus appears to be that while supremacism and anti-semitism should be mentioned in the lede, this should be attributed to critics and not to the editorial 'voice' of Wikipedia. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brief neutral summary of the issue: Should the first sentence of the article use the narrative voice to describe the Nation of Islam as an antisemitic, black supremacist organization, or should such descriptions be attributed to critics of the organization. 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: there are plenty of secondary sources that reinforce the attribution of the organization's statements and deeds to anti-Semitism and black supremacy, so... no, it's not just criticism, these are plain definitions. 04:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just got into this and am trying to make sense of the actual problem. I took a brief look at the references, some other sites, some other articles, some of the writings of Farrakhan, at talk comments prior to the RFC, and at some edit history. I was a little confused at an edit summary; "Antisemitism: See talk page. From this point, WP:SILENCE takes priority and further changes must be discussed.", as I can't find any mandate that 1)- silence takes priority, 2)- that changes (a blanket mandate) can not be made without discussion. It may have just been worded wrong, or that needed specifics were accidentally omitted, as I was sure I read where Wikipedia was an encyclopedia anyone could edit.
Anyway, What I did read was not only by referenced teachings and writing of Wallace Fard Muhammad, Elijah Muhammad, and even Malcolm X, but also other references, lends no doubt that even in the most elementary of educational readings, the teachings of the Nation of Islam, are black supremacist, antisemitic, and racist. If we add 30 or 40 references (critics of the organization) where these titles are used in the article lead, this will be a violation of Wikipedia reference guidelines. If we tone it down, or censor it, because the idea is offensive to someone, we have erred in that Wikipedia is not censored. I suppose we could wash it and make it read; " Detractors accused him of preaching (change to--or add-- teaching) racism, black supremacy, and antisemitism". The definition of "detractor" and distract; to draw away or divert; distract: to detract another's attention from more important issues. That may fit for Malcolm X as the article does state, "He has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.". The point is that accuracy mandates fairness and having to state, "according to the source" is not necessary. The article can be expanded to include other referenced views. Otr500 (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
"Detractors" suggest a POV that considers black supremacism, antisemitism and racism to be "minor issues". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

NOI is for black supermacism but i dont believe antisemitism..why has NOI been called antisemetic for believing jews had something to do with the slave trade? maybe their academics are off but it certainly doesn't make them anti jewish for it..black supermacism and racism is enough to describe the NOI Baboon43 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of RS that describe their antisemitic behavior in a very detailed manner. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As I stated, I just got involved but looked around a lot in a short time. That is why I used the words "wash it" concerning "detractors". I want to expound on a fact; I am for accuracy of material. If it is referenced I do not care if someone likes it or not. Using references means that articles can be condensed some (with accurate wording) without having to go into extended paragraphs to "quote" all sources, which would make all articles, even referenced stubs, pages long. State it and reference it, and any discussion will concern specifics of wordings. "If" any editor has a problem finding references and writings especially from members and leaders of the Nation of Islam, that more than just hint at antisemitism----and racism--- just let me know. I have ran across, without so far much effort at all, many such (online) sources and references that more than "suggests" mildly, or even accusingly (hard to "accuse" someone of something when they wrote it themselves) that, according to any normal accepted understanding, shows a belief and teaching of black supremacy, racism, and antisemitism, and so when an editor states there is "Plenty of RS" I would even say an abundance.
I am not actually interested in editing this article so much as seeing that accuracy is adhered to. The lead now states, " Its critics accuse it of being black supremacist and antisemitic". Where is the [who?] tag? How is such improper wording (sentence structure) considered correct? "Its" critics accuse "it"!! While we are trying to figure out "if" we need to change wording, to possibly make the group applicable (or eligible) for a humanitarian award, surely we can do better than what is currently used.
Is their academics off? I can not imagine that a group that considers that white people were "bred", from I guess only other black people over a period of 600 years, which apparently escapes them (the believers) that those "white" people would be direct relatives, thus Jews would be light skinned black people, and writes of some "mother ship", would ever be considered as being "off". I did read of a group, Heaven's Gate (religious group) with a mother ship belief that didn't end well. Does anyone actually consider that group any form of "religion" (as depicted in the article), as the definition would mean, or a cult?
My opinion; It does not make a good article when appeasement is sought (from either side), at the expense of accuracy, to satisfy some involved editors that may have an agenda one way or the other, and an article is so "steered" as to be inaccurate. We are mandated by policy to follow the source so "if" a reliable source or reference uses a particular wording it can be used and referenced. Surely that can not be arguable? NOW! what is needed is accurate edits and/ or examples to improve the article with "accurate" material. Otr500 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

when most people search to know about nation of islam they are not looking for weather they are antisemitic or not..the history of nation of islam has nothing to do with being antisemitic although it should be included in the article that they do attack jews it shouldnt be in the opening paragraphs..the start should be something like "(“Black Muslims”) are members of an American religious movement which initially only accepted African Americans as members. They considered whites as “devils,” supported the separation of black and white races, and desired to establish an independent black nation. Rather than using the term “Black Muslims,” which was coined by Lincoln in 1960, they prefer to be called Muslims of the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam was founded in Detroit in 1930 by Wallace D. Fard" from brillonline...its unprofessional to jump to "its critics accuse it of... Baboon43 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"when most people search to know about nation of islam they are not looking for weather [sic] they are antisemitic or not"... there it is again, as WP:OR as they come. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Most people? That would be a good place for a --[who?]-- tag, as in who in the world would you be referring to.
I have a theory. When I look up something in an encyclopedia it is because I want to learn about whatever it is I am looking up. So it is my theory this is most probably the actual intent of almost anyone and more than likely "Most people"; which is to learn. I did look to see if you had any valid points concerning the lead.
What you seek not to include in the lead, that you feel "most people" would not be looking for, Wikipedia directs should be in the lead. " The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies, and Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. It appears what we are discussing would certainly fit the category "prominent controversies" right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
We're detracted a bit... the point was to establish a consensus regarding whether or not we should keep the "critics accuse" or outright call it what it is based on the abundance of sources I dug up back in the day. If you have doubts, I'm actually seeking to include that in the lead, as these are major traits of the organization. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

a proper encyclopedia would not include critics "accuse it of" in my opinion but no doubt it should be in the article.. antisemitism came up in the late 90's...nation of islam is known by the world for their racism so i dont know why there's special wording to declassify types of racism by listing such antisemitism..tell me should Mel Gibson's bio include antisemitism in the lead? or you can list one or two critics and put down that they call it a hate group than the content should explain the specific issues Baboon43 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not been detracted. I have stated that "Its" critics accuse "it"!!" is not proper and that we change it. I answered, with policy, that controversial information should be in the lead, and that the article should be specific. Otr500 (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Brief neutral summary of the issue: Should the first sentence of the article use the narrative voice to describe the Nation of Islam as an antisemitic, black supremacist organization, or should such descriptions be attributed to critics of the organization. 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: The current policy is clear: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies - therefore the lead of the article should, in fact, state well known controversies about Nation of Islam. The lead paragraph as it stands (today) is a concise overview of the topic.Whiteguru (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • No it isn't, it defines the movement as new religious, and only afterwards does it add that "its critics accuse it of being black supremacist and anti-Semitic". The movement needs to be defined as black supremacist and anti-Semitic from the get-go. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the other half of the statement that Whiteguru partially copied above: "there are plenty of secondary sources that reinforce the attribution of the organization's statements and deeds to anti-Semitism and black supremacy, so... no, it's not just criticism, these are plain definitions." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright now! The lead absolutely is not a "concise overview of the topic". The article is only a B-class so not even complete with only two paragraphs in the lead. As I stated before, the wording "Its critics accuse it" boarders on abusive writing, and it is absolutely NPOV policy to include referenced controversial material. Since the United Nations has made a resolution that racism and antisemitism are considered separate, there is nothing wrong with using both ----in the lead. Otr500 (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

i dont think there's anything wrong with "its critics accuse it of" but since its in the lead it looks like a lazy summary of this organization..take a look at NOI overview on this website http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nation_of_Islam.aspx ..clearly racism is not even mentioned and also antisemitism critics are towards the end of this article..by the way can you give me sources for antisemitism and racism being different UN resolution? and NO based on my research its critic accusation not plain definitions of antisemitism but im not sure about black supremacy. Baboon43 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already provided that with the Wiki-link and it is clearly visible when editing this page. You can Google "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86" also, and learn that it revoked Resolution 3379 (the only time this has been done) with an about-face. Try this; Racism#Usage of the term and related terms that includes, "Related concepts are antisemitism", "related" not being the same as something. What I would like to know, with all the antisemitic statements clearly issued by leaders of the NOI, is there a push to avoid mention of it or generalize antisemitism into common "racism"? "If" referenced content is controversial the concept for inclusion is NPOV for a balanced article. There are only 2 paragraphs in the lead so any editor should feel free to provide referenced opposing content. 173.217.86.15 (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it's appropriate to describe the Nation of Islam as a racist, antisemitic organization in the narrative voice, and both the MOS and long-standing precedent are on my side. In every article I can think of, organizations categorized as hate groups are described as such with in-text attribution. (See the preceding section for examples.) This is consistent with our manual of style (WP:LABEL). I'd like to hear what policy or guideline says it's appropriate to use the narrative voice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure which policies answer your exact query, but WP:OSE comes to mind as for how not to justify our edits. Also, WP:LABEL explicitly states the following: "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure you've ever read WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion, not an argument against following the Manual of Style. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Also, that "widely used" exception is rarely used. Even al-Qaeda isn't described as a terrorist organization except by in-text attribution. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
      • To Baboon43: when an organization uses blanket statements ("the Jews") and blames the Jewish nation for conspiring in the enslavement and other atrocities towards black people... that's pretty much textbook definition of anti-Semitism. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Malik, you just pointed to a different essay, try reading the one I provided earlier... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for confusing one essay with another. WP:LABEL, like the rest of the Manual of Style, is a guideline. I'm not sure why you're trying to trump Wikipedia guidelines with an essay that is about the deletion and creation of articles and notability. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Essays supplement guidelines, they can't be just dismissed at whim. Besides, no one trumps MoS here – I just showed you where this argument is supported on WP:LABEL. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I keep showing you that nobody makes use of this "exception" in WP:LABEL, and all you do is repeat OTHERSTUFF, OTHERSTUFF. Maybe it's time to accept that you're not going to convince me with your line of argument and move on. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, silly me... you keep telling me that "other stuff exists" and I keep showing you where Wikipedia tells us not to do exactly that. Wow!!! Bottom line: the exception exists, show me why I am not allowed to use it or gracefully withdraw. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Move on. Find another editor on this page to harangue. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I was not haranguing anyone, you keep refusing to accept Wikipedia's ways, as described in Wikipedia's policy-supplemental essays. It's too simple to linger on. Plus, you still have not showed me how Wikipedia prohibits me from using that exception. If you fail in doing so, it means that I have every right to use it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm As I've explained to you before, you don't have a right to do anything; plus, I've provided example after example showing that nobody uses that exception.
The purpose of the RfC was to let other editors comment, because it was clear that you and I don't agree. Please stop arguing with me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Interesting... I have no rights. Keep at it. Mr, Neutral (...NOT!) Keep providing examples of that other stuff that chooses not to exercise the right to fully abide by everything outlined in the guideline that you provided, and has nothing to do with our discussion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
While we can go back and forth that will not produce any results. I have looked around some more and find that WP:Label lists, "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.". As far as I can tell both the ADL and SPLC are considered reliable. Example;
  • The Southern Poverty Law Center (reference) and the Anti-Defamation League (reference) have accused the Nation of Islam of being black supremacist and antisemitic. The Nation of Islam has expressed outrage at the religious movement being referred to as an anti-Semitic group. NOI Chief of Staff Leonard F. Muhammad stated "The Nation of Islam is not and has never been anti-Semitic nor racist." (reference). This is accurate, referenced, and balanced. The other references that are pertinent can be used or incorporated in the main body but I can hardly wait to see the objections. Otr500 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
"White people were created in a lab by an evil scientist. We're not racist." In which universe does this demagogic bull$#!+ make sense??? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
This is in response to what? The above material concerning the opinion of the Nation of Islam? It is not my job as an editor (or any editor) to sway an article one way or the other. There are policies and guidelines that we adhere to. NPOV and balance is included in this. We can point out all the supposed "evil" of the organization and the article will be subjected to untold amounts of deletions, reverts, and re-writes, to include some admin finally stepping in and then the article can be written the way he or she allows it.
OR!!! editors can follow the "rules" (if you will) and write an article that includes elements of the policies and guidelines that exemplifies an article concerning a touchy subject. I have read many of the writings and certainly could argue and provide reliable references to repudiate the NOI statement, but that is what the body of the article is for, that is allowed by consensus. An editor, no matter how he or she feels, should strive to be neutral in writing or not edit such an article. I included instances to show one view and instances to show the opposite view and that is balance. While you may not like it or even have disdain for the group, fair and neutral is just that. I will ignore your response concerning the bull and his private business but if you plan to make useful edits to this article you should probably not try to totally condemn the subject in the lead or on this talk page. The section Criticisms is a good place for referenced material concerning racism. An alternative would be to add racism after "...the Nation of Islam of being black supremacist and antisemitic", which would read; "...the Nation of Islam of being black supremacist, antisemitic, and racist" (with reference) and not add all the verbiage that might prove you possibly should avoid editing this article. Otr500 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm simply trying to outline facts vs. opinion. When you openly teach that "the wicked Jews ____________" (fill in the blank), it's the textbook definition of anti-Semitism, not a debatable opinion. When you openly teach that "white people are the creation of an evil scientist and are inferior", that's the textbook definition of racism, not a debatable opinion. Wikipedia is neutral, but it is not politically correct, nor is it a whitewashing tool. The movement's main impact on the society as a whole is spreading black supremacism, racism and anti-Semitism. The movement's main impact on its followers is convincing them that they follow a religion, but in fact, spreading black supremacism, racism and anti-Semitism. All of this is cited by numerous reliable sources. Therefore, defining them as a "religious movement" fails WP:UNDUE, as it is only the view of a minority that is also the subject of the article, thus also failing WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY. Any further questions regarding my ability to edit? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I like policies and guidelines and have actually used the word "whitewashing". This will be lengthy to explore the several points above. One of the "Five pillars" is that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. WP:Undue states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources".
With the above in mind we would have to look at some references to see if they are "reliable" and examine facts:
    • Religion; Minister:
  1. The African American Registry list the "movement" as a " Black separatist religious movement"; ---NOTE: separatist not supremacist.
  2. The online research site Questia, lists the NOI as "African-American religious movement ";
  3. The Pr newswire makes the address: " Minister Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic and racist leader of the Nation of Islam";
  4. ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman, regarding Farrakhan; " Minister Farrakhan's reading list..."
I have only done precursory checks but the dictionary states, Religion: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects", so the movement can be considered a religion, a movement, and even a Millenarian Movement as presented by author Martha F. Lee, The Nation of Islam: An American Millenarian Movement ;1988, reissued 1996, not in violation of WP:UNDUE. The FBI has labeled the Nation of Islam the Muslim Cult of Islam,
The online Encyclopedia Britannica uses the definition; "African American movement and organization". This article touches on the millenarian aspect of the 6000 years of white ruling, that began with black scientist Yakub creating the white race, which ruling ended in 1914, and referred to this belief as a myth. There is also inclusion of the Nation of Islam calling for a separate black nation to be carved out of the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. ---Note: Concerns separatism not supremacist
Is the organization considered a religion? There are references to validate this (passing reliability) and that Farrakhan is a minister. He does have a large following and "ministers" to them and even an ardent opponent, the ADL, concedes this.
WP:RNPOV states, "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.", and "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view". Do we have what is considered "sacred texts" of the Nation of Islam? That is a good question. Can we use information provided by the NOI that will not violate COI and PRIMARY? Wikipedia says we can as exceptions as long as:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. PLEASE NOTE: This directly contradicts "Its critics accuse it" type content.
There is room for up to four paragraphs (up to two more at this time) if you would like to try to include some of the so called "mythical" beliefs of origin (with references) and the referenced content concerning black supremacy, racism and antisemitism, this can also be expounded on in the article body.
Before you or anyone else goes off into some tangent please understand; I am not a fan of the organization and even think it comical that they have made many deleterious accusations against the "Jews", when they self-proclaim that they are direct descendents of these Jews, since the white person was purportedly "created" by a black person from black people. This apparently escapes consideration from NOI believers.
Now I am a fairly new editor but I can read fairly well concerning policies and guidelines. While I do not necessarily disagree with your assertions it is still paramount to include relevant information. The group considers themselves to be religious and references do use the term.
On another note; There were discussions concerning black supremacy and black separatism and some idea that," "Separatism" is one and the same as supremacy.". If someone is supreme to another person they inevitably want to be over them. That is the nature of humans and history. To "separate" means just that. The NOI wants someone to peel off a section of the United States and create a separate self-ruled nation of Islam, with a separate flag, so they can give back to the white man "his" religion, church, and names Message to the Black man in American; chapter 14 verse 14 and 15. This exemplifies separation as something different than supremacy so they do teach both.
Also, has anyone took note (Maybe I missed it) that the 2nd sentence, "Its stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans in the United States and all of humanity.", does not appear to be directly or indirectly supported by the reference? If I missed it let me know because if not supported it is considered original research right?
I have removed reference to "religious movement" (not referenced but provided) and the article can be presented fairly as suggested, your objections having been countered, except that "separatists" can actually be added with multiple references. In light of the above information and seeking common ground what would now be legitimate objections to using the suggested wording?
Did everyone get busy or does the silence mean the suggestions are a viable option?
  • Comment No, the first sentence should not characterize the Nation of Islam as racist, supremacist, or anti-Semitic. And no such characterizations should be made anywhere in the article in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. There are, in reliable sources, an abundance of such characterizations made by detractors; the WP article should incorporate such criticisms, with appropriate attribution. The spirit of WP:NPOV will best be served by using the narrative WP voice in the opening lines of the article following the style of, for example:
  • "The Nation of Islam, a secretive movement generally closed to outsiders, has planned a rare open-to-the public event at its Chicago headquarters ...." SF Chronicle 2008-10-19 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/19/MN0313KBLC.DTL
  • "An import from the USA in the 1990s, the Nation of Islam is an organisation preaching self-reliance for black people within an Islamic framework and has been praised for its work in inner city areas.... ... But the NOI also has a history full of controversy. Their doctrine has included claims for a separate nation state for black Americans, reasoning that history shows they "cannot get along" with white neighbours; intermarriage between races is prohibited." BBC News 2001-07-31 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1466283.stm
  • "The Nation of Islam, long known for its promotion of black nationalism and self-reliance, now is calling attention to another core belief that perhaps isn’t so well-known: the existence of UFOs." Associated Press 2011-02-25 http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/4017942-418/nation-of-islam-convention-to-include-talk-about-ufos.html
  • "Officials from the Nation of Islam, a separatist African-American Muslim group, have moved in with Michael Jackson.... ... The Nation of Islam is a small group that advocates black self-empowerment and a separate African-American state, and some of its leaders have espoused anti-Semitic, anti-gay, and racist rhetoric. ... The group, which believes in black pride and racial separation.... ... Mr. Farrakhan has called Judaism a 'gutter religion' and as recently as November gave a speech in which he called Jews the 'masters of Hollywood' who feed 'the minds of the American people and the people of the world filth and indecency.'" NY Times 2003-12-30 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/arts/dispute-in-michael-jackson-camp-over-role-of-the-nation-of-islam.html
  • "The Nation once enjoyed a near monopoly over interpreting Islam for black Americans, using the faith as a vehicle to promote separatism.... Critics contend that the Nation promotes both racism and antisemitism and incited hatred of others more than it empowers its own members." NY Times.com undated overview http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/nation_of_islam/index.html?offset=0&s=newest
"Separatist," "Black Nationalist," "secretive" in the WP narrative voice are fine; "racist," "supremacist," "anti-Semitic" are not.
Further, editors should take care to indicate when criticism that is being discussed in the article has been directed, in the sources cited, specifically toward Farrakhan or other individual members of the Nation of Islam, as opposed to toward the community of NOI members more generally. Most of the specific instances of controversial statements seem to be directly attributable to Farrakhan and certain other high-profile members or leaders, and there appears to be a dearth of information in mainstream reliable sources on the views of the common members who compose the bulk of the NOI. (Consider that while many American Roman Catholics disagree with some of the Pope's positions, and they likewise disagree with some of the positions of presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who is Catholic and very outspoken on his views, there are many articles in reliable sources discussing the Catholic faith and the Roman Catholic Church that acknowledge the existence of differences of opinion between the leadership and the larger community.)
In the spirit of WP:NPOV, when deciding how to treat the Nation of Islam, editors should consider how WP treats other religious groups. Why is the Nation of Islam described as "a syncretic new religious movement" in the first line of the article while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, formed only 100 years earlier, is described as part of "a Christian primitivist movement," with no mention of it being a syncretic faith or a new faith? (I realize that editors are limited by the material that is available in the sources consulted, but the discrepancy suggests a lack of neutrality, particularly when Wikipedians are openly asking of the Nation of Islam, on this talk page, "Does anyone actually consider that group any form of 'religion' (as depicted in the article), as the definition would mean, or a cult?") Why would it be fair to call the Nation of Islam anti-Semitic in the narrative voice of WP in the opening lines of the article, yet considered inappropriate to call the LDS Church or Islam or Roman Catholicism homophobic in the narrative voice of WP in the opening lines of those religious groups?
(Note that I have no personal interest in the Nation of Islam, and I have not made any previous edits to the page. I am merely responding to the RfC.) Dezastru (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

so what exactly are you suggesting the header should say? can you type it in the talk page so we can go from there. also if you look at the New Black Panther Party article which is similar to NOI group has more of an NPOV heading than this one. Baboon43 (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • RfC Comment - In general, I think it is reasonable that we construct our encyclopedia articles to more or less duplicate those of other extant high-quality encyclopedias. Encyclopedia Britannica has been referenced above, and it does not include such information with such prominence. I have in front of me now the Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed. edited by Lindsay Jones, which is one of, if not the, most highly regarded reference works in the field of religion. Its article on the Nation of Islam, pp. 6418-6420, mentions Master Fard's belief in "tricksology" in the third paragraph, the second paragraph of the first defined section. Elijah Muhammad's statement that white people are devils doesn't appear until the second page of the article. The first paragraph of the article does not conform to our WP:LEDE, so a clear and direct comparison would not work. But a quick scan of the article does not show me any reference whatsoever to anti-Semitism in it at all. The second page does say "Nation of Islam doctrine fluctuates between the complete destruction of whites and a measure of hope for the redemption of whites," and that is about the strongest white-related statement I see. It is a strong statement, and I would see some reason for inclusion of some material regarding criticism of the white race in the lead, but I do not see any cause, based on that article, for inclusion of allegations of anti-Semitism specifically in the lead here, or, for that matter, in the article at all. A statement regarding "black supremacism," or something similar, would to my eyes be reasonable to include in the lead, and a statement about its beliefs being controversial and very critical of whites in general could also be reasonably included. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not mentioning anti-Semitism in the article at all would be as anti-NPOV as it gets. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

its quite clear the articles lead is either bias or the editor was too lazy to do extensive research so he/she included the recent antisemitic allegations that happened in the late 90's and also included racism by critics but doesn't even care to mention who the critics are..lets not make wikipedia a newspaper..keep it encyclopedia standard Baboon43 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the entire thread instead of selectively responding. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

really? is it necessary to read the entire thread..probably in the next few months i think ill make an edit so you know where i stand as discussion is not really getting anywhere..since WP:CYCLE is effective. also WP:LABEL is quite clear in the article. Baboon43 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I've repeatedly demonstrated throughout this discussion that some of what NOI leaders say and implement corresponds to the textbook definition of anti-Semitism... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Closing opinion

At the time of closing, the first section of the lede reads:

"The Nation of Islam (NOI) is a syncretic new religious movement founded in Detroit, Michigan by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in July 1930. Its stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans in the United States and all of humanity. Its critics accuse it of being black supremacist and antisemitic."

No single consensus has emerged from the conversation above. Some have argued that the 'Its critics...' wording should go, and that the narrative voice should baldly state that NoI is supremacist and antisemitic. Others have argued that it is neither of those things. On balance I think the form of words above iss a good, encyclopaedic compromise. It describes NoI in its own terms, and then in those of its critics (properly sourced). I do not intend that this wording should be seen as sacrosanct or set in stone. Doubtless it could be improved and may change with time. But for now it's a good, sourced, neutral statement meeting WP:NPOV. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nation_of_Islam/Archive_2&oldid=1142334481"