Jump to content

Talk:Nation of Islam/Archive 3

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

Bias at Wikipedia

A large anti-Semitism notice should be placed at the top of this article in accordance with the large "Islamophobia" notices at the top of articles of organizations critical of Islam such as Stop Islamization of America. Also, since Wikipedia states unequivocally that "Counterjihad is an anti-Islamic,[1] islamophobic,[2][3][4] far-right,[1] and intellectual[5] political current" in the very first sentence, this article should state that "the Nation of Islam is an anti-Semitic, Judeophobic, far-left, and cult-like political current" in the very first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose.medez248 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy. While I can see the point of your concerns about the Counterjihad article, that doesn't justify any of your proposed changes to this article. Stop Islamization of America is (rightly or not) part of our series on Islamophobia. As an educated non-expert, I don't believe antisemitism is a large enough part of the history of the Nation of Islam to justify its being added to our series on antisemitism. Add to that the fact that your whole argument sounds like something between WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I wouldn't be surprised if this message was blanked for soapboxing. I wouldn't agree with such a blanking, but I feel that you should be aware of how things like this could be perceived. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not see how this "other stuff exists" is a valid argument, since an encyclopedia should strive to present all its subjects equally. Unless, of course, Wikipedia is trying to push an agenda.Jose.medez248 (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You have to understand that when you say "Wikipedia", you actually mean "the thousands of editors around the world who contribute to Wikipedia every day". Personally, I would find it hard to believe that each of those people has the same agenda, but that's just me. Regardless, there are proper channels to go through in order to resolve issues like this. If you think you can edit the article to make it better, then go for it. That's what Wikipedia is about. If you can't make the article better, then leave some suggestions to someone who can. That's what talk pages are about. There are two ways to react in any given situation - there's the gut-level indignant reaction, which is what this reads like, and there's another reaction that takes the time to examine the problem and truly address how it can bae solved. Neither is a more valid reaction than the other, but one has a place on our talk pages; the other does not. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Your comparing "stop islamization of america" with the "nation of islam"? im here arguing against the racism and anti antisemitism being at the start of the article and you want that to be a banner. If your suggestion is included it will no longer be an encyclopedia. Baboon43 (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now. It is okay to label right-wing Jewish anti-Islam organizations as "Islamophobic" on Wikipedia, but it is unacceptable to label anti-Semitic Muslim supremacist organizations as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, just because WIkipedia can be written by anyone does not mean that it can be regulated by anyone (European far-left liberals regulate it even though the severs are ironically located in America).Jose.medez248 (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think it might be more accurate to say you haven't gotten it at all. You do not seem to understand that it is not wikipedia or its editors who "label" anything, it is the reliable sources which we use to construct articles. I agree the fact that wikipedia can be written by anyone does to some extent assume that those individuals are willing to abide by wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and others. One might get the impression that some have yet to "get" those basic policies and guidelines. But, yes, it is unacceptable in wikipedia for people to declare that, because of their personal opinions, content must be changed. I have to admit I myself haven't reviewed the matter thoroughly, but I haven't seen the evidence from reliable sources which leads me to believe that the claim that NOI is anti-semitic deserves inclusion as per WP:WEIGHT. Also, as per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of those who seek to add, change, or in some cases keep content to verify that the content they want meets our standards. Sadly, rather obvious expressions of irony and spite do not meet WP:BURDEN requirements. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
So an organization that hates Jews, admires Adolf Hitler, and believes that Jews are Khazars is not anti-Semitic? Jose.medez248 (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia only seems to use sources that suit its bias. Jose.medez248 (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Is that your excuse for not supplying any sources at all? John Carter (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what the complaint is. The third sentence of the article says the NoI is considered antisemitic. What do you want, flashing lights and balloons? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, just that it should be treated like other articles and state explicitly that it is anti-Semitic, not merely an opinion but a fact. Jose.medez248 (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what other articles you're referring to, but please read WP:LABEL, part of Wikipedia's style manual. Also, please read the discussion elsewhere on this page. Most hate groups' articles say they are "described as" hate groups or "considered" hate groups. We almost never use the expression in Wikipedia's narrative voice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's style manual." which is not created by the moderators or creators of wiki. and gaming the system is to be taken into consideration here. so yes, of course it does not matter. "other stuff exists" cannot also be used as an argument since its only used in creating or deleting a article. NOT having equality. equality itself is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.83.22 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me say Stop Islamization of America is NOT a jewish group as one of the founders is catholic. The name of the group stop islam is enough to label it islamophobic so i dont know why your complaining. Nation of Islam on the other hand was not created to stop judaism so anti-semitic banner is abit over the edge. Baboon43 (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources, which I already supplied a while ago. So... if WP:BURDEN is the only thing that stops us from doing that, it's no longer an issue. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Lead

Should the fact that the Nation of Islam is designated a hate group by the SPLC be in the lead of the article? Biccat (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph says Its critics accuse it of being black supremacist[2] and antisemitic.[3][4][5][6] Two of those footnotes are the Anti-Defamation League and the SPLC. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
+1 MinorFixes (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The “Its critics accuse it” phrase creates a false equivalence in the article lead. If we look at the better written Klu Klux Klan article, it simple states the Klu Klux Klan is a racist and anti-Semitic hate group based on the similar references of the Anti-Defamation League and the SPLC. It would be more accurate to do the same here. The “Its critics accuse it” phrase is weasel wording which produces the false impression that some legitimate third parties also exist that do not view the NOI as a racist and anti-Semitic hate group. There are no such legitimate third parties. --Truthwillneverdie (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:LABEL. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
You can substitute the terms white supremacist (in the case of the Klan) and black supremacist (in the case of NOI) if you think the term racist should not be assigned to hate groups. I think it is likely the intention of the Contentious Labels rule is not to assign the term “racist” to individuals, and perhaps not to groups that have not been documented as hate groups by the definitive authorities on hate groups. To not call white supremacist or black supremacist groups "racist" seems silly. --Truthwillneverdie (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with Traditional Islam needs Revision

In the section Comparison with Traditional Islam of the Nation of Islam page, you say that NOI differs from Traditional Islam based on five points, all of which are false. Here's why

1. "Belief in one God (Allah)" NOI believe that there is only One God (Allah), and he came (to the blacks in America) in the person of Master Fard Muhammad. This is different from your statement that "NOI believes Wallace Fard was Allah". The difference is in the wording, it is misleading, obviously NOI don't believe that Wallace Fard is responsible for the creation of Heaven and Earth. It is imperative that you include "in the person of", otherwise the statement is false and it should not be listed as fact.

2. "Prayer: Traditional Muslims believe that the five daily prayers (salat) are mandatory, the NOI believes that they are not." This is simply untrue, the sources you have listed are not factual sources. Elijah Muhammad told his followers in his book titled "Muslim Daily Prayers" that the MINIMUM 5 daily prayers are mandatory and "necessary for spiritual advancement". If you need proof you can order the book from the NOI website, or I will gladly photocopy the proof and send them to you.

3. "Fasting in the Islamic month of Ramadhan". NOI Muslims do indeed fast along with all other Muslims during the holy month of Ramadhan. The only option is mainly meant for new converts who have the option to fast during the month of December instead due to the shorter days and to get them away from celebrating Christmas. You may believe that this is unacceptable but the Quran says that out of Allah's mercy, a sick person or a traveler was instructed to fast a number of days equal to those he missed during Ramadan. NOI interpret being sick or on a journey as both physical and spiritual, thus a person on a spiritual journey to become a Muslim who is not yet strong enough (sick) can fast during December instead. All in all, NOI indeed practice Ramadhan, period. Therefore your statement that "NOI holds that this is optional" is absolutely false.

4. "Compulsory Charity (zakaat)" The NOI do indeed practice charity. Not only by contributing monetary funds to benefit the community, but by contributing time to go into troubled communities and try to stifle drug addiction, gangs, and other ills.

5. "Pilgrimage (Hajj)" You stated that the "NOI holds that this is optional". This is again simply untrue. The NOI believe like every other Muslim that Hajj is mandatory at least once in a life time, Insha'Allah.

As you can see, this entire section is false and this is why it needs to be changed. If you are still not convinced then I would be happy to prove it to you. Thank you for listening, RashidanScholar127 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

L Ron Hubbard, Scientology, Dianetics and The Nation Of Islam

Since 2010, Minister Louis Farrakhan has controversially taken to teaching Dianetics after being audited extensively by Scientology Reverend Alfreddie Johnson(a personal friend of Farrakhan). He is now teaching Hubbard as being one of his heroes and some Scientology doctrines. You can search "Farrakhan Scientology" on youtube and you will see sermons where he has taken to teaching the doctrines of L Ron Hubbard. Currently they are establishing a "Nation Of Islam Dianetics Center" in Chicago, and the Nation of Islam leadership are now ALL required to be schooled in Dianetics. I believe this warrants the addition of a "Nation Of Islam's relationship with Scientology/Dianetics" section, along with the article's potential inclusion into the Scientology portal. Perhaps a paragraph bringing either the history section, or the Controversy section(where it would also fit), up to date to include this drift to Scientology would be enough. Colliric (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3tLkFuw_Zk For anyone wondering what the heck I'm talking about... Colliric (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it is one thing to mention the NOI using the technique of Dianetics. But to speculate that the NOI is joining with Scientology is just irresponsible. For instance, Farrakhan is often seen in the company of Christian and Jewish leaders, he sometimes quotes them in his speeches, so does that mean the NOI is converting to Christianity or Judaism? Besides, I think this information is already mentioned either on the NOI page or Farrakhan's page. Pretty much, all that is known and verified is already on wikipedia. So I disagree with your notion to include this information. RashidanScholar127 (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Embracement is word

But may have sounded awkward in that location. However this use of "embrace" repeatedly and unusually also makes for awkward prose and stilted reading, let's use some synonyms for the encyclopedia rather than sounding like a campaign. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC))

Position on abortion

The last two sentence in the first paragraph on NOI beliefs states, "Abortions are strongly discouraged except in the cases where the mother's life is in danger. However, the Nation of Islam argues that because of the unique experience of the oppression and degradation of slavery, Elijah Muhammad used unique methods for introducing Islam to his people."

I'm confused. Is the last sentence about abortion? I don't see the connection and there's no footnote to clarify it. What does the "however" signify?

69.204.91.53 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Likely involvement in assasination of Malcolm X

Manning Marable's "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention" is widely considered the most authoritative and full biography of Malcolm's life. In it Marable documents, as an academic historian, through various sources, that the Nation of Islam was deeply involved and ultimately responsible gor Malcolms assassination. While many details are unclear due to the FBI still keeping many files confidential it is known that all of the purpetrators were NOI and that the leadership had actively spoken of the need to kill Malcolm. There were also previously documented attempts on his life and documented cases of murder of other NOI members. The NOI had a history of severe internal control and violence. This should appear in the article perhaps under a seperate heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.168.73 (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The fact that one could read the History of the Nation of Islam page and not be aware that all of the people convicted of the assassination were NOI bothers me an awful lot. To most people, the NOI's involvement in Malcom X's life is the part of the NOI's history that is most important, yet the Wikipedia articles on the topic all but ignore that aspect of the NOI's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.201 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Comparison with traditional Islam" Is False - Article has huge POV issue

In the section Comparison with traditional Islam, so of the item are 100% wrong.

Someone is literally putting lies that are easily check into Wikipedia! Propaganda Editors are at it again. SMH.

I'm making the whole Article as NPOV.

No one can tell what you mean by "so of the item are 100% wrong", and in any case the real problem is lack of sources specifically making the comparsion. So no NPOV but no original research. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Islam and slavery

How does the NOI reconcile the historical fact that Islamic slave traders sold their ancestors into bondage? Why would they take on the religion of their oppressors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.56.225 (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Because they are hate-ridden ignoramuses. Quis separabit? 03:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"Black Muslims"

I restored the statement that the movement is/was referred to as the Black Muslims. This term isn't used much since the 1970s, but certainly was a name used for the Nation especially in the prisons, even if it's not used much now.[1] generic_hipster 11:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've linked to the DAB, Black Muslims which makes it clear that the term is sometimes NoI, sometimes off shoots, sometimes other fringe US groups, sometimes any black Muslim. Pincrete (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe the name came from C. Eric Lincoln's The Black Muslims in America (1961), the first or second book about the Nation of Islam. As Malcolm X wrote in his autobiography (I'm paraphrasing), "we didn't like the name, but it stuck." — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Now that I have access to Lincoln's book, I see that he wrote in the preface:
The racial emphases peculiar to this rapidly growing, Chicago-centered movement suggested the descriptive phrase "Black Muslims," which I coined in 1956 and which has been widely used since to designate this group.[1]
As far as what Malcolm X wrote:
Just as the television Hate That Hate Produced title had projected that "hate-teaching" image of us, now Dr. Lincoln's book was titled The Black Muslims in America. The press snatched at that name. "Black Muslims" was in all the book reviews ... The public mind fixed on "Black Muslims." From Mr. Muhammad on down, the name "Black Muslims" distressed everyone in the Nation of Islam. I tried for at least two years to kill off that "Black Muslims." Every newspaper and magazine writer and microphone I got close to: "No! We are black people here in America. Our religion is Islam. We are properly called 'Muslims'!" But that "Black Muslims" name never got dislodged.[2]
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lincoln, C. Eric (1961). The Black Muslims in America. Boston: Beacon Press. p. iv. OCLC 422580.
  2. ^ Malcolm X; with the assistance of Alex Haley (1992) [1965]. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: One World. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-345-37671-8.

86.137.60.115 (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Beliefs

That portion of the entry is inadequate. No mention at all of the explicit racism of NOI? Dare I say this article is a whitewash? Nicmart (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't complain, edit. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


It is also inaccurate because it cannot be similar to mainstream Islam which believes in the same cosmology as Christianity and Judaism, Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden, etc. The NOI is a completely different imagination of creation and people's interaction with God. I have edited several times that become "fixed" back to the same nonsense that the NOI is similar to mainstream Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.235.204 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

New religious movement

The group should be described as a new religious movement

SAGE knowledge [2] Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics (http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452244723.n356)

"The Nation of Islam is known as a religion, empowerment organization, new religious movement, or black nationalist/separatist group, depending on the speaker and audience"

Calling the group an "Islamic religious movement" is a POV issue, given the section on divergence from mainstream Sunni Islam. WP:LEAD says to summarise the article. -- Callinus (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

We call Mormons Christians despite their extreme deviation from traditional Christianity, how is this different? Doug Weller talk 20:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Islam believes in the creation of the universe in agreement with Judaism and Christianity. The NOI has a completely different idea of how the world was made, and is not fundamentally related to mainstream Islam. Claiming the status does not change the fact they have fabricated their own beliefs from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.235.204 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm of two minds. I'm sure we could pile up sources that refer to the Nation of Islam as a "new religious movement" or as an "Islamic religious movement" (a description you replaced, Callinus) and I suspect the two piles would be of about equal height. I did a very quick look, and it appears that most of the religions described as new religious movements in New religious movement#History are not so described in the first or second sentences of their articles.
To me, there are two questions. The first is must we choose between the two descriptions, when both are clearly right? The second, and in my mind more important, is which conveys more useful information to the reader? The second half of the first sentence of this article is "founded in Detroit, United States, by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad on July 4, 1930." What does "new religious movement" add before that? What does "Islamic religious movement" add before that? Which phrase better serves the reader of the first paragraph of the article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Malik's analysis and think 'Islamic' more useful, so long as the article is clear about the distinction between 'Islam' and -ic.Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Identifying Reliable Sources means finding legitimate, secondary sources from places like academic publications, and preferencing those over self-published materials.
"two descriptions, when both are clearly right" - no, "Islamic religious movement" is self-declared by the group, who assert themselves to be a form of mainstream Islam, in their own self-published sources. NRM is a term used by third party academics who describe the group's syncretism of religious tradition into their novel movement. The former description is clearly wrong. Wikipedia does not need to give false balance when one side has no evidence except self-published works. You assert there is an "equal height" of sources declaring the NOI to be an "Islamic religious movement". Are they published by reliable, secondary sources academic as required by WP:IRS?
Try a google books search for "nation of islam" "islamic religious movement" and "nation of islam" "new religious movement". You will find that the term "islamic religious movement" is used only three times in print, two of which are 2016 books plagarizing wikipedia. The term "New religious movement" has a history of being used in real, secondary, academic works that appear in print (eg "The A to Z of New Religious Movements" "A guide to new religious movements" "Essentials of Sociology" "The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements"). @Malik Shabazz: -- Callinus (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
See Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans 1987 - something that pre-dates Wikipedia plagarism by lazy authors and journalists. -- Callinus (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Get over yourself. Do you think you're the only editor here who has read WP:V and WP:IRS? What makes you think your academic definition is the only right one, and any other is "clearly wrong"? What chutzpah!
What makes you think I did a goddam Google search? Do you think I'm too stupid to use a library? Do you think the sources I've used to write featured articles come from the bottom of a goddam box of Cracker Jack?
Is Herbert Berg, author of Elijah Muhammad and Islam (2009, New York University Press), and who knows a thing or two more about the Nation of Islam than you ever will, clearly wrong? Is Edward E. Curtis IV, author of Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, 1960–1975 (2006, University of North Carolina Press), clearly wrong?
You know what? I don't need this shit from an editor who just discovered this article yesterday. I'll be back when the swelling in your head has gone down. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is incorrect on wikipedia. The NOI should be defined as a new religious movement that claims to be associated with Islam but has no factual basis for that relationship and a completely alternate creation myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.235.204 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with traditional Islam

Arthur Dent Lives, I have largely reverted your edits for two reasons. The first is neutrality, in the context of a belief, this means that we do not define a belief according to whether it conforms to another belief. Were we to do so, Anglicanism and Protestantism would be simply defined as 'heresies' (the RC position, and I even know of a Jewish academic who thinks all Christianity is a Jewish heresy). Ordinarily (and in this instance), we present the similarities and differences neutrally, without implying that either is 'fake'.

The second reason is that the source you used is poor, is Michael Young a noted Islamic scholar? Does he have authority to speak on behalf of 'mainstream Islam', or should this simply be treated as his opinion? I am prepared to believe that many Muslims see NoI as a 'heresy' or abberation, for that reason I left part of your text (Because of these differences, the Nation of Islam is not recognized by some mainstream Muslims.your ref), despite the poor sourcing.

Even with a controversial subject like Creationism, we ordinarily present the belief first, and then note that mainstream science largely dismisses this belief as unscientific, we don't use the dismissal to replace or characterise the belief. There may be stronger Islamic sources dismissing NoI, if so that would justify a stronger 'dismissal', however it could never justify dismissing NoI beliefs altogether. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

On a related point, the Italian Muslim Ass source simply does not include the long quote we use, nor does it discuss NoI's position on Hadj, Ramadan etc. in any detail. What appears to most offend the IMA is the NoI's interpretation of 'one God'. I am happy to think that many Muslims reject NoI, but to follow my analogy above, many European christians see N.American evangelical churches as, at best, incomprehensible, at worst, heresies, but we would not use a single journalist and a relatively obscure branch of Anglicanism, to pass judgement on them. Might I suggest that rather than including every 'snipe' in the 'differences' section, a subsection of criticism be created to put Muslim criticism of NoI and more authorative sources be found. Malcolm X himself was relatively critical late in his life and there surely are Islamic scholars who have questioned NoI's doctrines.Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I see what you are saying and I am somewhat new at editing wikipedia so I am not going to argue about the material. I tried to find better sources but none seem to exist in this case. Scholarly work exploring the perception of the NOI by other Muslim groups seems to be very scarce. My related work in Detroit has brushed up against the idea that Muslim Americans have distanced themselves from the NOI, but I have nothing published or seen anything on that in specific. This may be an ongoing issue for any topics related to Islam, as there is no central authority in the religion such as a Pope who can definitively make a decree on such a thing. Anyone could claim the status without embracing the core message of the religion. Without a rooting in the Christian and Judaism traditions, as Islam followed, it is difficult to believe that a religion can claim the relationship with Islam just by using the name and some aspects of the practice. Maybe we can figure out a way to improve wikipedia's approach to this type of issue, a "teach the controversy" type approach to discuss the possibilities in the absence of a referee that can make the call. Arthur Dent Lives --Arthur Dent Lives talk 14:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would be fairly suprised if feelings between NoI and mainstream Islam were wholly fraternal. Especially as Islam is (relatively) homogenous (without the history of schisms, nor the variety of interpretation and practice of Christianity for example). I think it would be a legitimate addition to the article, if reliably sourced Islamic criticism were added. I think this would be best put in the 'criticism' section, rather than modifying the 'beliefs' section. If such criticism doesn't exist (for any reason), we can't wish it into being. I'm more aware of disagreements within Christianity, and there, authorities often simply ignore what they cannot fix, even when they don't like it. Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete I see what you are saying, but are not weak sources better than no sources? The current section stands alone and is basically a parrot of NOI claims which are not sanctioned by any other body of Muslims. Islam is hardly homogeneous with the many sects of Sunni, sects within the Shia, Sufism, syncretic formulations with the Druze and Sikh. If the NOI believes that a scientist from millions of years ago created white people on an island, while Islam, along with Christianity and Judaism believe in Genesis, Adam and Eve, and that line of scripture, how is that not rooted in their beliefs? The five pillars of Islam are related to behavior and worship, and only touch on belief. There is not more published literature on the matter because NOI publishes saying they are part of Islam, and Muslim sources do not really both to engage much in what NOI is other than those websites that declare it kufir. --73.172.235.204 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Are not weak sources better than no sources?, the short answer is no. The longer answer is that there is a 'sliding scale' of how to frame criticism, with some sources being valueless (blogs, opinions from non-notable/non-authorative sources etc.). Also, neutrality requires that we ordinarily put what someone believes, then put criticism. NoI has been criticised on many grounds which deserve to be included (and largely are). If (as has happened), a particular branch of Islam criticises NOI, we include that, but don't extrapolate from that a 'general criticism' felt by all Muslims. I think readers have to be trusted to come to their own opinions as to whether some beliefs of NoI (or any other group) are 'nutty' or odd. We can't wish criticism into being if it doesn't exist (or chooses to be silent).
I didn't mean to be insulting about the (relative) 'homogeneity' of Islam, but near universal adherence to the '5 pillars' is much stronger in Islam than the differences in religious worship between (for example) Greek Orthodox and American Evangelical Christians, who would hardly recognise each other as belonging to the same religion. Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed Update|inaccurate=yes template

I couldn't find which facts are disputed and the {{ Update|inaccurate=yes|date=April 2013 }}template was nearly 4 years old. If there are disputed facts please feel free to list them on the talk page and reinstate the template. Kiore (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Kiore. I've been meaning to remove it myself. I seem to recall that an editor added it because, he asserted, Farrakhan was becoming associated with Scientology and the article had to be updated to reflect that. He added a sentence or two about it, with sources, and I don't know if he's ever been back, but his template remained. Thanks again. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 06:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@MShabazz: You're welcome. BTW: There are references on the page to Dianetics and Scientology. Knowing almost nothing about the pages's topic I simply took them at face value. If they are correct, that's fine, otherwise they should probably be removed. Kiore (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

$1 billion

It says Qaddhafi loaned Farrakhan a billion, that can't be right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Garbage source, but it appears to have some of its facts right. A contemporary CNN article I found mentions a $1 billion gift.[3] — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Offered gift, this speaks about earlier loans. Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
According to a contemporary report in CNN, Farrakhan visited Iraq, Iran, and Libya c. 1996 as our article says.[4] In Libya, he was offered $1 billion, but the U.S. government turned down his application for an exemption from sanctions against that country, thereby prohibiting him from accepting it.Wall Street Journal (may be behind paywall)New York Times (may be behind paywall)Los Angeles TiomesCNN I'll fix the paragraph in our article so it doesn't rely on the Accuracy in Media opinion column and includes all the facts, and I'll see if I can find a reliable source for the quote, otherwise I'll remove it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fareed M

User:Malik Shabazz just in case this wasn't a rhetorical question (who is Fareed M?), I suspect 'Fareed M' is a variant of 'Farad M' (which is a name SPLC gives for) Wallace D. Fard. Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The question was rhetorical. Wallace D. Fard was a man of many names, including Wallace Fard Muhammad, Fard Muhammad, and Farad Muhammad, and I'm sure the "fatwa" refers to him. The fact that it uses an obscure spelling of his name is, to me, further indication of the obscurity and insignificance of the "fatwa" and the organization that issued it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have the 'mainstream' Islamic view of NoI, but I suspect you're right, the 'Italian fatwa' isn't it. Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Curious lede

No mention of Islam anywhere in the lede, this is an Islamic sect or faction. As someone with little knowledge of NOI I am still none the wiser. 2A00:23C4:C001:F400:51A1:B2B5:5EDB:F2DC (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nation of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nation of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nation of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Scientology Navbox

Is the link between NoI and Scientology sufficiently strong to justify the Scientology Navbox? A single criticism seems very thin gruel on which to base such a connection. Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Farrakhan commission

@Malik Shabazz: apologies, I hadn't noticed it was an editorial. National Review has an article stating the following:

The connection between the two groups goes far deeper than just a gala or a naming ceremony. One of the stars of Leah Remini’s docuseries, Aaron Smith-Levin, laid out the financial connection and the incentive for Nation of Islam members to become involved in the Church of Scientology, and vice versa. Smith-Levin explained to me:

"Louis Farrakhan is entitled to personally receive a 10% commission on all money NOI members pay for Scientology auditing and a 15% commission on all money NOI members pay for Scientology courses. I don’t know what Farrakhan’s compensation plan is within the NOI, but with ~40,000+ NOI members, the relationship between the NOI & the Church of Scientology, Farrakhan stands to personally earn an awful lot of cash."[5] Doug Weller talk 13:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller. While I don't doubt the existence of a financial connection between the two organizations, neither a newspaper editorial nor an article in an opinion journal (such as National Review, which in turn cites The New Republic and several blogs) are reliable sources for making such allegations against a living person. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Fine with me. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

'NOI' or 'the NOI'

We seem to be using a mixture of 'the NOI' and 'NOI', mainly the former, but which is it? Is this a case like NATO, where the abbreviation has become so established that 'the' is redundant? I only noticed because an editor added 'the' a couple of times. Adjectival uses are obviously exempt. Pincrete (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the word "the" is important to add to NOI because the abbreviation is not very familiar to readers like the way NATO would be. I think the "the" is necessary for coherence Bpunjani (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Bpunjani

SPLC is not a primary source

in my opinion, so I've taken the issue to WP:NORN. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that SPLC is a valid source for attributed claims made by themselves, which is the case here. We aren't saying NoI IS a hate group. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:RSOPINION says we can cite the SPLC as a source for its own opinion, but to stop any further objections I added a recent CNN article that says the same thing. There are hundreds, if not thousands, more. It's not a questionable issue. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Can we please have this discussion in one place? Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Do_we_treat_the_SPLC_as_a_primary_source The SPLC is not due for inclusion more than any other single source would be - the lede should be a summary of the main points of the article, not a place to emphasize one organization's opinion. If there are hundreds of sources, then post some of them at the noticeboard discussion. A one line mention in one CNN article is not enough to justify prominent placement in the LEDE.Seraphim System (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this is a WEIGHT issue rather than a sourcing issue. Is the opinion of the SPLC sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion, rather than is their site a RS as to their opinion. I would also sympathise with SS to the extent that within the body there should be some expansion of why SPLC tracks NoI (largely because of alleged anti-semetic remarks I believe). I'm UK and don't have a strong opinion as to the authority of SPLC, except by analogy with UK NGOs whose opinion is often deemed worthy of note. Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's sufficiently important to warrant mention in the lead section. The SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League (cited in footnote 5 but not mentioned by name) are the two principal organizations in the U.S. that monitor hate speech and hate crimes.
On a related note, 15 years ago the POV fork Nation of Islam and antisemitism was spun out of this article. It's primarily a quote farm of EEEEEEVIL things NOI leadership has said about the Jews over the years. There's no good reason for it to exist as a separate article. Is the NOI known for being antisemitic? Yes, but it's also known for selling bean pies and helping reform black prisoners, but I don't see Nation of Islam and bean pies or Nation of Islam and prisoner rehabilitation. Bringing the (very little) encyclopedic material in that article back to this article would help justify the mention of the SPLC and ADL in this article's lead section. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the definition of hate group is necessary. After this, I think thinking about whether or not people of color can engage is racism and anti-semitism is important. There are a lot of people who would say that people of color cannot be a part of a hate group Bpunjani (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Bpunjani

@Bpunjani: we simply go by what reliable sources say, we don't try to create definitions ourselves. And people of any color can hate, eg the Rwandan genocide. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

New religious movement ?

Rreagan007, the source you added certainly describes the NoI as a "new religious movement"- though that source and the WP article seem to allow a fairly broad definition of 'new' - seemingly post 1800s-ish. What I would question is whether MOST sources describe NoI thus - since the narrower definition of nrm is closer to post-WWII. I am European btw, so almost all US religious organisations seem 'new' to me, including the NoI, but I wonder whether that is the general term applied to them. Pincrete (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Racism

There is obvious anti-white racism within this page, and within the belief structure of The Nation is Islam, this page should have more links to Black Nationalism and Black Supremacy.

2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:5DC4:F0DB:A0A:2A9D (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)cripe

From the lead "Critics have described the theology of the organization as promoting antisemitism[7][8][9][10] and anti-LGBT rhetoric,[8] and of promoting racial separatism,[4] black nationalism[4] and of having promoted black supremacist beliefs in the past" Not prominent enough for your taste ? Pincrete (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Trolling

Why is there a "Not to be confused with ISIS" caption on the top of the page? Nobody sane thinks this. This just seems like hostile trolling and should be removed=. Its *decidedly* unwikipedian in nature 2001:44B8:6117:B100:D21:7F28:485B:395A (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on keeping or removing this, but I saw it as pedantry, not hostile trolling. Also, I'm sure there actually are people who have heard of ISIS but not NOI. Some of them might even be kind of stupid! I don't see the harm anyway Dingsuntil (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

"A Religious and a Political Organization"

Hi User:Pincrete (and whomever else may be reading). I thought it might be worth discussing this particular change, which expanded the opening sentence from describing the Nation as a "religious organization" to a "religious and political organization." I don't think the statement is wrong; clearly, the Nation expresses many political opinions about the state of the world. However, I wonder if this is perhaps necessary, given that virtually all religious organisations also express views with clear political ramifications. Our article on the Roman Catholic Church for instance does not start by describing it as a political organisation, and yet that Church has been deeply embedded in political issues for centuries (often in forms much more explicit that the Nation of Islam). Are we setting a double standard by describing the Nation as "political" so explicitly when we do not do the same for other religious organizations at Wikipedia? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I would be the first person to admit that the dominant religion(s) in almost any country any of us could name tend to exert enormous political influence, certainly in terms of social/moral policies such as the RC church influencing abortion and divorce law in Ireland, or the indirect influence of the Church of England in the UK. Also NoI probably exerts less actual political influence in USA than many other religions and denominations - probably less impact than more moderate black religious groups which have certainly tracably impacted politics (such as King and the civil rights era), certainly NoI has had less influence than the Christian Right in the US. HOWEVER, when a religious group has an overt policy position on a political fundamental (in NoI's case black nationalism) - rather than a generic call for 'justice' or somesuch, then it becomes a political organisation IMO. I recognise that some white religious groups may tend to espouse particular beliefs and may sometimes be paper-thin fig-leaves (mixed metaphor?) for overt political positions, but that isn't quite the same thing as existing to endorse a particular position. Ultimately, I'm quite happy to "go with the sources" on this, but when I thought about it, I personally couldn't see how it could NOT be political, whether one admires/sympathises with/ or despises that politics.Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please Help Return Nation of Islam to a NPOV article status

RFC tag removed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC) RFC tag removed again ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Prior to 2016, Nation of Islam (NoI) was a NPOV article that recognized NoI's hate group status in the opening paragraph. More recently it has morphed into a sales pitch. The two main authorities on hate groups in the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League are dismissed as "critics" rather than being recognized as reliable sources as they are in well written hate group articles such as the Ku Klux Klan. At least one police officer has been murdered since Wikipedia stop recognizing NoI as a hate group and started promoting it via a sales pitch. The NYT reports:

"Noah Green, the knife-wielding man killed after ramming his car into a checkpoint at the U.S. Capitol on Friday, was a troubled former college athlete whose life was disintegrating in the months leading up to a violent outburst that left one officer dead and another injured.

On the football field at Christopher Newport University in Virginia, Noah R. Green was No. 21, a dependable and good-natured, if soft-spoken, presence in the defensive backfield. Off the field, he was focused on Black economic empowerment and planned a career to help close the racial wealth gap.

By late March, after a bruising pandemic year that friends and family said left him isolated and mentally unmoored, Mr. Green’s life appeared increasingly to revolve around the Nation of Islam and its leader Louis Farrakhan, who has repeatedly promoted anti-Semitism." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/us/politics/heres-what-we-know-about-the-man-behind-fridays-attack-on-capitol-hill.htm

Please restore the following sentence to the opening paragraph:

The NOI is tracked as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not an RFC, that's something for the NPOV noticeboard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
True. Would you prefer I just scrap this and create a new section for a new RFC? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Gouncbeatduke, Why do you imagine that describing SPLC, ADL and other as 'critics' is 'dismissing' them? The sentence is "Its critics, including civil rights activists, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League, have accused it of being a black supremacist hate group that promotes racial prejudice towards white people, anti-semitism, and anti-LGBT rhetoric. Many Muslim critics accuse it of promoting teachings that are not legitimately Islamic."
When exactly do you claim that this article said what you think it ought to say? Not since 2016 certainly. Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the re-inserted RfC tag; an RfC needs a specific, neutral question that the community can answer. This section lacks both a question and neutrality regarding the article content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened there. Please don't modify comments after they have been replied to, and please restore the original wording I had replied to. A new attempt for creating a neutral RfC with a clear, specific question can be made in a new section, or below all previous comments. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Guerrero0002.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Would the NOI be considered a nontheistic religion?

From what I've read they seem to completely reject a metaphysical god, and their view of the black man being god seems to be a metaphor, or atleast not god in the conventional, supernatural sense. Just wondering, seems not much has been written on the theology by reputable secondary/tertiary sources (or atleast that I can readily read atm). So, would this be considered a nontheistic religion or something else? Also, I see that this page already mentions some of their materialist beliefs but perhaps further elaboration would be better if possible. Thank you all. 69.120.198.52 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

But they believe in "Allah", No?Jamesman666 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hate Group editing, not NPOV

This is the only hate group Wikipedia article where the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League are dismissed at "critics", in all other hate group articles they are treated as reliable sources. There is ZERO ethical difference between the KKK and the NoI; one is a white supremacist hate group, the other is a black supremacist hate group.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke, the SPLC designation is ALWAYS AFAIK attributed, and is not put into 'pole position' as being the principle fact about any org. That is the case here also. I have no idea what is said about the KKK, and such analogies are usually silly, but as far as I know, KKK aren't, and don't even pretend to be a religion. btw SPLC is very critical of NoI, particularly for its anti-semetic rhetoric and views, but it does not describe it as 'black supremacist' nor as a 'hate group'. We include their criticism EXACTLY as SPLC records it. If the majority of mainstream sources (inc SPLC) described them as 'a black supremacist hate group', so would we. Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The vast majority of reliable sources document that Nation of Islam is a hate group. Wikipedia documented it as a hate group in the opening paragraph for years. Only recently has the article morphed into it's current NoI sales pitch form. Do you really think allowing a hate group to pose as a religion is a good idea on Wikipedia? Consider the following:

"Noah Green, the knife-wielding man killed after ramming his car into a checkpoint at the U.S. Capitol on Friday, was a troubled former college athlete whose life was disintegrating in the months leading up to a violent outburst that left one officer dead and another injured.

On the football field at Christopher Newport University in Virginia, Noah R. Green was No. 21, a dependable and good-natured, if soft-spoken, presence in the defensive backfield. Off the field, he was focused on Black economic empowerment and planned a career to help close the racial wealth gap.

By late March, after a bruising pandemic year that friends and family said left him isolated and mentally unmoored, Mr. Green’s life appeared increasingly to revolve around the Nation of Islam and its leader Louis Farrakhan, who has repeatedly promoted anti-Semitism." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/us/politics/heres-what-we-know-about-the-man-behind-fridays-attack-on-capitol-hill.htm Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke, This was the text in mid-2018 and possibly for long before then, " Critics have described the organization as being black supremacist[4] and antisemitic.[5][6][7] The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks the NOI as a hate group.[8][9]". AFAIK, neither Malcolm X nor ML King ever described it as a hate group. SPLC tracked it as one but never said it was one explicitly. I believe SPLC has NOW actually STOPPED tracking Black seperatist groups - but historically they did so. What do you imagine these news article show? That some NoI people aren't very nice, some are anti-semetic and have other prejudices? The article says that but has never said what you claim AFAIK, and neither do most sources. Pincrete (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
My first edit was in May 2016, the opening text has said much the same since at least then. Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your claim "neither Malcolm X nor ML King ever described it as a hate group", MLK described NoI as “a hate group arising in our midst that would preach the doctrine of black supremacy.” https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/nation-islam
Regarding your claim the Southern Poverty Law Center "STOPPED tracking" the NoI as a hate group, under the category of “general hate” they track the following:

Nation of Islam (Akron, Ohio) Nation of Islam (Atlanta, Georgia) Nation of Islam (Austin, Texas) Nation of Islam (Birmingham, Alabama) Nation of Islam (Brooklyn, New York) Nation of Islam (Brunswick, Georgia) Nation of Islam (Camden, New Jersey) Nation of Islam (Charlotte, North Carolina) Nation of Islam (Chattanooga, Tennessee) Nation of Islam (Chicago, Illinois) Nation of Islam (Cleveland, Ohio) Nation of Islam (Columbia, South Carolina) Nation of Islam (Compton, California) Nation of Islam (Dallas, Texas) Nation of Islam (Dayton, Ohio) Nation of Islam (Denver, Colorado) Nation of Islam (Detroit, Michigan) Nation of Islam (Dorchester, Massachusetts) Nation of Islam (Durham, North Carolina) Nation of Islam (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) Nation of Islam (Fort Worth, Texas) Nation of Islam (Grand Rapids, Michigan) Nation of Islam (Greensboro, North Carolina) Nation of Islam (Greenville, South Carolina) Nation of Islam (Houston, Texas) Nation of Islam (Indianapolis, Indiana) Nation of Islam (Jacksonville, Florida) Nation of Islam (Kansas City, Missouri) Nation of Islam (Lexington, Kentucky) Nation of Islam (Los Angeles, California) Nation of Islam (Louisville, Kentucky) Nation of Islam (Memphis, Tennessee) Nation of Islam (Miami, Florida) Nation of Islam (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) Nation of Islam (Mobile, Alabama) Nation of Islam (Monroe, Louisiana) Nation of Islam (Montgomery, Alabama) Nation of Islam (New Orleans, Louisiana) Nation of Islam (New York, New York) Nation of Islam (Newark, New Jersey) Nation of Islam (Norfolk, Virginia) Nation of Islam (North Charleston, South Carolina) Nation of Islam (North Little Rock, Arkansas) Nation of Islam (Oakland, California) Nation of Islam (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) Nation of Islam (Pensacola, Florida) Nation of Islam (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) Nation of Islam (Phoenix, Arizona) Nation of Islam (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) Nation of Islam (Plainfield, New Jersey) Nation of Islam (Richmond, Virginia) Nation of Islam (Rochester, New York) Nation of Islam (Rock Hill, South Carolina) Nation of Islam (San Antonio, Texas) Nation of Islam (San Diego, California) Nation of Islam (Shreveport, Louisiana) Nation of Islam (Springfield, Massachusetts) Nation of Islam (St. Louis, Missouri) Nation of Islam (St. Petersburg, Florida) Nation of Islam (Tampa, Florida) Nation of Islam (Toledo, Ohio) Nation of Islam (Trenton, New Jersey) Nation of Islam (Tulsa, Oklahoma) Nation of Islam (Washington, District of Columbia) Nation of Islam (Willingboro, New Jersey) Nation of Islam (Wilmington, Delaware) Nation of Islam (Wilmington, North Carolina) Nation of Islam (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/by-ideology
Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Gouncbeatduke , nowhere in your source does either Malcolm X or M L King say that NoI is a hate group. Read them again - King warns of unnamed groups teaching black supremacy - perhaps he meant NoI or perhaps he meant other radical groups of the 1950's and 60's - but he doesn't name NoI, so we cannot say he did. X's falling out with NoI is well documented, but that was largely because of leaders failure to live up to Islamic values, and because X discovered that NoI was teaching an 'inauthentic' Islam, but as far as I know X never described NoI as a hate group and it does not say anywhere in your source that he did. Your claim that this article used to say what you think it ought to say is fantasy. It has described NoI as a religious group since at least 2016 - it has also said that SPLC tracks NoI as a 'hate group' - as do we, primarily because of its anti-semitism and to a lesser extent its homophobia. That's because NoI IS primarily a religious group.
Your loathing of NoI is fairly apparent, if it is any consolation, I have only very limited respect for them. But the article is based on what RS say explicitly, not on your or my opinion of them. NPOV applies to people you don't like much as well as those you do. Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
:ps I didn't claim that SPLC had ceased tracking NoI - I said they had "STOPPED tracking Black seperatist groups" as a category of 'hate', which I still believe is true. They track NoI for other reasons, such as their anti-semitic and homophobic rhetoric. Even if your claims about SPLC/King/X were wholly correct, it would not mean that NoI ceased to be primarily known and written about as a religious/political group. The catholic church has not become a paedophile organisation because of the actions of individual priests, ditto NoI. Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying. If you search the source for the words in quotes: “a hate group arising in our midst that would preach the doctrine of black supremacy.” the source attributes it to MLK in their article about the NoI. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/nation-islam Also, the article never stated the SPL tracked NoI as a "Black seperatist group", the sentence you erased said it tracked it as a "hate group".Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I know the quote, and the occasion, and it's very possible that King was referring to NoI or to other radical groups of that era - but King did not say he was talking about NoI, nor does SPLC say he was talking about NoI, they imply it only. I haven't removed that SPLC tracks it as a "a black supremacist hate group", nor has anyone, it still says that. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Gouncbeatduke, here is the original of King's speech. Nowhere in it does he mention the Nation of Islam, he may very well have meant them since they were acquiring some prominence at the time as a result of a documentary, some Time and other articles, and the growing prominence of Malcolm X as a highly controversial, fairly charismatic, but also much despised and feared figure at the turn of the 1960s.
Fuller quote "We must avoid both external physical violence and internal violence of spirit. I must stress this point a bit because of a dangerous philosophy that is being taught by some elements of the Negro community. There are hate groups arising in our midst which would preach a doctrine of black supremacy. It is my prayerful hope that our natural resentment over the injustices that are constantly heaped upon us will not cause us to stoop to the law and primitive methods of some of our opponents."
So King even refers to 'hate groups' (plural) and the context is of warning AGAINST more radical groups (who did not preach non-violent resistance as he did) - he almost certainly would have been against the beliefs of the NoI on every level, but he is not on record as saying very much at all about them AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I've returned the SPLC/ADL and Muslim criticisms to the end of the opening paragraph, which is the position they were in for many years. The editor who moved them I don't think was trying to 'whitewash' anything, simply put criticism at the end of the lead. Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of the statements made by Gouncbeatduke here are just factually untrue. They state that "The vast majority of reliable sources document that Nation of Islam is a hate group." This is nonsense. We have nearly 30 peer-reviewed sources cited in this article (and counting). None refer to the Nation of Islam as a "hate group," a term with little or no scholarly credibility; it is a pejorative term, not one used for actually understanding socio-political phenomena. The editor seems to believe that anything other than a highly hostile portrayal of the Nation at Wikipedia constitutes an "NoI sales pitch form". I believe that they fundamentally misunderstand what WP:NPOV actually means. As a result, their desired alterations to the article would be harmful to it and to Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please comment, should the NOI article treat SPL as it treated in the KKK and other well written articles?

Prior to 2016, Nation of Islam (NoI) was a NPOV article that recognized NoI's hate group status in the opening paragraph. More recently it has morphed into a sales pitch. The two main authorities on hate groups in the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League are dismissed as "critics" rather than being recognized as reliable sources as they are in well written hate group articles such as the Ku Klux Klan. SPL was the sole source cited for the opening paragraph of the KKK article prior to Oct. 25 2021.

RFC Question: Should the following be restored to the opening paragraph:

The NOI is tracked as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes of course. We also should avoid the use of the word "critics" - it casts doubt and is clearly unnecessary. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not as presented Comparison with KKK is unhelpful and inapt - however offensive some of NoI's beliefs and rhetoric may be to outsiders, the NoI doesn't have a history of burning crosses, mass intimidation and lynching, and KKK isn't a religious org and doesn't have a history of putting convicts "on to the straight and narrow". AFAIK, KKK exists solely to promote, maintain and enforce white supremacy, whereas NoI has occasionally been accused of being black supremacist - more often in its rhetoric than in its deeds. That being said, clearly the SPLC and AFD characterisation of NoI as a hate group and as being anti-semetic is notable and the view of mainstream muslims that NoI is 'inauthentic' deserves to go at the end of para 1 or in a new para 2. This content is currently at the end of the lead :Its critics, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, have accused it of being a black supremacist hate group that promotes racial prejudice towards white people, anti-semitism, and anti-LGBT rhetoric. Many Muslim critics accuse it of promoting teachings that are not legitimately Islamic. This deserves to be moved up, but the proposer is simply wrong in claiming that it isn't there, or has ever been in the opening sentence in WP:VOICE. I disagree with Doug Weller and the proposer about attributing the SPLC/AFD claims - this is standard practice, these orgs are respected, but their views are simply the views of respected advocacy groups, they aren't universally agreed factual statements about NoI. I don't see how the use of 'critics' casts doubt on anything, and would be strongly opposed to putting 'hate group' in WP:VOICE - too many sources respect other aspects of NoI for it to be put in our voice that 'hating' is what NoI exists to do. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
nb The current wording has, broadly speaking, been in place since at least 2012, only the position (end of para 1 to end of lead) and greater detail (naming SPLC and AFD and adding muslim critics) has changed in that time. There has never been a time when 'hate group' was in WP:VOICE AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pincrete: you disagree with me? The sentence suggested is not calling it a hate group in Wikipedia's voice and is attributed to the SPLC. Why are you suggesting otherwise? It's simply a statement of fact. If you wish, we could reverse the order and say that the SPLC includes it in its list of hate groups, which I presume is the case. But it's fine to move the statement you mention up and that should be sufficient. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: by you saying that you disapproved of the word 'critics', I interpreted you as implying that you thought that 'hate group' should be in WP:VOICE - which I think what the proposer was originally wanting, but that does not seem to be your meaning. I don't object to simply naming SPLC and ADF, - who are the main 'hate group'er critics, but that leaves out others who may criticise NoI's "black supremacism ... racial prejudice towards white people, anti-semitism, and anti-LGBT rhetoric". Fundamentally, I don't see why calling SPLC, ADF and others, 'critics', is a problem. I wholly approve of the current sentence, but would not object at all to it 'moving up' to the end of para 1 .Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pincrete: at best 'critics' is redundant, only critics criticize, eg call something a hate group. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree substantially, the presence or absence of 'critics' wouldn't bother me either way, but using WP:VOICE to frame these criticisms would. In theory I agree with you about 'critics', in practice I don't think the phrasing contains any redundancy or tautology and encompasses that certain orgs (SPLC & ADL) describe it as a 'hate group', others simply criticise NoI, mainly for anti-white racism, anti-semitism and homophobia. Pincrete (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. First, the Ku Klux Klan article is not particularly well written and is not a good model for what we should be following here (just look at its muddled sourcing). Instead, FA-rated articles devoted to other religious movements that have generated significant controversy (e.g. Rastafari, Santería, Heathenry (new religious movement)) and which often have obvious parallels with the NOI serve as far better models for what we should aim towards with this article. None of those examples give significant attention to the critics of their respective religions in their opening paragraphs. Second, Gouncbeatduke's RfC question is far from a neutral description and is loaded with misleading statements, betraying the editor's own desire to POV-push on this article to present the Nation of Islam in as negative a light as possible. WP:SOAP is pertinent here.
Third, look at the example set by other Reliable Sources. This article presently cites 33 peer-reviewed academic texts. I have read every one of those in the process of expanding this article and not a single one, to my recollection, even mentions that the SPLC labels the NOI a 'hate group', let alone gives this fact great prominence. Looking at the Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on the NOI, or the World Religions and Spirituality Project entry on it, one can see that neither mentions the 'hate group' listing either. The Reliable Sources just do not see the 'hate group' listing as being particularly important, so why should Wikipedia? Fourth, and as Pincrete has pointed out, the lead already states that the SPLC considers the NOI to be a hate group (and no one is suggesting that that be removed), so it is not as if we are hiding this fact. Repeating this fact in the lead, and giving it undue prominence in the opening sentences, would be a clear-cut case of POV pushing and would be fundamentally detrimental to the quality of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hate Group

This article is more of a sales pitch than a Wikipedia article. In other articles on Hate Groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League are used as reliable sources to refer to the group as a Hate Group in Wikipedia voice. Here, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League are dismissed as critics. Please see the Ku Klux Klan for and example of a well written article on a Hate Group.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue was raised by you only a few months ago archive 3. Your RfC proposal got zero support then. It is simply factually inaccurate to say that SPLC and AFD designations are usually rendered in WP:VOICE, They are usually attributed. Even The Klan is attributed "It is classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center" down in Para 4 and the Klan's sole purpose AFAIK is advancing White Supremacy, whereas - whatever one thinks of the NoI - they are a religious group who don't do a whole lot of lynching and burning crosses! Pincrete (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League are dismissed as critics. How else should they be described? The purpose of the text "Its critics, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League", is to make the point that SPLC and AFD are not the only people to think that some of NoI's views on race and homosexuality are offensive. I would gladly remove the three opening words if people wanted, but the result would be to imply that ONLY SPLC and AFD have criticised NoI. Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
As Pincrete has already pointed out, this issue was dealt with at an RfC a few weeks ago, and laid to rest. Continuing to push for the article to be overtly skewed against the Nation of Islam just demonstrates a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There was clearly no coconscious from the previous discussions, just the same two editors pushing for no change.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

And two other editors who did not support your change. One because the RfC was not even framed neutrally. You aren't going to get SPLC's opinion (out of date by the way) rendered in WP:VOICE as the primary descriptor of NoI - because no source treats them that way and because very few groups are, or should be, treated that way - as though NoI had no purpose other than to 'hate' and harass others. NoI are noted for their fairly nasty rhetoric against Jews, gays and, to an extent, whites, and that is and should be recorded prominently, but they don't exist solely to demonise or terrorise other groups and sources don't say that they do. Pincrete (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

New JSTOR Daily article

@Midnightblueowl and Pincrete: I think this could be useful.[6] I know we already use Colley. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

Change Muhamad to Muhammad in the theology section 24.44.73.34 (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nation_of_Islam/Archive_3&oldid=1123517737"