Talk:Nation of Islam

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)