Talk:Nation of Islam

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

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 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 ---- 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 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?

• The Southern Poverty Law Center (reference) and the Anti-Defamation League (reference) have accused the Nation of Islam of being black supremacist, racists, and antisemitic. NOI Chief of Staff Leonard F. Muhammad stated, "The Nation of Islam is not and has never been anti-Semitic nor racist." (reference).

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.

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)

RfC

BAn 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)

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.