Talk:Wallace Fard Muhammad

comment

I have written a best-selling book researching what has been taught by Wallace Fard (based primarily on his own writings as they appear in The Supreme Wisdom. Why is it that a link to my speaking on Buddhist influences in NOI doctrine is always removed? Please explain whether the removals are according to Wiki policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.15.57 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read that he could be an dark-skinned Arab instead of a "real" Black. Where is he supposed to have immigrated from?

"punished in the Hereafter" is not very neutral

I disagree with the comment above. That phrase "punished in the Hereafter" was preceded by "Orthdox Muslims believe", so the article is neutral. The writer does not state that they WILL be punished, he simply states that SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE they will be punished, which is true.

---

I added quotation marks to give the paragraph some balance.

Agreed he does not look like a true African. Especially his hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.54.4 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

identity

I've rearranged this because I think the two photos have to be sufficiently close together to be compared, and because the questiomn of Fard's identity is central to the interpretation of his significance, so I think it shoulfd be 'up front' at the top not relegated to an appendix. It also allows the biographical section to be seen as 'provisional' - based on an assumption about Fard's identity, not as uncontested fact. Paul B 6 Mar, 2005 6:35 (UTC)

"Photographs and fingerprints of both men exist." And identity is still a question? Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)

"How can anyone claim that these two men are one and the same...FINGERPRINTS OF "BOTH" MEN EXIST. B.Z. Gilliam, OCT. 26, 2005

Yes, and they were identical. That's what the FBI say anyway. So you either go for the theory that they were lying about it or that both men are one and the same. If can phrase it more precisely, go ahead. Paul B 17:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, consipracy theory allows one to argue anything. The photos and fingerprints were planted as part of a smear campaign etc. Paul B 7 July, 2005 12:45 (UTC)

"Fingerprints of both men exist" - I'm not sure what this means. Does the FBI have fingerprints of somebody acknowledged by Elijah Muhammad or the NOI as Fard which match fingerprints of Ford? I'd like to see a link or a description of exactly where in the 800+ FBI pages it is asserted that the fingerprints are the same, and whose fingerprints the FBI claims to be comparing. - Passing Through 199.219.138.254 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

After the ritual murder he was arrested and was fingerprinted. He was identified by the FBI as identical to Dodd Ford from their photographic and fingerprint records. Paul B 22:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: When one clicks on the linked pictures featured in the article, there is some biased language. The caption under the picture of Wallace Dodd Ford reads "Fraudulent FBI photograph of a man presented as Wallace Fard Muhammad," and the caption underneath the picture of Wallace Fard Muhammad says "This the actual photograph of Fard Muhammad. Presented to the public by Elijah Muhammad, who was taught by him for 3 years and 4 months straight." That leads to some confusion, especially since the article says that his identity is still disputed. Perhaps this should be changed for neutrality?

Yes, I uploaded the image. Some anonymous person ([1]) added the caption. Paul B 15:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that in all the pages of FBI documents online which I reviewed for clues to Fard's identity, the government apparently neglected the information Fard himself filled-out for his WWI registration. I could not locate the town of Shinka in Afghanistan, but I did find it in present-day Pakistan. Perhaps a review of old maps is in order. I believe the location of Shinka in Pakistan came under British rule, and this might explain Fard's knowledge of English as well as Islam, and perhaps why he was able to get away with stating he was from New Zealand if, in fact, he was not from there.Historymysterio (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan did not exist in 1893, or in WW1. It's an atificial creation made from bits of earlier territories. The letters of the first part of the name stand for the teritories that were partly appropriated. 'A' stands for Afghanistan. Paul B (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Clicking on the NOI picture of Fard still leads to a very POV caption. The caption should probably be changed or deleted. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Fard's identity now take up more real estate in this article than his organization of the Nation of Islam and are all placed above the seeming point of the piece. Fard is not in Wiki because he is a guy who has a shady background, but because he founded the NOI. Questions about his real identity are intriguing, but I think they should be pared down a bit and moved under his accomplishments/activities. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Since questions about his identity are central to the debate about his achievements and theories, I don't think this is undue weight at all. This is essentially a biographical article, and that is exactly the "point of the piece". Paul B (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

guilty of brainwashing

Mr. Fard Muhammad preyed on the minds of a people that were in search of hope selling them an unproven theory of his own ancestry the "white" race, due to his unfortunate imprisonment. Does that also mean that Mr.Muhammad is also evil? does this man really deserve praise for playing on the minds of a people that were lost and looking for the answers to their oppressions in the Americas?

I disagree on preying on those who are naive because he only brought out the truth. Also, look at the eyebrows of the two men their is quiet a difference of the two. Finally it clearly is stated that the two men fingerprint exist not the same identical fingerprints. P.S. look at the texture of their hair it is a difference.

mr.fard muhammad was a very interesting man, but it is questionable whether he was telling the truth or not. divine mahdi or not, the man may have been a charlatan, or some kind of "spiritual fanatic"..... But the fact he dissappeared without a trace is even more questionable....Jesus was resurrected and he dissappeared without a trace, just the removed stone was the clue. so compare Jesus's disappearance with Master Fard's dissapearance.....-R.C Ahmed

I have to disagree on the photos. I think they look like the same person. The nose and ear are the same and the hair in the famous 'book' photo looks slicked down with oil. Irisismykid (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Master Fard?

I go to an Islamic school though i am not a muslim. it is actually a Nation of Islam school, and i go for the education. i beileive what minister farrakhan and elijah muhammad are saying, but im not so sure about fard. they say in the nation that he is god in person, and that he is in a giant flying space ship with elijah muhammad. they said that neither of them died, and soon they will burn america for 300 years for her sins. i think its all just to much junk. not that i dont believe it, but then again not that i do. but i do beilieve in god, and thats all that matters is that i stay on the path with god...-Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Blubbernugget (talk • contribs)

I somehow agree that Blacks are Asiatic, but what about the so-called "White Man" of America ? Did you know that Blacks and whites are both Asiatic ? this is because they both come from around the same places...Not every white man is "truely Caucasian", they can claim to be though. I'm Caucasian but I'm also 1/8 Native American in descent, I consider myself Asiatic.Just My theory, what did you think ? By the way,Why would a man like Mr.Fard say that all white people are pure evil and can't repent ? I realize my sins but this man lied and HE IS NOT JESUS OR "ALLAH-IN_PERSON" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.95.238 (talk • contribs)

There is no somehow agreement that blacks are Asiatic, why, because we come from the continent East Asia, which is now known as Africa. No Master Fard Muhammad is NOT Jesus and no one ever said he was. He is Allah in the Person and he doesn't lie. How dare you spit on the Saviours statements. You can repent but you are not saved. Whites are just a part of the black man so yall will end up gone and once again only a part of the black man like how it once was. Yall will only be in thought and spirit without form. Sorry but it is Allah's will. You will get spared during the war of Armaggeddon though. I'm not knocking that, i'm just saying in the long run yall will decease. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.254.250.9 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

to the person before me. wow. That isnt your place to say. God spares who he spares and take who he takes. are you god? no. So you dont know. -Richard

I'm not saying God won't spare anyone, obviously he will, and he'll probably spare a lot of people that we all thought should've been thrown into the lake of Fire, but if the sun itself is chemically causing whites to becom steril and decreasing their birth rate then eventually they will all cease to exist. Now ask yaself why would God bring them on this planet and genetically make them subseptable to the sun so that eventually hey will die out? What's the reason behind that, ask in the best of manners and the answers will come.

what proof is there that the sun is making white people steril? What scientific expiriment did someone do to prove thaT?? No, and there is no proof. i know, now im going to get a response like : Cause MFM (fard) said it, or farrakhan said it, so its automatically true. Well, show me the truth, PROOF. And dont just say there are less white people than everyoe else on earth because they arent, and even if they were, thats no proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.152.237 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, yes you are sadly mistaken in your knowledge but your passion is admireable, i do say that. First, are u a scientist? Have you looked at the fact that you need melanin that is found in the pigmentation that is in brown, yellow red or black skin in order for metabolization of Vitamin D and calcium. You get most of Vitamin d and Calcium from the suns rays, that was a question i had in 4th grade, what vitamin does the suns rays give off? I remember the answer now because i was so mad at the time that I got the answer wrong, but vitamin d comes from the sun, milk too but much of it comes from the sun. What is the rule of heat and colors, dark colors absorb while light colors reflect. So instead of absorbing the necessary Vitamins from the sun white skin reflects it because of it's light pigmentation. This leaves a depletion of calcium which the body tends to draw from the bones and sperm, making the bones frail and making the sperm count dwindle. The population of white in the entire world is about 500,000,000. while the population of blackls all over the world is about 4,420,000,000, from those numbers i would have to say that there are more black people. I got this from white scientists, it's amazing what you find when you actually are open to things. Have you not heard of how whites birthrate in America has a 0% increase in the past 4 years? They, (The racist ones and ones in high position) have said in around 20 to 50 years America will be a brown nation, instead of the majority by whites, and that's not including the immigrants immigrating so-called illeagally, they didn't account for them because they aren't counted. Look this stuff up, it's quite obvious really, if you want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.99.222 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC) what ever, im done with this. Your answer was retarted and so are you. your just another racist a-hole who has nothing better to do but f up the world. Everyone is equal. and btw, riiight.... white birth rate is 0%... smooooth scientist. Im sorry, do you not see all of the pregnant women out there. right, birth rAte is at 0% -Richard, aka Sybil, aka Bob

Yea i see pregnant women but you didn't specify that they were white. When the birth rate is at a 0% that means it's increase is 0%. It didn't improve from one year to the next which would be odd if people are being born right. Really your people proved it for me so those facts you have to take it up with your scientists alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.73.110.249 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"You get most of Vitamin d and Calcium from the suns rays... what vitamin does the suns rays give off?" It's amazing that this STUPIDITY was posted in 2007 and no one has challenged it as of Sept. 2012. The rays of LIGHT coming from the sun carries no calcium or vitamin of any kind. You must have been in a Muslim school if that is what you were taught in fourth grade. The Qur'an is full of scientific inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.33.182 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There should be some way to put some of this delusionary dementia in the article, as a sample of the low-grade thinking in the cult. Maybe it could be used as the basis for an article in an on-line magazine? Then the article could be referenced in a section marked 'Modern Beliefs of the Group'. It should also include verifiable links to statements by the current leader , Louis Farrakhan, about his regular visits to a spaceship, where he meets with Elijah M. and Fard, and passes on their wisdom on his return (these are already sourced in Farrakhan's article, so those references can be used if not removed yet again by someone). 86.148.55.210 (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

changes by Co Yep

Hi, I think we need some references for the many assertions you are adding. In one edit summary you say "According to Hazel they divorced because he was "temperamental" (p.5/p.74))". So that's p.5 and p.74 of what? Footnotes in the article need to be added. Paul B 15:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all taken from the FBI file. Informations about their marriage are on page 5 (p.5) and Hazel's comment about divorcing Wallace because he was "temperamental" is on page 74 (p.74). CoYep 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We should attribute this info to the FBI file, which is rather contradictory about his actual relationship to Hazel Barton, who is described as his "common law wife" (i.e. live-in lover of long standing) and their son is said to be illegitimate. In the next para it says he married but abandoned her (p.8 of PDF). Paul B 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that one too, that's why I searched for another reference concerning their relationship status, which I found page 74. I assumed it's contradictory because they married after the son was already born (First common law wife -> then wife -> then ex-wife). But your edit is a good solution. CoYep 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair interpretation - buty I think it remains unclear. So where does the information about Fard as "David Ford-el" come from? It does not appear to be in the FBI file. Paul B 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted

This page is full of errors. Where are the real references to his suppsoedly son and wife? And parents? Just get rid of the whole article while you are at it if you want to lie on somebody and tear them apart. Yall are full of it. My article was deleted but this piece of junk BS is still up. No one knew the man, or have actually proof from his own mouth. Why not delete it? Besides I find it extremely offensive since my parents follow this religion.Cococanelle

The references to his wife and parents are fully footnoted. Check them out in the FBI files and in historical literature on Fard. However, I'm rather doubtful about the claims concerning his alleged "David Ford-el" persona, as you can see in the discussion above this one. Paul B 08:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted

I removed the discussion thread entitled "call a spade a spade", due to it being racist spam. Chairman_Sharif

"Call a spade a spade" is an old saying which has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "racism." It probably (I said probably) appeared first amongst poker players, simply because the spades outrank the hearts, diamonds, and clubs. (Thus, there can be no ties in poker hands. An ace of spades outranks an ace of hearts, which outranks an ace of diamonds, which outranks an ace of clubs. AKQJ10 of spades is the highest ranking hand in poker. It outranks AKQJ10 of hearts, which outranks AKQJ10 of diamonds, which outranks AKQJ10 of clubs).

"Call a spade a spade" means "don't cheat" (by claiming that a card is a spade when is not a spade). Wherever and however the saying arose, it not "racist spam" — I had heard of it and "Wallace Fard" by 1955, 50 years ago. GhostofSuperslum 02:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'spade' saying dates back past that, referring to the garden tool. A spade with its straight edge ( as opposed to a shovel ) was generally used for spreading soft stuff, like mulch or manure and it was considered a slightly indelicate thing to refer to. In Mark Twain's autobio, there is an account of a talk he had with a New Woman of the 1890's on certain subjects, which Twain described as 'the damnedest conversation I have ever had with anyone, of either sex". She "called a spade a spade, without coldly symbolizing it as a snow shovel [another straight edge]" (quotes from memory). There is also a reference to the phrase in Wilde's 'The Importance of Being Ernest' from about that time.

It would be possible for some racist to give the phrase his own twist, but the phrase itself has no racial content at all, given or implied. 86.148.55.210 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

comment

What a disgrace for wikipedia to address Wallace Fard Muhammad as a criminal, not as a person. He is obviously persecuted in his time an now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.153.114.141 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

"Fard" did three years in prison for narcotics, under his real name, Wallace Dodd.Verklempt 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fard never did time in prison at all. He was sent to jail in his 2nd or 3rd year of teaching and he was sent there for teaching black people a superior knowledge then what the world has ever had. Also for aquainting black people with the truth of their history. Not to say that blacks were always perfect but to give a better view on black people after feeling as if there was nothing for them that they were able to do. He used history to encourage, and the natural law of evolution means that black people would be smarter and better today then back then, so they could easily get to and surpass the greatness that they had achieved in the past but with such ease in the present and future. Also his true name is Wali Fard Muhammad, and really he calls it an attribute because names are supposed to be an identifyer of your attributes, or characteristic. His name means a protecting friend (Wali) that is obligatorily (Fard) worthy of praise (Muhammad).

Some sources for that would be useful. The name stuff is interesting, and it should be easy enough to find whether he was jailed for narcotics or religious persecution. 86.148.55.210 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Black?

This is ridiculous, many 'blacks' do not have dark skin. Also why is the standard for external links on this article unlike the standard used in other articles such as 'Yogananda'? In other words the Yogananda article (like many others) include links to organizations which spring from that subjects disciples. Yet in this article my attempts to post a link to a Buddhist organization which springs from Wallace Ford are always erased. Why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.15.57 (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not black? Look at the blacks, they have dark skin, he could be Italian or a mixed, but he's not a black.

82.3.233.109 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He was from New Zealand, probably of mixed parentage.Verklempt 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, what do you call one that is light skinned, you call them black. They put down black when they tell of their race. If they are mixed America calls them black. Why? The black trait is a dominent trait in genetics so you have to go with that of which that is more dominent. Master Fard Muhammad (to whom be praised forever) is mixed, by a Black Original Man named Alfonso, and a white woman who was the most purified woman in the world. Master Fard Muhammad, Allah in the person is a Black Man.

Of course there is no evidence for your claims. He put himself down as white on the 1920 census.Verklempt 01:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong in the date because they didn't take census that year. It was every 5 years starting in 1901, so you it would've had to have been in 1921, secondly who wrote it, Wallace Fard Muhammad or Wallace Dodd Ford because these are two different people.

Is that so? Perhaps you shold read the 1920 US Federal Census. Paul B (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "black trait", and gene "dominance" is not decided by the entirely man-made concept that we think of as "race". Using these terms proves that you don't know anything about science. I suggest you read a biology book sometime. While you're at it, a sociology book wouldn't hurt either. StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

his bibliography?

How many book(lets) is he known or believed to have written besides the Secret Rituals of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam? Do they remain in print? Шизомби (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammads

For wiki purposes, what name would be best to consistently identify this person? Any thoughts? For sanity's sake I'd love to NOT use Muhammad in order to distinguish between him and Elijah Muhammad and other NOI members names Muhammad, but I'm open to suggestions. Njsamizdat (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? We can just use "Muhammad" if it is obvious which individual is being referred to, just as we can simply say "Smith", when it's obvious that it's a particular individual rather than one of the hundreds of other notable Smiths. However, WFM is typically called "Fard" when a single name is being used. Paul B (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

well, as far as is known, Fard didn't USE the name "Mohammad/Muhammad" ever. It was a "postumous" apelation.Ericl (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Allah sent Buddha"?

It says in the UFO section that Muslims believe that Allah sent all the prophets, and includes Buddha in the list. Is this true, that Muslims consider Buddha a prophet like Moses and Jesus? Or is this a NOI belief? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC) This is a NOI belief, Contemporary Muslims only mention notable people from the Middle East before Muhammad's birth.

Is he even black?

He doesn't appear to have the hair texture that black people possess and his skin looks too light in the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.106.202 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He's white but with an Italian like complexion. I searched up in a white nationalist forum stating that he was mixed race, half Maori and half English from New Zealand. Strangely enough wikipedia sais he was born in Zard Afghanistan, meaning that he's ... Afghani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.2.59 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ideology

We don't have much evidence of Fard's ideology, as there are no known copies of his original book. No one ever mentioned UFOs in connection with Fard, that's for sure. That was a later interpretation by Elijah Muhammad. This section should be completely rewritten, outlining what little is known about his ideology, with a link to the NOIs ideology section. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Imprisonment

There is something wrong with this passage in the text:

While the question of W. F. Muhammad's identity is controversial, NOI representative, Louis Farrakhan, does accept that Fard was imprisoned, due to lack of proof. He insists that this was because W.F. Muhammad's preaching threatened the racial status quo, and not because of any criminal acts. However, the Nation of Islam refuses to even consider this possibility.

Does Farrakhan accept that Fard was imprisoned? If so, what is the meaning intended by the subsequent phrase "due to lack of proof"? It sounds to me that Farrakhan accepts that Fard was imprisoned but denies that Fard was guilty of any criminal acts. "However, the Nation of Islam refuses to even consider (the) possibility" (of what?) the possibility that Fard was imprisoned?

I can only guess at what was meant by the editor(s) who wrote the current text. It needs to be cleaned up so that the meaning is clearer.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The text has been recently garbled. Farrakhan accepts that Fard was imprisoned, but not for drug-dealing. He is referring to his arrest after the ritual murder in 1932. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Mother plane

I don't have access to it but anyone confirm the source actually says he left on "the mother plane"?? Really? The mother plane? --Sabre ball ^{t c} 11:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Where is the citation for this claim? Whose viewpoint is it, NOI or some made up point? We don't know and I move that this be stricken until proper sources can be cited for the opinion that he is on a Mother Plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.98.80 (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The claim is already cited. The Mother Plane is a standard part of NOI cosmology and since W.F. Muhammad is God he can be on the Mother Plane just as easily as anywhere else. I don't see any problem. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"The view of opponents of the Nation of Islam is as follows."

That seems like an incredibly tendentious statement -- who says that presenting a particular (documented) accounting of a history is an "enemy" of anything? PolarBearInTheJungle (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

When you see something that obviously sticks out like that, it's usually a recent addition by a True Believer [2]. Paul B (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ideology section: a radical proposal

The Ideology section in this article certainly needs work. There is one entire section, for instance, without any citations. I can't help but think that readers be directed to the Nation of Islam article's Beliefs & Theology section and that this article's section be reduced to highlight any divergences with the present Nation of Islam philosophy/theology.

What do you all think? Mr. Harman (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

How time flies. Here it is, about 2 months later and I have removed the Ideology section. It had/has only two references, both to a Nation of Islam website, and it is unclear to me (or anyone reading this section) how W F Muhammad's ideology differs/differed from the present Nation of Islam ideology. As far as I know, W. F. Muhammad never actually wrote down his ideology and what is referenced is what the Nation of Islam has to say on the matter.

If I'm wrong, please correct me. I am not against an Ideology section, but let's get some reliable sources. Thanks, Mr. Harman (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I reverted recents edits by a new editor that moved the pre-Detroit sections of this biography to the bottom of the article and headlined them as counterintelpro, implying that they are mis- or dis-information. These pre-Detroit sections are well-referenced and it is general Wikipedia policy to keep biographies in chronological order. Thanks, Mr. Harman (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Black Supremacy

It is my interpretation, after reading some works by this guy, that he was clearly a black supremacist. I mean, come on, he advocated killing "4 white devils" regularly to satisfy god. Is anyone opposed to labeling him as such in the lead?--Ðrdak (T) 23:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Additions

I've temporarily reverted to the established version, even though there were many good things in the new version. Part of the problem is that it was confusingly cited and sometime presented NOI dogma as fact. I do not have time to go through the edits in detail at the moment, but will do so in the next few days. Obviously other editors may wish to do so. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Only two sources

Well this idea is nice, but seems wrong. Our article on Elijah Mohammed says "Poole said he approached Fard and asked if he was the redeemer. Fard responded that he was, but that his time had not yet come." this would seem to be contemporary reporting, and I would suspect that there is a lot more with someone as prominent as WFM. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC).

What "idea"? What is this comment responding to? WFM wasn't at all 'prominent' in his day. Paul B (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

New version

The "new" version of this article has been reverted by at least three separate editors (not including two reversions by IPs). While it was up it was quickly given "primary" and "original research" tags by yet another editor. The stable version of the article - whatever shortcomings it may have - has remained untagged for a long time. I think this in itself indicates that the newer version preferred by Kwm1975 does not have consensus. A series of unconnected editors quickly felt that there were serious problems with it. There are some matters that are probably unresolvable. The NOI says his date of birth in 1877. I know of no independent source that accepts that, though there is some uncertainty whether 1893 is correct. The material on the FBI was not cited and contains a great deal of irrelevant material about false leads. Much of the other content is cited to booklets written by WFM and Elijah Muhammad. This is not the kind of citation required by WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, Kwm1975 has been reported for edit warring — BranStark (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wallace Fard was his name.

He never referred to himself as "Fard Mohammed." Ericl (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk page

Your Recent Wallace Fard Muhammad Discussion

You made the argument to kwm1975 that Wikipedia is not for Nation of Islam dogma with regard to the Wikipedia page of its founder, Wallace Fard Muhammad. The Wikipedia page of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, states: "Smith's first recorded revelation was a rebuke from God for having let Martin Harris lose 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript, chastising him for "fearing man more than God." The revelation was given in the voice of God, and Smith, as a speaker, was absent from the revelation. Subsequent revelations would take on a similar authoritative style, often opening with words like "Hearken O ye people which profess my name, saith the Lord your God."

The reason that this Wikipedia page, and the Wikipedia pages of every religious founder, contains the dogma of the group that they founded is due to the fact that the teachings and beliefs of the founder form the basis of their life's work. The Nation of Islam teaches that White people are the devil. As a result, Whites (and some Blacks) often argue that their teachings should not be repeated. But how can you have a Wikipedia page of a religious founder, like Joseph Smith for example, void of the founder's teaching simply because it makes some uncomfortable?

Your article on Wallace Fard Muhammad, which is now his Wikipedia page, presents the history of Mr. Wallace Dodd Ford as if that history is unquestionably the history of Wallace Fard Muhammad. This view, while appropriate to serve as the opinion of whoever shares the view, cannot be presented as conclusive fact in light of the FBI file's clear explanation of the origin of the Ford/Fard link.

Unquestionably anyone who challenges your approach, and the approach of your colleagues, will face a high barrier in any effort to replace your article with a new Wikipedia page containing Wallace Fard Muhammad's "dogma" given the nature of his teaching. But for the record - you are simply wrong on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801 (talk • contribs)

You know perfectly well that the article on Smith makes it very clear that the "relevations" described are from his point of view. You will have had to have read half the article before coming upon that passage, by which time the context of his claims to revelation have been discussed in detail. However, I'm not defending that paricular passage. Frankly, I don't even know what is meant by "The revelation was given in the voice of God, and Smith, as a speaker, was absent from the revelation." I'm guessing it means he heard the voice of God inside his own head, but it's far from clear. Wikipedia is full of other stuff that could be improved. But that's a matter for discussion at the Joseph Smith article. In any case, you misunderstood what I said. Of course the view of the NOI should be expounded in the article - in the sense that its opinion of WFM should be explained, but the article should not propound that view. Also, from an academic pov, it's an extreme minority view. There are always going to be differences between articles, because sources differ. In the case of Smith, there is very little dispute about the facts of his life. The dispute is about interpretation. In the case of WFM the NOI view is so wholly divergent from the scholarly view that we have the problem of how to integrate it. There is also very little evidence left by WFM himself, and information about his movements has been reconstructed. Even his opinions are not clearly or fully known.

I should add that you don't help youself by edit warring, making wild accusations and sockpuppeting. This is the first time you have even tried to discuss content, despite months of attempting to alter the content of the article, which, by the way, is not "mine". I wrote very little of it. Paul B (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am still interested in hearing your justification for presenting the Ford/Fard link as absolute fact rather than opinion? It is not possible for anyone to have a "scholarly" opinion of this linkage because there is only: 1) the FBI file, 2) what Fard wrote, 3) what Fard said to his followers, and 4) speculation. "Scholars" have developed their own beliefs, but all revert back to sources providing inconclusive data. In the absence of data, some believe that Ford must be Fard. But the original source material upon which these opinions rest are themselves inconclusive. So how can we reach a conclusive opinion that Ford is Fard simply because a few people write books, using the same inconclusive original source (where their personal opinion is that Ford is Fard). You should delete headlines like "Marriages" and "Bootlegging" and simply state how some people formed the opinion that Ford is Fard, then give a history of Ford titled as such. Your "Founding the Nation of Islam" and "Disappearance" sections give random statements based upon what? The problem with this Wikipedia page, in my view, is that Fard taught a doctrine harsh on Whites, so there is a high probability that consensus among White commentators on Wikipedia will support whatever is deemed to be a harsh view of Fard (like your "Bootlegging" section). What should prevail? The unquestionable statements of J. Edgar Hoover inventing a Ford/Fard link in black and white text in the FBI file, or Wikipedia consensus among people who do not like Fard's message? Perhaps Wikipedia must rely solely upon consensus even if it contradicts plain evidence. But I believe the more responsible approach would be to present to Wikipedia readers the fact that there is a difference of opinion with reference to sources relied upon by those carrying those opinions. Even a minority view should be presented this way, because the subject matter involves religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801 (talk • contribs)

Since I assume you are Kwm1975, you should not be editing as you are blocked. Your argument with scholars is called "original research" here on Wikipedia. We don't as a rule try to prove specialists and academics wrong by arguing against them. I suggest you take the time you are blocked to read WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH. Honestly, you are far more likely to get legitimate points across if you learn about the website's policies and methods of consensus building. Also, please sign your posts. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia policy requires that "scholars" disagreeing with this page should be ignored, and original material should be ignored, but "scholars" of only one opinion should be cited due to consensus among those longing on, then I will just leave this site alone. 2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801

PROPOSED NEW EDIT - I WELCOME FEEDBACK BEFORE MAKING THE EDIT

Each year, a mini-museum of sorts is put together during the Nation of Islam’s annual convention which includes many hand-written documents from Wallace Fard Muhammad. His personal secretary wrote a book about her experience working closely with him in Michigan in the early 1930s. Numerous past members of the Nation of Islam have recounted their experiences with him during the Nation of Islam’s founding. Letters and instructions to his laborers are in the possession of various members of the Nation of Islam, and relatives of past members. Lessons, instructions, classes, and laws prepared by him have been strictly enforced and memorized by hundreds of thousands of people over many decades. Sources hostile to the Nation of Islam placed the number of followers during his time in Michigan at 8,000, and other sources place the number as high as 25,000. From these followers, developed a well-established account of what actually took place.

With the above history in existence, many people familiar with his work have become frustrated with the poor representation of Wallace Fard Muhammad on Wikipedia (according to notes on the edit page). I became frustrated in this way recently and was blocked from making edits because of the way that I chose to handle the frustration. I have thought about ways that I could approach this subject better.

Please consider the comment made by someone on Wallace Fard Muhammad’s edit page on November 20, 2014 (I believe this point was deleted today but I will leave my point because it illustrates what I'm trying to say). The editor states: “He was never called ‘Mohammed’ during his lifetime and we shouldn’t call him that now.” This editor clearly has not seen the material written by Wallace Fard Muhammad containing the name Muhammad. One of his lessons, memorized by literally hundreds of thousands of members of the Nation of Islam since the 1930’s, begins with the words “My name is W.F. Muhammad…” His instructions to his laborers contain the title “W.D. Fard Muhammad.” As Elijah Muhammad stated in his book Message to the Blackman, “[i]n the third year (1933), He signed his name W.F. Muhammad which stands for Wallace Fard Muhammad.”

Anyone familiar with this subject would wonder, why would someone attempt to edit this Wikipedia page if they have not even read the most basic material written by Wallace Fard Muhammad? But there are obviously a vast number of people making edits to this page of this type.

In my previous edits to this page, I took the position that people making comments like this were “intentionally” placing false information on this page. However, I must consider the fact that many editors have made factually inaccurate contributions unknowingly. For that reason, I have attempted to take the view of such writers into consideration more carefully. It is my intention to edit this page, but I wanted to post my intentions first to receive feedback from those that have written in the past.

The opening sentence on the current version of the Wikipedia page of Wallace Fard Muhammad, under the title Wallace D. Fard, states:

“Historians have used public records to identify Fard as Wallace Dodd Ford, a former restaurateur and Moorish Science Temple leader.”

Any Wikipedia reader who reads this sentence would falsely believe that there exists somewhere a historian that conducted research and discovered that Wallace Fard Muhammad is Wallace Dodd Ford. There is absolutely no historian of this type.

Karl Evanzz is cited as a source for the above sentence. However, Karl Evanzz states in his publication that he did not conduct research and identify Fard as Ford. Rather, he states clearly that he performed a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI in 1978. He states that it took the FBI 10 years to answer. He states that the FBI file contained a Fard / Ford connection and he simply recounted what he saw in their file. He then recounts the experience of other scholars who wanted to know about Wallace Fard Muhammad, and how they conducted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI themselves. No historian “used public records to identify Fard as Wallace Dodd Ford.”

I raise the above point to illustrate the core problem editing this Wikipedia page. There is one extremely hostile source – the FBI. And there is one extremely flattering source – the Nation of Islam. Writers, historians, authors, etc. either quote the FBI or they quote the Nation of Islam. There is nothing else to cite as a reference other than someone quoting the FBI (like Evanzz) or someone quoting the Nation of Islam.

If someone unfamiliar with the subject goes to the current Wikipedia page of Wallace Fard Muhammad, they would believe the following false information:

1) That historians found a Fard / Ford connection through research of public records and the connection is unquestionable. In reality, the cited source simply quoted portions of the contents of an FBI file (a fact not contained on the Wikipedia page).

2) That Fard was born in 1893. In reality, Wallace Dodd Ford was born in 1920, and Wallie D. Ford was born in 1891, and the founder of the Nation of Islam said that he was born in 1877.

3) That he was affiliated with the Moorish Science Temple. In reality, Wallie Ford’s wife says that he “never had any unusual political, economic, social or religious beliefs, and that he had never indicated any interest in such things.” Yet Wikipedia readers are to take as absolute fact the belief that he was released from a multi-year prison sentence in California at the end of May 1929, then he was placed in charge of finances of the successful Moorish Science Temple two months later and was a candidate for leadership of the group at that time (a few weeks after being released from prison). Wikipedia readers are also to believe that he raised 8,000 members according to hostile sources, and 25,000 members according to NOI sources, while preaching for only 3 years and 4 months having no brush with religion of any kind in his life’s history prior. There is a level of intellectual dishonesty present when the theory is advanced that the Moorish Science Temple (with all its followers) had a guy a few weeks out of prison rise to the top of its ranks with such speed, then produce a larger and more devoted following than arguably any religious teacher in the modern era in 3 years and 4 months. If this theory is advanced, intellectual honesty requires that it be presented as what it is - a theory advanced and believed by some with absolutely no concrete evidence to support it.

4) That Moorish Science is similar to the teaching of the Nation of Islam. Whoever wrote this on this Wikipedia page has obviously spent little to no time reading the teachings of Wallace Fard Muhammad or Noble Drew Ali.

5) That Wallace Fard Muhammad wrote a book called Secret Rituals of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam – an allegation made by the NOI’s detractors in the early years - with no evidence to support the allegation (a fact unknown to Wikipedia readers). It defies logic that an entire book could exist, written by Wallace Fard Muhammad, that no one affiliated with him knew about, including his staff, his secretary, his laborers, and followers. Extreme care was taken by a lot of people to distribute his words through a carefully arranged procedure, with followers following an established process to obtain lessons via mail. We are supposed to believe that no one knew that he had written an entire book, and it failed to find its way into use, dialogue, etc. from devoted followers. But only detractors knew about it? There is too much history from actual people - history that could not be true if such a book was written by him. People that are trying to contribute to this page using Google searches and a few hostile sources are not able to appreciate how unfounded this actually is.

6) That Wallace Fard Muhammad’s founding of the NOI was nothing more than selling items, Moorish Science, and a ritual killing. Nothing of the actual known history is referenced. If this were the intellectually responsible way to present his founding of the Nation of Islam, why would so many people have been affected in so deep a way for so many years by such? Evanzz described the FBI's search for Fard as the federal government's most exhaustive search for someone in a non-criminal matter in the country's history. Would this really have happened for a guy who sold some items, quoted some Moorish Science, then inspired a ritual killing, and disappeared? The history requires an effort to balance these assertions.

7) That Wallace Fard Muhammad didn’t teach anything. The Wikipedia page is void of his actual teaching. I quoted a passage from Message to the Blackman in a previous edit where Elijah Muhammad recounts what Wallace Fard Muhammad taught, but someone came behind me and deleted everything after the words “some of the planets other an earth” to give the impression that he taught nothing but tidbits about God and the devil and other planets.

These problems exist in my view because the entire Wikipedia page is a recitation of the FBI’s COINTELPRO assertions – quoted by people that conducted Freedom of Information Act requests, such as Evanzz. I previously attempted to bring balance to this page by saying basically, “On one hand those citing the FBI say this……, and those citing the NOI say this……..” My edit was deleted and the current page was reinstated. I believe it was deleted, in part, because the people contributing to this page believe there was some research independent of the FBI’s COINTELPRO actions cited by Evanzz and others.

I have decided to take a new approach that will satisfy those who take the FBI based assertions as gospel while simultaneously providing balance. Specifically, I will include the following:

a) The FBI’s May 16, 1957 memo states that no effort had been made to locate W.D. Fard and the effort began for the first time, at that time (23 years after his disappearance). A search of the name Ford brought two suspects, one of which was a prominent movie actor. The second was Wallie D. Ford, whose wife was interviewed and criminal history at San Quentin examined. The FBI closed all efforts to locate Fard on April 15, 1958. The FBI then published an article on August 15, 1959 in the New Crusader Newspaper of Chicago stating that Fard Muhammad was a Turkish born Nazi agent for Hitler during World War II, and Fard and Elijah Muhammad came up with the idea for the Nation of Islam while in prison together in Milan, Michigan in 1943. I will cite sources that have been openly hostile to the NOI for this information, including Evanzz. I will also cite the New Crusader Newspaper.

b) FBI Feb. 19, 1963 memo states “in connection with efforts to disrupt and curb growth of the NOI, extensive research has been conducted into various files maintained by this office. Among the files reviewed was that of Wallace Dodd Ford.” The file goes on to outline Wallace Dodd Ford’s criminal history and family history, then it states “investigative efforts to verify this were negative.” Ed Montgomery publishes his article on July 28, 1963, with the FBI as his source, in the Los Angeles Evening Herald-Examiner “Black Muslim Founder Exposed As White.” I will cite LA Evening Herald-Examiner, Evanzz, and FBI Feb. 19, 1963 memo.

c) Lastly, in the late 1970s and 1980s, Freedom of Information Act requests are made to the FBI regarding Wallace Fard Muhammad. Some seeking the requests, published material containing the FBI file info.

d) I will include a detailed history of Wallace Fard Muhammad’s activities during the 1930 to 1934 founding of the NOI citing a white professional who interviewed numerous members of the NOI during those years.

e) I will utilize Wallace Fard Muhammad’s own words to outline his teaching. I will also include the rest of the cite from Message to the Blackman that was partially cut by a previous editor. Lastly, I will include his dietary law which is among the most important aspects of his message that tens of thousands follow from his teaching today.

f) The above will be woven into the current Wikipedia page.

g) The In Culture section contains a reference to the book Middlesex, which has no societal significance. I am going to add to the In Culture section references to quotes of Wallace Fard Muhammad in Hip-Hop music, among the Black community, which is most affected by his work. Wallace Fard Muhammad and Minister Louis Farrakhan are arguably the most quoted people in the history of Hip-Hop music. I will add a few quotes from recent artists like Jay Z - "I'm going to chase the Yacub back in the cave," Jay Electronica - "God tribe of Shabazz stylin' on the record," and quotes from years ago like Brand Nubian - "This asiatic black man is a dog spelled backwards The maker, the owner, the cream of the planet earth Father of civilization, God of the universe," or Wu Tang Clan, Poor Righteous Teachers, Rakim, etc.

The above outlines my intention. I welcome feedback before making these edits.

Kwm1975 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL POINT BEFORE EDITING

In my talk section above, I have requested feedback on my proposed edit to the Wallace Fard Muhammad page. I have an additional point that I would like to receive feedback on prior to editing the page.

In prior discussions on the talk page, the valid point was raised by others that the page should begin with the reason that Wallace Fard Muhammad has a Wikipedia page to begin with. The current page does not give such information at all. But in any event, such information should not only be included, it should form the way that the page begins. There was a response previously to this point on the talk page stating that his biography is important to the issue of how he is viewed, so the biography controversy should go first according to someone who posted previously.

While that is at least a point to consider, it is also true that Wallace Fard Muhammad is personally responsible for more people being converted to the religion of Islam than any other individual human being in world history since the Prophet Muhammad himself. This is a historical fact. The Nation of Islam has several offshoot organizations that are religious in nature, and offshoot organizations that are secular in nature. Even the most harsh critic of Wallace Fard Muhammad and Elijah Muhammad, among the followers of Warith Deen Mohammed for example, are always forced to admit that the Blacks in their organization would be Christians at this very moment (with a very small exception) if it were not for the coming and work of Wallace Fard Muhammad. This is only one example. When you add the Muslims in the Nation of Islam, the Muslims in the offshoot religious organizations, individuals converted to Islam through the work of the Nation of Islam who did not join the organization, people converted internationally in places like London, Central, and South America, and Canada, you can not find an individual personally responsible for a religious conversion on this scale recently. And each month there are new members added to the roles of the Nation of Islam domestically and internationally because there are literally tens of thousands of people memorizing and taking to heart his instruction to "help to Arise the dead Nation, and place them on top of civilization."

I do not intend to reference the above facts in my edit. I raise this point to simply place into perspective who we are dealing with.

Further, there is no aspect of Black life in America that has not been deeply affected and influenced by the Nation of Islam. This includes politics, culture, music, art, education, sports, science, medicine, diet, and economics. I could elaborate on this point for those unaware of this subject, but please consider all of the influences of the graduates from Muhammad Universities of Islam since the 1950's to the present, the influence of the NOI's farm projects, banks, entrepreneurial endeavors (particularly from the 1940s through the 1970's), the engineers and doctors who say that they went into those fields because of the way that fields of science were pushed by the NOI, NOI Ministers such as Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, and Warith Deen Mohammed, the Jesse Jackson presidential campaign, any number of local political controversies with the NOI at the center, sports figures from Muhammad Ali all the way down to current football and basketball stars, Black participation in U.S. wars (this issue is how Elijah Muhammad was arrested), Hip-Hop artists like Public Enemy, 1960's so-called Black power organizations (on the secular front) whose founders say that they decided to start their groups after hearing the NOI, international issues and influences on world leaders like Muammar Gaddafi who loaned Elijah Muhammad money and appointed Louis Farrakhan the deputy commander of a world Islamic people's organization, and African leaders who say that they grew up listening to NOI tapes. I could go on for hours on this subject. Even in yesterday's news and in social media over the last week, the NOI influence on the Ferguson Missouri debate is significant and it is all based upon what Wallace Fard Muhammad said. This is not even to mention the NOI's influence on the church and Christian pastors. Also, ask almost any Black person that goes to prison about the influence of Islam from the NOI's work, in the prison system since Elijah Muhammad's incarceration and the incarceration of many others in the group. It is immeasurable and talked about significantly in the Black community.

The point is this. Whether we want to admit it or not, and whether someone believes Wallace Fard Muhammad was not who he says that he was, millions of Black Americans will say that the core message and organizational system that he is responsible for creating, had significant immeasurable influence upon their lives. This is who we are dealing with on this Wikipedia page. I do not intend to go into the above in my edit.

Having said that, how do you begin the Wikipedia page of a person whose theology and teaching is responsible for the above? The answer is that you begin the page with what the person did and how they are viewed in the context of their life's work by the people they influenced. People who are doing specific things in situations like Ferguson Missouri today only because they are thinking about things that he said. You do not begin the page with the thinking of people off to the side who do not like him or believe him. After a proper introduction of why the person is being talked about, then you go into the deeper analysis.

It is my intention, when I make my new edit that is referenced in my talk section above, to also start the page differently. I welcome comments on this point as well.

Kwm1975 (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwm1975 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Shabazz

The edit that has just been added about the name "Shabazz" should not be included. First, Fard did not claim that all human beings belong to the tribe of Shabazz except Whites. He said the subsaharan blacks migrated into Africa 50,000 years ago and they are from the ancient tribe of Shabazz. It makes no sense to pull this one title (Shabazz) out of the vast array of teachings of Fard, and discuss it by itself. Your comments about Shabazz includes a lot of speculation and facts that I would disagree with. But it is not necessary for us to go in depth into this now in my view, because there is no logical reason to discuss Shabazz on this page. I intend to delete the Shabazz references because it does not add to the overall page, it is not accurate, and it is unnecessary and not helpful.

It seems the author of the Shabazz references has some personal beliefs about the name Shabazz and Afghanistan. Perhaps an article in another forum or publication would be best to discuss those views. But the references in your section are mere speculation, not supported by facts. They are also unnecessary on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwm1975 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Opening Section

A few edits were made by Nijacunning to the original "Beynon's Account" section that I included previously. The purpose of this brief dialogue is to explain why I am changing the language back to the way it was when I originally included the section on Beynon.

Before I included a section on Beynon, it was my opinion that there was nothing included about Fard's actual activity among his followers. I intentionally used Beynon as my source of information for Fard's activity in the opening section because there is a degree of skepticism among many contributors to this site about Nation of Islam sources. Obviously, the only people who actually have a first hand account of Fard's activities among his followers, is his actual followers (from the Nation of Islam). So I thought long and hard about how I could include the relevant facts that are not in dispute about Fard's activity, without drawing skepticism. I solved the problem by using Beynon as my only source. Thus far, it seems that people do not have a problem with the Beynon section.

Beynon never met Fard. He interviewed Fard's followers. From his interviews, we have two separate items of interest: 1) facts derived from Beynon's discussions with followers, and 2) Beynon's opinion about various things from those discussions. Among the items that can be classified as "opinion" is the characterization of the Nation of Islam as a "cult."

I intentionally included in my original draft "facts" that are not in dispute. I excluded Beynon's opinion items. I did so because Beynon is not the only person with an opinion, and there are many people whose opinion is arguably worth more consideration on this than his.

It appears that Nijacunning changed the language of the section so that it now provides both items that can reasonably be classified as "opinion" and items that followers of Fard would dispute. If such items are included, the site would have to include the view of the other side. However, I do not believe it would be reasonable to go down that road because the items presented by Nijacunning actually do not add value. For example, the words "Like other Arab and Syrian peddlers, he..." does not add to the reader's knowledge of Fard. It only shows that Nijacunning and/or Beynon personally believe that Fard's actions were like Arab and Syrian peddlers. It goes without saying that the words "The founder of the cult..." simply raise a non-factual point of dispute. This is why I did not discuss Beynon's "cult" language in the body of the article. Readers are able to see his title in the footnotes and read the article for themselves.

For the actual body of the article, I believe it is best to simply include undisputed facts. Every undisputed fact of value is included in the original draft. For this reason, I am changing the language back to the way it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwm1975 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wolverine Possession Act?

Google is obviously not a comprehensive research tool, but it still seems strange to me that googling "wolverine possession act" only yields this page and references to it (and "wolverine possession act" -fard produces a single reddit conversation that avoids WFM's name but still quotes this page)

Was there actually such a law or is this a long standing hoax? 2A02:908:1062:5260:34D5:F94F:2506:FC03 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

History lacking

In the current version [3], the biography/history section seems to be lacking. For example, it quotes extensively about how the FBI looked in to the Wallie D. Ford of California arrested 1926, interviewing his wife, tracing his family history, finding his draft card etc. But it doesn't seem to provide any real info on why the FBI was sure this person was Wallace Fard Muhammad other than they they conducted a search for people with similar aliases based on Beynon's article and only found Wallie D. Ford and the actor.

Above, I see some mention of photographs and fingerprints of the two, but our article doesn't mention this currently. In the absence of some clear link, the obvious problem is the possibility the FBI simply failed to find the real Wallace Fard, perhaps because it wasn't his real name but an alias rarely used before he appeared in Michigin. (And this was long before computerisation plus records does days were likely sketchy, after all it's not clear when or where he was born.) While Wallace or WD Fard seems a bit of a weird alias there was after all the actor who's name may have appeared in the papers or whatever. Notably, given the politics of the time, it seems sources would generally want to take care about automatically trusting the FBI without looking at the evidence. (Some commentators above suggested planted evidence, but that's a far more extreme accusation than they simply failed to find the real person.)

On that point, has there been no independent scholarly analysis? Our article briefly mentions Karl Evanzz and other authors who looked at the FBI file, but doesn't really say anything about whether they looked at the evidence and found it convincing that Wallie D. Ford was Wallace Fard Muhammad. (And interesting point is whether anyone has done a search given that a number of historic records and now computerised and publicly available for anyon other people with similar names or aliases.) By the same token, there seems very little info on why he disappeared in 1934, but I assume some sources must have looked in to it.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)