Jump to content

Talk:Nation of Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:44b8:6117:b100:d21:7f28:485b:395a (talk) at 00:30, 14 November 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Not to be confused with Trolling

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Scientology Navbox

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

SPLC is not a primary source

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

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

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

'NOI' or 'the NOI'

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

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

Farrakhan commission

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

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

"Louis Farrakhan is entitled to personally receive a 10% commission on all money NOI members pay for Scientology auditing and a 15% commission on all money NOI members pay for Scientology courses. I don’t know what Farrakhan’s compensation plan is within the NOI, but with ~40,000+ NOI members, the relationship between the NOI & the Church of Scientology, Farrakhan stands to personally earn an awful lot of cash."[1] Doug Weller talk 13:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller. While I don't doubt the existence of a financial connection between the two organizations, neither a newspaper editorial nor an article in an opinion journal (such as National Review, which in turn cites The New Republic and several blogs) are reliable sources for making such allegations against a living person. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nation_of_Islam&oldid=926059647"