Talk:Five-Percent Nation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).


Seeking consensus and providing reliable sources[edit]

@Packierooney123: Please do not re-add contested material without gathering consensus. See WP:ONUS. As multiple editors have suggested, citing reliable sources would go a long way toward establishing that consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for a source. I haven't introduced any new information. The 5 percent nation clearly believe in the Black Race and the supremacy of the Black race. Essentially, my source is already on the 5 Percent Nation page. Packierooney123 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Packierooney123: Wikipedia policies of WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research mean that you do need to cite a source other than your own interpretation. This is particularly true when other editors have raised questions about the legitimacy of your addition: Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, and providing sources is by far the best (perhaps the only) way to persuade others of the legitimacy of what you'd like to add. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Five-Percent Nation. 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.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Myths and Realities[edit]

I am removing this entire section as being self serving and very poorly sourced. (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the section is less than neutral, but maybe the best approach would be to try to rewrite the section instead of removing it completely. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think removing it is still an option, it reads like it was written by a member of the movement, like its something you would find on an apologist website for the movement. At a minimum its title should be changed, though I think it should be removed completely and its contents distributed throughout the appropriate sections of the main article perhaps creating a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section to hold whatever won't fit in other sections.Javerthugo (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reading that section it's little more than just rehashing Five Percenter apologetics. It's not neutral at all, and cites only 5 Percenter sources. I think the entire section should be re-written. I suggest avoid using a "controversies and criticism" section, instead have sections for "Race", (or "racial teachings"), cite critics who say it is racist, and 5 percenters official policies on it. Then have a section for "women" or something like that, and discuss the accusations of chauvanism. Currently as written, it takes a strong POV that is inline with 5 Percent nation ideology and is little more than apologetics. I don't see it any differently than I do Mormonism which itself has issues with some of its past racial teachings. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the section. If I were to re-write it, I would use none of that material, since it's all written from a standpoint of defending the organization, and cites supporter literature. The section is little more than NGE apologetics. These issues and controversies should be covered, but it should use third party neutral sources. The issues of race and gender will be re-introduced using such sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it. The editor who restored it didn't even take part in this discussion. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The section was restored by @OjogbonIjinle: in this edit. I would like @Javerthugo: @FenixFeather: @ to give their thoughts. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't like this subsection. Reads too much like WP:CSECTION. I think relevant information should be merged into other parts of of the ideology section. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 01:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't like the sourcing. It's all 5 Percenter Apologists. The tone is "Here's why 5 Percenters are totally not racist and everyone is lying.". Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this section is bad. The language is terrible and it is severely POV. I don't see a lot of useful information in it and would support deleting the whole thing. Ashmoo (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This section uses diverse academic and interlocutor sources. The section is not only well-referenced, but it is also important given the racist misinformation that individuals seek to spread about the Five Percent Nation. Miyakawa, Washington, Keiler-Bradshaw are academics who are not Five Percenters; Gottherer and Lindsay, are White politicians who worked closely with the Five Percenters; Knight is a white man who studied with the Five Percenters, Azreal is a White Five Percenter. The findings of academics, members of the organization, politicians who worked with the organization, and peoples of various backgrounds who have studied the organization are important, especially when addressing myths about the organization.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This section states common misconceptions about the organization, with sources, and then provides well-sourced diverse documentation that dispels those misconceptions and myths. What specific issues are problematic with this section? Is the problem that certain individuals are not able to promote a "Five Percenters are racist" narrative in the light of evidence to the contrary? Is the problem that certain individuals are not able to promote a "Five Percenters oppress women" narrative in the light of evidence to the contrary? Why does factual information about this organization, from diverse sources, including the organization's founder, invoke ire? For historical, racial, and sociological reasons it is important to include information about Mayor Lindsay's and B. Gotterher's relationships with the Five Percent Nation. . . but this also undercuts the "Five Percenters are racist" line. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by OjogbonIjinle (talkcontribs) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC) OjogbonIjinle (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to integrate some of this content into other portions of the article, fine; I'm sure some of it could be presented neutrally and proportionately to its importance. But it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article on a religion to have a section that's explicitly apologetics for that religion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The section looks a lot like WP:POVPUSH. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dyrnych: I agree with your suggestion, and was thinking the same myself.

It is important that Wikipedia does not become or appear to be a collective of individuals of a certain demographic who think exactly alike who delete everything they personally don't agree with or don't believe in or like: that would amount to groupthink or worse tyranny. The "discussion" of this section amounted to, "I don't like..." or "this is all" but one's subjective over-generalized feelings about a quote or fact or person doesn't make that quote or fact or person invalid. Also a fact that contradicts a myth or a lie is no an apologetic. I wish we lived in a more civil and respectful and world, but we are all forced to make the best of the one in which we live.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And as such I have to say this section seriously failed NPOV, but giving undue weight to impartial five percenter sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV and original research in "Social impacts and impressions" section[edit]

"The Five Percent Nation has been portrayed as racist and anti-Caucasian; however, the nation's associations,[1][2] membership,[3] and principals[4][5][6] reveal this portrayal to be inaccurate. Allah the Father, stated repeatedly that he was "neither pro-black nor anti-white."[7] Allah's principles regarding race are echoed in various NGE literature and testimonies. In his "National Statement" given at Brookdale College in Monmouth County New Jersey in 1998, Dumar Wa'de Allah, National Spokesman for the NGE,[8] stated "... we are not anti-white, nor pro-black. In fact, we have white Five Percenters."[6] NGE websites and articles also state, "We as a collective are not anti-white nor pro-black. We are pro-righteous and anti-devilishment."[5][9][10]

The Five Percent "pro-righteousness and anti-devilishment" worldview is evident in Allah the Father's community and political relationships. Allah the Father worked closely with John V. Lindsay, the Mayor of New York from 1966–1973, and his aide, journalist Barry Gottehrer to further the Five Percent Nation's growth.[11][12] The Allah School in Mecca (New York), which was previously known as the Street Academy, was founded in 1966 through the Urban League with the help of Mayor Lindsay and Gottehrer. Wakeel Allah's In the Name of Allah includes photographs of Allah the Father along with Mayor John Lindsay and a group of Five Percenters on an airplane ride to a civic event organized by the mayor.[13]

There have been from the organization's inception Five Percenters of various ethnicities. The most well-known Caucasian Five Percenter is John Michael Kennedy, who met Allah in 1965. Allah proclaimed Kennedy a "righteous man" and renamed him Azreal.[14] Michael M. Knight's The Five Percenters includes a photo of a gathering of Five Percenters that includes Barkim, who Knight describes as "one of the earliest white Five Percenters" and his siblings.[15] Knight's book also includes two photos of Allah with Gottehrer, who Allah called "Moses."[16] Dr. Sujan Dass, who is better known as Supreme Understanding, is a Bangladeshi American Five Percenter and an influential and prolific writer. His book How to Hustle and Win: A Survival Guide For The Ghetto has been described as having the same impact on the hip hop generation as The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Alex Haley's Roots: The Saga of an American Family had on previous generations of African Americans.[17]"

It's a violation of WP:NPOV from the start, using the weasel word "however" and stating it Wikipedia's voice that its critics are incorrect. The rest is pure original research. What we can have, somewhere, is a sentence describing the critics positions (and I see no sources for critics) and a sentence describing the organisation's statements. I'm not sure what "as a collective" means, as it stands it looks as though it means there are members with different views. Note that we rarely use Wordpress logs, and this one seems to fail WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Washington, Teresa (2014). Manifestations of Masculine Magnificence: Divinity in Africana Life, Lyrics, and Literature. Oya's Tornado. p. 113. ISBN 978-0991073009.
  2. ^ Allah, Wakeel (2007). In the Name of Allah. A Team. pp. 138, 238.
  3. ^ Knight, Michael M. (2009). The Five Percenters. One World. pp. Pages xiii, 85–86, and plates 2, 6, 7, .
  4. ^ Allah, Saladin Quanaah (2010). "A.S.I.A." Retrieved 29 May 2018.
  5. ^ a b Allah, Jerule. "Welcome to the Love Allah website of the Gods and Earths!". Retrieved 29 May 2018.
  6. ^ a b Allah, Dumar Wa'de (1998). "A National Statement by Dumar Wa'de Allah". Retrieved 29 May 2018.
  7. ^ Knight, Michael (2009). The Five Percenters. One World. pp. xiii, 142, 227.
  8. ^ "R.I.P. God Dumar Wa'de Allah". 27 June 2013. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  9. ^ See also: Allah, Immortality Exegetical 120 (Randal Best) (28 November 2013). "State and federal prisons persecute Nation of Gods and Earth (Five Percenters)". Retrieved 29 May 2018.
  10. ^ Keiler-Bradshaw, Ahmon J. (2010). Voices of the Earth: A Phenomenological Study of Women in the Nation of Gods and Earths (PDF). Georgia State University: M.A. Thesis. p. 101.
  11. ^ Washington, Teresa N. (2014). Manifestations of Masculine Magnificence: Divinity in Africana Life, Lyrics, and Literature. Oya's Tornado. p. 113. ISBN 978-0991073009.
  12. ^ Allah, Wakeel (2007). In the Name of Allah. A Team. p. 138.
  13. ^ Allah, Wakeel (2007). In the Name of Allah. A Team. p. 238. ISBN 978-1599162003.
  14. ^ Knight, Michael M. (2007). The Five Percenters. One World. pp. 85–86. ISBN 978-1851686155.
  15. ^ Knight, Michael M. (2007). The Five Percenters. One World. pp. Plate 2. ISBN 978-1851686155.
  16. ^ Knight, Michael M. The Five Percenters. One World. pp. Plates 6 & 7 and page 112. ISBN 978-1851686155.
  17. ^ High, Tiffany (18 September 2008). "How to Hustle and Win". Retrieved 4 April 2019.

If you do not like the phrasing of the opening sentence, that is fine and can be changed. What members state, what researchers have found, and historical events are valid sources. An interview is an interview: How does an interview "fail"?OjogbonIjinle (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

These sections read more like apologetics than anything. It's taking the practiioners spin at face value and not questioning it. Of course the believers are gonna have some spin. It doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist! A good analogy would be Black people and Mormonism. If you were to just look at current Church of Mormon spin, they'd say that it's super anti-racist and teaches that everyone is equal and that there's no issue. You could fill the article with similar quotes to what is being used in this article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Harizotoh, is the actual objective to discredit anything that doesn't describe the Five Percent or them as a racist hate group? If that is not what they are, that is not what they are. If this organization was what you seem to want it to be, why would it allow Caucasians and people of various ethnic groups membership? Using your criteria, we would also need to describe Christianity and Islam as racist hate groups.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm using that as a counter-example, because if we were to use your approach to the issue of blacks and Mormonism the article would consist of a list of quotes from mormons explaining how it's a fallacy and a mischaracterize mormonism as ever having an issue with blacks and how the religion preaches equality of races. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
tend to agree this is very ORy and purffry.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Gods and Devils[edit]

"In the Name of Elijah Muhammad: Louis Farrakhan and The Nation of Islam" By Mattias Gardell, Duke University Press. "The name, Five Percenters, is derived from the NOI lesson that teaches that 85 percent of the African Americans are still asleep. Ten percent have gained knowledge but sold out to the white devils, that is, the “talented tenth” of W. E. B. Du Bois reevaluated. Five percent are the poor righteous teachers, missioned to preach the redeeming black Gnosis through which Lazarus will awake."[1]

Dirt McGirt(his article should mention his membership but doesn;t) wrote an ode to the Five Percent Nation meant to be called "The Black Man Is God, White Man Is the Devil" but that was thought to be too incendiary.[2]

[[Sping (magazine}} has an article saying that both blacks and whites can be devils.[3] That's echoed by Lord Jamar in a 2012 interview[4]but in 2014 he said something quite different:""Yep," answered Jamar when asked if the group holds to the teaching of the white man being a devil. "But now with that being said white people come from the black man. And the original devil, the strongest devil is a black devil. So, are the white people devils by themselves? No. They come from a stronger version of the devil, which was the original black man."[5]

This book by Supreme Understanding says "I let him know that we teach that the Black man is God. He looks at me and says, “So if the Black man is God, does that mean the white man is the devil?” I looked this man - the white creator of the show - right in his eye and said, “Yes it does.” At first, it was silence.Then, he responds, “I like it, I like that.” He liked it. That was the defining moment, because anybody else who wasn’t sure of themselves, or sure of what they’re dealing with, or just plain nervous, thinking, “Damn, if I say the white man is the devil that means he’s not going to give me the job.” Not me. I looked the top dude in his eye because he’s no bigger than me. Not physically, but as a person. I’m God so there’s no higher than God. Just because you’re the creator of the show doesn’t make you more supreme than me. I said, “Yes, it does mean that the white man is the devil.” He says, “I like it.”He put me in as Supreme Allah, a name I suggested" and "About eighty-five percent (85%) of the people on this planet, regardless of their race, color or creed does not know the true knowledge of the devil (or whiteman) because he’s hid it from them, and deceived them into believing his lie -that the devil is some creature wearing a red suit, with a long tail, two horns protruding from his head, carrying a pitch fork around, and living deep beneath the earth’s surface surrounded by everlasting flames of burning hellfire. And when the Nation of Gods and Earths reveals to them that the white man is the living devil who was grafted from Black people, they reject it at face value as being some kind of mendacious fairy tale, even with all the evidence that is available to prove it." It also says ""TheNation was not pro-Black nor anti-white, but pro-righteousnes and anti-devilishment, meaning they championed the cause o any person doing righteous acts and they were against an; person involved in negativity. Race was not an issue."[6]

As for "Gods", the belief is that whites cannot be gods. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC) {ref talk}}

Neutrality notice board[edit]

I've tagged this page for NPOV, and have raised this issue with the neutrality notice-board. I'd suggest interested parties make posts there to explain your positions.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Sources:[edit]

This article is in desperate need of more RS. Ideally, this would be academic books published by universities written by Phds in history or sociology of religion. These are peer reviewed, high quality, and have a tone that is neutral. Neither promotional nor derogatory. These kinds of books would be ideal to form the backbone of this article. But someone has to read them. I don't know of any books like this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 (talk) There are many Wikipedia articles desperately in need of the type of reliable source "backbone" you describe. As it relates to the Five Percent Nation page, the sources utilized in this article are diverse and reliable and include FBI files, prison records, newspaper and magazine articles (incl., AP, NPR, SPIN, VIBE, Today, Amsterdam News), books published by university presses (incl., Routledge, Cambridge, Indiana, NYU) sociological studies from major publishing houses (incl., St. Martins, Penguin subsidiary, HarperCollins) books and articles by university trained scholars, the majority being PhD holders, and/or experts in their fields, academics of various ethnicities, politicians of various persuasions and positions, and writers of various religious persuasions. It seems as if either certain editors are not actually reading the books, articles, quotes, references, or that those editors and their factions are ignoring or stalking, attacking, and deleting the information and sources because they don't fit their stereotype. Sadly, there are numerous examples of editors citing information from reliable sources only to have another editor covertly enlist a group/gang/mob of editors to stalk, harass, attack, and revert/delete the information from reliable sources while intimidating, threatening, and harassing the editor who quoted from a reliable source. . . I have seen this happen, quite recently, in fact.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)