Talk:Nation of Islam

Heir apparent to Farrakhan, and Minister of Mosque No. 7

For some reason deleted .. seems notable enough for inclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nation_of_Islam&diff=1127553324&oldid=1127368763 2603:7000:2143:8500:6D0D:C3C7:DCA6:FCCD (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Heir apparent" is just journalese of course - not an official, or even widely used term. I would not object to a mention, a sentence or two, or what used to exist, a "members and former members" section. But I agree with the remover that this coverage was excessive - he isn't regarded as very important in most histories of the NoI AFAIK - unlike Malcolm X for example. Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Cult?

It's been called a cult over and over. Let's reflect that on this page.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

This is how this 1951 source is described on the site which published (parts of) it in 1995: While Dr. Sahib was undoubtedly fluent in his native language, the same cannot be said for his writing skills in English. For this reason one can only speculate as to whether the carefree syntax which often infuses the transcribed interviews of NOI members is mainly the product of the interviewer or the interviewee. Like most theses, Sahib' was hardly intended for publication in its original form and would have required extensive revision had he submitted it or sections thereof, to a journal or publishing house.

So this doctoral thesis from 1951 - was at the time unpublished and unpublishable. This is not a good source upon which to describe the NoI in the lead or infobox, and I have reverted the addition. Pincrete (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

MagicatthemovieS, you are asking the question the wrong way round, the question isn't "where is the source that justifies NoI being a cult, the real question is "do the majority of sources say it is a cult?". If not it doesn't belong in the lead and if only a relatively small number of recent sources say so, then it may or may not deserve a mention in the body as a criticism, rather than as a fact. If almost none, then no mention at all. Some people will always think that all religions are cults, or cult-ish, Pincrete (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

How many sources need to call it a cult before we can call it a cult? I don't get why it would be an issue if all the sources were new.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

How many sources need to call it a cult before we can call it a cult? the answer to that isn't a number, but it would need to be a clear majority of good sources to describe it thus as a fact. A smaller number would make it an (attributed) accusation. Seriously out of date ones or newspaper 'opinion pieces' from non-notables or in non-notable sources, would hardly justify a mention. Some atheist after all think all religions are cults! Pincrete (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So most of the good sources used in the article have to use the word "cult" before we can?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Before we can state it as a fact, and give it prominence, yes. If a respected org or a significant number of lesser sources have it as an opinion, we can record that opinion - much as we record its reputation for anti-Semitism and anti-gay rhetoric toward the end of the lead. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Done!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

The issue with these newer edits is that AFAIK we still lack a legitimate authority/expert that the statement can be properly attributed to. The "Forward" piece is written by a student with no qualifications; it's a "reader letter", so it doesn't count as a reliable source. I'd also not use Derek Brown, who's a journalist rather than a respected authority on cults; and I'd not use Christopher Hitchens, who called many things cults, and is also not an authority there. DFlhb (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

[link] says cult experts Steven Hassan and Rick Alan Ross called the group a cult. Is this enough for a line saying "Cult experts Steven Hassan and Rick Alan Ross have classified the group as a cult?"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Yes; thanks, that really looks like a great book. Feel free to add that; that book has quite a bit more on NoI that I'll try adding later if I have time. DFlhb (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Thoughts?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

a). The link you give says Hassan and Ross mention NoI on their website (dedicated to fighting cults) … that doesn't outright mean they say it IS a cult - they may simply mention in passing. I couldn't follow the cite in the book to verify that … b) content should be in the body before being in the lead, since the lead is simply a summary of the whole article,. Otherwise it seems OK for an attributed mention as you propose. I agree with DFlhb, on a quick look there appears to be other good stuff in 'your' book - including about NoI's relationship with mainstream Islam. Pincrete (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the sentence I came up with OK? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, IF they actually do describe it as a cult … the source isn't that explicit whether they do, or simply mention NoI. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

On page 22 of Hasan's dissertation, he cites an NOI incident as an example of "Litigation involving cults."MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

A passing mention in a doctoral thesis would be a very poor source for such a claim. Pincrete (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Are theses unreliable?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

That's not the issue, although some might be. A passing mention is probably WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 06:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

https://inthesetimes.com/article/an-exemplar-of-reconciliation — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I've checked both. Ross is available at [1]. He only links to press reprints, only a single one of which includes the word "cult" (in a quote of Michael Jackson's ex-wife). His site has a prominent Disclaimer that says the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a "cult", and since he provides no commentary of his own calling it a cult, this isn't usable.

Hassan's site includes a very similar disclaimer, and also provides no commentary of his own. All reprints he links that call NoI a "cult" are from Islamic leaders, but we already cover their criticism inline, and they only mention the term "cult" in passing (rather than being a serious analysis of whether it's a cult), so the term "cult" wouldn't even be due if attributed to them.

So I retract what I said; the sources still don't support adding this. DFlhb (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

On the Unequivocal Presentation of the NOI as a Form of Islam

Hello. I wanted to post in response to an editing dispute between User:SamuelRiv and I, to see if there are other editors who might want to weigh in. The issue in question surrounds whether the article should unequivocally present the NOI as a form of Islam. Given that the NOI's beliefs differ on almost every point from Islam, that no other Islamic group recognises them as Islamic, and that there does not seem to be a clear body of scholarship arguing that the NOI is Islamic, I do not think that we should be claiming, as if it were uncontested fact, that the NOI is a form of Islam. I think we should use more accurate language, such as that "The NOI presents itself as a form of Islam". SamuelRiv seems to disagree, believing that if the NOI calls itself an Islamic tradition, then Wikipedia should too. Perhaps this is something that might be settled with an RFC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Further, it should be noted, in terms of the BRD process, that the longstanding status quo of the article has been to avoid unequivocally calling the NOI Islamic. This status quo has been changed repeatedly by SamuelRiv in recent months (in August 2023 [2] and, on being reverted, again in November 2023 [3] and again, just now, in December [4]). The appropriate course of action would be for them to self-revert and try to seek consensus first, rather than edit warring to impose their desired change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There has not been a previous consensus, as the issue hasn't been discussed on the Talk page in years, and never in depth. Lack of attention isn't consensus. I first came to this article in response to an RfC on using SPLC criticism in the lead, and that raised some similar issues but in the end only got a vote on what to do with that critical material. Maybe there's been a status quo of using weasel words in the lead, but that's not proper. The most recent discussion on NOI vs Islam from 2016 was two editors and argued essentially the same point I will -- that if WP is going to take a stance that a contemporary religion is not really the religion they claim to be (in cases when it's not simply some deception) then that's a slippery slope that's about as POV-pushing as you can get.

NOI is pilloried theologically in Fishman and Soage 2013 before asking why despite heterodoxy cum heresy cum apostasy, much of the global Muslim community largely embraces NOI. We may look from the outside say "A can't be part of B because it contradicts B", but that kind of thing happens all the time throughout history in the necessary intermesh of religion and politics. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Weighing in here. Firstly I don't think present text (it practices a form of Islam, although this differs … ) does "unequivocally present the NOI as a form of Islam" - certainly not a mainstream form. I was concerned about the previous text (It identifies itself as practicing a form of Islam … ), not necessarily because I share the same concerns as SamuelRiv, but because it's a bit vague and ambiguous. The 'identifies itself as practising' implies that NoI says of itself we practice a form of Islam, whereas I'm sure they say we practice Islam. I'm sure we and sources agree that there are massive differences between NoI and 'Old World' Islam's beliefs and practices, and many 'Old World' muslims find NoI unrecognisable. But ecumenical considerations appear to outweigh any tendency to reject NoI outright - as incidentally happens with many US/Old World forms of Christianity. The beliefs and practices of 'privatised' US evangelical churches are often unrecognisable to European traditionalist Christian groups.

There may be a better way of recording how NoI differs from mainstream Islam, and how the two relate, but I don't think that the previous text achieved that. For reasons of clarity as much as anything, I endorse the present text until something better is proposed. Pincrete (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing! J E F-T (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"Differing from mainstream Islam" puts it very, very mildly. Just the initial premise that there were a number of mortal gods called Allah is enough by itself to place it beyond the pale of Islamic belief. "Quasi-Islamic" or "pseudo-Islamic" is a better description. The Fishman and Soage paper makes for fascinating reading on this. — The Anome (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Finding Muslim sources that say that is nigh-on impossible in my experience. The source you give says: Although the NOI has done much to popularize Islam in the U.S., the Nation’s religious beliefs bear little resemblance to traditional Islamic theology. While the Nation shares a common vocabulary with Muslims around the world, the NOI’s teachings concerning God, cosmology, Prophet Muhammad and the afterlife can be deemed heterodox, or even heretical, by Islamic standards. But despite its vast ideological differences from the international Muslim community, the NOI has come to be seen like a partner, even an ally, by many in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Which is a pretty accurate summary, but what we can use from it, I'm not sure. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

And yet it's pretty easy to find Christian sources arguing definitively that Mormons or Catholics or Lutherans (going back a bit on the latter) are not real Christians. Are we seriously discussing adding weasel words to what is both the self-identification and community identification of a religion? I mean, Shelly, c'mon! SamuelRiv (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You won't find many more traditional European christian groups voicing an opinion on 'privatised' US Evangelical churches - whose theological beliefs (such as they have any), are more focused on Old Testament embracal of death penalty/gun-ownership/demonising Adam and Steve than anything which europeans would recognise as christian. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the term "quasi-Islamic" describes the NOI quite accurately. See

Walker, Dennis (2018-10-03), Trompf, Garry W.; Mikkelsen, Gunner B.; Johnston, Jay (eds.), "Elevating the family in the Nation of Islam: discerning the "gnostic factor"", The Gnostic World (1 ed.), Routledge, pp. 553–562, doi:10.4324/9781315561608-52, ISBN 978-1-315-56160-8, retrieved 2024-01-08, So- called "Black Islam" can be examined as three integrally related Islamic or quasi-Islamic sects in America: the Nation of Islam led by theological inspirer Wali Fard Muhammad [...] and the new Nation of Islam conducted by Minister Louis Farrakhan Muhammad (1933–) since 1978.

for a source. — The Anome (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Do the majority of sources say a "quasi-islamic sect" - even this one doesn't say it unequivocally. Pincrete (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nation of Islam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 14:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Penultimate supper (talk · contribs) 17:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review this; I have a moderate amount of knowledge about NOI, mostly focused on prominent individuals in the history of the movement, but am by no means well-versed. The article looks very thorough at my first read-through and I'm looking forward to diving into it more deeply. Will try and provide detailed comments soon. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks penultimate_supper. Looking forward to seeing your review when it's ready. I hope that you enjoy reading the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it's taken me a bit longer than I'd hoped, schedules are unpredictable with an infant in the house. I'll hopefully get it to you today, but Friday at the latest. It's a very well written article, and handles some difficult issues very thoughtfully; I've appreciated diving into it. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is my first second (but first in 5+ years) GA review, so if there's anything I've missed, done poorly, or which would be helpful for me to include, please let me know.

I'm comfortable passing this right now. I have suggestions for a few sections below, and minor notes on a few sources. I think there are some areas that could be expanded further and I think source material exists to do so (e.g., Relationship betwen the NoI and mainstream Muslim groups, Farrakhan's role as a controversial political figure, NoI educational efforts) but due to the length of this article, that should probably be done in seperate articles, and isn't exactly relevant to this review. Overall this is a thorough, thoughtful, and informative article that covers a complex topic comprehensively without being distracted by diving into unnecesary detail on any of the many fascinating areas that could have unbalanced the article.

Thanks for all your hard work on the article @Midnightblueowl:! — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

GA review

see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Strongly complies with all MOS guidelines, even on some difficult areas such as contentious labels, which are all well sourced and seem to present the majority view among sources. A few small thoughts about words to watch are suggested on a section-by-section basis below.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Done very well, more details in the source review section below.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Not finding any issues using earwig, manual searching, or my 10% source review.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I think it does this very well, relying on reliable sources and appropriate voices.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No ongoing edit wars or content disputes, and any disagreements over minor issues of terminology seem be have been handled thoughtfully and through discussion over the last year+.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No concerns here, everything seems to be in order, and nothing included is non-free.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Section notes

Nothing here is critical, just some thoughts about article improvements.

• • Lede
    • Adheres to all aspects of the MOS on ledes. Introduces core elements at a accesibille level; clearly explains why the NoI is notable with regards to prominent members, controversies, and role in wider Black nationalism; everything mentioned in the lede is included in other sections, and while not sourced in lede, is sourced in the article.
    • I tend to prefer capitalizing "Black" as an ethnic term, and the Black nationalism article and some of the sources here do so I think there's a strong argument for doing so, but the capitalization choice is used consistently throughout the article.
  • History
    • It'd be helpful if history were moved forward to be before beliefs. Even with the strong lede and my above-average knowledge of the subject going in, I still found myself a bit confused by references to the roles of specific individuals, or to organizational aspects such as the Fruit of Islam before getting to the history section. Some solid articles on other NRMs use a history-first approach, but others mirror the current layout, so there are obviously reasons for either approach, but I think this article would be improved by the swap.
  • Organization
    • This section focuses a lot on the NoI as an organization, but I would have expected more coverage of how it is organized, including questions such as: what sort of ministerial leadership exists, how are leaders chosen, what is the relationship between local chapters and the national organization. Jehovah's Witnesses#Organization includes some of what I mean in the first two paragraphs.
    • There might be some concern about the repeated used of reveal or revealed here and in a few other sections as unnecessarily implying that things are hidden when it is not explicitly being stated—and cited—that this is so. I think they are all pretty justified and probably intentional, but perhaps there could be inclusion of a statement of a general trend towards opacity/secrecy in this section to strengthen that, if sources support it, or a less intense word chosen if that's not the directio sources support.
  • Accusations of prejudice
    • Should ' Further information: Antisemitism in Islam and Islamic–Jewish relations' be here if the article is taking such a clear position that NoI is a post-Muslim NRM? Doesn’t seem right to treat their potential anti-semitism as connected to Islam is they are a separate religious movement. Seems like it unintentionally implies that anti-semitism come to them via their Islamic roots, rather than being a distinctive characteristic, which I don’t think the article supports.
  • External links & footer
    • The navboxes get a little overwhelming, on my laptop they take up three whole screens worth of verticals space. Pruning them might be helpful. At the very least I'd suggest getting rid of the scientology navbox, as the connection with dianetics takes up very little of the article space. People interested in dianetics may want to get here, so there may be an argument for adding NoI to that navbox, but It doesn't feel like people reading about the NoI need quick access to all the topics included in that navbox.

Source review

I reviewed around 10% of the citations—selected randomly—although because I had only limited access to the Gardell source and didn't want to delay the review because of it to wait for it to arrive from the library, I didn't review 100% of the randomly selected citations from that source once I'd reviewed enough to be sure it was being used well. Overall, the article draws from a wide variety of reliable sources, and does a great job at selecting which claims to include in wikivoice vs in the voice of a source, and making sure only to inlcude claims that enjoy widespread support in wikivoice. I fixed one tiny error, but otherwise the article makes immaculate use of SFN citation templates and well-formed references.

A few citations that I had minor concerns or suggestions about:

• • 101 - Barnett 2006, p. 882
    • The group deems Christianity a tool of white supremacy used to subjugate black people, doesn't really seem the right wording for the claim made in Barnett, which is that the NoI sees "mainstream Christianity" as perpetuating white supremacy, which isn't quite as strong a claim as what's made in the article, and has a different sense of instrumentality that seems significant to me.
  • 196 - Barnett 2006, p. 888
    • Male members typically cut their hair short, sometimes shaving the head entirely, and do not usually wear beards. The point about beards seems to be made on 889. There is a point about beards made in 888, but it's not a descriptive claim about the NoI, but part of a typology of religiosity the author is advancing.

Penultimate supper, I'm an accidental 'watcher', rather than an author on this article, and claim no credit for myself, but I would like to commend you on the thoughtfulness and acuteness of your GA review. Thanks.Pincrete (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete:, thank you for the kind words! It was my first review in a long time, and I'd only done one before, so I'm glad to hear it seemed thorough and helpful! — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaurs?

I don't have access to the source, and wasn't able to 'google' anything helpful, but am sceptical about this addition, "(NoI) believes dinosaurs to be a hoax created by members of the white race". Whilst creationists of all flavours have 'novel' explanations for fossil and similar evidence, this one I have never heard before, but am reluctant to revert as it is plausible that it would have been part of NoI teaching at some point. Pincrete (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the source: The NOI asserts that dinosaurs never existed except in the imagination of white scientists. They point to the fact that "scientists at the Smithsonian acknowledge that their displays are based on artists' conceptions and limited fossil findings." Ava Muhammad claims these fossils to be manufactured to promote the hoax and views Steven Spielberg's 1993 hit movie Jurassic Park as yet another "manifestation of the power of the Caucasian people to deceive." StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"A hoax created by white scientists" would seem to be a better summary. Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I cannot find any other source that suggests otherwise, so that change should be fine. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)