Talk:Nation of Islam/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

UNDUE Issues in the Article Lead

User:Pincrete, I'm concerned about these recent edits of yours to the article lead ([1]; [2]) and for that reason have placed a tag at the top of the article. For those unfamiliar with this discussion, these edits moved two sentences containing criticisms of the Nation of Islam from the fourth paragraph of the lead to the first. Lest anyone misunderstand, I do not endorse removing these sentences from this article altogether. My concern is only with their placement in the opening paragraph, which implies that they are of vital importance to understanding the subject.

First, it is detrimental to the readability of the lead. We previously had a lead that was nicely balanced between four paragraphs, mirroring the structure of FA-rated religion articles such as Rastafari, Santería, and Heathenry (new religious movement). We now have a messy, top-heavy lead with the first paragraph being far larger than the fourth. Second, the move is WP:UNDUE. We have many well-rated religion articles at Wikipedia, and many well-rated political group articles too. None, to my knowledge, emphasise the critics and their criticism in the opening paragraph. While there are no shortage of people on the Internet who wish to criticise the Nation, many being IPs who edit Wikipedia to try and portray the group in a highly negative light, it is noteworthy that the specialist literature on the group pays very little attention to the "hate group" label which is now in the opening paragraph. I have read (and cited) over forty peer-reviewed sources for this article and (to my recollection) not a single one mentions the "hate group" categorisation. Similarly, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, encyclopedia.com, and World Religions and Spirituality Project entries on the Nation do not mention the "hate group" label. If this is such a crucial piece of information about the group that it needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph, then why does all the specialist literature ignore it? This is a clear case of undue weight being given to a particular area of controversy through its "prominence of placement", as WP:UNDUE describes it.

This is an article that has improved considerably over the past year, having been rebuilt using top quality academic sources, and in the not too distant future it will be able to go through GAN and then FAC. However, with the UNDUE problem looming over it, that will not be achieved, which is a shame. I think we've worked very constructively together on the article, so I don't want to spoil that, but for the sake of the article quality I'd ask you to reconsider these recent changes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would actually argue that NoI's 'antipathies' and its unorthodox form of Islam ARE of vital importance to understanding the subject, and that moving them to the end of the lead as almost an afterthought is what is UNDUE.

The long-term stable version (for many years) was to have these criticisms after the introduction, which broadly speaking is what I have restored several times recently. Whilst I applaud many, most of your, (relatively recent), additions and alterations, and have 'watched' the article for many years, excluding a great deal of unbalanced vitriol against NoI, I think it is "burying one's head in the sand" to pretend that NoI is not at least as well known for its 'antipathies', the controversial pronouncements of its leaders, and for its highly unorthodox interpretation of Islam as for anything else. Former NoI members, such as Malcolm X and Mohammed Ali, came eventually to see it as theologically and morally dubious and to not record fairly prominently that NoI is controversial, and broadly speaking why, is a disservice to the subject IMO.

To the best of my knowledge, the other new religions you mention are not noted for their anti-semitism, nor are they listed as 'hate groups' by SPLC and ADL - nor do they claim to be versions of another established religion as NoI does. OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, for either of us, but Mormonism and Scientology both list the central controversies which surround those belief systems fairly prominently, and, I would claim that Mormonism is now a good deal less controversial than NoI. I'm happy for this to be the subject of an RfC if you wish but would prefer if we could settle this among regular 'watchers'. Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, Pincrete. I'm happy to hold off on an RfC for now, to see if other "watchers" want to chip in. I'd be cautious about citing Mormonism or Scientology as comparisons, as both of those articles are in a pretty atrocious state at present (neither are anywhere close to being GA quality), whereas some of the FA-rated articles I cited do offer good examples we can follow. Rastafari and Heathenry for instance have long faced accusations of racial supremacy (sometimes warranted), and the latter has also had issues with antisemitism - but in none of those FA articles do we emphasise those controversial aspects unduly by mentioning them in the opening paragraph. (Bear in mind that OTHERSTUFF is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which is not really pertinent here; if I understand it correctly, OTHERSTUFF does not prohibit us looking at FA-rated high quality articles as models for improving poorer articles on related topics).

Perhaps we should think about the two sentences under contention separately. I'm still pretty firm in thinking that the sentence on the ADL and SPLC criticism is heavily UNDUE in the first paragraph, but I think we could maybe find common ground on the sentence about Muslim criticism of the NOI. The first paragraph already states that "While it identifies itself as promoting a form of Islam, its beliefs differ considerably from mainstream Islamic traditions", so the addition of "Muslim critics accuse it of promoting teachings that are not legitimately Islamic" to that same paragraph is somewhat of a duplication. I would be open to the idea, however, of amending that first sentence so it states something like "While it identifies itself as promoting a form of Islam, its beliefs differ considerably from mainstream Islamic traditions and most Muslims do not recognise it as legitimately Islamic." Would that deal with some of your concerns? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I was already intending to get back to you. The two sources you give may not mention SPLC or ADL, but the second, (World Religions and Spirituality Project), devotes a lot of its coverage to how NoI deviates from Islam (including elements which most Muslims would regard as blasphemous or ridiculous). It gives a lot of attention to the "racial superiority of blacks" element of NoI beliefs and a lot more attention than we do to the 'social/political', as opposed to 'religious' elements of NoI: "the Nation of Islam is as much a movement for change as it is one of religious enlightenment". I think we express these controversial aspects more economically, though in less detail than that source and it would be remiss of us to not give prominence to these issues in our article. Pincrete (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is the most extremely WP:UNDUE of any I have read in Wikipedia. Any editor who attempts to improve it is personally attacked. I don't think the tag should be removed.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You may well be talking about a different tag. Who has attacked anyone? Why do you claim it is UNDUE? Is that based on your opinion of NoI or on sources? I support the criticisms being in the more prominent they are now, but I wholly and unreservedly reject your wish that the SPLC/ADF criticisms should be in WP:VOICE - as did the recent RfC which you initiated. You may not like it, but NoI's deeds are not in the same league as KKK's, even if the rhetoric of its leaders is sometimes similarly offensive - and this is reflected in the way sources treat NoI. Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

For one, the article gives undue weight to the NOI's false claim that it is a religious and political organization. As the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have noted, the NOI is primarily a hate group. The KKK also claims to be a religious and political organization. While the KKK is a very different hate group from the NOI, the KKK article is MUCH better written than this article as it does not give undue weight to the false claims made by the hate group.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The SPLC doesn't say that NoI is primarily a hate group, you just invented that, and the SPLC and AFD are not the only people writing about NoI, so their opinion has to be balanced against other sources - it is those other - almost all - sources - not the NoI - which describe it as a religious and political organization. You may not like it, but that is what most sources record. Pincrete (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet another dishonest personal attack against editors trying to improve the article. The opening paragraph at SPLC in the NOI article is "Since its founding in 1930, the Nation of Islam (NOI) has grown into one of the wealthiest and best-known organizations in black America. Its theology of innate black superiority over whites and the deeply racist, antisemitic and anti-LGBT rhetoric of its leaders have earned the NOI a prominent position in the ranks of organized hate." This is an honest and balanced way to look at NOI, and not the WP:UNDUE presentation given by this article.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? Your idea of improvement is to promote some kind of equivalence between NoI and KKK, which neither sources nor common sense endorse. Neither being wealthy nor having a "prominent position in the ranks of organized hate" means that it is "primarily a hate group", which you claimed SPLC say. Nor does that contradict the position of many other sources that the NoI is mainly known as a "religious and political organization". The SPLC has actually stopped tracking black nationalist groups for their nationalism anyhow - the SPLC now mainly tracks NoI for the anti-semitic and anti-gay "rhetoric of its leaders". The quote you give about NoI has not been withdrawn, but is some years old now. We already place the SPLC and ADL criticism prominently in the article - but the article comes from a much broader range of sources which are concerned about a broader range of issues than SPLC/ADL are. Whatever is written in the KKK article is - at best - irrelevant, but last time I looked, the SPLC and ADL criticism of KKK is much further down the lead there than is the case here. Pincrete (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I hope that you don't mind, but I've taken this to an RfC as we were not getting much additional input here at the Talk Page. Hopefully this should produce a clearer resolution. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC about the Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: Should the following sentences exist at a) the end of the first paragraph of the lead, or b) the end of the fourth paragraph of the lead?

"Its critics, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, have accused it of being a black supremacist hate group that promotes racial prejudice towards white people, anti-semitism, and anti-LGBT rhetoric. Muslim critics accuse it of promoting teachings that are not authentically Islamic."

Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Responses

• B - Fourth Paragraph. First, the article lead presently has a neat, four paragraph structure: basic introduction, beliefs and practices, history, and then demographics and reception. This is the structure found in FA-rated articles on alternative religions like Rastafari, Santería, and Heathenry (new religious movement). In this structure, the quoted sentences fit far more neatly in a paragraph on the reception of the Nation of Islam than in a basic introduction. By placing them in that first paragraph, they make the lead top-heavy and messy.

Second, including the perspectives of the Nation's critics at so prominent a juncture as the opening paragraph is clearly WP:UNDUE; we do not do this in any FA-rated alternative religion article. It is noteworthy that the specialist literature on the group pays very little attention to the "hate group" label which is now in the opening paragraph. I have read (and cited) over forty peer-reviewed sources for this article and (to my recollection) not a single one mentions the "hate group" categorisation. Similarly, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, encyclopedia.com, and World Religions and Spirituality Project entries on the Nation do not mention the "hate group" label. If this is such a crucial piece of information about the group that it needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph, then why does all the specialist literature ignore it? This is a clear case of undue weight being given to a particular area of controversy through its "prominence of placement", as WP:UNDUE describes it.

Third, the inclusion of the sentence "Muslim critics accuse it of promoting teachings that are not authentically Islamic" in the first paragraph is repetitive and redundant given that that first paragraph already states that "While it identifies itself as promoting a form of Islam, its beliefs differ considerably from mainstream Islamic traditions." Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Please list the over 40 peer-reviewed sources you mention that do not mention the "hate group categorisation", so that a fair assessment can be made of their relevance to this particular point. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources in question are those presently listed in the article. I've been working on building this article up using peer-reviewed sources for over a year now and have read every one of those that are now cited in this list. Prior to this, the article made virtually no use of the extensive peer-reviewed literature on the subject and instead relied quite heavily on free-to-access, non-specialist web sources, which tend to be more sensationalistic and/or overtly antagonistic to the Nation of Islam. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you say that all of the sources presently listed in the article do not support the statement in the lead? That the claim in the lead is not supported by any reliable source cited in the article? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody claims that ALL sources present NoI as a hate group, but SPLC and ADF, both do. In the past SPLC did this because of its 'supremacist' views, but more recently SPLC gives this designation because of NoI's "anti-semitism, and anti-LGBT rhetoric.". SPLC has now largely abandoned tracking black nationalist groups EXCEPT where they also have other prejudices (such as misogyny or anti-semitism, or anti-LGBT views). The SPLC and ADF views are sourced in the body. Pincrete (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: The point I was trying to make was that (to my recollection) none of the peer-reviewed sources listed in the "Sources" sub-section of the "References" section mention the application of the "hate group" label to the NOI. Instead, this Wikipedia article cites both the SPLC website itself and a CNN article to support the statement that the SPLC regards the NOI as a "hate group." I've just double-checked the peer-reviewed sources and can confirm that I have found two of them that do refer to the "hate group" accusation, but both in passing, not giving the claim any prominence. In a 2002 article, Edward E. Curtis IV refers to the fact that civil rights activists "including the NAACP's Roy Wilkins, also criticized the NOI as a hate group", although Curtis does not mention the SPLC itself. A book chapter by Stephen C. Finely (which I had yet to read and incorporate into the article), included in the Gibson and Berg edited volume, mentions that the SPLC includes the NOI among its list of "Extremist and Hate Groups," but Finely only includes this fact in a footnote. Clearly, the scholarly specialists researching and writing on the NOI just don't think the fact that the NOI's critics call it a "hate group" is particularly worthy of mention - so why should Wikipedia give this criticism such prominence? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, thanks for the further clarification. I am leaning towards B - fourth paragraph following the argument of Behindthekeys, with the possibility of making it more prominent if more sources are found that give it greater prominence. However I don't agree that the two statements in your third point are mutually redundant, but they could be combined, and possibly should be combined as they cover aspects of the same issue. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

To quickly address the issue of academic citation in general, it is my understanding that academic sources will not on their own classify "hate groups", and any reference to that would likely be to the SPLC or some politician's quotation. "Extremism" is also a problematic word in academic literature: Sotlar and Boetticher (no idea how good they are – it's not my field). As far as I can tell (which is admittedly not very far) the SPLC is the only organization that classifies "hate groups." Its reputation in this classification seems to have declined recently (per the intro citations). However, the SPLC's hate group designation is still an authority on what the SPLC designates as a hate group (as long as the website is refreshed regularly, because they don't advertise when they delist apparently), and that is still notable. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The ADF also uses 'hate group', but broadly speaking you are correct - 'hate group' is used largely by these two groups - and has no academic or any other authority, other than that of the groups' reputations. I was unaware of the recent change to not automatically include and would have opposed had I been aware of the discussion. Whatever one thinks of SPLC and ADF, and their own prejudices and flaws, I think a designation by them has some weight, even if it does not have much objective meaning. Much as an Amnesty or HRW (or for that matter a State Dept or MI5, or Vatican or Lambeth Palace) designation is significant info, regardless of how much one agrees/disagrees with or disregards it in any individual case according to one's own preferences. Pincrete (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean ADL? That's ok, it's not as if our grammar is being constantly policed by some kind of KGC. The ADL defines "hate group", tracks "hate symbols" and "incidents", and calls out "extremist groups" in its articles, but has no tracker of extremist groups and as far as I can tell never uses "hate group" as a term of art. A 1998 Justice Dept. manual uses "hate group" without rigorously defining it, and based on their citations it seems they use an ADL report as the guideline (and not the SPLC), but I can't find that report. And of course that's over two decades ago. As the ADL lacks an updated, public labeling of specific individual hate groups, I think my assessment of the SPLC as the only organization making this designation is mostly accurate. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• A - end of first para. This text has been (largely unchanged) at the end of the first para for many years. The fact that NoI has been and is accused of (most notably anti-semitic but also anti-white ) 'racist' rhetoric and views, anti-LGBT rhetoric and views and fairly novel/unorthodox interpretations of Islam is a central part of NoI's identity, these are not merely transient, incidental controversies. It is down-playing these key elements to NOT include them early in the lead. I believe they should be (and largely are at present) expressed in a clear, concise, calm and NPOV fashion. On a practical note - although this shouldn't be the primary justification - the most frequent complaint of 'drive-thru' editors is that the article does not give sufficient prominence, nor express sufficiently forcefully the controversial nature of NoI's views and rhetoric on Jews and white and 'gay' people. SPLC criticism is frequently placed early in the lead of similar articles and should be here IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• B - end of 4th - Midnightblueowl has a good case above. Seems UNDUE unless the preponderance of independent sources reflect the criticism. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• B – The most controversial mainstream U.S. religions I can think of are LDS (which have no criticism in the lead) and Scientology/CoS (the former has criticisms at the end of the lead, the latter is criticized throughout). NoI is simultaneously the church, the organization, and the religion, which makes comparison more difficult. However, I am troubled by the SPLC's writeup on NoI as they never use words like "religion" or "faith", and the only hint they might even be part of an organized religion is this quote: "But the younger Muhammad’s dismantling of the Nation’s material empire and his attempts to bring NOI into the fold of mainstream Islam ultimately alienated Farrakhan." The ADL's report at least addresses the notion of religion directly: "The Nation of Islam is not considered a mainstream Muslim religious group, and many Muslim leaders have distanced themselves from the NOI. The NOI’s theological beliefs and practices differ significantly from traditional, dominant sects of Islam." Neither group in their description of ideology mentions the... three-ish... Pillars, or any basic practice. As an error of omission, that's comparable to an SPLC report on the KKK with no mention of hoods or cross burning or casual slurs. They seem more concerned with describing Farrakhan than with the people in the group. Understanding NoI as a religion can be confusing but its followers, and, even if cynically, Muslims worldwide (overview) certainly certainly treat it as such. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  NoI is a social/political organisation as much as a religion - and arguably very succesful in that role, especially traditionally in 'rehabilitating' African-American offenders. But it is also one of the very few religions anywhere - especially in the US - which overtly restricts membership to specific racial groups (African-Americans) and has a racial theology/cosmology justifying its views. Much of this 'racism' is rhetoric, rather than deeds, but this aspect is inevitably controversial. NoI is also fairly unique as a religion in being widely believed to have been to some degree complicit in the assassination of one of its own most famous leaders, but later critics Malcolm X. Pincrete (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• B - Fourth Paragraph. It seems pretty typical to put the criticism at the end of the lead, like SamuelRiv says. It should definitely be mentioned prominently, but in the fourth paragraph. Behindthekeys (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• B- yes it belongs in the lead, but should not be the first thing one reads about this subject. At the end of the fourth paragraph of the lead is a good place. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• B - Fourth Paragraph Although controversy is something inherent to the Nation of Islam, I don't see it as part of the definition of what the NOI is, so the place to place it is at the end of the fourth paragraph. AnneDant87 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• B - Fourth Paragraph As a reader, seeing the criticism in the first paragraph makes me think "Oh no, the POV-pushers have been at this article, I'll have to double-check everything." Dingsuntil (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-American category

MagicatthemovieS, I can only guess as to why NoI equates the US with the biblical Babylon since the article doesn't clarify that and I cannot access that source. I presume it is a reference to the biblical Israelites being in bondage and presumably analogises African Americans' position in the US. I am fairly certain that it is WP:OR to immediately translate that into NoI belongs in anti-American category though.

Most significantly, in WP terms, do most sources describe NoI as being anti-American and more precisely, why beyond this vague analogy? I have never seen any sources that do describe NoI thus, though of course being highly critical of the position of African Americans in the US and of US racism in general are very much defining features of NoI.

On a more prosaic level, puritanical/socially conservative US churches, especially protestant ones perhaps, routinely compare modern US or Western society to Sodom and Gomorrah. Are they all anti-American too? Or is that simply them employing a biblical analogy to express disapproval?

I'm going to revert your addition, since the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that being "Anti-American" is seen by sources as being a defining feature of the NoI. Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey I didn't know my edits were gonna get immediately published

If someones upset about my edits I'm sorry please remove my edits. Also it seems the page expanded a lot after I edited. I just think they are a legitimate school of Islam. Ruston Barbour (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Also

I removed the white race and changed it to the wicked ones who have not accepted Islam in spirit... because I don't think they are calling for racial genocide, they are just telling it like it is. Ruston Barbour (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)