Talk:Nation of Islam and antisemitism/Archive 1

NOI
RK why don't you put thant in Nation of Islam ? Ericd 13:35 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
 * Umm, put what in this article? Are you talking about my comment on the book by Yehuda Halevi, called "The Kuzari"? That certainly would not belong here! That would simply give ammunition for the NOI's anti-Semitic claims. After all, I am sure you agree that Halevl's possibily racist views do not justify the NOI's hatespeech against all Jews. We cannot take the ideas of one person, and use that as an excuse to hate all Jews. That would be just as ridiculous as taking the views of one black person, and using that to "prove" that all blacks are ignorant and inferior to whites. It would just as ridiculous to take the views of one Asian who happened to write a book with a racist remark, and use this to "prove" that all or most Asians are racist. That would be illogical, false, and hurtful. Such issues demand context! RK

Anti-Semitic
Read semitic. Then you'll understand that it is stupid to say Islam can be anti-semitic: Arabic people are a semitic people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.160.82 (talk • contribs)


 * Revert. The word "anti-Semitism" is misleading. It's etimology is now understood to be a 19th century misconception; see the article Semite on this subject. Using the term "anti-Semitism" to refer to Arabs is also misleading as the word was coined as a refined word for "Scientifically justified dislike of Jews", and is now understood to mean the hatred of Jews as a group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.84.154 (talk • contribs)

Votes show that this article should not be deleted
On 2 Sep 2004, this article was nominated for deletion. See Votes for deletion/Nation of Islam anti-semitism for a record of the discussion. Rossami 06:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on this article. I do have an opinion on it being redirected like this. This appears to have been done to subvert the VfD process. We will NOT be deleting this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Turning this into a real article
I have made several edits to turn this into a real article. For one, I have removed the obsession with one Jewish group, the Anti-Defamation League. While certainly an important Jewish group, it is just one of many. To be be balanced and accurate, this article should report on how many Jewish groups view the Nation of Islam. Rightly or wrongly, nearly every Jewish group in existence views it as anti-Semitic. Also, it would be grossly disingenuous to claim that only Jewish groups have this view. Many Christian groups and American organizations have similar views. The views of these groups need to be added as well. RK 14:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Stop misleadingly renaming this article
This article is about an examination of anti-Semitism within the NOI. We do not have an article about Alleged Anti-Arabism behaviour, we do not have an article about Alleged Islamophobia, alleged homophobia, and we do not have an article about Alleged Persecution of Christians. So why for anti-Semitism alone is someone repeatedly renaming an article to Alleged anti-Semitism? This shows gross bias, and violate NPOV by using the title of the article to dismiss any possibility that facts actually exist within it. It also is totally out of line with how we name all of our other articles. RK 15:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be moved back, as it seems this was done without consensus, it violates NPOV, and it's not consistent with the usual naming convention. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * It has already been done, and should remain where it is. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No one denies that the above mentioned categories (homophobia, anti-Arabism, persecution of Christians) actually exist. On the other hand, the very title of this article implies that the NOI is anti-Semitic. That is why it must be redirected to an appropriate NPOV title. This article shouldn't even exist at all. It was created by RK, who was convicted of POV pushing by Arbcom, and it is and always has been a POV playground and there is no reason to believe it will ever be a legitimate encyclopedia article. Firebug 04:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Welcome to WP, where articles don't have specific owners and are open for anyone to contribute. As it has been pointed out by others above, the title is NPOV. A POV title would be Nation of Islam's anti-Semitism. Whether it "actually exist" or not, that's up to the article to explore and reflect facts and scholar views in an encyclopedic fashion. We are not in a slander/whitewash business.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that I am attempting to claim article ownership? From where I am sitting, it appears that if anyone is attempting to claim article ownership, it is the individuals who believe that I should be forbidden from exercising my editing privileges to add the redirect. Firebug 05:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I was referring to your idea that the article should be deleted merely because RK created it.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I gave the mistaken impression that this was what I was advocating. I do think that articles created by users who have a history of dubious edits should be held to a higher standard of scrutiny than articles made by editors without such a history. Firebug 06:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin, Humus Sapiens, and JayJG. Additionally, on the Wiki-En discussion list, the following point was made by Faraaz Damji


 * I agree. You could say that most things are 'alleged' by some people...alleged racism, alleged holocaust, alleged slavery, etc. If we named all our other articles like that, then it might make sense, but as things are right now, I'm pretty sure we just simplify all titles to make them definitive, and indicate any uncertainties in the article.


 * If the contributor is suggesting that homophobia doesn't exist, then they can put it in as a section of the article; that is, of course, if they have enough evidence to back it up. Similarly, if they think that the Nation of Islam isn't anti-semitic, they should add that as a section in the article.  IMHO, prefixing all titles with 'alleged' adds confusion and is completely unnecessary.

Please give source
I am removing this paragraph for the moment. Please find a source for this claim, and explain the context. Is the person who made this statement claiming that one or two Jewish people (out of many millions) helped finance a corporation in Germany? Are they then by extension claiming that many Jews somehow financed Adolph Hitler and/or Nazi Germany? What precisely is the claim being made? RK 12:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Responding to accusations of anti-Semitism, the Nation of Islam has stated that some wealthy Zionist Jews participated in the financing of Nazi Germany such as Goldman Sachs & Company of New York.

Cooperation with Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists
The Nation of Islam has a long history of cooperation with white supremacists, holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. While they believe this relationship is useful, others find it bizarre. In any case, like it or lump it, it is real and well documented, and should be discussed. RK 12:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * ...In making such accusations, the Blacks and Jews Newspage mirrors the claims of legitimacy made by Holocaust-denial Web sites, portraying itself as a dispassionate vehicle for the facts rather than a proponent of anti-Semitism. "One need not resort to vicious name-calling or opprobrious epithets," the site states. "One need only to present the facts."


 * Furthermore, just as the NOI invited Holocaust denier Arthur Butz to speak to an audience about the Holocaust in 1985, the Blacks and Jews Newspage links to the Web sites of Holocaust denial groups such as the IHR and CODOH. In introducing these links the Newspage wonders, "Jewish historians have lied so completely about the history of Blacks and Jews that one must ask the unaskable question: What other 'holocaust' have they lied about?" The IHR Web site returns the favor by linking to the Newspage.


 * Source: Poisoning the Web: Hatred Online - African-American Anti-Semitism. ADL


 * Folks need to be more cautious in terms of lumping together "Neo-Nazis," "White Supremacists," "Holocaust Deniers," "antisemites," and others on the hard right. I have cleaned up a section, and added another. There is more documentation out there to make negative claims about NOI, but lets keep the terminology and associated groups accurate. --Cberlet 04:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant accusations
The name of this article is Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism, not Nation of Islam and anti-Catholicism. Why are charges of anti-Catholicism in the article? They're not relevant to the article's subject. If it stays in, then we might as well rename the article to List of bad things people have said about the Nation of Islam. Which, I'll note, is precisely the type of behavior that I have been accused of in the RFC. LevelCheck 23:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Here are the quotes that LevelCheck deleted:


 * Catholic magazines such as This Rock have describe the Nation of Islam as both anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic. (This Rock, Dragnet; Well-rounded bigotry'', Nov., 1995)

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights views the NOI as anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and as working with anti-American terrorist organizations. In their March 1996 newsletter the Catholic League states:
 * It is because of the notorious anti-Catholicism of the Nation of Islam, as well as its more well-known anti-Semitism, that the Catholic League was proud to join with the Jewish Action Alliance in protesting this outrageous development. (Catalyst, Vol. 23, No.2, March 1996)


 * The logic is, if the NOI was described "as both anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic", the quote has to go. I find this logic twisted and that was the reason I called that deletion a denial.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 00:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The primary purpose and intent of the quote is to condemn the NOI as anti-Catholic. Anti-Semitism was thrown in there as an afterthought. Furthermore, the Catholic League is a group with little knowledge or expertise in the area of anti-Semitism. They're an organization whose primary activity is bitching about stuff on TV they don't like, much like Wildmon's group of fanatics. This is an overly long (and overly POV) article as it is, there's no reason to further lengthen it by throwing in unsupported quotes from loons. LevelCheck 00:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You have offered no valid rationale for your deletion of content. Furthermore, various other accounts have attempted to delete that exact information, and I find this quite telling.  --Viriditas  | Talk 02:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to win an argument against you people. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the reason that multiple users have objected to the same content is that IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE?! Apparently, you think that you are so obviously right that only one person could possibly disagree with you, and anyone else must be a "sockpuppet". Furthermore, I offered a valid rationale for deleting the content - it is simply one that you disagree with. By the way, I reverted three times, not four. Learn to count. Not all edits are reverts. LevelCheck 02:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Who is "you people"? Can you be specific, here?  Who are you referring to, exactly?  You are correct in one respect, you have only reverted three times, not four:
 * 01:43, 25 Apr 2005
 * 23:14, 24 Apr 2005
 * 22:59, 24 Apr 2005
 * --Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to a small number of individuals on Wikipedia - you, User:Klonimus, User:Humus sapiens, User:Jayjg, and User:SlimVirgin among them - who believe that articles related to Judaism should reflect a pro-Jewish and anti-Islamic and anti-Palestinian POV, and that anyone who disagrees is an "anti-Semite". LevelCheck 02:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comments are not supported by the facts, nor can you provide evidence demonstrating what you claim in regards to my position. I suggest you keep explaining yourself, however, as I am very interested in your opinion.  --Viriditas  | Talk 03:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. I believe that the State of Israel deserves as much criticism for its foibles, blunders, and crimes as any other sovereign state. I believe that anti-Semitism has a specific meaning, and criticism of Israel isn't it. I believe that the Jewish people as a whole are ill-served by your reckless conflation of opposition to Israel's actions with anti-Semitism. If that meme does catch on, the result will not be to insulate Israel from criticism as you hope. Rather, it will be to make anti-Semitism - real, no-kidding anti-Semitism like Muhammad's crap - acceptable again. I don't want that and I don't think many other people do either. You might want to consider reading the fable of the boy who cried wolf. LevelCheck 03:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to have difficulty separating editing Wikipedia from your own political opinions. You claim that I am recklessly conflating opposition to Israel's actions with anti-Semitism, and yet this article (and other articles that I have edited) show absolutely nothing of the kind, and upon close examination demonstrate the complete opposite.  In point of fact, I spent some time '''removing" such statements from the New anti-semitism page in the last 24 hours.  And yet, this article has nothing to do with what you are claiming.  You have turned this and other articles into a soapbox for your personal war. --Viriditas  | Talk 03:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. You may have a point, but at the same time you seem reluctant to acknowledge any of your own shortcomings. I'll take a 24-hour break from editing this article (or talk page) in any way. I strongly suggest you do the same. I fervently hope that other editors, perhaps brought by the RFC, may make this article into something that all sides can live with. LevelCheck 03:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV Pushing
The article as currently written is extremely biased against the NOI - not surprisingly, as it was and is a POV fork, which survived only because of the supermajority requirements for deletion (which, of course, don't apply if an administrator happens to take a personal dislike to the material). Presenting extremely controversial claims like "the NOI claims Jews control the economy", "the NOI claims Jews financed the Holocaust" and so forth as truth violates NPOV. These statements need to be qualified - unless official NOI doctrine teaches a specific claim such as this, they should be specifically pointed out as controversial statements that a handful of NOI preachers may have said, but are not NOI policy. LevelCheck 01:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This article was not a "POV fork", and you have not demonstrated violations of NPOV. Attributing claims with appropriate references is not "biased".  What is or what is not NOI policy is irrelevant.  --Viriditas  | Talk 02:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Khalid Abdul Muhammad
This article places far too much emphasis on the quotes of Khalid Abdul Muhammad. He was one man who did not necessarily speak for the religion as a whole. This is like creating an article on Christianity and homophobia and devoting 75% of the article to inflammatory quotes from Fred "God hates fags" Phelps. I don't think NPOV is concomitant with providing hugely disproportionate coverage to obscure extremists, and further allowing those extremists to stand as representatives for co-religionists who might well disagree with them. LevelCheck 01:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your straw-man argument does not help address these issues. I think that you have somewhat of a valid point if you can provide sourced counter-examples to balance out the quotes offered, and I believe that you can if you look hard enough.  --Viriditas  | Talk 02:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Straw-man argument" has a specific meaning. I don't see how this possibly qualifies. My point is that it is unfair to smear a whole religious movement based on the actions of one of its adherents. Yes, Khalid Muhammad was undeniably an anti-Semite. But this article isn't Khalid Abdul Muhammad and anti-Semitism, it's Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism. I will attempt to find quotes from other NOI sources that indicate that Muhammad's statements do not reflect official NOI policy. If I do, will you agree that these quotes should go out or at least be greatly trimmed back? LevelCheck 02:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Add back in the content you deleted. Your deletions are not justifed in any way. --Viriditas  | Talk 02:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you are not interested in discussing this issue in good faith. If you want to revert again, do so. I'm not going to save your fat from the 3RR fire. LevelCheck 02:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't demonstrated any good faith. And, your deletion of conetnt will be reverted, sooner or later.  You were asked to improve the article by providing counter-arguments -- the hallmark of NPOV -- and instead you deleted the parts of the article that upset you. --Viriditas  | Talk 02:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since he was officially reprimanded and then expelled/left the NOI in 19993 how are the statements he made after that time relevant to the NOI? If there's no compelling argument in the other direction, I'm going to remove his post 1993 statements from the article as they only constitute the opinion of Khalid Abdul Muhammad as an individual not as a spokesman or even member of the NOI. The earlier ones I haven't touched even though a lot of it is from the speech that actually got him censured by the NOI. Considering their outrageous nature it does seem inflammatory and misleading not to point out that far from being endorsed, he was castigated for making them. Doc Meroe 04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideas for more balance?
A revert war is not productive. What can we all do to make this text more balanced?--Cberlet 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How about adding back in half the article that LevelCheck deleted for no reason? I asked him to provide counter-arguments and all he did was delete the content he didn't like. --Viriditas  | Talk 02:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I provided specific arguments on this page. They just happened to be arguments you don't like. As I stated before, this isn't Khalid Abdul Muhammad and anti-Semitism. LevelCheck 02:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided any valid arguments. All you are doing is deleting content you don't like for your own personal reasons, much in the same way that you deleted the Israeli flag from the list of flags because you don't recognize Israel as a country.  You aren't editing in good faith. --Viriditas  | Talk 02:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Correction: I haven't provided arguments that you find valid. You aren't the ultimate arbiter of truth. By the way, I did not delete the Israeli flag from the list of national flags. I created a "List of disputed nations" and added to it three flags - those for Palestine, Israel, and Taiwan. Frankly, I think that you and several other editors are too close to these conflicts to look at the issue objectively. I think this article could do well with a few more editors who are neither Jewish nor Islamic. Half of Wikipedia seems to be dedicated to re-fighting the Arab-Israeli Wars. LevelCheck 02:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your specious reasoning is noted. --Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have listed this Talk page on WP:RFC. As much as you want to make this edit war about me and my real and alleged shortcomings, I am far from the only editor who has challenged this article's impartiality. LevelCheck 02:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is about you and your deletion of content without consensus. This is also about your POV pushing, as you don't seem to understand the concept of NPOV. --Viriditas  | Talk 03:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously you'd rather it be about me, but that is the hallmark of an ad hominem attack. Try attacking the argument, not the man. Furthermore, your claim that your own position on this issue is NPOV is quite laughable. You obviously have a tremendous personal stake in this, making you unable to think about the issue clearly. LevelCheck 03:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is extremely ironic coming from you, LevelCheck, after you just got finished writing, It's impossible to win an argument against you people...I'm referring to a small number of individuals on Wikipedia - you, User:Klonimus, User:Humus sapiens, User:Jayjg, and User:SlimVirgin among them - who believe that articles related to Judaism should reflect a pro-Jewish and anti-Islamic and anti-Palestinian POV, and that anyone who disagrees is an "anti-Semite"...I think this article could do well with a few more editors who are neither Jewish nor Islamic. You were saying something about ad hominem arguments, LevelCheck? --Viriditas  | Talk 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Compromise edit?
Try reading my edit as a short-term compromise?
 * There is no consensus for the removal of content, including the removal of the quote by the Catholic league, and the removal of the quote by Political Research Associates. --Viriditas | Talk 02:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also no consensus for keeping it. The best you can say is that there is no consensus on these issues at all, period. LevelCheck 03:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The Catholic League often makes hyperbolic statements, they are not a good source for a controversial topic. I wrote the article for Political Research Associates and cut the quote posted here because it was a weak argument since it was a secondary incident.--Cberlet 03:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The statements should be judged by both their content and their sources. Was the statement by the Catholic League an exaggeration? Regarding the statement by Political Research Associates, are you claiming you wrote the article on the web page or that you were the editor who added it to Wikipedia?  I'm not understanding why it was deleted. --Viriditas  | Talk 03:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I wrote the article for PRA and am the group's senior analyst. I removed it because I thought is was a weak argument with a secondary connection to NOI compared to other material in this article. It could reasonable by linked to. When a source has a history of making hyperbolic statements it is often better to rely on other sources than include material. If you look at the history of the article, I have been trying to make it less one-sided, without sanitizing the issue. --Cberlet 13:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I still think that the Steve Cokely section is important and should be included, especially his claim that Jewish doctors were injecting black children with the AIDS virus, and Farrakhan's failure to denounce Cokely.  I can't see any reason for that removal. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New editing attempts
OK, let's not insert the word alleged haphazardly, and let's not delete material and replace it with counter material. We can expand the detial on this page by adding more material from different perspectives, rather than folks stomping on each others' paragraphs. If there is a fact in dispute, please post a challenge here, rather than just deleting it. I assume everyone will be offended by the second paragraph. That would be success.--Cberlet 03:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of Khalid Abdul Muhammad's comments on the holocaust should be deleted as they were made March 29, 1994 after he left the NOI and they obviously did not reflect the organization's official position which was articulated by the NOI leader Louiis Farrakhan. That is akin to claiming that former Attorney General Ramsey Clark's present comments reflect the position of the U.S. Government. --205.188.116.134 12:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. Does anyone object?--Cberlet 12:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Criminy. Keep doing this "being reasonable" stuff and people will come to expect it. Are we sure we want that reputation? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
As it's currently written, this article reads like an ADL member's soap box. It needs to be entirely reworked (and maybe re-titled) so as to fairly present both sides of the dispute regarding these allegations. As it currently stands, it's one of the worst violations of NPOV that I've seen here on Wikipedia. Fix it or nix it!

--Blackcats 17:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to suddenly be finding POV everywhere, don't you? Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Nonsequitor. --Blackcats 17:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Polemic is not useful. Editing suggestions, such as those provided by User:205.188.116.134 are useful. In fact, this page has made great progress away from merely reflecting the view of ADL. You claims, Blackcats, are factually false and not constructive. People with very different views here have attempted to be constuctive. Please join us.--Cberlet 02:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement?
If there is no discussion, I will remove the NPOV flag.--Cberlet 16:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

From What I'm Viewing At In This Article, the Nation of Islam Doesn't Sound Anti-Semetic
Okay, so Farrakhan and Muhammed are two main leaders of the NOI, but they, from what looks of it, anti-Semetic themselves. The Nation of Islam has a history of being anti-white, yes, but no history before Farrakhan - around Maclom X's time - does it say that NOI was anti-Semetic as a whole. Sure, maybe a few people in the crowd, but their philosophy mostly as that the white man is the Devil, which may or may not include Jews, depending on their relations with them. But I would doubt it, as Malcom X has said he's made new friends after his pilgrimages to Africa, which included people of the Jewish faith. So Farrakhan does speak to a couple crowds where he asks questions on who controls the media, the economy, etc. The audience will answer "Jews" some of the time, but overall the Nation of Islam's philosophy is not to be anti anything, but to uphold their faith to the black community.

Leopard Gecko 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Would quotes from each and every individual member of the NOI be enough to satisfy you?


 * if you read the wikipedia of the main and this article, it sound like the are xenophobic, not just against jews but also white and traditional muslim... I find it unfair that ONLY antisemitism is covered. why is their opposition against jews valuable to be entitled a article on it's own but their opposition against white and traditional muslim thoughts are not? I feel there is a certain biasness in this article that it attempt to paint jewish as exclusively a target. Akinkhoo (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I am proposing that this article be merged with Nation of Islam for the simple reason that it seems to be covered precisely by the policy Content forking. --ManEatingDonut 06:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that other editors wore themselves out with POV warring, and simply removed this article from their watchlists? Does anyone object to a merge? --ManEatingDonut 07:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article and the majority of its content should be deleted because it is a rather obvious and blatant attempt by Nation of Islam detractors to circumvent neutral point of view guidelines in getting their point accross. To be more precise, the proponents of this article have created and wish to maintain this POV Fork. The history of edits on the main Nation of Islam article is a clear testament to this fact.


 * A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.


 * POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first.  This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion. -- JohnBlaz 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the merger.Bless sins 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose there is just too much evidence and information to warrent a merge. --Sefringle 08:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A merge would make the single article ungodly huge. 71.185.129.22 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Deserves its own page to cover the contentious debate. Could be improved.--Cberlet 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nation of Islam vs. Islam
Apparently a few editors think that Nation of Islam is somehow related to Islam. Can they explain why? These editors need to provide some sources to back up their claims.Bless sins 02:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be obvious (Nation of Islam).-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. Please see Democratic People's Republic of Korea (which is a dictatorship) for such misnomers.Bless sins 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a generous amount of support that details how the "Nation of Islam" is related to "Islam". Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide "a generous amount of support" that allegations of NOI antisemitism are similar to Islamic antisemitism?Bless sins 04:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been more than 6 months (more than 7, since I started this section), and I'm still waiting for the "generous amount of support".Bless sins (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of support. What is so hard to understand about "Nation of Islam?.  Yahel  Guhan  04:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The same thing that is hard in understanding about "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (which is essentially a dictatorship).Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is the Nation of Islam is actually an organization practicing a form of Islam.  Yahel  Guhan  00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...so says Yahel Guhan who is not a reliable source. The NOI have a different prophet, and they don't follow the Sunnah, nor rely on the Qur'an for guidance.Bless sins (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So says your own OR. They claim to follow islam, and that is enough.  Yahel  Guhan  02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources please. Also the NOI isn't a reliable source, certainly not on Islam.Bless sins (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read their official platofrm. And they are a branch of islam, so that makes them reliable. NOI is a reliable source on themselves.  Yahel  Guhan  02:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The NOI are no more of a reliable source on Islam, as they are on Judaism. (And if you concede that they are a reliable source on both, then there is some pretty distasteful stuff the organization has to say about Judaism). Please look up the meaning of "reliable sources" here.Bless sins (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "After World War II an Islamic movement arose among blacks in the United States; members called themselves the Nation of Islam, but they were popularly known as Black Muslims." Islam: The "Black Muslims", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Beggining
The first sentence is about the fact that some people thing the NOI is antisemetic. I think that the first sentence should be saying what the NOI actually is. Could someone please edit this or tell me why it is like this. --Smurkledunk (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarify lead
What supports this the following statement: "A number of Jewish organizations, Christian organizations, and academics consider the Nation of Islam to be antisemitic."

Can someone provide the exact quotes?Bless sins 04:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the Nation of Islam and antisemitism section. Thank you -- Avi 05:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That suffices. Maybe you should copy and paste those sources to the lead, so there can be no confusion after today.Bless sins 05:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we can allow for the assumption of a modicum of intelligence and patience on the part of the average user of WIkipedia and presume that they will read more than five lines of an article before making a reasoned conclusion. Must we assume that no one has an attention span longer than 5.7 seconds? -- Avi 12:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently we must assume that because there were "who?" and citation requests throughout the article even though there are existing citations following the assertions in question. Either that, or someone is trying to make a political statement by populating the article with "who?" and "citation needed" requests in order to place an inordinate amount of doubt in the article's accuracy. I deleted the "who?" and "citation needed" where appropriate (seems like all of them) and request that people use more objectivity and actually read the article before requesting clarification. Dkaplan73 (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)