Talk:Wallace Fard Muhammad/Archive 1

changes by Co Yep
Hi, I think we need some references for the many assertions you are adding. In one edit summary you say "According to Hazel they divorced because he was "temperamental" (p.5/p.74))". So that's p.5 and p.74 of what? Footnotes in the article need to be added. Paul B 15:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all taken from the FBI file. Informations about their marriage are on page 5 (p.5) and Hazel's comment about divorcing Wallace because he was "temperamental" is on page 74 (p.74). CoYep 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We should attribute this info to the FBI file, which is rather contradictory about his actual relationship to Hazel Barton, who is described as his "common law wife" (i.e. live-in lover of long standing) and their son is said to be illegitimate. In the next para it says he married but abandoned her (p.8 of PDF). Paul B 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that one too, that's why I searched for another reference concerning their relationship status, which I found page 74. I assumed it's contradictory because they married after the son was already born (First common law wife -> then wife -> then ex-wife). But your edit is a good solution. CoYep 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair interpretation - buty I think it remains unclear. So where does the information about Fard as "David Ford-el" come from? It does not appear to be in the FBI file. Paul B 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted
This page is full of errors. Where are the real references to his suppsoedly son and wife? And parents? Just get rid of the whole article while you are at it if you want to lie on somebody and tear them apart. Yall are full of it. My article was deleted but this piece of junk BS is still up. No one knew the man, or have actually proof from his own mouth. Why not delete it? Besides I find it extremely offensive since my parents follow this religion.Cococanelle


 * The references to his wife and parents are fully footnoted. Check them out in the FBI files and in historical literature on Fard. However, I'm rather doubtful about the claims concerning his alleged "David Ford-el" persona, as you can see in the discussion above this one. Paul B 08:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

his bibliography?
How many book(lets) is he known or believed to have written besides the Secret Rituals of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam? Do they remain in print? Шизомби (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

identity
I've rearranged this because I think the two photos have to be sufficiently close together to be compared, and because the questiomn of Fard's identity is central to the interpretation of his significance, so I think it shoulfd be 'up front' at the top not relegated to an appendix. It also allows the biographical section to be seen as 'provisional' - based on an assumption about Fard's identity, not as uncontested fact. Paul B 6 Mar, 2005 6:35 (UTC)

"Photographs and fingerprints of both men exist." And identity is still a question? Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)

"How can anyone claim that these two men are one and the same...FINGERPRINTS OF "BOTH" MEN EXIST. B.Z. Gilliam, OCT. 26, 2005


 * Yes, and they were identical. That's what the FBI say anyway. So you either go for the theory that they were lying about it or that both men are one and the same. If can phrase it more precisely, go ahead. Paul B 17:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, consipracy theory allows one to argue anything. The photos and fingerprints were planted as part of a smear campaign etc. Paul B 7 July, 2005 12:45 (UTC)

"Fingerprints of both men exist" - I'm not sure what this means. Does the FBI have fingerprints of somebody acknowledged by Elijah Muhammad or the NOI as Fard which match fingerprints of Ford? I'd like to see a link or a description of exactly where in the 800+ FBI pages it is asserted that the fingerprints are the same, and whose fingerprints the FBI claims to be comparing. - Passing Through 199.219.138.254 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * After the ritual murder he was arrested and was fingerprinted. He was identified by the FBI as identical to Dodd Ford from their photographic and fingerprint records. Paul B 22:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: When one clicks on the linked pictures featured in the article, there is some biased language. The caption under the picture of Wallace Dodd Ford reads "Fraudulent FBI photograph of a man presented as Wallace Fard Muhammad," and the caption underneath the picture of Wallace Fard Muhammad says "This the actual photograph of Fard Muhammad. Presented to the public by Elijah Muhammad, who was taught by him for 3 years and 4 months straight." That leads to some confusion, especially since the article says that his identity is still disputed. Perhaps this should be changed for neutrality?


 * Yes, I uploaded the image. Some anonymous person added the caption. Paul B 15:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that in all the pages of FBI documents online which I reviewed for clues to Fard's identity, the government apparently neglected the information Fard himself filled-out for his WWI registration. I could not locate the town of Shinka in Afghanistan, but I did find it in present-day Pakistan. Perhaps a review of old maps is in order. I believe the location of Shinka in Pakistan came under British rule, and this might explain Fard's knowledge of English as well as Islam, and perhaps why he was able to get away with stating he was from New Zealand if, in fact, he was not from there.Historymysterio (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pakistan did not exist in 1893, or in WW1. It's an atificial creation made from bits of earlier territories. The letters of the first part of the name stand for the teritories that were partly appropriated. 'A' stands for Afghanistan. Paul B (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Clicking on the NOI picture of Fard still leads to a very POV caption. The caption should probably be changed or deleted. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Fard's identity now take up more real estate in this article than his organization of the Nation of Islam and are all placed above the seeming point of the piece. Fard is not in Wiki because he is a guy who has a shady background, but because he founded the NOI. Questions about his real identity are intriguing, but I think they should be pared down a bit and moved under his accomplishments/activities. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since questions about his identity are central to the debate about his achievements and theories, I don't think this is undue weight at all. This is essentially a biographical article, and that is exactly the "point of the piece". Paul B (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

guilty of brainwashing
Mr. Fard Muhammad preyed on the minds of a people that were in search of hope selling them an unproven theory of his own ancestry the "white" race, due to his unfortunate imprisonment. Does that also mean that Mr.Muhammad is also evil? does this man really deserve praise for playing on the minds of a people that were lost and looking for the answers to their oppressions in the Americas?

I disagree on preying on those who are naive because he only brought out the truth. Also, look at the eyebrows of the two men their is quiet a difference of the two. Finally it clearly is stated that the two men fingerprint exist not the same identical fingerprints. P.S. look at the texture of their hair it is a difference.

mr.fard muhammad was a very interesting man, but it is questionable whether he was telling the truth or not. divine mahdi or not, the man may have been a charlatan, or some kind of "spiritual fanatic"..... But the fact he dissappeared without a trace is even more questionable....Jesus was resurrected and he dissappeared without a trace, just the removed stone was the clue. so compare Jesus's disappearance with Master Fard's dissapearance.....-R.C Ahmed


 * I have to disagree on the photos. I think they look like the same person. The nose and ear are the same and the hair in the famous 'book' photo looks slicked down with oil. Irisismykid (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

comment
I have written a best-selling book researching what has been taught by Wallace Fard (based primarily on his own writings as they appear in The Supreme Wisdom. Why is it that a link to my speaking on Buddhist influences in NOI doctrine is always removed? Please explain whether the removals are according to Wiki policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.15.57 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read that he could be an dark-skinned Arab instead of a "real" Black. Where is he supposed to have immigrated from?

"punished in the Hereafter" is not very neutral

I disagree with the comment above. That phrase "punished in the Hereafter" was preceded by "Orthdox Muslims believe", so the article is neutral. The writer does not state that they WILL be punished, he simply states that SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE they will be punished, which is true.

---

I added quotation marks to give the paragraph some balance.

Agreed he does not look like a true African. Especially his hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.54.4 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Allah sent Buddha"?
It says in the UFO section that Muslims believe that Allah sent all the prophets, and includes Buddha in the list. Is this true, that Muslims consider Buddha a prophet like Moses and Jesus? Or is this a NOI belief? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC) This is a NOI belief, Contemporary Muslims only mention notable people from the Middle East before Muhammad's birth.

Ideology
We don't have much evidence of Fard's ideology, as there are no known copies of his original book. No one ever mentioned UFOs in connection with Fard, that's for sure. That was a later interpretation by Elijah Muhammad. This section should be completely rewritten, outlining what little is known about his ideology, with a link to the NOIs ideology section. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is he even black?
He doesn't appear to have the hair texture that black people possess and his skin looks too light in the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.106.202 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He's white but with an Italian like complexion. I searched up in a white nationalist forum stating that he was mixed race, half Maori and half English from New Zealand. Strangely enough wikipedia sais he was born in Zard Afghanistan, meaning that he's ... Afghani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.2.59 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Imprisonment
There is something wrong with this passage in the text: While the question of W. F. Muhammad's identity is controversial, NOI representative, Louis Farrakhan, does accept that Fard was imprisoned, due to lack of proof. He insists that this was because W.F. Muhammad's preaching threatened the racial status quo, and not because of any criminal acts. However, the Nation of Islam refuses to even consider this possibility.

Does Farrakhan accept that Fard was imprisoned? If so, what is the meaning intended by the subsequent phrase "due to lack of proof"? It sounds to me that Farrakhan accepts that Fard was imprisoned but denies that Fard was guilty of any criminal acts. "However, the Nation of Islam refuses to even consider (the) possibility" (of what?) the possibility that Fard was imprisoned?

I can only guess at what was meant by the editor(s) who wrote the current text. It needs to be cleaned up so that the meaning is clearer.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The text has been recently garbled. Farrakhan accepts that Fard was imprisoned, but not for drug-dealing. He is referring to his arrest after the ritual murder in 1932. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Muhammads
For wiki purposes, what name would be best to consistently identify this person? Any thoughts? For sanity's sake I'd love to NOT use Muhammad in order to distinguish between him and Elijah Muhammad and other NOI members names Muhammad, but I'm open to suggestions. Njsamizdat (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the problem? We can just use "Muhammad" if it is obvious which individual is being referred to, just as we can simply say "Smith", when it's obvious that it's a particular individual rather than one of the hundreds of other notable Smiths. However, WFM is typically called "Fard" when a single name is being used. Paul B (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * well, as far as is known, Fard didn't USE the name "Mohammad/Muhammad" ever. It was a "postumous" apelation.Ericl (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Mother plane
I don't have access to it but anyone confirm the source actually says he left on "the mother plane"?? Really? The mother plane? --Sabre ball t c 11:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Where is the citation for this claim? Whose viewpoint is it, NOI or some made up point? We don't know and I move that this be stricken until proper sources can be cited for the opinion that he is on a Mother Plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.98.80 (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The claim is already cited. The Mother Plane is a standard part of NOI cosmology and since W.F. Muhammad is God he can be on the Mother Plane just as easily as anywhere else. I don't see any problem. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"The view of opponents of the Nation of Islam is as follows."
That seems like an incredibly tendentious statement -- who says that presenting a particular (documented) accounting of a history is an "enemy" of anything? PolarBearInTheJungle (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * When you see something that obviously sticks out like that, it's usually a recent addition by a True Believer . Paul B (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits
I reverted recents edits by a new editor that moved the pre-Detroit sections of this biography to the bottom of the article and headlined them as counterintelpro, implying that they are mis- or dis-information. These pre-Detroit sections are well-referenced and it is general Wikipedia policy to keep biographies in chronological order. Thanks, Mr. Harman (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ideology section: a radical proposal
The Ideology section in this article certainly needs work. There is one entire section, for instance, without any citations. I can't help but think that readers be directed to the Nation of Islam article's Beliefs & Theology section and that this article's section be reduced to highlight any divergences with the present Nation of Islam philosophy/theology.

What do you all think? Mr. Harman (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How time flies. Here it is, about 2 months later and I have removed the Ideology section.  It had/has only two references, both to a Nation of Islam website, and it is unclear to me (or anyone reading this section) how W F Muhammad's ideology differs/differed from the present Nation of Islam ideology.  As far as I know, W. F. Muhammad never actually wrote down his ideology and what is referenced is what the Nation of Islam has to say on the matter.
 * If I'm wrong, please correct me. I am not against an Ideology section, but let's get some reliable sources.  Thanks, Mr. Harman (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Black Supremacy
It is my interpretation, after reading some works by this guy, that he was clearly a black supremacist. I mean, come on, he advocated killing "4 white devils" regularly to satisfy god. Is anyone opposed to labeling him as such in the lead?--Ðrdak (T) 23:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Additions
I've temporarily reverted to the established version, even though there were many good things in the new version. Part of the problem is that it was confusingly cited and sometime presented NOI dogma as fact. I do not have time to go through the edits in detail at the moment, but will do so in the next few days. Obviously other editors may wish to do so. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Only two sources
Well this idea is nice, but seems wrong. Our article on Elijah Mohammed says "Poole said he approached Fard and asked if he was the redeemer. Fard responded that he was, but that his time had not yet come." this would seem to be contemporary reporting, and I would suspect that there is a lot more with someone as prominent as WFM. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC).


 * What "idea"? What is this comment responding to? WFM wasn't at all 'prominent' in his day. Paul B (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

New version
The "new" version of this article has been reverted by at least three separate editors (not including two reversions by IPs). While it was up it was quickly given "primary" and "original research" tags by yet another editor. The stable version of the article - whatever shortcomings it may have - has remained untagged for a long time. I think this in itself indicates that the newer version preferred by Kwm1975 does not have consensus. A series of unconnected editors quickly felt that there were serious problems with it. There are some matters that are probably unresolvable. The NOI says his date of birth in 1877. I know of no independent source that accepts that, though there is some uncertainty whether 1893 is correct. The material on the FBI was not cited and contains a great deal of irrelevant material about false leads. Much of the other content is cited to booklets written by WFM and Elijah Muhammad. This is not the kind of citation required by WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note, Kwm1975 has been reported for edit warring — BranStark (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk page
Your Recent Wallace Fard Muhammad Discussion

You made the argument to kwm1975 that Wikipedia is not for Nation of Islam dogma with regard to the Wikipedia page of its founder, Wallace Fard Muhammad. The Wikipedia page of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, states: "Smith's first recorded revelation was a rebuke from God for having let Martin Harris lose 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript, chastising him for "fearing man more than God." The revelation was given in the voice of God, and Smith, as a speaker, was absent from the revelation.  Subsequent revelations would take on a similar authoritative style, often opening with words like "Hearken O ye people which profess my name, saith the Lord your God."

The reason that this Wikipedia page, and the Wikipedia pages of every religious founder, contains the dogma of the group that they founded is due to the fact that the teachings and beliefs of the founder form the basis of their life's work. The Nation of Islam teaches that White people are the devil. As a result, Whites (and some Blacks) often argue that their teachings should not be repeated. But how can you have a Wikipedia page of a religious founder, like Joseph Smith for example, void of the founder's teaching simply because it makes some uncomfortable?

Your article on Wallace Fard Muhammad, which is now his Wikipedia page, presents the history of Mr. Wallace Dodd Ford as if that history is unquestionably the history of Wallace Fard Muhammad. This view, while appropriate to serve as the opinion of whoever shares the view, cannot be presented as conclusive fact in light of the FBI file's clear explanation of the origin of the Ford/Fard link.

Unquestionably anyone who challenges your approach, and the approach of your colleagues, will face a high barrier in any effort to replace your article with a new Wikipedia page containing Wallace Fard Muhammad's "dogma" given the nature of his teaching. But for the record - you are simply wrong on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801 (talk • contribs)


 * You know perfectly well that the article on Smith makes it very clear that the "relevations" described are from his point of view. You will have had to have read half the article before coming upon that passage, by which time the context of his claims to revelation have been discussed in detail. However, I'm not defending that paricular passage. Frankly, I don't even know what is meant by "The revelation was given in the voice of God, and Smith, as a speaker, was absent from the revelation." I'm guessing it means he heard the voice of God inside his own head, but it's far from clear. Wikipedia is full of other stuff that could be improved. But that's a matter for discussion at the Joseph Smith article. In any case, you misunderstood what I said. Of course the view of the NOI should be expounded in the article - in the sense that its opinion of WFM should be explained, but the article should not propound that view. Also, from an academic pov, it's an extreme minority view. There are always going to be differences between articles, because sources differ. In the case of Smith, there is very little dispute about the facts of his life. The dispute is about interpretation. In the case of WFM the NOI view is so wholly divergent from the scholarly view that we have the problem of how to integrate it. There is also very little evidence left by WFM himself, and information about his movements has been reconstructed. Even his opinions are not clearly or fully known.
 * I should add that you don't help youself by edit warring, making wild accusations and sockpuppeting. This is the first time you have even tried to discuss content, despite months of attempting to alter the content of the article, which, by the way, is not "mine". I wrote very little of it. Paul B (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am still interested in hearing your justification for presenting the Ford/Fard link as absolute fact rather than opinion? It is not possible for anyone to have a "scholarly" opinion of this linkage because there is only: 1) the FBI file, 2) what Fard wrote, 3) what Fard said to his followers, and 4) speculation.  "Scholars" have developed their own beliefs, but all revert back to sources providing inconclusive data.  In the absence of data, some believe that Ford must be Fard.  But the original source material upon which these opinions rest are themselves inconclusive. So how can we reach a conclusive opinion that Ford is Fard simply because a few people write books, using the same inconclusive original source (where their personal opinion is that Ford is Fard). You should delete headlines like "Marriages" and "Bootlegging" and simply state how some people formed the opinion that Ford is Fard, then give a history of Ford titled as such. Your "Founding the Nation of Islam" and "Disappearance" sections give random statements based upon what?  The problem with this Wikipedia page, in my view, is that Fard taught a doctrine harsh on Whites, so there is a high probability that consensus among White commentators on Wikipedia will support whatever is deemed to be a harsh view of Fard (like your "Bootlegging" section).  What should prevail? The unquestionable statements of J. Edgar Hoover inventing a Ford/Fard link in black and white text in the FBI file, or Wikipedia consensus among people who do not like Fard's message? Perhaps Wikipedia must rely solely upon consensus even if it contradicts plain evidence.  But I believe the more responsible approach would be to present to Wikipedia readers the fact that there is a difference of opinion with reference to sources relied upon by those carrying those opinions. Even a minority view should be presented this way, because the subject matter involves religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801 (talk • contribs)


 * Since I assume you are Kwm1975, you should not be editing as you are blocked. Your argument with scholars is called "original research" here on Wikipedia. We don't as a rule try to prove specialists and academics wrong by arguing against them. I suggest you take the time you are blocked to read WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH. Honestly, you are far more likely to get legitimate points across if you learn about the website's policies and methods of consensus building. Also, please sign your posts. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia policy requires that "scholars" disagreeing with this page should be ignored, and original material should be ignored, but "scholars" of only one opinion should be cited due to consensus among those longing on, then I will just leave this site alone. 2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801