Talk:Nation of Islam

Completely divorced/distinct from

This edit changes the description of NoI's theology from a quote of "completely divorced" from to WPVOICE completely distinct from. I have two objections.

Firstly it is logical nonsense to be completely distinct (or half distinct, 95% distinct etc). Distinct means something like "easily recognisable/distinguishable from". You can be very distinct, but not completely so, nor very distinct from. You can be also be completely different from, but that is probably even stronger than completely divorced from, which implies they were once connected.

Secondly the word waters down the source in ways which I'm not sure are appropriate. By analogy, the beliefs, rituals and liturgies of the various European/traditional branches of Christianity are all distinct (easily recognisable/distinguishable from each other), but noone would say that Christian Orthodoxy's, Protestantism's, and Roman Catholicism's theologies are "completely divorced" from each other, they all literally follow the same defining creed in much the same way that the Five Pillars define the central tenets of Islam.

I presume that the change is born out of a wish to be neutral, but if most independent sources think that NoI's theology is completely different from Islam's, as opposed to 'distinct from' (which I suspect they do), we should say so. Either way we should alter the bad English of completely distinct from. Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC) I've reverted the change until it has been discussed. Pincrete (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concerns to the Talk Page, Pincrete. My initial edit was a response to a comment given by Noleander at the ongoing FAC. Noleander was concerned that we had a direct quotation in the sentence but without any in-text attribution; they suggested either adding that attribution, or paraphrasing in Wikipedia's own voice. For the sake of brevity, I went with the latter option, but I appreciate your concerns about the words I selected as replacements. To that end, I will make a change that aligns with the other option, which is to add attribution to the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

We could equally paraphrase to "very/completely different from", though I think the 'divorced' metaphor better expresses a "have drifted apart" situation. I leave the choice to you. Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Religious movement?

The opening (ie defining) sentence of the lead has recently been changed from characterising NoI as an 'organization' to a 'movement', edit reason being 'as per FAC suggestion'. This term is generally reserved for belief-trends which are bigger and broader than any specific org, eg anti-Iraq war, Civil Rights, Black Lives Matter etc. How is that true of NoI? Which sources describe NoI as a 'movement', as opposed to a religious group/org? (I have to say that 'as per FAC suggestion' isn't a very helpful edit reason if we have no idea what the suggestion was or why it was made - it's effectively 'privatises' the article to those taking part in the FAC discussion).

Somewhat clumsily, the lead continues NoI "is a religious movement founded in the United States by Wallace Fard Muhammad in 1930. A centralized and hierarchical organization, the NOI is committed to …". So NoI is a movement which is a single centralized, heirarchical organisation? This barely makes any sense at all, if it is an attempt to address the matter of NoI having had a number of distinct 'phases', IMO it obfuscates, rather than addresses that issue. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thinking further about this, the change could be motivated by the wish to cover the fact that NoI has social and political dimensions, parallel with the religious ones. If that is the case, my reaction firstly is that this meaning is not clear from the text, which appears to me to contradict itself. Secondly, how does NoI having 'extra-religious' convictions and activities differ from any other religious organisation campaigning outside of its strictly religious functions? Many religious organisations are active in campaigns as diverse as opposing abortion to remedying poverty in their own societies or in the broader world, or other 'good works'. Crucially, do the majority of sources describe it as a 'movement' or an 'organization'?

Since nobody can has offered any expanation of how an organisationa suddenly became a movement (which is simultaneously a centralised hierachical organisation|) I have reverted. The defining sentence has been in place for many years (20 years ago it was briefly described as "AKA Black Muslim Movement"), since then (continuously I believe), it has been a "religious and political organization". Also, we have AFAIK, almost no content in the article as to how/in what way NoI exists as a movement outside of the specific religious/political organisation. This religious organisation does of course have specific political aims/views/activities, but that doesn't intrinsically make it a 'movement', rather a part of various other movements (eg seperatism). I know of no other movement which is bound by the limits of a single organisation.Pincrete (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concerns to the Talk Page, Pincrete. I really don't think "and political" should be in the lead, and it hasn't been in place there for at least a year (it isn't in this version I randomly selected from October 2024, for instance). Accordingly, it isn't in the version that FAC reviewers have been looking at and scrutinising in recent weeks. Claiming that the NOI is a "political" group in the opening sentence is certainly WP:UNDUE and does not reflect the manner in which the Nation is commonly described in Reliable Sources. Yes, there are political dimensions to the NOI's beliefs, but the same could be said for virtually every religious community across the world. If we don't open the articles on the Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by calling them "political" groups, we really should not be doing so with the NOI. Moreover, to quote one scholar, Stephen C. Finley, the NOI is "first and foremost a religious community", as opposed to a political one.

As to the other point, which perhaps warrants wider discussion and maybe a range of opinions, I shifted from "organisation" to "movement" following comments by one FAC reviewer, Borsoka. They pointed out that the article describes how the NOI has existed in two different organisational forms, one succeeding the other, and raised concerns that simply calling the group an "organisation" in the opening sentence failed to capture this. I thought that "movement" would thus do a better job of reflecting that we are dealing with two successive organisations. Furthermore, as the "Definition" section makes clear, there are quite a few Reliable Sources that do describe the NOI as a "movement", so it is certainly not an inaccurate statement to make. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

If we don't open the articles on the Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by calling them "political" groups, we really should not be doing so with the NOI. Mormonism I know almost nothing about, but to the best of my knowledge, the RCC doesn't have as one of its aims fundamentally changing the make-up and constitution of the state(s) in which it operates - as does NoI with its belief in racial seperatism for the US, so that is one of the many reasons why the comparison is wholly invalid, apart from being inherently 'whataboutist'. There are times and situations when it might be helpful to compare WP coverage of one group with coverage of another, but, until the RCC revives its ancient habit of assassinating leading apostates by burning them at the stake, this isn't one of them IMO. Whatever faults or virtues NoI has are its own.

I had forgotten though that the and political phrase has been out for a year and am not going to object to NoI being treated primarily as a religious group that also has political beliefs and actions (and social programs).

My first guess about the reason for the change to 'movement' was largely right then (though I could not find why/where it was suggested, when I did find the FAC discussion). I've already given my reasons for objecting above. Primarily it simply doesn't 'read' IMO, nor is it covered in the article as being how the 'movement' exists outside the specific organisation. If it is important to record that NoI has had distinct phases, let's do so explicitly (personally I don't think it central or defining. Crudely there was a period under WDM when he sought to get NoI to embrace mainsteam Sunni Islam, when NoI didn't thrive. Other than that, the phases are largely matters of style and emphasis. These phases are covered later in the lead and are not easily summarised).

The present lead however reads as being very muddled IMO. A 'movement' is inherently a set of beliefs/goals which are broader than any specific active group (feminism, MAGA, Stop the War etc), then we follow it by saying that this particular 'religious movement' is a 'centralised and hierarchical organisation'. Nowhere do we say what the aims of this 'religious movement' are/were. At best this is muddled IMO. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

How about the following: "The Nation of Islam (NOI) is a religious group founded in the United States by Wallace Fard Muhammad in 1930. A centralized and hierarchical organization,[...]"? This avoids the swift repetition of "organization" two sentences in a row while also accounting for some of the concerns that led to me proposing "movement". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That's fine as far as I'm concerned (in fact it's so splendidly simple, I wish I had thought of it myself!). I've no idea whether it chimes with the language used by sources, but 'group' puts the emphasis on the people themselves, those who are members, rather than on the institution to which they belong, which I'm OK about. Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Pincrete. I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Opening should include "Hate Group"

I think the opening paragraph should include the mentions of the NOI being a hate group, as well as its controversial beliefs and statements.

I know it’s already listed down below, but it would be more fair to include it in the opening considering its infamy for such views. CG7000 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

USER:CG7000, In May 2022 an RfC decided that these 'criticisms' should be in para 4, (where they are now). Previously they had been in para 2 for many years. While the text has changed in the interval (due to a major overhaul by another editor), the criticisms would be unlikely to be moved to 'pole position' in the article. Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose putting the views of the Nation's critics in the opening paragraph of the lead. That would be completely WP:UNDUE and would clearly constitute an attempt to promote a critical and hostile view of the Nation to Wikipedia's readers. Mentioning these views in the fourth paragraph of the lead is perfectly sufficient because it allows readers to gain a very basic, neutrally worded understanding of the Nation's history and key beliefs before presenting them with the views of its critics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Where is elsewhere?

Midnightblueowl, I wonder if we can be more specific in the sentence "Based in the United States, the Nation of Islam has also established a presence elsewhere, with membership open only to people of color."

I'm aware of their being or having been a small presence in the UK, but unsure of which other countries. If the outside-US presence is in a fairly small number of counties, can we be more specific? Pincrete (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pincrete and thanks for your message. The NOI does seem to have a presence in a few other countries, like Canada (as reported on in this news article, for instance), but I have not seen high-quality academic coverage of the group's presence there. Generally speaking, I do not think that the NOI's operations outside the US are particularly substantial, but I may be wrong in that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Canada doesn't surprise, because of proximity, apart from anything else, UK I'm aware of NoI having a presence in the fairly distant past, but I don't know now. I suspect NoI presence is/was limited to the Anglosphere but we can't be more specific without clear info. I just thought that you might know 'out of the top of your head'. Thanks for reply. Pincrete (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Consensus

@Midnightblueowl I keep trying to add that the Nation of Islam has 50,000 members in the first paragraph to make the the first paragraph ultimately better, if the Nation of Islam established a presence elsewhere, it's only open to people of color, etc. Why can't that also be mentioned in the first paragraph? Keep trying to make the contribution I check the page a few times a month it keeps being undone, I'm making the edit in different ways like last time I added it's the largest Black nationalist organization in the United States, this time I didn't so I don't view it as "edit warring". I'm not adding this because I like the Nation of Islam, actual Muslims consider it shirk and I'm Korean not Black, but I'm trying to show how big this organization is from a neutral standpoint. Can you explain how it's wrong and why it gets reverted? Kpop777 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kpop; thanks for bringing the issue to the Talk Page. There are two issues here, the first to do with edit warring and the second to do with what actually improves the article. In both cases remember that this is a WP:Featured Article, so it has been extensively scrutinised by a wide range of editors and is ranked as one of Wikipedia's best articles. On the first point, you were within your rights to be WP:Bold and make a change, but once that change had been reverted you should have followed the WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and raised your concerns directly at the Talk Page, rather than waiting a few weeks and then making very similar changes again. That's just how Wikipedia works, otherwise we would all be mired in edit wars all the time.

The second point is whether your edit makes a necessary or unambiguous improvement to the article; I'm not convinced it does. It's not that your edit is fundamentally bad, but it's about proportionality and standardisation. We have a number of other Featured Article-rated articles on religious groups here at Wikipedia (Rastafari, Santería, Palo (religion), Heathenry (new religious movement)), and you'll see that in all of them, the information about the demographics has been featured in the fourth paragraph of the lead, not the first. In this sense, the Nation of Islam article is just following on in that shared format. The other issue is that moving sentences from the fourth paragraph to the first makes the latter that much longer, which gives the lead as a whole a visual imbalance and may prove a bit more daunting for readers; keeping the opening paragraph fairly short helps to lead the reader in. The existing lead, which was scrutinised and awarded Featured Article status, does a better job of introducing the general topic to the viewer, at least in my opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

fine Kpop777 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with you about the virtues of 'standardising'format, since the character of each group is different, the points deserving to be highlighted often vary. But in this instance, I'm neutral and see no reason to NOT follow the standard format. NoI's size doesn't seem especially worthy of 'early' coverage IMO. Pincrete (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)