Talk:Five-Percent Nation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Myths and Realities

I am removing this entire section as being self serving and very poorly sourced. 12.165.140.155 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the section is less than neutral, but maybe the best approach would be to try to rewrite the section instead of removing it completely. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think removing it is still an option, it reads like it was written by a member of the movement, like its something you would find on an apologist website for the movement. At a minimum its title should be changed, though I think it should be removed completely and its contents distributed throughout the appropriate sections of the main article perhaps creating a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section to hold whatever won't fit in other sections.Javerthugo (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reading that section it's little more than just rehashing Five Percenter apologetics. It's not neutral at all, and cites only 5 Percenter sources. I think the entire section should be re-written. I suggest avoid using a "controversies and criticism" section, instead have sections for "Race", (or "racial teachings"), cite critics who say it is racist, and 5 percenters official policies on it. Then have a section for "women" or something like that, and discuss the accusations of chauvanism. Currently as written, it takes a strong POV that is inline with 5 Percent nation ideology and is little more than apologetics. I don't see it any differently than I do Mormonism which itself has issues with some of its past racial teachings. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the section. If I were to re-write it, I would use none of that material, since it's all written from a standpoint of defending the organization, and cites supporter literature. The section is little more than NGE apologetics. These issues and controversies should be covered, but it should use third party neutral sources. The issues of race and gender will be re-introduced using such sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it. The editor who restored it didn't even take part in this discussion. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The section was restored by @OjogbonIjinle: in this edit. I would like @Javerthugo: @FenixFeather: @12.165.140.155: to give their thoughts. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't like this subsection. Reads too much like WP:CSECTION. I think relevant information should be merged into other parts of of the ideology section. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 01:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the sourcing. It's all 5 Percenter Apologists. The tone is "Here's why 5 Percenters are totally not racist and everyone is lying.". Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this section is bad. The language is terrible and it is severely POV. I don't see a lot of useful information in it and would support deleting the whole thing. Ashmoo (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This section uses diverse academic and interlocutor sources. The section is not only well-referenced, but it is also important given the racist misinformation that individuals seek to spread about the Five Percent Nation. Miyakawa, Washington, Keiler-Bradshaw are academics who are not Five Percenters; Gottherer and Lindsay, are White politicians who worked closely with the Five Percenters; Knight is a white man who studied with the Five Percenters, Azreal is a White Five Percenter. The findings of academics, members of the organization, politicians who worked with the organization, and peoples of various backgrounds who have studied the organization are important, especially when addressing myths about the organization.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This section states common misconceptions about the organization, with sources, and then provides well-sourced diverse documentation that dispels those misconceptions and myths. What specific issues are problematic with this section? Is the problem that certain individuals are not able to promote a "Five Percenters are racist" narrative in the light of evidence to the contrary? Is the problem that certain individuals are not able to promote a "Five Percenters oppress women" narrative in the light of evidence to the contrary? Why does factual information about this organization, from diverse sources, including the organization's founder, invoke ire? For historical, racial, and sociological reasons it is important to include information about Mayor Lindsay's and B. Gotterher's relationships with the Five Percent Nation. . . but this also undercuts the "Five Percenters are racist" line. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by OjogbonIjinle (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC) OjogbonIjinle (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to integrate some of this content into other portions of the article, fine; I'm sure some of it could be presented neutrally and proportionately to its importance. But it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article on a religion to have a section that's explicitly apologetics for that religion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The section looks a lot like WP:POVPUSH. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dyrnych: I agree with your suggestion, and was thinking the same myself.

It is important that Wikipedia does not become or appear to be a collective of individuals of a certain demographic who think exactly alike who delete everything they personally don't agree with or don't believe in or like: that would amount to groupthink or worse tyranny. The "discussion" of this section amounted to, "I don't like..." or "this is all" but one's subjective over-generalized feelings about a quote or fact or person doesn't make that quote or fact or person invalid. Also a fact that contradicts a myth or a lie is no an apologetic. I wish we lived in a more civil and respectful and world, but we are all forced to make the best of the one in which we live.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And as such I have to say this section seriously failed NPOV, but giving undue weight to impartial five percenter sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV and original research in "Social impacts and impressions" section

"The Five Percent Nation has been portrayed as racist and anti-Caucasian; however, the nation's associations, membership, and principals reveal this portrayal to be inaccurate. Allah the Father, stated repeatedly that he was "neither pro-black nor anti-white." Allah's principles regarding race are echoed in various NGE literature and testimonies. In his "National Statement" given at Brookdale College in Monmouth County New Jersey in 1998, Dumar Wa'de Allah, National Spokesman for the NGE, stated "... we are not anti-white, nor pro-black. In fact, we have white Five Percenters." NGE websites and articles also state, "We as a collective are not anti-white nor pro-black. We are pro-righteous and anti-devilishment."

The Five Percent "pro-righteousness and anti-devilishment" worldview is evident in Allah the Father's community and political relationships. Allah the Father worked closely with John V. Lindsay, the Mayor of New York from 1966–1973, and his aide, journalist Barry Gottehrer to further the Five Percent Nation's growth. The Allah School in Mecca (New York), which was previously known as the Street Academy, was founded in 1966 through the Urban League with the help of Mayor Lindsay and Gottehrer. Wakeel Allah's In the Name of Allah includes photographs of Allah the Father along with Mayor John Lindsay and a group of Five Percenters on an airplane ride to a civic event organized by the mayor.

There have been from the organization's inception Five Percenters of various ethnicities. The most well-known Caucasian Five Percenter is John Michael Kennedy, who met Allah in 1965. Allah proclaimed Kennedy a "righteous man" and renamed him Azreal. Michael M. Knight's The Five Percenters includes a photo of a gathering of Five Percenters that includes Barkim, who Knight describes as "one of the earliest white Five Percenters" and his siblings. Knight's book also includes two photos of Allah with Gottehrer, who Allah called "Moses." Dr. Sujan Dass, who is better known as Supreme Understanding, is a Bangladeshi American Five Percenter and an influential and prolific writer. His book How to Hustle and Win: A Survival Guide For The Ghetto has been described as having the same impact on the hip hop generation as The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Alex Haley's Roots: The Saga of an American Family had on previous generations of African Americans."

It's a violation of WP:NPOV from the start, using the weasel word "however" and stating it Wikipedia's voice that its critics are incorrect. The rest is pure original research. What we can have, somewhere, is a sentence describing the critics positions (and I see no sources for critics) and a sentence describing the organisation's statements. I'm not sure what "as a collective" means, as it stands it looks as though it means there are members with different views. Note that we rarely use Wordpress logs, and this one seems to fail WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References

If you do not like the phrasing of the opening sentence, that is fine and can be changed. What members state, what researchers have found, and historical events are valid sources. An interview is an interview: How does an interview "fail"?OjogbonIjinle (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

These sections read more like apologetics than anything. It's taking the practiioners spin at face value and not questioning it. Of course the believers are gonna have some spin. It doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist! A good analogy would be Black people and Mormonism. If you were to just look at current Church of Mormon spin, they'd say that it's super anti-racist and teaches that everyone is equal and that there's no issue. You could fill the article with similar quotes to what is being used in this article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Harizotoh, is the actual objective to discredit anything that doesn't describe the Five Percent or them as a racist hate group? If that is not what they are, that is not what they are. If this organization was what you seem to want it to be, why would it allow Caucasians and people of various ethnic groups membership? Using your criteria, we would also need to describe Christianity and Islam as racist hate groups.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm using that as a counter-example, because if we were to use your approach to the issue of blacks and Mormonism the article would consist of a list of quotes from mormons explaining how it's a fallacy and a mischaracterize mormonism as ever having an issue with blacks and how the religion preaches equality of races. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

tend to agree this is very ORy and purffry.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Sources:

This article is in desperate need of more RS. Ideally, this would be academic books published by universities written by Phds in history or sociology of religion. These are peer reviewed, high quality, and have a tone that is neutral. Neither promotional nor derogatory. These kinds of books would be ideal to form the backbone of this article. But someone has to read them. I don't know of any books like this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 (talk) There are many Wikipedia articles desperately in need of the type of reliable source "backbone" you describe. As it relates to the Five Percent Nation page, the sources utilized in this article are diverse and reliable and include FBI files, prison records, newspaper and magazine articles (incl., AP, NPR, SPIN, VIBE, Today, Amsterdam News), books published by university presses (incl., Routledge, Cambridge, Indiana, NYU) sociological studies from major publishing houses (incl., St. Martins, Penguin subsidiary, HarperCollins) books and articles by university trained scholars, the majority being PhD holders, and/or experts in their fields, academics of various ethnicities, politicians of various persuasions and positions, and writers of various religious persuasions. It seems as if either certain editors are not actually reading the books, articles, quotes, references, or that those editors and their factions are ignoring or stalking, attacking, and deleting the information and sources because they don't fit their stereotype. Sadly, there are numerous examples of editors citing information from reliable sources only to have another editor covertly enlist a group/gang/mob of editors to stalk, harass, attack, and revert/delete the information from reliable sources while intimidating, threatening, and harassing the editor who quoted from a reliable source. . . I have seen this happen, quite recently, in fact.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Teachings on Race"

Pamela Andrew's MA Thesis "Ain't No Spook God" does not meet Wikipedia's threshold for a reliable source. Andrews is not recognized as an expert in this field or as having made significant contributions to this field. Andrews' thesis gives no evidence (citations, references, interviews, literature) that the Yacub theory is part of the "teachings on race" of the Five Percenters. If this theory is part of the Five Percent's "teachings on race" it would be stated in published sources, including Five Percent literature and secondary sources. Finding this information in proper sources should be easy.

At present this section and its sole source are in clear violation of the Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Reliable Sources policies: "The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. OjogbonIjinle (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

None of the policies you've cited apply. First, "Ain't No Spook God" extensively cites its sources, including sources for the Yakub story (specifically, Elijah Muhammad). Second, to the extent you're arguing that Andrew herself has engaged in original research, of course she has. That's not what the policy prohibits. Third, this is not a WP:BLP issue at all. Fourth, here are several other sources for the same thing. I don't think it is even particularly controversial that the Five Percenters, via the Nation of Islam, believe this. Dyrnych (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Every policy I cited applies. I am referring to the specific assertion that the Yacub theory is one of the teachings of the Five Percenters. I have read her thesis and she does not give any source/reference citing that the Yacub theory is one of the teachings of the Five Percenters. Just because she cites sources about various things doesn't mean she links Yacub to an established body of Five Percent "teachings." Also, Elijah Muhammed was not a Five Percenter; he was co-founder of the Nation of Islam and helped create the theory of Yacub. Trying to use him as a source is ludicrous and laughable. Andrews word, alone, with no references to back up her assertion in her thesis, is not a reliable source. Again, I've read the thesis and I did not see her reference any source. Let me know if I've overlooked it by including the passage of her thesis in which she explicitly locates the Yacub theory within a body of "Five Percenter teachings" with citations in your response. Finally, this assertion still must be cited in published sources by individuals regarded as experts in their fields or on the subject matter. You've included some sources in your response above. If you want to include other reliable sources with the assertion to buttress Andrews', feel free to do so, but what is included at present is contentions and poorly sourced by Wikipedia's standards. . .OjogbonIjinle (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Important point of clarification: The Five Percent cannot be lumped in with the Nation of Islam. NOI is defined as a religion with certain rules, beliefs, "teachings." The Five Percent state specifically that they are NOT a religion, NOT an off-shoot of the NOI, and every member is divine and ruler of her his life and destiny. Andrews, herself states this in her thesis; such "pluralism" contradicts the assertion that there is a set body of teachings everyone adheres to. OjogbonIjinle (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

After re-reading Andrews’ MA thesis I am still unable to find any explicit source by which she connects the Theory of Yacub to “Five Percent teachings.” In case I missed it/them, what reliable source(s) does Andrews use to explicitly connect the Yacub theory with “Five Percenter teachings”? Without this documentation, which must be verified as well, the section “Teachings on race” is in clear violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP: Reliable Sources. OjogbonIjinle (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Dyrnych 1) There is no verfiability for the claims made in "Teachings on race." Wikipedia:Verifiability, "requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." Andrews' MA thesis is cited, but her thesis does not connect the Yacub theory to Five Percent teaching with any evidence or sources at all. Her claim is not verified in her own work. Her work cannot be used as the sole source for a section "teachings on race". To be clear: this section, "teachings on race" Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiabilityas it "cites unencyclopedic sources" and "manufactures original research." 2) Andrews' thesis is not a reliable source. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence": Neither Andrews' nor work meet that threshold. 3) Without any reliable source whatsoever and without any verifiability, the section “Teachings on race” is in clear violation of WP:OR. 4) The section “Teachings on race” is in violation of WP:NPOV. The "section presents no other information, views, sources, evidence, or quotes, just a POV assertion that is backed by no reliable source. 5) This section is "unencyclopedic" by WP's standards--not mine or yours. This section, by WP's standards, must be removed. OjogbonIjinle (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

1), 2) and 3) I've explained that WP:OR doesn't apply above. Additionally, I've cited a couple of other published sources that you haven't objected to for the same content. Although I haven't added them to the article yet, note that WP:OR states: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed." You know there are reliable sources for the material, so arguing (correctly or not) that the specific source fails Wikipedia policies would not actually require the removal of the material.

4), 5) and 6) How is this an WP:NPOV issue? It describes a belief of the Five-Percent Nation in its own terms. Your notion that they "really" don't believe that is based on your opinion derived through your original research. Neither you nor I are acceptable sources for Wikipedia content. You may disagree that every individual Five-Percenter believes in the Yakub story, but it is verifiably an offshoot of the Nation of Islam and verifiably imported a number of its teachings (e.g., the origin of "Five Percent"), as stated in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You have not actually addressed the issues that I raised in points 1-4. This section is OR from the editor who included it because there is no reliable source for the information. What is more, with your assertion, "You know there are reliable sources for the material," you are attempting to claim you know what I know: that is the epitome of OR. The fact is that "teachings on race" contains no clear documented evidence from any source--including Andrews and those you referenced--that states unequivocally that the Yacub theory is an inherent part of the Five Percent "teachings on race." That is the problem.

You state that "It describes a belief of the Five-Percent Nation in its own terms. Your notion that they "really" don't believe that is based on your opinion derived through your original research." The precise problem with the section "teachings on Race" is that it does not describe a Five Percent belief, and no source mentioned by you or Andrews is able to definitively connect the Yacub theory to Five Percent "teachings on race." You are also, again, presuming to know what I think or believe. I have not stated any belief or notion about this issue at all. What I have stated repeatedly is that this section needs RS, Verfiability, and NPOV; it has none of these. I find it telling that rather than do the work and include proper sources, information, and research, if they are available, you are attacking me, claiming to know what I know, presuming to know what I believe all while supporting an unsourced, unverified, unencyclopedic "section." This leads me to wonder what the real point of this is. It is certainly not to make Wikipedia stronger because the section "teachings on race" is against the rules and pillars of the encyclopedia. I find this profoundly disturbing and also telling.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Verifiability:

Original research[edit source]

Further information: Wikipedia:No original research

The "No original research" policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.^[12]
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

OjogbonIjinle is correct. Andrews’ MA thesis is not a reliable source by any standard; neither she nor her advisors are authorities on the Five Percenters; Andrews also quotes no sources, thus, there is no verifiability. The section “Teachings on race” is filled with OR. Nothing here references any RS and there is no verifiability at all. This section is bogus.21:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

Sorry for the new account.

Reading this, while informative, there's a clear apologist tone. Even where critical it isn't presented in the same manner as other articles, and are presented in a manner that is inherently dismissive.

I feel the whole article needs revision to remain neutral. JMcKraken (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please make suggestions in the format of "change X to Y". Caius G. (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)