Talk:Yakub (Nation of Islam)

message: If one wishes to play word games as Yakub-ists are wont to do, then how is it reconciled that Heather Locklear's middle name is "Deen," which is an Arabic word essentially meaning "all-encompassing/lifestyle?" It has a strong meaning in Islam specifically, but other faiths use it as well. Her father is Lumbee, and they have +- 50% SSAfrican genetic material in their DNA. The Lumbee may have Moorish/North(East) African ancestry as well, as most likely do a lot of triracial groups. Perhaps that is originally where "Deen" in her family came from, although Sephardic Jews and or Christians from that region may have contributed as well. Farakhan told black men to stay away from "Heathers," meaning "white" women, but blacks fall for every scam perpetrated by darker skinned eastern Caucasians such as Fard? Word games...In Malta, they call "God," "Alla," no "h." JBDay 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: I deleted this category. I find it fanciful; even farcical, but this is a religious belief. Wikipedia does not take a position on truth. We are neutral and that category is anything but neutral when applied to religion or its beliefs. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, but while delete the "Sacred History" cat?  Cannot a sacred history be racist?  Me thinks so...--Rojerts 19:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if "white race — a race of devils" does not qualify as racism, I don't know what does. Kar98 20:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudohistory

message: "...to reposition him as the originator of white people as a whole (including Jews)."
What's the point of mentioning yews as also belonging to the white race, why must they be so distinctive? And there are jewish members of the black race (to be politically correct), so that kind of stands against NOI policies.
I understand, yews have suffered a lot in the past. But why keep pushing it beyond all reason? They want the same rights as everyone else. Then why *must* they always be mentioned separately? I got nothing against jewish religion or, if it indeed is a separate race, jewish people, except that they try to overequalize themselves.
I understand that many will now think of me as an "anti-Semitic nazi estonian" (as if it wasn't bad enought that extremist russians call us so), and I will leave the decision, whether it should be removed or not, to someone else, for maybe I am anti-Semitic and just do not acknowledge it.
BlahBlah, Woof Woof... Too much writing over a small thing that isn't really that important.
Graphomaniac Laur Joost 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for mentioning Jews specifically is because Jacob in the Bible is only the parent of the Isrealites - the forefathers of modern Jews. However in some versions of British Israelism the ten Lost tribes of Israel are construed as the forefathers of White People in general. The Yakub story evolves from that theory. Paul B 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jew rant 

message: I wonder if the person referred to by this article is the same person referred to as Jacob/Yacoub in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.160.46 (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The question should be, is the Yakub in Nation of Islam the same as the the prophet in Judaism/Christianity/Islam, because Yakub is certainly the same Jacob in Christianity or Yakob in Judaism. Note that there is no j sound in Hebrew. Yakob is spelled with a yod. The third letter gimel is a g sound and equivalent to the Arabic ǧīm. But while the Arabic ǧīm has a j sound, the Hebrew doesn't. So the Anglicized Jacob cannot be spelled in Hebrew, even if it can be closely approximated in Arabic. At any rate, the original name is Yakub/Yakob. Rlinfinity (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yakub the same as Jewish/Chrisitan/Islamic Jacob/Yacoub? 

message: Notability would imply reception in independent, third party sources.
Such coverage of NOI as I can find in a hurry dedicate typically a brief paragraph to Yakub. I am not sure this is sufficient for a standalone article. We could as well just briefly mention the idea in a discussion of NOI racism more generally at Nation_of_Islam#Teachings_on_race. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the introduction needs to be re-written to provide clarity BUT This is a notable article and should be maintained - with some Neutral Point of View language revisions. --YakbutterT (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on light skin actually says the mutation occured 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. Stillwaterising (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: interesting. But notable?

message: I don't see that this page meets WP:GNG by means of doing a web search but I don't think that's an accurate picture.  WP:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement has pages like List_of_Book_of_Mormon_people but I don't see notability being disputed there.  What's important is that this is part of the core beliefs that influence NOI and Black supremacist.  Whether this garners much attention in mainstream media isn't important; notability in this case is derived from it's influence on notable events and people.  Therefore, Yakub (Nation of Islam) is an important footnote in the bigger picture of understanding those who believe in it. Stillwaterising (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason to keep is becase 30 articles link to this page. Stillwaterising (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I can see zero reason for either the deletion or merging of this article, which has been in existence for many years now. And there are no arguments presented here to do so. Its notablility should not be in doubt. As any trawl of google books will indicate, the NOI Yakub myth has been the subject of extensive discussion. No-one has seen fit to add such tags in all the years that this article has existed. The tags were added after I drew attention to the fact that an NOI "believer" had attempted to rewrite the article to express literal belief in this story. That version is long gone. User:Simonm223 sees fit to refer to the  current version as a "trainwreck of an article". I really wonder whether he has even bothered to read it. He has offered no useful suggestions whatever. If there is no helpful discussion I will remove the tags again after a week. Paul B (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: KEEP

message: The Patmos page says that archeological evidence shows that the islands first inhabitants were around 2000 BC.  I would be interested in see what racial characteristics their bones have and what the DNA record may show on their ancenstry.  It would round out the article to present some scientific evidence to help prove or refute the story. I'm sure there some apologetics views on this too. Furthermore, what's the scientific view of this theory in general? Stillwaterising (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather doubt that anyone has taken this story seriously enough to research the racial characteristics of bones on Patmos. It's not appropriate to introduce scientific evidence to refute the myth unless the extant literature does so, which I doubt. There is a fair deal of academic material on its socio-historical significance in the context of early 20th century Eugenics and millenarian ideology. Paul B (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Archeological Evidence

message: ....the fact that Yakub was black himself? Never giving a motivation for why he wanted to create a "magnet race" that would rule over those like himself (black people) through "tricks and deceit" seems very counter intuitive being that would mean a future hegemony over those like himself. 98.246.62.216 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, how does their doctrine account for.... 

message: The article once had these paragraphs, who were later removed: "In recent times, the doctrine of Yakub has been rationalized within the NOI as an allegory for the evolution of whites from the original dark-skinned human populations of Africa and as a parable warning of the dangers of eugenics. Yakub's 600-year experiment is seen as storytelling, similar to the way some modern Abrahamic religions view the Bible's account of God creating Eve from Adam's rib. In his autobiography (written by Alex Haley), Malcolm X notes that, in his travels in the Middle East, many Muslims reacted with shock upon hearing about the doctrine of Yakub." Is this true or the Nation of Islam still helds to the belief of Yakub? Its a important question to be answered.Mistico (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern View of the Yakub Story 

message: Well, this is embarrassing. Given the poor quality of this article and the fact that besides some damage control from mainstream Islam this story is presented as if it were factual (enough that some on the talk page are asking 'is this true', not to mention a brief google shows it cropping up all over black-supremacist propaganda sites,) this managed to hit Reddit's front page and generate a lot of controversy which is quite shameful as a redditor (Hi reddit! We're not racist here, we just can't police the quality of all articles, and the batshit insane will always flout their views in public as though real!) and a wikipedian on multiple levels.
Steel didn't exist when he was playing with it, nor did a means to magnetize steel. Meccans were at odds with Islam (see the Caravan Raids). It goes without saying the story is utter insanity wrapped in a bun, and where such pseudoscience and alt. history appears in other religions it is addressed as such for clarity. 
I don't even know how this has stayed in such poor quality for so long without being noticed, I mean the line of where encyclopedic article stops where the insanity begins. It is, without doubt, pseudoscience. It's sole purpose is to denigrate the 'white race' with some alternative history racist take on Gargamel creating Smurfette. It's presented in a manner that makes it NPOV, and I literally double handed face palmed when I read it.
The problem is, given the fact I am utterly appalled by the state of the article and disgusted at the content of the subject being covered I cannot possibly be considered neutral--regardless of my ability to remain neutral the quality of neutrality could be challenged by anyone who knows me and my disdain for racism regardless of which 'race' is the victim--and thus have to simply ask it's current editors who aren't habitual crack smokers and have actually read an encyclopedia before to realize it's not a hate manual to please step up and try and fix this mess before it makes the news rather than just front page to one of the internets largest crowd-linked interest groups.
We ought to keep in mind the way that we manage issues like this in other articles, one article that immediately comes to mind is Black people and early Mormonism, although Mormon's realized the error of their ways and ceased racist policies gradually from the 1890's onwards with various retractions and expunging of racist doctrines. Again something that isn't even addressed, that these beliefs are still held. I will flag this as NPOV pending some attempt to make this article less despicable and of an encyclopedic quality. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you on about? It's a story. Of course no-one in their right mind believes it. The only thing that's ridiculous is the fact that you have spent several paragraphs earnestly explaining why it's unlikely! Of course if you can find scholarly discussion of the Yakub story, that can be added. The literature on NOI doctrine and history is still rather small. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Paul B. Of course. NPOV tag removed.--Farry (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I've tried to add some material on this. It would be good to get some stuff on whether there has been discussion within the NOI of Yakub as a symbolic rather than a literal figure. Paul B (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: Pseudoscientific racist alternate history and not even addressed as such. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yakub (Nation of Islam). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504101347/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/baraka.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/baraka.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We need to make it clear in the intro of the article that this person didn't exist and that the story is absurd and pseudoscientific. Plus, there probably should be a section dedicated to the absurditiy of this article's claims too. Karl.i.biased (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, thats how it works for all other crazy/conspiracy related stuff. I don't see why it should be different here. The article reads like this is scientific or historically accurate. Its obviously not and it is an insult to any right-minded human visiting this page, but we all know that not only right-minded people reads about this. There is a following believing in the authenticity of this story, hence it should be more obvious that this is dealing with fiction and/or pseudoscience.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.10.32.156 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Except this is an article about a religious belief, not an article about a pseudoscientific belief. Should we identify Transubstantiation as pseudoscientific? Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

text: The article has, and had when this discussion started, the words "in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam" in the opening sentence, so it does make it clear that these are not being presented as facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientific consensus rejects the historicity of this figure." seems pretty clear to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And labeling it as a "belief" really cements that this is not science right off the bat. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OP was blocked as a sock last March. Doug Weller talk 07:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Not to put to fine a point on it, but that statement is cited to an article in a NoI publication expounding the thesis and attacking rabbis for saying otherwise. Surely we can do better. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which statement are we talking about? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the one that you brought up here. Try reading the source. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be snarky. I made the rather silly error of looking for a publisher with the name "noi". Now that I am looking at the right place, yeah, that source completely fails to meet our standards as a reliable source, plus the source doesn't match the claim. Removing it now. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: User:Dudsud How does the footnote that is the source back this? 
“ Historians have noted the story's parallels with some comparable historical events, but doubts have been raised about its overall legitimacy.<ref name="mos" /“?
And what exactly is this:? No author, no context, doesn’t seem to meet WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the improperly sourced additions to the article. Dudsud (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Dudsud Much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits  

message: This is not as claimed by a bluesky issue ask claimed by User:Andro611. "Franks" are mentioned for 1195 and later..  says 1195, search for Franks  1195 Alarcos. Same search at . Alfonso VIII of Castile has Franks in 1212. Are you going to delete that? Seventh Crusade 1242, Franks participated. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See alsos Crusades and Crusader states. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I fail to see the issue in using Castilians. Could it be that Muslim sources used “Franks” as a by-word for all western European christians? But why should we follow medieval islamic conventions instead making the text accessible to readers. Especially considering Castilians aren't Franks. Andro611 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Andro611 We follow the sources, which don't seem to be Muslim. Can you find a source that backs what you say about it being a catchall phrase, as that would be useful.  As would a quote (including context) from the source you used for Castilians. Thanks Doug Weller talk 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This book is useful. It says "1065-1109) more than a century earlier, in 479 H/1086 CE. Concerning the combatants at the Battle of Alarcos, the numbers stated by KhvandamTr are heavily exaggerated: by his account 100,000 Muslims fought under Abu Yusuf Ya'qub against 240,000 "Franks" (i.e. the Castilians), leaving 146,000 of their enemies dead, although Alfonso VIII (malik-i farang/farangistan, "king of the Franks") managed to escape.  " which could be useful. Perhaps there are other sources saying the same thing more or less. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franks vs Castillians