Talk:Yakub (Nation of Islam)

"All other branches of Islam, as well as Christianity and Judaism, reject these assertions" (that Yakub is the biblical Jacob).

This statement sounds broadly true. I don't need a reference to know that the Vatican rejects the story of Yakub. However, there are thousands of branches of Christianity / Islam / Judaism. We can't say that all branches reject Yakub unless we interview the heads of each of these branches.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337deepesh (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Rejection may be appropriate when sources cite refutation, but the fact that it's a recent novel doctrine may be enough to understand that it's not part of the large Abrahamic currents, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Currently it says that it's not part of mainstream Islam and often mocked. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mattwest This is WP:UNDUE weight. There are dozens of similar mentions in a variety of media sources, we should not piece them together to form this trivia style list. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

But that's not what WP:UNDUE is about. WP:UNDUE is regarding viewpoints. A pop culture reference is not about viewpoints. Are you getting it confused with WP:POPULARCULTURE? I would imagine it can be hard to keep your arguments straight when you all you really care about is getting your way. Either way, suggesting that the two sentences that I added change the weight of the article is a laughable claim.

You claim "dozens of similar mentions". First of all, like I have said several times before, this was not a mention. It was an appearance of the figure himself (obviously not the real person, hopefully I didn't need to spell that out). Furthermore, during the appearance he relays some of the major points of his mythology.

Since you said there are "dozens of similar mentions", I would challenge you to find merely two appearances of Yakub in pop culture that cover the figure with similar depth. If you can do that I will concede that your position is correct. Otherwise I have to assume, based on all evidence, that you are both arguing and editing in bad faith.

To be clear, reverting a edit adding a pop culture reference by referring to WP:UNDUE is the definition of a bad faith edit.

Furthermore, not that you care, but WP:POPULARCULTURE also does not justify your reversions. This is neither a trivial reference (you keep acting like someone just mentioned his name, but you know that's not the case, so that's also a bad faith argument), nor is the list at risk of becoming a trivia magnet.

It's clear you are treating this article as your personally protected enclave. It's not appropriate for you to impose your view of what the article should be onto others, nor do you have sole editorial rights to this page. Mattswest (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Also, I think you made your true motivations clear with your last edit summary.

"a website about late night covering late night does not make it WP:DUE for an article topic with this much scholarship"

You have made it clear you consider this article special in some regard, and are attempting to hold it to a standard not justified by Wikipedia policies, but you don't have the right to harass other editors by repeatedly reverting valid additions to the article. Mattswest (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects" - undue weight is not, at all, just about views, it is any and all aspects of a topic. Pop culture is a very minor aspect of Yakub.

As for other mentions, there are numerous songs that recount various aspects of Yakub mythos. The Wu-Tang clan has dedicated parts of their songs to it several times, as have Nas and Jay-Z, among many other rappers. These are more substantial because they use the Yakub message to tie into some political point.

It is not "special" as much as it is a widely covered topic in academia which makes the floor for due weight inclusion higher. Reverting undue weight material is bad faith, but accusing me of harassing you for making a simple reversion isn't? It was at risk of becoming a trivia magnet, because it has, in the past, been a trivia magnet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The inclusion is not automatically WP:UNDUE simply because it is it pop culture reference, regardless of whether or not it makes some point, political or otherwise. You are using your own judgement to define what is substantial, which is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Again, it was two sentences outlining a pop culture appearance under the "In popular culture" section of the article. It does not even come close to qualifying as undue weight. Mattswest (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because pop culture is such a minor aspect of Yakub that writing that much about one example, cited to one source, is giving the that aspect and the voice of a tiny minority of sources (a single source!) WP:UNDUE weight; "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". If there were dozens of outlets noting this it would be different but a single outlet dedicated to recapping a single TV show recapping that single TV show is not evidence of "its prevalence in reliable sources". PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

A single source is all that is required. It is not automatically invalid for inclusion according to WP:UNDUE simply because I have only provided a single source. That is patently absurd.

As you quoted, "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects".

It's not saying minority viewpoints or less important information can't be included. It's only saying they should not have equal weight in the article. The addition does not do this. It's that simple.

If you have some other argument to make then you should do so. Mattswest (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Not true, but ok. Per Wikipedia's manual of style, MOS:TRIVIA "Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. [...] If you want to add a fact to the banana article stating that bananas are used as weapons in the Worms video game series, you should cite a reliable source focused on bananas—such as, to take a fictitious example, The Cultural Impact of the Banana by Joe Bananalover. This ensures relevance to the subject of the article.

Citing sources specific to Worms, such as the games themselves as primary sources, or an article in PC Gamer magazine, is not sufficient."

Your source is not about Yakub, It is about the pop culture origin itself, and so violates MOS:TRIVIA. If it was an overview source on Yakub (as the rest of the pop culture references are cited to), that would be one thing, but it is not. To include pop culture references the sources must be on the article subject, not the pop culture. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

You have again quoted style guidelines that do not support your position.

"Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth."

It is your judgement that you are imposing on that article that the depth of the appearance or the article is not sufficient. Which is probably why you left out the last part of that paragraph.

"The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient."

That makes it much clearer, and as I have stated repeatedly, this was not the "mere appearance" you are trying to characterize it to be. He didn't just appear, standing in the background, or name-checked by someone else. He was a fully featured character in the show.

It is not up to you to decide what is and isn't "good enough" for inclusion. Nothing about my addition was a violation of any style guidelines.

Just because you have held other references in this article to a standard not fully justified by Wikipedia style guidelines does not mean you are allow to repeatedly revert valid additions just because you don't think they're good enough for "your" article.

This is not a violation of WP:UNDUE, nor is it a violation of MOS:TRIVIA.

Are there any other Wikipedia style guidelines you would like to attempt to mischaracterize? If not then please stop attempting to have an edit war with me. Mattswest (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Also that banana analogy is just pure nonsense.

You are again trying to suggest that only sources entirely dedicated to the article topic may be used as references.

That's not supported by any Wikipedia style guidelines, nor is it the standard that other pages are held to. Mattswest (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

For reference, here is a quote from the article that shows it does, in fact, "discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth".

"Hey, if Scientology and Mormonism want to downplay the space alien stuff for PR purposes, then no infamously litigious religion is off-limits for comedy."

But hey, I don't know, what's your opinion? Mattswest (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is you are new and understandably don't fully grasp our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The banana is policy's example of any broad topic that a pop culture example would go on. In this analogy, it is Yakub, and Worm is Late Night. It doesn't only apply to the singular example they gave. Wikipedia guidelines say pop culture references only go on articles if overview sources about the article subject, and that sources specific to the source of the pop culture reference cannot be used to add it to the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

GS, Are you really sure this is ready to GAN? I obviously can't review this, because I am still the largest contributor by percentage, but I really don't think this article is ready given the scope. Some of the sources are fairly questionable. there are some noticeable typos and weird phrasings, and I wouldn't say this passes GAC's "broadness" criterion. I wouldn't pass it if I reviewed it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

If you want to point out the weird phrasings and typos, I'd be happy to fix them. GettingSwole (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2025 and 8 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabedha (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mbkhiet.

— Assignment last updated by Mbkhiet (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yakub (Nation of Islam)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GettingSwole (talk · contribs) 19:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 15:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the article. At first read-through there's nothing obvious that jumps out at me, which is a good sign. Looking forward to diving in. Guettarda (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Guettarda Well, GettingSwole has been indeffed now, so uh... they could get un-indeffed, I guess?

Well, I'm the #1 contributor to this article still, so I guess I could take it over if they don't come back? I'm not sure if this article is ready, though. I don't feel like this article is broad enough compared to the scope of scholarly works on Yakub, and overrelies on some web sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA That's a shame to hear that about them. The main reason I haven't made progress on this review is that I found some of the information didn't agree with other articles (like the Tribe of Shabazz) which made me think I needed to dig into the sources.

I think it's appropriate to close the review. Guettarda (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I'm GettingSwole's original account and I've been allowed to return. Would you like to finish this review? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS for technical reasons (for the template, it has been closed for months), I believe you have to start a new nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Done! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Guettarda MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @MagicatthemovieS Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "Ashkenazi Jews seek to dominate Sephardic Jews" to be changed to "Ashkenazi Jews seek to dominate Ethiopian Jews", since Ethiopian Jews are the darkest-skinned Jews. ~2026-12271-36 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Not what the source says. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

What does the source say? ~2026-12322-65 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "which identified Africans as primitive" to be changed to "which identified blacks as primitive", since North Africans are not black. ~2026-12409-88 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "gorillas and monkeys" to be changed to "gorillas (apes) and monkeys". ~2026-12559-32 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Not an improvement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yakub (Nation of Islam)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MagicatthemovieS (talk · contribs) 16:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: UltraCobson (talk · contribs) 18:28, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! It's customary to begin reviewing the article within one week of starting the review. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely a good article. Sources are relevant and reputable, and the story of Yakub is explained clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraCobson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Query. This review has not been edited since MagicatthemovieS's note on 16 April. Do you plan to continue reviewing this article, UltraCobson? Urve (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm new to reviewing articles and wasn't aware I had to be consistent with it. However, I do plan on resuming the review of this article. UltraCobson (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. Since (I believe) this is your first review, you may find the instructions at the instructions page useful. There are a series of templates you may (optionally) use to guide your review. If you have questions, a good article mentor can help answer them or be a second pair of eyes. Urve (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Most of the article is well-written, but some parts sound nonsensical or don't deliver the point they're supposed to deliver as efficiently as they could. Working on fixing said parts. Will mark this attribute with a neutral icon for now.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The hard part about this article is the amount of cryptic language that's necessary to include, such as "bleaching", "grafting", and most importantly, "tricknology", which has very specific meaning that should sometimes be included in order to grasp the full picture. However, incorporating this into the article would heavily break the flow of prose and overcomplicate things. For now, since I haven't spotted anything that disqualifies it from scoring well in this attribute, I have marked it with a good icon.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Will look into this further. If I understand what it entails correctly, then it passes.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This is the hardest part of the review. Summaries are overly detailed but trimming them down would make the article extremely short, so this choice is justified to me.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Mostly neutral, but some parts feel promotional.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Worthy of GA status. Hard article to write but I was surprised with how it turned out.

Close

UltraCobson (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Do I need to make any specific changes? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

You can help me out with some of the phrasing, especially in the "Summary" section UltraCobson (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If you tell me which sentences/phrases need to be changed, I will change them. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Re-reading the article a second time, I don't see much that could be improved further. I think it's ready to become a Good Article. UltraCobson (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• @UltraCobson: If this is ready to be promoted to GA status, please follow the instructions listed at WP:GANI#R4 (I highly recommend using this tool). If not, please outline below what else needs to be done. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All criteria are met, and I will be promoting this to GA. Thanks to MagicatthemovieS for their hard work on this article, and congratulations! UltraCobson (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

GA update

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2026 and 6 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WaVge (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WaVge (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)