Talk:Nuwaubian Nation

Article quality

I would like to make it clear from the onset that I definitely believe that this subject has a place in the encyclopedia, I have no doubt about that. A problem arises, in my opinion, when any article is as dependent for its basic references directly on primary sources, as as this one is. My biggest concern is that it's somewhat unnecessary, I've already located two reliable sources online in book form that would both add a great deal to setting up authoritative referencing for the core of this article. I'll add links to them here later today or tomorrow for others to peruse. This article appears to have spawned a number of "spin off" articles which suffer from the same referencing problem in my opinion. In December of last year, through consensus, it was decided that one of those articles should be merged with this one and two are currently nominated for deletion/merger. From my perspective it inherently makes more sense to stabilize this situation by focusing on providing proper referencing for this one, as the 'core' article, before creating spin offs that are, in most cases, equally improperly supported. I think it goes without saying that because of the obscurity of the subject, it can be very difficult to find secondary sources for supporting the material sometimes, but I believe that without them, it's possible for an article to quickly become a type of "primary source" itself for sometimes hard to locate material, something policy strongly discourages. Without the support of independent sources for material, any editor is free to synthesize their own personal interpretation of what is relevant and important and should be included in an introductory article to the belief system, something I consider dangerously close to "original research". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• A drastic solution might be that we simply start deleting everything that has no source or only a primary source.--Sloane (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• That would also be a destructive solution. A constructive solution would be better. One wikipedia content guideline on using fringe group sources says: “Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience, or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; 2. it is not unduly self-serving; 3. it does not involve claims about third parties; 4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; 6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;” I think criteria #1–5 are met (perhaps with some arguments about #5 in some cases), only criteria #6 is at issue here. The solution is to bolster the reliable third-party sourcing in the article, rather than removing the valid and useful primary sourcing. — (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit tonight, in removing the "Etymology" section in its entirety, was because I believe that it simply doesn't meet criteria 1-3 for inclusion in Moorlock's posting above. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Here are some sources for references:

[1] UFO Religions By Christopher Hugh Partridge Contributor Christopher Hugh Partridge Published by Routledge, 2003 ISBN 0415263239 Pgs. 149-161

[2] UFO Religion: Inside Flying Saucer Cults and Culture By Gregory L. Reece Published by I. B. Tauris, 2007 ISBN 1845114515 Pgs. 192

[3] The Nuwaubian Movement: Black Gnosis By Susan Palmer Published by Ashgate Publishing, Limited, 2008 ISBN 0754662551

Encyclopedia of American Religions Ed : J. Gordon Melton Gale Cengage; 7th edition (December 2002) ISBN 0787663840

Jihadis in the Hood: Race, Urban Islam and the War on Terror Jihadis in the Hood: Race, Urban Islam and the War on Terror Hisham Aidi Middle East Report, No. 224 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 36-43

A simple keyword newspaper search on 'LexisNexis Academic' using "Nuwaubian" produces 30 articles dealing with the subject from 1999-2008 cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bilal Philips' The Ansaar Cult and Bill Osinski's Ungodly are also good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorlock (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on those choices as "good sources" for the article. "The Ansaar Cult" may be able to offer us a single reference or two to buttress up a claim in a potential section in the article which addresses criticism of the group by Muslims and others with a more traditional outlook on organized religion, but as a general source for the article overall, I'd suggest his bias is less than useful and fairly obvious. In my opinion "Ungodly", your other choice has very little merit. I've only read excerpts so far, but it appears to be a trade paperback whose only purpose is to blatantly sensationalize York's life. I'll respond to your other comments on sourcing in general in the other section. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Philips' book has some good interviews with ex-Nuwaubians from their early New York period, in addition to the less-useful bulk of the material that deals with York's quasi-Islamic heresies as viewed from an orthodox Sunni perspective. Osinksi did a lot of newspaper reporting about the Nuwaubians toward the end of their Tama-Re period in Georgia, and his book has a lot of information about life at the compound and at an earlier outpost shortly after the New York period. These are much more in-depth sources than some of the more superficial catch-all 101 UFO Cults type books, whatever their flaws. -— (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting for a minute that ""101 UFO Cults" type material should form the only secondary sources in this article, but verifiability and neutrality of sources have to be the key criteria according to policy when deciding what constitutes a "good source" for use in supporting claims for an article. You'll take note that the specific sources I mentioned above are an attempt at balancing things a little. When you use the expression "in-depth sources", what you seem to me to be talking about are sources that potentially may have had more more direct contact with York or his followers than the 'Ivory Tower' academics you're implying here, but a problem arises when the material that is generated by those who've had that more 'direct access' is only available through less than reliable publishing sources (with perhaps their own agendas) and equally importantly, when the writers themselves have a much less than neutral perspective on the subject itself. Occasionally that's precisely why their material isn't published by mainstream sources. I think you're right that responsibly vetted source material does exist on this subject, at least beyond what I've included in my short list. The question is, in the end, are there editors willing to do the legwork research necessary to follow up that more desirable source material on offer, dig through the bibliographies and provide a properly referenced article? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Yamassee...

Per the AfD for that page, the consensus was to merge the contents of Yamassee with this article, then to change Yamassee to a disambig page with links to Nuwaubianism, Yamasee (the notable Native American tribe), and/or Dwight York... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. The result of the AFD for Yamassee was keep with an encouragement to discuss possible merges on its talk page. -Moorlock (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was Keep, because there should only be two ways to close, Keep or Delete... but the consensus of the discussion was to merge... no mention of the word possible... can you give any reason why it should not be merged? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion on the AFD page on whether the page should be kept distinct, should be merged with Dwight York, should be merged with Nuwaubianism, or should be merged with Washitaw Nation. This discussion did not result in a consensus. I can see arguments for each position; my recommendation is to keep the page distinct, as the Yamassee group is distinct from the Nuwaubians, and I think that a merge now might very well just lead to confusion and a need for a demerging later. The Nuwaubian groups and the Yamassee group were very tightly bound only for the period of time in which Dwight York was in his “I’m an Injun Chief” phase, but the Nuwaubians have since dropped their native-american pretensions and the two groups are back to evolving independently. -Moorlock (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the references provided and all that I saw said that it was only a name change... York created "The United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors", and since he went to jail, the group has changed it's name to "The Yamassee Native Americans of the Creek Nation"... You said twice during the discussion that it should be kept (and please note you were the only one that thought it should be kept), but you never answered any of the requests to provide citations for your statements... you are the only one that thought it should be kept, you are the only one that mentioned a merge with Washitaw Nation, every other editor that contributed to the discussion thought it should be merged with either Dwight York or Nuwaubianism, the latter of which would be more logical... there was not much dicussion at all, just a number of editors agreeing that this page needs to be merged and changed into a disambig... when 5 of the 6 editors that were involved in the discussion come to agreeance, that is considered a consensus in my book... the only editor that did not agree was you... why do you continue to debate this? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On the AfD discussion page I count two keeps (not sure what dab means, but the note afterwards sounds like a "keep" to me), one merge with Dwight York, two merge with Nuwaubianism, and one merge with either York or Nuwaubianism. The result of the AfD was keep. That you insist that the matter is closed and that there was a "consensus" to merge with Nuwaubianism strikes me as railroading, as this is decidedly not what the record shows. A 2:1 ratio of merge:keep recommendations, especially with the merge faction split and the sample size decidedly low does not a consensus make. You have a point that the bulk of third-party references to the Yamassee group refer to it only in the context of York's temporary leadership of the group, but this says more about the relative newsworthiness of York than about the nature of the group. -— (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dab = disambig = merge content and disambiguate this page... and consensus is not based on numbers... again, the AfD was to keep, and not delete the page... we have gotten past that, the page is not going to be deleted... the content of the page is going to be moved to another page, and this page is going to be turned into a disambig... please, stop restating the obvious... yes, the result of the AfD was keep... but that does not mean that the merge is not still going to happen... by definition, merge is not an acceptable closure option... the page is going to be kept, and changed... you arguing about what exactly was said at the AfD, when anyone can go there and read it for themselves, is not helping the situation... if you really want to help this article, then (as I've said several times now) find some third party reliable sources for what you claim, and merge the article onto either Nuwaubianism or Dwight York (I'll even let you choose which to merge to if it makes you happy)... there is really no point in continuing this debate with you if you are not going to move on past your "the result was keep" arguement... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in and let it be known that I'm not deliberately ignoring the current proceedings going on here. Later on tonight, I'm hoping to make another troll through Lexus, Jstor, Wilson's etc. to see if I can pick off any more referencing on these issues. I'll report back later on and let you all know what I found. I wonder if it might be helpful to consult with the admin who closed the debate in order to see if she can provide a comment? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged it.--Sloane (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

York's name

In light of the fact that legal documents, including the prison registry list him as Dwight D. York, I think we should refer to him by his real name and not a pseudonym. --Pstanton (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the article to reflect that his legal name is Dwight. I've left Malachi in quotes, and references as I suppose he isn't the only author ever to publish under a pseudonym. But calling him Malachi throughout the article contradicts the style used in his own article Dwight York --Pstanton (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Yamasee Native American

This former article was previously merged into the Nuwaubianism article, so I'm moving the contents of its talk page below. Here is the discussion about its nomination for deletion. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

comment moved from article

Derrick Sander's mother from birth lives here in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.He was just here last year visiting his ailing mother, therefore this seems to me like another attempt by the nuwaubian counterfeiters to tie themselves in with someone who alraedy has some historical lineage,hoping to benefit from the prosperity of others.

Yamasee Native American

It seems to any reasoning knowledgable fact finder, one would research the answers and the questions. The Commander and chief of the Yamassee Native Americans and the United Nation of Nuwabian are a seperate entity one being a religious group who are the FOLLOWERS of Dr. York, and The Yamassee Native are not a religious people their nation consist of millions of nationals in the United States and across the Americas.

This page to be a stab at the Federally Recognized Nation of Indigenous people, [all one needs to do is to read Lewis and Clarks Expiditions with photos] research the yamassee war and the discription of the people. It seems that only close minded individuals who cannot get pass skin color would state repeatedly [Black] a legal status not a nationality. Stop labeling it time for "change", The Chief of the Yamassee did not suffer from an indictment for tax evasion, There are also treaties of peace and friendship with the Washitaw Nation, as well as Federal documents that are in fact Valid with seals that the Governor now want to regret he gave, which are legally sound with other federally documented records with the highest authentication recognition[3].

Let's just all live as one family in true reality that The Indigenous Aboriginal people were Various Copper Colored found in the Northern Hemisphere by the Europeans when they arrived were dark dravidian type and this definitions comes from 1832. Let drop the hate and wake up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.225.112 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Significant revert and protection

I would like to say that I just reverted to an older version as the past several edits were all vandalism. I'm going to move that we add the pp-semi-vandalism box and get this page protected from editing by anonymous IP addresses. --Pstanton 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've listed this article on Requests for page protection --Pstanton 06:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I am assessing this article as Start class for now, but it could easily be moved up to C-class with only a small amount of work...

• Infobox - Infoboxes are almost standard anymore... check out {{Infobox Micronation}}...
• In-line references - I notice that there are some links added throughout the article, it would be better if someone could change these into in-line refs, WP:REF can help with this...
• Images - The old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" still rings true today... try to find some that have either been released to the public domain, or otherwise fall under WP:FAIRUSE...

Feel free to let me know if you need help with anything... good luck, and happy editing... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading this article again, I have decided to remove the WikiProject Micronations banner... as this article sits now, it is not about a micronation, but more about a group of people... there is a mention of micronationalism, but until that section is expanded, I do not believe this article falls under the Project's scope... If, in the future, the details of the micronation itself are expanded (or an article is written about the nation itself), let me know (or anyone at the project) and I will be more than happy to re-assess... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Can someone explain why there is a NPOV tag on the article? --Pstanton (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

certain little phrases throughout the article that I think are not as neutral as they could be... such as...

• is attempting to fill the power vacuum left after the arrest and conviction of Dwight York
• Derrick Sanders's “Yamassee Native Americans” are not that group but are
• York’s other attorneys were loath to risk the wrath of the court
• the Nuwaubian “nation” seems to be splitting up, with various of its sub-factions trying to set the agenda and take over for the leadership vacuum

among others... also, with most of the article discussing York's court case, and a very small amount about the subject of the article (the group), it fails WP:UNDUE, which is part of WP:NPOV... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I get a similar feeling while reading that material, but I think it may be a slow process to actually achieve an overall "balance" in things like tone, at the moment, I'd just like to see some appropriate and reliable referencing in place, it'd be a good start in my opinion. I think it's important at this point that all editors keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are not to be used as vehicles to either promote a particular ideology, nor used to "bash" it either. I've watched many religion articles about more 'obscure' belief systems crash and burn over time in Wiki because there actually *weren't* enough reliable secondary sources available to even support their existenece as articles, I'd say this subject is relatively well served in that department. As I've said elsewhere, it's question of whether or not there are editors willing to devote the time to do the required work and put together something that's properly backed up AND neutral. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus on points 1 and 4. They do appear somewhat biased, but I think 2 is fine and I think 3 is somewhat reasonable.

About 2, considering "Yamassee" is very close in spelling to "Yamasee" there is often confusion and editors and readers often think this article is referring to what is a legitimate Native American tribe, because they didn't notice the slightly different spelling.

And point 3, a brief look through the transcript of the hearing shows that York's lawyers definitely were unhappy with York's persistent interruptions, which were out of order and over time caused the judge to become irritated with the defense. I think it is reasonable to state that York's lawyers were nervous about the judge being angry, considering the judge eventually told the lawyers to stop wasting his time with BS that had no relevance to the hearing anyways. The language of the statement is a bit.... ornate. "Loath to risk the wrath" could probably be changed to something like "didn't want to try the Judge's patience" or some such. I actually believe the judge told York's lawyers that if the defense made another wild claim to sovereignty out of order, in a hearing in which the court's jurisdiction wasn't under discussion, he'd find them in contempt of the court or some such. --Pstanton (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

well, that was basically my point... the wording was a little POV... Firstly, the group is not Sander's, Sander is just the one that took over leadership when York went to jail. And as far as bullet three, it was the "were loath to risk the wrath" part that bothered me... it could have been written a lot more neutrally. I did a good bit of POV cleanup on the article before catching on to all of the inaccuracies... At this point, we'll have to see what the outcome of the AfD is, but I don't think this article will be around much longer anyway... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD

After trying to cleanup the article and do research, this article seems to be comepletely incorrect, biased, and lacking on major parts of the history/story... according to this news story, the Southern Poverty Law Center lists the "Nuwaubian nation" as a hate group, due to York's preaching of black supremacy and hatred. And that since his conviction (77 counts of child molestation, child exploitation, tax evasion, and racketeering), the size of the group has "dwindled"... it seems to be more of a cult than anything else, with York having only a very small following... It seems that the group was originally called "The United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors", then changed their name to "The Yamassee Native Americans of the Creek Nation" after the court case. All of their property was siezed by the feds, and all that remains are a couple fanatical followers, a website, and a small bookstore... I can't seem to find any information about Sanders other than his run-in with the Justice Department, and I can't seem to find any sources on the group that aren't stories about York with mere mentions of his "cult"... according to MSNBC, "the cult was used for his sexual pleasure and financial gain, including recruiting members to groom children for sex with him." This seems to be a very small group of people who still follow York, and do not seem to pass notability concerns as a group. I think enough of the story and information is covered in York's article, that this article should either be deleted, or redirected to either York's article or Yamasee...

• MSNBC - Georgia cult goes quiet after leader jailed
• G-news search for "Derrick Sanders" (most about an actor with the same name)
• G-news search for "Yamassee Native Americans" (all 12 hits of it, most about either Sanders case, or York's cult falling apart)

- Adolphus79 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it further, I am going to take it to AfD to gain a consensus on what should be done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good candidate for AfD. Don't inflict it on true Native Americans by any redirect to Yamasee Indians.--Parkwells (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge

The result of the AfD was to merge this article with Nuwaubianism, and to make this page a disambig for Nuwaubianism / Yamasee... Discussion is here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is dishonest, or, charitably, inaccurate. The result of the AFD for Yamassee was keep with an encouragement to discuss possible merges on its talk page. -— (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply and discussion here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Another merge: Nuwaupian

Nuwaupian has nothing to offer that's reliably sourced. Phrases like "Our unity works on the principle of synergy, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" are indicative of POV editing, and the references are obviously not independent of the subject. Author has tried to make the article rely on Nuwaubu/Nuwaupu, which are both at AfD and likewise have no reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger of the article Nuwaupian with the article nuwaubianism is no longer required. Your request to merge Nuwaupian into Nuwaubianism, has been considered and rejected. The Article called Nuwaupian has from this day forth, been merged with the Article called Nuwaupu.Logistical One (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is grotesquely bad, and I have seen a few articles about crackpot movements. I don't know about the notablility of this, apparently it is a Georgia topic. Perhaps York is notable in Georgia. But if a confused rambling guru attains local notability, this doesn't mean that the article about him must also be in the form of incoherent stream-of-consciousness rambling and piles of random quotes. Less attention to primary sources, more attention to secondary sources. I suggest that all material that quotes York or other "Nuwaubian" directly should be removed, and the article put on the basis of secondary literature. --dab (𒁳) 07:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Notablility

Ok, so it turns out that this is a mostly defunct cult movement which in its prime had some 500 adherents. It is certainly notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it is notable enough for more than one? As a classic cult focussed on the charismatic leader, the leader being notable for the cult only, and the cult for the leader only, I wonder if we really need two separate articles Dwight York and Nuwaubianism (let alone a full Category:Nuwaubianism). "Nuwaubianism" is basically York's charismatic ego project which happened to attract 500 or so followers during the 1990s, and which crash-landed after he was jailed for sexually molesting his adherent's children. I would say a single article on this rather sad topic will suffice completely to satisfy encyclopedic coverage. --dab (𒁳) 08:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The leader is well-known not only as the founder of this sect, which was very active both in New York and Georgia and has since spread internationally, but also as the subject of one of the largest child molestation cases (in terms of number-of-victims) prosecuted in the U.S. The sect itself is still in operation, in various forms, and seems to have enough followers and would-be leaders to keep going even as York's own guidance has become less-direct. Its continuing influence on pop culture and ongoing presence in the black nationalist movements in the U.S. and elsewhere make it notable. –Moorlock (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Beyond all that has already been mentioned, the ideas of this movement have found currency beyond their followers. Without rendering any judgement here on whether this is good, bad or neither, I would point out that such influence means that the group and its views are notable. The movement attracted some rappers in the past and may continue to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.113 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

well, I am happy to yield to actual references, but from what I could find so far,

• the term Nuwaubianism was not in use by anyone prior to 2008, i.e. years after York had been locked away as a child molester and the Tama-Re compound had been demolished.
• of the 10 (ten) google books hits for the term since 2008[4], five are directly derived from Wikipedia, and the other five date to after this article was created under the title "Nuwaubianism"

I conclude from this, that there isn't any "Nuwaubianism". The term is a nonce word, used in print about five times, and this only because it had been pushed on Wikipedia since 2007[5].

The article confirms this. There is no movement or doctrine called "Nuwaubianism". There is only York, his writings, and his victims. Yes, York and his crimes are notable. This is why we have a lengthy Dwight York article. But there is no reason to dedicate another page to an unsorted dump of his writings and pronouncements: it is not only unencyclopedic, but also in rather bad taste. A bit like creating an article on A European Declaration of Independence as a notable work of political ideology apart from the Anders Behring Breivik article.

Wikipedia needs to avoid coining new terms. This isn't always easy, because of the high visibiilty of Wikipedia, we get a lot of agenda-driven edits trying to tout neologisms. In this case, the accident has already happened, Wikipedia successfully coined the term "Nuwaubianism", now generating 15,000 google hits, most of them citing or linking back to Wikipedia. And just because nobody could muster some basic skepticism while this article has been online for three years.

The damage has been done, but it can still be limited, but only by cleaning up this mess, getting rid of the quotefarms and random lists, and basing it on published secondary references, exclusively. We will see how the article will look like after it has been cleaned up, and a the benefit of a possible merger will need to be evaluated from that point. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A characteristic of nuwaubianism is that the doctrines, practices, and terminology are always in flux. So at any time during the development, the term they use to describe these doctrines & practices may change. So what was once called "sound right reasoning" will later be called "egiptology" and then "factology" and then "nuwaubu" and then "wu-nuwaupu" and who knows what it will become next. The term "nuwaubianism" is an umbrella term that is meant to cover this entire range of incarnations, in the absence of a stable, canonical term.

I appreciate the effort you are putting forward in improving this article, but I hope you will respect the work that has been put into it thusfar, and not recklessly discard useful information. From your comments here, you strike me as overly-dismissive of the topic and somewhat ill-informed about it (also please double-check for spelling mistakes before clicking "Save"). –Moorlock (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"citation needed". Look, instead of explaining "nuwaubianism" off the top of your head, how about you sit down and produce some decent references? And by references I don't mean websites, I mean published sociological literature which analyzes the phenomenon. I will not remove "useful information", understanding that the only useful information is derived from such sources. What I will remove, of course, is the {{quotefarm}} and {{primary}} cruft that has accreted on the page. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A minor side note, this group is apparently still active and occasionally in the news as of Oct, 2012 (e.g.: http://hancock.13wmaz.com/news/news/76719-nuwaubians-accuse-putnam-officials-violating-their-laws). 13:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Fallout11 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding to what the guy above me said, the group is still active as of January 2014 although whether or not York is writing the new Doctrines from jail is in dispute. (http://www.11alive.com/news/article/314393/40/Decatur-temple-maintains-ties-to-Nuwaubian-cult) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.149.134 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

Ok, based on the above, it is clear that the term "Nuwaubianism" isn't tenable. But this doesn't mean that the topic is invalid, it just means that googling "Nuwaubianism" isn't going to turn up anything useful.

But there are monographs on the topic, at least one: The Nuwaubian Nation: Black Spirituality and State Control (2010). So my suggestion at this point is:

• get rid of the merge tag
• move the article to either Nuwaubian Nation or Nuwaubian movement (viz. the terms used in actual quotable publications)
• remove all the quotefarms and primary references, and base the article on the 2010 monograph and other decent secondary WP:RS

--dab (𒁳) 11:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the merge and notability tags now. After I found the above monograph (of which the article had been completely unaware), I conclude that it is possible to keep an article about this topic. Is it alright if I move it to Nuwaubian movement? I a asking just so nobody can cry about "undiscussed move" later on. As I have shown above, the term "Nuwaubianism" was coined on-wiki, the term used in the monograph is "Nuwaubian movement". Can you believe the shamelessness of some "authors"?

• Wikipedia (2007): "Nuwaubianism is an umbrella term for the various doctrines and practices of the followers of Malachi Z. York." [6]
• George Romero (2011) : ""Nuwaubianism is an umbrella term for the various doctrines and practices of the followers of Malachi York." (p. 28)

We need to take great care to avoid using this kind of, ahem, "independent reference".

The problem with this article is that it isn't aware of the topic's notability. Apparently the notability can be shown, but for three years, this article has consistently failed to do so. The burden of establishing an article's notability lies with those editors wishing to keep it. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about the SPLC, and hence you need to put none. If people want to know they can click the link and find out. SPL and its opinions are greater than the info about the actual organization and have no place hi in the lead. What Nuwaubian nation and others think about SPL is certainly not in the 2nd line of that lead. Per Wikipedia WP:LEAD--Inayity (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Lede too long

The lede of the article could be tidied up and shortened. I've done a little work on it. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Too many quotes/primary sources

There is way too much quoting from York, as noted above. I am going to delete those very lengthy sections of his writings and quotes without sources, as was discussed above. The article has to use RS secondary sources, according to WP requirements. It doesn't make sense to keep all this myth-making by York. He published plenty - let people go to those sources.Parkwells (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. Ogress 17:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed some of the original research, cited to York or altogether uncited, with this edit; I see that it's been an on-going problem with the article. Please see the diff for some of the inline comments embedded prior (not by me). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed some more OR (and outright gibberish) while I was at it. Wow, what a strange article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Parkwells: Thanks for your work on the article. I'd like to note that this statement is incorrect: The article has to use RS secondary sources, according to WP requirements. Primary sources can be used in certain circumstances and with care, see WP:PRIMARY. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment; yes, I was overstating the case, in some frustration at the lack of Reliable secondary sources.Parkwells (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuwaubian Nation. 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/20051103105819/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412354.pdf to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412354.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)