Talk:United Nation of Islam

POV

I've reverted a couple of blankings of this page but looking through the history I see that a section titled "criticism" has been deleted rather than its contributor being given time to add in-text citations. I'm concerned that this article may be compromised by a few editors who are affiliated with the subject, because the article's tone seems (and I'm being generous here) at the outer edge of what could be considered encyclopedic. I'm not saying it's blatant advertising for a religious group as the recent IP blanker contends, but it does seem to paint it in an unnaturally rosy light. I'm tagging it for neutrality. Please discuss here before removing the tag. Dethme0w 04:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Or another editor could just find a past revision that is not compromised by spam. Whatever. Dethme0w 04:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is largely what I did, but even the old versions were in need of some editing. For what its worth, I placed a warning on the UNOI partisan who was putting in the advertising. Michaelbusch 04:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given the article's cleanup a start, but as I am not personally interested in the subject someone else will have to continue. One problem with an article about a barely-notable alleged scam artist is that neutral and reliable coverage can be hard to find. Googling turned up loads of partisan advertising and a few sites that mirror what the page blanker alleged, word-for-word. And very little in between, especially from sources that have a presence outside the internet. Dethme0w 05:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you editors did an excellent job. I note that one of the followers (Useruser1x) immediately reverted to the advertisement version after Michaebusch created a neutral version. Protection and a short, neutral version is the way to go. Is there a way to offer something stronger than just "unregistered/new user protection?" I believe these guys will be relentless -- as Dethme0w points out they repeatedly deleted the "criticism" section in the past. By the way, I've seen this guy on public access tv and he is a riot. He can barely speak English.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2008 (talk • contribs) 05:21, October 18, 2007

I've semi protected the page for 1 month. If necessary, full protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note on citations

The article is in rather grievous need of external sources. In particular, I'm worried about the statement that Jenkins married his wife when she was 13. Granted, the Marriageable_age laws were different in 1958, but even so, a statement like that requires a reliable source. Michaelbusch 05:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Pitch article now linked for that is accurate, but if even half of it is, I am now wondering why the group hasn't been treated like an Islamic version of Warren Jeffs town. Yet I haven't found anything about legal proceedings. Any leads? Michaelbusch 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is they are just much smaller and don't get a lot of press/attention. I don't see why you think the Pitch article is inaccurate. Oh the author definitely has a bias but my guess is that it is far closer to the truth than anything you'd ever hear from the group itself. Sounds like the author spoke to many ex-members, which are usually the only reliable source.Masonuc

The problem with the Pitch article is that, as you correctly note, it is biased. For selling a story, it is very good. It is certainly very far closer to reality than Jenkins' strange distortions of the Q'uran and Old Testament, but I worry about finding the full truth of the matter. That is the sort of thing only a jury is able to do. Michaelbusch 06:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I listed at least 20 verifiable news and journal articles in my update. If you go to http://nl.newsbank.com/ which is a news archive and put in "united nation of islam" within qoutes you will find at least 40 articles by major news papers. What you all are really saying is that you can not find negative articles because the major news papers and journals have all positive outcome from their investigations and because what I wrote is cited and verifiable by non-bias major newspapers and business journals you all want to label it as advertisement while replacing it with gossip, slacktalk and personal opinions. Useruser1x 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Listed References

Dethme0w, Flyguy649 and Michaelbusch

I am not a follower of anyone and I am not connected with the organization that I wrote about. I did a paper on them when I was in high school and I listed many of the sources. I was asked by wikipedia staff to wikify the article and cite references. Below are the references that I did and I included major news paper references like Christian Science Monitor, Kansas City Business Journal, Kansas City Star, Kansas City Kansan, Associated Press etc.However you all deleted my article and put a clearly non balanced article in it's place and now you are asking for references. I am requesting that you all LOOK AT THE REFERENCES listed below. This group is well documented in noteworthy news sources. I recomend that the article be reverted back to the ClueBot version and if other information is added to the article that it is put under the same wikipedia style guidelines in which I was asked to conform. Useruser1x

The group is documented, but so are their problems. To not mention them is a serious omission. And don't refer to the 'Cluebot version'. Cluebot merely reverts. That was the version you wrote, and it was in very few ways adherent to Wikipedia policy. In particular, WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT. NPOV doesn't mean we shouldn't include criticism. Michaelbusch 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Controversy section as it is completely unreferenced and goes against WP:BLP. Content such as that absolutely must be referenced. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversy section is based on the material in the two critical websites listed at the bottom of the article. I've restored it and included in-line citations. Michaelbusch 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Useruser1x, substantial parts of the article, as it appeared in this version is not an encyclopedia entry, but appears to be advertising. Some of what appears there may be able to be included into the article, but the way it is included must be more terse. You don't need to include all the information included in the references, and you need to use an encyclopedic tone. For example, the third and fourth paragraphs of the version I linked to can be reduced to perhaps three sentences. As well, when citing, you don't need to include the quote field as you have. It makes the references section extremely bloated. You may want to look at WP:FIRST and the links therein. They contain loads of suggestions for good article writing. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Update on one sided censorship of United Nation of Islam article

Flyguy649 Once again Michaelbusch has vandalized the United Nation of Islam's article after you did your edit. He added his opinionated paragraph and has it referenced to the article itself. However, I would like to know from you Flyguy649, how is it that I am banned from editing the Article and you have two people ( Michaelbusch and Masonuc ) who continue to vandalize the article after you have done your edits? They are doing the SAME THING to you that they were doing to me but I am the one who was censored and unable to update the article. Kindly explain?

Useruser1x 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are unable to edit the article because it has been placed under semi-protect to avoid vandalism. If you will peruse the page history, you will find that I reverted this vandalism, which consisted of replacing the page with nothing but insults against UNOI. However, there are reliable sources that reflect legitimate controversy about the group, and NPOV dictates that the article must include them. That paragraph is not mine - I merely restored it after it was removed and replaced with material that both violated WP:ADVERT and caused the vandalism that led to the page being semi-protected. It is, however, based on two external sources, which were provided at the bottom of the article but not cited in-line. This is why Flyguy removed it. I restored it and in-lined the references.

Useruser1x, you would apparently have the article violate NPOV by ignoring negative information. The vandal who led to the protection would have had the article violate NPOV by ignoring positive information. True NPOV dictates that we recognize both. This is not censorship. It is the very opposite of it. Michaelbusch 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Useruser1z, you don't need to cross post to both my page and here. I've watchlisted this page. Also, I am currently really busy in real life and am not online as frequently as you may like. I appreciate your patience in waiting for my responses.

Michaelbusch's re-additions are not vandalism. The policy on biographies of living people requires that statements of the type that I originally removed be sourced. The Pitch seems to be reasonably reliable (if biased) source. However, forums and newsgroups are not valid reliable sources for the other controversial statement, so I'm commenting that one out. I'm also not happy with the wording, but that can be fixed.

The sources for this article, as it currently appears, are rather poor. Perhaps some of the other sources you originally had could be used to augment the statements in the article. But please look at the article to see how I've used <ref name=" ..."> and related tags to incorporate multiple citations of the same source.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy649 what you wrote is your opinion. I listed at least 20 verifiable news and journal articles in my update. If you go to http://nl.newsbank.com/ which is a news archive and put in "united nation of islam" within qoutes you will find at least 40 articles by major news papers. What you all are really saying is that you can not find negative articles because the major news papers and business journals have all positive outcome from their investigations and because what I wrote is cited and verifiable by non-bias major newspapers and business journals you all want to label it as advertisement while replacing it with gossip, slacktalk and personal opinions. Useruser1x 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Useruser1x, please do not breach WP:CIVIL. Please also observe the dates on your references. When I consulted Google's news archives, I found exactly one article that post-dated the expose piece in Pitch. That one article is approximately neutral in tone. There has been very little coverage of the organization, and nothing overtly positive, since Pitch published their story. The Pitch article is not 'gossip, slacktalk and personal opinion': it is very obviously intended to shock the reader and 'break' a big story. However, it is well cited and very clearly based in reality. Similarly, the article currently provides considerable references to UNOI's website and publications. Those are personal opinion, but are very relevant to this article. The discussion board reference is inappropriate, and has been commented out. Again: the article is not censored. It simply is no longer an advertisement. Michaelbusch 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is incredibly obvious that Useruser1x is not neutral and probably is a follower of this cult. He is obviously hell-bent on reverting the article to a criticism free fantasy world where "Royall" is a credibly deity. Wikipedia should permanently protect this page to prevent future followers from turning Wikipedia into a recruiting venue for cult leaders claiming to be God. masonuc 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

masonuc, I understand your suspicions, but request that you also moderate your statements. I did ask Useruser1x to declare any conflicts-of-interest. The reply was a statement of being unaffiliated with the group, but having done a report on them for school. I have no way to verify this statement. In any case, because Useruser1x is the only account currently making blatantly POV edits to this article, higher protection is not necessary. I have issued Useruser1x a final warning for vandalism, for repeatedly putting back the POV version. Michaelbusch 01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Arbitration Section (moved from top)

AN APPEAL TO REASON BEFORE ARBITRATION

Initiated by Useruser1x at 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Useruser1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michaelbusch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Masonuc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

*Dethme0w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am not involved. I'm the first to admit I have no interest in this subject, I came here in response to a page blanking while on RC Patrol. I then saw that what remained appeared to an outsider to be POV, and commented on that here (and tagged the article so). Please leave me out of any further edit disputes concerning this article. Dethme0w 03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Flyguy649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am submitting the following evidence as an attempt at dispute resolution before a formal request for arbitration -->

I am not now, nor have I ever been a follower of Royall or the United Nation of Islam. I have done extensive research on them and my only objective is to correct the blatant errors and fabrications placed in the Wikipedia article "United Nation of Islam". I edited the Wikipedia article "United Nation of Islam" in early October and in doing so I cited 21 references from major news sources such as the Christian Science Monitor, The Kansas City Star, The Kansas City Business Journal, Associated Press and more. The article has been replaced and supported by an admin Flyguy649 and users Dethme0w, Michaelbush, and Masonuc, who has disregarded cited references and has supported the replacement of the article with opinion and outright hearsay in place of sound cited material from credible news and business journal sources.

I encourage you to do a search in the news archive located at http://nl.newsbank.com/. Click on "United States" and type in "united nation of islam" within quotes you will find at least 40 articles by major news papers. All articles are non-bias investigations from field reporters which contradict the inflammatory, bias and negative article which is presented by them which amounts to an attack against a living person (Royall Jenkins).

I am requesting that my article be reviewed for sound Wikipedia standards and compared to their version which dominates the current changes to the article and which consequently lack sound adherence to Wikipedia standards. After review I am confident that my article will be accepted as the foundation of text which represents the factually accurate encyclopedic presentation of United Nation of Islam which is supported by Wikipedia standards.

Here is the link to the most recent recommended article which was done by me after editing it for being too discriptive or “rosy”. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nation_of_Islam&oldid=167310742

Here is the link to the most recent edition which is supported by admin Flyguy649 and users Dethme0w, Michaelbush, and Masonuc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nation_of_Islam&oldid=167240568

EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ARBITRATION

Quotes from admin Flyguy649 and users Dethme0w, Michaelbush, and Masonuc's version of the United Nation of Islam are in quote marks and my comments will precede them which will explain it's fallacy or inaccuracy.

"The United Nation of Islam (UNOI) is religious group based in Kansas City. It was founded in 1993 as a breakaway group from Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam."

That statement is inaccurate. The UNOI is not a breakaway group from Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam. Elijah Muhammad passed in 1975 and the Nation of Islam was dismantled shortly thereafter. The UNOI is a separate entity and did not incorporate until 1993 which is 18 years. The point is; one cannot break away from something that was not in existence upon its origin.

"Jenkins later moved to New York and became a long-distance truck driver for the Nation of Islam. He split from the organization after its leaders rebuffed his claims of being Allah."

The above statement is inaccurate. Jenkins did not split from the Nation of Islam after leaders rebuffed his claims of being Allah. Jenkins was in the Nation of Islam from 1970-1975. According to his autobiography and tape sources he did not become aware of his identity as being "Allah" until mid-1978. The Nation of Islam had already been dismantled in 1975 upon the death of Elijah Muhammad. There were no leaders in the Nation of Islam in 1978 because the Nation of Islam did not exist. In 1993 when the UNOI was founded, Royall Jenkins had not been in the Nation of Islam since 1975. That is another out right fabrication.

"Jenkins' views include condemning inter-racial marriage, claiming that fornication and perhaps sex in general is a great sin, claiming that white people were created by a 'scientist' called Yakub 8000 years ago, and condemning all followers of Islam for not recognizing him as Allah."

The above quote is totally unsubstantiated. And the so called reference refers back to the article itself. If you look at the language "and perhaps sex in general"; there is no place for speculation in an encyclopedic article. The rest of the quote is a variation of Nation of Islam views which is not the same as the United Nation of Islam. The article has commandeered and the users have shown little to no accurate knowledge of the subject matter.

"Jenkins claims to have determined the location of the UNOI headquarters in Kansas City 'mathematically' and teaches members of UNOI a technique he terms 'Mathematical Thinking' that he says is 'the gathering of facts to come to absolute answers without putting a person to it'. Jenkins teaches that Mathematical Thinking eliminates the need for followers or leaders. Mathematical Thinking bears little resemblance to mathematics, and is apparently largely a form of numerology."

In the first part of the above paragraph it is stated that Mathematical Thinking is "the gathering of facts to come to absolute answers" which is the same proces used in a court of law. Later they make an unsubstantiated statement that "Mathematical Thinking" is largely a form of numerology. Where did he get that assessment from, themselves, through slack talk, or gossip; who knows? The point is that paragraph has conflicting unsubstantiated opinion attached as an absolute.

"UNOI has roughly 300 full-time members in Kansas City, with perhaps 200 spread across several other cities."

Again this is presented as fact while it is not. The UNOI does not give out membership numbers and a casual look on their websites will show evidence of thousands of UNOI members at one of their celebrations. Although this may have been true in 1996 it is not true today and therefore makes the article outdated and should not be used.

"It is also alleged that Jenkins has taken several wives from among his followers, including a step-daughter."

Again; why is the term alleged used in an encyclopedia article? "Alleged" means that it is not proven. It is almost unbelievable that a Wikipedia admin would support such attacks against a living person while ignoring multiple non-bias, solid references from established well know news sources. One tabloid article is used for Negative "Controversy" which is totally unsubstantiated and bias and then used as a base for the entire article in their version.

Comments on Pre-Arbitration

I have a life outside Wikipedia and I haven't really spent any time looking at this. My on-Wikipedia time has been devoted to mundane admin activities. My feeling is that this will be rejected at arbitration, and I think a request for comment would be appropriate first. I'll try to look into this later today or tomorrow, but I can't make any promises on timing. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for the advice I look forward to reading your opinions. Useruser1x 16:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also my opinion that ArbCom will reject this out of hand. Useruser1x, please do not take any of this personally, but the version you advocate is unacceptable under multiple Wikipedia policies. Again, read and understand WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Undue Weight. Also see WP:RFAR, WP:RFC, and Wikipedia:Consensus for instructions on how to properly resolve editing disputes, and Wikipedia:Vandalism for information on unacceptable conduct. Michaelbusch 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you to give your opinion on the facts supporting your non-factual submissions/editing concerning the wikipedia article "united nation of islam" on its discussion page; not your opinion concerning the probability of ArbCom's refusal to hear the case. This is the first step in dispute resolution and ultimately arbitration; giving you the oportunity to speak towards the non-factual nature of your edits and additions to the article. Thank you Useruser1x 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is unacceptable under wikipedia policies? "IF" the article needs to be wikified, why not assist in that as opposed to changing the content from factual to non-factual? Useruser1x 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made no 'non-factual submissions'. You seem to mistake 'the words of Royall Jenkins' with fact - under no circumstances will we label him 'Allah in person', as you would have us do. In deference to the references you provided, and the 1990's news archive in Google, more should be added on UNOI's actions in Kansas City. But the controversy section should not be removed, nor will we make this page an advertisement. Please also see flaming. Michaelbusch 17:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a new user here and basically Royall Jenkins is within his right to claim to be Allah in person because the 99 names of Allah as found in Sunni Islam, and other Islamic sects are anthropormorphic (or human like). To not admit this is to reject factual information for the sake of appealing to muslims. I mean does wikipedia take the stance of appealing to specific religious groups as to not make them mad? This should not be the case when creating such an online informative website such as this one. I will show you 3 examples of Allah having human names or qualities:

The 94th name of Allah is Al-Hadi and it means "The guide". Anyone can be "The guide" if they are the one guiding you to something. The 98th name is Ar-Rashid and it means "The Righteous Teacher". To his followers and students he is a righteous teacher is he not? Obviously to them he is. It is clearly disrespectfull to call this man a dajjal. Is the creator of this explanation of the UNOI bias as well as Sunni Muslim (who worships Muhammad in their Shahadah by the way). My last example is As-Sabur which is the 99 name of Allah and this name means "The Patient One". He seems to be pretty patient when it comes to detractors and also his greatest enemy who seems to be Farrakhan. So this suits him at least in that sense. Now I am an outsider when it comes to his complete doctrine. My gripe here is your biased opinion of this and other topics on wikipedia. I am in fact Kemetic orthodox, but I do know that Muslims fail to admit the names of their Deity have some human qualities and must admit someone can use that to show they are Allah on some level. I am sorry wikipedia this needs some serious editing. And from my understanding to be a dajjal you have to have been a believer in the first place. So even in that sense that insult is wrong.------ User: Churchofyinepu

Michaelbusch, It is duly noted that you are not responding the examples that I have given on this article and the non-factual nature of its content. It is also noted that the article in question was last updated by Masonuc and contained 3937 bytes. I have given many examples of out-right errors in that article and you have since updated the article which made the article 6185 bytes. Now the “controversy” section in which you are adding tabloid content is almost as large as the original article. You are making my point and proving the case exposing the bias nature of your changes. I request of you to have non-bias editing approch and recommend that you remove your personalism from this attempt at mediation. Below is a quote from Michaelbusch who admitst that the "pitch article" is bias but he uses it exclusively as a reference.

"quote from Michaelbush...The problem with the Pitch article is that, as you correctly note, it is biased. For selling a story, it is very good. It is certainly very far closer to reality than Jenkins' strange distortions of the Q'uran and Old Testament, but I worry about finding the full truth of the matter. That is the sort of thing only a jury is able to do." Michaelbusch 06:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link which shows the differences between Masonuc’s article and Michaelbusch’s subsequent additions. Look at how many self-admitted bias entries Michaelbusch has added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nation_of_Islam&diff=167666572&oldid=167352442 Michaelbush; kindly stay on point and respond to the many examples given which show the non-factual nature of the article in which you are over saturating with edits/“controversy”. Useruser1x 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page but I will not be participating further in the article. I think that you really need to rethink what you are doing here. Your edits have the appearance of advertising and they espouse a point of view, two things we do not allow on Wikipedia no matter how "factual" you think your edits are. If you continue making edits of this kind, you could find yourself blocked - and then unable to further edit the article at all. Dethme0w 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have since edited my version of the article to remove the appearance of advertising or the appearance of espousing a point of view. My contention is the non-factual content used to replace the article. There are out-right un-truths in the you all's edit. That is what I am bringing to your attention. I did an investigation on the united nation of islam for a research paper and what I have seen from you all's edits; you all have little to no knowledge of the subject matter. I was hoping that we could refine what I wrote as opposed to replacing it with non-factual content. That may be an ambitious expectation and that is why I removed the concerns myself. If the concern for advertisement is still there after may last edit, I would like to know what it is. I will post this to the UNOI discussion page so as to maintain a continuous record of our attempts at resolution. Here is the link to my last edit which is my effort at conforming to Wikipedia standards.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nation_of_Islam&oldid=167310742 Thank you for your response. Useruser1x 18:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That version is almost as bad as the version that started opponents of UNOI to rampant vandalism. It is still a violation of WP:ADVERT because it removes all criticism of UNOI and portrays their ideas in only a positive light. The current version is sufficient. I have not answered all of your minutia beccause you seem to be missing the main point of NPOV: legitimate criticism must be included. If you do not accept this, then all other discussion is futile. You have also insulted me many times, and I'm afraid I don't much care for that. Michaelbusch 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Useruser1x is not affiliated with UNOI about as much as I believe Royall is the almighty God living on Earth with us. He (Useruser1x) talks like Royall and UNOI followers -- always using words like proven, truth, facts, etc. He repeatedly reverted the article to an obvious non-neutral advertisement for UNOI. And he objects when even the slightest neutral criticism of Royall is on the page. Interestingly, his predecessor (maybe the same person?) used the moniker "The Blessed Knower" said many of the same things, used many of the same articles, continuously reverted the article to advertisements -- and admitted in previous discussion he/she was a follower of Royall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonuc (talk • contribs) 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Masonuc, again, please moderate your tone. Can you provide diffs illustrating this possible sockpuppetry? Michaelbusch 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch, I am not against criticism of the UNOI article. However, I am against out-right falsehood. I am going to continue to edit the version that I put up so as to exclude any NPOV or WP:ADVERT concerns. Now if you wish to add to the "Criticism" section, by all means do so. As I have pointed out earlier, you have used a tabloid magazine article as an almost exclusive reference and you have many mistakes and contradictions in your article. So, in essence, your article is comprised of many un-truths. Kindly review the Examples that I listed above where I am pointing them out to you and others. Now I have read over 50 news articles and journal articles concerning the UNOI and I listed them above and I have as of yet to find negative criticism; only non-biased reporting. Therefore when constructing the united nation of islam article for Wikipedia I included major news paper references like Christian Science Monitor, Kansas City Business Journal, Kansas City Star, Kansas City Kansan, Associated Press etc. Now there is only one tabloid style article from "the pitch" which you use almost exclusively as a reference. Even you are quoted as saying that the "pitch article" is bias but almost 95% of your article has reference to it. Now if you are concerned with a balanced, non-bias article it stands to reason that the factual, non-bias presentation from credible sources should be 50 to 1. Meaning, if you want to put in criticism, it should reflect your resource pool. 50 positive to 1 negative. Wikipedia has a term to what you have done; it is called undue-weight.

"quote from Wikipedia__Verifiability Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

"quote from Wikipedia-Undue weight__ WP:NPOV#Undue weight _NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

"Proportion to the prominence of each", "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" are the operative words in those quotes.

Now as far you being insulted Michaelbusch, I have no knowledge of doing so. I again request that you keep the "personal" dialogue out of this. Let us concentrate on the facts that are being presented and not our personal feelings about it. Again, I am not against a "criticism" section. However, your entire article is dominated by one negatively bias tabloid style article with no references to 50 non-bias major news paper sources.

Here is the link of my latest revision. A criticism section is included. I am still updating it however based on your posting patterns the likelyhood of it remain posted is slim. It would be fair of you to point out what you consider as being non-Wikipedia material as I have done the same with you by listing Examples of indiscretions from your article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nation_of_Islam&oldid=167726550

Useruser1x 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Useruser1x's latest version

Useruser1x, your version remains unacceptable. While you have included some criticism, you have not included all of it. Further, you have included large block quotes of several articles lauding UNOI. Those are also unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a place to post copies of primary sources. You have also persisted in labeling Jenkins 'Royall, Allah in Person', when Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV, WP:BLP) dictates that we cannot call him that.

Re. criticism of UNOI being a minority view: I again ask you to consider the dates of your references. Since the Pitch piece, no-one has published anything approving of UNOI except UNOI itself. Do note that the current version of the article includes many references to UNOI itself, which are sufficiently damning of themselves.

Per policy, the version of the article that is supported by WP:CONSENSUS will remain up. Please stop posting your preferred version to the main article page - you should create a user sub-page for this purpose. Repeatedly posting contentious text is reason for block under WP:3RR. So that you understand and can avoid breaching WP:CIVIL in the future: you have insulted me by false accusations of censorship, spamming, and vandalism. Do not use those words lightly. Michaelbusch 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please ban this guy and/or protect the page? He continues to ignore these warnings and repost his advertisement for UNOI. I don't think he will ever stop until banned, and even then I'm sure he'll just work around the ban. Masonuc 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Useruser1x has violated WP:3RR by making many postings to this page and must therefore stop editing it for at least 24 hours. Masonuc, you should also stop, as you are just shy of violating 3RR yourself. If the page is spammed again today, I will deal with it. Michaelbusch 18:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will comply with Wikipedia rules. However, not only have you been in violation of WP:3RR many times, you still have not addressed the obvious fabrications in your edits that I have pointed out to you factually in the above examples. I have addressed the POV issue and I will continue to refine my submission to Wikipedia until there can be no negative opinion attached to it. It is obvious that you have no intentions on getting to a point of resolution; if so you would answer to the points in the example which cite inaccurate posting on your part. Whether you are the originator of the errors or not does not make a difference once the facts have been presented to you that it is in error. You have been in violation of WP:3RRon several occasions and if or when you spam the page again to and break the WP:3RR; using your language "I will deal with it".

You are doing so much to prove my case that it is almost unbelievable. As far as the dates of the "pitch" article being after the 50 non-bias news articles and business journal articles does not matter, nor confirm any valid points. You claim there are no non-bias articles after the "pitch" was written; well the same goes for negative or bias articles. I challenge you to find ONE negative article written from a news or journal source AFTER the "pitch" article or BEFORE the pitch article. Remember, you are on record saying that the pitch article is bias but you use it almost exclusively while overlooking over 50 non-bias articles.

This is more than likely my last attempt at any reasoning with you. I am waiting patiently for a response from Flyguy649. It appears that you are so personally involved in this matter that the fact that you are posting erroneous entries against a living person does not even concern you at all. If it does it can not be proven from your actions. The errors are still there nor have you commented on their legitimacy while you continue to make numerous additions from a clearly bias source. On the other hand, I am on record further refining what I wrote to adhere to wikipedia standards and I will continue to do so until there is a resolution to this.Useruser1x 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not violated WP:3RR on this article, as an examination of the page history shows. You continue to insult me, incidentally. Michaelbusch 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you are correct you did not violate WP:3RR "on this article" nor have I as you have charged me. You may want to re-read the policy. Useruser1x 00:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

4 reverts in 24 hours constitutes a violation, as is clearly stated in the policy. You begin to strain my patience. Don't be dense. Michaelbusch 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch, this is not personal. If anyone has the right to be insulted is "Royall Jenkins" who you have fabrications concerning him in your edits after it has been pointed out to you. What Wikipedia rule addresses lies against a living person in Wikipedia articles? Again, this is not personal and you are not above correction no matter how insulted you feel you should respond to the facts in the examples which show your article to be in error. Useruser1x 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia rule addresses lies against a living person in Wikipedia articles? See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You are accusing me of lying without evidence, when all I have done is to cite reliable sources, including in large part Jenkins himself. I have explained this repeatedly. I am done. Michaelbusch 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything. I am pointing out to you what you are doing. Kindly read the examples listed above concerning the non-factual nature of your edits.Useruser1x 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrators Noticeboard Useruser1x

Michaelbush put the following request on the Wikipedia Administrators Noticeboard concerning me ( Useruser1x ). the request has since gone into archive. However, it is relevant to this discussion since most of the participants on this page are referenced.Useruser1x 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose account, spamming United Nation of Islam. Ignoring warnings, refusing to listen to reason, and insulting editors who remove the offending material. Has spammed the page 4 times in the last 24 hours. When I logged on this morning, I issued a warning for WP:3RR violation. Useruser1x has also claimed to be taking the matter to ArbCom, but has not filed the appropriate forms. I have also informed Useruser1x of the probable rejection of the matter by ArbCom. Michaelbusch 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have become involved as I originally semi-protected the page several days back when the article originally had POV additions made by anons, and am now listed as a "party" in this ArbCom "request". I have also become extremely busy in real life and have not been able to look at this. Would a uninvolved Admin who has some time available take a look at Talk:United Nation of Islam and see what's up? My impression is that User:Useruser1x is a novice-ish user who wants to add POV to the article and does not understand how edit within Wikipedia's guidelines, however I have not looked into things deeply recently. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also informed User:Useruser1x of this thread. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's more to the history of United Nation of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) than what's mentioned here. I asked User:Masonuc back in mid-September why he made this edit claiming that Royall Elliot Jenkins is "borderline illiterate and unable to speak clearly or intelligently." (That sort of thing violates WP:BLP. Masonuc answered saying, "You cannot allow this cult to advertise freely on wikipedia without a thoughtful, neutral position." Masonuc later retracted those claims and replaced them with something more neutral, although this edit at User talk:Useruser1x still looks rather libelous. I think there's a slow edit war going on between Masonuc (talk · contribs) and Useruser1x (talk · contribs), and I'm not even sure what the "correct" version of the page is. The edit war appears to have started with this edit in mid-August, so neither of them look exactly like new editors. Most of the article isn't supported by reliable sources anyway (which is no surprise). Neither Masonuc nor Useruser1x has actually discussed the issue. I wouldn't be surprised if this issue actually has to go to arbitration. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Elkman is correct that Masonuc also has a problem on this article. I've had to issue repeated warnings about breaching WP:CIVILITY and making personal attacks (anything further and I'll ask for a short block for Masonuc). I also started watching this article when an anon was blanking the page, and have got to feeling that I am caught between two fires. Re. them being new editors: the dispute may have been going for several months, but Useruser1x hasn't been editing anything other than UNOI, and so may have remained unaware of the rules of Wikipedia until recently. Masonuc also seems to have an axe to grind, but has done some editing outside this particular page. Michaelbusch 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I also am very much annoyed by Useruser1x's continued accusations that I am fabricating information in this article, when all I have done is to cite external sources, including UNOI itself. I must also exclude myself from further deliberations, as I fear that my neutrality has been compromised by Useruser1x's continued insults (see Talk:United Nation of Islam). Michaelbusch 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Elkman , I have not discussed this matter with Masonuc because he has offered very little participation on the UNOI discussion page. Also Michaelbush has commandeered the United Nation of Islam article and has incorporated his edits with those of Masonuc. Since Michaelbush’s first edit on United Nation of Islam’s article on October 17, 2007; Michaelbush has made 41 edits to the United Nation of Islam article, I made 10 edits and Masonuc has made 7. UNOI history page.

I am advocating a non-bias article with multiple major news and business journal citations which includes but is not limited to the Christian Science Monitor, Kansas City Business Journal, Kansas City Star, Kansas City Kansan, Associated Press etc. I have found approximately 50 such articles and used many of them (20) in the article. Here is the link to the article.

Here are the diffs between Masonuc and Michaelbush’s version. Michaelbush’s version is heavily referenced from one (1) tabloid style reference and according to him it is also a bias article. Even after admitting that his primary source is bias, he also has disregarded approximately 50 non-bias references. In addition to that, I have listed several examples of non-factual content in Michaelbush’s version and he still to this day ignores the evidence that supports the non-factual nature of his article. I am not against adding controversy to the article however I am against the blatant un-factual nature of Masonuc and Michaelbush’s combined version; the overbearingly negative tone (because of his heavy use of one tabloid style reference unbalanced by majority non-bias references apx(50)) and his reluctance to dialogue concerning the blatant errors in their version .

My first edits to the United Nation of Islam article were saturated with explanations of content. I have since continued to edit the article to remove them and consequently remove any concerns of POV or Advert. It is a work in progress.

I recommend that everyone review Talk:United Nation of Islam). Useruser1x 06:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Useruser1x 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Useruser1x is nothing but a shill for the United Nation of Islam. His edits have all served to completely remove all neutral/controversy discussions and replace everything with glowing references to the UNOI and calling Royall Jenkins as "Allah." I am perfectly neutral. I realize and acknowledge that Royall is a scam artist, but the article is completely neutral and mentions both sides of the debate. And it is perfectly relevant (though no longer mentioned in the article) that Royall is missing several teeth and is barely literate. The man is claiming to be God! His physical appearance and abilities are relevant. In any event, the article is well-reasoned, cited, and neutral -- except for all the times that Useruser1x reverts it back to his advertisement. Compare the two articles and see for yourself. Useruser1x wants to shill for UNOI. The alternative is a fair and balanced, neutral article with information about UNOI and a controversy section. Masonuc 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. In general the article is just way too long. This is a relatively small group. They only have a few hundred followers. Even the controversy section is way too detailed. Months ago the article was much better, I created a short neutral version but other followers kept changing it to an advertisement again. I've got nothing personally against the UNOI, I just don't want some strange cult using Wikipedia for pure advertisement. And any neutral encyclopedic article should explain that this guy claims to be God, but oh yeah he is also accused of X, Y, and Z. (And I think the fact that he is barely literate is relevant, too). Masonuc 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as side note; the word "Allah" means two things to "Black Muslims". It means the total population of the original people of the planet earth and it is a title for the supreme one among them who is the head of their nation. As far as the term "God", that refers to all of them individually. It is my experiance that that type of information or explaination in an article would constitute Advert. I thought I would share this with you since I have done extensive research and you have shown little to no knowledge of the subject matter and you are negativly bias, based on your statements.

Also, "accused" means that it is not proven. Accusations were made in 2002; so where is the evidence of the truth of said "accusations" in 2007. That's the point. This is a living person and you should read the Wikipedia definition of libel. I am addressing the factual nature of your edits while you are focused on me. This is not personal. My understanding of Wikipedia rules forbid any such entry angainst a living person without PROOF. That is why I will take this matter to ArbCom so that they may decide where we differ.Useruser1x 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I came here based on the AN/I section listing. I have zero interest in this article otherwise. That said: UserUser1X is a highly biased pro-UNOI editor. Masonuc is a highly biased anti-UNOI editor. Neither appears capable of editing neutrally. UserUser's version is absurdly pro-UNOI, avoiding almost all criticism in favor of numerous citations directly from the writings and website of the group and its' leader. I am aware that some citations at the site are reprints of otherwise unavailable newspapers; and I am not speaking about those. Masonuc has been actively campaigning against this group for a long time, his earliest edits described it as a bizarre cult. Useruser's edits are so glowing that I wonder if he wasn't the IP who quite early on demanded that only those in the UNOI be allowed to edit the article. I suggest both of them go away for a while, perhaps months, and let other editors here try to make this into a decent article, one that points out that while there have been numerous local good acts, these are balanced by serious criticisms, from within and without. ThuranX 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, thank you for sharing your opinion. You have a great talk page.

I have researched the UNOI prior to my knowing of Wikipedia. When I read the United Nation of Islam article, I could not believe how non-factual it was. I recommend that you reserve your judgment of what I write until I have finished my edits. As I wrote before; this is a work in progress and believe you me; the learning curve was steep but I am a quick learner. I know that I am able to write a non-bias article and I am going to prove it with my continued edits of United Nation of Islam’s article. Because I was a Wikipedia novice and I advocate that the article be factual; now I am labeled as pro-UNOI! You all seem so focused and fixed on proving that the “person” is bias PRO or CON that you miss the real relevant issue and that is the TRUTHFULNESS of the article itself. That is my only PRO anything. Maybe I am a dreamer and overly optimistic, but you all’s aversion to focus on the truthfulness of the article is astonishing and somewhat perplexing. So it is of no surprise that your opinion gravitates towards assumptions or your personal, suggestive and non-factual “wonder"ings.

Now as far as your comment that I have “numerous citations directly from the writings and website of the group and its' leader” is an out-right un-truth. Other than newspaper reprints, I have referenced the UNOI website ONLY ONCE and that was to the ONLY SOURCE for their leader’s autobiography. I suggest that you recheck your findings by checking my last edit to date or any one of my edits because I have NEVER changed my references. What you have described are the actions of Michaelbusch. He quotes from the UNOI website HEAVILY so I am in agreement with you on that point. Also, I challenge you to find negative "criticism" of the UNOI in a major news paper or business journal article and I challenge you to find in ANY creditable source a confirmation of "allegations" from the tabloid style article used by Michaelbusch. As the history bears witness, Michaelbusch has commandeered the UNOI article and it is no longer [user:Masonuc]’s edits in question because their edits are now combined.

Is there anyone who will address the truthfulness or non-factual nature of [user:Michealbush]’s edits???Useruser1x 03:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I got your comment on my talk page and you're correct that I've been really busy lately. I don't really have any more comments on the situation other than what I mentioned here at AN/I. I primarily noticed the situation on the UNOI article from Masonuc's contributions and from the point of view of his edits. I left this warning on Masonuc's talk page regarding this edit. Masonuc hasn't discussed any of the edits he's made in the article, other than to say that he believes your edits are advertising for UNOI. Personally, I have just about no interest in trying to determine whose version of the article is "right". It's not up to me to determine which version of the article is correct, and I can't provide much support in that area. I have no knowledge of the United Nation of Islam. Now, if you asked me if their headquarters building was Richardsonian Romanesque, Beaux-Arts architecture, Second Empire, or Art Deco, then maybe I could provide a reasoned opinion.

I think there's been a major problem with POV pushing in the article from both sides, and I'm afraid that arbitration is the only real fix for this problem. And if it comes down to arbitration, I'll say the same thing there that I've said at WP:AN/I. I'm sorry I can't provide much support for your view or for any particular version of the article, but that's the way things go.Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked admin Elkman to comment on the situation here and thank you for that. Although you do not have knowledge on the subject matter (United Nation of Islam) to determine its truthfulness you at least expressed that fact. I will make my final edits today and remove any POV concerns and submit a formal request for review by ArbCom. I have noticed that those who comment on this subject tend to leave out comments on [user:Michealbush]’s edits and his participation in this. Since October 17, 2007, [user:Michealbush]’s edits out number Useruser1x and Masonuc’s almost 3 to 1 when compared individually and has heavy references to an anonymous MESSAGE BOARD! Based on his additions to this article, he has injected more non-factual material than Masonuc although Masonuc is the originator of the concern. Just a casual review of the [diffs between Masonuc and Michaelbush’s edits will reveal major non-factual additions from Michaelbush. I will make this point clear in my petition.Useruser1x 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Full protection requested

As a result of the ongoing edit war here, I have requested full protection for this page. I would do this myself, but I have already acted on this page and am listed as a party in the possible request for arbitration here. I ask that no parties make any further changes prior to agreement on this talk page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Useruser1x, who everyone seems to agree has a major COI problem, was the last edit before protection. Someone may want to look into that.NMinaf40120 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Useruser1x made the last post before full protection, removing the sections describing UNOI's theology/views and that describing the controversy surrounding its operations. In order for this edit to be reverted by an Admin while the page is protected, there must be a clear consensus for the restoration. So: should such a reversion take place? I personally am in favor of it, because Useruser1x's version removes a very large quantity of important information about the group. To prevent, or at least segregate, large posts, please reserve this section for a straw poll and put anything else you feel you must say under a separate heading. Since the protection is for a week, lets make this poll last twenty-four hours, unless a clear consensus shows up first. Michaelbusch 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For reversion of Useruser1x's last edit to the page:

• Michaelbusch 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like a no-brainer. The vandal, who ignored dozens of warnings, got lucky and vandalized minutes before an unaware editor protected.195.189.142.233 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• NMinaf40120 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• I prefer reversion, although I think there are parts of Useruser1x's version that could be included.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Against:

• J7t7c 15:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC) The article is non bias. I vote leave it as it is.
• 1WhoKnows 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC) MichaelBusch I read your article, it is biased. The current article is neutral. I vote to keep the current article.
• 70slegend 15:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Littlebeaver 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC) keep the protected version.

I'm closing this poll - the above votes, other than myself and Flyguy, are obvious single-purpose accounts created for the sole purpose of POV-pushing - none have any edits older than my opening the poll and all have only edited this page. I suspect that all are Wikipedia:Sockpuppets of User:Masonuc and User:Useruser1x. Now I must consider what to do about this. Michaelbusch 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, it is an extremely easy task for an admin to look up their ip addresses and prove that it is not me. For the record -- those parties who voted are NOT me. You are the one who started the poll not me. A poll means that a person has to make a CHOICE. Since it has not gone your way; now we have to be subjected to your opinions and assumptions about something that you started. Some of you have made assumptions about the admin who locked the board as though he was not intelligent enough to perform his job in a non-biased manner. If you didn't want people to choose, don't start a poll. It is that simple. And; for the record; I don't need anyone to be on "my" side. That is personal and has nothing to do with the idea at hand. The idea at hand is the non-truthfulness of your edits. And I am going to list them here again to address your latest version before I appeal to ArbCom. I have edited the article to remove POV or the appearance of POV from my edits but you cannot say the same of “your” version.

Admin Flyguy649, once again your actions are in question. You asked for an admin to lock the page. Why go back after he has granted the request and tell him that you "disagree with User:Useruser1x's version,"? Exactly what is it about my edits that you disagree with? I don’t want to assume; are you in agreement with the non-factual edits of Michaelbush or do you some other opinion on this?

How are my actions in question? I have made no administrative actions on this article since I semi-protected it on October 22. I requested page protection as an editor (which is what admins are, just with extra tools). I would have done so the same way prior to becoming an administrator. It would have been wrong for me to fully protect it, and even worse for me to revert to Michaelbusch's version prior to either requesting or enabling protection on the page. It so happens that your (Useruser1x's) version is the one that was here prior to protection. I don't believe your version is unbiased. That said, I don't necessarily think Michaelbucsh's version is perfect either. There is discussion, compromise and consensus. On another issue, I am extremely disappointed to see single purpose accounts "voting" in the above straw poll. It is highly disruptive. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy649; I wrote that “your actions are in question” and then I wrote; “You asked for an admin to lock the page” , “Why go back after he has granted the request and tell him that you "disagree with User:Useruser1x's version?”. Flyguy649, You did not say that you disagree with both Michaelbusch’s version and mine. You picked me out exclusively. So for you to go to the admin AFTER he locked the board and tell him how you disagree with me -- cancels out your neutrality and is suggestively pointing to a “preferred version” -- whether you meant to do this or not. So as to not make a judgment based on the suggestive nature of your actions; I am asking you directly, why did you do that?

Now as far as your other issue; I recommend that you focus on the issues at hand. Like the non-factural nature of Michaelbusch’s edits and the bias that you see in my edits. I would like to know where the bias is in the current protected version? Once there is clarity on this disagreement, it will eliminate all of the subsequent reactions and you will not have to deal with your feelings of disappointment.Useruser1x 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Flyguy on this. I opened the poll hoping that it would not be abused. It is evident that this is not the case, so I have closed it. Useruser1x, I cannot accept your statements blindly. As I noted, it is most suspicious that five single-purpose accounts appeared and started editing the page at the same time as I opened a poll to assess consensus. Fortunately, straw polls aren't substitutes for consensus. Do also note that using meat puppets - having other editors edit for you - is considered just as bad as using sock puppets. Michaelbusch 20:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch, it is of no surprise that you are falsely accusing me of getting other editors to do something for "me". I keep having to remind you all that the truth stands on its own. I am so confident that the admins who constructed this Wikipedia service will see the IDEA of your non-factual edits no matter how much you all keep trying to make this a personal issue with me. It is somewhat difficult to conceive of men and women who have originated this great free service called Wikipedia are a group of lazy, personal thinkers who have difficulty in seeing and understanding simple ideas. I think the exact opposite and as a side note; I aspire to be an admin and contributing editor worthy of this great service. However, based on you all’s suggestive language and out-right assumptions concerning me; you all must think that I am POWERFUL. When in fact, it is not me that is powerful; but the truth concerning the non-factual nature of your edits that has you all mentally off-balanced. You are trying desperately to divert attention away from the ideal at hand and point undue, unjustified attention towards me and therefore never getting to a resolution.Useruser1x 20:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

re United Nation of Islam on admin Ryan_Postlethwaite talk page

Here are the comments made concerning the lock on this board.Useruser1x 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion relating to page protection at User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite.

I've removed the copy of the thread from that user talk page as it is not necessary to have it repeated here. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was this posted here at all? Useruser1x, if you wanted a link between here and the discussion, you could have made a link, like I did above. Copying the discussion to here is somewhat unnecessary. You also forgot to include an html diff of me requesting page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection here. You will notice that I requested page protection first, left the note on this page second and then thanked the protecting admin, as quoted above. Placing things here out of context is misleading. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy649, I copied the comments here so that it will be easy for ArbCom to follow the flow of events. As I wrote in the Full protection requested section above; “your actions are in question” . What you have done here has proven my point concerning why your actions are questionable. At first you made a request for page protection and there is nothing questionable about that. Then you left a note on this board and again; there is nothing questionable about that. However, AFTER the admin Ryan Postlethwaite page protected the United Nation of Islam’s article , you went to his talk page and wrote that you "disagree with Useruser1x’s version”. Now that is questionable! Flyguy649, you are an admin! You did not say that you disagree with both Michaelbusch’s version and mine. You picked me out exclusively. So for you to go to the admin AFTER he locked the board and tell him how you disagree with me while excluding any concern of Michaelbusch's article -- cancels out your neutrality and is suggestively pointing to a “preferred version” -- whether you meant to do this or not. I appreciate your lesson on Wikipedia Style techniques, on what I "forgot to include" and your opinion of "Placing things here out of context is misleading". I will incorporate those style techniques in the future. However, for you doing this; I thank you for assisting me in clarifying your questionable behavior.Useruser1x 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Has Flyguy stated that he is neutral? Admins don't need to be neutral, they just can't use their tools to further their opinions on content in these matters. --Philosophus ^T 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, no, to my knowledge Flyguy649 has not said that he is neutral. Whether he has “said” it or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that he is an admin. According to Wikipedia FAQ - Being neutral, “Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them". So, there is a question about Flyguy649 “engaging in a dispute” by speaking of me exclusively to "possibly" further his “opinions on content in these matters”. The question is WHY did he do what he did and the answer will determine if the "possibility" is a definite.Useruser1x 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Useruser1x, you don't need to have the comments here. When you file a request for Arbitration, you would use diffs to show what happened, and only the relevant parts. When making the request for arbitration, the idea is to point out why you think arbitration is necessary. If the case is accepted, then there is an evidence phase in which more detailed evidence can be presented. In any case, my understanding is that ArbCom only looks at what is on the request for arbitration page. Please remember that ArbCom can not make decisions on content disputes, only on editor conduct. Now, I'm going to try to tackle the issues here more thoroughly later tonight (eastern time zone, North America). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy649, I am aware of the use of diffs in the Arbitration process. However, this Talk page is "detailed evidence".Useruser1x 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I will have to get to this tomorrow. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going on record...I know that you are busy...I do value your input.--Useruser1x 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing of Useruser1x's version

I've created a copy edited revision of the current (Useruser1x's) version of the article at User:Philosophus/UNOI_Draft. To the best of my understanding, I haven't made any nontrivial changes in the content or POV, even though I have disagreements with several points (in both versions, actually). The revision fixes several grammatical and typographical errors, and makes the article conform more closely to the MOS.

Useruser, if you could confirm that the "To train, educate, ..." part is actually a quote. If everyone can agree to put up this new version as a temporary measure, without endorsement of it, this would be great. The current version has significant MOS errors and shouldn't be left up for the term of the page protection. Note that this revision and my comments here should not be taken as an endorsement of this version as satisfying NPOV, V, or any other policy, I only endorse it as having the same POV as the current article. --Philosophus ^T 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, At first glance; I am in agreement with the changes that you made. However, I need to look at it more thoroughly tomorrow and I will make a definite decision. I would like to discuss with you or anyone here; what is the POV of the article? What is it about the article that is causing you to refrain from endorsement?Useruser1x 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Every article has a point of view, and points of view aren't necessarily bad, as long as they are neutral. I don't exactly know what the point of view of this particular article is, I just tried to keep it the same in my revision. Personally, I think your version of the article contains too little information. It doesn't contain any description of the claims made by various members of the organization, doesn't explain the theology of the group, and doesn't mention anything about controversies. Most articles about religious groups contain Controversy sections, if I recall correctly, and the inclusion of those sorts of claims are an important part of NPOV even when you don't personally agree with them. The critical part is to strike a balance, treating everything from a neutral point of view, and not giving undue weight to any particular information. This can be very difficult to achieve, and I don't think that either version satisfies it right now. The best method is probably to slowly build up the article, discussing each statement on the talk page if necessary, and making sure that every contentious claim in the article is qualified by noting the person who made the claim. All statements also need to have reliable sources. If I have time, I might try to help in writing such a version. --Philosophus ^T 07:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, Were in the Wikipedia guidelines are "claims" against a LIVING PERSON admissible in an encyclopedia article with no proof of the claim? Especially when such claims are possible criminal offenses. Isn't that against NPOV. My understanding is that extra-ordinary “claims” against a LIVING PERSON need extra-ordinary proof. Also, you wrote "most articles about religious groups contain Controversy sections". What is the exception?--Useruser1x 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The exceptions are groups that have attracted no controversy or, more commonly, have not yet had controversy sections written. UNOI has bothMichaelbusch 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that legal threats are cause for immediate banning per No Legal Threats. There doesn't need to be any proof of any claim on Wikipedia, per Verifiability. Wikipedia does not concern itself with Truth, only Verifiability. We do need Reliable Sources for claims in order to satisfy Verifiability, and the Biographies of Living Persons policy. The reliability of The Pitch per WP:RS and WP:V is unclear to me, as I really haven't had much time to look into the matter and don't live in the area, but the article seems to be relatively solid, and careful not to assert facts, instead quoting individuals. Michael's version also uses a number of sources that are self-published by Royall in order to explain the theology; this is acceptable as long as we are reasonably certain that he wrote them. We could use some other opinions here, though. I might look for some other people who might be interested in helping. The problem here, as with many other articles I've worked on, is that due to the obscurity of the subject, there are few sources beyond the voluminous self-published ones. My belief for such articles is that if there aren't enough verifiable sources, especially when there is a lack of criticism when criticism and controversy should be expected to exist, then the subject isn't notable enough to warrant an article, as WP:NPOV cannot be satisfied at the same time as WP:V. --Philosophus ^T 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the sake of style and the MOS, could you please give an opinion on my new version? The current version is completely unacceptable in terms of grammar and style. --Philosophus ^T 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the changes.--Useruser1x 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This article will violate NPOV and advertising rules if it does not have a controversy section. The head of the religion is an avowed polygamist, and claims to be the divine creator of all mankind (well, black people at least). There are many reports of abuse of members, welfare fraud, and sexual crimes. Those have to be acknowledged. 349ngt 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are the "many" "reports" of "abuse of members", "welfare fraud" and "sexual crimes". I would like to see one VERIFIABLE SOURCE. Whether you like the spiritual head of this organization or not; he is still a living person and what you are writing is libel. You can not find a court judgement or even a criminal investigation by a law enfourcement agency concerning these "allegations" because they are simply not true or verifiable. "Accourding" to the "National Enquirer"; the pope and the president are aliens. But that does not make it true because it is "alleged" in print and can be referenced. Again where are your "many" reliable and reputable "sources".Useruser1x 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the claims by Royall were self-published and thus acceptable in an article about him per WP:SELFPUB. Am I not correct?--Philosophus ^T 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, Were does Royall refer to himself as "abuse of members", "welfare fraud" and "sexual crimes"? Answer = Nowhere. My point is that Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people. The operative words here are MULTIPLE HIGH QUALITY RELIABLE SOURCES. That is wikipedia policy; period. Now this discussion is being diverted to "multiple wives" which is something that I am not addressing here.--Useruser1x 01:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to quote policy in bold text for my benefit. I watched as BLP was discussed and first written after the Seigenthaler incident, and have considerable knowledge of the policy surrounding controversial claims; in fact, all of my editing with this account involves controversial topics with BLP and NPOV issues. If you will notice 349ngt's original comment here, it stated, among other things "The head of the religion is an avowed polygamist, and claims to be the divine creator of all mankind." This was what I was responding to when I made the note about WP:SELFPUB, not the other items. I probably should have clarified that at the time. The discussion is not being diverted, as it started on this topic. --Philosophus ^T 05:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not bold the text soley for your benifit. It is not personal. However, others have shown a difficulty in following a train of thought or responding to the idea at hand or ignoring an idea that is already being discussed while introducing new ideas. Although you Elkman and Flyguy are probably the only ones in which I have interaction on Wikipedia who tend to focus on the idea at hand. Although you have to admit that since your response was not written directly under the paragraph in which you were responding -- in doing so could cause confusion. However, I will tone down with the bolding feature so as not to potentially insult anyones intelligence.--Useruser1x 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No you are right. As was cited in previous articles (repeatedly deleted by Useruser1x), Royall has a message board where he admits to having numerous wives and states that in the future, a man's wisdom will be judged by the number of wives he has. Also the Pitch article states many of the allegations. Moreover, nobody is suggesting the controversy section should state that every allegation of abuse, etc. is proven. Just alleged -- that's the point of "controversy." Useruser1x doesn't seem to understand the difference. NMinaf40120 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks against other users. Also, why are there suddenly so many "new" SPAs in this discussion? If this doesn't stop, we will probably have to take more drastic actions against them, such as semiprotection or checkuser. Please don't engage in forbidden sock puppetry or meat puppetry. --Philosophus ^T 05:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

The above quote is Wikipedia policy and proves my point. Accourding to policy one cannot say "alledged", libelous, criminal behavior against a living person who is also a public figure unless it is well sourced.--Useruser1x 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, we (at least me, Michael, and Flyguy, probably not the SPAs) are quite aware of Wikipedia policy, and you are going to hurt your own arguments by trying to enter into a policy debate with us. For example, what you are quoting here, part of WP:RS, is not policy, it is a guideline. There is a significant difference between the two. Note also the part about exceptional claims. Claiming that a source claimed something is not the same as claiming that thing itself. The point of many of these policies is to prevent sources that say "We believe this person did X" from being used to put "This person did X" in the article. It is not contentious to claim that a source claimed something, unless that puts undue weight on the claims of that source. My problem with Michael's version of the article is that I think it does put undue weight on the Pitch article. --Philosophus ^T 05:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, are you saying that because the person in the pitch article is saying that a living person did these crimes -- "reports" of "abuse of members", "welfare fraud" and "sexual crimes" -- as opposed to saying that they "believe he did it" discounts it as an exceptional claim?--Useruser1x 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is an exceptional claim for the person to make. It isn't an exceptional claim for us to say that they made the claim, because it is rather obvious that they did. It would be exceptional for us to assert the claims' truth, and would be a violation of Undue Weight for us to give too much space to the claims. --Philosophus ^T 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the point in which we disagree. For an editor to repeat or "say that someone made" an exceptional claim without multiple sources puts undue weight on the claims. That undue weight is not removed because the editor repeats or points out that the claim was made by someone else. Only multiple sources remove the concern or reality of the undue weight of the claim. If the undue weight on the claims can be removed by an editor stating that the exceptional claims were made by someone else; then there are no need for guidelines which require multiple sources.--Useruser1x 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the primary source of disagreement here. My point is that the two different ways of including the information are quite distinct from a POV perspective: having "X murdered Y" implies something very different than "Z claims that X murdered Y". The former needs multiple very-high-quality sources, while the latter, if Z's claim is notable, doesn't. I'll give an example using current events. We have an article about the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency. The former Chief Justice has claimed that the actions by Musharraf destroyed the constitution, and a former Primer Minister claimed that the actions were a form of terrorism. Both of these claims would violate NPOV if they were directly included in the article, with a statement like "The actions destroyed the constitution and were a form of terrorism." But making it clear that these people made those statements is fine. Similarly, when we report on the controversial method of detaining the Chief Justice, we note that the claims were made by a news channel rather than directly stating them as fact. --Philosophus ^T 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus are you an admin?--Useruser1x 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin, for a variety of reasons. --Philosophus ^T 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But, from your other posts about admins, I should explain the matter. Admins didn't create Wikipedia, and don't have the complete control that admins on most websites have. They essentially exist to be administrators in the traditional sense of the word: they are said to wield the "mop and bucket", and work mainly to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. Most editors, even prolific ones, aren't admins, as editing and administrating are two separate activities. The voice of an admin has no more power here than the voice of any other established editor. The ArbCom and Jimmy Wales are a different matter, of course. --Philosophus ^T 07:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a little off topic -- I asked because I have noticed that Michaelbusch and you have a similar pattern of writing. That pattern is one of writing with suggestive authority. Although you two have never written that you are admins or that you have the capability or tools of an admin; you all's method of presenting ideas leans towards it. Also; I noticed on your talk page that you and Michaelbusch have a cordial relationship. Does your relationship extend to other projects and articles inside of Wikipedia and do you two have a relationship outside of Wikipedia? Lastly, how did you become aware of the discussion on this talk page and do you have more than one Wikipedia handle or username? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Useruser1x (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We both have that confidence because we've been here for a long time, and have edited quite a bit: Michael has been here since early last year and has over 10,000 edits, and I've been here for over 3 years, and have around 2,000. We both know each other outside of Wikipedia, and Michael mentioned his activities with this article at dinner. I came because it is just the sort of dispute I have experience in dealing with: a harsh edit war between editors with entrenched opinions, especially where many of the editors are new and only do significant editing in that dispute. As noted on my user page, which is a bit outdated but contains quite a bit of information about my previous experience, I do have multiple accounts; I was one of the editors who created the significant revisions in WP:SOCK that, among other changes, created WP:SUSPSOCK. I have exceptional knowledge of that particular policy, and I continue to be active in discussions over it, so I know very well what restrictions I need to work under. --Philosophus ^T 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and other issues with Michael's version

Here is a list of some problems I have with Michael's version:

• We should reference specific speeches rather than just the forum containing them.
• Some of the Royall Jenkins information seems somewhat extraneous. This isn't an article about him, and I don't see the need to have the location of his birth or details of his first marriage.

Truncated some. Michaelbusch 03:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The use of his views on marriage and sexuality as an example of the group's views seems like it constitutes picking a particular view in order to add criticism. I also think that the views on sexuality are being misrepresented: from my cursory reading of his speeches, I believe he is doing the 'split sex into good and bad acts', as Milton does in Paradise Lost, and then confusingly using 'sex' as the word for only the bad act, with 'love' being used for the good act. Either view tends slightly toward OR, but I think my view is more reasonable and less ORish, given his views on marriage.

It is almost impossible to understand what Jenkins means in those particular speeches - they are in a dialect that is very far removed from standard English. I waded through as much of it as I could tolerate, and found statements which seemed to indicate both interpretations. That Jenkins claims to be inerrant immediately leads to the doublethink problem. Michaelbusch 03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Claims of "Mathematical Thinking" being numerology are unsourced and probably OR, because, as usual, no one is going to bother to write anything about it. The whole think probably simply shouldn't be mentioned, per my NPOV AND V philosophy for notability.

They aren't really OR, per WP:OBVIOUS, but I see your point re. notability - it isn't emphasized too much in Jenkin's speeches. I've removed the paragraph. Michaelbusch 03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The controversy section is huge, and seems to be nearly entirely based on the claims of a single newspaper article. In some places, the claims of that article are presented as fact, when it might be unwise to do so, especially with the claim that he impregnated his teenage stepdaughter. Parts of this section seem like they could be sourced from other places, and probably should be.

In its current state, there might be a few BLP issues in the Controversy section, and on the whole, the article has the feel of being slanted toward a particular POV. --Philosophus ^T 01:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You are perceptive about policy, as usual. Regarding Jenkin's views rather than that of the group as a whole: I'm not sure how we can separate the two. This is a small tightly-knit group, and everything on their website follows one line pretty strictly. Re. the controversy business - obviously, our verifying the claims directly isn't possible due to Jenkins considering both of us to be the devil. However, if the Pitch article is correct, a cursory examination of the Kansas City public records should provide the necessary sources to make several of the claims verified. Unfortunately, the Kansas City public records are not available freely online yet (at least that I could find). Michaelbusch 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm making a few edits, and since I'm sure everything here will be contentious, I'll explain my rationales here, along with comments for further improvement:

• Incorporation in Delaware is nothing special or notable (it's very common), and certainly doesn't merit being in the introduction over more important items. Royall's claims of being Allah. I'm not really sure it merits mention at all. Does anyone care? When I deal with a company, I often assume that it's incorporated there.
• I've changed around some wording in the History section, in order to hopefully improve the fluidity of the text somewhat. However, we still abruptly end the history in 1993, and should have more content in this section. Much of the information in the Operations section should have corresponding facts in the History section: for example, when did the urban development start, and when did the group start going into various business activities? Also, we need a source that supports Royall leaving NOI because of the Allah claim. There are other highly plausible reasons, such as (if I recall correctly) the drastic changes in NOI rhetoric around the time, especially since Royall seems to follow the older, more racist rhetoric.
• I've completely changed the teachings section. I believe it should now be more proportionally representative. However, I can't find some things, especially the flying saucer bit. There is quite a bit that could probably be added here, but I don't have time to do it.
• I stopped after the beliefs section. The controversy section is still a problem.

--Philosophus ^T 05:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You are more cynical than I am, but in general the re-write looks good. I had a few minor changes. Thanks for taking the time to wade through all of Jenkin's speeches - I found them rather trying. Michaelbusch 06:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: During your perusal of Jenkins' work, did you happen across a date for the Apocalypse? The Pitch article says Jenkins claims it will happen sometime in 2010. That would be a notable prediction. Michaelbusch 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Useruser1x's last version

I've reverted Useruser1x's last version on grounds of NPOV - in particular wording such as 'passing' instead of 'death', using the term 'Spiritual Head' while Jenkins is also apparently the group's temporal leader, and removing the circumstances of Jenkins' split from the Nation of Islam. These can be quibbled about, I suppose. However, there were also several deletions and changes in the dates given in the header that contradict the available sources:

• UNOI did arrive in Kansas City in 1996, as quoted in several newspaper pieces (including one cited in the article already), and their headquarters in Delaware was not closed until 2002 (based on statements on their website).
• Jenkins' writings also contain descriptions of his 'revelation' in July 1978 and the rejection of the Nation of Islam - although as Philosophus notes, better citation of Jenkins is desirable here.
• Useruser1x also changed the dates of UNOI operations before 1993 to start at 1992. Between 1978 and 1993, when UNOI was incorporated, Jenkins had to have been doing something. The statements of his daughter are that he was gathering followers, largely from among other former members of the Nation, and that she joined them in 1985.

I do not have statements from UNOI to this effect, but that portion of her testimony hasn't been rejected by the group (although the rest has). Michaelbusch 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

STUDY1

BECAUSE THIS IS A FORM ABOUT THE TRUTH WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS CLOSE TO RIGHT. THIS IS HOW INNOCENT PEOPLE GO TO JAIL, BECAUSE ALL THE FACTS WHERE NOT PRESENTED, IF YOU NEED TO VERIFY THIS LOOK AT THE NEWS IN THE LAST TEN YEARS! (THE ONE 7777 (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080603222225/http://unitednationofislam.com:80/nationbuilding/nationbuilding_008.htm to http://unitednationofislam.com/nationbuilding/nationbuilding_008.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

Although the article is not only based on those, there still are a number of citations to the primary org's website, that is considered primary. The use of such sources should be minimal and only for non-controversial, non-self-serving information (WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 20:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Shaquanta Williams

Death of Shaquanta Williams should be included under controversies 108.28.187.109 (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)