This article was nominated for deletion on July 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Barathary gland page were merged into Nuwaubian Nation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Nuwaubic page were merged into Nuwaubian Nation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Yamassee page were merged into Nuwaubian Nation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I went ahead and merged it.-- Sloane ( talk) 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In light of the fact that legal documents, including the prison registry [1] 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)
References
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
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.
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)
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 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...
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)
Can someone explain why there is a NPOV tag on the article? -- Pstanton ( talk) 21:58, 7 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)
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...
- Adolphus79 ( talk) 04:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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,
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 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)
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:
-- 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"?
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)
An 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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on July 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Barathary gland page were merged into Nuwaubian Nation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Nuwaubic page were merged into Nuwaubian Nation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Yamassee page were merged into Nuwaubian Nation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I went ahead and merged it.-- Sloane ( talk) 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In light of the fact that legal documents, including the prison registry [1] 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)
References
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
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.
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)
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 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...
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)
Can someone explain why there is a NPOV tag on the article? -- Pstanton ( talk) 21:58, 7 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)
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...
- Adolphus79 ( talk) 04:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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,
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 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)
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:
-- 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"?
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)
An 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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)