Talk:Nuwaubian Nation/Archive 1

Lack of Objectivity

This entire article completely lacks any hint of objectivity, but instead is a shameless self-promotion of this bizarre group. No mention is made of the group's many former names and beliefs, the group's constant confrontations with the Putnam County authorities, or of York's current incarceration in the Federal pen for felony child molestation. Any discussion of this group needs to be objective or the article needs to be deleted.

-- Oh man. Click through to the "Bathory gland" link. Completely batshit. Duckmonster 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I read one paragraph into the introduction and thought I was reading the group's propaganda. BTW, here in Athens, Georgia they started to build a temple or whatever, but abandoned the project after their leader became a convicted pervert. So there sits an abandoned Egyptian-style temple among the video rentals and package stores on Broad Street.PurpleChez 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is hardly something that Nuwaubians are proud of. If anything it's style is written in the form of an expose and it profoundly lacks any true understanding of exactly what is taught within Nuwaubu. The article seeks negative reaction and adrenaline rushes rather than focusing upon historical, analytical aspects. There is absolutely no mention of the adaptation of Semitic and Egyptian languages (Arabic, Hebrew, Akkadian, Egyptian) culture and ritual that were usurped into Nuwaubu. Nor does the article detail the historical and chronological aspect of it's doctrine. Given the bias nature of this article Nuwaubians (who numbers were in the thousands) are apparently reluctant to add to it. The additional Nuwaubian based pages are all equally subpar and under-studied. One cannot compose a concise missive on a subject that they haven't studied in it's entirety. That appears to be the case here. In addition, the article's creator Moorlock apparently has developed a disdain for the leader of the Nuwaubian nation Dr. Malachi York that underscored the bias tone for this creation. He has shown this in his attempts at labelling him unnecessarily on articles outside this one a "black supremacist" and a "convicted child molester" (ex: the curse of Ham). However, a man actions and his educated works are not always the same. Through out the years I have witnessed with my own eyes Dr. York:the man (good or bad) raising an entire nation of intellectually impoverished men where the European based institutions failed. In my opinion the entire article should be scrapped and done over after a through and complete study of the Nuwaubian history is reached. If not, then attempts at defining, or explaining concepts of Nuwaubu should be held to a minimum.

"I am simply a scientist, and the job of a scientist is to reveal unbias facts" : Dr. Malachi Z. York

Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an extremely ironic quote to use at the end of a post where you seem to arguing that certain facts about a subject should be hidden. 68.20.216.99 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Tone tag

I have added a tag stating that this article may not be in the formal language expected of an encyclopedia. It reads more like a religious tract than an encyclopedia entry. There are huge amounts of text that states opinions as fact; perhaps it is implied that these are just the beliefs of adherents, but in an encyclopedic entry, that must be stated explicitly. There are also too many sections that lack any kind of explanation as to how they fit into the article; for example, a captionless graphic ("IS THE DEVIL RELATED TO THE DINOSAURS?") and "Anti-Nubian Conspiracies," which includes direct quotations without any tie-in whatsoever.

As it is such a long article (perhaps it could also be shortened?), I lack the time to fix it myself, but I hope this tag will alert someone else. I also lack the grasp of the subject matter that would be necessary to clarify certain sections; part of the problem is that this article's heavy use of esoteric terms and incoherent organization makes it very difficult for me, as someone who has never heard of the subject before, to learn very much about it. Epistaxis 21:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly is in formal language! If you have problems with this, Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on "Magic" would blow your mind - acutally, the problem there was lack of a serious tone. I think the tone in this was fine, but perhaps I didn't catch the 'opinions as facts' becasue I thought all the beliefs were rediculous. Perhaps it should be taken for granted that these are only beliefs, not facts- Daimetreya

Put the tone tag back..someone removed the it but made very little changes overall to the content of this article. My overall opinion is that this article deserves to be deleted as it is not encyclopedic, loosely gathered and largely erroneous. Nuwaubian Hotep 08:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article could use some tightening, but it is heavily-referenced from primary sources and is certainly "encyclopedic" by Wikipedia standards. Where it is erroneous, these errors can be pointed out and replaced with documented corrections/additions. Where it is loosely-gathered, it can be tightened up. The "completely rewrite" and "delete" flags are way overblown. --Moorlock 17:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I added what I think are more appropriate flags for this article while I wait for the administrators to take the appropriate action. Please do not remove them until a decision is made to keep or remove this article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_16 Nuwaubian Hotep 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you make a good-faith effort to try to improve the page before just slapping a NASCAR-body's worth of tags all over it? It smacks of suppression rather than a genuine effort to improve the article and Wikipedia as a whole. I can't help but suspect that what you really would like is flattering example of Nuwaubu propaganda and not an objective view of the movement. --Moorlock 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit I did get a little carried away with the flags.. I'll remove all but the AFD tag. The others will not be needed until after the voting process. Nuwaubian Hotep 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Nuwaubianism?"

The term "Nuwaubianism" is unnecessary and out of place, there is no need to rename the form of this "school of thought". This article over all is poorly written, and severely lacking. It doesn't for one discuss one of the most important elements of Nuwaubu which is language. - -Nuwaubian Hotep

I agree, the word "Nuwaubuism" is totally inaccurate. First of all when you attatch -ism to a word it makes it seem cultish in the religious or spiritual sense. Nuwaubu may be a belief, but it is not really a religion. It simply has changing religious themes which they call schools of thought. If it is the ever changing doctrine of Malachi Z. York it has to be called (interchangeably) Nuwaubu and Nuwaupu respectively [1]. Do we call Islam by the word Islamism, or Muhammadism? Do we call Christianity by the name Jesusism or Christism? No we do not. We pick and choose which religions to disrespect and at the "-ism" to it. If the organization doesn't want to be called this why disrespect them and call it this? This is supposed to be about accuracy as this is an internet encyclopedia. This is not about your or anyone's opinion to the contrary. - - Antoine L. Mason —Preceding comment was added at 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Nuwaubianism" isn't ideal, perhaps, but do you have an alternative? I wanted a term that encompassed all of York's doctrines and practices, and the shared culture of the communities he founded, as they changed over time, and terms like factology, nuwaubu, overstanding and such seemed too specific to cover all of that.

If by "language" you mean Nuwaubic, that's covered on its own page. -Moorlock 16:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Moorlock, the appropriate name for your article should simply be "Nuwaubu". It is who we are and how we define ourselves. The term is definable within our science as well [2]. Admittedly, I for one initially was guilty of presuming that I knew concisely what this science was all about before I really did. Many in our fold take upon themselves the pretense of being a "Nuwaubian" but haven't fully studied or completely innerstand the Nuwaubic doctrine. It has become for me a concentrated, complex study covering many arena's of exoteric/esoteric scientific remination. Within Nuwaubu all topics are related, and the "ism" is not needed here. So Moorlock, more study of Nuwaubu on your part is needed for this article to become definitive. In addition the language article is subpar and lacking as well.

This article should at least indicate two very important aspects of Nuwaubu

• The importance of language and its application. In particular tracing the origin of words to their root form in its native language.
• The importance of study and appliance of Semitic scriptures and in particular using correct biblical translations as oppose to errant translations.

These are the foundations of Nuwaubu. -Nuwaubian Hotep

Moorlock wrote: "the suffix “-ism” gives more of a religious connotation than they feel is appropriate..." I removed this from your statement, Nuwaubians are not a like mind, and that wasn't my initial complaint. I also added a definition of the word Nuwaubu. - Nuwaubian Hotep 13:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Who is Adam Heimlich? Why should we value his opinion of Nuwaubu? - Nuwaubian Hotep 11:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As said in the introduction, he is a journalist who has reviewed a number of York's booklets. Pstanton 22:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

The God Malachi York

Moorlock wrote: "Some of York’s followers consider him to be a living god. At times he encourages this interpretation, though he may also suggest that he is merely channeling the divine" Whom are you referring too? I don't know of any Nuwaubians who "worship" Dr. Malachi Z. York. And this portion of a statement written by Dr. York from a preface listed in all of the latter books would state other wise. [[3]] Nuwaubian Hotep 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

He says in the quote you reference that he is not Adonai, not Christ, but merely “a master teacher, a guide.” If this were the extent of his claims then the section in the main article would be inaccurate. However in other places, he has made much more grandiose claims. For instance:

I am a Entity an Etheric being.... My incarnation as an Ilah Mutajassid or Avatara was originally in the year 1945 A.D... Then in 1970 A.D., was my time to come in the flesh to start my work of breaking the spell of sleep also called the SPELL OF LEVIATHAN or KINGU, the moon spell or lunatic state of mind with the power as the "Sun Of Righteousness" (Malachi 4:2 ).... Four months before my 25 birthday June 26, 1970 A.D. - The Opening of The Seventh Seal which marked the beginning of The Aquarian Age.... I am what you call an angelic being, An Eloheem from... the nineteenth galaxy called "ILLYUWN" originally referred to as heaven known as Elysium in Greek.... I have incarnated here in this form to act as a human being for the sole purpose of saving The Children Of The ELOHEEM... the chosen 144,000. Just as Mary of 2,000 years ago was chosen by the MOST HIGH , ANU... to breed the holy thing called Yashu’a or Jesus.... So too The Banaat will breed the Savior of this day and time; I YAANUWN, have come to save the children of the ELOHEEM (ANNUNAQI) from being killed as you bring your planet near to what could be its total destruction.[4]

York here is claiming to be (or to channel) an "Ilah Mutajassid" or Avatara, an "angelic being", an "Eloheem" from "'ILLYUWN' originally referred to as heaven" who "incarnated... to act as a human being for the sole purpose of saving The Children Of The ELOHEEM... the chosen 144,000" in the same way that Mary gave birth to Jesus to be the Savior of his time. This is a long way from being merely "a master teacher, a guide." This amounts to claims of divinity. --Moorlock 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In You And The Sons Of The Green Light ("I Am The Shadow Of The Father") York is more explicit about what this means:

The word Avatar is a Hindu word, and it is much easier to use than the Arabic Ilah Mutajassid, so I have chosen to use it for now. An Avatar is an extra extrordinary being, He is the miraculous embodiment of the divine in human form.... Although an Avatar acts and moves like a human, when one looks into his eyes, one can clearly see that he is not a mere mortal for he embodies complete mastery of the transcending of the physical world...

I am the Shadow of the Father

I, the Avatar of the West, have been chosen to be a temple of the incarnated divinity...

...I have come in the human form and move about amongst men so that I may be heard and loved and obeyed.

--Moorlock 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Moorlock you haven't address the 1st part of your statement: 'whom' are these 'followers' who consider Dr. York to be a 'living god'? If you cannot provide a reference this portion should be removed. A dateline should also be indicated in this section. Dr. York made these statements during earlier incarnations; so, in fairness to make your article 'appear' unbiased the statement I quoted where he speaks in 1st person and claims he is NOT the Christ or Adonai should be added. Nuwaubian Hotep 10:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We should endeavor to include statements from various of York's incarnations so as to cover the various ways he has represented himself and his teachings over time. --Moorlock 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Moorlock wrote: The Nuwaubians do not see the use of the word god as just referring to a universal creator, but also a title that one receives upon reaching a state of perfection or absolute power.[6] Where is the quote for this? You list a book but not the precise quote. I've tacked a citation until an exact quote can be provided. - Nuwaubian Hotep 12:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not add that part of the article - another contributor did - so I'm not sure what it references. In general, you should avoid the phrase "Moorlock wrote" to refer to things in the article text unless you know that they are contributions that I made. --Moorlock 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Nuwaubian Beliefs

Koran forgery

Moorlock wrote: “The Koran called the Holy Qur’aan or the glorious Qur’aan as held in the hands of Muslims today is a product of Jewish scholars, And the Catholic Church’s branch of the Jesuit priest under Pope Augustine.”[28]

• 1. The footnoted link states footnote 28, links to footnote 25 which is a bumlink, and footnote 28 has no reference of the Koran.

• 2. It is an established fact that Muhammad was taught by Catholic and Jewish Hanifs as quoted by N._J._Dawood an established Arabic translator in the introduction of his book entitled "The Koran" published by Penquin Classics, copyrighted 1968. "...Impressed by Jewish and Christian monotheism, a number of men known as hanifs had already rejected idolarty for an ascetic religion of their own. Mohammed appears to have been influenced by them."

Please provide a complete source reference, and rewrite or remove this item. Nuwaubian Hotep 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

footnote #28 links to external link #25 (http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/yorkislam.html) which is still up and operating (perhaps the site was down when you tried to visit) and which is titled "The Story of Ahmad The Life of Muhammad, as told by Dr.Malachi Z. York From The Holy Tablets, Chapter 19, Tablet 2" and which contains the following paragraph:

The Koran called the Holy Qur'aan or the glorious Qur'aan as held in the hands of Muslims today is a product of Jewish scholars, And the Catholic Church's branch of the Jesuit priest under Pope Augustine. And they planned the poisoning of the Prophet Muhammad by a Jewish woman named Zainab bint Haarith, wife of Sallam Ibn Mishkam whom Muhammad killed in a battle. This plan was to destroy the original Qur'aan and replace it with their version of a Qur'aan, Written by Musaylimat with the help of Jewish scholars and Christian scholars.

--Moorlock 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moorlock, sourcing user created websites will result in an incomplete thesis. What is missing here is the teaching by Dr. Malachi Z. York of a real Qur'aan vs. a fake Qur'aan. What's referenced in your work is the fake Qur'aan, this factoid most likely would have been included had you been more astute in your study. From the Holy Tablets: Chap:19 Tab:2 Verse:52-53: [52]This plan was to destroy the original Garun and replace it with their version of a Qur'aan, [53] Written by Musaylimat [The fake Muhammad] with the help of Jewish Scholars and Christian Scholars". Ok, so what's important here is this is an established fact as Arabic translater N.J. Dawood pointed out, not a belief or a mockery as you pose it to be. Mooklock, I say a rewrite is in order Nuwaubian Hotep 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moorlock you still haven't as of yet listed on this section of the article that the Koran Dr. York is referring to is NOT the original El's Holy Qur'aan. If this is not indicated this portion becomes nothing more than yellow journalism - Nuwaubian Hotep 11:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noted that York taught that the Koran most Muslims read is a Jewish/Christian forgery. This is noteworthy all by itself, but I have no objection to including a more thorough subsection covering York's teaching about various versions of the Koran and their origins and authenticity.--Moorlock 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Saturn not a planet

Moorlock wrote: "Saturn is not really a planet, but a gaseous ball..." Saturn is the sixth planet from the Sun. It is a gas giant. It's not a belief, but rather fact. This portion should changed to indicate the precise meaning or removed, it's an established fact. - Nuwaubian Hotep 11:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Saturn is in fact a planet, but York apparently taught otherwise (he wrote, "Saturn is not the planet. Saturn is a gaseous ball; its “rings” are really a necklace of small planets. The planet is actually Titan, which is thought by most scientists to be the moon of the sixth planet Saturn."). This is noteworthy to mention here.--Moorlock 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Saturn is more gas that solids. That is the lesson. It's not a belief. I fail to see why you're unwilling to correct this. You sir have composed an error. Nuwaubian Hotep 11:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states that York has taught his followers that "Saturn is not really a planet, but a gaseous ball adjacent to the actual planet, Titan, which is erroneously considered to be one of Saturn’s moons." This still seems to me an accurate paraphrase of what York wrote. --Moorlock 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Standards of sourcing and accuracy

Would that you would hold your Baba to the same high standards of sourcing and accuracy that you are trying to impose on me. “Pope Augustine”? Saturn not really a planet? Missing Barathary glands from your head being held in reserve like kryptonite ping-pong balls in a super lotto machine in a UFO? --Moorlock 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is your true agenda surfacing Moorlock? To answer your concerns, I sir am a factologist, an honor student and a Nuwaubian. And I feel insulted by this work (defining why I do not edit the article page). However, as I discover errors I will point them out here in the discussion tab hoping that in the fairness of true scholarship you will make the necessary adjustments. I also suggest that you Moorlock refer to actual Nuwaubian literature as your souce reference and stop quoting unverified user created websites. - Nuwaubian Hotep 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objections. I mention York instructing his followers that the Koran that most Muslims study is actually a Jewish/Christian forgery, you point out that you agree that this is true. I mention York instructing his followers that Saturn isn't actually a planet, you point out that you agree that in fact it's not. Why again do you object to these teachings being mentioned? Should I only be mentioning those teachings you disagree with? --Moorlock 23:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moorlock, your research is noteworthy, it's your analysis that's off, and apparently there is a problem with ego as well as you refuse to correct some the errant items that I have pointed out here. I refuse to get into an edit war with what I find to be an incomplete article that you've composed in the manner of an expose. I shall continue to point out errors within the discussion tab so that your readers can get a broader, more intelligent perspective. - Nuwaubian Hotep 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of your recent edits, for instance on the etymology of the word "nuwaubu" have been interesting and helpful. I hope that as you point out errors here we will be able to work together to improve the article. --Moorlock 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Numerology in Nuwaubian belief

Some mention of Nuwaubian numerological thinking might be good here - some explanation of why numbers like "9" and "19" are so important. -Moorlock 21:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

So, you are admitting Moorlock that you haven't a clue as to why Nuwaubians promote the qabalistic principles of the numbers 9 and 19. Another extremely important Nuwaubian stable. Why on Earth would you attempt to compose this article, and create labels that Nuwaubians don't apply to themselves if you haven't studied the Nuwaubian doctrine? Nothing personal, after all this is Wikipedia, but inquiring minds would like to know. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Hebrew at beginning of article

The Hebrew word discussed at the beginning of this article is spelled נבואה in Hebrew script, and would usually be transcribed into English as Nebuah (or with more fancy diacritics, Neβū'āh). It may sometimes be informally pronounced something like N'vuwa in modern Israeli Hebrew, but no serious scholar would transcribe the word נבואה as it appears in the Bible as "Nebuwah"[sic].

Also, Hebrew roots (like those of all the older Semitic languages) are consonantal, so "Nuwb"[sic] really doesn't make too much sense as a root -- and in any case, the word נבואה Nebuah is derived from consonantal root n-b-' נבא "to prophecy", not consonantal root n-w-b נוב "to prosper"... AnonMoos 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not just Hebrew (which is also inaccurate because the language/ dialect is not even called "Hebrew" is Chaldean, which came from Syriac and or Sanskrit). Aside from that the "w" consonant is a sound not existing within the Ibree/ Chaldean dialect but necessary in pronouncing said word. You are being untruthful like most people who are into etymology. That is like saying the word Allah means 'God' when the word 'God' comes from the word German word Gutt [5] stop being deceptive. This word trancends both Ibree and Arabiyya. You find this word in both languages. There is also a Kemetic deity named Neb [6]. The word 'Neb' as far as the Kemetic Orthodox religion (I am a part of) is concerned means 'lord' in reference to a man. Be a little bit more objective when talking about said article and editting. While I definitely do not believe in the Nuwaubian doctrine, I do know when someone is being insulting for the sake of being insulting. Antoine L. Mason 10:00 P.M. Saturday, May 31st, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 02:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Official Recognition???

The only source I can find for Bob Young saying that is from other encyclopedic entries, and it looks like they are all copied/pasted from the same source.

If you go to the article that was cited saying that Bob Young issued that proclamation, there is no report of that occurring. Instead, Bob Young said he had little contact with them and it also mentions that often the group prepares proclamations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.150.89 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask this question..

Since this is a pretty big article. Let me ask: How much attention should be given to a religion created by a man who admitted in court he molested children? Where none of the things he teaches can be proven? Rizq? Why have no other astronomers found this rock? And if he's from there, and claims to have visits from the beings there, why haven't they come and broken him out of prison like he predicted they would do? Basically, what I'm asking how long are we going to glorify someone who has been proven to be a total fraud? Prophets dont molest children and plead guilty to it in court. I'm down with the movement, no doubt.. I follow the Honorable Minister Farrakhan, the teachings of Dr. Khalid, and many prominent and not so prominent leaders of the present and past. But Dwight York is a charlatan clown, and his religion is a farce. Wake up. Chairman Sharif 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the nature of Wikipedia, you would have to find an example of a noteworthy public figure or media source calling him a "charlatan clown" before ytou could put that in the article (in the form of a properly-cited quote). AnonMoos 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Were you under the impression that this article was somehow biased in support of York? Did you actually read it? As far as I can tell, it lays out the Nuwaubian doctrine fairly and with appropriate detachment. It does not present their (frankly hilarious) beliefs as true, merely as beliefs. There's no need to try to debunk something that any reasonable reader will recognize as completely absurd. 159.53.78.141 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What I find so amazing is that you all here have opinions about Nuwaubu and yet none can accurately define it. It were not for my input of the Semitic root term of the word "Nuwaubu" (prophethood) this very important aspect of the science would not have been included in this article which in no way defines Nuwaubu on any level what-so-ever. And unfortunately for those who seek to cast their bias and erroneous opinion about the "beliefs" of Nuwaubu; Nuwaubians have consciously, intellectually and unamiously decided not to participate in this idiotic religiously controlled Wikipedian forum. If you want the real truths you'll simply have to buy a Nuwaubian scroll. There's no other way around it. Get the truth from the horses mouth, not it's arse. Nuwaubian Hotep

I've read some on Nuwaubu, including sites and forums in support of Nuwaubu, and what I've noticed is that there are many claims without any sort of scientific backing. I think this article is a fairly good representation of the Nuwaubu movement. And quite frankly, I think this article gets so much attention is because the majority of people find it funny. The first time I saw this page, it was because I clicked "random article" on the wikipedia sidebar and about the time I read York's theories on the origin of the "caucasoid" race I was laughing hysterically. Nuwaubu gets so much attention because, really, it is pretty far out.Pstanton 22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Is any of this true?

Ive never heard any of this befor mainly because ive never looked into it but this is just funny wether it is true or not i find this artical delightfulllllly entertaining —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.194.231.48 (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Heh, I hate to be rude, considering this apparently actually a spiritual movement with actual adherents, but yeah, apparently some people actually believe this stuff.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 22:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Nuwaubianism

This article could really use an overview of the history of Nuwaubian groups and doctrine over the years as it went through its various phases and migrated to different regions. Some info on non-American Nuwaubian groups (e.g. Carribean & Britain) would be good too. -Moorlock 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The question of scholastic value and authenticity to the creator of this article

Do you Moorlock own any Nuwaubian scrolls? If so, would you please list them here? In order to accurately detail the Nuwaubic doctrine one should have a valid source reference. Are we in agreeance?

It would not seem to be necessary that he actually own the scrolls and be intimately familiar with them. This is a general overview of Nuwaubu, not an in depth analysis of York's scrolls. Morlock can get the information he needs for this article from other sources, in addition to the occasional reference to the scrolls. I also noticed that you didn't bother signing your comment.Pstanton 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

And while were at it...

Why would a (profession censored) from (location censored) where there are no established Nuwaubian communities be so engrossingly interested in the subject, and in particular finding it's faults and expounding upon hearsay and rumor? This doesn't add up Moorlock, unless of course your acting as apart of some corporate agency who's sole purpose is defamation (of which in this case there has been an abundant media explosion of slander against Malachi Z. York...). You see Moorlock, even you have a paper trail. At anyrate it's quite clear you don't own any Nuwaubian scrolls as I have even presented this question to you twice, recently here and on your talk page months ago and you still as of yet refuse to answer. So, I'll just label this work as I have labeled a plethora of other pages at Wikipedia: "ridiculous" and let's add an extra "stupefied" adjective for measure in this, your case. Anyone who's actually read a Nuwaubian scroll from cover-to-cover will find this page comical. And that's more of a slight against you rather than a compliment towards Dr. Malachi Z. York. Nuwaubian Hotep

That's really just creepy Hotep. I've taken the liberty of removing the references to Moorlock's home and profession from your post per the Talk page guidlines, see "Behavior that is unnacceptable" one of the points is "posting personal information". And quite honestly, I doubt any corporations care enough about Nuwaubu to bother defaming it via wikipedia.

You should note that my edit of your comment was done under Wikipedia's talk page guidelines and it is considered acceptable to edit another's comment in order to delete personal informationPstanton 22:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Psonix term removed

---

No where in any Nuwaubian doctrine has Dr. Malachi York coined the term "psonix". In fact, I am good friends with the very person who created this moniker and He is not a Nuwaubian. What Nuwaubians practice is a phonetic art called "Sound Right Reasoning". Nuwaubian Hotep 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Living God Reference

I'm finding it difficult to determine how you concluded that Dr. York was worshipped as a living god by Nuwaubians from this phrase "The Ancient Egiptian Order describes York as the “Supreme Grand Hierophant Who Is His Own Father And Mother. He Comes Forth By Day, Known As S.G.H. Amunnubi Raakhptah Or Atum-Re, 720°, Keeper Of The Lost And Sacred Word And Its Tones, Symbolized By The Missing Part Of Osiris’ Body Needed For New Life, Who Is Tehuti Of Whom It Is Said, Death Has Forgotten Him." Your analysis is off, what suggested in this passage is not bodily worship but rather self creation. This needs to be removed. If not I will enact a rfc This article was formulated in a style of a slanderous expose which could explain why it is marginally errant. Nuwaubian Hotep 18:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nuwaubian Hotep here, this passage doesn't seem to suggest Dr. York being worshipped as a God necessarily, but it does imply a certain level of reverence. The passage itself is rather hard to interpret. Pstanton 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Nuwaubian Moors Newsletter 28 September 1997

This quote from this Newsletter should be removed because Dr. York is NOT the author, and you are using it to detail HIS created doctrine. This quote goes directly against scrolls such as The Dog scroll and the Sons of Canaan scroll. Many members of Nuwaubu fail at fully understanding it's principles. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Holy Tablets

Is probably the single most important scroll within the Nuwaubian doctrine and it's not even mentioned in this horribly inaccurate "expose". Nor are any of the scrolls mentioned by title. Just incomplete and inaccurate references. This entire concept for your Nuwaubianism <--- [Non Nuwaubian terminology] needs to be done over preferably by someone who's actually studied the doctrine. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not add it yourself? You've been complaining for years about the tone and content of this article, but have never managed to demonstrate that any significant element of it is incorrect, and still expect the rest of the Internet to make your recommended changes for you. 68.20.216.99 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why expert oversight is needed. And the scrolls are referenced properly, there is a lengthy section of footnotes at the bottom of the article with the names and other information of which scrolls he got his quotations from. And if you want to include information on the Holy Tablet, feel free to add that information, this is Wikipedia, and your as free to contribute as the rest of us. Pstanton 22:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Bible references

Nowhere near Genesis 10:6 does the Bible mention Nubians. Let alone that they are descended of Ham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.160.66 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Nuwaubians care. Dysfunktion (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where Are They Now?

I'd like to see more information about this group's communal living. Their compound in Eatonton, Georgia has been abandoned since the incarceration of Dr. York, and their Temple-Bookstore in Athens, Georgia seems abandoned as well - but this group has managed to stay in tact, I presume. Where are they now? This article seems dedicated to the religious aspects of the group, but what about some of their culture? grasshogger —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like to comment that their compound has actually been entirely demolished, and the land has been purchased by another group entirelyPstanton 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)