From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on July 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Lack of Objectivity 2 Tone tag 3 "Nuwaubianism?" 4 Introduction 5 The God Malachi York 6 Other Nuwaubian Beliefs 6.1 Koran forgery 6.2 Saturn not a planet 6.3 Standards of sourcing and accuracy 6.4 Numerology in Nuwaubian belief 6.5 Incorrect Hebrew at beginning of article 6.6 Official Recognition??? 6.7 Let me ask this question.. 6.8 Is any of this true?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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

"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 [1]. 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)

[edit] Introduction

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

[edit] 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. [[2]] 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.[3]

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)

[edit] Other Nuwaubian Beliefs

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).