Talk:United Nation of Islam

message: I've reverted a couple of blankings of this page but looking through the history I see that a section titled "criticism" has been deleted rather than its contributor being given time to add in-text citations.  I'm concerned that this article may be compromised by a few editors who are affiliated with the subject, because the article's tone seems (and I'm being generous here) at the outer edge of what could be considered encyclopedic.  I'm not saying it's blatant advertising for a religious group as the recent IP blanker contends, but it does seem to paint it in an unnaturally rosy light.  I'm tagging it for neutrality.  Please discuss here before removing the tag.  Dethme0w 04:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or another editor could just find a past revision that is not compromised by spam.  Whatever. Dethme0w 04:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Dethme0w, Flyguy649 and Michaelbusch 
I am not a follower of anyone and I am not connected with the organization that I wrote about. I did a paper on them when I was in high school and I listed many of the sources. I was asked by wikipedia staff to wikify the article and cite references. Below are the references that I did and I included major news paper references like Christian Science Monitor, Kansas City Business Journal, Kansas City Star, Kansas City Kansan, Associated Press etc.However you all deleted my article and put a clearly non balanced article in it's place and now you are asking for references. I am requesting that you all LOOK AT THE REFERENCES listed below. This group is well documented in noteworthy news sources. I recomend that the article be reverted back to the ClueBot version and if other information is added to the article that it is put under the same wikipedia style guidelines in which I was asked to conform. Useruser1x
:The group is documented, but so are their problems.  To not mention them is a serious omission.  And don't refer to the 'Cluebot version'.  Cluebot merely reverts.  That was the version you wrote, and it was in very few ways adherent to Wikipedia policy.  In particular, WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT.  NPOV doesn't mean we shouldn't include criticism. Michaelbusch 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the Controversy section as it is completely unreferenced and goes against WP:BLP. Content such as that absolutely must be referenced. -- Flyguy649 talk 05:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy section is based on the material in the two critical websites listed at the bottom of the article.  I've restored it and included in-line citations. Michaelbusch 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: : Initiated by  Useruser1x at 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN APPEAL TO REASON BEFORE ARBITRATION 

message: Here are the comments made concerning the lock on this board.Useruser1x 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was this posted here at all? Useruser1x, if you wanted a link between here and the discussion, you could have made a link, like I did above. Copying the discussion to here is somewhat unnecessary. You also forgot to include an html diff of me requesting page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection here. You will notice that I requested page protection first, left the note on this page second and then thanked the protecting admin, as quoted above. Placing things here out of context is misleading. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flyguy649, I copied the comments here so that it will be easy for ArbCom to follow the flow of events. As I wrote in the Full protection requested section above; “your actions are in question” . What you have done here has proven my point concerning why your actions are questionable.  At first you made a request for page protection and there is nothing questionable about that. Then you left a note on this board and again; there is nothing questionable about that. However, AFTER the admin Ryan Postlethwaite page protected the United Nation of Islam’s article , you went to his talk page and wrote that you "disagree with Useruser1x’s  version”. Now that is questionable! Flyguy649, you are an admin! You did not say that you disagree with both Michaelbusch’s version and mine. You picked me out exclusively. So for you to go to the admin AFTER he locked the board and tell him how you disagree with me while excluding any concern of Michaelbusch's article -- cancels out your neutrality and is suggestively pointing to a “preferred version” -- whether you meant to do this or not. I appreciate your lesson on Wikipedia Style techniques, on what I "forgot to include" and your opinion of "Placing things here out of context is misleading". I will incorporate those style techniques in the future. However, for you doing this;  I thank you for assisting me in clarifying your questionable behavior.Useruser1x 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has Flyguy stated that he is neutral? Admins don't need to be neutral, they just can't use their tools to further their opinions on content in these matters. --Philosophus T 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philosophus, no, to my knowledge Flyguy649 has not said that he is neutral. Whether he has “said” it or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that he is an admin. According to Wikipedia FAQ - Being neutral, “Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them". So, there is a question about Flyguy649 “engaging in a dispute” by speaking of me exclusively to "possibly" further his “opinions on content in these matters”. The question is WHY did he do what he did and the answer will determine if the "possibility" is a definite.Useruser1x 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Useruser1x, you don't need to have the comments here. When you file a request for Arbitration, you would use diffs to show what happened, and only the relevant parts. When making the request for arbitration, the idea is to point out why you think arbitration is necessary. If the case is accepted, then there is an evidence phase in which more detailed evidence can be presented. In any case, my understanding is that ArbCom only looks at what is on the request for arbitration page. Please remember that ArbCom can not make decisions on content disputes, only on editor conduct. Now, I'm going to try to tackle the issues here more thoroughly later tonight (eastern time zone, North America). -- Flyguy649 talk 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flyguy649, I am aware of the use of diffs in the Arbitration process. However, this Talk page is "detailed evidence".Useruser1x 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I will have to get to this tomorrow. -- Flyguy649 talk 07:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going on record...I know that you are busy...I do value your input.--Useruser1x 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite#re:_United_Nation_of_Islam|re United Nation of Islam on admin Ryan_Postlethwaite talk page]]

message: I've created a copy edited revision of  the current (Useruser1x's) version of the article at User:Philosophus/UNOI_Draft. To the best of my understanding, I haven't made any nontrivial changes in the content or POV, even though I have disagreements with several points (in both versions, actually). The revision fixes several grammatical and typographical errors, and makes the article conform more closely to the MOS. 
Useruser, if you could confirm that the "To train, educate, ..." part is actually a quote. If everyone can agree to put up this new version as a temporary measure, without endorsement of it, this would be great. The current version has significant MOS errors and shouldn't be left up for the term of the page protection. Note that this revision and my comments here should not be taken as an endorsement of this version as satisfying NPOV, V, or any other policy, I only endorse it as having the same POV as the current article. --Philosophus T 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philosophus, At first glance; I am in agreement with the changes that you made. However, I need to look at it more thoroughly tomorrow and I will make a definite decision. I would like to discuss with you or anyone here; what is the POV of the article? What is it about the article that is causing you to refrain from endorsement?Useruser1x 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every article has a point of view, and points of view aren't necessarily bad, as long as they are neutral. I don't exactly know what the point of view of this particular article is, I just tried to keep it the same in my revision. Personally, I think your version of the article contains too little information. It doesn't contain any description of the claims made by various members of the organization, doesn't explain the theology of the group, and doesn't mention anything about controversies. Most articles about religious groups contain Controversy sections, if I recall correctly, and the inclusion of those sorts of claims are an important part of NPOV even when you don't personally agree with them. The critical part is to strike a balance, treating everything from a neutral point of view, and not giving undue weight to any particular information. This can be very difficult to achieve, and I don't think that either version satisfies it right now. The best method is probably to slowly build up the article, discussing each statement on the talk page if necessary, and making sure that every contentious claim in the article is qualified by noting the person who made the claim. All statements also need to have reliable sources. If I have time, I might try to help in writing such a version. --Philosophus T 07:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philosophus, Were in the Wikipedia guidelines are "claims" against a LIVING PERSON admissible in an encyclopedia article with no proof of the claim? Especially when such claims are possible criminal offenses. Isn't that against NPOV. My understanding is that extra-ordinary “claims” against a LIVING PERSON need extra-ordinary proof. Also, you wrote "most articles about religious groups contain Controversy sections". What is the exception?--Useruser1x 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exceptions are groups that have attracted no controversy or, more commonly, have not yet had controversy sections written.  UNOI has bothMichaelbusch 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that legal threats are cause for immediate banning per No Legal Threats. There doesn't need to be any proof of any claim on Wikipedia, per Verifiability. Wikipedia does not concern itself with Truth, only Verifiability. We do need Reliable Sources for claims in order to satisfy Verifiability, and the Biographies of Living Persons policy. The reliability of The Pitch per WP:RS and WP:V is unclear to me, as I really haven't had much time to look into the matter and don't live in the area, but the article seems to be relatively solid, and careful not to assert facts, instead quoting individuals. Michael's version also uses a number of sources that are self-published by Royall in order to explain the theology; this is acceptable as long as we are reasonably certain that he wrote them. We could use some other opinions here, though. I might look for some other people who might be interested in helping. The problem here, as with many other articles I've worked on, is that due to the obscurity of the subject, there are few sources beyond the voluminous self-published ones. My belief for such articles is that if there aren't enough verifiable sources, especially when there is a lack of criticism when criticism and controversy should be expected to exist, then the subject isn't notable enough to warrant an article, as WP:NPOV cannot be satisfied at the same time as WP:V. --Philosophus T 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, for the sake of style and the MOS, could you please give an opinion on my new version? The current version is completely unacceptable in terms of grammar and style. --Philosophus T 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the changes.--Useruser1x 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This article will violate NPOV and advertising rules if it does not have a controversy section.  The head of the religion is an avowed polygamist, and claims to be the divine creator of all mankind (well, black people at least).  There are many reports of abuse of members, welfare fraud, and sexual crimes.  Those have to be acknowledged. 349ngt 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the "many" "reports" of "abuse of members", "welfare fraud" and "sexual crimes". I would like to see one VERIFIABLE SOURCE. Whether you like the spiritual head of this organization or not; he is still a living person and what you are writing is libel. You can not find a court judgement or even a criminal investigation by a law enfourcement agency concerning these "allegations" because they are simply not true or verifiable. "Accourding" to the "National Enquirer"; the pope and the president are aliens. But that does not make it true because it is "alleged" in print and can be referenced. Again where are your "many" reliable and reputable "sources".Useruser1x 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my understanding that the claims by Royall were self-published and thus acceptable in an article about him per WP:SELFPUB. Am I not correct?--Philosophus T 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philosophus, Were does Royall refer to himself as "abuse of members", "welfare fraud" and "sexual crimes"? Answer = Nowhere. My point is that Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people. The operative words here are MULTIPLE HIGH QUALITY RELIABLE SOURCES. That is wikipedia policy; period. Now this discussion is being diverted to "multiple wives" which is something that I am not addressing here.--Useruser1x 01:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to quote policy in bold text for my benefit. I watched as BLP was discussed and first written after the Seigenthaler incident, and have considerable knowledge of the policy surrounding controversial claims; in fact, all of my editing with this account involves controversial topics with BLP and NPOV issues. If you will notice 349ngt's original comment here, it stated, among other things "The head of the religion is an avowed polygamist, and claims to be the divine creator of all mankind." This was what I was responding to when I made the note about WP:SELFPUB, not the other items. I probably should have clarified that at the time. The discussion is not being diverted, as it started on this topic. --Philosophus T 05:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not bold the text soley for your benifit. It is not personal. However, others have shown a difficulty in following a train of thought or responding to the idea at hand or ignoring an idea that is already being discussed while introducing new ideas. Although you Elkman and Flyguy are probably the only ones in which I have interaction on Wikipedia who tend to focus on the idea at hand. Although you have to admit that since your response was not written directly under the paragraph in which you were responding -- in doing so could cause confusion. However, I will tone down with the bolding feature so as not to potentially insult anyones intelligence.--Useruser1x 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Please don't make personal attacks against other users. Also, why are there suddenly so many "new" SPAs in this discussion? If this doesn't stop, we will probably have to take more drastic actions against them, such as semiprotection or checkuser. Please don't engage in forbidden sock puppetry or meat puppetry. --Philosophus T 05:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing of Useruser1x's version 

message: Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.	
* Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
* Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
* Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
* Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. 
Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.
The above quote is Wikipedia policy and proves my point. Accourding to policy one cannot say "alledged", libelous, criminal behavior against a living person who is also a public figure unless it is well sourced.--Useruser1x 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted earlier, we (at least me, Michael, and Flyguy, probably not the SPAs) are quite aware of Wikipedia policy, and you are going to hurt your own arguments by trying to enter into a policy debate with us. For example, what you are quoting here, part of WP:RS, is not policy, it is a guideline. There is a significant difference between the two. Note also the part about exceptional claims. Claiming that a source claimed something is not the same as claiming that thing itself. The point of many of these policies is to prevent sources that say "We believe this person did X" from being used to put "This person did X" in the article. It is not contentious to claim that a source claimed something, unless that puts undue weight on the claims of that source. My problem with Michael's version of the article is that I think it does put undue weight on the Pitch article. --Philosophus T 05:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philosophus, are you saying that because the person in the pitch article is saying that a living person did these crimes -- "reports" of "abuse of members", "welfare fraud" and "sexual crimes" -- as opposed to saying that they "believe he did it" discounts it as an exceptional claim?--Useruser1x 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an exceptional claim for the person to make. It isn't an exceptional claim for us to say that they made the claim, because it is rather obvious that they did. It would be exceptional for us to assert the claims' truth, and would be a violation of Undue Weight for us to give too much space to the claims. --Philosophus T 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the point in which we disagree. For an editor to repeat or "say that someone made" an exceptional claim without multiple sources puts undue weight on the claims. That undue weight is not removed because the editor repeats or points out that the claim was made by someone else. Only multiple sources remove the concern or reality of the undue weight of the claim.  If the undue weight on the claims can be removed by an editor stating that the exceptional claims were made by someone else; then there are no need for guidelines which require multiple sources.--Useruser1x 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems to be the primary source of disagreement here. My point is that the two different ways of including the information are quite distinct from a POV perspective: having "X murdered Y" implies something very different than "Z claims that X murdered Y". The former needs multiple very-high-quality sources, while the latter, if Z's claim is notable, doesn't. I'll give an example using current events. We have an article about the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency. The former Chief Justice has claimed that the actions by Musharraf destroyed the constitution, and a former Primer Minister claimed that the actions were a form of terrorism. Both of these claims would violate NPOV if they were directly included in the article, with a statement like "The actions destroyed the constitution and were a form of terrorism." But making it clear that these people made those statements is fine. Similarly, when we report on the controversial method of detaining the Chief Justice, we note that the claims were made by a news channel rather than directly stating them as fact. --Philosophus T 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Philosophus are you an admin?--Useruser1x 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not an admin, for a variety of reasons. --Philosophus T 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: But, from your other posts about admins, I should explain the matter. Admins didn't create Wikipedia, and don't have the complete control that admins on most websites have. They essentially exist to be administrators in the traditional sense of the word: they are said to wield the "mop and bucket", and work mainly to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. Most editors, even prolific ones, aren't admins, as editing and administrating are two separate activities. The voice of an admin has no more power here than the voice of any other established editor. The ArbCom and Jimmy Wales are a different matter, of course. --Philosophus T 07:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a little off topic -- I asked because I have noticed that Michaelbusch and you have a similar pattern of writing. That pattern is one of writing with suggestive authority. Although you two have never written that you are admins or that you have the capability or tools of an admin; you all's method of presenting ideas leans towards it. Also; I noticed on your talk page that you and Michaelbusch have a cordial relationship. Does your relationship extend to other projects and articles inside of Wikipedia and do you two have a relationship outside of Wikipedia? Lastly, how did you become aware of the discussion on this talk page and do you have more than one Wikipedia handle or username?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Useruser1x (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We both have that confidence because we've been here for a long time, and have edited quite a bit: Michael has been here since early last year and has over 10,000 edits, and I've been here for over 3 years, and have around 2,000. We both know each other outside of Wikipedia, and Michael mentioned his activities with this article at dinner. I came because it is just the sort of dispute I have experience in dealing with: a harsh edit war between editors with entrenched opinions, especially where many of the editors are new and only do significant editing in that dispute. As noted on my user page, which is a bit outdated but contains quite a bit of information about my previous experience, I do have multiple accounts; I was one of the editors who created the significant revisions in WP:SOCK that, among other changes, created WP:SUSPSOCK. I have exceptional knowledge of that particular policy, and I continue to be active in discussions over it, so I know very well what restrictions I need to work under.  --Philosophus T 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources Exceptional claims require exceptional sources] 

message: Here is a list of some problems I have with Michael's version:
* We should reference specific speeches rather than just the forum containing them.
* Some of the Royall Jenkins information seems somewhat extraneous. This isn't an article about him, and I don't see the need to have the location of his birth or details of his first marriage.
:Truncated some. Michaelbusch 03:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is almost impossible to understand what Jenkins means in those particular speeches - they are in a dialect that is very far removed from standard English.  I waded through as much of it as I could tolerate, and found statements which seemed to indicate both interpretations.  That Jenkins claims to be inerrant immediately leads to the doublethink problem. Michaelbusch 03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't really OR, per WP:OBVIOUS, but I see your point re. notability - it isn't emphasized too much in Jenkin's speeches.  I've removed the paragraph. Michaelbusch 03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: You are more cynical than I am, but in general the re-write looks good.  I had a few minor changes.  Thanks for taking the time to wade through all of Jenkin's speeches - I found them rather trying. Michaelbusch 06:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: During your perusal of Jenkins' work, did you happen across a date for the Apocalypse? The Pitch article says Jenkins claims it will happen sometime in 2010.  That would be a notable prediction. Michaelbusch 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and other issues with Michael's version 

message: I've reverted Useruser1x's last version on grounds of NPOV - in particular wording such as 'passing' instead of 'death', using the term 'Spiritual Head' while Jenkins is also apparently the group's temporal leader, and removing the circumstances of Jenkins' split from the Nation of Islam.  These can be quibbled about, I suppose.  However, there were also several deletions and changes in the dates given in the header that contradict the available sources: 
*UNOI did arrive in Kansas City in 1996, as quoted in several newspaper pieces (including one cited in the article already), and their headquarters in Delaware was not closed until 2002 (based on statements on their website).  
*Jenkins' writings also contain descriptions of his 'revelation' in July 1978 and the rejection of the Nation of Islam - although as Philosophus notes, better citation of Jenkins is desirable here.  
*Useruser1x also changed the dates of UNOI operations before 1993 to start at 1992.  Between 1978 and 1993, when UNOI was incorporated, Jenkins had to have been doing something.  The statements of his daughter are that he was gathering followers, largely from among other former members of the Nation, and that she joined them in 1985.    
I do not have statements from UNOI to this effect, but that portion of her testimony hasn't been rejected by the group (although the rest has). Michaelbusch 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and Useruser1x's last version

message: BECAUSE THIS IS A FORM ABOUT THE TRUTH WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS CLOSE TO RIGHT. THIS IS HOW INNOCENT PEOPLE GO TO JAIL, BECAUSE ALL THE FACTS WHERE NOT PRESENTED, IF YOU NEED TO VERIFY THIS LOOK AT THE NEWS IN THE LAST TEN YEARS!
(THE ONE 7777 (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  STUDY1 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United Nation of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080603222225/http://unitednationofislam.com:80/nationbuilding/nationbuilding_008.htm to http://unitednationofislam.com/nationbuilding/nationbuilding_008.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

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