Talk:Five-Percent Nation

Archives:

• Archive 1

Recent expansion

I will be updating the article main space shortly with sourcing for all that I am adding, please be patient. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PoV

I removed the PoV tag, please place any pov based issues here for discussion. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is "POV." All that is necessary is an explanation of 5% doctrine. No promotion of 5% is acceptable. I'd put a "racism" tag on it, as well as "pseudohistory" and "fascism." That's my "POV." JBDay 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Only one online source?

There's only one online source...and it's mostly ads. Nice. Deathwish238 09:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A book would probably be your best way to get a look at the situation of the Nation of Gods and Earths. I too was surprised by the lack of online sources. However I feel some of the books cited are very good in their examination. I will attempt to expand further depending on how recent events unfold. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the reason for lack of online information on the Nation of Gods and Earths, is that the publication of those lessons to the internet is said to be taboo. Reasons behind this is that some Gods believe that a person seeking lessons should have to put forth the effort to find a mentor to learn from. A boastful trait of among members of the Nation is to be able to trace his lineage in the nation back to the Father or one of the First 9 born, thereby validating the correctness of his teachings. Publishing the degrees online would spawn an unnecessary number of phonies giving out innacurate or disinformation due to ingenuine intrest in the group and enable people to cause harm or confusion to innocent people honestly seeking enlightenment. That is the reason why the truly best way to find out about the NGE, is to go to a gathering or, if physically possible, visit Allah's School in Mecca. --MaKebA 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is not a lack of information about the 5% Nation online. The problem here is the article is named: "The Nation of Gods and Earths" when this is the name of an organization within the 5% Nation of Islam. There is no proof that Clarence 13 X Smith named the group this. This name came up long after he was murdered. The greatest sites to use as references are theblackgod.com[1] and allahteam.com[2] respectively. They have a host of articles on that site that one could use to make this less of an opinionated entry.--CHAY IBREE ALLAH (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)THE GREATEST SITES TO USE TO LEARN ABOUT THE NATION OF GODS AND EARTHS ARE THE NATIONAL OFFICE OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS (NOCA) UNIVERSAL BUILDERS.NING.COM, ALLAHSNATION.NET THE 5% NETWORK. THESE ARE ACTUAL NOGE SITES. The NOGE was founded by almighty God ALLAH whose name was Clarence 13X briefly while he was in the mosque. he left the mosque knowing he was/is Allah and it was that realization that led to him founding the NOGE. the nation of Gods and Earths is not a gang group or organization and is most certainly not a subsidery of the NOI. these fallacies are slanderous and while it has taken the NOGE some time to see how other have been allowed to define us in print we are now ready to speak for ourselves. wikipedia is supposeed to be objective and non biased but the views it shows the world about us comes from people who claim the NOGE are not who we even say we are. can anyone be more biased then that?

With all due respect, "'The Nation of Gods and Earths'...is the name of an organization within the 5% Nation of Islam" is a position argued chiefly by the Allah Team, a group that openly disagrees with the NGE at just about every turn. The Allah Team cannot consider itself an innocently objective group, as most of the positions they take are matters of dispute. That aside, when it comes to the public at large, the terms "Nation Of Gods And Earths" and "5% Nation" refer to the same body of people.Kuahmel (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Kuahmel you seem to think you know the position of the Allah Team and you do not. It is pretty difficult to find positive brothers and sisters in the NGE so the Allah Team is a breath of fresh air and you total discredit them as being Gods and Earths. Do you think they have a negative agenda or something? I think they fully represent the Nation of Gods and Earths. If they do not then you may as well help to get the NGE leader like the churches and mosques of our day have! --HaelBenQodesh (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your personal feelings about the NGE and the Allah Team are irrelevant here. The bottom line is Allah Team publications are not a reliable source for any information regarding the Nation of Gods and Earths, as they are about putting a political spin on the facts, similar to if one was reading the Weekly Standard or The Nation. The Allah Team only represent their own group's position and that's it.Kuahmel (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Explaining edits

Hello. Just letting you all know I changed some of the occurrences of the word "Allah" to the name Clarence as, outside of the sect, he was still being referred to as Clarence and not "Allah." Now, I may be wrong about this, and maybe he legally changed his name to Allah and people used that to refer to him even outside the sect, and if that is the case, feel free to revert my edits as needed. The only other edit I made was what seems to be a spelling error. I changed "adapt" to "adopt" in the line "he adopted the name Allah." Again, if I am wrong here and it should in fact say "he adapted the name Allah (as in adapted it to his own preference)", then again, please feel free to revert my edits as you see fit. It appears in the history that I made three edits but really it was just one....that I happened to do in three sections. lol. Either way, yeah. Just letting you know. Take care all! (^_^) --Ksskimaan 01:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You got kinda carried away. The two schools in New York City are genuinely referred to as "Allah Schools." This is clearly marked on both buildings. I made the appropriate edits.Kuahmel (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In the part talking about Hip-Hop artists who are active Five Percenters, I have taken out the names Wyclef Jean, Erykah Badu, JusT, Thizz-N-Livin, and Kingcutie. Badu, for example, has publicly stated she is not a part of the NGE. And there is no searchable record of any of the latter three, making it possible it could be simply some rappers attempting to promote themselves on Wikipedia. Besides, the names left behind are more than enough for the reader to get the idea that many rappers speak 5% ideas.Kuahmel (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: This is a frequently edited article, drastically altered from previous years. With the edit done at this date, I've tried to clean up and reflect more accurately, clearly, and in different words what the Five Percent Nation is all about. For example with the name, I've left the references of "Clarence (13X/Smith)" where appropriate, but changed most of those further down the timeline to "Allah" or "The Father." This was to show that he was noways calling himself or referred to by most anyone else as "Clarence 13X" when he cut ties to the Nation of Islam. This was the most pragmatic and objective way to handle it, though people who feel some kinda way about him or the Nation will have issues. I feel that unless a better compromise is agreed upon, this is how it should be presented.Kuahmel (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What happened to...?

I really think the section that explains the difference between the NGE and traditional Islam should be restored. Also, there should be some reference to the acceptance and membership white Five Percenters such as Barkim. Peace. (MuzikJunky 06:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

It needs a source for the comparison or it is just original research which is not permitted. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed the Five Percent Buddhist Nation Link

The youtube video it pointed to is no longer available.

• Five Percent Buddhist Nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.105.219 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OR

Can someone explain the OR violation here? I get why the one section is OR (comparing 5% to mainstream Islam; no sources and it looks like an original essay), but most of the rest of the article seems pretty consistent with what is published about these folks. csloat (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Five-Percent title Section

What does it mean to "punitively liberate?" Is this a term used by the organization itself? This would seem to mean that the organization "sets people free while punishing them," or "punishes them by setting them free." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.192.211 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this terminology confused me as well. 66.15.222.160 (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Not a single Five Percenter I've ever known or any writing I've come across has used such a term. Where it could have possibly come from is beyond me.Kuahmel (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor Problem

Uh, per the presidential unit citation page, only military units are eligible for the presidential unit citation. Mr. Smith couldn't have received it, though he could have belonged to a unit that received it. 216.98.233.245 (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Islamic?

How is the Nation of Gods and Earths Islamic when Islam is strictly monotheistic? So there couldn't be an Islamic sect concerning gods?

Because the 5% adhere to Islam. Gods refers to every righteous descendant of the Asiatic Blackman, but the Original Nation is Allah, as a whole. There is but one Allah in that sense, though we each form a part and thus, retain traits and characteristics and styles of the whole and can achieve that. Signed, Ruler Born Loony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.88.100 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides the wobbly terminology about "adhering to Islam," I'd agree with this statement.Kuahmel (talk)

No, the 5% do NOT adhere to Islam. They dont belive in the quran or in Muhammad the prophet of the islam. And "mainstream" muslims reject they as such. 5% are not really a relligion it is more a social movement and way of life. They have almost nothing to do with mainstream muslims. They are just 5%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.43.203 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted an entry to the article and added a needed citation

I took the opinion (wherein it states Clarence 13 X calling himself God is the same as Father, Divine) off because George Baker (Father, Divine) did not declare himself to be God, his followers did. Clarence 13 X did it himself. This is a great difference, otherwise that would would need two citations to be a fact and I have yet to see such. I added a citation from a non-5%er based site to provide less of a one sided opinion and view, and in that sense it should not be taken off.--CHAY IBREE ALLAH (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I also deleted an entry. I stated that it was not hard to believe that the NYC police may have been involved in the death of Clarence 13X since they have a history of killing unarmed black men. The statement is an opinion. Also, the information that discusses the accusations surrounded his killing should have a citation.39aka94 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

New external link added

While I do not see there being any official 5%er or Nation of Gods and Earths website (because they have no centralized leader or location) the Allah Team's main website should be included as the first of the links because it gives us the best scholar like views that are widely held by most Gods and Earths. The site is much less dogmatic than that of many 5%er websites. I have, also, yet to see the site crash like the site that was previously first.--CHAY IBREE ALLAH (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)The NOGE has its owns sites as i have already listed above namely the National Office of Cultural Affairs (NOCA) facebook site, allah youth center in mecca site on facebook, universal builders.ning.com and allah's nation.net. These are actual NOGE sites and if objectivly truthful information is what you are looking for our noca site is the only site in which the NOGE has taken its case to the supreme court of the united states of America. We have won our legitmacy in the courts of this country and are self defined. Wikipedia has been misled by poison pen writers whose most biased statements about the NOGE they claim is illegitmate is the information used by wikipedia to define the NOGE. this does the NOGE and wikipedia a great disservice````BORN KING ALLAH EDITOR OF THE FIVE PERCENTER NEWSPAPER AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL OFFICE OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS (NOCA)

As addressed above, the Nation of Gods and Earths has never taken a position of agreeing wholeheartedly with Allah Team claims.Kuahmel (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So in other words the Nation of Gods and Earths are monopolizing what constitutes a Five Percenter, as well as a God and an Earth? So the NGE is a dogmatic religion like any other religion. The Allah Team are the ONLY ONES who defend Father, Allah on a scholarly and historical level yet the link to their page is deleted? Why then have Method Man, RZA, and a host of other Five Percenters bought their historical books about Father, Allah? --HaelBenQodesh (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your interest here? This article is not about the Allah Team. If one doesn't exist already, start one yourself. Also, Wikipedia is not a general discussion soapbox, but a place to summarize reliable, accurate information about a topic.Kuahmel (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the first link listed as an official website? There is no official website as there is no official leader. The last and first leader was Father, ALLAH so unless their group changed and they got a new leader this makes no sense. --HaelBenQodesh (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

At Best The Term: "Official Website" Should Be Removed Because There Is No "Official" Anything In Said Nation Of Gods And Earths.--AmenShabazz (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Hi, I'm not shure If I really understand the theories of the NGE the right way, but the way I understand them they seem to be very racist. Is every white man a devil or do I get it wrong? And if I get it right shouldn't that not be mentioned in the article?–Don-golione (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Officially the NGE is not race-based, but it seems that they de facto adhere to the NoI when it comes to the origins of humanity, etc. I'd imagine that since the NGE is rather decentralized, each gathering has its own views, some subscribing to the NoI line and others to alternative or mainstream views. There are white people in some NGE groups. --Mrdie (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question. I'm sure there were black slaves who accepted being slaves and didn't try to escape to the north... The question was, are whites included in the gods crap? I understand that it might be decentralised, but interestingly enough, that's not mentioned in the text at all.

OH BTW, seems all great religions spawned in harlem during the sixties by former military personell. lol

213.141.89.20 (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The NGE states that they are "not anti-white or pro-black but anti-devilishment and pro-righteousness". Their ideology at best could be labeled "racial" as in much of their beliefs are race based or race conscious but not necessarily racist in that they don't hate other races. They also state something to the effect that all races have equal potential or something like that. But their non-racist stance is hard to reconcile with some of their teachings such as the black man being "god" and that white people were created by an evil black scientist. One of the original members and personal friend of Clarence 13x (the founder) was white. They have also often as an organization worked with whites. Many popular rappers are 5%ers and work with and are friends with white people. I have known of individual members who were outright racist but generally speaking, aside from some of their more controversial racial beliefs, they can hardly be considered a "hate group" in the vein of Neo-Nazis or the KKK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.196.231 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The 5% nation does teach that the Black man is God and the White man is the devil. This article is carefully avoiding that topic. Where are the "Caves of Western Asia now know as Europe?". Why did Wu-Tang clan on their first album say "Chase those devils back to the Caucus mountains?". The story that "Yacoub grafted the white man from 7 shades of black, and chased him across the hot arabian desert because the devils nature was wicked and weak, and later Musa went to civilize the savage" is a paraphrase from the "120," which one of their "lessons" or teahcings. Personally I don't care if they teach that or believe that, but report things as they are. This article is not an accurate reflection of this groups teachings. 74.101.163.144 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you have a reliable source, cite it and write the edit accordingly. It's not like the article is here to defend or advocate for the 5% Nation. As much as I see this page edited and the 5%'s many detractors put in their 2 cents, I don't see anything "carefully avoided" in the article so much as I see people constantly trying to write about their favorite 90s rappers.Kuahmel (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Mathematics and Supreme Alphabet

Both the Math and Alphabet have many conflicting versions within the Nation, where some numbers and letters have different principles attached to them from other versions. Hence, to post exhaustive lists of any one version as the gospel source makes no sense. Besides, it's generally OR as there is no reliable source in existence, and in many cases people who post them don't even spell a lot of them correctly. This is why I scrubbed off both full listings in favor of examples. People reading this article can still get the point. Without protesting too much, I think this is the way both should stay.Kuahmel (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So You Are Conceding That There Is No Official ANYTHING In The Nation Of Gods And Earths, Correct? --AmenShabazz (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I will concede that I question your agenda in saying such things. (Personal axe to grind, maybe?) Maybe you're better served taking that up on a site where Gods and Earths congregate. For the record, they're official enough to have plenty of readily available material written on them.Kuahmel (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is some really sad shit :( 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Shouldn't it also be noted that Lord Jamar is an actual Five Percenter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.196.231 (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I Think It Should Be Noted That He Is REALLY A Member Of The Nation Of Gods And Earths. --AmenShabazz (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Blackman"

The first time this phrase is used it hyperlinks to an article about Vikings; later in the article it seems to refer to people with dark skin, 'black' people. Which is it? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Bornking7

In regard to the introduction to the Nation of Gods and Earths I can only say that the NOGE does not want to be introduced to the world so unjustly. The fact of the matter is that the NOGE has been under literary attack by those who would seek to mis define the NOGE for thier own reasons. If the NOGE did not have someone aware that others were seeking to for reference and defining purposes submit unfounded statements about them when this was originally submitted to you before; we do now. The NOGE should not continue to be defamed or character assassinated via wikipedia because some editors submitted these defaming submissions in 2003. The NOGE is objective and like any other human being nation, people, religion, culture has the right to be self defined. At the moment wikipedia is denying us that right, in favor of a most hurtful and incorrect alternative. My submission was an actual definiton of who and what the NOGE is. The introduction you support is clearly not. As a young Nation 46 years old the NOGE has finnaly come to terms with the fact that if we dont speak for ourselves others will attempt to speak for us. I only sought to correct the incorrect statements that people globally will mistakenly accept as fact because wikipedia said so. this is fundamentally unfair to the NOGE and to wikipedia. Perhaps you did not know that the definition of the NOGE you currently support is actually slanderous before but you do now. i can prove everything i am saying to now because this is my job to objectivly and truthfully define the NOGE```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornking7 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As you appear to be new here, you probably don't yet know that Wikipedia does not report what any of its editors claims is "the truth". If it did, I think you can imagine that it would be of very little use as an encyclopedia due to the continuous extreme changes that most of its articles would suffer: one man's "truth" is another man's lie.

Wikipedia gets around this potential problem by only reporting what has already been written about any topic in reliable, published sources. That way each article gradually works towards a consensus version in which every fact that is likely to be disputed is cited to one of the reliable sources and any significant differences of opinion are reported from a neutral point of view.

Since you admit to being involved with the organisation, you can probably see from the above that you should avoid editing the article itself - please read our conflict of interest guideline to better understand why.

Having said all that, if you can find reliable sources that confirm your assertions, please discuss them on this page, and other editors with an interest in this topic will, no doubt, be happy to agree a consensus version with you that can go in the article. I must warn you though that this may take some time, depending on who's watching this page. If you raise some credible points and after, say, a week, no-one has replied, you might ask for some feedback at one of the WikiProjects such as WikiProject Religion.

I hope this helps explain to you a little about how Wikipedia works.  —SMALLJIM  23:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ihear what your saying and in full disclosure i told you that i am the cultural representative of the NOGE as we are not an organization. i am published as i produce a monthly newspaper claeed the five percenter for national and international consumption. Wikipedias policy that if someone is part of a living breathing entity that is alive now and finds content on wikipedia that is diametrically opposed to the truth of that entity that representative is in conflict with making coreections. Iask you who else would know the difference between the truth and a lie if not a person who actually is the entity being discussed. Everyone in America has the right to the God of thier understanding. The NOGE is all about God,i wrote a clear defintion of who and what the NOGE is and was actually denied and refuted by you. but in the meantime wikipedia allows those who can refer to a book written by someone who disavows and denies that very same entity's existence and then produces a slanderous view of that entity's history as acceptable? they have not presented a NPOV they have made sure to denigrate and assualt the very integrity of the NOGE's God centered culture as evidenced by your telling me that i am a part of the "organization". Again where is the objectivity sir. This policy is paramount to you telling the jewish people that if a german objectivly tells the story of the holocaust and has some books cited that he the jewish man is disqualified from correcting the lies because he is a jew. i am appalled and greatly disappointed. then you send me to this room to what agrue with the people who have submitted the slanderous material to you? i am really trying to understand where you are coming from we are talking about the NOGE not as a past long gone entity but a nation of people involved in defining ourselves to the world right now and wikipedia is doing us a great disservice. you are attached to google and when you google the NOGE that disinformation you have posted as objective comes up and it is just wrong.````Born King Allah May 13 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornking7 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You continue to talk about "truth". I must re-emphasise that what you, or any other editor here, sees as being "the truth" is not a criterion for what goes in an article. As I said above, Wikipedia only summarises what has already been written about a topic in reliable published sources, such as those listed under "Notes" at the end of this article's page. There's an essay that explains the situation in a bit more depth at Wikipedia:Truth - can I suggest you read it?  —SMALLJIM  09:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your exactly right i keep talking about the truth of the NOGE while you keep supporting the lies written about us because they were published in a book? so what is meant by veracity, reliable source?. As long as it is in a published book that can be cited thats good enough for wikipedia? as an encyclopedia i see that you really need to upgrade the standards by which you push support and defend lies that are written in other books. Apparently your policy in the case of the NOGE is because the lies about us were posted by someone who wrote the same lies in another book these lies become wikipedias truth. truth is always relevant sir thats why people go to enclyopedias to discover facts and truth on any given subject. Secondly you talk about the NOGE as a "topic" as if we are not men women and children who are affected by the lies you have posted about us on your site. you are aiding and abetting in bringing unwanted and uneeded negative energy and attention that is dangerous to the women and children of the NOGE. Words have power and for too long the NOGE has just minded our business not realizing that others were making us thier business distoring our name history and truth for ecomnomic gain through book writing. The NOGE refuse to be slandered by literary poison pen writers who know this is your policy. so they beat usto wikipedia and the publishing world and published thier lies before we had the awarness to publish our own truth. truth is the correction for lies facts are synomous with truth all over the world so if it took time for the NOGE to catch up and discover hows lies in print have been used to negativly frame us in the eyes of the civilized world so be it. What we are saying to you at wikipedia is that the NOGE has its own definition that i gave to you. it is not biased it is the definition of who and what we are. what you have posted and people read when they google the NOGE is defamatory, disrespectful, non factual and untrue. it is a very negativly biased use of NOGE history that is a travesty of justice. Again i appeal to you to reread my defintion and look at it without the bias of the disinformation you are fighting to keep online.```` Born KIng Allah May 16 2011--Bornking7 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm - I'm not going to be able to help you unless you understand and accept how this website works. After all, Wikipedia is just another website that encourages its users to contribute, as long as they're prepared to conform to its rules - like Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, etc. The fact that Wikipedia has become very popular is evidence that its rules are good ones that its readers find produce a useful result, and most of its contributors are happy to comply with.

So if you have any dispute, it's not with me: I'm just explaining the rules, nor with Wikipedia: its clear rules (called policies and guidelines) have been discussed and agreed by many people over many years. Your dispute must be with the people who wrote the sources that have been used as reference material for the article.

Now having said that, I'll repeat and expand on what I wrote on 13 May (above): if you can show that the article has misrepresented what any of the sources has said, or that there are other reliable sources that have not been used, or that there are statements in the article that have not been cited to reliable sources, or that any of the sources used don't meet our definition of "reliable", then please raise your concerns on this talk page so that other editors who are interested in the article can discuss them with you. That's an important way that Wikipedia works to improve its articles, and it happens all the time.  —SMALLJIM  10:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While i hear what your saying about other sites and rules wikipedia is unique in that it is used to define people, places, and things for the world via google. define them. i think that means if wikipedia is talking about a people, a nation, or the way someone embraces the divine negatively and can then hide behind rules then i respectfully request those rules as they pertain to a living breathing entity be changed. the fact is i googled the NOGE and had to read that defamatory misstatement. so i contributed in a partial non biased manner only to be refuted by you. as we have continued to go back and forth i have already done what you suggested, come to this talk page and say what needs to be said. namely that the previous editors submissions to wikipedia are biased, have misrepresented the NOGE, and those editors are not reliable sources. i continue to say it here and everywhere else as well. where is the response from those editors? i dont see any. they can not question the veracity of my statements or the defition of the NOGE that i offered you. They are disqualified from doing so and i challenge them to do so with this statement; "i challenge those editors to dispute the truthful information i have attempted to contribute to wikipedia." i really dont have time to be going back and forth with people whose motives clearly are to put women and children in the NOGE in danger with thier mistruths but.... because you said this is what i must do its done sir. i have been honest and forthright in that i am not just an editor of the five percenter newspaper but that i actually go into courts to prove the veracity of my truth about who and what the NOGE. When you know what something is you also know what it is not .the NOGE is not what wikipedia says we are. how long will you allow your editors used to misdefine us to be silent before you accept that i am the reliable source that meets your standards````--Bornking7 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't seem to have been able to explain our rules clearly to you, but do I thank you for your restraint in not editing the article again whilst we were discussing the matter. As I indicated in my last posting—perhaps not clearly enough—you need to be specific in stating what you think is wrong with the article: mere assertions of bias and misrepresentation don't give enough information. A useful start might be to state exactly what you mean by "that defamatory misstatement", and provide a reliable source that backs up your argument.

I hope someone else can help you better than I have been able to. By the way, please don't "challenge" people here - we work by cooperation and consensus, as I've already explained.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bornking, thwe fact is that we have no idea who you are. We cannot know trhat you are who you claim to be, nor can we know whether you represent an official view or just your own opinions. It is possible to quote from an organisation's own literature to give its views, but they cannont be presenterd as the truth, just as the views of the organisation. If you say clearly here what you think should be added or altered, and why, then we can deal with the matter, if possible, but long posts hust making assertions about your claims to know the truth do not help us to move forward. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)