Jump to content

Talk:Kwanzaa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.155.66.190 (talk) at 16:09, 1 December 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

African Pledge and Principles of Blackness

The article states "A Kwanzaa ceremony may include ... a reading of the African Pledge and the Principles of Blackness" No explanation is given for what the African Pledge states or what constitute the Principles of Blackness. Wikipedia has no page for either, and this page is the only place either of those phrases appear on Wikipedia. A citation link is given to an article on Epicurious, a food site, that makes no mention of these, and another citation to a book on Google books, The Nguzo Saba and the Festival of First Fruits. The Google books search says that neither the phrase "African Pledge" nor the phrase "Principles of Blackness" appear in that book. Can anyone provide an explanation with referenced citations? If this can't be done after a reasonable time, I suggest those claims be omitted from the article as unsupported. 217.155.66.190 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one sided.

This holiday was created by a known racist. But nothing is said about that. This article is one sided. Now I know everyone might not agree with this statement. But that does not give you the right to remove this. I would like to have a discussion on how we can make this more balanced article. 71.244.220.133 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go through the archives and read the previous discussions on the matter, for a start. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have and all I see is people removing the dissuasion and telling people to “shut up”. Like a few days again. I don’t get why this only shows the positive side but won’t allow criticism. I’m pretty sure Wikipedia allows that. I believe it was you who said that. I really think that your bias behavior should be reported.71.244.220.133 (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that not only was it created by known racist, the holiday itself was created for racist purposes. "give Blacks an alternative to the existing holiday and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society.” --potter's best

From the article: "The celebration honors African heritage in African-American culture." Some of us think that's worth celebrating. If you don't, there are countless other holidays. Merry Christmas. Jonathunder (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck D, graduate of Goldsmiths university of London??

Chuck D has accomplished many things, but one of them doesn't appear to have been graduating from Goldsmiths. ("featuring Chuck D, graduate of Goldsmiths university of London," in the last sentence in the last section, Adherence.) Checking the sources cited, neither one refers to Chuck D as a graduate of Goldsmiths, nor do any other information sources indicate that he is. Since the article is semi-protected I can't edit it. But recommend that someone do so. Not sure if this claim is vandalism or an innocent mistake whose origin is not apparent to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.244.15 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing this, looking into it, and writing it up here. Do please consider acquiring a username and editing under it; doing so has no downsides that I can think of. ¶ This is just one of many silly additions that this article attracts; it was made nine months ago. Jpgordon, I start to think that the article would benefit from year-round semi-protection. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's something to be said for that. I'll consider it after this round expires, and I'll try to keep a closer eye on the article in the vandalism off season. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 08:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Neutral Point-of-View

This article does not accurately describe the founding of Kwanzaa and omits important relevant information about its founder.[1] Sbelknap (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific about what should be changed on this article, which is about the holiday, not about Karenga. Jonathunder (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked back through the edit history. This issue has been raised in the past. There are some valid edits that were reverted or edited away. Kwanzaa was invented as part of a violent, Marxist, black separatist movement. This fact is not adequately addressed in this article about Kwanzaa. It is certainly relevant to the founding of the holiday. This seems like a whitewash of well-established history.Sbelknap (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The clause asserting that Kwanzaa was founded in the same spirit as Juneteenth has been removed, as no citation supports this assertion, which is clearly false.[2]Sbelknap (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This assertion seems odd, "The choice of Swahili, an East African language, reflects its status as a symbol of Pan-Africanism" Two books are cited, but the citation given provides no page number or exact quote. I don't see this on google books. Can we get a more precise source for this? Or some alternative source that can be validated independently? Else, this doesn't make much sense, except in some sort of Marxist pseudo-history. Sbelknap (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Might I possibly suggest that you address this some time other than during the holiday itself? This article gets very disrespectful treatment if not protected during the holiday season, and there's no urgency to this discussion. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to make this article reflect a NPOV. Please, let us focus on content.Sbelknap (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read a single word I just wrote? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read what you wrote. The most respectful thing we can do when editing the kwanzaa article (or any wikipedia article) is to aim for quality. We are building an encyclopedia here. Whether these edits occur during Kwanzaa or at some other time is simply not relevant to the mission of wikipedia. Please review WP:OR and WP:OWN. wikipedia is an open project and is not owned by any particular editor or group of editors. Our goal here as editors is to provide information that is relevant, accurate, and neutral. That is all.Sbelknap (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that noting the identity of principles between Kwanzaa and the Symbionese Liberation movement would be warranted, as would any properly-sourced referenced to how that came to be. John2510 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Do you know of a source? DeFreeze's work, The Seven Principles of the SLA is often cited, but I can't seem to find this. The best source I know of is The Straight Dope, from a staff report.[3] This source is often reliable but I'm not sure if it is acceptable as a reliable source for wikipedia. I do see material by Cecil Adams cited as reliable elsewhere in wikipedia, and my own experience is that Cecil is quite reliable. But if we could find a source that is explicitly a wikipedia-approved reliable source, that would be better, methinks. Sbelknap (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article ought reflect that the popularity of Kwanzaa has waned in recent times.[4]Sbelknap (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that Karenga is a secular humanist is outrageous. There is no evidence provided to support this wild assertion. Removed.Sbelknap (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many sources for that one do you require? I see a thousand hits on "karenga" "secular humanist" "-wikipedia", some from supporters, some from opponents. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the best-quality source of which you are aware so that other editors can assess. I've read extensively about Kwanzaa and its founder. The assertion that Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga, (born Ronald McKinley Everett) is a secular humanist would appear to be absurd. We need authoritative secondary or tertiary sources; wikipedia is not a place to describe your own independent research.Sbelknap (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this source for relevant context.[5]Sbelknap (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm missing something in that issue, but I don't see where it mentions Karenga in particular vis-a-vis secular humanism. Which article? (I don't feel like reading the entire thing to find the context you're referring to.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Karenga misogyny is here described. Misogyny is explicitly *not* a secular humanist value, and is provided for context. Again, please provide your best single citation from a secondary or tertiary source that Karenga is a secular humanist. All that I can find is various tangential use of the term in relation to Karenga, none of them citing primary sources. The echo chamber is large but without reliable sourcing. Sbelknap (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you search on page using your web browser for "Karenga" you can easily find the relevant material at the cited secular humanism.org source.Sbelknap (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or scroll down to page 10 of Volume 15 number four of Free Inquiry. Here's the quote, Ron Karenga reportedly made "his" women walk at least three paces behind him. Now, please provide a good source for the assertion that Karenga is a secular humanist. Sbelknap (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen him described as a "secular humanist" in at least one source, but that doesn't mean much. That's not an earned title, or a profession, or even his main claim to fame. It's currently unsourced here and I'd be fine with it being taken out - subject to someone: 1) finding a source; and 2) arguing that the characterization by the source is relevant here. I think it's important to keep in mind that the article isn't about Karenga, and its references to him should be in context. John2510 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding quality of cited sources, two works are cited as having been published by the University of Sankore, which does not exist. There was a Sankore Madrasah that existed about a half-millennium ago. Is there an ISBN and legitimate publisher for these books? If not, out it goes. Sbelknap (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC) One has an ISBN[6]. The other does not. Neither one appears to have a legitimate publisher. These look like self-published works. Sbelknap (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. http://www.sankorepress.com/about-us.html seems to exist. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I mentioned, there is an ISBN for one but not for the other. There is also a web page for sankore press, which appears to not be a legitimate press. The point is that there is no "University of Sankore". No such entity exists. Calling something the "University of Sankore Press" implies that there exists a "University of Sankore" which lends a false imprimatur to the publisher. The bar is quite low these days for "publishing" The University of Sankore Press is not listed in any index of reputable publishers I can find. Neither is it listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English-language_book_publishing_companies The University of Sankore Press is not BBB accredited nor can I find other information about this business. At a minimum, we ought to have the ISBNs for books cited in wikipedia. The provenance of these works is highly dubious; perhaps we can pair each cite of these books with alternative reliable sources? Sbelknap (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sbelknap, you make some excellent observations. (Most closely above: that there is no "University of Sankore", and that the name "University of Sankore Press" is misleading.) However, I disagree with at least one assertion, namely: "At a minimum, we ought to have the ISBNs for books cited in wikipedia." I assume that you're talking about books published after ISBNs became commonplace (and this happened a lot later in some nations than in others). But even if you're talking about books published since 2010, I disagree. Make a random selection of twenty books published since 2010 with ISBNs and twenty ditto without ISBNs: on average, the former will be a lot better than the latter. But ISBNs are made available for books that are utter garbage. I thought that most editors realized this; what fewer may realize is that reputable publishers will sometimes put out good books without ISBNs. I'm currently tinkering with a drastic expansion (so far on my hard drive only) of what's currently a (Kwanzaa-irrelevant) stub, I'm making a lot of use of an ISBN-less book published as recently as 2017, and I shall vigorously defend this use if questioned. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree entirely with you. In the case of sankore press, it does appear that they generate ISBNs for their books. So, if they exist, we ought to include them.Sbelknap (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section cohesiveness/new section?

There are a few additions that just don't make sense under the current section headings. The way most of the "Observances" section reads it seems more like a list of "what people do to celebrate during kwanzaa." Therefore, I'm not sure the last sentence about the president's tweet makes much sense there. I.e. it's a section about traditions, not about who has mentioned its actual observance.

On a similar note, the "Adherence" section seems to deal with how the holiday's popularity has changed/how many people still adhere to the holiday/where else in the world adherents might have grown or shrunk in population in recent years/etc... Thus, the paragraph about Kwanzaa as an example of postmodernism feels very out of place with its philosophical bent. The last sentence about The Black Candle documentary also seems like it should not be in this section.

I'm not sure if there is an easy catchall new section in which to place all of the above paragraphs, but they just make the flow of the article very weird and disjointed in their current locations. The documentary and tweet could maybe go under something about Kwanzaa in more recent years? The philosophy part might go there too, but seems like that might be a different section entirely. I'm not sure if that's a section that's worthwhile though, as it could easily devolve into political issues, as it seems a lot of the talk mentions this. --Ebertar (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I attempted to address this with a new section. What do you think?Sbelknap (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kwanzaa and its Founding

Kwanzaa was founded as a separatist non-religious holiday. It was (originally) a response to serious violation of the civil rights of African-Americans. This is an important aspect of the holiday. It is not coatracking to mention historical facts that are directly relevant to the founding of the holiday. This article continues to be problematic. I invite engaged editors to review WP:OWN and WP:POV. If there are alternate ways of presenting these historical facts, I am certainly open to that. But deleting factual material that is relevant is not OK. Instead, improve the material. Or add context. The nature of Kwanzaa did change as society responded in various ways to the unfairness with which many African-Americans were treated. Sbelknap (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what someone else said: that the article is about the holiday, rather than the founder. Previously, I added the founder's comments about his reasons for starting it - which seemed to me to be the ideal source and a good summary. I supported removal of the characterization "secular humanist" in describing the founder, but wouldn't favor replacing it with "black separatist." Characterizing him, in any fashion, is simplistic and needlessly controversial. Given Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature, I think characterizations should be avoided wherever possible. John2510 (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition about the founder's reason for creating Kwanzaa was a step in the right direction. However, the current version doesn't quite convey that the holiday was created as a non-commercial (i.e., Marxist), non-religious, non-white alternative to the Christmas holiday. As the holiday evolved over time, it became more commercial, less racist, and less adversarial. Sbelknap (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/kwanzaa-ron-karenga-black-panther-party
  2. ^ https://www.juneteenth.com/history.htm
  3. ^ https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2004/who-were-the-symbionese-and-were-they-ever-liberated/
  4. ^ https://www.npr.org/2012/12/28/168202864/is-kwanzaa-still-a-thing
  5. ^ https://secularhumanism.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/05/Free-Inquiry-Vol-15-No-04.pdf
  6. ^ Karenga, FirstName (1998). Kwanzaa : a celebration of family, community, and culture. Los Angeles, Calif: University of Sankore Press. ISBN 9780943412214.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kwanzaa&oldid=991741383"