Jump to content

Talk:Kwanzaa/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Fair Use of Kwanzaa Stamp?

Under the "Principles of Kwanzaa" heading, the image, Kwanzaastamp.jpg, appears. The copyright tag for this image states that "the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to the subject of the stamp)... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." It appears to me that the stamp is being used to illustrate the subject, rather than the stamp in question. This raises the question: Does the use of the stamp in this context qualify as fiar use? --JEmfinger 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I've delinked it. CDC (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwanzaa as a Racist Holiday

The following comments are simply my opinion, and nothing more, but I think that the issue of Kwanzaa should be fully addressed. As a minority (I am Cherokee), I can understand a certain pride in one's racial origin; however, the principles of any holiday that are inherently bound in race must be questioned. It is quoted (from the Kwanzaa site itself) that the principles are all about "black." Any institution or branch of government that quoted principles base on a race, such as white, would be immediately attacked as being racist. Why should we have such a double standard for things that are black? By definition anything that is based on race to the exclusion of others is racist. Kwanzaa is by its nature racist. It celebrates being black, not equality, not racial harmony, not reaching out to other races. It simply celebrates one race to the exclusion of others. Other institutions are also racist, to be sure (Miss Black America, the United Negro College Fund, etc.), but Kwanzaa is overtly exclusionary. If there was an exclusively white holiday, protest would not be far behind.

Having said that, I must also admit that as a Native American I reap certain benefits from being a minority. If there was a Native American holiday, no one would say much; however, is that right? Is that just? No it is not. Equality can only be achieved if racist holidays and institutions are abolished, and people come together for the good of society in general. As long as race is constantly addressed, racial hatred is promoted. I have several employees and some are black, some are white and some are various other races. Nothing makes me more angry than when someone tries to play a race card in order to get their way from one my other employees. It makes you dislike people of that race. That is human nature, be it right or wrong. Kwanzaa simply is another way to put race in the spotlight. The consequence of that is the generation of more racial tension and hatred. I have seen it in my employees. Kwanzaa is used as a racial slap in the face to my white employees constantly. I have seen it first hand on many occasions. One year I asked a group of my black employees what Kwanzaa was and their response was "you wouldn't understand, you aren't black" and "you can't participate because you aren't black." This was universally supported by the whole group (about 20 people).

After visiting the Kwanzaa website, I was impressed, and disturbed, by the stark racial nature of the holiday. Racism is at the very core of its principles, and that is perpetuated by the community that embraces it. For that reason I have no problem with calling Kwanzaa a racist holiday. It is.

Michael Runningdeer

Appreciate the sentiment, but you are wrong. First this article is full of misrepresentaions. That is the problem with this Wikipedia -- people take it seriously and its written by a bunch of people who may or may not know what the hell they are talking about, nor do they necessarily have the skills to write an encyclopedic entry. Second, you are wrong because like so many people you misunderstand the meaning of the word "racist." Please. Get a dictionary or two. - SL--68.45.57.193 01:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. The statement "By definition anything that is based on race to the exclusion of others is racist" is simply false. Racism is an ideology that holds one race as superior to another, and it is a policy that implements that ideology by favoring one race over another in material ways. Herostratus 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Actually both of you are wrong. I have two Doctorates (Psychology and Sociology), several dictionaries and have been on the panel to edit several textbooks and terminology dictionaries in my fields. The definition of racism is exactly what I said. Anything based on race to the exclusion of others. Unfortunately, for many racial minorities, the definition becomes "anything done by the majority race that causes a member of our race to not get what he/she wants." Let us not forget that I do not take racism lightly. As a Native American, I can always point to the genocide that was enacted against my people. Everything from giving tribes the unwashed blankets used by smallpox victims to all out war was used to exterminate the Native Americans. But the truth is, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not Kwanzaa is racist. The definition of racism has nothing to do with who the majority is. The core of racism is race. It is the perpetuation of separation from a race due to negative feelings toward that race (for whatever reason). Racism does not have to involve violence, though it can. It does not have to involve overt hatred, though it can. Racism at its most basic expression is the exclusion or disdain for anyone due to the difference in their race from yours. Thus, we go back to my original definition Anything based on race to the exclusion of others. Kwanzaa by its own principles as expounded on its official website, fits the definition of racist. It was founded by a man whose prominent motivation was racial (thus one must question his stance on other races). It is practiced by some (at least, though I am certain not all) as a holiday of exclusion from other races. Therefore, logically, Kwanzaa must be at least viewed with suspicion as a racist celebration, if not accepted as a racist holiday.

Michael Runningdeer

I can top you - not only do I have doctorates in Psychology and Sociology, but I also have one in Political Science, and Masters in Intercultural Communications and International Relations, and a BA in Linguistics, with minor in World Religions. And not from the county college you must have attended. And I say you are wrong.

There is just as much in the dictionaries that wmphasize that power is the defining aspect -- racism exists where there is a disproportion of power between or among the groups in question (similar to the way in which "sexual harrassment" is different from "annoying flirt"). African Americans and other peoples are not in power. Therefore, they can not be racist. Sorry. You want to be right about this - but you are not. You are trying to use the language to reshape the discourse -- but you cannot. Racism is a unique term that evolved primarily as a anb attempt to descirbe the unigue and institutionaly oppressive relationship between the "whilte" majority and its victims, African Americans. Keep talking this crap - but you will never be able to divorce the origins of this word from the sin of those who brought the word into being. *You* are the racist. You *are* the racist. YOu are the long arm of the white supremicist hateful hate-filled world. You are *no* Native American and no Native American would ever accept you as one of its own. I am a Native American (Lenape) and I denounce you.

Malcolm X understood that those who write the dictionaries own the minds of the people. I find it no surprise that you would be involved in the evolution of dictionaries. It is the critical last ditch attempt of the dying right wing conservative so-called christian supremicists to find their way into the dictionaries and slowly change the language from the base up. I am on to you. I know what you are.

Beware, people, these folks are trying to steal our minds by stealing the language, from within the language. They call themselves Christians - but really, they seek to build a new Tower of Babel - they say the serve God, but they serve only themselves. And just as in the story of old, they are doomed. - JoeGyo


JoeGyo. I was suprised that someone claiming to have so much education is ranting like a jihad fanatic. I question your credentials. To tell the truth I think you are out and out lying. Your composition does not reflect education, but passionate bitterness. The problem is that the entire tone of your argument is so bitter and accusatory that it makes me dismiss you out of hand. I for one would like to see your credentials posted along with references to your coworkers or professors. I don't believe you have 3 doctorates. You sound like someone trying to falsely give themselves authority. - Mark Walker

Oh really? Unfortunately, you misunderstand -- it is not bitterness -- it is absolute disgust and outright incredulity at the depths of this utter ignorance. The problem is that you would "have out of hand dismissed the argument" no matter what it was. It doesn't matter -- you believe what you want to believe. For example, what do you think about Runningdeer's credentials? You mean to say you don't question them? Right. Just pointing out that your game is "let's make it sound rational, calm, cool and collected, and let's make it sound like it is coming from an infallable source, like a Native American or a Jew! then people who are afraid they might be harboring racist views, will feel justified, and like 'well if an Indian thinks like me, then I must be ok!' and people will really believe it! Yah, that'll work!" And what I am saying is "I don't buy it, and I see through you." Your talking crap. - JoeGyo


JoeGyo. While I would welcome seeing Michael Runningdeer's credentials as well, I notice that you did not post any after my request. Instead you reverted to sarcasm, often regarded as the tool of those with no answer. I also do not understand your accusation that my "game" is "let's make it sound rational, calm, cool and collected, and let's make it sound like it is coming from an infallable source, like a Native American or a Jew!" I never said that a Jew was infallable. Nor did I say an Indian was infallable; as evidenced by the fact that I disagree with you (you did claim to be an American Indian). However, intellectual discussion of matters is usually (and anyone with 3 doctorates should understand this) based on a premise of discussion, not emotional ranting and unsupportable, baseless statements like "Beware, people, these folks are trying to steal our minds by stealing the language, from within the language." That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Now, that is not to say there are not conspiracies, but such ranting makes people think you are in the camp of those that say things like "George Bush contacted aliens to direct hurricane Katrina to New Orleans for the sole purpose of killing black people" (I might add that theory was on the local Louisiana news just after Katrina, and is beyond "out there").

I also do not understand why someone that says he/she has 3 doctorate degrees has to revert to such vague, vulgar arguments like "your talking crap." It sounds as if you do not have any substantiation for your arguments. That is fine. But you should simply admit that rather than trying to speak authoritatively. Though you may disagree with this Michael Runningdeer's points. At least he stated in his very first statement "the following comments are simply my opinion, and nothing more". I do not need to question his credentials. He stated that what he said was his opinion. You, however, rather than simply stating a supported argument or simply stating that you disagreed and why (in a professional manner becoming of someone with the claimed intellectual capacity to possess three doctorate degrees) saw fit to attack him professionally and personally with the demeaning and petulant comment that he must have attended a "county college," followed by the grossly unprofessional, baseless, childish and self undermining accusation that "You* are the racist. You *are* the racist. YOu are the long arm of the white supremicist hateful hate-filled world. You are *no* Native American and no Native American would ever accept you as one of its own." Your statement about a "white supremicist hateful hate-filled world" is perhaps the most damaging thing you could have said for your own argument. It makes you sound racist. Your ill supported, bitter and sophomoric statement "You are *no* Native American and no Native American would ever accept you as one of its own," was arguably equally as undermining. It was a personal attack that made the unspoken claim that you knew what all American Indians think. The inferrence that can be made from this is that you believe you possess such knowledge and thus know the mind of others. If the premise is accepted that only God can know the mind of others, your claim suggests arrogance at least, if not psychotic delusions of grandeur. Whether you felt insulted or not, if you are truly someone with the credentials you claim, you should be above stooping to that level. That is hardly the act of an educated person with the 3 doctorate degrees. Such personal attacks should be anathema to someone with the intellectual power to obtain 3 doctorate degree, as you claim to have. As an intellectual (assuming you do have the educational level you claim) you should be above such. Thus, I find your claims dubious at best.

Furthermore, language is fluid. Just look at the meaning of the words gay and fag. Originally they referred to a state of joy and toil (intense labor) respectively. Now they are words indicating (though fag is regarded as derogatory) sexual orientation. The point is, definitions change. Not only do definitions change, but if you look up the meaning of a word you may find more than one definition. Different dictionaries may have totally different definitions. To some, racism is defined as Michael Runningdeer defined it. I might also add that the definition he used is a prevalent one in sociology. Some define racism as a prejudice of whites against blacks, with the inference that blacks cannot be racist. Myriad other definitions exist. Because of this, coming to an accord on the meaning of "racist" or "racism" is really impossible. Those words mean different things to different people. A litmus test has been suggested. The suggestion I have heard is really simple.

Assume you are of a race, any race. Think of an institution or practice that is racially exclusive. Just for example let us use Miss Black America. Then make the institution or practice of a different race -- Miss White America for example. If the idea of a Miss White America offends you, and you think it is racist, then Miss Black America must be racist to you, or you do not have a fair and coherent world view. If you are not offended by the concept of a Miss White America, then Miss Black America is not racist to you and you at least have a fair and coherent world view. The third option is that both are offensive to you. If that is the case, you at least have a fair and coherent world view. Basically this litmus test points out that there are really only two fair and coherent views of race. 1) Each race can have its own pride, practices and institutions and people have the right to have their own racially exclusive institutions and practices, so long as no other race is criticized for having equivalent institutions and practices or 2)race should be ignored and the perpetuation of racial institutions and practices should be abolished and everything should be about people, not x people (where x is a race). If any other race having something equivalent is offensive, that is not a coherent and fair view. To put it another way, it is a double standard at best and a mark of racist attitudes at worst.

I do not know how truly valid this litmus test is, but it does merit some thought. Perhaps we would all be better off if we tried this so called "litmus test" and at least evaluated where we stand before we try to define something so tricky to define. --Mark Walker


Michael, I applaud your outspoken, courageous statements. As a white individual, I am amazed at the double standard. Anything held up as celebrating "whiteness" would definitely be labeled racist by the real racists of our time, those who constantly bring up the issue of race. It's time we all become colorblind, and forget that anything like race even exists. Unfortunately, black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make a living by keeping black racism against other races alive. -Steven Birming

Calling Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton "black leaders." Hmmm. Good job becoming "colorblind." But seriously now, I'm not too sure about your "black racism" view in regards to implying that a celebration like Kwanzaa and black activists of today are racist. It sounds to me like you need to look up the definition of racism (there is no need for a spin doctor here - I'm not saying there aren't black racists, I am just saying that it is wrong to imply Kwanzaa as a racist holiday.)Call me an ignorant stupid Canadian who doesn't know anything if you want, but it sounds to me that your whole "real racists of our time" stance is a tad on the discriminatory side. I just get that vibe. In trying to tear down the race walls, you've just put up four more.
It is clear that if, for example, there was a 'White Entertainment Television' (like Black Entertainment Television), it would be called racist: there is indeed a double standard. However, maybe there is a reason why some black people in America resort to race-based magazines, Kwanzaa, and so forth; let me just say America does not have a wholesome history regarding its treatment of black people before 1960. And I must say there really is nothing wrong with a cultural minority having a celebration for their unique heritage. To Michael Runningdeer, I respect your opinion, but feel free to celebrate your own holidays; to Steven Birming, I agree: lets stop with the race thing and just get along. Kwanzaa is as valid as Festivus - but ignoring race rather than acknowledging these differences and celebrating diversity is an unhealthy approach. --Jay (Reply) 03:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Is this really the year 2006? Or is it 1984? I am so confused. Black is white. White is black. Racism is when the black minority oppresses the white majority by forcing segregated televsion on them and depriving them of their privledge to be the only people with the right to oppress. Damn those Negroes! Stealing again! - SL --71.250.200.47 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to "Get a dictionary or two." --Jay (Reply) 19:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And another thing...if the world really were colorblind, for example, *no* one would like Condoleezza Rice! The white right like her because she is black, but thinks like they do, and gosh she's so articulate! so they can claim not to be racist, and have a black person without giving up anything. (Kind of like Diet Pepsi, "All the taste, 1/3 of the calories" -- Only we all know that diet Pepsi don't taste like no regular Pepsi.) Black people like her because she is black and smart and gosh, she just talks so good! But colorblind people judge her by the content of her character -- they think she is a highly intelligent fool, probably a nice enough person, but blinded by ambition, and caught up with a bad crowd -- in a position requiring wisdom -- which has nothing to do with intelligence and is dangerous in the hands of a fool. THAT is colorblind. Obviously, we are not yet there. - SL --71.250.200.47 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets focus in for a minute here. The first statement was that Kwanzaa is a racist holiday. It is was seconded by someone who pointed out the double standard. However, this stance was opposed by someone who stated that the definition of racism used is false; this opinion was seconded, and supported because once again, the definition of racism used was false. Then it just went out of control. So far, the tally is Kwanzaa Not Racist 3, Kwanzaa Racist 2. But before we get a few skinheads into this hot discussion and then we start talking about The Holocaust, and maybe even bring up AIDS, and then the war in Iraq, let me just say we'll never reach a consensus. There are just to many points of view, and even more opinions. Lets just leave it at that. We can agree to disagree, and that will never change. --Jay (Reply) 19:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think you mistook my sarcasm, Jay. Kwanzaa is not racist, nor is BET. It is impossible, by the definition of racism expressed above for either activity to be considered racist. AS long as African Americans are 1) in the minority, and 2)subject to unfair treatment and unequal economic opportunity based on race, 3) living in a world in which a significant portion of the populace, including those in positions of political, social, and economic power believe that there is inherent superiority and inferiority based on race, and whites are considered superior, it is impossible for anything Africans do to be racist. Prejudiced, yes. Bigoted, yes. Separatist, yes. But racist? Not possible. -- SL--71.250.200.47 04:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I GET IT!! Sorry - my bad. Sarcasm is impossible to convey in text. All is good. --Jay (Reply) 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not impossible - Johnathon Swift (among many others) managed quite well. Unfortunately, it is just that apparently, I failed at it, . Glad you get it, though, and I hope it gave you a chuckle in the end. Honestly, it is so hard to speak seriously given the level of some of this stuff. I am *very* serious, though, of course - but the only way possible to get through seems to require we speak the native language -- tawdry humor, obvious inuendo, finger pointing, with a dash of chest beating and gutter mind. And even then, I doubt its getting through. But at least it makes for a laugh or two. Believe me, I'd be rollin' -- if it weren't so damn real, and so damn dangerous. - SL--71.250.200.47 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwanzaa is a holiday, not a branch of government. It celebrates positive aspects of a certain culture, which does not necessarily mean that it is opposed to other cultures. Following the mentality that a black-positive holiday is racist, does that mean that the Fourth of July is xenophobic? Easter is anti-Semetic? A heterosexual couple celebrating their wedding anniversary is homophobic? St. Patricks' Day is racist against non-Irish? Veteran's Day is discriminatory against those of us that haven't served in the military? While I share your opposition to racism, I find it disingenuous to choose Kwanzaa and Jesse Jackson as your targets in your criticism of racism. If you're as concerned with racism as you present yourself to be, go eloquently express it on the talk pages for the Hammerskins or the Creativity Movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerskins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_Movement BTChicago 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't believe anybody here actually has the degrees they are claiming to have earned. First, the reason why there is a Black Miss America, BET, United Negro College Fund, etc., is that in the past, blacks were unable to compete in Miss America, own televisions stations or attend institutions of higher learning. So, since blacks were excluded from mainstream society, they created their own programs. Was the Negro Leagues racist? Of course not, it was the only avenue for black ballplayers until the majors integrated. You would think someone with a degree would know the history of these things. Second, racism is an ideology "note the -ism suffix" and as such power is not to be considered. The argument that racism is power based is often used by minorities to hide their own racism. It doesn't fly and you exposed your hate in the response.
  • As for Kwanzaa being racist, since anyone can celebrate regardless of their cultural affiliation, I don't see the link there. No one is prohibited from celebrating the culture of another. I've gone to Pow Wows, as a non-Native American and was accepted with open arms. If someone non-black wanted to celebrate Kwanzaa, they could, so it is not racist. If you feel uncomfortable celebrating a culture that is not your own, I suggest you not look at the celebration, but rather a mirror. Ramsquire 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ramsquire, please do not edit previous comments without making note of it, it can cause confusion. You might like to know that BET was created, by an African American man, to make money off a black audience, not because it was impossible for African-Americans to own cable TV stations. (It was originally just a two hour segment on the USA channel). As for open arms at Pow-Wows...Kwanzaa celebrants (and founder Karenga) originally did not want anyone other than black people celebrating it. As late as the 90's, white parents of (adopted) black children were shut out of Kwanzaa celebrations. Justforasecond 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that I had edited someone's response. If I did it was an accident. I apologize. (Let me know what I did, so that I can be more careful next time). I know who invented BET and I know why. but the reason he was able to make money was that he saw that a market was being under-served by the mainstream media. It is the same rationale behind the Negro Leagues, Ebony, Jet, United Negro College Fund, Miss Black America, etc. The point was not to exclude anyone. As for the actions of Kwanzaa celebrants, let me put it this way, just because the founder and some celebrants are racists doesn't make the celebration racist. Ramsquire 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everyone! How about we discuss the article and not the validity of the holiday itself? Kwanzaa may just be a passing cultural observance, or it may not. Let's let it determine its future by itself and the people who participate in it, without criticizing it too much. Jimbo 23:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ramsqure, you were almost on point -- until the completely confused and ridiculous statement that racism is not about power, and that somehow blacks have adopted the term racism to hide their own racism. This is precisely why it is so important to *be* precise in one's use of language -- racism IS about power *by definition*. PREJUDICE is about prejudging people etc. If you want to say that Blacks have prejudices about whites, fine. That is true for a lot of people. But as you just pointed out, it wasn't black PREJUDICE *OR* RACISM that led to BET or the Negro Leagues -- it was white RACISM that led to these things -- whites had the the *power* to exclude based on color, and they did. BET etc are a RESPONSE to white RACISMs exclusionary practices, and their abuse of the power to impose their attitudes on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, and also as a response to white racism, many blacks have also developed PREJUDICE towards white people, and towards white RACISTS in particular. But as they have not yet the POWER to exclude based on race, they are limited to being merely prejudicial, discriminatory, and intolerant. These are very different from being racist. - Joe Gyo

Free Republic campaign

Comment: I read the link and it was a message posted on Free Republic talk page by a private user. It should not be likened to Free Republic and it was not endorsed by Free Republic (merely because it didn't choose to delete the users message) anymore than whatever we say here is endorsed by Wikipedia. Just thought you should know, because it looks like you didn't read the page very closely.Gator (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and it didn;t say anything about vandalism or "far right wing POV vandalism" that was your assumption and you revealed your own biases. It was calling for conservatives to edit more on those articles. I don't like the approach myself but to term it "far-right POV vandalism" is unfair and needs to be stated.Gator (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if it didn't... look, freerepublic is what it is. It's not The New Republic, doesn't want to be, shouldn't have to pretend to be, wears its colors proudly. It's a vanguard, not a moderate, site. It's not impossible that freerepublic users would come here, check their politics at the door, and gladly internalize Wikipedia values and procedures (while editing). But one would be less than human not to think "uh-oh". Exactly the same as if a notice like that appeared in (say) the Daily Worker. Herostratus 18:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


The actual text [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] of the Free Republic "Action Alert" is hardly a call for vandalism or for an attack! One user invited people at FR to politely edit Wikipedia articles to counter what that user sees as a lack of balance in the articles - here is the actual text:

Wikipedia is a liberal "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, it is very popular and very "progressive", although its stated goal is to present factual information wit a neutral point of view. A perfect example in the Kwanzaa "article" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa), as is the "article" on abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), and the article on President Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).
Any attempt to add balance to these articles is met by severe censoring and shouting down or shutting down editors. I suggest people sign up (free and anonymous) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin) and start politely editing. Once there, to gain "credibility" I suggest you look around and then for the first few days edit only uncontroversial articles for grammar or choppiness or poor citation - you will then be seen as a neutral editor (everyone is an "editor"). I suggest using a different screen name than you do at FR.

84.146.238.75 20:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

With the way that is worded, the way they use "liberal" as though it was a swear word, the way they use "article" as though it was a joke, the way they accuse of editors of imbias, the invitation to "balance" the page and the apparent guideline on avoiding being censored looks very much like a call to vandalize Wikipedia. Coming from "Free" Republic though, that doesn't surprise me. We'll just have to weather it out until they get bored of it. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert relevant, verifiable information. None of us "own" any sections.

Nandesuka, while none of us "own" any sections, that goes for you as well. How many Wikipedia editors were pounced on 12 minutes after adding some text tonight?

Your changes to my content, if they added "relevant, verifiable information" could, should, and must be discussed here with at least me, and hopefully the other editors to achieve a consensus on whether the content I added needed your changes. Otherwise it's a silly race to a 3RR violation.

I am trying to achieve a simple style for readability.

  • A summary of controversy on Kwanzaa
A cited description of the the controversy. {ref}

I avoided the "some claim...", "some are angered..." vagueness that plagues so many Wikipedia articles, and you just edited in it.

Are the other editors keen on having almost every sentence of the controveries section start with the word some? patsw 04:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It's just that your edits were so POV. For any article subject you can find some random nutcase saying something truly obscene. That doesn't make it notable and that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Frankly I don't understand why so many people are so keen on attacking Kwanzaa, but that POV crap really needs to stay out of Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Patsw: A "controversy", by definition, has at least two sides. I improved your edits by adding citations to relevant quotes from the side you left out. You're welcome. Furthermore, we are writing an article, not a laundry list. Regardless of the content, the particular format you chose is, in my personal opinion, unreadable in the extreme. Nandesuka 05:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Racist Holiday from Hell" article

NOTE: The following discussion is about the accuracy of a quote that did in fact appear in articles in both the NYT and WaPo. 84.146.238.75 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I see some serious problems with using this article[1] as a source. For one thing it quotes radical statements from the the "Kwanzaa Information Center"[2] as if it were an authoritative source, when Kerenga's "Official Kwanzaa Website"[3] has very different things to say. This unsourced quote in the article also really troubles me: “People think it’s African, but it’s not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people wouldn’t celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of bloods would be partying.” I've read enough of snopes.com that to me this sounds like a classic made-up quote; unless there's another source for it, I would recommend removing this.--Pharos 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This quote from FrontPage.com has been copied all over the net in discussion of the Kwanzaa controversy. Is there a denial of it by Karenga? A 1999 article by Paul Mulshine in FrontPageMag quotes this as having appeared in the Washington Post in 1978.[4] Has Karenga ever given another reason why he chose Kwanzaa to coincide with Christmas? patsw 05:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me get your reasoning straight ... so because some damn made-up quote has been copied all over onto sites of dubious content and intent, that makes it verifiable? And as long as Karenga hasn't explicitly denied it it must've been said by him? Maybe someone just made it up and he did deny it, but nobody is spreading around his denial because it doesn't fit their anti-Kwanzaa agenda? As for why Kwanzaa coincides with Christmas - it's obvious. It's the holiday season. Christmas, New Year's, Hanukkah ... it's the golden season of holidays. It has nothing to do with being opposed to Christmas, it complements the season. --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, if it comes from a 1978 Washington Post article it probably comes from this one [5]. I'll check it out at the library tomorrow if I get a chance. Anyway, it's interesting that the other article from that website says "Bloods" is "a '60s California slang term for black people"; ie not meaning the Bloods gang, which is what most people would think nowadays. We'll see how accurate the quote is soon enough.--Pharos 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Quick look at FrontPage - first thought - NYT Index goes back to the 1800s. He says only 1972. Obviously, doesn't know what he's talking about, doesn't think you will check what he's talking about, doesn't care that he's got a blatant inaccuracy right there for the world to see, thinks the public is too stupid to notice. Not a reliable source, in my view. Not to mention, editorializing in the extreme.

As for this whole think of quote first ask questions later? Smacks of jaundiced journalism. I think you got it backwards, folks. You're not supposed to print anything until AFTER you have the facts to support it?!? Helloooooooo...

You can find indexes to the NYT in Historical Newspapers and Historical Index to the New York Times, available in large public libraries and academic (university) libraries via ProQuest, or direct. Just have to have a library card and a library that subscribes to it. Happy hunting. -- Super Librarian--68.45.57.193 10:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

FrontPageMag.com is a source for commentary on culture. Although it may be unfamiliar to readers here, it has a high visbility and respect among conservatives and and so has a high visibility among people who want to rebut conservatives. If there were errors in their reporting or sourcing on the Karenga quote, besides being copied throughout the net, it would be denied as well. Assume good faith applies to both sides of a dispute. Absent evidence that information was incorrectly sourced, Wikipedia editors accept them and move on.
By the way, the quote comes from the Washington Post and not the New York Times so I don't know why the latter is mentioned in this section. If the quote doesn't appear in the Washington Post, I will email FrontPageMag.com and the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson to let them know that they committed journalistic fraud.
Has Karenga ever given another reason why he chose Kwanzaa to coincide with Christmas? patsw 16:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the quote doesn't actually support what the encyclopedia says: we are claiming that some are angered because the date was chosen to "conflict" with christmas, but Peterson quoting Karenga doesn't actually support either the underlying point (that "conflict" was the goal), or even the latent point (that "some are angered"). Basically, it's a completely unrelated point. I'll hold off on removing it for a few hours to give you time to rewrite it -- but if we're claiming that some people are "angered" by this, we need to actually cite something that demonstrates that, and also demonstrate that the "angered" opinion is not simply an extreme minority view. See [6] for why I am concerned about this. Nandesuka 16:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: NYT Reference: From the Prontpage article's first line: "On December 24, 1971, the New York Times ran one of the first of many articles on a new holiday designed to foster unity among African Americans." The NYT is the source that Frontpage cites, not the Washington Post. As noted above the NYT is available from the 1880s. So author was lazy, stupid, or didn't care that he was wrong about a simple fact. Not a good sign when evaluating sources of information or choosing to cite them. For the very fact that they can bo so easily proven innacurate, wrong, or just plain stupid.

Later in the article, the reference is made to the date of availability for the NYT, and the LA Times is cited as the only place the author could find a similar reference. Just an FYI, the LA Times is available in the same plce (ProQuest Historical Newspapers) dating back to the 1800s. SO again, the author is either ignorant, lying, doesn't care, or was too lazy to look it up. And again, not a good sign when evaluating resources. For the very fact that they can be so easily proven innacurate, wrong, or just plain stupid.

AS for fact checking, perhaps if more "conservative" readers of FrontPage actually did some checking and made the rebuttals, you wouldn't have this situation in the first place. Obviously, they don't, or this question most certainly would have been raised sooner. But then, seems that papers like this one seem to count on their readers *not* to question what they write. Hence, a lot of misguided conservatives.

Source: ProQUest Products For all other newspapers, search "newspapers" in Proquest Products Search - Super Librarian --68.45.57.193 09:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the Washington Post is available through ProQuest Historical News papers from 1887. Peace - SL--68.45.57.193 09:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the quote itself, my point is that one aught to stick with quoting reliable sources in the first place - once a source is proved to be of poor quality, it should not even be entered into the discussion. IF the NYT or Washington Post made this quote, it could be looked up quite easily using the sources suggested above. However, I strongly doubt the NYT or WP would quote a source like Frontpage ( for the same reaons argued above -- it is not a reliable source), except as an example of how conservatives have effectively used fake media outlets to confuse the public, to spread mis-information (aka Lies) and to sway opinion. - SL --68.45.57.193 09:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the NOTE above: If it was in the NYT and WapO, what was the citation? Did you check the one listed below? Provided that, we can look it up, and at least that part of the case will be closed. Secondly, and peprhaps more importantly, no one has addressed Nandesuka's point -- the quote doesn't even relate to the question at hand. So why is it there? - Superlibrarian--71.250.200.47 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


Rev Peterson's quote is Accurate

Rev Peterson is 100% correct. In his piece he makes no mention of which paper the quote came from. NYT and WaPo have the same quote! (Interestingly, the WaPo reported that the origins of Kwanzaa were intially kept hidden, with Karenga "confessing" that it was a ruse he used to trick people into celbrating it - so in fact there is substantial reason to be suspicious of the holiday even now as it was founded on lies and Karenga has proven to be not only a violent felon who brutally tortures people, but also a liar when it comes to his own culture and motives). The quote is not made up - and ought not be erased from the article on grounds that it is not trustworthy, although the word "bloods" should be changed to "people" or "bloods [blacks]" unless there is a credible source that he meant to refer to the gang.
Washinton Post, Dec 31, 1984, Spirit Still Stands:
First presented as an African ritual, Kwanzaa was later revealed to be totally American. As Karenga confessed, "I created Kwanzaa. People think it's African. But it's not. I wanted to give black people a holiday of their own. So I came up with Kwanzaa. I said it was African because you know black people in this country wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of bloods [blacks] would be partying."
NYT, Dec 26, 1984, BLACKS TO CELEBRATE AFRICAN HERITAGE HOLIDAY:
Mr. Karenga, who is 43 years old, holds a doctorate in political science and is executive director of the Institute of Pan-African Studies in Los Angeles. He also is a visiting professor of black studies at the University of California at Riverside. He acknowledges that the holiday is his own invention. "People think it's African but it's not," he told an audience at Howard University in 1978. "I wanted to give black people a holiday of their own, so I came up with Kwanzaa. I said it was African because you know black people in this country wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of people would be partying."
136.215.251.179 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


That's funny! I remember it well! He was making a joke. The audience was roaring! But you know, its a black thing - you wouldn't understand. - SL--71.250.200.47 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

        • SL - In this case, we have two respected media outlets reporting on the same incident without reporting that the comment was in jest (as you now seem to claim). In fact, those who were there (and we have no reason at all to presume you were there just because you say so) may have laughed due to the way it was presented by Karenga, but that does not mean that what he said was not factual. Finally, wikipedia policy makes your own knowledge from personal observance is NOT noteworthy in the least when it comes to article content. 84.146.218.159 18:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are so funny. Obviously my sarcastic witicisms are flying over your head. I am making the point that the statement taken out of context coule easily have been misconstrued. - Superlibrarian--71.250.200.47 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dartmouth Review not a good source

I have serious problems with using The Dartmouth Review as a source. That page pretty much explains it all, but I'll sum it up: The Dartmouth Review is a separatist college newspaper, which broke off from the college's main newspaper to provide a more conservative viewpoint. They're apparently anti-gay, pro-apartheid, and racist. I just don't think they have any credibility; it's just a bunch of loony college students spewing whatever claptrap comes to their minds. It doesn't belong on a main article about Kwanzaa much like most random liberal lunatic rantings in other college newspapers don't belong on George W. Bush. --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyde Weys, you are on it. Check out the About Dartmouth Review section. They make no bones about it - they are POV. Therefore, probably not a good source, unless balanced out with an equal and opposite reaction. Or unless one is doing a study of some kind on the nature and mating rituals of this particular creature. Something to do with that Hometown hockey Hooch no doubt. - Super Librarian--68.45.57.193 10:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends on what they are being used for. If used as a citation to demonstrate that some opinionated commentators have problems with Kwanzaa, that's not a problem. If used as an alleged "neutral" source of information, that's more of a problem. Nandesuka 15:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
As I demonstrate below, none of the hyper politically correct editors on ths article have any problem at all with letting sit on this site for months the undocumented assertion that there are "principles of blackness," but one citation to Ann Coulter or The Dartmouth Review sets off the mob.
Turtle's Dad

If this constitutes a "mob" no wonder you are so scared. "Ooohh!! Scary PROGRESSIVESs! Ohh scary LIBERALS! Ooooh Scary BLACK PEOPLE!! Ooohh! Scary INTELLECTUALS!! Mommy! Daddy! Come help me!! They are trying to make me think again...tell them to stop it!!Waahhh!!!"


Nandesuka, I agree. That's why in this case, it is not acceptable - unless it is stated that it is being used as an example of an opinionated commentator. - SL --71.250.88.213 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

References

The References section has a several entries that are broadcasts on Fox News and NPR, with dates. It seems to me that these are problematic as references (at least as they currently are in the article), in that they're hard to verify. I think a link should be provided to transcripts of these references, or the references should be removed. (Also, where are they being used in the article?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is jpgordon wanting all kind of evidence, but not wanting evidence for the proposition that there are "principles of blackness." Why the double standard? Turtle's Dad

Jpgordon - As a general rule, you don't have to have a link to a source -- a citation is standardly acceptable. Something that appears on NPR or Fox if well cited, can easily be looked up. Transcripts are also available via Proquest and other subscription information databases. Here's a link for help in how to cite sources and citing transcripts in particular.

Turtle's Dad - That's an interesting comment - I wonder who wrote that in? In the initial instance, it would actually have been acceptable, as it was in quotes and sourced to a title a website; but later in the article, it is not appropriate to mention it in and of itself as if it were something factual. On the other hand, if you go back and actually look at where it was sourced to in the first instance, there IS no mention of that phrase - it says only "the Seven Principles." So perhaps someone slipped the additional word in at some point and then thought they could use it later to undermine the article and Karenga? Just a theory... However, you are right - it should not be there, and it should not have stayed so long. Also, whoever worked on that section mispelled Karenga as Kerenga -- that should also be changed. - SL --71.250.88.213 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Academic source

I've found an intersting academic article on Kwanzaa published in Western Folklore in 1997. It includes an interview with Karenga and a small anthropological-type study of feelings about Kwanzaa among African Americans in Los Angeles. I got this online from a restricted academic database, and so I would gladly e-mail a small PDF of it to anyone interested. If you are interested, Email this user at my user page or just leave a note here or at my talk page.--Pharos 21:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Using quotations from academic journals easily falls under fair use, so if you see any particularly good parts of the article either summarize them or quote them. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. It is probably not a good idea to send the PDF however, as that may violate copyright restrictions for the service you are using. Citations are good enough beause they enable the reader to find the full text for themselves. - SL--71.250.88.213 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

SLA reference

Could someone please point out to me why it's relevant to Kwanzaa that a loony murdering political cult embraced some similar symbolism? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You say "similar" symbolism as if the 7 principles exists outside Kwanzaa and they just happened to also show up in the SLA. They don't. It isn't just some coincidink, the SLA principles are the Kwanzaa principles. It's more accurate that the SLA is embracing Kwanzaa, than this "similar symbolism".
Is this controversial? You bet it is. That's Coulter's stock and trade. And I'd venture if it weren't so controversial editors you wouldn't be so quick to remove the reference.
Is it relevant? Well, in just a few years after it was founded, while it was known to a fairly small number of people, the philosophy of Kwanzaa inspires a group that practiced some pretty awful stuff -- kidnapping, murder, bank robbery, etc. How is that NOT relevant?
BTW, the History of Christianity page doesn't shy away from mentioning witchhunts, but even if it did, that's not a reason for hiding the SLA relationship to Kwanzaa. See ad hominem -Justforasecond 21:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's sort of a tenuous guilt by association, don't you think? (I do.) Lots of death row murderers no doubt embrace Christianity; should we mention that too? Witchhunts were not only done in the name of religion, in many cases they were endorsed by that religion. If Kwanzaa has some sort of central religious body that embraced SLA, that's one thing. But vice-versa is nothing near the same. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the jailhouse conversions to Christianity are irrelevant (just like the Inquisitions and the "missionization" of America), but with a long history and a billion followers they probably don't belong on the main page. I think it belongs on the Kwanzaa page for a few reasons -- such as
- Kwanzaa was very small when the SLA was active, and is still fairly small. We expect a few crazies in every population. "loony" Christians may be no more than in the background population, but when such a violent gang spews a relatively unknown philosophy, its definitely interest-piquing.
- Other criticisms of Kwanzaa often have to do with criminality and leftism. That a criminal, leftist gang uses Kwanzaa as its philosophy illustrates that maybe these criticisms are accurate. Without the SLA the criticisms look like a whole lot of nonsense.
- We don't have any other Kwanzaa pages. Unlike with Christianity, this is the one and only place for Kwanzaa information.
-Justforasecond 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
But it's not Kwanzaa information. That's the whole point. It's SLA information. Symbionese Liberation Army might and perhaps should reference Kwanzaa as regards the symbols. The link doesn't make sense in the other direction except as Coulterish inflammatory rhetoric; the SLA had a lot of utterly insane ideas. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize this has become a real hot button topic, but I recall being quite surprised a few years ago when I found out there was this connection of the SLA with Kwanzaa. I think it might make sense to have some footnote, some see also reference, to document the connection. Not in the high profile way that some editors with an apparent animadversion to Kwanzaa have tried to insert, but just in a very low-key way. Also, on an unrelated note, is the red link to William Bennetta supposed to be William Bennett? --DavidConrad 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the paragraph on the SLA had been brought back, and decided to go ahead and reduce it to just a mention. I got rid of the definition of what the SLA was, and the link to The Straight Dope. The SLA is well covered in its article, which is linked, and the external link to The Straight Dope appears there. I also linked that article's mention of Kwanzaa back to this article. Hopefully this will cover the fact without proving POV or too controversial. --DavidConrad 03:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think this bit properly belongs in an article on Nguzo Saba, which exists as a concept beyond Kwanzaa. The SLA didn't really have anything to do with Kwanzaa per se.--Pharos 03:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
David, please don't remove citations. They don't take up much room and make verification easier.
I also think the SLA description should be there -- you may know what the SLA is, but for readers who don't, its worth a couple words to save the click and make the article more self-contained. I don't feel as strongly about this as the citation removal. -Justforasecond 05:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I've done some more research about the SLA reference. It's curious. Almost every reference goes back to that "Straight Dope" source, if it goes to any source at all; and the sources that the Straight Dope points to are broken. Which is unfortunate. The SLA appears to have used the words of the seven principles -- but interpreted them their own way:

Umoja-La Unidad-Unity--To strive for and maintain unity in our household, our nation and in The Symbionese Federation.

Kujichagulia-La Libre Determinacion-Self Determination--To define ourselves, name ourselves, speak for ourselves and govern ourselves.

Ujima-Trabajo Colectivo y Responsibilidad-Collective Work and Responsibility--To build and maintain our nation and the federation together by making our brothers’ and sisters’ and the Federation’s problems our problems and solving them together.

Ujamaa-Produccion Cooperativa-Cooperative Production--To build and maintain our own economy from our skills, and labor and resources and to insure ourselves and other nations that we all profit equally from our labor.

Nia-Proposito-Purpose--To make as our collective vocation the development and liberation of our nation, and all oppressed people, in order to restore our people and all oppressed people to their traditional greatness and humanity.

Kuumba-Creativo-Creativity--To do all we can, as best we can, in order to free our nation and defend the federation and constantly make it and the earth that we all share more beautiful and beneficial.

Imani-Fe-Faith--To believe in our unity, our leaders, our teachers, our people, and in the righteousness and victory of our struggle and the struggle of all oppressed and exploited people.[7]

So basically, they appropriated Karenga's seven keywords -- and put their own meaning to it. This suggests to me that the SLA's use of the Kwanzaa symbols is neither a "controversy about" nor a "criticism of" Kwanzaa. At most it is trivia about Kwanzaa. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The research is appreciated, but not unsurprising that it leads to the conclusion that the SLA info should be removed. The Straight Dope is a respectable source. I don't think we need look any further, but if you don't agree with the connection between Kwanzaa and the SLA, you could probably fire off an email to the folks at the Dope. They might post a correction on their website clarifying, but I wouldn't count on it -- the quotes you provide above are almost the same as those on our article page. There are some obvious differences, like the mention of the SLA itself, but it wouldn't be implausible that different versions of the principles were published, one containing
'To define ourselves, name ourselves, speak for ourselves and govern ourselves.'
and another containing
'To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves and speak for ourselves.'
Karenga was a black nationalist, after all, and the 7 principles in Kwanzaa appear uncited.
-Justforasecond 07:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"It wouldn't be implausible"? That's just speculation; nothing we can use. The Straight Dope is mostly a good secondary or tertiary source because it generally points to the actual primary material. The pointers were broken this time, which is why I looked for a usable source (that was my goal in the first place -- to replace the link to The Straight Dope with a link to the actual material rather than an interpretation of it.) The SLA's appropriation of the principles seems to me similar to the common practice of dictatorships calling themselves "Democratic Republics" -- a comment upon the dictatorship, not upon democracy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Straight Dope says its Kwanzaa. The principles are almost identical to Kwanzaa (which are uncited, anyway). 'nuff said. -Justforasecond 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Straight Dope is not an encyclopedic source. The references Straight Dope provides often are. Just not in this case. Straight Dope's analyses are not encyclopedic at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Principles of Blackness"

Why is it acceptable to claim in this article that there are "Seven Principles of Blackness"?

Isn't that racist thinking in its purest form?

Are there "prinicples of whiteness"?

Are there "principles of Jewness"; "Japaneseness"; "Tutsiness"; "Hutuness" (note the last two are black)?

Who is in the privileged position to announce what the "Seven Principles of Blackness" are?

Ron Karenga (American Marxist Atheist)? Desmond Tutu (African Christian Theist)? Nelson Mandela (African Socialist Politiciian)? Martin Luther King, Jr. (American Christian)? Malcolm X (American Muslim)? J.C. Watts (American Christian Republican)?

Who gave Karenga the power? Who put him in that privleged position, and why should any Wikipedia editor have to power to do so?

Who says there are only seven "principles"?

How happy should black Christians be that the principle of "Black" "faith" neglects to mention faith in "God"?

Should non Blacks consider themselves excluded from these "principles of Blackness"? If non blacks are included, what makes them "principles of blackness"?

Where do these "principles" emanate from, DNA? Some kind of universal metaculture shared only by people with black skin? Do people of mixed race have only diluted principles?

If these are "principles of blackness," do all Black culutres share them? Where is the the proof for that?

Most importantly, why have the hyper sensitive guardians of this page permitted this naked announcement that "black" people have an inate set of "principles" to go unchallenged?

I suggest the fact that this kind of thought has been permitted to exist on this page, without any kind of basis, or citation to authority, speaks volumes about the agenda of the zealots who patrol these waters. -- Turtle's Dad 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not our job to analyze like this. Our job is to set out what Kwanzaa is -- not our own opinions of it. It's not our job to discuss whether or not black Christians are happy about the lack of mention of God. It's not our job to figure out the ontology of the principles; it's not our job to accept or reject the tenets of black nationalism that lie at the source of Kwanzaa. It's not our job to challenge any of the ideas behind Kwanzaa. Our job is to say what they are. We can also report relevant and notable opinions and reactions to those ideas. But we don't get to present the kind of questions you are asking here. We don't get to make critiques. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You must not get the point. This page says that there are such things as "Principles of Blackness" and that there is a guy who is qualified to pronounce what they are. What basis is there for this assertion? How does it get to just sit on this page undocumented? I will delete or edit the reference unless you can provide evidence that there is such a thing as a principle of "blackness". -- Turtle's Dad 03:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You made a good edit. It was subsequently changed, and the article now points out that those principles are Karenga's assertion. Proceed and make more edits. There is no need to quarrell, no one here is Karenga. --Ezeu 03:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Please be a bit more honest in dealing with me if you're trying to make an apology. It's offensive that you would try and treat me as if I were the one instigating a quarrell. You were the one who treated a legitimate point that was brought up as some sort of petty complaint of no importance, and mockingly telling me to "get a blog".
I was not using the talk page to "proclaim a personal view about Kwanzaa". I voiced my complaint because, in the past, other such legitimate, factual additions of mine (many of which were actually cited) have been reverted for being "vandalism". After a bit of fighting, many of the content has eventually been integrated into the article. The fact that Swahili is an east African language and that most African-Americans are descended from west Africa, and now, the fact that the "Principles of Blackness" were only creations of Karenga and do not necessarily reflect any sort of natural collection of black principles.
I post my complaint in the Talk page so that there could possibly be some discussion with the more revisionist-inclined kwanzaa editors and prevent a reverting war that has been common with past edits of mine. As expected, my good old friend JPGordon disagreed with me, and missed to point of my complaint saying, "It's not our job to challenge any of the ideas behind Kwanzaa. Our job is to say what they are." That was exactly my point too. I was criticizing the article for suggesting that the principles of Kwanzaa are somehow reflective of some excisting "Principles of Blackness" when the principles are obviously just an interpretationg, if not an invention, of Karenga's. Please don't ever treat me like I'm simply making trouble when I am not again.
The problem I pointed out has been corrected, so I am still pleased overall. --~ Jared ~ 03:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didnt know that you already have a blog. --Ezeu 01:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
As indicated above, the whole "Principles of Blackness" thing seems to be another hoax. Go to the source, and there is no mention of it -- it says only "Seven Principles". Looks like someone inserted the word "Black" as bait, and then waited to see who would bite. Either no one did, so Turtle tried to make it more obvious by starting up a discussion on it, or he is the only one who legitimately noticed it, in which case he's right - its out of place, misquoted, and shouldn't be there. (Personally, however, I suspect that "them who smelt it dealt it.") - SL--71.250.88.213 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Karenga has published his "7-fold path to blackness" - which is as racially divisive as it gets. You seem to be in denial. Why not address the facts of Kerenga's corruption before throwing stink bombs at those who have garnered facts to support their edits. In any event, the article is supposed to be informative - not a feel good press release. There is nothing wrong with people celebrating Kwanzaa - but to lie about or hide what it is and where it came from is just indefensible. 84.146.219.188 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, indeed, has he? Then perhaps the editor should be more careful. If you are going to paraphrase, do not use quotes. If you are going to use quotes, then don't paraphrase within them. Also, please choose one way to spell the name - preferably the correct one. As for its "racial divisiveness," oh, stop acting like a scaredy pants. So what if black folk want to find ways to help improve their self-esteem. God knows, its been beaten out of them for the past few hundred years, right on up until today. If you don't believe me, just look at the trash black folk have been subjected to right here on thie page! Do you really wonder why they need some ego boosting? Please. As for the "feel good press release," no, no one is attempting to do that. What people are arguing is that objective does not also mean degrading, derogatory, demeaning, and destructive. You seem to have confused the idea of objectivity with the idea of persecution. It is not "lieing about it" to expect an article to be well written, well researched and documented with authoritatvie sources, correct spelling, and accurate information -- as in "7-fold path to blackness" vs "Seven Principles of Blackness" vs "Seven Principles." Like what he says or not, you still gotta come correct.

AS for "lobbing stink bombs" - I assure you, I am not the one who stunk up the article with misquotes, poor spelling, garbage research, to support the only little bit of stink you could find on a man. And while we're on it, I mean, if he's such a bad guy, couldn't you have found something a little more recent to complain about? Your like a nightmare husband -- the kind who will just not let go of the past, who will bring up the tiniest infraction from ancient history every time theres an arugment, ad infinitum, ( usually because there *is* nothing else he can point to, mind you) to argue his way out of taking responsibility for some incredibly horrendous or stupid act that he himself has just committed! (Some of you guys must have really miserable wives...just admit it and say you are sorry, already. It will actually feel good -- and the sex will be way better!)

Let's see what you have say when 40 years from now, after you've finally grown up, made a name for yourself, become a distinguished and respected professor (oh, no, - that would require at least a high school edumacation...)someone comes pouring over your commentary from here on these pages, for example -- let's see what you have to say then. "Oh, yes, well, uh, you know how it is when your young and idealistic, heh-heh...heh...ahem...Now then, uh...let's get on with it, shall we..." - SL--71.250.200.47 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bennett/Bennetta

I added an HTML comment (<!-- ... -->) after the red link to William Bennetta to, hopefully, stop people from inadvertently changing it in the belief that they are fixing a typo. If the problem persists, or just to clarify who he is, it might be wise to create at least a substub on Bennetta, even if he perhaps would not otherwise be worth an article. I'd never heard of him, but he seems to be associated with [8], and the [9] reference in this article, along with a Google search, might be good starting points if anyone wants to do it. --DavidConrad 04:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Retail Survey

Suggest this edit to place an actual objective survey done by people who simply seek profit (and conduct a scientific survey to determine where the dollars arelikely to be made), and to place Karenga's bald assertion in its proper context as just that - a SWAG offered by the founder of a movement to maximize the influence of that movement. There is no indication of where the number28 million came from other than Karenga's head or heart. Retailers conduct scientific surveys to determine public buying patterns (Nielsen and its TV ratings are a good example of similar surveys).

    • It is unclear how many people celebrate the holiday. According to a marketing survey conducted by the National Retail Foundation, Kwanzaa is celebrated by 1.6% of all Americans[10], or about 4.7 million. In 2003 Karenga asserted that 28 million people throughout the world practice Kwanzaa festivities, however the basis for Karenga's claim was not stated.

Founder vs marketing survey

Which is more accurate to determine how amny people celebtrate this holiday? If the marketing survey isn;t "science" but Karenga's claim is....well I';m confused. The marketing survey is much more accurate and less biased then a founder who obviosuly has an interest in claiming that many people celebrate a holiday he created. Thoughts?Gator (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Include both, and don't refer to either as "scientific". KillerChihuahua?!? 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
My wording above complies with KC's stated requirements.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.215.251.179 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ - thanks.
"asserted" makes it clear that the basis is merely Karenga's word - adding "however the basis for Karenga's claim was not stated" is redundant. I put the "marketing" back in, which I'd accidentally removed. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good.Gator (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Simplified the source of Karenga's comment and edited for concision. 136.215.251.179 17:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Killer dog - what is the basis for stating that surveys, particualrly this one, is not scientific? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/survey - which specfically notes "Statistical surveys are used in marketing and polling research." 136.215.251.179 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the page you linked to, which lists several types of surveys, one of them "statistical" and none of them "scientific." See also Scientific method which does not list surveys. It is an oxymoron to call a survey scientific. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the point is whether it is scientific or not -- it is about whether it is relevant or not. A marketing survey may be scientific and it may measure the numbers of people who celebrate kwanzaa -- but its purpose is for marketing, not for studying sociological trends. In an encyclopedic article about a sociological phenomenon, it would make more sense - be mroe relevant -- to cite a sociological survey, not a marketing survey. -- SL--71.250.88.213 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The marketing survey is relevant simply because it is an actual attempt to measure the popularity in an unbiased manner - and marketing itself is a form of sociological study. I will say that an actual socialogicial survey would certainly be more relevant than listing a number that Karenga (who is obviously quite biased and who has admitted to deliberately spreading mis-information about Kwanzaa in the past in order to promote the holiday - see the WaPo article from 1984 elsewhere on this page) apparently comes up with off the top of his head! 136.215.251.179 14:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
More accurate, surely, but more relevant? It does show that Karenga is indeed apparently pulling the numbers out of thin air, possibly to influence perception of how widely this holiday is celebrated, and is completely NPOV as it is a quote. In that sense, it is highly relevant. KillerChihuahua?!?14:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
And it seems that the reader should be alerted to the fact that Karenga has no basis for the number other than his biased SWAG.136.215.251.179 14:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So sorry...I didn't realize -- you guys must not have finished 6th grade...How insensitive of me. I'll try to use smaller words and shorter sentences. You are using a marketing survey that is based on marketing research. That means it is measuring shopping interest. If this article were about shopping habits for people who practice Kwanzaa, then it would be relevant. But it is not about shopping. It is about Kwanzaa. Kwanzaa is a social and cultural phenomenon. Sociology studies society and culture. So a sociological study would be more relevant in this case. In other words, just because a number is available does not mean you should use it. No. No. No. On the other hand, Karenga is is the founder. Because he is the founder, his views are relevant. His number is quoted. It is not used in the text as if it were an established or accepted fact. It is ok to use a quote from a relevant source. However, it is a ood idea to put the number in context (oh, sorry - big word!) It is alright to use the quote if you tell the children - I mean people - that he doesn't explain how he was able to count that many people. I hope I have made it easy enough for you to understand. - SL--71.250.200.47 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

History and Etymology

This section discusses the context of religion in relation to Kwanzaa. As such, the following sentence is certainly appropriate in this section and I plan to reinsert it. Killerdog did not really give any reason for removing it other than "flow". Perhaps killerdog can suggest a place that is more appropriate, but it seems that within the paragaph dicussing religion would be a good place. 136.215.251.179 17:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

At the time Karenga proposed this new holiday, he publicly espoused the view that "Jesus was pyschotic" and that Christianity was a white religion that blacks should shun. (See The Quotable Karenga, p.25, University of Sankore Press, 1966 [11])
Is there any reason you persist in calling me "killerdog"? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ooh! Another one! Check the source -- there is no such quote, on page 25 or any other - that Karenge said "Jesus was psychotic." Nor is there a claim that Christianity is a "white religion that blacks should shun." There is, however, an account of the fact that it slavery and its perpetrators were Christian, and it is true, after all, that the pope did sanction it. So that's not Karenga's opinion - its a well known fact. - SL --71.250.88.213 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if you are trying to score moral points here, but it was black Africans who began the practice of black slavery. Europeans did not invent it. Slavery is age-old and was part of Afircan and European cultures for millenia. Funny - I don't recall the Papal States being known as slave traders - and Karenga does not even mention the pope in this book. Not sure why you dragged the pope into this discussion. 136.215.251.179 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Look closer - Karenga's "Jesus was psychotic" is there! [click on the PDF link featured on the linked page ( http://www.piratepundit.com/quotablekarenga.pdf ) and go to page 29 of the pdf which is p. 25 of the book]. Keep reading and it becomes clear that my "white religion that blacks should shun" is a neutral and accurate summary of Karenga's strong denunciation of Christianity:

"Christianity is a white religion. It has a white God, and any negro who believes in it is a sick negro. How can you pray to a white man?...The Christian is our worse enemy...Blacks cannot accept the religion of another people..." 136.215.251.179 11:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
So I'm curious. What part of this is actually reflected in the expressed philosophies and actual practices of Kwanzaa? By way of analogy: the article Lutheranism does not bring up Martin Luther's gross and murderous ideas about Jews. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Its simple and straightforward: this section discusses the development of the holiday, and expressly discusses the relationship between religion and Kwanzaa - thus the history of it's founder's religious bigotry comtemporaneous to his founding of the holiday - and his later change in attitude - are highly relevant and noteworthy.84.146.198.232 21:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


I did go to page 29 (I was actually able to figure out that 25 + 4 = 29). I did a search of the entire document for "Jesus is psychotic." It is not there. He does state strong views about Christianity, though. But honestly, is he wrong? If so, why don't white Christians ever paint God as anything other than white? Why is Sunday the most segregated day in the nation? Why didn't Pat Robertson go on down to New Orleans amd start plucking poor black people off roofs himself? Why aren't there more black people in the Christian Coalition? It looks quite obvious to me that white folk haven't been banging down doors to bring in Black folk (except when it was helpful in gaining control over them,) so what in Karenga's youthful statement isn't true? He only said to black folk what white folk have BEEN saying to white folk (wink wink nod nod) behind closed doors (and not long ago, right out in the open, all red and slobberin, and spittin' it right in the eye of a black man's face) for a long long long time. So what is your point? - SL--71.250.200.47 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


      • I just went there and found the exact quote from Dr. Karenga ("Jesus was psychotic"). Perhaps the problem you are having is that there is no text earch function for this PDF document. Perhaps you should look again because your current postings here make you look sort of silly since you are trying to deny that the quote is accurate. 84.146.218.159 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why'd you erase my response? To much truth to handle? Did my response in fact make YOU look silly? Well, we'll never know, will we. But, hey, I don't mind. Everyone will know it must have gotten to you some way, some how -- otherwise you'd have had the guts to keep it up. oops. No pun intended. - SL

Anyway, I must concede - it was there. At least it was this time around. SInce my version of Adobe DOES have a PDF search tool, I really can't guess how it was missed. Unless it was re-edited...??(How'd you do that? Tricky, tricky!!) But, that's fine. I'll give it to you. And so, now that we've established the quote to be "correct", we can move on to arguing its merit and significance to this page. Which amounts to...So What?

Whether or not you believe in Christ, you are entitled to your opinion of who and what he was. And even though you erased my long thought out response of the other night, I think the small and short of it is this: There is nothing in what Karenga says that many a so-called "Christian" doesn't or hasn't already said himself. White people made images of Jesus and God white - they did not try to find a way to create this image so that it would be representative of the world - no, they co-opted it, made it their own, and then used the image to beat people over the head, and beat people down. And then they used his name and the name of God to commit all manner of atrocities to their "fellow" man (of course, if you don't think a man *is* a man to begin with, then I guess its easy to justify....) As for Jesus - if he said all the things he said today, people would think he was crazy. So, psychotic isn't really an unfair assessment, after all, now is it? So, frankly, I'll say it again. What's your point? - SL --71.250.200.47 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Cyde's popups reversions are vandalism


SL is violating wikipedia policies

Since you have no regular IP address, I am posting my warning to you here: Please stop vandalising this page with repeated personal attacks and other violations of wikipedia policy. There is simply no excuse for your latest tirades. If you wish to critique the POVs or sources of others, please do so politely. Your comments have been proven to be factually challenged and your response has been to attempt sarcasm and to unleash personal invective. You seem to first make an argument, then when your argument is undercut by facts you then try to change the subject and let loose with emotional diatribes. It does nothing to advance your views. Its just not what we do here. I will report this formally if you do not self-correct and edit your various policy violations immediately. If you love Kwanzaa, that is your business. But this article is not supposed to advance the views of Kwanzaa lovers. 136.215.251.179 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert when you make the same demand of these other "people." Fact is, I do not celebrate Kwanzaa, or have a particular desire to - but I will argue to my death its right to exist and to exist with dignity. You misunderstand my arguments, but that's ok. I don't really expect you to get them. I'm sure many others do, though. For them, its a laugh. As for your "analysis" of me, you wish it were true - truth is, YOU are the one who "make an argument, then when your argument is undercut by facts you then try to change the subject and let loose with emotional diatribes. " And, I would add, you attack your foe (me, in this case) and go running to your mommy crying "he's breaking the rules! Make him stop! Wah!' As for emotional diatribes - you need an emotional diatribe. This page needs an emotional diatribe. It is emotionally and intellectually constipated. - SL --68.45.57.193 08:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bottom Line: Karenga Admits He Purposefully Lied to Black People About Kwanzaa

In case anyone missed this documented fact: the NYT and Washington Post have reported his admitted lies about Kwanzaa, and Karenga's own book (The Quotable Karenga) makes it easy to confirm Karenga's anti-Chrisian and anti-European bigotry as well as his divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. Of course there is no doubt that he and his political associates were also convicted violent criminals, and that he is on record as an admitted Marxist. This is all important information that should not be hidden from those studying the holiday or thinking about celebrating it. There is ample and well-documented factual evidence to rationally and logically conclude that the holiday has violent and radical separatist and marxist origins, and that its founding was steeped in misinformation and lies. One does not HAVE to conclude this, but it is a very rational conclusion one can make. Please stop painting those who highlight these facts as anything less than rational open-minded thinkers. Many black people reject the ideas of Karenga on the same basis - they consider him to be a conniving dishonest charlatan. 136.215.251.179 10:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Racism defined

Wikipedia sums up racism as follows:

Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed "race". Primarily, it refers to an assumption that the human species can meaningfully be divided into races, together with hostility to people of certain races or a belief, conscious or unconscious, that people of different races differ in value. Some people whose thinking about others uses racial categories believe that different races can be placed on a ranked, hierarchical scale.

The first 3 definitions for racism in the Wiktionary:

1. The belief that members of one race are superior to members of other races.
2. The belief that members of one ethnic group are superior to members of another ethnic group.
3. The belief that capability or behavior can be racially defined.

After reviewing the facts, a rational person could very justifibly and naturally conclude that Karenga promoted bigotry and racism and lied about Kwanzaa in order to dupe others into adopting his racist and bigoted views. As such, Karenga's racist writings and acts MUST be mentioned in any fair and balanced discussion of Kwanzaa (which was developed and promoted WHILE he was also promoting racism). 136.215.251.179 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing screaming attack rant. 136.215.251.179 10:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

SLA redux

Someone has decided to ignore the talk page and stick in his favored subtle attack regardless. Please continue the conversation here at Talk:Kwanzaa#SLA reference. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well "someone" can't be me, as I've read this talk page and taken part in it. The last comment said something like "The Straight Dope is not Encyclopedic". A claim that any source, other than Brittanica is not "encyclopedic" is difficult to counter and is a common wikitactic. There isn't a hard and fast definition of "encyclopedic" that anyone can use. "The Straight Dope" does a lot more research than many other columns, and the evidence pretty much speaks for itself -- The "7 principles" of the SLA use almost identical language to the Kwanzaa principles listed here (which are not the only version of those principles).

There are a few other things cited on this page that also come from non "encyclopedic" sources and have claims that are far less verifiable to mortals.

The other claim is that this isn't relevant to Kwanzaa. Another wikitactic. Who are you to say it isn't relevant? Here are a few tests we can use that I wouldn't be surprised if many editors don't like...but they are a starting point that gets us beyond the "it is/it isn't" bickering.

  1. Does this have any association with Kwanzaa?
    It certainly does (unlike, say, the Moons of Jupiter)
  2. Have articles outside wiki about Kwanzaa deemed it relevant enough to include?
    Yup. Google "SLA Kwanzaa"
  3. Have other wiki editors here have found it reasonable to include here?
    Yup. See talk page and history.
  4. ???

Justforasecond 01:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That is information about the SLA and not about Kwanzaa. It is on that article, so it is covered. As it is, it is tangenitally connected to Kwanzaa, but is not about any aspect of Kwanzaa. KillerChihuahua?!?
Regarding the list: Does this have any association with Kwanzaa? Sure. Lots of things do. The Google test: SLA Kwanzaa gives 737 hits. SLA Hitler gives 110,000. (Hi Mike!). Most of those 737 hits that actually provide any sources go right back to the currently unsourced (because the links to the actual document are broken) Straight Dope article -- and are copying Adam's own interpretation of it. Adam's interpretation is just one guy's opinion; we need the original sources. As far as other wiki editors are concerned, other wiki editors have been adding garbage to this article everytime Kwanzaa draws near. But I think I've already made my argument above: the SLA used the seven words, but then interpreted them for their own insane agenda. This doesn't say anything about Kwanzaa; it says something about the white kids who were, for whatever reason, enthralled by Donald DeFreeze. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I find your bringing of race into this offensive.
We don't need any more sources than The Straight Dope. The connection is obvious enough (as you agree), so I guess that debate is over.
If you are so dismissive of other editors and their "garbage" contributions, there's no hope of avoiding revert wars.
"symbionese kwanzaa" brings back thousands of hits. For comparison, "symbionese hanukkah -kwanzaa" brings back under a hundred. Hitler brings back over 24 million hits. It's no surprise that some of those are on Kwanzaa pages; Hitler's name is invoked in all sorts of negative ways.
In any case you may have missed the point. I am suggesting that all these tests, when used in conjunction, prove something is relevant. I am not suggesting that using any one in isolation is enough. I wouldn't advocate adding Hitler to the Kwanzaa article as his association with Kwanzaa doesn't meet the other two tests described above. -Justforasecond 02:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think Straight Dope is any sort of encyclopedic source? *scratching head* I've nothing against it -- I subscribe to it, as a matter of fact -- but (as I said, and you ignored) it's useful as a source only inasmuch as it quite carefully cites sources. This article doesn't, rendering it just Adam's opinion.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
We know the SLA used a modified version of the seven principles. That's about the SLA, and its on that article. It is not trivia we need on this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, another point -- if you don't think there has been a vast quantity of garbage contributions to this article, please take a look at the article history. Sorry if you don't like bringing race into this, but this article has been a target for plentiful racism, and every single edit must be examined with that in mind. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Calling the contributions of others "garbage" isn't going to get us far here.
Anyway and this is to you too KillerChihuahua, we're looking for a standard of relevance that is more objective than "it is/it isn't". What would you guys recommend? -Justforasecond 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Discuss it in the SLA article. (Oh, it's already there.) It's not about Kwanzaa. It's certainly not a controversy about Kwanzaa; at most it's a not particularly edifying piece of trivia about Kwanzaa. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Spot-on, Jpgordon. It is not about Kwanzaa. It is about the SLA. It is on the SLA article. We're also not adding trivia about Madagascar, even though Swahili is spoken there, because that is about Madagascar. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
We need an objective standard (preferably something testable) of things that are relevant here, so we can keep going round and round on this "it is/it isn't" carousel. What would you suggest. "Trivia about Madagascar" fails the test provided above. Justforasecond 18:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't about Kwanzaa, it doesn't belong on this article. You see to be the only editor who doesn't understand this. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here -- who are you to decide what is relevant here any more than me? You haven't even stated what you think is a reasonable test for determing what is "about kwanzaa". Is Karenga saying "Jesus was psychotic" "about Kwanzaa"?
Several editors have wanted this in the article. Is it too much to ask that we work together towards objective criteria about what goes in the article rather than an edit war? Justforasecond 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about Kwanzaa, it's about the SLA. Just because the SLA appropriated some of Kwanzaa's symbology doesn't mean Kwanzaa as a religion should be smeared with guilt by association, which is exactly what inserting this information does. Leave it out. If you have another source that is criticial of Kwanzaa's leaders for being too close to the SLA, that could be included. Otherwise, it's not appropriate. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There are THOUSANDS of phrases through wikipedia that could be argued aren't "about" the topic of the article.
I've tried to start an objective test above. I'm not saying its perfect -- your input is requested -- but its a better approach than revert wars. -Justforasecond 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want a revert war, then stop reverting until a consensus has developed. I'm stepping away from this for a while; I'll post something on WP:RFC. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to include this SLA info here. As said before, it is in the SLA article and has no reason to be here.--Alabamaboy 23:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see whats is so objectionable about trying to agree on a semi-objective test for what is relevant. This comes up on all sorts of articles by the way. Insert information about the investiation into Woody Allen's molesting his daughter Dylan and the Woody fans start saying it is "too much detail", "speculative", etc. I was able to insert information about sexual harassment into Bob Barker's article without any trouble. Barker fans don't visit wiki very often. Sherman Adams is dead so I guess that's why no one barked when I wrote about his corruption scandal. I'm still waiting for a Dan Rostenkowski disciple or descendant to come and pare down the information I added about his defrocking.
I know most of the common wikitactics by now: "not encyclopedic", "not verifiable", "un-notable", "trivia", "too much detail", "not relevant", "speculative", "not an encyclopedic source", "pov". They're all legit when used on their own, but they get a bit old after you're on an article a while and see the same editors using them in support of one POV over and over again.
Even though "wikipedia is not paper", we're not in the business of writing a 200 page book on Kwanzaa here. But before we agree that the SLA connection isn't "about Kwanzaa" ask yourself, is there any question an unflinching work on Kwanzaa would, at least in passing, mention the SLA connection? -Justforasecond 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Only if they were a cheap tabloid more interested in telling dirt than writing an accurate article. You don't work for the Inquirer by any chance, do you? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Enquiring minds want to know: what inaccuracies? This is all cited info. BTW It is the "Enquirer": Despite the sensationalistic perception, the Enquirer is also well-regarded for its very thorough research -Justforasecond 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The point is not accuracy, else we'd all be over at the SLA article telling them to take it out. The point is relevence. Its irrelevent to this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were implying something by saying "...more interested in telling dirt than writing an accurate article...". Back to relevance then -- what's the objective standard? -Justforasecond 03:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There have now been five people who have said the paragraph Justforasecond wants to insert about the SLA is not appropriate. That is a good consensus for it not to be included. You can keep reverting if you like, Justforasecond, but know that you're doing it against consensus. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not equal "majority has spoken" Justforasecond 05:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's a bit for you from Wikipedia:Consensus: Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken. Again, 5:1 for it not to be included is a good consensus. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Katefan0 should read Consensus decision-making "Consensus decision-making is a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision." 67.15.76.232 10:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

How were the recent edits by 84.146.233.95 a violation of NPOV? I have no opinion on them either way, but they didn't strike me as POV, as they were largely made up of language that was already in the article and what was made up seemed OK with me. Please explain the reversion. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Flat reportage was replaced by judgemental or interpretive language. For example, Any reference to this original position has been eliminated from the "Official Kwanzaa Website" authored by Karenga and maintained by Organization US, which Karenga chairs. So what? The POV is that there should be a reference to the original position in the Kerenga website. Changing "new intepretation" to "change of heart": the POV (or OR) is that Karenga had some "change of heart". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess he could say "removed" instead of "eliminated" but this isn't some glaring POV addition. AGF jpgordon. -Justforasecond 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What's AGF have to do with anything? The POV language speaks for itself, regardless of the GF (or lack thereof) of the editor. AGF indeed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It appears you may be assuming that the changes were POV-pushing, while they appeared fairly ordinary (certainly not the blatant POV pushing we've seen elsewhere). AGF says you should assume others are acting in good faith. Justforasecond 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course it does. I made no statements, assumptions, or anything whatsoever regarding the good faith of the editor; I didn't suggest there was any "POV-pushing" (as, indeed, I avoid that phrase as much as possible, since it adds nothing to the conversation). The words themselves exhibit the POV; the intent of the editor is irrelevant. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

schemes and readable copy

Book-keeping schemes and name-use schemes abound in United States culture. Kwanzaa was indeed an African holiday, and a post-volcano one. Karenga did the best he could to remain academic after the Patricia Hearst kidnapping, as the result of an influence network which elicits 'votes' about other people through the telephone using a call-demand strategy.

Many hoped to collaborate on a critical history of hydroelectric dams in the United States; the Aswan Dam in Egypt may be one that is/was genuinely appropriate and maybe holiday-worthy -- but that holiday wouldn't be 'Kwanzaa'. People are/were being kidnapped to provide no-cost encyclopedia information; and as business-scheme 'recruits'. 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC) beadtot 2/4/2006

are you saying we should include info about the SLA-kwanzaa connection in this article? Justforasecond 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to clarify the submission. Many people plan holidays near bodies of water -- natural or not -- and in the San Francisco Bay Area (CA) some maps erroneously feature small sinkholes labeled as 'lakes' which is where the 'Symbionese Liberation Army' was supposed to take its cue. The linking term is 'holiday', and "no" I wouldn't include the SLA with Kwanzaa -- Kwanzaa was an ancient African post-volcano holiday. 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC) beadtot 2/4/2005

Racist Holiday from Hell

The FrontPageMag.com article [12] is a legitimate source overseen a notable author David Horowitz. Those who keep deleting this link have not justified their actions. Please explain your views here. thank you. 66.98.131.13 04:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they have; there's a discussion further up the talk page. --Allen 04:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Because many people in the public do believe Kwanzaa to be racist, this article is quite relevant and ought to be linked, regardless of whether or not each of us agree that Kwanzaa is in fact racist. Those who argue on this point are missing the NPOV princple that we are to write what people believe. The people, of course, are the reading public, not us, the editors. 66.98.130.225 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. If 10 million people think something is true which is actually false, we should not add it as though it were true - although we can cover what people think. We have already covered the concerns that people have about possible racism related to Kwanzaa in the article, under Kwanzaa#Controversy. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bennetta

Could someone please explain in what way this "William J Bennetta" is sufficiently notable that his opinion about Kwanzaa's use of Swahili is at all relevant? The opinion in itself is pretty worthless, since it's been explained in the "History and Etymology" section that Swahili was used as a symbol of Pan-Africanism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kwanzaa/Archive_4&oldid=1136886465"