Talk:Kwanzaa/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A Fake Holiday

Ann Coulter tells about Ron Karenga being an "FBI stooge" and the holiday being fake.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30063

Chuckabutty (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Chuckabutty

I think Kwanzaa is a crock of shit, but I don't count Ann Coulter as being a reliable source 64.229.221.134 (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Including criticisms of Karenga

Well, I couldn't find anywhere in the talk page where this specific debate has taken place, so it might as well be here: should this article's "Criticism" section include criticisms of Ron Karenga, the holiday's creator? I think it absolutely has to, since criticism of the man plays such a heavy part in attacks on the holiday. Just like the article on Ford Motor Company notes Henry Ford's anti-Semitism, and the article on the Washington Times notes the Rev. Moon's unorthodox theories, this article would be incomplete without the controversy about its creator. Any thoughts? Korny O'Near 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the paragraph that has been repeatedly removed, in the criticisms section, should remain. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• IMO criticism of Karenga belongs in the article about Karenga - as the criticism of Ford belongs in the article about Henry Ford. I don't edit the Ford article, and I have no idea what the Washington Times has to do with Moon (not my area!). Criticism in this article should be about the subject of this article, the holiday Kwanzaa. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• True, and the origin of the holiday is relevant to the holiday; we should at least mention the controversial aspects of the foundation and point to Karenga's article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Seems like we are in agreement - Karenga is mentioned (and his motivations questioned) in our current criticism version - I did not mean to imply that Karenga, as creator of Kwanzaa, should not be criticised - but only as regards Kwanzaa. Criticisms of Karenga unrelated to Kwanzaa belong on his page. Which makes me wonder, did Ford refuse to hire Jews? If so, then his anti-Semitism would be appropriate for the Ford Motor Company article, since it is relevant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good question about Ford (in terms of simple curiousity). But it is the case that one of the more significant criticisms of Kwanzaa is the unsavory history of the founder itself; it's not the case that even vaguely reliable sources point to Mr. Ford's ideas of Jews as a significant criticism of Ford Motor Company. Kinsolving is sufficient as an example of this particular criticism of Kwanzaa; I could easily dig out other sources expressing Karenga's background as a criticism, but I think this one short paragraph is both necessary and sufficient to raise the issue. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Once we're including the 'Marxist' criticism, I'm gonna add the words "criminal record and" to the line that will now read "criminal record and Marxist leanings of Karenga" in the criticism section as I thin it more accurately reflects the criticisms leveled against the founder of the holiday (i.e. his beating two black women is likely more relevant to this article than his Marxist leanings). Does anyone disagree?Ezzi386 (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I disagree. Reliably sourced criticisms of Karenga belong on his page, not on the Kwanzaa page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Jpgordon is exactly right here. Die4Dixie (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Peterson

Didn't add it, merely attempted to edit it into some encyclopedic form. SFAICT, Peterson is a nn columnist for Frontpagemag, and has no credentials listed anywhere so far as I can find. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh nm, he seems to be at least marginally notable: Jesse Lee Peterson. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This was seriously debated see somewhere above. Note him an Ann coulter are .... cant say it on wiki. He is know as an anti-Islamic, bigot, anti-black black. he says the most crazy things. he is not an authority on African history or culture, probably never seen africa or in any position to discuss culture.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the word for which you are searching is polemic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the right-wingers are polemics, but don't shoot the messenger. You're not answering their criticisms, and they ought to be included even if you disagree. Coulter makes the following point in her article, which I encourage you to read, agree or disagree. If David Duke or another former KKK member founded a holiday called Anglika, and had the same principles as Hitler's 25 Point Programme, do we have a Wikipedia article that does not mention Duke's history? Many say Kwanzaa was a racist holiday, started by a "stooge from the FBI". If that is fact, or even alleged, it is too important an accusation not to insert. Hunterrepublicans (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Far-right bloviators such as Coulter assert all sorts of things. So?

If Many say Kwanzaa was a racist holiday, started by a "stooge from the FBI", then what reasoning do they give, or who among these many is somebody taken seriously outside far-right circles? Give the reasons or the person. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

criticisms far too short

i just read the scientology article, it has a really long criticisms section. we seem to be artificially limiting ourselves on this article two tiny paragraphs. kawanzaa is widely criticized —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

In fact I believe an important critique of the ethical justifiability of kwanzaa, the fact that many consider it to be plain racist, is not mentioned. I didn't do an in depth search, I barely know kwanzaa, but reading the statement "the sevenfold path of blackness is think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black." in its context made me quite suspicious of potential racism in kwanzaa celebration. Before I actualy start having opinions on the matter I would have to have more knowledge of kwanzaa, but just a brief look with google gives results that

confirm the statement that kwanzaa is considered racist by many.

Though I don't exactly like the tone and beliefs of the following articles, they do state kwanzaa is racist.

article: "Kwanzaa -- Racist Holiday from Hell" a citation from this article "Enter a God-hating black racist named Ron Karenga."

from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16474

Article I'm dreaming of a white kwanzaa a citation of this article Unlike those noble proponents of Martin Luther King Day who sought the support of people of all races, there is no room for any white candles in Karenga’s inn. In his skewed worldview, blacks are so different from other Americans that they need their own unique holiday to bask in the glory of their race.

from www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301161/posts

Guidocalvano 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re "the statement "the sevenfold path of blackness is think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black." in its context made me quite suspicious of potential racism in kwanzaa"

@Spit-take@ - Suspicion of potential racism? Potential?? 'Ya think? A statment like "think black" etc. couldn't be any more racist - it's lumping all of a particular race together in one monolithic mass. As if there's any such thing as "thinking black".TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• A familiarity with Wikipedia's concepts of reliable sources and neutral point of view will help you understand why those particular opinion pieces aren't useful here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, it deserves attention, guidocalvano. there are many racist aspects about kwanzaa. if there were a holiday created by a white felon, implicated in murders related to the founding of a white-studies department at UCLA, running a white nationalist group that asked adherents to "think white, act white, buy white, vote white, etc" and shut out non-white parents from festivities, with articles by well known commentators pointing out its racist nature, would there by any question whether that holiday would be considered racist? CarlosRodriguez 02:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

any other feelings? or should we begin the work to get ths in? CarlosRodriguez 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been meaning to comment on this, but have been busy with a disscussion of weather a Karenga quote should be included or not (see "Racist Holiday From Hell" below) but yes this is my biggest concern about the neutrality of this article... I find racism in all forms to be appauling, and CR has a very eliquent point, if the coin were turned over this holiday would be protested with droves of people flooding in from every state! If "Think White, Act White, vote white..." were taught in schools the teacher would be fired before the words left his/her mouth. I think our ancestry and heratage are important but we are all people, regardless of colour and to teach children to hold oneself above others is wrong, this holiday subtiley does that. People of African decent have a rich heratage and this holiday made piecemeal from two white traditions and altered Swahili words is not that. It is racist and it kills somthing real at the same time. This is my personal opinion.John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The section is 'criticisms'. By definition, a criticism is an "act of passing judgement", i.e. an opinion. Therefore, opinions should be included. Furthermore, if said criticism can be adequately explained (as above) then it becomes a valid criticism. Failing to include the criticism that Kwanzaa is racist is a failure to speak the truth at the least, and politically correct censorship at the worst.

Sounds like we have a consensus to include references to Kwanzaa-racist connections. CarlosRodriguez 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you can find reliable sources, which generally excludes frontpagemag.com and freerepublic.com -- the hit pieces from there have been removed repeatedly, and will be again. -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The article referenced (Kwanzaa- Racist Holiday from Hell) can not be considered from a reputable source--it's entire premise is biased. Additionally, the author presents a lot of information as facts, but provides no references--this is especially true of the quote about the selection of the dates of Kwanzaa. If you choose to include 'criticisms' then use well-referenced sources.

205.222.248.31 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)39aka94

Why is the following found in the "criticisms" section?: "The origins of Kwanzaa are not secret and are openly acknowledged by those promoting the holiday.[25] Many Christian and Jewish African-Americans who celebrate Kwanzaa do so in addition to observing Christmas and Hanukkah." Obviously written in "defence" of the criticism. It does not belong in this section. I'm deleting it. JJ 131.146.6.168 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Kwanzaa

Under the "Observed by" section, it states: African Americans and people of African descent around the world.

Nobody outside of the USA, no one has ever heard of Kwanzaa.

This should read: Some African Americans.Glenyoungman (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am new to the Wiki-edit arena, and after having read the article today on Kwanzaa, I sent the following email to Wikipedia that I would like to share...

"Greetings!

"I have been in love with Wikipedia, until today. I have used it alot, found it's data great, and referred it to many, especially in a newsletter I send out Monday-Friday, I include a quote, and usually list your site's address for the person quoted. Your data is normally so focused and unbiased. Today, when I googled Kwanzaa, and Wikipedia came up as the second choice, I decided to read your account, I have been to the official Karenga site before.

"I must say I was sadly disappointed at the slight hostility and edge that I felt... as if this man in the 1960's who couldn't even drink from certain water fountains, as a matter of fact only from those fountains labeled "colored", who couldn't shop freely, eat at restaurants, and probably even be seen out at night for fear of being lynched right here in the good ole US of A, in a progressive stand against oppression, created an alternative holiday celebration.

"I didn't know that information until today (black only origins). I am not offended by it. When it is put into context, in the volatile sixties... when blacks had very few or no rights, were burned, lynched, disenfranchised, hosed down by officials, many of whom were spouting the Word of God... it is no wonder that a movement began.

"I am a Christian. Martin Luther King was killed on my 4th birthday. I am for non-violent change, yet for change. This warrior, who being a grown man in the 1960's and not an infant like myself, an American of African descent, must have seen more than you and I can ever imagine.

"I would appreciate you adjusting your entry, editing it. He should not be made to sound evil because Kwanzaa originated as an alternative to the mainstream. If you were in his shoes'in the 1960's, living through massive oppression, perhaps you would have done the same.

"I applaud him for starting Kwanzaa. More importantly, I applaud him for helping it to evolve into a celebration that all can share. Times have changed from the 1960's. We have evolved, have de-segregated (to some degree) have learned to embrace each other (again to some degree) have learned to embrace different faiths and cultures.

"Why not Kwanzaa? Why does it seem (in your account) that he was wrong to change... wrong to evolve? When I read you entries on slavery, I didn't get that edge of hostility towards those enslaving Africans, of the queen of Spain, financing voyages. There was no hostility in your report, just the facts. This man, Karenga, deserves the same level of unbiased fact finding and reporting.

"I normally say at this time of year... Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa!!!

"Wikipedia, I forgive you... to err, is human, to forgive, well that is divine isn't it?

"Please adjust the attitude volume in your Kwanzaa entry, please. It is very apparent to me that the writer is probably a Christian Caucasian, and perhaps too young to appreciate the perspective of an oppressed black man in 1960, who is taking pride in his roots and heritage, and helping his community to survive a very terrible, awful season of oppression, murder and injustice by giving them very positive characteristics to focus their energies on (the seven principals, even if they started as a black pride movement). Is that so bad given the fabric of society at that time? Of course not. It was survival of the fittest, and I applaud him. I don't applaud racism nor discrimination from anyone, after all it's just melanin, and we all have it, all except Albino's, which is the saddest fact of all (that many have died over this molecular entity, melanin).

"I appreciate your attention to this matter, I really do, and will check back in about 30 days to see if my opinion mattered enough for you all to take action and adjust the tone of your Kwanzaa entry. Feel free to contact me anytime!

"Sincerely expecting more, Sharon F. McCreary sharonflorita@hotmail.com

-- "Life Is Short, Opportunities Plenteous. Follow your Passion. Spread Love. Be Happy! SharonFloritaMcCreary" Sharonflorita (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. You're wondering if your opinion matters. Yes it does. But you're making an odd request. If you think the article needs to be edited, you are free to edit it yourself. Your user ID must be four days old. And if it isn't already four days old, it certainly will be in 30 days' time. -- -- Hoary (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Another editor created Nguzo Saba, which largely duplicates Kwanzaa#Principles of Kwanzaa. I propose merging that article into this one. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections in ... 5 months. I completed this merge. Nguzo Saba has been redirected to Kwanzaa#Principles of Kwanzaa. I didn't see any need to update any information in this article since the two were very nearly identical. CJ 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this not just a made-up holiday? It would appear to have no real merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.86.35 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• They're all made-up holidays; this one is just newer than most, so we know better who made it up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• The retort that "all holidays are invented" ignores the difference between a person or historical event commemorated in the context of a specific culture or religious tradition, and the celebration of an ideology on an arbitrary day. For instance, while Kwanzaa could have been assigned to any part of the year, the date for the celebration of US Independence could not be invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.69.38 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that yes, Independence Day was picked to celebrate out of several options just as good. Instead of commemorating the day the Declaration of Indepence was signed, it would be just as valid to celebrate the ACTUAL DATE INDEPENDENCE HAPPENED, which is the norm for other former European colonies, more accurately reflects the name "Independence Day," and occured at a different date several *years* later. July 4th should actually be called "Declaration Day," because that's all it was, the signing of a document, not the achievement of independence. And in that sense, picking July 4th to celebrate is an invention. Sorry, that's a pet peeve of mine. Back on topic...216.153.43.38 (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note to Sharon. California didn't have "colored" water fountains in the 1960's. I'm not sure where you got your information from that said he couldn't drink form the same water fountains that whites drank from. Could you please share a source with us?03:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates vandalised

The dates in this article do not make any sense...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.73.45 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Could you perhaps be more specific? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism, I fixed it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Tis?

"Tis observed from December 26 to January 1 each year, almost exclusively in the United States of America."

Surely it should be "It's" right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haddock420 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Kwanzaa article holds no neutrality. Attempts to give other points of view to bring balance are removed. (Seenitall 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)
  • I am adding a neutrality tag the article needs it! John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know why I am getting this autosign messages? Even though I am signing my posts? (Seenitall 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

• Because you're not really "signing" your posts the way everyone else does it. How are you doing it, anyway? Cutting and pasting the time from somewhere? The easy way: type four tildes (~~~~); this gets expanded into your name and the date. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Messy details

I'm not going to go deep into this issue. I only came across it while looking for info on the origins of Kwanzaa; I'm no expert on the subject. But I WILL note that the 7 principles are expressed in words of Arabic origin... and that creating a semi-religious holiday is at least a little bizarre. The whole thing seems to have been concocted along with the Nation Of Islam and their attempts to make racial distinctions into political rallying points, etc. --JT 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Arabic? Seems to me they're Swahili. Got any suggestions for improving the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The facts are that they are neither Swahili or Arabic. The creators are American. Kwanzaa is a politcal/religious experiement. Information about Kwanzaa is only available from their group and anyone with a fact to offer is dismissed. The article should reflect the historical facts of it's creation, its creator and their associations (both good and bad). (Seenitall 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)
  • They're Swahili. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• The Swahili people have been linked with the Arabic language and peoples since the 12th century AD. Much of the Swahili language and culture derives from Islam and the Arabic language. The word Swahili comes from Arabic. To say that the seven principles of Kwanzaa come from Swahili is virtually the same as saying they come from Arabic.--Wonderwaffle (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To put it straight: Swahili is not the same as Arabic. It is a Bantu language with some 30+% Arabic vocabulary. The "7 Principles" are sort of Swahili. They are all from a Swahili dictionary but obviously not chosen by a Swahili speaker who would use different ways of expressing several of these concepts. E.g. "Kuumba" just means "to create"; for the idea of "creativity" one would use a longer expression or a different root - like "ubunifu". Kwanzaa itself is not Swahili. There is a word "kwanza" which just means "first". Kwanzaa looks like an artificial combination of "kwanza" plus "zaa" which is "to procreate". But according to the official Kwanzaa Website this seems never have to crossed Mr. Karenga's mind.

The notion of "first fruits" is not really something Swahili. In a tropical climate like on the East African Coastal strip -where Swahili culture is at home- you have fruits all around the year. Inland of course you have rainy seasons and harvest times depending on these vegetation period or periods which can be one or two per year. But then the claim is that the whole holiday is an amalgam of different African holidays. Whatever it is it surely is not Pan African. To the eyes of an outsider it looks very much American like other cultural concepts that have amalgamated ideas from wheresoever into something new on American soil. --Kipala (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

--Kipala (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

'Tis the season...

to vandalize Kwanzaa. Might be too early to semi-protect; thoughts? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem like the vandalism has been picking up in the last few days. Natalie (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected until Jan 10. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Should probably unprotect; new editors may want to edit this page and we can't assume they are all vandals. Just because a page is in season doesn't mean we WP:BITE them with an unkind welcome Justforasecond (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Racist Holiday from Hell"

Periodically, material from an opinion piece in FrontPage magazine entitled Racist Holiday from Hell, by Jesse Lee Peterson, are inserted into this article. They tend to be removed, but perhaps we need to discuss this yet again. Consensus has been pretty consistant elsewhere disapproving of FrontPage as a reliable source. Certainly we can use opinions when the article is speaking about opinions, but we have to be careful about undue weight and inflammatory rhetoric. Thoughts? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this source is reliable. However, if we had a meta-source that talks about the curious way that Kwanzaa has been criticized that source could be used with attribution as an example of hostility to the holiday.

futurebird (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...the article itself cites nothing, nor have I seen evidence that Karenga said those words elsewhere... find a more reliable source. 163.153.64.30 (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The creator of Kwanzaa is Dr. Maulana Karenga, not Ron Karenga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.133.40 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not use titles except in very limited circumstances. We speak of Martin Luther King, not Dr. Martin Luther King, for example. "Maulana" is a self-styled honorific, not a name. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Karenga is Dr. Maulana Karenga.--E tac (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone here is aware of that. However, Wikipedia does not use titles, such as Dr. or Reverend, in articles, except in the very rare circumstance that a person is commonly called by a name that includes that title. Even in that circumstance the title is used only once and then everyone is referred to by their last name only. I would not be opposed to referring to Karenga as Maulana Karenga, similar to our use of Malcolm X rather than Malcolm Little, but I also don't see that it's absolutely necessary. Ron/Maulana Karenga is probably known equally well by either name. Natalie (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote is real, by the way. I looked it up on microfilm in the The Washington Post archives a while back, but negligently never got around to mentioning it here. From the context of the article, though, he was speaking at a public event in a rather jocular manner.--Pharos (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

it should be in the article. pharos has looked it up and frontpage is reliable enough. it may have some opinions but when it says something is a fact i think its probably true. the reason we really need it is because the mainstream media is dominated by political correctness and won't point out the ugly truths behind kwanzaa. Justforasecond (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote can be in the article, if it can be cited as the Washington Post or some other reliable source. I can't support FrontPage magazine as a "reliable" source as required by Wikipedia's content guidelines, and I think the cite should be removed. Summer Born (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked the addition to adhere to NPOV pending a resolution on this issue. I am NOT in favor of the addition myself. FrontPage is utterly useless as a reliable source for anything other than what fantasies the extreme right-wing bigots are pushing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

how is calling frontpage magazine "islamophobic" going to make this article more neural? Justforasecond (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The definitions of Criticism... this should end the discussion, period.

1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.

2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.

3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.

4. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.

5. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism.

6. investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, esp. Biblical ones: textual criticism. So the section is an opinion a preachers opinion, it's going back in.John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is indeed a preacher's opinion. The US has tens of thousands of preachers, most of whom score much lower on the Blowhard Scale than does the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. Plenty of preachers bloviate on websites, but few do so on websites whose top pages proudly list offerings such as "The Global Warming Suicide Cult", an article which describes as "proponents of Global Warming" not people who are trying to increase global warming but instead proponents of the thesis that the globe is warming, the latter group being said to form a crusade [that] is a frontal assault on procreation, the family and the future of mankind. This article (the first one that I happened to choose) has to be read to be believed, and you also have to check the URL to see that no, you're not reading The Onion. I find it hard not to infer that Frontpage is put out by and for the batshit insane.

How JDoJD's lengthy reminder shortly above of the dictionary definition of "criticism" elucidates anything is beyond me, but I do appreciate Justforasecond's concern a little above that with whether certain changes will make this WP article more or less "neural". -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Look I am not going to argue weather the mag is full of completly odd articles but the fact does not change that it is published and it is a critical comment, article, or essay; a critique of Kwanzaa. In this instance I think it should be included. I wish the quotes were cited there or at least I could find an article I read in the Washington Post which used them aswell I am looking but so far no luck hopefully I will find that soon and I will replace the 'ref' maybe someone else is willing to look for this quote with me? John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's a critical comment and it's published. It's published by a fringe outlet. (I'd say a crackpot outlet.) WP doesn't have to take such stuff seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok so the origin of the quote about bloods is from a 1972 edition of Washington Post without paying money for a search through newspapers online I can't do it... Maybe if someone goes to a US library they can look it up on microfiche but unfortunatly I am currently working overseas in Europe so a stroll to the local library is out of the question. John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that it's from a 1972 edition of the WP? (Peterson doesn't say this; who does, and where?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I wrote that out off the top of my head but I have a 'ref' and I'm sorry I was wrong here is the detail of the article the quote originalay came from I believe but I would have to see it again I used a rescourse of news artilces to look it up:

"Spirit Still Stands" The Washington PostWashington, D.C. Author: DOROTHY GILLIAM Date:Dec 31, 1984 Section:METRO WEATHER OBITUARIES Text Word Count:700 If this isn't it I give up... sorry but it dosn't relly matter to me that much if people want to forget he said that whatever. John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Karenga quote, because there seemed to be no source for it -- unless it was that wack-job of a website. (Actually, it sounds a lot like Karenga from back in the day.) If it's properly sourced (a reputable publication/source), then fine. But if we're going to introduce criticism, then please do it using something other than an extremist website that no scholarly publication worth its salt would quote, let alone direct readers to with a link. Certainly, there must be plenty of other criticism of the holiday out there that is from credible and far more balanced sources. Let's keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just because someone has a modem and a website, that doesn't make them an authority. It doesn't make them intelligent (that's for certain). It doesn't make what they have to say, ipso facto, worthy of inclusion in an online body of reference. FrontPage is not a worthwhile source. deeceevoice (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said I looked it up at the library the last time this came up on the talk page (just because I was curious), and it is an accurate quote (from 1972 I believe, I have it printed out somewhere). Whether it belongs in the article or not is another matter.--Pharos (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Two sources (frontpage and washington post), enough for me. Even deeceevoice says it sounds like Karenga from back in the day, and she was around back then. Though some may think frontpage is a "wack-job" it looks reliable to me. It isn't just a modem and a website, it includes pieces by well known commentators. The problem is that any one who criticizes kwanzaa would be ostracized for violating politically correctness, and never get a mainstream job again, so we have to rely on shameless conservative web sites like frontpage for the nitty gritty on kwanzaa. Justforasecond (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the holiday, not the man who created it. A quote, taken out of context (sounds like he was joking, or doing a 'roast') isn't really a notable view-- and it's just pain wrong to try to represent this goofy quote as anyone's earnest views on the subject. Hence, I don't think we need to include it, regardless of the source. (The other editors here have made the right call on "front page" it's too radical to represent a notable view.) futurebird (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the point in the most simple way to possibly put it. Seriously, this should not be so hard to explane: One man invented the WHOLE thing, PERIOD. With out him there whould be nothing to talk about AT ALL. There would be NO holiday NO wiki page NOTHING, PERIOD! This dude who came up with the candle lighting, the names of everything involved the principles the whole shibang.

So he singlehandedly made this whole thing up and HE said this ABOUT the HOLIDAY it MUST! M! U! S! T! be included for NO other reason!

Strait from the horses mouth! “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.” So this is HIS view, expressed from HIS mouth... regardless of where it's easily found ONLINE (in 1984 there was NO internet by the way, so this "crackpot withOUT a modem" was recorded in print... granted maybe he shouldn't be jugded entirely by his conviction of torture and false inprisonment... but he did say this) so until I can with no arguement cite this from "a reputible sorce" (i will if it #%$^ing kills me!) it will remain here on the talk page... if I don't find I have better things than argue about a madeup yearly ritual that is... maybe because it's here someone else will take up the torch!

Before I sign I should probably appoligise for letting my emotions be expressed in (digital) print... sorry John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

J Doe, careful, a lot of people don't like it when you speak the truth. People don't want the criticism in the article for the same reason the culture at large falls all over itself to produce kwanzaa postage stamps, etc. to legitimize this nonsense. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

J. Doe, every holiday was "made up" at some point. There are some religious scholars who suggest Christ wasn't born in December and the only reason we celebrate Christmas at the time is because it helped European pagans adjust to the Christian religion by replacing their winter solstice ceremonies with a similar winter festival of lights. So if we want to talk about the temporal placement of the holiday from that standpoint let's find some scholarly sources that discuss it. I'm all for it. My only concern is that the quote is taken out of context. The tone of the quote seems to be jocular-- but the problem with the front page source is that it take it a face value. It's not so much the content of the quote that is off but the tone. If we want to quote his views let's do it right. It is unencyclopedic to take a quote and sensationalize it's meaning, that is it is unencyclopedic to use the quote in the manner the front page article has used it to push a POV on the holiday. futurebird (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Having read the original article I can tell you it was not said in a joking manner, nor was he "roasting" himself (do people do that? I thought the point of a roast was to do it to another person not yourself, maybe I'm wrong never had the honor to see one)... remember we are talking ablout a man who put a hot soddering iron in a woman's mouth then threated to kill her while pointing a gun at her head... Granted his views may have changed but when someone says "I did _____ because of _____" it's hard to take that out of context, don't you agree?John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

JDJD, you apologize for showing your emotions. I don't understand why you should be emotional. If writing about Kwanzaa arouses your emotions, perhaps you'd better write about it somewhere other than an encyclopedia. Secondly, I thought that this section of this talk page was about the pros and cons of either (a) whether an article in "Frontpage" could be a credible source, or (b) whether an opinion expressed in the same article in "Frontpage" was of note. -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would read rather than just post to the most recent comment you would see that the quote is most easily found there. But it is originally from the WP... Myself and a few others are looking for the exact article in the Washington Post... but guessing by how much peopel don't want to hear what Ron has to say about his own holiday, I'm sure the argument will quickly change to weather or not the washington post is a "reputable source"... by the way has anyone even read the page about wiki sources? the first thing it says in bold letters is "this is a guideline, not a policy"... John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a better source, please share it, my concern is not so much the content of the quote, but the tone and the way it is presented. The Washington post is a good source, provided it is not an editorial. In that case it's a "notable opinion" rather than a source of fact. Everyone knows Kawnzaa was created 30 years ago. Some people are acting like it a big secret and it never was. futurebird (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the posts before posting. This is the second time I have to repete informatin from this section above!

From above:

• "Spirit Still Stands"
• The Washington Post
• Washington, D.C.
• Author: DOROTHY GILLIAM
• Date:Dec 31, 1984
• Section:METRO WEATHER OBITUARIES
• Text Word Count:700

John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Crazy

I had this guy as my professor at CSULB. It's crazy he invented Kwanzaa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.14.131 (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

even crazier is his criminal background -- convicted of kidnapping and torturing two women, founder of a group (a gang?) called "united slaves" whose members went on to kill multiple people. kwanzaa also inspired the Symbionese Liberation Army, a domestic terrorist group in the 70s. crazy stuff. sadly some editors have tried to keep this information hidden. Justforasecond (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kwanzaa article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please take conversation about your personal opinions of Kwanzaa or Ron Karenga to a discussion site or other outlet. This is not the appropriate forum. Natalie (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, JFAS agreed to stay off this article rather than be blocked for disruption; there's no reason to think this agreement should have lapsed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If he's supposed to stay away from the article, then why is he posting in the article talk space? deeceevoice (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nonsense to suggest that the bias of the singular "inventor" of kwanzaa isn't directly related to a discussion of the nature of kwanzaa, unless of course one has an aversion to things being told like it is, people with such an aversion of course are common on Wikipedia. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Deeceevoice, this is a place to discuss kwanzaa, not me :) But I'll take the opportunity to announce that I'm here for the season to work on the kwanzaa article. I'm not "supposed to" stay away by the way, I'm free to edit wiki as any other editor (feel free to file an arbitration case if you think otherwise, but jpgordon will have to recuse himself).

Here's to working together towards a good article. Let the editing begin! Justforasecond (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

JFAS, if you are supposed to be staying away from this article and its talk page, then it is relevant enough here. I have no reason to doubt JP Gordon, so I would suggest that you uphold your agreement and stay off this page. Natalie (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Topic of reliable sources:

http://www.africanholocaust.net/ What makes this one reliable? And for that matter these? If we have one site that panders exclusivly to are certain view why exclude the ones you don't agree with it seems these al promote a view point that some may dissagree with: http://www.believersweb.org http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ http://www.swagga.com/

REALLY?!!?!!?!?

Man I feel like the biggest hypocrate but if you call these reputable sources, than you have to include, ones that are just as "main stream" (read 'not at all').

You have to be F.....g kidding me, "believers web" is reliable? John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I gotta say it! Beliversweb and Worldnetdaily are right up there with Frontpage, both of these are cited once if not twice in the footnotes of Kwanzaa as well as jewishworld review... All the arguments against Frontpage go out the window, until you can in a logical way with out using words like "left/rightwing", "crackpot", "wack-job", really anything that isn't an insult or personal opinion, justify why these are allowed but the other isn't. John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WND isn't reliable. Believersweb isn't either. (This from previous discussions on many other articles.) Unsure about swagga -- haven't seen it analyzed before. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case all refrences from all 3 Bweb, WND and Fpage, need to go or all should be allowed! John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliability is not about whether the publication expresses a certain point of view, its about whether the statements claimed to be factual are actually factual. Since this is impossible to know directly, the standard wiki uses is whether the material has been "published" by someone that might be worried about getting sued. Blogs don't usually meet this standard, because who would bother suing some hack with a modem and a keyboard living in a trailer in north dakota. Frontpage definitely meets the reliability standard. As much as I dislike David Horowitz (does anyone like him???), everytime I think some statement in one of his articles is bogus I look into it and find that it is true. I don't know about worldnetdaily. The reason we have to use this undeniably mean-spirited publication is that the mainstream press won't touch on Kwanzaa's past. Justforasecond (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. We only use reliable sources at Wikipedia; if we can't find a reliable source, the material cannot be included. Go over to WP:V and discuss it. Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. (from WP:RS) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A source, such as frontpage, can be unreliable for certain points while still being a reliable source for others. This is not a complicated idea. Is Frontpage reliable for its facts? Absolutely not. But if the question is 'Are there people who think that X is Y?' and somebody (in this case Frontpage) publishes something that says 'We think that X is Y' then surely they're a reliable source of what their own opinions are. 216.121.141.237 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Gonna play Devil's advocate for a moment) Unfortunatly I have to agree with JFAS you are correct that the information quoted in the articles is quoted from main stream sources. Also their opinions are of note even if not all people agree with them (which is why it think if at all these things should be placed in the criticims section). I also have to mention that the section WP:RS that Jp just loves to quote is prefaced with "This page is a guideline, not a policy" (funny how he missed that part). So sorry Jp as much as you want to be Mr. Wiki-cop, it's not wikipedia's policy, to pass judgement on these sites. Granted they do have a desenting view. Now I have some questions (which I must preface): in some circles (even countries) it is " viewed that George W. Bush is widely acknowledged as extremist, some even say anti-religious, or even racist (there are even people calling for his impeachment in our own Govt.) if I were to quote him no one would blink. So is he an extremist falling into the political catogory? Who decides? Which faction? His? Theirs? Who writes the rules of extreme or acceptable? What may sound extreem to some is a way of life for others. How do we determine a majority? (Granted the English Wiki is ludacrisly biased towards the US).

My big peoblem is the article needs to have the negative aspects put in. If it lacks them then we have a rosecoloured one sided coin, not a Encylopedic artical lacking POV. John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Then find reliable sources. You'll probably need to look other places than rant sites. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• a rosecoloured one sided coin: I like that metaphor. I'll treasure it. Thank you, JDJD! -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (And of course it's Wikipedia's policy to pass judgments on sites. That's why we have the principle of reliable sourcing in the first place; given that "reliability" is objective, we very much have to make such judgments. It's how the community determines the shape of the encyclopedia: how much do we want Wikipedia's readers to trust Wikipedia?) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is your claim the material is untrue or that the source is distasteful? The consensus appears to be that the material is factual (JDJD, futurebird, deeceevoice, pharos, me, etc) so I don't think we need any further discussion on "reliability". Futurebird's point that the quote about the timing of Kwanzaa could have been said in jest is interesting, but it sounds like JDJD and Pharos have actually read the original interview and it didn't imply Karenga was joking. Justforasecond (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So put it up, and someone will put a {{citation needed}} on it, and the requested citation will need to be a reliable source, so find a reliable source first and save the trouble. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, great, jpgordon is now on board. Justforasecond (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that material without reliable sourcing gets removed rather quickly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you are on board with it then I think we should be OK. No one is claiming it isn't accurate at this point. Justforasecond (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable and necessary for the article is another issue; your own agenda (cast as many aspersions as possible on Kwanzaa) was made clear long ago, and everything you do here is going to be looked at by many eyes as an continuation of your established habit of inserting your POV into articles. You were blocked last year for doing exactly that on this article, and unblocked when you agreed to stay away from this article; there's no reason to expect you've changed your tune. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

References/Pop Culture

Should it be referenced that even Rugrats tried to make the show popular by doing a special about it?

69.202.101.139 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Point of View

Hello to all. I read the article on Kwanzaa just because I was curious about the holiday, and found my way here due to an apparent dispute about the neutrality of the article. I hope you don't mind reading another opinion on the subject.

I found the article to be informative and generally well-supported with references. There were very few statements which I thought could be read as inflammatory. If I were to criticize anything at all, it would be this statement: "Kwanzaa is a celebration that has its roots in the black nationalist movement of the 1960s".

It seems that Ron Karenga was involved in the black nationalist movement during the same period of time in which Kwanzaa was established, but without a citation to prove the link, is the timing by itself enough to establish a link between the origins of the holiday and the black nationalist movement? Rturnham (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

° Excellent! Complete agreement. Those readers and users that want to debate and argue racism and sideline topics should take it to an appropriate venue (one with spell and grammatical checkers please). Focus here should be on facts pertaining to subject matter. Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia and they have done an outstanding job. I offer due diligence to all users... be mindful to avoid creating a forum for debate. Review the guidelines and focus on the end result, accurate information and the creation of a free, central collection of infinite knowledge. Our children will be the benefactors... Littlepicki (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't you add a section about the possibility of racism?

If there is a serious possiblity that Kwanzaa is racist, shouldn't there be a section of the article alerting people to this? The lack of any mention of this what so ever, along with no mention of the Background of it's creator (united slaves), or the problems that it has caused ( Symbionese Liberation Army) is unbelievable. I'm not saying that it should be discused in the article, just that these things should at least be mentioned, to alert readers that they may want to follow links to articles about these topics, as to be more informed. I feel that without this, this article is drastically incomplete, and we are doing a disservice to our users. -kcirtap713 1/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcirtap713 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, let's see. "United Slaves" was a pejorative term coined by the Black Panthers to refer to the rival US Organization. Kwanzaa (and Karenga) in no way "caused" the SLA; the SLA instead hijacked the "principles", redefining them for their own benefit. What else? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Any treatment of the supposed racism of Kwanzaa first needs to be established as notable and second needs to be supported with reliable sources. You ask "if there is a serious possibility that Kwanzaa is racist", yet you have not in any way documented this statement. Is this a serious possibility? Has this aspect been discussed in mainstream news or academic sources? The only sources I have seen seriously arguing that Kwanzaa is somehow racist have been far-right political commentators and white supremacists. Natalie (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. IMO, the fact that this ridiculous stuff keeps coming up over a simple holiday that acknowledges the African roots of black folks here in the U.S. says volumes about the chasm between blacks and whites in this country -- and about whites who raise such issues. You can bet these same white people don't freak/trip over 365, 24-7 organizations celebrating the European heritage of non-blacks in this country, like the Sons of Italy. Just insane. deeceevoice (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Questioning the origins or meaning of something isn't intended to be offensive. i've not heard anybody object to acknowledging the African roots of African-Americans. The question is, how accurate is Kwanzaa itself in this purpose? A unique aspect of Kwanzaa is that it was contrived at one time, essentially by one person, for a specific purpose. This is not how most celebrations/holidays come into being. Usually, holidays are the product of long-term cultural development, evolving over many generations, in much the same way as stories and tales, or language itself. Because Kwanzaa originated 'all at once', it brings up questions as to its authenticity. i don't believe it's warranted to call Kwanzaa's origins racist, however, its relevance to African-Americans historically and culturally is indeed questionable. Specifically, the use of Swahili in naming important symbols seems to reveal particular ignorance of African-American heritage, as Swahili is an East African tongue, and by far the vast majority of people brought from Africa to America as slaves were from West Africa. i understand the placement of Kwanzaa in December as an alternative to Christmas (which, notably, is itself celebrated on what is believed to be an arbitrary date), but as Kwanzaa is ostensibly a harvest festival, the date makes no sense. Following that, also, is that the symbolic significance of corn seems misplaced as part of a celebration of African roots, as corn is indigenous to the Americas, exclusively. As far as the significance of these things to the article itself, i propose either a 'controversy' section, or a 'relevance to African-Americans' section.J. Brandon Loberg (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"acknowledges the African roots of black folks here in the U.S." That's part of the dishonest farce of kwanzaa. It uses east African references, when American slaves were almost exclusively from west Africa. The use of corn is nonsense since corn isn't indigenous to Africa. The only one who celebrates a harvest in December is a racist making a political statement.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, of course it should be in here. it's notable, that's why people keep coming here and asking about it. reliable sources too, just because someone is conservative doesn't mean they aren't reliable. Justforasecond (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

JFAS, I've moved your comment to the appropriate place, as inserting between my comment and deeceevoice's changed the meaning of some of her statements. In the future, please do not insert your comments in the middle of an active discussion.

To respond to your assertions that this viewpoint is notable, where are your sources? Just because some people come to a page and ask about something, that does not mean the thing is notable. Your statement is absurd on its face. Check out the edit history of an article on a controversial person, like George W. Bush - you'll find plenty of "Hey, I heard that George W. Bush eats puppies for breakfast, and this is what gives him his magic powers. You guys really need to address the puppy-eating in this article."

You have yet to provide the multiple, non-trivial, reliable secondary sources arguing that Kwanzaa is somehow racist, or even discussing the fact that some people believe Kwanzaa is racist, that the notability policy and the NPOV policy demand. To quote from the section "Undue weight" in the NPOV policy: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." No one has demonstrated that the claimed racism of Kwanzaa is significant, nor have they found this viewpoint published in any reliable source.

To your second point, no one is claiming that conservatives are somehow unreliable, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The unreliable sources, however, are extremists publishing in fringe publications, whatever their political opinions may be. Can you find an op-ed, analysis, or article supporting your claim that has actually be published in a newspaper of record, in a mainstream magazine, or in an academic journal? Extremist websites and hate groups don't meet the reliable sources standards, and the lack of coverage of the supposed racism of Kwanzaa would suggest that this is an fringe viewpoint not commonly held, not significant, and not deserving coverage in this article. There is quite a bit of legitimate criticism of Kwanzaa that I'm sure you could find with no trouble if you cared to do the research. But I'm afraid it won't be a controversial as "ZOMG Kwanzaa is racist !!!!1" Natalie (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Natalie, please do not move my comments. Doing so changes their meaning. my apologies, there was a good reason to move (deeceevoice's "ditto")

As for "notability", it is not a valid reason to keep content out of an article: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". In any case, your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. I went to the George Bush page and there was no onesaying that George Bush eats puppies for breakfast, unlike this talk page and its archives, where every two weeks or so people come here asking for more well-documented information about Kwanzaa.

As far as Kwanzaa being "racist", I am not all that interested in a value judgment on Kwanzaa and more on including the facts about Kwanzaa. They are easy enough to find online, but, unlike nearly every other topic, wikipedia is a lousy resource when it comes to Kwanzaa. That said, there is at least one, well known article published in a well-known magazine that says Kwanzaa is racist ("Racist holiday from hell"). It's probably mentioned on this very talk page! Some of the things Karenga has said lead me to believe he is almost definitely a racist. I don't know if you've followed the history of this article but it has been one where cited information is stripped out by edit-warriors who fallaciously claim it is vandalism.

As to the "undue weight" policy, look around on wikipedia and see what you can find for examples of weight. The Dick Cheny page has a section about DUIs he got about 45 years ago. If misdemeanor traffic violations are not undue weight, then widely reported information about Kwanzaa is not either. Justforasecond (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved your comment because you inserted between my comment and deeceevoice's comment. As deeceevoice began her comment with "ditto", which generally means "I agree with the previous statement", inserting your comment before hers makes it seem as though she is agreeing with you. How did my moving your comment change its meaning in any way?

The introduction to the notability policy does not discuss limiting content. However, the neutral point of view policy and the editing guideline on Wikipedia:Fringe theories support my statements about reliable sources. The fact that anonymous internet users have showed up on this page asking about something does not prove that this theory is in any way worthy of inclusion.

When using my George Bush example, I assumed you were familiar with hyperbole and hypothetical examples. You are absolutely correct that no one, at least to my knowledge, has actually showed up on George W. Bush and claimed that he eats puppies. However, I was using this as a colorful, obviously false, example of the types of rumors that often show up on Wikipedia articles and in talk pages, especially about controversial topics. If you would like examples of actual ridiculous and obviously false rumors that show up on Wikipedia articles, I can provide you with diffs.

The reliability of Front Page Magazine has already been discussed above, so I won't rehash that except to say that it is not a reliable source. Reliable sources can include major news outlets (the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, etc), mainstream magazines (Time, Newsweek, etc.) or academic journals. You have provided two sources: the existence of users on this page asking about this specific incident, and an article in a fringe publication that does not mean RS. Reliable sources about Kwanzaa supposed racism are not easy to find online - a google search of Kwanzaa + racism returns only fringe publications and blogs, none of which are considered reliable.

Finally, the existence of sections creating undue weight in other articles has absolutely no relevance to the content of this article. All articles have to follow the same guidelines, and the fact that another article may violate a policy doesn't change that policy. As to the two sentences discussing Cheney's DUI, he himself decided to discuss the incident in an interview in 2001. If he thinks its still relevant, I can see why the editors of Dick Cheney also thought it was relevant. Vanity Fair is also worlds more acceptable as a source than Front Page Magazine or the Free Republic. Natalie (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Natalie, thanks for the comment. Sorry I misundersood why you moved my earlier comment.

As you may be unaware, "fringe theories" usually refers to conjecture that disagrees widely from a consensus in a field of study and which almost no one believes in, or which has been disproved in experiments. Saying that kwanzaa is racist is not really a fringe theory, and in any case, I am not all that interested in making this point other than possibly in passing. I just want the undisputed facts in the article, and, no one is disputing any of the points I believe belong here. Frontpage magazine is plenty reliable; and perhaps more importantly, no one denies that any of the information therein is accurate. We have a consensus above about this very topic. You also might be interested to look into the other sources used for the article. You will find they are not all top tier mainstream publications. But, I don't expect you to start a thread here complaining about reliable sources for any of them.

Finally, prominent wikipedia articles are the best indication of the community's feeling about what sort of content belongs, including what is given appropriate weight. I'm using Dick Cheny as a simple example which is entirely relevant. George W. Bush also has a section on his DUI. It is a pretty good indication that DUIs decades ago are considered reasonable content. That being the case, I think torture should also be fair to include. Justforasecond (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that just because something is characterized as "fringe", that does not necessarily make it non-notable. It just impacts the amount of space in the article should be devoted to the subject. So far as I can tell, FrontPage Magazine, which seems to be the source, is a notable magazine, so it's statement might be notable just on that basis. Regarding whether it is "racist", I think that a single sentence or clause added to the criticism section to that effect in this article probably wouldn't be out of place. Any more than that, however, could be seriously questioned in this article, as long as full length of the article remains roughly as it is. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

@JFAS: I would say that the theory that Kwanzaa is racist fits neatly into your definition of fringe theories - is disagrees widely from consensus in various fields of study (including common definitions of "racism" or "racist" and almost no one believes in it. So, by your own standard for fringe theories, this is not especially worthy of inclusion. What specific points do you believe belong here, that you say no one is disputing?

If you look at the top of this thread, you will see that I did not start this conversation either. I merely responded to someone's assertion that there was a "serious possibility" that this holiday was somehow racist and pointing that person to the policies they would have to follow if they wanted to include this information.

@John Carter: You're absolutely right that fringe theories are not necessarily automatically not worthy of inclusion. But this particular theory only appears in the blogosphere and in one article in this magazine, which seems like borderline notability at best. FrontPage Magazine it is most certainly a notable publication, but being a notable publication does not mean that something counts a reliable source. Similarly, I wouldn't use Stormfront.org or the Free Republic as a reliable source, although both are certainly notable enough to have Wikipedia articles.

(General comment) Some fringe theories get quite a bit of attention in the "mainstream" press and/or academia, and this is a good evaluation of notability. The fact that a couple of arch-conservative bloggers and a larger contingent of white supremacists has seized upon "racism" as a description of this holiday means nothing. Many theories just as obscure, and perhaps even less obscure, are still not included in Wikipedia articles because they have received no attention (good or bad) from mainstream commentators. If this theory has received any attention from mainstream publications - whether that attention is good, bad, neutral, or perhaps even hostile - that would indicate that it is notable.

One possibility, that hasn't been much explored on the discussion page, is that there may be academic works discussing this issue. That is, I wouldn't be surprised to find that some academic has analyzed the criticisms of Kwanzaa that rest on the grounds of it being racist and published a paper on the subject. That sort of attention to this theory would, I think, justify its inclusion into this article, as it would show that the theory has gotten some attention outside of the walled-garden of conservative extremists. Natalie (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Again Natalie, I am not all that interested in a value judgment of Kwanzaa. I am more interested in the facts, things like the kwanzaa-symbionese liberation army connection, the background of kwanzaa's founder, and famous statements about kwanzaa, such as Karenga saying he put it near Xmas because that's when the bloods would be out partyin.. But, if you are looking for a widely published, mainstream commentator that has called kwanzaa racist Ann Coulter is one. She is a conservative but is published in many papers and has had several bestsellers. Coulter says "Kwanzaa itself is a lunatic blend of schmaltzy '60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism."

Furthermore, frontpage is a reliable source. No one here, including you, claims the material about kwanzaa on frontpage is incorrect, and some editors have gone through the trouble of confirming material on microfiche. If you accept the information is true, then arguing that that information should be kept out because the source is unreliable is bizarre. Justforasecond (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

if you are looking for a widely published, mainstream commentator that has called kwanzaa racist Ann Coulter is one. Really? I had the impression that Coulter was just another far-right blowhard entertainer, willing and able to spout just about anything to make a headline. ¶ frontpage is a reliable source. What on earth makes you think this? -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

She is absolutely a conservative blowhard, but that isn't a litmus test wikipedia applies. Karenga is a marxist torturer, and even he gets quoted here. If you don't think frontpage is reliable, can you explain why? I've confirmed many of the statements I've found there that sounded outlandish initially. Justforasecond (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that FrontPage running one op-ed claiming that Kwanzaa is racist doesn't demonstrate that this is a serious belief held by any significant (which can be small) part of the population, which is the standard that the fringe theories guideline uses. All this proves is that one op-ed writer at FrontPage thinks that Kwanzaa is racist, and that Ann Coulter does. That's why I suggested looking for either academic articles (in journals), or more mainstream coverage, like Time or Newsweek. The coverage of this issue by a more mainstream source would demonstrate that this fringe theory is popular enough, essentially, to be included in the article. I may have some time next week to search some journal indices. Natalie (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty funny Natalie. Academic journals don't make value judgements like "... is a racist". Notable academic journals usually have genuine scholarship which is incomprehensible to all but experts, and as such, useless to wikipedia editorial staff. I don't think any of the references for this article are from academic journals so its curious that this is the standard you think we should hold. Anyway, just to show it isn't just Ann Coulter, here's another: "Kwanzaa, Racist Holiday from Hell". This one written by Peterson.

Personally I'd rather stick to factual material than value judgments.

Justforasecond (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

JFAS, perhaps I should be more clear: some academics may have studied the belief that Kwanzaa is racist and published a paper on the belief, which you are claiming is held by some. Does that make more sense?

If you find academic journals incomprehensible, I'm sorry, but I've read quite a few papers in academic journals and they vary considerably in difficulty level. I might agree with you if we were looking for information on string theory or theoretical mathematics, but I find the social sciences quite easy to understand. Natalie (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

I've removed this - article does not appear especially biased by usual Wikipedia standards (which are not, admittedly, very high, but anyway) - but the real problem here is the quality of the sourcing, which appears rather poor. Surely sources of a little more academic nature could be directly cited? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With the criticism section removed, I'd say the article is POV. Kwanzaa has some controversy around it but this section has nonetheless been removed from the article. This should raise POV-suspicions. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed? Really?

In the final section: Kwanzaa has been criticized because it is not a traditional holiday of African people, and because of its recent provenance, having been invented in 1966. This is all true and its creation is mentioned earlier in the article. African people don't celebrate Kwanzaa despite what people seem to assume (at least when they're talking to me about my students) and it's common knowledge amongst people who have a clue that Karenga started the holiday. --Allie (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want some attribution for the criticism. It has never been a secret the Kwanzaa was created in the US or that it is only "African inspired" rather than "authentically African." Hence, I think it would be best to tie this criticism to some who said it. Becuse as far as I can tell these are facts about the holiday, not "criticism." It's like saying "Santa Clase has been criticized for not being real and for being invented in the 30s or 20s or whenever it was they started with that." By who? That's the question. No one is disputing the facts of the holiday's origin.futurebird (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is general practice to cite the "some have said" or "some have criticized" statements, or include quotations from significant people elaborating on that criticism. Otherwise, it's very easy to add any criticism, no matter how minor, into an article. There is more explanation about this issue at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Natalie (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

copy edit

The last sentence in the Popularity section ("The holiday greeting...") would be better placed in the Observance section. The end of the first paragraph (following "...to all celebrants.") would be an appropriate place for the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.26.93 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, so I've made the edit. Natalie (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of name

The artcle claims "The name Kwanzaa derives from the Swahili phrase "matunda ya kwanza", meaning "first fruits"." This is not possible; firstly it does not work linguistically. There is no way to get the "aa" at the end from this origin. If any it looks like an attempt to combine "kwanza" (first) and "zaa" (to procreate, bear offspring or fruit). Besides in the Swahili area there are no seasons like in the Northern Hemisphere thus there are noo "first fruits", e.g. bananas come all the year round.

This etymology should not be stated as a fact; besides also the rest of Swahili vocbulary looks pretty akward; it looks like someone who tried to catch some words from a language course picked some phrases at random and made others up (the greeting exchanges are quite hilarious). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipala (talk • contribs) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Find some reliable sources that make your points and they might be appropriate to put into the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • My "reliable sources" are my Swahili-English and English-Swahili dictionaries (besides my knowledge of the language); but anyway it is not appropriate to turn the burden of proof around. Is there any hint about Swahili-talk of first fruit? I never met it and google does not show me anything which is not either referring to kwanzaa or some Bible verses. If this has never been substantiated by Karenga then it should be noted. --Kipala (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Looking up stuff in dictionaries, and your knowledge of the language, is what we call original research on Wikipedia, so we can't use it. Sorry about that. There are plenty of sources that say the basis of the terms are derived from Swahili; if you've got some reliable sources that say the derivations are hooey (which wouldn't surprise me in the least), they'd be appropriate here, though we'd need to be careful about giving undue weight to things like that. Our personal opinions, however, are not useful on Wikipedia; rather the opposite -- we're required to cast them aside. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

OK, the usual season's vandalism is starting up. Time to semi-protect? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, clearly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section Gone

was this article vandalized and the criticism section removed? It was discussed and decided to keep it albeit short. where is it? please put it back, its not fair i cant edit this article. Cray1000 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have put it back, as per consensus above. DiverScout (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly more support for retention than removal. DiverScout (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Cray1000, it seems that it is not permitted to comment on the controversy about this event, unlike almost every other event mentioned on Wikipedia. I'm not especially interested in the event, or the article, which I simply stumbled upon due to hearing the name mentioned on a TV show - so I leave it to someone else to challenge the POV nature of the current article. DiverScout (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the criticism section keeps being removed. I have tagged the article as being unbalanced until this is resolvedEzzi386 (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Would like to see...

Would be interested in seeing links to any articles regarding reactions to Kwanzaa in Africa. i.e. Have any large groups of people living in Africa adopted Kwanzaa celebrations? Have any influential Africans commented on Kwanzaa? ThinksSheKnowsEverything (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Would also like to see links to commentary (if any can be found) on whether or not non-black people actually celebrate Kwanzaa. Karenga apparently has states that non-black people can celebrate Kwanzaa, too, but I have never seen or heard of that actually happening, except in cases where, for instance, white people were invited to celebrate with black friends, or white schoolchildren who are not black participate in an educational event related to Kwanzaa. Have any non-black people actually begun to celebrate this holiday? ThinksSheKnowsEverything (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Google is your friend. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just dropped by this page. It seems to me to be not only lacking information about the purpose of Kwanzaa (as intended by its founder), but to be almost propagandistic in its praise and approval of the holiday. Someone should at least mention that it arose from a political agenda. Just because public education opts to be so P.C. as not to question anything regarding race, doesn't mean Wikipedia should deny an exploration of the celebration. .... added in this edit by Commando303

Perhaps you would like to draft your suggested addition here. (Reliable sources, please.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"...celebrated throughout the world..."??

Not in the UK... – ukexpat (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Citation requested. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not reliable, but I was born, grew up and lived there for 35 years and I never heard of it until I moved to the US. Looking for sources. – ukexpat (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see sources showing it celebrated anywhere else. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not celebrated in South America either. --Korosuke (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's celebrated in Jamaica by graduates from Howard University only Bushcutter (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Kwanzaa is a week-long holiday celebrated throughout the world[citation needed],

Kwanzaa is a week-long holiday celebrated throughout the world[citation needed], citation: Norway(i live there.. ) usa, au (mother) and UK.(sister).... Citation (IP address)

Perhaps you could express your point in a more coherent form.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Heck with it, I've removed the phrase (and of course the cit tag). There's only about a million sites on the internet that will explain that this is a holiday that relates only to the USA.

www.history.com/minisites/kwanzaa/

www.globalindex.com/kwanzaa/

www.harperchildrens.com/holiday/kwan.htm

Ordinary Person (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked back: the words "throughout the world" were added by an anonymous poster, from an IP address with only two contributions. Presum. vand. Ordinary Person (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being a little, um, presumptuous.

To say that something is done "throughout the world" is obviously ambiguous. In one sense, it merely says that there are people scattered around the world who do it. This seems plausible, if only because of the number of African [US] Americans who are dispersed across the world. The "presum. vand." may have meant this. (You could object that if this is what's meant, it's a trivial and uninteresting claim.) But yes, the wording seems to imply that it's commonly done throughout the world. This seems unlikely. Anyway, here's a claim, credible or otherwise, that it's done in Canada. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced Article

The criticism section of this article has been removed several times, despite there being no consensus on this removal, or a consensus leaning toward keeping it. I don't want to get into an editing war, so let's talk this outEzzi386 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. Clearly, as several people have been removing your attempted additions, consensus is against inclusion. Please note also that Criticism sections are discouraged; if at all possible criticism should be incorporated into the body of the article rather than isolated in a separate sections. This is not always possible; but should be done when possible. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, I made no attempted additions, the criticism section was on the page the first time I looked at it; I just added 3 words. Second: you removed the unbalanced tag because you (the person whom keeps removing the criticism) thinks it's balanced?? Really? This seems neutral to you? Look, I really don't care all that much Kwanzaa, and hence, I'm just gonna move on from this entire page. But judging by your actions and other discussions on your talk page, I suspect I am not the first person to have a negative editing experience with you. Have a good one. Ezzi386 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the section; you are in error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding: The tag was removed in the very next edit after you adding it, also not by me[1]. However, I concur that the article is not unbalanced and the tag is unwarranted. If you think it is unbalanced, please explain why here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ezzi386, this is totally unbalanced. Article contains almost no criticism of this widely-criticized subject. Once upon a time this was a good place to come for info about Kwanzaa, its now become a propogandist puff piece. Black nationalist, "jesus was psychotic", Maulana Ron Karenga, convicted torturer, would be proud. 69.110.10.73 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems the unbalanced tag has been removed again. So far we have Ezzi386, DiverScout, 69.110.10.73, Cray1000 and myself in support of the lack of balance of this article. I would call that a consensus. I'll be putting the criticism section back in. Quite98 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Kwanzaa: The Making of a Black Nationalist Tradition, 1966--1990.

Pleck, Elizabeth | Journal of American Ethnic History | 2001-07 | 20:4 | 3(26) | ISSN: 02785927 | BLACK nationalism; KWANZAA; UNITED States; UNITED States. this article could be used to balance the article and has plenty of information on the history and reasons for Kwanzaa. I can't give you a pdf of the article because of my institution's agreement. I will look for some more.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Mainstreaming Kwanzaa

Wilde, Anna Day | Public Interest | 1995-04 | 119 | 68(12) | ISSN: 00333557 | KWANZAA; UNITED States.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Justforasecond

I had the fuzzy memory that Justforasecond was article banned from Kwanzaa, is my memory playing tricks on me? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here he was unblocked based on a promise that he would stay away. I am observing the situation and have reminded him of his promise. Nandesuka (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was almost right. I thought there was something there. Thanks much, Nandesuka. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, what do editors here (other than killer, jpgordon, and nandesuka) think on this page about my editing here? Justforasecond (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a clear lack of balance in this article as it stands today. If you can improve it with information from reliable sources, I'd say that's a good thing regardless of an informal agreement made two and a half years ago. Quite98 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Quite98 Justforasecond (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)