Wikipedia

Talk:Rastafari/Archive 8

< Talk:Rastafari
Latest comment: 5 months ago by 86.188.243.18 in topic Motion to restore the Order of Primus St. Croix
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Review of recent article overhaul by a Rastafarian reader

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Recently the Wikipedia administration had Babylon agents overhaul the article using biased, Babylon sources of scholars, scribes and pharisees who take a hostile or condescending view of our religion. As a result, this article has become yet another hit piece written for us by our enemies, portraying us in a negative, condescending light. It uses outdated sources to portray the outdated theologies of black supremacism which most of us discarded decades ago in accordance with the central crucial teachings of our living God Haile Selassie I on race equality . We see and know well that Babylons response to any and all opposition to it in this current time is merely to silence and stifle any dissenting voices , because it is important to Babylon to save itself embarrassment of thinking anyone actually exists who disagrees with it. What needs to be overhauled is the administration of this disgraced English language project. You will learn exactly when it is too late in death that it was only His Majesty Haile Selassie I Who holds ALL the cards all along this whole time, so delete all dissent like your communist mentality calls for at the peril of your souls for all is recorded into Selassie I matrix. 172.58.232.213 (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

From the perspective of a Rasta believer, it is perhaps going to be inevitable that this article will appear as a work of Babylon because Wikipedia insists on the use of WP:Reliable Sources, namely the publications of academics and the mainstream media. For Wikipedia's purposes, the primary sources produced by Rastas themselves will rarely be regarded as sufficiently reliable (unless of course a Rasta is also an academic scholar of Rastafari and writes about the movement as a scholar-practitioner), particularly as they may not fairly represent the diverse beliefs of different Mansions. For what its worth, scholars such as Peter B. Clarke and Ennis B. Edmonds are—while not being Rastas themselves—clearly sympathetic to the black positive message that the religion promotes, so I think it a little misleading to claim that the article relies upon "scholars, scribes and pharisees who take a hostile or condescending view of our religion". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, since all religions are made-up rubbish, I can see how a rational encyclopedic treatment might seem hostile to believers. 86.191.58.247 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP obsessed with homosexuality appears to be a sock, probably Til Eulenspiegel

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel/Archive. See range contributions I note that at least one of those IPs was blocked several times as a Til sock. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The editor has used five different IP addresses over the past few days (172.58.232.213; 172.56.35.34; 172.58.200.100; 172.56.34.137; 172.58.216.147), all of which are based in the Northeastern part of the United States. From what I gather, these IPs are a little scattered (Jersey City; Brooklyn; Philadelphia; Brookyln again, and then Woonsocket, Rhode Island), although that could be an error. Alternately, if this is correct it could be that the editor in question is moving around; or that we are actually dealing with WP:Meat puppetry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that Til Eulenspiegel is likely the sock behind these, given their longstanding history of sock puppetry and professed Rasta beliefs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The edit summary used in this and similar edits is disruptive, and ought to be removed from the revision history unless there is some special reason not to do so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rastafari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard term for adherents to the religion

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a standard term set for adherents to the religion. Basically, should it be uniformly Rastafari or is it acceptable to replace it on occasion with Rastafarian? I'd rather establish that here in talk than get into a revert war. I'd prefer us to stick to the term adherents call themselves, but if there's variation there too I'm perfectly open to being corrected. That said, I'm not receptive to the argument we should change an accurate word up on the basis of variety of word use alone. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: - Many practitioners refer to themselves as "Rastas", which I think is probably the best option when referring to them in this article. Practitioners often refer to themselves as "Rastafari" too, but given that that is also the name of the religion itself, I think that it would cause many readers confusion where we to use this term in both senses. Many Rastas dislike the term "Rastafarianism" and some academics caution against using it, but I'm not so sure about "Rastafarians" itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd be fine with using Rastas then. My main concern is that, wherever possible, we represent their faith as-practiced, and that includes calling them what they prefer to be called. I suspected Rastafarian wouldn't fit that definition, thus my objection. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago62 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rastafari/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 01:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


I have read the article (and made a few minor edits, which I don't think disqualify me from doing a review). The article is generally very good, though there are a few passages where one can quibble with the writing, and a slightly different wording might be better.

The six good article criteria are,

1. That the article be well-written. As noted, I think the article meets this standard. I will note the minor respects in which it could be improved.

2. That the article be "Verifiable with no original research". On a first look through the article, this criterion also appears to be met. I have to note that I am not an expert on the subject, but looking at the sources, they do appear to be respectable academic sources (though this isn't absolutely essential, you could give me your own brief assessment of them). I suggest that the "further reading" section is perhaps too long and contains too many items. Most readers are not likely to want a list as long as this.

I can definitely see you point about being rid of the Further Reading section (as it is rather long), although I'm hoping to actually bring in some more material from it into the article over the next year or so, before taking the article to FAC. If you think it should really be taken out at this stage, I can do so, although I'd lean towards retaining it, at least for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I was suggesting that it might be shortened somewhat, not totally removed. It certainly seems too long to me, but I leave it entirely up to you to decide what to do with it; I insist on nothing. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

3. That the article be "Broad in its coverage", which means that a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic, and b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. The first part of that is not a problem; the article clearly does address the main aspects of the topic. However, the second part, b, is the main problem I see with passing the article. Rastafari is a very long article, and it is difficult not to suspect that it does at least sometimes go into unnecessary detail, necessitating at least some cutting back. From the work I have done on trying to write good articles, I completely understand how, when you get really interested in and passionate about working on a subject, you add more and more detail, because the subject is so absorbing. Sometimes one goes into overdrive and just adds too much. I will re-read the article and consider how it could be cut back; I definitely suggest that you also re-read the article, and also suggest some ways that it could be cut back.

You're right. There are definitely many parts of the article where it could be cut back. I'm giving it a go now but do let me know if there are any particular parts where you think I could go in with some more pruning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll get back to you soon on this. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

4. That the article be neutral. Yes, the article is neutral. Carefully, painstakingly, and obviously so.

Thank you for saying so! It's something that I try hard to ensure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

5. That the article "does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". Well, there have been some recent reverts, but these appear to be nothing more than reversions of run of the mill vandalism.

6. That the article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". Yeah, the images look fine. I'll check the boring stuff like "media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content" soon.

Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll add some other points that come to mind.

The lead states "Central is a monotheistic belief in a single God—referred to as Jah—who partially resides within each individual and who incarnated to Earth as Jesus Christ". This sounds slightly awkward; is "incarnated to Earth" really the best possible language? Some alternative phrasing should be possible; can you suggest one?

  • I've split the sentence in two and expanded the latter part somewhat: "Central is a monotheistic belief in a single God—referred to as Jah—who partially resides within each individual. Rastafari also maintains that Jah incarnated to Earth in human form as Jesus Christ." I've left "incarnated" in place, because I think that it probably is the best (and most accurate) term, but I'm certainly open to suggestions about alternatives. "Avatar" smacks too much of Hindu conceptions of theology in this context and just saying "born" on Earth I think misses the whole thrust of the idea being put forward, that of a god becoming human. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem isn't the term "incarnated" by itself, rather "incarnated to" as a phrase. For all I know, it may be the exact term preferred in scholarly sources, and I don't insist it be changed. Yet it reads somewhat oddly, and I've never encountered the specific expression "incarnated to" anywhere except in the lead of the Rastafari article. Instead of "incarnated to Earth in human form as Jesus Christ", I might have expected to find something like "appeared on Earth in human form as Jesus Christ". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Though the article probably needs to be cut back somewhat, sometimes there are places where more a little more information would help. For instance, the article states, "After Black Power declined following the deaths of Malcolm X, Michael X, and George Jackson, Rastafari filled the vacuum it left for many black youth". I realize that Malcolm X, Michael X, and George Jackson are all relatively well-known figures, but many readers nevertheless will not know who they are (and recall that Michael X and George Jackson are both less well-known than Malcolm X). Just a few added details, a word or two to give readers more context and describe who these people are, would help here.

I think you could profitably remove the link to Pastafarianism from the "See also" section. It is a redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monster, an article about a joke-religion/religion parody with no substantive connection to Rastafari. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Part of the "Definition section reads, "Scholars of religion have categorised Rastafari as a new religious movement. The scholar of religion Leonard E. Barrett referred to it as a sect, and the anthropologist Sheila Kitzinger and the sociologist Ernest Cashmore as a cult, while scholar of religion Ennis B. Edmonds argued that it could best be understood as a revitalization movement." A little too much repetition of "scholar of religion" there and throughout that section; it gets grating. I would remove "scholar of religion" before the names Leonard E. Barrett, Ennis B. Edmonds, Maboula Soumahoro, Darren J. N. Middleton, and Midas H. Chawane, since context of the section as a whole makes it clear that's what they are; I'd also remove "scholar" from before the name "Katrin Hansing", for essentially the same reason.

  • I've taken these out, although it may be that in future (particularly at FAC), others ask me to add them back in as it leaves the professional credentials of the named individuals absent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Put them back in if you like. I'm not trying to be dictatorial. It's just that in my view, the "Definition" section makes it clear that the people whose views are cited are scholars of religion by beginning with the words "Scholars of religion", making the repetition of "scholar of religion" every few sentences or so repetitive, grating, and unnecessary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
      • They can stay out for now, I think. I agree with you that that paragraph flows better without the constant repetition of "scholar of religion". It's just that at previous FACs I have found some editors being pretty insistent that we have the 'job descriptions' in there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Part of the "Definition" section reads, "In various countries, it has received legal recognition as a religion. Others have emphasised its political stance, particularly in support of African nationalism and Pan-Africanism, and thus seen it as a political movement, or as a "politico-religious" movement." That is a little unfortunate, since while the "others" presumably refers to other scholars of religion, the placement of the sentence beginning "Others" following that beginning "In various countries" might make it sound as though the "others" referred to other countries. I don't think readers would likely be confused, but some re-ordering or rewriting of text would make that passage read better. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is mostly clear and informative, but there are still cases one can point to where the meaning of a given statement isn't apparent. For example, in a statement like, "Due to the view that God exists within everyone, Rastas believe that all members of the religion are intrinsically connected, and thereby regard statements like "you and I" as being insignificant", it is not apparent what "statements like 'you and I'" means or what it means to deem them "insignificant". In the few cases like this where the meaning of something isn't apparent it should be removed if it cannot be explained in terms readers can find comprehensible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Freeknowledgecreator! I appreciate you taking the time to read this article and offer your thoughts - I know that it's a fairly long read, but I hope that you found it interesting. I certainly think that it's a fascinating topic. Let me know if there were any other aspects of the article that you would like me to tackle. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Don't worry, I'm not the kind of reviewer who will make you wait for weeks for a response. I'll have more to say soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The lead states, " Scholars of religion and related fields have classified it as both a new religious movement and a social movement. " Entering into nit-picking territory, is that an ideal phrasing? I may be mistaken (don't hesitate to tell me if I am), but the grammar of the sentence seems to suggest that there are two different things ("scholars of religion" and "related fields") that have both classified Rastafarianism as "both a new religious movement and a social movement". A wording that was only slightly different would avoid this. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states, "Rastas also typically express hostile attitudes to homosexuality, regarding homosexuals as evil and unnatural; this attitude derives from references to same-sex sexual activity in the Bible." The "hostile attitudes to homosexuality" part of that is linked to Homophobia. You may or may not agree, but the link could be viewed as tendentious. I am aware that "homophobia" is often used loosely as a term for any kind of disapproval of homosexuality. However, the term can also be taken, correctly or not, as referring to a specific kind of mental disorder, and its use in an article like this could be seen as equating religiously-based opposition to homosexuality with a mental disorder. I'll leave it to you to decide whether to keep the link or not, but I would probably remove it myself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The importance of some of the material on homosexuality might be challenged on WP:PROPORTION grounds. For example, "In the 1960s, the scholar Sheila Kitzinger suggested that this horror of homosexuality "may be an indication of a heterosexuality which is not markedly pronounced" among Jamaican practitioners", and, "The scholar of religion Fortune Sibanda suggested that there were likely homosexual Rastas who deliberately concealed their sexual orientation because of these attitudes". The former is one scholar's opinion and it may look gratuitous to include it. The importance of the latter is open to question since it is a near certainty that some members of conservative religious groups will not be openly homosexual because of attitudes to homosexuality within those groups. For example, it is almost certainly true that some Catholics conceal their sexual orientation because of Catholic teachings, but this isn't noted in the article Catholic Church, presumably because it is obvious enough not to need stating, and trivial in that sense, however important it may be in the lives of the individuals concerned. Likewise the Islam article does not note that some homosexual Muslims conceal their sexual orientation because of Islamic teachings, although that's almost certainly true as well. I don't insist that either of those sentences be removed, but consider it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you're right here, there is too much of a focus on this particular issue. I've cut the Kitzinger quote as that is totally superfluous, really. I agree to some extent on the Sibanda point, but I also think that it works quite well in place. Thus I've only trimmed back the latter sentence so that it states: "Homosexual Rastas probably conceal their sexual orientation because of these attitudes". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
"Nyabinghi Rastas refuse to make any compromise with Babylon, and are often critical of reggae musicians like Bob Marley whom they regard as having collaborated with the commercial music industry." Presumably a comma should follow "Marley"?
I'm not going to endlessly bog you down with minor points. The review may take a few more days. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
More soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've checked the images used in the article. There does not appear to be any copyright problem with any of them (the image captioned "A Rasta man with tuff dreads" states "The factual accuracy of this description or the file name is disputed"; this does not seem to be a copyright problem, however). Congratulations on producing such a well-illustrated article. More soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've looked through your changes to the article since the review began; they almost all look good, except in one case, you've changed a sentence to read, "Highlighting its political stance, particularly in support of African nationalism and Pan-Africanism, some have seen it as a political movement, or as a "politico-religious" movement". In this case, I would prefer "Emphasising" (which is closer to what was there before) rather than "Highlighting", as the meaning of that term would be slightly more difficult for readers to recognize. I will re-read the article as a whole soon and make some more comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
One passage reads, "Many Rastas themselves, however, do not regard it as a religion, instead referring to it as a "way of life", or as a "spirituality". Midas H. Chawane nevertheless noted that it met many of the proposed definitions of religion". Should "proposed definitions of religion" read instead as "proposed definitions of a religion"? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The article seems to contain some unnecessary repetition. For instance, in the "Definitions" section, it states, "It is thus difficult to make broad generalisations about the movement without obscuring the complexities within it", while in a following section, "Beliefs", it states, "the sociologist of religion Peter B. Clarke stated that it was "extremely difficult to generalise" about Rastas and their beliefs". It wouldn't seem that the article needs both of those statements, which cover the same ground. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states, "According to the anthropologist Stephen D. Glazier, Rasta approaches to the Bible result in the religion being "highly Protestant in outlook"". This is potentially confusing. Rastafari isn't actually a branch of Protestantism. I would assume that what that statement means is that its outlook in some way resembles that of Protestantism, but that is an assumption I'm left having to make, because it's not 100% clear. So the statement could be reworded and clarified. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've changed this sentence to the following: "According to the anthropologist Stephen D. Glazier, Rasta approaches to the Bible result in the religion adopting an "outlook" that is very similar to forms of Protestantism."
The article states, "This attitude may be more pervasive among Rastas living in Africa itself, who are more familiar with the realities of the continent's political problems." This could be written a little more simply, for example as "This attitude may be more pervasive among Rastas living in Africa itself, who are more familiar with the continent's political problems". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states, "In Jamaica, Rastas do not typically vote"; syntactically, "In Jamaica, Rastas typically do not vote" would seem better. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states, "Some Rastas express the view that cannabis smoke serves as an incense that counteracts perceived immoral practices, such as same-sex sexual relations, in society". The "such as same-sex sexual relations" part is once again unnecessary detail on homosexuality. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A fair point. I think that I selected that example because it was that which was explicitly given in the cited source, but it isn't intrinsic to the point being made, so it can go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
More unnecessary repetition. In the "Music" section, the article states, "Its popularity led to the emergence of "pseudo-Rastafarians", individuals who adopted the cultural trappings of Rastafari—such as dreadlocks and cannabis use—without sharing the religion's beliefs. Many Rastas grew critical of reggae, believing that it had commercialised their religion", and under "International spread and decline: 1970–present", it states, "Reggae's popularity led to a growth in "pseudo-Rastafarians", individuals who listened to reggae and wore Rasta clothing but did not share its belief system. Many Rastas were angered by this, believing it commercialised their religion". This kind of repetition really needs to be removed, especially since the article is so long even without it. I would think the second of the two quoted passages could be cut. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've removed it, although taken it from the "Music" section rather than the "History" section as I actually think it has greater pertinence in the latter given that the whole of the "pseudo-Rasta" thing is just as much about wearing dreadlocks and smoking marijuana as it is about listening to reggae. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Despite the article's great length, I'm not seeing a fundamental objection to passing it as a good article. But let's get these remaining issues dealt with first. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Passed article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Principal article template

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The {{Rastafari}} template is the principal template for the topic, but was removed from the top of the page after being placed there. It hasn't been on the page for awhile, although it creates a concise and cohesive map to the Wikipedia collection on the topic. As templates don't show up on mobile a non-flag first image (the flag image duplicates the template top-image) should be used while placing the template under it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this (the GAN) is the best place to talk about the use of templates. Let's move it to the main Talk Page, if that's okay with you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Rasta City" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rasta City. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 03:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Rastafari

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article have a propagande. where did you get this information from? As a Rastafarian I feel touched by reading these things. Many fake information about ideology and origins of rastafari moviment. Rasta Gio (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This complaint lacks substance and detail. El_C 14:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The headquarters image has been kept[1], Midnightblueowl, if you want to use it again. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Gelato

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do you want Fidel Castro to come to the United States and ban cannabis in ALL 50 STATES? Of course, not. The gelato (cannabis) article was just approved but it is ONLY A STUB. Please make it good article or Fidel may come knocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No Citation

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am new to Wikipedia. Per the policies that I studied of Wikipedia, everything needs to be cited from the secondary source. However when i went through this article (first three paragraph's to be specific), I do not see anything cited. Would like to understand more on this front.--Stanford113 (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, Stanford113. It is important that all information in the main body of an article is cited to WP:Reliable Sources, however the opening section (usually called a "lead" or "lede") only serves to summarise what the rest of the article says. For that reason, we don't actually need citations in the lede so long as the information it summarises is appropriately cited at a later juncture of the article. You will sometimes find Wikipedia articles where citations do appear in the lede, but (at least in my experience) it's not widely considered best practice by Wikipedia editors. You can find out more about the purpose of the lede at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you--Stanford113 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion to restore the image of the official cross of the Order of Primus St. Croix

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Due to the fact that the Order of Primus St. Croix had to take the time to painstakingly research and add content to the other competing mansions in the subsection "Rastafari Mansions" just to be able to negotiate the possibility of minuscule recognition, we kindly request permission to restore the image of our cross.--Czar Petar

pls review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Advocacy--Moxy-  09:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Advocacy: "Expertise alone is not advocacy" [...] "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." We assume that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is being cited because we're incorrectly being accused of "promoting" rather than "informing." We made sure that the content was completely neutral and even added content to the competing mansions in the same subsection after someone cited "undue length." We don't get paid to make Wikipedia edits, in fact no one is paid by the Order at all and everything we do is voluntary. Our personal YouTube channels and social media accounts are even demonetized intentionally so as to avoid financial motivations and we don't have 501c3 tax exempt status because we are obscure Rastafarians who don't even accept donations. We understand why editors with a potential conflict of interest are "strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" however we're confident that through reasonable discourse on this talk page we'll be able to reach a consensus.Czar Petar I (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

COI Disclosure

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I write to disclose a potential conflict of interest regarding the subsection "Rastafari Mansions" per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard's recommendations from 18 April 2021. Although the source that I cited in my edit of the subsection dated August 30, 2019 written by me called Newly Discovered Documents Reveal, Ras Tafari Crowned “Lord of Lords” in 1917 states at the bottom of the "About the Author" description: "Afenegus Petar Vukotic is the Vice-Chairman of the Judicial Administration Commission and President of the Supreme Imperial Court of the Order of Primus St. Croix at the Church of Haile Selassie the First Through the Body of Jesus Christ in St. Lucia, British Virgin Islands" this is no longer the case as our hierarchy and understanding has changed (this includes the Minister of Justice Omar Tobijah's position as well). Currently the "Court" is in limbo and may never recover due to the fact that many important documents are yet to be found concerning Imperial Ethiopian case law (see also The Mysterious Case of the Ethiopian Archives). To be brief, without certain records we're unable to judge our communities correctly and therefore our Court has permanently closed until further notice. As of right now I'm a member of the community but I'm not considered to hold a specific office therefore I'm an expert on the topic yet I'm not an "employee" currently. I suggest that the editors republish my edit about the Order of Primus St. Croix in order to document the mansion's achievements thus far; I can also answer anyone's questions regarding the Order's beliefs if someone thinks that a revision may be necessary or if the wording needs to be changed etc. The new book that I was supposed to finish this year is also uncertain due to the absence of specific records from our library, please let me know if I can be of any assistance thanks for all you do.Czar Petar I (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should the Article Include a Paragraph on the Order of Primus Saint Croix?

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus against using the linked images in the article. Editors raise concerns about lack of reliable sources and WP:UNDUE effect of highlighting an organization that's not mentioned in the article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)



Main question: Should this paragraph (here) about the Order of Primus Saint Croix, and an image of the Order's logo, be added to the "Mansions of Rastafari" sub-section of this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Votes

  • No: This is a Featured Article, so we must be very cautious about whether additions represent an actual improvement; this paragraph and its accompanying picture do not improve the article. The "Mansions of Rastafari" sub-section lists the major Rastafari groups (called "Mansions") as are discussed in WP:Reliable Sources, principally the writings of academic specialists on Rastafari. None of these academic specialists write about the Order of Primus Saint Croix. (Google Scholar does not bring up any sources that discuss the group itself). Simply put, the Order does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:Notability. Perhaps it will in future, but at present it remains a small, fairly new, and uninfluential sect within the broader Rastafari movement, one that has not attracted attention from the writers of secondary or tertiary sources. The proposed paragraph has been written by a member of the Order, thus representing WP:Advocacy. It relies heavily on WP:Primary sources written and published by the Order itself. Including such a lengthy paragraph about this group, one that is longer than those of any other Rasta group, is wholly WP:Undue given that the group is ignored by secondary/tertiary literature. If we were to include a paragraph on this group, we would have to include paragraphs on every Rasta group out there—there are probably hundreds—and the article already slightly exceeds the recommended length for articles at Wikipedia. In all, this addition is unnecessary, contrary to Wikipedia's policies on what to include, and would undermine the article's FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No: per all of above comment. Carlstak (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes: I appreciate that, as an apparent Grand Master Editor for Wikipedia, you may feel that controversial encyclopedic information can potentially undermine Featured Article status, but that is not sufficient reason for Wikipedia to remove particular content. Although Google Scholar doesn’t mention our Order verbatim it does reference Primus St. Croix and Omar Tobijah, two prominent members, one being eponymous (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/233191332.pdf). WP:Notability’s “Why we have these requirements” section states: “We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with WP:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.” Although the consensus here may very well be that we’re a small, un-influential and insignificant sect WP:Notability advises: “Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.” As regards to the repeated and unfounded claims of advocacy, WP:Gaming the system’s “Various levels of intent” prudently cautions, “However clear such an intent might subjectively seem, one should not cast aspersions about the mentalities or motivations of other editors.” WP:What Wikipedia is not’s “Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion” section suggests: “Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.” This is important because not one objection has yet to be made concerning the tone or actual substance of my NPOV edit; therefore the content is presumably not an issue. WP:Identifying and using primary sources section entitled, “Identifying and using primary sources” and subsection “"Primary" does not mean "bad"” says, “"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.” Not to mention that, “sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions” (Wikipedia:Five pillars, “Wikipedia has no firm rules” section). Returning our focus to the beginning of this thread: I sincerely tried to address the initial concern, which was the WP:Undue length of the Order of Primus St. Croix’s paragraph in relation to the other mansions in the subsection, by attempting a new edit per WP:BRD's Cycle guidelines; adding credible information to the other mansions in order to offset the size ratio of the Order’s paragraph in relation to other mansions per WP:Undue weight guidelines, that edit can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rastafari&diff=1018458335&oldid=1018288655. Not only was my proposal completely and instantaneously rejected but I was also then immediately falsely accused of edit warring which forced me to open a DRN in the very first round of discussion where I eventually had to, reluctantly, cite WP:AGF due to the severity and degree of the false accusations towards me. WP:Gaming the system describes “Gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior” as, “Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction.” Also, “The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view” (WP:Consensus’s “Through discussion” section). If the only real issue here is that the “article already slightly exceeds the recommended length for articles at Wikipedia” and that my attempted new edit is “unwieldy” (Midniteblueowl’s description during DRN) then surely we can come to a consensus soon as I’m willing to compromise. I’ve already demonstrated my willingness when I attempted a new edit; I even deliberately filed two separate motions, one for the image and one for the text so that they can be discussed independently because the text of my edit holds priority over the image and is certainly negotiable separately. The idea that if we allow a single paragraph for the Order in this one subsection it will somehow undoubtedly create precedent for hundreds of other Rasta groups to add content indiscriminately on the page is being exaggerated because precedent isn’t a likely outcome here at all as WP:Precedent “is not intended to be binding policy.” Although I do sympathize with maintaining a perfect FA rating that’s actually not the purpose of Wikipedia, the focus should be on “our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia” per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Therefore I would like to see some suggestions of compromise from the other side rather than every naysayer taking an all-or-nothing position. In closing, just as I have been mischaracterized as edit warring and practicing advocacy so too has my edit been mischaracterized as WP:Undue. “In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view” (WP:Consensus, “Consensus-building” section, “In talk pages” subsection). Czar Petar I (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The source you cite from Google Scholar (which mentions two members of the Order in passing, and does not mention the Order itself at all) is only an essay written by an undergraduate student as part of their coursework. I'm surprised it has even been uploaded online; it is not an example of a peer-reviewed academic publication. If academic specialists begin discussing the Order as a significant and noteworthy part of the Rastafari movement (which I am perfectly willing to accept may happen in future) then I would be wholly supportive of including some reference to it in this Wikipedia article, albeit to an extent proportionate to the group's importance and influence in the movement (i.e. in a much shorter, more concise form that the recently proposed paragraph). However, while academic and specialist literature on the religion fails to make reference to the Order, I see no compelling reason for Wikipedia to do so. It's our job to follow the example of the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
      • If you prefer to wait until a handful of niche scholars' literature catches up to the facts on the ground then I have no further objections. However, if we're relying on specific scholars to dictate the content on the page then I expect no objections whatsoever when the secondary literature acknowledges the prominence, achievements and influence of the Order and I expand upon my original paragraph. Though Wikipedia articles may be dictated by mainstream scholars the evolution of the Rastafari movement isn't. His Majesty has exclusively endowed the Order of Primus St. Croix with the authority to reform the Rastafari faith and the reformation taking place right now is historic; expect a motion for our own subsection in the near future (Matthew 3:2). Czar Petar I (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No I am not seeing any wp:reliable sources that would support such an inclusion. - 109.249.185.75 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No: As per Midnightblueowl. Sea Ane (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No: Midnightblueowl has made a compelling argument, and I do not believe the proposed language will enhance the article. Pistongrinder (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No - The Order is not discussed in depth in reliable, independent, secondary sources, so any mention of it would be WP:UNDUE. The major groups are already mentioned and I find Midnightblueowl's argument compelling and policy-based. Also, even a member of said order should be able to see that the wall of text proposed in this version is too much for an article about Rastafari in general, right? RetiredDuke (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I found none of the arguments to be "compelling" at all yet I conceded my position based on the guidelines cited concerning independent secondary sources; not a problem. I don't expect Wikipedia editors to understand the global developments of the reformation of the Rastafari movement in real-time which is why I initially stressed the importance of making exceptions. The Order of Primus St. Croix is responsible for reforming the entire movement which is why the "wall of text proposed" is far too short especially for an article about Rastafari in general. The revelations published by the Order and the achievements attained have brought the old era to an end therefore this Wikipedia article will remain outdated indefinitely (but will have FA status, congrats). Czar Petar I (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No, due to lack of WP:Reliable Sources to support its inclusion. Idealigic (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nah rastafari

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jah 161.29.151.83 (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Motion to restore the Order of Primus St. Croix

Latest comment: 5 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion

07:39, 17 April 2021‎ Midnightblueowl →‎Mansions of Rastafari: reverting the recent mass addition of text about one (fairly obscure) Rasta group; this material relies heavily on Primary Sources and is certainly WP:Undue in its length. This should not be restored as per WP:BRD; Talk Page discussion would be the next step.

After reviewing the reasons cited by Midnightblueowl for the reversion of the subsection "Mansions of Rastafari" we find that the classification "undue weight" is unfounded and therefore the decision to revert unsubstantiated. Bearing in mind that the Order of Primus St. Croix is one of the youngest established Rastafari mansions today and that it has only existed for less than twenty-one years the material surprisingly doesn't rely heavily on primary sources. At the time of this writing, out of a total of twenty-five sources cited only eleven are primary; seven of those eleven are from one book (just different page numbers) which means there's only five primary sources used out of a total of nineteen distinct references. Moreover the moderator stated that it's "certainly undue in its length" yet the section is only fourteen sentences long. WP:Undue ("Due and undue weight") is a subsection of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints."

When determining proper weight we must consider the fact that the mansions of Nyabinghi, Bobo Ashanti and Twelve Tribes of Israel are mentioned on the page a total of eleven times outside of the "Rastafari Mansions" subsection. Entire subsections of the page devoted to superficial characteristics such as "Appearance", "Diet," "Language" and even large subsections detailing narcotics usage are published with impunity yet one sentence about the Order's denouncement of cannabis isn't allowed, that's undue weight. Furthermore the only reason why the Order of Primus St. Croix seems to have a disproportionate amount of content compared to the other mansions in the subsection is because the other mansions practice poor scholarship and haven't taken the time to update their Wikipedia entries in the subsection which could easily be enhanced by them at any point in time. Here we take the opportunity to say that it's not our fault that competing mansions neglect their own Wikipedia content. We're essentially being penalized and our achievements and contributions to the movement have been censored because of the other organizations' indifference which is why the consequences of the reversion are clearly inequitable and hardly "neutral" at all. The marginalization of our Order is nothing new, only this time the ostracism has been performed under the guise of Wikipedia protocol technicalities (see also 1 Corinthians 4:9-14). Nevertheless in an effort to avoid WP:BRD "deadlock" we propose the following resolution: the subsection "Mansions of Rastafari" has been expanded upon so that the prominent common Rastafarian mansions have a significantly larger body of content than the Order of Primus St. Croix which has been included at the end of the subsection so that it can no longer be mistakenly perceived as "undue in its length," completed per Wikipedia:BRD's "attempt a new edit" guidelines.Czar Petar I (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that, as an apparent member of the Order of Primus St. Croix, you may feel that it is unfair that other denominations (Mansions) of Rastafari are discussed in the article but that your own is not, but that is not sufficient reason for Wikipedia to give this particular group coverage. We give coverage to the major Mansions that exist, and we determine what is major by looking at which ones are covered in the WP:Reliable Sources - namely academic studies of the Rastafari movement. At present, those sources do not appear to discuss the Order of Primus St. Croix. If, in the years to come, they do begin to discuss the Order of Primus St. Croix, then we could certainly add some information about it to the article.
Bear in mind that this is a WP:Featured Article - it's rated among our top quality articles - and that is why we are going to be very cautious about how it is changed. As per WP:BRD, you were bold in your edits, but because these edits were controversial, they were reverted. It is then incumbent on you not to WP:Edit War to restore the material you want into the article, but rather to try and gain consensus for your additions at the Talk Page. You should absolutely not be edit warring to get your desired additions into this Featured Article, as you have already done once. Make your case as to why and how this article should be changed and if you can convince other editors, then we may be able to reach consensus. If needs be, we can take the situation to some form of WP:Dispute resolution, such as WP:RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems big addition is in wrong article.--Moxy-  08:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
We've never stated that we feel that it's "unfair" that other mansions of Rastafari are discussed in the article and that our own isn't, nor have we attempted to argue that something like that is sufficient reason for Wikipedia to approve the information about the Order. Midnightblueowl stated, "You should absolutely not be edit warring to get your desired additions into this Featured Article, as you have already done once." Please explain how we've already done this once before. The last sentence of our initial motion clearly states that we've "attempted a new edit" as according to Wikipedia:BRD's Cycle guidelines which state: "To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." We've merely "attempted a new edit" which addressed your initial concerns about "undue length," we haven't started any "edit war" and would appreciate it if we weren't falsely accused of any negative behavior from here on out.
Further, after reviewing WP:Reliable Sources cited by Midnightblueowl it states, "If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the official seal on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source." [...] "More importantly, many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material. A textbook might include commentary on the proclamation (which is secondary material) as well as the full text of the proclamation (which is primary material)." The book "Seventy Years Accomplished" includes copies of the letters written by Kenyatta Felix which he left behind for investigators at the crime scenes, however it also contains extensive commentary on those letters and many other Rastafari doctrines (355 pages worth to be exact) therefore we've come to the conclusion that the book we initially considered to be primary is actually a secondary source, it was cited seven times in our edit and mentioned in the original motion. We understand that our Order is "controversial" however that alone isn't sufficient reason for Wikipedia to remove content. We request that this case be escalated through WP:RfC and we've already taken the initiative to file a dispute and notify you here.Czar Petar I (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Restoring controversial text after it has been removed (as you did here) constitutes edit warring. You should not be trying to make substantial changes to an FA-rated article after concerns have been raised about the content of your additions. That's not how Wikipedia works. But as the issue is now being dealt with over at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, let's see how that develops rather than continuing to debate the issue here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
For reference Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard stated: Closing because- there has been insufficient discussion at this time. Only a handful of messages have been posted on the talk page- and DRN asks that editors give a significant good faith effort before coming here. Also- I would like to remind all involved editors that 1- Accusing someone of an edit war when they are not in one is not WP:AGF- and 2- filing editor is reminded to read WP:BRD, you made a bold change- it has been reverted- now you must discuss the proposed change on the article talk page. Other editors will work with you to find an acceptable compromise. Finally- please disclose a WP:COI and read the policy on conflicts of interest- it is recommended that on pages you have a connection to- you suggest changes on the talk page and refrain from actually editing them yourself. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Czar Petar I (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There are other forms of dispute resolution available. One is Wikipedia:Third opinion, but as we have already had the de facto third opinion of User:Moxy, that may be a little superfluous. The other option is Wikipedia:Request for Comment. That seems like a good avenue to take if you still want to try and attract support for your proposed additions. I don't mind setting that up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Czar Petar I (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Bro 86.188.243.18 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rastafari/Archive_8&oldid=1251537174"