Talk:Rastafari/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

JAH in Psalm 68:4

In the section "Jah and Jesus of Nazareth" it says, "The term "Jah" is a shortened version of "Jehovah", the name of God in English translations of the Old Testament."

In Psalm 68:4 KJV the term "JAH" is given as the actual name of the God: "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."

This piece of scripture is worth noting and of significant importance for three reasons: 1.) It is the only time God is referred to as "JAH" in the KJV Bible, 2.) the Psalms of David are a scriptural pillar of Rastafari beliefs, 3.) the scripture instructs the reader to 'sing praises to JAH' (music praising JAH is a central theme of Rastafari culture). 2601:804:380:1220:E963:EF73:B7DC:C6C (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Abrahamic faith in lead?

Is there any reason it's not mentioned prominently in the article that it's an Abrahamic faith? Based on my like 10 minutes total of reading (take me with a grain of salt) isn't it pretty roundly considered to be so by religious scholars? toobigtokale (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

We would need WP:Reliable Sources to make such a claim in the article. We could probably find an RS somewhere that describes it as such, but it's certainly not a common claim in the specialist literature on Rastafari, which is extensively cited in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through Google Scholar and found some recent sources that would support the claim that Rastafari is Abrahamic. I have both introduced those into the main body of the article and amended the opening sentence so that it includes the identification of Rastafari as an Abrahamic tradition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you give sources that Rastafari is an Abrahamic religion?

Thanks. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The citations are cited in the article, should you wish to look them up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the Abrahamic faith claim is likely to be further challenged in the future; possibly merits refs in the lead next to that claim per WP:LEAD. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide sources that say it is not an abrahamic religion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Um? Because I’ve never seen a Rastafarian person call themselves a part of Abrahamic religions. They don’t consider themselves that at all. And don’t be rude to me? SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And plus there wasn’t any citations next to the Abrahamic religion claim so that’s why I asked. I’m not scrolling all the way down to see some obscure claim, I’d like it to be provided in the first sentence. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not being rude. But this is how Wikipedia works. We use reliable (secondary) sources. Which is why I asked you to please show me reliable sources that categorize Rastafarianism as being non-Abrahamic. Your personal interaction with members of this faith is irrelevant to article content as it would constitute original research which we do not use. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The only reason I asked for a source because it doesn’t provide a source next to the Abrahamic religion claim, which is why I questioned it. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And plus there wasn’t any citations next to the Abrahamic religion claim so that’s why I asked. I’m not scrolling all the way down to see some obscure claim, I’d like it to be provided in the first sentence. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There are actually two citations for the statement that the religion is Abrahamic. They are in the body because we generally exclude over-citation from the lede. This is a WP:MOS thing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay I’ll check them out. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Specifically please see MOS:LEAD As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. (emphasis mine). Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Although restating to be clear, per MOS:LEADCITE, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. This claim has been challenged, so we should now put the refs next to the claim in the lead. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you're misinterpreting that. The verifiability has not been challenged nor is it likely to be. The sources in the body are, in fact, high quality. If you insist on putting the citations in the lede I won't personally stand in your way. But others might. And If you try to delete from the lede as uncited I will revert. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the other user, I'm actually toobigtokale from above, who suggested adding the Abrahamic faith info in the first place. I don't think I'm misinterpreting that quote; think of the purpose behind the policy. We're not just catering to people who'd bother to dig through the body to find the refs, we're catering to the 99% of people who leave articles within 1 minute because they basically only read the lead. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said, be my guest to move those two refs up into the lede if you wish. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Please watch the tone; it's bordered on snippy and condescending several times in this thread. Please be more mindful of this in future. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my point though. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree that the verifiability will never be challenged. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay the give me Rastafari dance in one love@ 41.114.147.245 (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Edits reverted without explanation

I'm adding this here for transparency, so others can join the discussion, but I also posted a version on Midnightblueowl's page to alert them.

I noticed that three of my recent edits to the Rastafari article were reverted without any explanation in the edit summaries.

I'll explain my reasoning for those edits (mostly wording tweaks), so others can chime in.

Firstly, "Rastafarian" (and "Rastafarianism") is largely an exonym of which Rastafari disapprove. They tend to reject the idea that it's an "-ism", and the article reflects that. Importantly, most articles highlight when something is an exonym and when the subjects at hand may disagree with its usage, so this should too, without a strong policy-based reason to do otherwise. Note that the title itself is Rastafari because we've had this debate before.

The other edits were mainly for brevity and WP:NPOV. E.g., the following wording is both overly long and minimises the beliefs of the group:

"Central to the religion is a monotheistic belief in a single God, referred to as Jah, who is deemed to partially reside within each individual."

This is over-hedging, since we've already said these are their beliefs, so it's clear we aren't saying their beliefs are true in Wikivoice. We don't need to hold their views in metaphorical scare quotes, since it implies disdain.

Tweaking that to the following is more direct, and less likely to be read as pushing an antagonistic POV:

"Central to the religion is a monotheistic belief in a single God, referred to as Jah, who partially resides within each individual."

(Nor are we overly complicating the language to explain their beliefs here.)

Similarly "a specific interpretation of the Bible" is weak and vague. Specific how? I would argue it also appears to fail WP:NPOV, because it again minimises those views and holds them in an overly sceptical light. It's simply more accurate to move the text about Rastafari being Afrocentric up here to say "an Afrocentric interpretation of the Bible", not least because the interpretation they rely on descends from the Ethiopian movement in early Revivalist Black churches in the Americas, and the Back to Africa movement in general. The context is well explained over at Black nationalism#Rastafari (and there are sections above it about Bedwardism, which was an important influence on Rastafari, and the Back to Africa movement).

Finally, "Some practitioners extend these views into black supremacism" is WP:UNDUE in the lede because the term "black supremacy" appears only twice in the article—once in the title of an early "proto-Rastafari" book, and once in a section that says:

"There is no uniform Rasta view on race.[104] Black supremacy was a theme early in the movement, with the belief in the existence of a distinctly black African race that is superior to other racial groups. While some still hold this belief, non-black Rastas are now widely accepted in the movement.[108]"

"Widely accepted" versus "early in the movement"/"some still hold this belief" suggests "black supremacy" is the minority view (and an outdated one at that), and therefore this is likely undue given the prominence it has. At best, one could say "Early Rastafari was criticized as black supremacist, though practitioners of all races are accepted by most Mansions of Rastafari today."

I'd be keen to hear others' views and see if we can get consensus here for some of these tweaks—or can at least iterate upon them. Lewisguile (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl Pinging you here too. Lewisguile (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. First, let me apologise for reverting the edits without an explanation, something I don't normally do. I was editing very late at night and trying to get things done quickly. I should have left an explanation. Sorry on that front, Lewisguile.

My concerns were generally about what I saw as a level of WP:POV-pushing in the lead of a Featured Article. The removal of any reference to black supremacism, coupled with certain wording changes, looked like an attempt to alter the text to promote Rastafari rather than offer a general overview. POV-pushing edits are something we already get a lot of at this page (and at other religion pages, of course). If that was not your intention, then I apologise for misunderstanding you. As you have shown clear good-will in bringing the issue to the Talk Page, I am sure that we can discuss the issue further and perhaps re-introduce some of your edits back into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate your explanation. And, of course, I recognise that we do get those edits on pages such as this. I've seen them myself.

Do you have any specific feedback on the suggestions I've made here? I've explained why I think they're policy based and why I think the existing lede is already POV-pushing, even if unintentionally.

Re: black supremacy in particular, the issue I see is that the lede should follow the article, in due proportion, and not include material that isn't in the body itself. Since it's only briefly mentioned in the article (once in the lede and once in the title of a book which is considered "proto-Rastafari", leaving only one other mention), it seems WP:UNDUE to leave it as it is.

As a comparison, the pages on Islam and Christianity don't mention religious extremism within those faiths in their ledes. It seems to me extremism is something in all religions, so it doesn't make sense that it has undue weight here. Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise (as I said in another reply) so I can't necessarily agree or disagree with the reverts. Thank you for clarifying the reason for them with an explanation here though. CharlieEdited (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise. All I did on the article was add a hatnote, so I don't feel like I can fully participate in this discussion. I do think explanations should be provided for reverts though unless it's vandalism and/or disruptive editing. CharlieEdited (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, why am I being pinged here? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @CharlieEdited.

You were in the recent edit history, @RedactedHumanoid. My apologies if you're unacquainted with the subject. You might just have been doing some admin/copy edits. Lewisguile (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this topic in the talk page, my edit was just a simple changing of a link target. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again. Thanks for clarifying. Lewisguile (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to respond to some of your points; my concern about changing "sometimes called Rastafarianism" to "sometimes called Rastafarianism by outsiders" is because we do have evidence, cited in the article, of certain Rastas using the term Rastafarianism themselves. It may be a term that many Rastas dislike, but some evidently use it, so we cannot simply state that it is a term used by outsiders alone. As for adding "The terms Rastafarian and Rastafarianism are often considered controversial among practitioners" to the end of the first paragraph, I just don't think it is necessary at that prominent juncture. We already go on to explain the situation in greater depth in the "Definition" section.

Some of the issues where you have trimmed out wording do cause issues. Changing "Rastas emphasise what they regard as living "naturally"," to "Rastas emphasise living "naturally",", for example, implies that Rasta lifestyles are indeed natural. This is obviously what many Rastas believe, but it is far from being universally-accepted objective truth. We need to be careful with the wording so as not to come across as promoting Rastafari to our readers. It is our job to just give a clear, succinct, and accurate overview of the movement, and I think the existing status quo wording largely does that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

1. I do think clarifying the use of Rastafari versus Rastafarianism thing is important in the lede, as we would do for other exonyms. Similarly, most exonyms enjoy some usage within-group, but that isn't the same as saying they're the word that the majority of the group uses. If we can't explain it, we should probably drop Rastafarianism from the lede (or add a note).

2. Rastas emphasise living "naturally" is already using quotes (and directly attributes this quote to Rastas), indicating this is an opinion. Wikivoice would be Rastas live naturally. What's currently there is bending over backwards to disassociate from the ideas in a way that seems like POV-pushing.

The issue is with the repeated hedging of the view itself in a tone that isn't consistent with similar subjects. Lewisguile (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Having checked Ngrams, Rastafari does seem to be more common than both Rastafarian and Rastafarianism, as well: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Rastafari%2CRastafarian%2CRastafarianism&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

The Encyclopaedia Britannica leaves Rastafarianism out of its intro altogether, so that may be the solution? https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rastafari They refer to the practitioners mostly as Rastas, but I can see Rastafarian is used in at least one section, so I'd settle for leaving Rastafarian in if we removed the -ism (which appears to be the main thing practitioners themselves object to). Note that EB was updated last month, so has the benefit of being pretty recent, too. Lewisguile (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I would certainly lean towards removing Rastafarianism from the lead rather than having some unwieldy explanation at such an early juncture. However, I would like to see what other editors thought about such a move. Are there any other editors here who have an opinion on this issue? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm keen to hear from others too. There's WP:NORUSH, so happy to wait on this. Thanks for your speedy replies and engagement, at any rate. Lewisguile (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

On Rastas emphasize what they call living "naturally", I can see some alternatives here (hopefully one of these strikes the right balance for you):

1. Rastas believe that adhering to ital dietary requirements, wearing their hair in dreadlocks, and following patriarchal gender roles allow them to live "naturally".
2. Rastas believe they should live "naturally", adhering to ital dietary requirements, wearing their hair in dreadlocks, and following patriarchal gender roles.
3. Rastas emphasise living "naturally" by adhering to ital dietary requirements, wearing their hair in dreadlocks, and following patriarchal gender roles.

Or, going a bit further and attempting to address multiple points, we could perhaps reword that second paragraph altogether, borrowing a little from the lede of Livity:

Rastafari beliefs are based on an Afrocentric interpretation of the Bible. Central to the religion is a monotheistic belief in a single God, referred to as Jah, who resides within each individual. Rastas accord key importance to Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia; some Rastas regard him as the Second Coming of Jesus and Jah incarnate, while others see him as a prophet or a symbol of the divinity in humankind. Rastafari believe the African diaspora is oppressed within Western society ("Babylon"), and may call for this diaspora's resettlement in Africa, which they consider the Promised Land ("Zion"). Rastas also believe in practicing "natural" living — a concept called "livity" — which is enhanced by prayer, meditation, sacramental cannabis use, an Ital diet, and the expression of universal compassion called "One Love". Livity is often practiced at communal events called groundings, which feature music, chanting, discussions ("reasonings"), and cannabis smoking. Rastafari seeking a natural lifestyle may also grow their hair in dreadlocks and follow patriarchal gender roles.

For simplicity, I think Rastas emphasize living "naturally" is still my preferred wording, but there are plenty of options here if you/others prefer something more robust. That last version also includes slightly more information than the previous version.

Finally, I still feel very strongly that the black supremacy stuff is WP:UNDUE in the lede (though of course it should remain in the article body), and would compare it to the lack of mention of Islamism in the lede for Islam or the lack of mention of Christian white supremacists in the lede for Christianity. (WP:CSB gives an overview of some of the ways we can unintentionally make text biased, but I think it boils down to being more cautious about some groups than others, even though multiple groups have a "chosen people" narrative.) Especially because WP:LEDE says, "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section" (emphasis mine). However, if others don't agree, then the following (tweaked from upthread) could be appended to the end of the third paragraph if we remove the mention from the second paragraph:

"While early Rastafari has been criticized as promoting black supremacy, practitioners of all races are accepted by most Mansions of Rastafari today."

That reflects how the article body currently covers the subject, even if I think it gives it too much weight this early on, but it also gives the claim about as much space as the current context/counterargument. Because it's in the paragraph talking about how Rastas were marginalised/under colonial rule when the religion formed, I think that's less objectionable, too, since it's now in context. Lewisguile (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the options for wording about living "naturally", I think that your proposed option number 1 would work well. On the second point, that of black supremacism, I think that we may wish to consult the Reliable Sources in greater detail before making any changes. I believe that there has been a shift in the page's language on this since it became an FA and it may be that the current wording in the main body is inaccurate as a result. I'll look into it. I'd also be a little cautious about looking to the Islam and Christianity pages as exemplars for the Rastafari lead, as neither of those articles is in a particularly good state. Comparisons are perhaps best drawn with our other FA-rated religion articles, Heathenry (new religious movement) and Santería. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. Those articles are helpful. To update my analogy slightly, the Santeria article doesn't mention the adoption of some of its traditions by drugs trafficking gangs in America in the lede.

On the subject of the article body changing: this is partially due to changing language and framing among RSes as well. Older sources (pre-2000s) seem to mention it more than more recent ones. Multiple sources indicate a change in ideology after the 1970s, specifically including a movement away from early black supremacy, and even then, they tend to ground the ideology in terms of black resistance/nationalism/independence over black supremacy.

Most scholars seem to ground Rastafari in Ethiopianism, Afrocentrism and Pan-Africanism, with black supremacy a minor theme in comparison (though white supremacy is mentioned much more frequently). Where scholars do talk of black supremacy, they tend to be very precise in only talking about the black supremacy of specific individuals (rather than Rastafari more widely), most of whom were active in the 1920s and 1930s, or they clarify that there was a shift in focus around the 1970s. They rarely make it a major thrust of their analysis. And when they do mention black supremacy, most scholars seem to interpret it in terms of decolonisation and subversion of existing white supremacy (i.e., as a rhetorical/consciousness-raising tool for establishing pride and independence), which is an important caveat.

The lede should follow the body of the article, anyway, so if we're adjusting the body text, we should make sure it's well sourced and has consensus here first. Focusing on black supremacy just because it was there historically is far from ideal. Either way, this all suggests the text shouldn't be in the lede until it's agreed upon in the article body first.

Notably, the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't mention black supremacy at all in its article: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rastafari And its edit history here is striking (look at the major edit in 2004 versus the earlier version in 1996): https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rastafari/additional-info#history In places, our article has historically resembled the 1996 version more than the 2004 one, putting us significantly behind the curve.

Going to Google Scholar, I've gone several pages in and can't find much on the topic, either. It's clearly not a major subject for analysis. I suspect part of the issue is that this was a greater focus historically, largely because of the threat Rastafari posed to the colonial regimes and newly independent governments of the Caribbean at the time, where it provided an easy way to discredit the movement. Sources bear that out.

For instance, Dunkley notes that Howell "exacerbated" criticisms of Rastafari as being racist by "adopting the notion of 'Black Supremacy'", but adds that "As the Rastafari Movement developed, its system and structure became more accommodating to liberation through a spiritual code that opposed racial constrictions." This supports my suggested statement upthread, which draws a line between early and contemporary Rastafari thought.

Goldson describes Howell's black supremacy explicitly in terms of Ethiopianism rather than how we'd understand the term today: "[Maragh and Howell (2001)] preached that “Black Supremacy has taken white supremacy by King Alpha and Queen Omega the King of Kings” (p. 13). Black supremacy emerged as an alternative way of thinking about authority, knowledge, and value of the Afro-Jamaican population. [...] Howell and other Rastafari adherents rejected the [white supremacist] system altogether in favor of an Ethiopianist position." See how he immediately recentres the discussion on Ethiopianism and resistance to white supremacy?

In Price, the same thing happens: re: Pettersburgh and The Royal Parchment Scroll: "Pettersburgh used the notion of Black supremacy to augur the ascendancy of Ethiopia, Ethiopians, and the Black God". I.e., it was used as a tool to promote Ethiopianism.

And Taylor: "Howell’s prophetic interpretation of events was a classic example of millenarian inversion, writes Robert Hill, and the idea of black supremacy was a direct threat to the hegemony of the colonial regime. Howell’s doctrine was a symbolic inversion of the main social contradiction in Jamaica: the virtual caste distinction between the whites and blacks which was the essence of the colonial social structure. It was a call for black power. Howell was also responding to the dire economic scarcity felt by oppressed blacks in Jamaica." Note that, again, black supremacy is raised to immediately be contextualized in terms of what the scholar thinks is more important: challenging hegemony and colonialism, seeking black power, and addressing inequality. Taylor is also discussing the historic context here; this isn't an assessment of modern day Rastafari.

According to Niaah, Rastafari is described in terms of "Afro-optimism" and "African liberation" today. Black supremacy isn't mentioned once, but white supremacy is (several times). This is a very recent source (2020), showing how the discourse has shifted.

According to Dagnini: "The Rastafari religion takes its origins from Ethiopianism, an ancient ideological matrix, created from and around the name Ethiopia originating in black worlds." This account situates Rastafari in the context of Ethiopianism, Afrocentrism and Pan-Africanism. "Black supremacy" is only mentioned once—again, in citing the title of The Royal Parchment Scroll—but Howell specifically is described as believing in "black superiority" by contrast. So that again suggests this is an issue for a historical person, not the religion. The description Dagnini gives of Rastafari barely mentions black supremacy, and it certainly isn't a major point.

Charles also mentions Howell's black supremacy, but focuses primarily on his rejection of white supremacy and his nigrescence (i.e., his emerging black consciousness) and radical blackness (i.e., as a challenge to colonialism). This is from 2013.

Mills also puts more emphasis on Ethiopianism and Afrocentrism: "Like Marcus Garvey, many Afro-Jamaican Garveyites were also influenced by the historical and persistent Ethiopian movement in Jamaica. Garvey successfully intermingled notions of Ethiopianism (i.e., divine and noble heritage of Africa) with his ultimate goal of Pan-Africanism (i.e., the redemption of the African race). During Garvey’s absence from Jamaica between 1916 and 1927, this successful balance of Ethiopianism and Pan-Africanism was altered by discord among Afro-Jamaican Garveyites, who lacked clear direction and vied for leadership positions, and the introduction of two texts that radicalized notions of Ethiopianism." In this article, from 2022, the focus is again very much on how the movement was primarily about Ethiopianism and challenging colonialism.

See also: "Later Garveyites and sympathizers built upon Garvey’s Ethiopianism/Pan-Africanism model with the introduction of three new sacred texts—the Holy Piby, The Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy, and The Promised Key—that radicalized notions of Ethiopianism and Pan-Africanism."

And: "Barrett analyzes the history of the Rastafarian community as a continuation of the concept of Ethiopianism, which began in Jamaica as early as the eighteenth century." This essay does mention "early notions of black supremacist ideas [traced] to Garveyite and Anguillan preacher Robert Athlyi Rogers", as well as Garvey, but it's a minor factor in the overall thrust of the subject, which focuses on Ethiopianism first and Afrocentrism second. Of 86 mentions of "supremacy"/"supremacist" in the essay, 2 are about the Nation of Islam, 7 are the book title (The Royal Parchment Scroll), and only 3 deal with Rastafari black supremacy. Given that 74/86 mentions are actually about white supremacy, there's a stronger case for including that in the lede instead.

In Barnett, a slightly older essay from 2005, there's specific reference to black supremacy among the Boboshante at least as late as the 1990s: "Another belief firmly entrenched in the Boboshante house is that of Black Supremacy (Chevannes 1994). According to Chevannes ( 1994: 179) Prince Emmanuel in one of his discourses remarked that Black supremacy was a must, for this was one race that no other could produce." Again, it's one comment in the entire essay on the diversity of Rasta views. I think this further supports my suggested wording upthread, at the very least (or no mention in the lede at all, unless we're specifically going into detail about who started the movement and their views, and the different Mansions involved). Lewisguile (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl I've cleaned up my sources above to make this easier to read, as I realise it's become an essay. Hopefully I didn't put you off the discussion!

To summarise, I would prefer removing black supremacy from the lede as WP:UNDUE altogether (at least until we agree on how it should be broached in the article body), but would settle for a tweaked version of the text I suggested earlier:

"In reaction to white supremacy and colonialism, early Rastafari often espoused black supremacy as a form of resistance. Today, however, practitioners of all races are accepted by most Mansions of Rastafari."

This should replace "Most Rastafari are of black African descent, and some groups accept only black members" (as I'm not sure we have modern data to fully support this statement, given the various Mansions outside the Caribbean now) at the end, and we would also remove "Some practitioners extend these views into black supremacism" (which is vague anyway).

When we finally get to redrafting the bit about racism and black supremacy in the article body, we should definitely use updated RSes, since the sources quoted are all from 1983–6, and newer sources are now available that will likely better reflect contemporary practices (e.g., there are far more non-Black Rasta groups now). Lewisguile (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl Following up on the living "naturally" bit, I've checked MOS:QUOTEPOV and MOS:SCAREQUOTES, and these suggest we shouldn't use "naturally" in most cases. So if we're going with option #1 above, it should be tweaked slightly to:

"Rastas believe that adhering to ital dietary requirements, wearing their hair in dreadlocks, and following patriarchal gender roles allow them to live naturally."

That seems unobjectionable to me, since we've clearly specified that this is what Rastas believe. This fits the examples given by the MOS as well.

If you're happy with this, and if it's helpful, I can make a new thread for the final, agreed-upon wording for each issue raised? That way, it's all in one place and anyone else who's interested can find it and comment easily. I can link each suggestion to the part of the thread where it was decided, to keep it uncluttered for other editors. Lewisguile (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented the text we've agreed on already.

I also made a separate edit to add a simplified proposal re: black supremacy, so this can be further edited if needed without reversing everything. The new wording is now:

"Early Rastafari often espoused black supremacy as a form of opposition to white supremacy, but most Mansions accept practitioners of all races today."

It may be that we want to move this up to the end of the third paragraph instead? We might also want to say that these views gradually began to change around the 1970s, such as:

"Early Rastafari often espoused black supremacy as a form of opposition to white supremacy, but this stance became increasingly uncommon from the 1970s onwards. Most Mansions accept practitioners of all races today."

And to be absolutely clear we might want to add "leaders" in there, so there's a clear subject in the sentence (it's currently ambiguous if Rastafari refers to the faith or the practitioners themselves):

"Early Rastafari leaders often espoused black supremacy as a form of opposition to white supremacy, but this stance became increasingly uncommon from the 1970s onwards. Most Mansions accept practitioners of all races today."

I'm sure other tweaks could be made here, but this should get us started.

I left "a specific interpretation of the Bible" alone for now, but this should probably use a more specific term such as Afrocentric or Ethiopianist in place of specific, but it's not a hill I'd die on. What follows does expound on that a little; it just seems wasted verbiage as is, though. Lewisguile (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lewisguile and thanks for your messages. I'll try and tackle each issue in turn, perhaps in bullet points, which might keep things clearer (both for us and for any other readers):

• "Rastafari beliefs are based on a specific interpretation of the Bible." I'd be quite happy for "specific" to be removed here, as that word isn't really doing anything vital in the sentence. I'd probably avoid replacing it with anything, particularly "Ethiopianist", as that has very specific meanings that most readers will not be aware of. "Afrocentric" could work in its place, but I think that the status quo, which introduces that term in the later sentence, "Rastafari is Afrocentric and focuses attention on the African diaspora,[...]", makes more sense, as that sentence fits together nicely in a thematic way.
• I still think we need to mark out the word "naturally" in some way, as we are describing it here as a specific, recurring feature of the Rasta lexicon, rather than using the word in Wikivoice. As we employ quote-marks for other words in the lead, such as Babylon, Zion, and livity, I would suggest retaining them for "naturally", although perhaps there is a more appropriate way of highlighting the word. Italics, maybe? Alternatively, perhaps the article is best served by getting rid of the term "naturally" from the lead altogether, to avoid confusing the reader.
• I am not wedded to the retention of "black supremacy/black supremacist" in the lead, as it is not a vital point to understanding Rastafari by any means. However, I have concerns about the potential for the lead to whitewash areas of the religion that could be seen as controversial; at the FA-rated Heathenry article, for instance, we make reference to the issue of white supremacism, while at the FA-rated Santería and Palo (religion) articles we mention animal sacrifice.
• "Early Rastafari often espoused black supremacy as a form of opposition to white supremacy, but most Mansions accept practitioners of all races today." This addition is not bad, but I'm not sure the two halves of the sentence quite work together. Various Mansions only accept black members; that does not, in itself, make them black supremacist, however, which is what the current sentence implies. For that reason I think that the older, established wording worked better there, and I'd like to see that restored.
• In reference to the above two points, maybe we should think about including reference to black supremacy in the third paragraph of the lead, which focuses on the movement's history? For instance "By the 1950s, Rastafari's countercultural stance had brought[...]" could maybe be extended into "By the 1950s, Rastafari's countercultural and sometimes black supremacist stance had brought[...]"? That proposed wording is far from perfect, however, and I wonder if it makes that sentence too long and wordy.
• Regarding the coverage of black supremacy issues in the body (as opposed to the lead), we should probably create a new Talk Page section, just so things don't get too unwieldy here.
• Thanks for your addition of "In recent decades, the Bobo Ashanti have become more welcoming of outsiders, even those who are menstruating." I think we need to change "In recent decades", however, because of its innate subjectivity; maybe "By the opening decades of the twenty-first century"?

I hope that these comments make sense, Lewis. No rush in responding, of course. I am not able to edit Wikipedia on a daily basis anymore so there may be a delay in my own responses. Have a good week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive response. I appreciate not everyone can check back here every day. I'll try to keep it brief to respect your time.

• "Rastafari beliefs are based on an interpretation of the Bible." This might be missing something. I'm happy to leave with "specific interpretation" for now, although another alternative could be: "Rastafari beliefs are particularly rooted in sections of the Bible which refer to Ethiopia, a name used to refer to Africa more generally." This avoids jargon like Ethiopianist, and lets Afrocentrism stay where it is. Or we could also rework and summarise the second paragraph from the page on the Ethiopian movement, but that may be more work.
• I don't think naturally is a religious term in the same way as Ital, so it doesn't need calling out in that way. We're already flagging this as a subjective view belonging to Rastas with the word believe, so it isn't in Wikivoice. And MOS:SCAREQUOTES can apply equally to italics and quotes. But that makes me think we're overcomplicating things anyway, and should just use Ital. So maybe we remove the sentence about livity from where it is and replace the last sentence of the paragraph with: "Rastas refer to their practices as "livity", which includes adhering to Ital dietary requirements, wearing their hair in dreadlocks, and following patriarchal gender roles."
• To fix the "Early Rastafari..." line we could move it after the 1950s line and reword slightly to the following: "Early Rastafari often espoused black supremacy as a form of opposition to white supremacy, but this has gradually become less common since the 1970s."
• At the end of the lede, we can restore and expand: "Most Rastafari are of black African descent, and some groups accept only black members, but non-black groups have also emerged." (This covers the Japanese and Maori groups, for example.)
• The issue of black supremacy generally can definitely be included in a new topic here. I'll start one. I don't object to it being covered in the article at all, but rather about it appearing to have undue weight before. As it currently stands, it seems fine to me in the lede, and I am happy to leave it as it is if you're also happy. If it's something we want to expand more, then I think we can also qualify with "Critics have said..." (which is probably less objectionable) to cover the different views.

• I'm happy to change "In recent decades" to "By the opening decades of the twenty-first century". Seems simple and effective.

For speediness, I'll make those changes I think we're just about agreed on, but feel free to tweak them if they're not quite right or just ping me here again.

Thank you for your patience! Lewisguile (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lewisguile and thanks for your responses. In turn, my own responses:

• "Rastafari beliefs are particularly rooted in sections of the Bible which refer to Ethiopia, a name used to refer to Africa more generally." I really think that this would be too unwieldy at such an early juncture of the term. I've restored "Rastafari beliefs are based on an interpretation of the Bible" to keep things very simple.
• Cutting out "naturally" works fine for me in that second paragraph.
• I'm generally happy with "Early Rastafari often espoused black supremacy as a form of opposition to white supremacy, but this has gradually become less common since the 1970s. In the 1960s and 1970s,[...]" but think we could tweak it slightly. For concision I think we should get rid of "as a form of opposition to white supremacy" as it essentially repeats the point about Jamaica's dominant British colonial culture just a few sentences before. I also feel that "since the 1970s. In the 1960s and 1970s" reads a little poorly. Maybe "since the 1970s" could just become "over time"?
• "Most Rastafari are of black African descent, and some groups accept only black members, but non-black groups have also emerged." This looks good. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)