Talk:Rastafari/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV dispute

The neutrality of the article is disputed because of the name, Rastafarianism expressing an anti-Rasta POV, according to some and not others. --SqueakBox 17:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

The terms "Rastafarianism" and "Rastafarian" should be properly contextualized, and not used throughout the article to refer to those who do not take the name and specifically disclaim being an -ism of any kind. I've tried to address this with constructive edits, hopefully this addresses the POV issue, though it might be worth considering an article move to a less offensive title. Whig 00:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the present NPOV dispute has been resolved, unless someone wants to renew it for bias in the reverse direction, or something. I think the NPOV flag should be taken off the article for now. Whig 04:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I put the NPOV tag on the article, and would have removed it myself but sommeone beat me to it, SqueakBox 16:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Name change

Having taken this article to Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) there was clearly no consensus either to change the name of the article, or to not do so. Therefore the issue needs to be brought back to this page. After the previous discussion I am happy to accept that Rastafarianism being an offensive word to Rastafarians is no reason to change the article title. But I do want it changed because Rastafarianism is clearly not the common usage. Indeed it is a minority usage, only used by some academics. It may have been coined by Leonard Barrett, an academic, and was certainly popularised by him. Not only do the Rastas not refer to their religion as rastafarianism, but the majority of people who know about rastafari do so through the roots reggae music, including the very commercially popular Bob Marley, which has never once referred to Rastafarianism. People have claimed that Rastafarianism is the common use, but no-one has tried to back-up or source this claim, whereas the archive does contain evidence that Rastafarianism is not the common usage. So if anyone wants to retain the name Rastafarianism on the basis that it is common usage, please bring your comments here over the next week. Otherwise the article will be moved. SqueakBox 18:29, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

You don't need consensus "to not do so"; failing consensus to change the default is the status quo. You've taken this up in three different venues, each time unable to unite a majority—much less a quorum—behind your cause, and now threaten to move the article anyway. All debate aside, this is just fanaticism. For the love of Jah, give it a rest—bring the matter back up in six months, if you like, but this is the sort of behavior that lands people in from of the arbitration committee. A.D.H. (t&m) 19:17, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am not being a fanatic (no personal attacks please). I am merely following the advice given on the talk page of requested moves, which says if there is no resolution that the issue must be brought back to the talk page. There is no consensus to not move this page. Austin Hair would be better off trying to justify his position rather than engaging in personal attacks. Fanaticism is a word I would use more to describe his attitude than mine, and I have no intention of letting him impose his views on this article with threats. Find a consensus, please. Prove that rastafarianism is the common use. the article needs this sourcing. Please explain what I am doing wrong to end up in fromnt of an arbitration committee, Mr Hair? This is not the place for personal attacks, or the censoring of debate. I don't think my position failed to get a majority in all 3 forums, and it is debatable that my position did not gain an overall majority, merely a slim one. ----SqueakBox 19:39, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

To be very clear, I am not an administrator and therefore cannot arbitrarily move this article to Rastafari. Incidentally, where is the policy that says leave the issue quiet for 6 months? --SqueakBox 20:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is generally considered "good form" (may be or maybe not policy) that if an RM or a VfD failed, to leave it alone for a while. If someone were to repeatedly post something to RM, fail, and then repost, it might end up in arbitration. I assume that is what Austin Hair meant. It makes sense to let things die down a bit. On the other hand, very few people were involded in this one way or the next, and several people who have editted this page didn't vote.

There are two separate issues here when it comes to the move. On the issue of offensiveness, some people doubted that the name was offensive, while others thought that wasn't a valid reason to change the name. Evidence that it is might change the minds of people in the first group, but not the second group. On the issue of "most commonly used", some people doubted usage. There were two positions, one that Rastafarianism was more commonly used than Rastafari, and the other that, where used, Rastafari was used for the people not the religion. I get the impression that Rastafari is more common...that is something that can be documented. However, I got the impression that some people think that "Rastafari", where used, was the name for the people, but that Rastafarianism was still the correct form for the religion. That amounts to a matter of spin - if you spin to article to be about the people, in which "religion" is placed within the broader context of lifestyle, then I think Rastafari has a stronger position...regardless of what you want to call the faith, the movement and the people are Rastafari. Guettarda 20:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be precise there were 2 in favour, Scuiquifox, Mattley and one against, Austin Hair, in the original talk page discussion. For reqwuested moves in favour were Guettarda, Improv, HBK, Banyan Tree, Sean Curtis, Jordi, Jonathunder; while against were Noel, ALoan, jguk, Philip Baird, and Lowellian, which is 7 to 5 in favour. At the village pump RickK and 12.144.5.2 voted against, and no one in favour. So the vote is 9-8 in favour. Maybe Austin Hair forgot to count, but I see a majority in 2 of the 3 forums, and an overall majority, albeit a slight one. I certainly don't see enough people rejecting the move to let the issue lie for 6 months, not even an equal number. One could argue that we already have a majority, and therefore should change the name without any further debate. But I am not arguing this position, solely that we should continue to try to resolve the issue. --SqueakBox 02:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Added and deleted by Austin Hair: If Rastafarianism were "clearly not the common usage," the term wouldn't be the one in everyone's dictionaries and encyclopedias—and more to the point, you might be able to find even one person on Wikipedia to support such an assertion. (It is true that we've seen evidence suggesting that the term is eschewed by specialist writers in academic theses, but that obviously doesn't speak to common usage. Neither does Bob Marley govern our naming conventions, by the way. Readded by --SqueakBox 19:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to see that Austin Hair acknowledges that there is a wider debate than just at Wikipedia over the word rastafarianism. I am not making anything up, merely reflecting a wider debate that was already occurring on this page when I got involved.

I certainly acknowledge that common use in dictionaries and other encyclopedias is Rastafarianism because that is (likely) the common educated term. We do not know what the policies of these various groups are about naming conventions, but we cannot assume that they use the common usage term that we do. They may use the common term amongst educated people. Who knows?

Most people who know of the Rastas do not do so through an educated source, I would argue, but through roots reggae music, including primarily Bob Marley. Noone is suggesting Bob Marley should dictate what the real word to describe the rastas is. I am suggesting that most people who have heard of Rastafari have done so through Bob Marley, and thus will not associate the rastas with the word rastafarianism, or use it when describing their movement/religion. Rastafari is known amongst many poor black communities in the world, and especially in Africa, and I think it is not credible that they use the educated word rastafarianism. They have probably not even heard of the word. I would guess most people who talk about Rastas in the UK will again not use the educated word Rastafarianism. I have never heard the term rastafarianism spoken in England, only read the term. Most people into Rasta are not highly educated, possibly explaining why very little is known about the subject among wikipediasns. I reckon probably no more than one in ten people use the word rastafarianism of all the people, imncluding rastas, who talk about this religion.

I don't know about the love of Jah, because I do not believe in a loving God. --SqueakBox 20:29, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

This should be left for now, maybe not for a magic six months but at least for the time being. If we want to rename this article we are going to need to present a much more coherent case, with more and better evidence that what we contend is true. It sucks that we didn't get a consensus to move this page. But we had a fair crack of the whip. People asked for evidence, and we couldn't provide it in time. If this is going to be raised again in the future it can only be on the basis that we have done more research and have a significant amount of evidence to back up the contention that it should be moved. Mattley 12:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record, although I voted for the page move, I wasn't fully comfortable doing so because many of the arguments for moving the page seemed so spurious. A scatter-shot approach to grab as many people as possible to move the page, especially when some of these are intended to push bad reasons to move the page, is something that may make some people like me just abstain on the whole thing next time. I was bothered by the following:

• Talk on all the "Rastafarians don't want to be like another ism" and specific elements of their faith/culture that were against that phrasing.
• Other talk about the Rastafari/Rastafarians that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
• Anti-academic/scholarly pushes
• Squeakbox seemed to jump on every argument for moving the page regardless of whether it's good or not. It's important that we take good judgement for the Wikipedia before personal agendas. That means rejecting bad arguments that happen to be for what we want.

--Improv 16:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-academic/scholarly pushes

I guilty of both minimising the value of the "scholarly" opinion, and then, when I turned around and argue the other side, of having my pro-academic arguments dismissed. It was interestingly surreal. In the first case I argued (tried to argue?) that a name imposed by academics on a "lesser" culture was not really a "good" thing - that "Rastafarianism" was a name imposed from outside, a "sanitisation" of the far cruder "Rastafari". That is not to say that it should not be used for that reason, but rather to say that the name by which the movement was first presented to the west was merely a product of, well, an attempt to gentrify the name. I am quite ready to bash the academic disdain of "colonial science". It isn't anti-academic per se, it recognises that academe belongs in a cultural milieu. On the other side of the coin I demonstrated that modern scholarship (1979 onward) rejects or minimises "Rastafarianism" in favour of Rastafarians or Rastafari. In part it is a movement towards greater cultural sensitivity (I strongly dislike the knee-jerk rejection of PC in Wikipedia), in part it is a matter of studying them as a people, as a movement, rather than as a faith. There aren't a lot of standard religious dogmas, and it is far more of a broad movement than a rigid faith. The fact that "Rastafarianism is offensive to many Rastas may be of secondary importance here, but it is not trivial. Guettarda 16:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think it's trivial, but nor do I think we should give it any weight in the judgements we make here. People can object to standard English all they like, perhaps saying that the letter "a" is horrible and evil to use, but that doesn't mean that if that were to become a large movement, we must keep the article free of the "letter that must not be n-med" or not call them anti-A people. We have absolutely no duty to them in presenting their movement exclusively the way they want it to be presented -- the goal here is to produce a quality encyclopedia that covers the subject in a scholarly, accurate, and encyclopedic way. People can set themselves apart in their own literature and claim to be special and that normal English can't account for how wonderful they are. It's not our job to listen and respect the strange rules they want to use to look special. Like it or not, who they are and what they're doing seperates them from the rest of society, and represents a way of doing things organized around a set of ideas. The term -ism thus is not inappropriate. Note however, that as English is flexible and borrows a lot from different languages, Rastafari is also a potentially good term. My decision to support the name change remains solely based on some spot research on which name is more commonly used in a socioreligious context. Oddly, not long after the effort, I noticed that some very good hot sauce I occasionally use to make stew calls itself Rasta sauce. I have no idea if it's actually "authentic" in any way, but it's quite exceptionally good. --Improv 19:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check if it has any salt, additives or meat products. If so, it's not ital and so, not authentic ;) (of course, definitions of ital vary) Guettarda 20:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am glad they didn't call it Rastafarianism sauce. I suspect rasta is the most common use term. Who would type rastafarianism into the wiki search engine if Rasta will give the same result? --SqueakBox 21:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have put a proposal for Rastafari on it's talk page --SqueakBox 22:09, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

My tuppenceworth; this argument is really very simple. The criteria (and the only criteria) here ought to be whatever is the most common usage among native English speakers. Anything else would be expressing the POV of some group. In particular, a group does not have special rights over an article (or, by extension, its title) merely because the article describes that group. It really is just as simple as that. --Khendon 07:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a little more common than usage (because offensive usage should not be the name of the article about a group). However the issue of common usage is at the heart of the dispute. I provided documentation in support of the usage of Rastafari, and people disagreed with me, or maybe with my interpretation or maybe with how I weighted things. So usage is at the core of this, and people disagree as to what common usage is. Guettarda 14:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I said before I also think the onus is on those who want to retain the present name to also bring their evidences that Rastafarianism is the common term. I agree with both Kendon and Guettarda. It is clear from the number of comments that this is still a live issue, and that it does need resolving asap. I think the fact that the Rastas don't refer to it as Rastafarianism has to be taken into consideration, because they are also people who refer to themselves. I do not beleive this is about the Rastafarians saying this name is not acceptable; indeed I doubt whether any rastafarians have taken part in the discussion. --SqueakBox 16:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be worth creating a subpage - Talk:Rastafarianism/naming as a place to present and organise evidence for and against the name change - just two rational arguments, evidence, so that (1) people could look at evidence in a single easy-to-find place, and (2) if renaming is raised again, the arguments (hopefully both for and against) would be accessible in a single place. Arguments article-style, not post-style. Sound like an idea? Guettarda 22:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will support this. --SqueakBox 22:30, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should create 2 pages Rastafarianism/keep and Rastafarianism/change so that both sides can have a forum in which to collate their material and decide how to present it without interference from the other side. And with an agreement that those who want the article changed do not contribute to the keep page or it's talk page; and vice-versa. With an agreed deadline of when to bring the debate back to this page. Maybe May 1st?

I only put the notice on the article because of it's title. I have never had a problem with the content. So I would rather keep it. --SqueakBox 00:07, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a promise to contribute to only one list. Disruptive posting is not acceptable, but someone may be able to see the arguments on both sides, and may have something to say for and against (or may just be a good editor who can take our incoherent statements and make them nice and clear). Guettarda 00:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't get all the back and forth. If a group rejects a label that has been applied to them by outsiders, then that label should be ditched. It seems that Rastas object to "Rastafarianism," which is simply "Rastafari" tortured/contorted to fit into an "ism." I always understood the religion, as well as its adherents, to be called "Rastafari," with "Rasta" and "Rastaman" (if male) being the name given to a single follower. I support the name change, with "Rastafarianism" as a redirect page. I'm admit I'm somewhat mystified by all the debate; it seems a no-brainer. deeceevoice 18:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was up on Requested Moves a couple weeks ago, and there was no consensus to move - the objection was a mixture of "we shouldn't go by what people say, we should go with popular usage' (which contradicts the Naming Convention, but anyway...) and when I tried to show evidence that "Rastafarianism" was not popular usage I got the old "Google is not authoritiative". So, anyway, since it failed on RM once, convention suggests that we should let it rest for a few months. So I made th suggestion that we put together good, clear, logical arguments for (and against, in the interest of fairness, in case no opponent of the move puts up anything) so that when it comes back up we have a clear (and IMO, solid) argument in favour of the move. Anyway, I'll make sure and let you know when we bring it up again. Guettarda 18:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I missed the discussion on moving the piece; so, yes, I'd appreciate notification from you when the matter comes up again. Thanks. :-) deeceevoice 18:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This should settle the conflict. While I'd advocate using both, the article should be named "Rastafari", with a redirect from Rastafarianism. Because while both are used, Rastafari is used far more often.

Proof that the Rastafarianism isn't common use (or is at least outdated):

Google for Rastafarianism: 65,500 hits

Google for Rastafari: 290,000 hits.

Dictionary.com's Reference for "Rastafarianism": Source is dated at 2000

Dictionary.com's Reference for "Rastafari": Source is dated at 2003

The source for "Rastafarianism" also defines it far more rigidly, which, as is clear from the Wikipedia article, is not the case. Academics are not dictators of what words mean (or what words should be used), particularly in America, as unlike many European countries, we have no official council which decides what words enter our language and what they mean. From this standpoint, the word used should be based in reality, not what Academics have used. Academics even butchered the term "Marxism", to the point that Marx, himself, said he wasn't a Marxist! Regardless of whether or not past Academics have used terms a certain way (as they even misused "Marxism"), it's clear that this term is incorrect. Therefore, it is not our obligation to follow their ignorant lead, but to use the definition, which is most commonly used and correct.

The term, "Rastafarianism" is outdated, and is about as correct as calling Pagans "Satanists", or vice-versa. The proof for this is Google. If that isn't adequate proof, then please provide a stronger counter-argument, not mindless rhetoric. And lastly, I am not a Rastafarian, because I'm white and I've had some rather bad experiences with some of their racist followers. So, if there's any bias here, it's certainly not pro-Rastafari, as I couldn't care less about their religion. But that doesn't change the fact that "Rastafarianism" is an incorrect term, and should be changed. Nathyn 03:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It's been over 2 days since I made my statements, on why Rastafarianism should be moved to "Rastafari", and they're valid, I think. So, if no one expresses otherwise, the article is being moved later tonight or tomorrow, whenever I get around to it. Nathyn 10:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The matter was placed on Requested Moves a few months ago and there was no consensus to move. We intend to re-list it some time in the near future. Consult the archives of this page. Feel free to gather evidence in favour of the usage, but please do not re-list it until an adequate case is presented, or it will probably be rejected again. Guettarda 13:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I was just wondering if someone could give reference that Rastafarians take offense to the term "Rastafarianism". I have read a number of books and articles on the subject and the term is used throughout. -ism simply, regardless of how the term is taken, a way to mean a "belief, ideology, doctrine, and ritual practice." I believe that using the term Rastafari Movement does not give significance to the fact that it certainly is a way of life and a religio-political ideology for many individuals. In many mansions there is no attempt at a movement in the larger society and many live isolated in the country, therefore the term Rastafarianism works much better to consider the breadth of the organizations. I would perhaps say that maybe Rastafari Movement and Rastafarianism be separate articles, one focusing on the Political activists and the other on the religious expression. JoshMahar 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

May I suggest a way to move foreward on this naming controversy?

In the various debates on the name, many references were given. Most were excellent. Let's start by incorporating those into the article. Then, in as NPOV way as we can, let's add a section to the article about what the movement's adherants call it, what others call it, and what names they dislike -- giving good references for everything we add.

Eventually, I hope, the article itself will suggest a more NPOV name most editors can agree to. And then we can revisit the issue of where to finally put this article and how to disambiguate associated topics. Jonathunder 00:04, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Page Size

This page has grown quite long under the attention expansion of Squeakbox. Perhaps sections ought to be spun off to subpages and summarized on the main page. I'm thinking a separate section on the Rastafari vernacular, and History of the Rastafari. That way this page would have a chance of squeaking (no pun intended) in under the page size requirement. —thames 23:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article could be trimmed I think, as some stuff that was put there a long time ago doesn't seem that relevant. The words glossary could also be moved to Rastafarian words but leaving the other bits of the language section. --SqueakBox 23:10, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have created a separate Rastafarian vocabulary article. It has solved the weight problem. --SqueakBox 02:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I've done a bit of editing on the language section, and the new language page. What do you think about removing the NPOV notice now that you've been editing the article for several weeks? Or are you not going to do that until the namespace is changed? —thames 16:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hypothesis

I hope I am wrong, but I am worried that the 2 things I had to revert today were aimed at me User:SqueakBox as a result of work I have been doing at Javier Solana, which is listed in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, trying to prevent the article being used by Christians to prove that Solana is the Beast. User:Cumbey and many of the IP sites have the same US Whois server. The fact that I am working on this site has been known at Solana's talk page. Cumey, who has written a book condemning New Agers from a Christian viewpoint, may believe I am a New Ager (also because of my interest in astrology) who is now doing New Age work in deliberately hiding the "truth" about Solana being the beast. I believe the Christian insertion (which I hadn't intended to describe as vandalism) is from her, as she may use many IP addresses, and possibly sock puppets. I hope I am wrong. --SqueakBox 01:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Purported cult

This paragraph is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 10:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rastafari

Rastafari is a post-christian cult that may eventually reach the stage of a mainstream religion, but should be treated as a cult for now. The encouragement of smoking marijuana may be seen as dangerous by some though not by others. Before the mid seventies people wearing the highly visible dreadlocks in Jamaica where Rastafari was founded were unlikely to get a job, which was definitely seen as harmful, say by the parents of a poor young man converting to the faith. That is not normally the case anymore, dreadlocks being much more accepted thanks to the influence of Bob Marley in the faith. While Rastas do sometimes reject their families, it is at least in part due to youthful rebelliousness, and rastafari does not encourage rejection of one's family. One of the first Rastas, Leonard Howell, was charged with sedition against the then George V of the United Kingdom in 1934, showing that Rastafari was early on perceived as a political threat, but generally Rastafari is seen as a peaceful cult. By declaring that Haile Selassie is God and the returned Messiah of Revelations, and therefore like Mormonism can be considered a new religious movement that sprang out of Christianity.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Squeakbox probably isn't going to integrate this into the article... —thames 15:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox definitely wrote the above and placed the Rastas in the list, and so you are wrong Thames. I am very happy to see criticisms of Rastafari, and put the Christian criticisms in myself. This can only be a good article if it is balanced-there are thousands of pro Rasta sites online.--SqueakBox 15:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Damnation, foiled again! You win this round SqueakBox... —thames 16:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that paragraph is rather POV: The encouragement of smoking marijuana may be seen as dangerous by some though not by others. assumes that smoking marijuana is harmful. Is there a similar paragraph on the use of alcohol in Catholic mass? Granted, marijuana is illegal in Jamaica and the US, but so is alcohol in Saudi Arabia. [Disclaimer: I am not pro-marijuana - I have never tried it, actually have a bias against it - but based on what I have read, that bias has little foundation in fact]. Guettarda 19:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, i have removed any reference to marijuana from the sentence, putting it is not compulsory in ganja section. --SqueakBox 19:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I contend that this portion:

By declaring that Haile Selassie is God and the returned Messiah of Revelations, and therefore like Mormonism can be considered a new religious movement that sprang out of Christianity.

Is inaccurate in that it seems to allude to the common misconception that Joseph Smith is perceived as a sort of Messiah rather than merely a prophet. Also, while it is occasionally alleged that Mormonism does not fall within Christianity, most will agree that Mormons are Christians. Therefore the statement that it sprang out of Christianity may be inappropriate. I agree that there are some valid parallels between the groups. Both have added scripture and prophets to the traditional Christian beliefs. However, I don't think this sentence accuratly characterizes those similarities, nor am I sure there are adequate similarities to justify its inclusion.

It was in List of purported cults that it dsaid about Mormonism springing out of Christianity. As the original author of this piece for purported cults i know nothing about Mormonism (am not American) but I am happy to meet your demands and remove it. --SqueakBox 22:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Rastafarianism is likely to be removed from the List of purported cults because there is no source listed there for designating it a "cult" or "sect". -Willmcw 02:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well if it is not a cult I guess we shouldn't be asking the question in the article? Thoughts? Personalluy I don't feel informed enough to know whether it is a cult, so will leave the decision to the List of purported cult people, but if it goes i proposing taking out of the article too.--SqueakBox 02:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

The approach we are using on the list is not to try to answer that kind of a question directly, but instead simply to report the groups that have been called cults, and to list who has called them that. Remember, in Wikipedia we don't have to decide what the "truth" is, our goal is just to write NPOV, verifiable articles. Best of luck. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

All I could find in a quick search was a couple of things saying rastafari is not a cult, and no one is accusing it of being a brainwashing cult.i more thought it was a cult because it was not a fully fledged religion, because it is relatively small and pretty new. I don't have a background in religion, so am not quite sure what is defined as a cult and what is a religion. If I hadn't seen Mormonism and harmless cults in the purported list I would not have put them in. I will try to investigate this at some point. I suspect that a lot of people, academics, etc have asked the question Is Rastafari a cult? without really answering the question. --SqueakBox 02:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

As expected, Rastafarianism has been "commented out", essentially removed, from the List of purported cults. See previous comments for explanation. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:00, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the cult reference. It is no longer on the list of purported cults, and no one seems able to find any supporting evidence. --Ascorbic 10:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English or American

My understanding is that the article needs to be either in English English or American English, but not in a mixture of the 2. I have been writing in English English. I changed colors to colours in red, gold and green's latest contribution, but do not know if that was a good or bad thing to do. Opinions please?--SqueakBox 15:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the policy generally goes like this: American English is viewed as the default. British English takes precedence on pages which are topically related to Britain or British English. Since Rastafari developed in Jamaica, and Jamaica was a British colony that speaks a dialect of British English, I believe that British spellings can rightly be used on this page. Another factor is the language the page was started in, or the language of the person who has done the most work on it. Whatever is decided though, the whole page has to be consistently one or the other. We'll have no mixing of American and British English! We will remain two countries separated by a common language. —thames 16:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is not policy. Policy is not to prefer any particular type of english, but to go with whoever started the page, unless the topic is clearly tied to a particular English dialect. See The Manual of Style. --Improv 17:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't tell in which idiom it began. See [1]. --SqueakBox 17:24, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jamaica uses English spellings, Rastafari is primarily Jamaican, so precidence should go to English English. Guettarda 19:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rastafari has a strong presence in Britain from the mid seventies.--SqueakBox 19:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Threats

User:Cumbey is threatening to tell the police I have a stash of janja (sic) ie cannabis because of my interest in this site. This is the unsavoury, and unfortunate side of wikipedia! particularly bizarre as I have not written about ganja here, though I have now put a (true) bit about not having to smoke ganja to be a Rastafarian. --SqueakBox 19:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have taken Cumbey to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I mention it here because she is accusing me of smoking ganja and threatening to call the police, based on my interest here, and formerly expressed in my talk page; I now formally state there that I do not smoke marijuana. Not only is cannabis smoking a serious crime in Honduras, but one does not want the attentions of the police due to the baseless accusations of another contributor. talk about trying to restrict my freedom of speech. --SqueakBox 21:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

She's really unhinged. What a page! —thames 04:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New article

I would like to take the doctrine sub-sections and put them into a separate Doctrines of the Rastafarians. Any objections? I think it would make for a more balanced article here, and I would also put info there from History of the Rastafarians --SqueakBox 22:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I would absolutely say to call it "Doctrines of Rastafari" - doctrines are of the [named] religion. Guettarda 22:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And change the other to History of Rastafari? I would think not, but doctrines yes that sounds fine,--SqueakBox 22:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

No, "History of Rastafarians" would be, IMO, the correct title. Guettarda 23:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possibly useful material

The following was recently cut from Israelite, replaced by text more appropriate to that article; some of it probably belongs here: I think this includes material not in this article. (I've taken the liberty of copy editing it.) Someone might also want to look at the present content on Rastafarians at Israelite, there may be more that should be here as well.

Rastafarianism's followers, known as Rastafarians or Rastas, believe that Ras Tafari (Haile Selassie, last emperor of Ethiopia) remains a living messiah who will lead the world's peoples of African descent into a promised land of full emancipation and divine justice. The term Rastafari comes from Emperor Haile Selassie's pre-coronation name, Prince Ras Tafar Makonen. Rastafarianism is a strongly syncretic Abrahamic religion. Conquering Lion of Judah is an ancient title of that monarchy, not unique to the country's last reigning emperor. In addition, a claimed descent from Solomon (and, therefore, David) has been promulgated by several Ethiopian Imperial dynasties and is also not unique to the last Emperor.

Rastas believe that they, and the rest of the black races, are descendants of the ancient twelve tribes of Israel. Haile Selassie himself was a devout Coptic Christian. He neither denied nor admitted the attribute of divinity given to him by the Rastafarians. One Rasta sect, called the Twelve tribes of Israel, imposes an astrological system whereby Aries is Reuben, Aquarius is Joseph, etc.

Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox/Rastafari articles --SqueakBox 23:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

As it was explained to me by a Jamaican Nyabingi documentary film maker, this is spot on. I think this is relevent and integral to understanding the beliefs behind Rastafarian theology and culture.--NoPhE4R 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally reggae

I just removed the following: It seemed too much like an ad. If someone wants to replace it, I'd suggest doing so without making it look as much like advertising.

• Totally reggae radio website where you can listen to the weekly show which is full of Rastafarian music lyrics

-- Sorry for not knowing "Talk" etiquette.

I have reworded it. I was being specific to let people know which show it was, as it isn't clear from the website. Totally reggae is also found by searching for it on Windows media player. My only interest in promoting this site is that it is an excellent source of Rastafari ideology, so I think it needs to stay as a link. Our goal is to help people understand Rastafari better, and this link can really do that, --SqueakBox 01:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

No dreads allowed

Didn't I read somewhere that the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos (I may have the islands wrong) had banned dreadlocks? Someone might want to address this in the article. deeceevoice 12:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between not being allowed dreads (I imagine also illegal in Singapore), and not being allowed to be a Rastafarian. Cannabis smopking is illegal almost everywhere but that is not the same as banning someone from having Rasta beliefs, --SqueakBox 03:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Two Pictures?

Do we really need two identical pictures of Haile Selassie? —Ashley Y 02:39, 2005 May 19 (UTC). Do you mean here and at Haile Selassie. Unfortunately we only have one photo, and it is important that both articles get to have a photo, -ie it would be wrong not to have a photo of him here, SqueakBox 02:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

There appear to be two identical pictures of "The Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy" in the same article. --Ilai 17:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed. I had to remove a duplicate Selassie main pic the other week. We must take care, SqueakBox 18:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Name change part 2

Nice one, SqueakBox 03:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Why has the article been moved (name changed)? I mean there was not discussion was there? --metta, The Sunborn 06:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There was substantial discussion and a NPOV dispute over the term "Rastafarianism" because it isn't a term used by Rastafari themselves, who explicitly disclaim any -ism, and someone (not sure who) moved it to Rastafari Movement (on my suggestion, but I didn't make that move). I then moved it again to Rastafari movement, because we don't need to uppercase "movement." Whig 07:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There was a huge unresolved discussion. Since that got closed various new people have expressed support for not calling it Rastafarianism. No Account then moved it. I support the decision, though Whig was right moving it from Movement to movement, SqueakBox 16:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

That is what I am talking about, there was an unresolved discussion. As such no move should have been done. Just because the movement itself doesn't do a specific thing doesn't mean we follow it. There is a specific conotation to the word movement. A "movement" is not a religion but an idea therein. By calling it the Rastafari movement, they would have to belong to a larger religion. Considering most Rastas also consider themselves Christians that may fit. However, would outsiders (not Christians or Rastas) consider Rastafarians Christians? Doubtful. So at least the word movement should be removed. --metta, The Sunborn 18:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Rastas certainly do not consider themselves Christians, any more than Muslims do. Most don't consider it a religion either, though it is clearly judged as such, though I do not at all agree that movement implies being a part of a greater religion. The reason the word needed changing is because Rastafarianism is not common usage except among some academics. I think the article as it is fits the title. There was a slim majority when it was up for voting, and several people have since added their support. Nobody has explained why the word Rastafarianism should be used. People refused on the grounds that that was already the name, and therefore they didn't have to explain why it should be that name, only we who wanted to move it had tto explain our motivations, SqueakBox 18:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be at the commonly used name Rasta, but Rastafari movement is also OK. Rastafarianism is offensive and no one who is Rasta uses it. NoAccount

Even if it is offensive common names must be mentioned. The Buddhist tradition of Theravada has a derogatory name and it is mentioned in all important articles on it. The word Rastafarianism was even in the dictionary as being the word for the this specific religion. There are more google pages with the word rastafarianism than with rastafari movement. I am putting a disputed move message up. --metta, The Sunborn 20:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a title NPOV template or I would have used it before. I wish the person who had stuck the request to move the content from the History article had

(a) made the request here,

(b) just done it. I think that template is totally unnecessary, SqueakBox 16:50, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV title dispute?

Okay, this needs to be resolved. So please make it clear what precisely is violative of the NPOV in the present title. There was already a substantial NPOV dispute at "Rastafarianism" so this one seemed to be generally preferred. If someone thinks there is a better name ("Rasta" or whatever) for this article, that's one thing and can be discussed as a requested move, but I don't see a requested move here, just an imprecise NPOV flag. Whig 20:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I personally find the present title to be NPOV, and prefer it to Rasta or Rastafari, which are too vague. I don't believe Rastafarians would be any better, and would imply we were talking about the individuals who constitute the movement and not the movement itself. I would strongly object to Rastafarianism on the POV grounds that it insults the Rastafari movement, and also because as a descriptive term it is not common usage, SqueakBox 20:55, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have read the relavent Naming convention article. I agree on precident that if the Rastafarians find the name Rastafarianism offensive then it should be named somthing else. However, there must be proof that the group considers the name offensive. From the convention: Also, some terms are in common usage but are commonly regarded as offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo and Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (Inuit and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

So if there is sufficent proof that -isms are offensive, then I advocate the name The Rastafari. Since the term Rastafari has been seen to be used in large numbers by persons, the term Rastafari movement has not. --metta, The Sunborn 00:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Rastafarianism, besides causing offence, is not the most common name. Not by a long shot. Do google searches for Rasta, Rastafari, Rastafarian, and Rastafarianism. No Account

Rastafari specifically rejects all isms and schisms, as many Rastafarian reggae songs can confirm. It is because they reject isms and schisms that they consider the word Rastafarianism offensive. There is also the link on the page to the letter to a Jamaican newspaper asking people not to call it that. I am pretty sure Joseph Owens touches on the matter in his book, SqueakBox 00:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, what we have here is a naming convention dispute at best, not a NPOV dispute. Let's remove the flag, then, ok? We can continue to discuss here as appropriate, though I do not think "The Rastafari" is better than "Rastafari movement". Whig 01:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• 'The Rastafari' generally refers to the individuals, not the movement. This article is about the movement, and so "Rastafari movement" is the perfectly appropriate title - certainly not POV (whereas "...-ism" is both POV and offensive). No need for any tag or further title changes, IMO. Codex Sinaiticus 01:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

One, I didn't put the NPOV banner up because I didn't think it fit. I would rather an article name banner but one doesn't exist. Two, the google count of rastafarianism vs. rastafari is not useful as evidence because rastafari can be used as both a verb and a noun and rastafarianism can only be used as a noun. Besides it is moot point, if and only if evidence is actually presented that rastafarianism is offensive. Third, a movement does not constitute a religion, and rastafarianism is a religion. Fourth, if there is even a widely known alternative to rastafarianism, then the evidence previous points to rastafari not rastafari movement.--metta, The Sunborn 02:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

What about the evidence that has already been given that it is an offensive term, SqueakBox 03:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

"Rastafari" used as a verb?!! Who is lunching? Sounds to me like he knows perfectly well it is offensive, but might well consider it some kind of POV coup to be able to incorporate a blatantly offensive term into the title by whatever argument seems to fit, even if it means blinding oneself to page-loads of evidence. What exactly is the problem with the current title 'Rastafari movement' anyway? Codex Sinaiticus 03:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"Rastafari" is both a noun and an adjective, but I see no evidence of it as a verb. Jonathunder 16:16, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking. Verb --> adjective. However, what one must ask, is Christianity a synonym for "Christian movement" or Islam a synonym for "Muslim movement"? I say not. --metta, The Sunborn 02:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, in a word, yes. But Christianity and Islam are formal religions, and have been around for thousands of years, long enough that they aren't really thought of as "movements" so much as "establishments" at this point. Also, there isn't any actual establishment of Rastafari, rather there are several "mansions" (see Mansions of Rastafari) and many adherents who do not subscribe to any particular one of them. The Rastafari movement comprehends all of these. I really don't see any concrete suggestions that improve on the current article name. Whig 02:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

I have deleted this

• During the 1930s, depression wracked Jamaica and Ethiopia alike. Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini invaded Ethiopia in 1935 (see Second Italo-Abyssinian War), marking one of the major events leading up to World War 2. Haile Selassie, in exile in the United Kingdom, formed the Ethiopian World Federation to unite black support worldwide for Ethiopian sovereignty. as being not relevant to the article. It also implied they were looking to their Bibles in 1936 to recognise his divinity, which is completely contradicted by the 34 Howell trial. Given the publicity surrounding the coronation, which I have now added to the text, all we can safely say is that his divinity was appreciated at some point during or after this event. I don't believe anything further is really known about those early years, SqueakBox 05:34, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

  Sounds fine, as this isn't really relevant to the Rastafari movement, but specifically to Haile Selassie I and/or the history of Ethiopia and should properly be included in those articles as relevant. Whig 15:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dreadlocks=Rasta

Please source your claim that dreadlocks are called rasta in Spanish and Italian according to Google. Give us a search term, or even better a page reference. Do you mean Spain or Spanish, because it is not used as a term in Caribbean Honduras. Finally, even if it is true I would argue it is irrelevant to the article, and therefore should remain deleted, SqueakBox July 3, 2005 13:54 (UTC)

I don't know about this, but by sheer coincidence I just happened to read last night that "Rasta" is also the Hindi word for "road"... Something I never knew before... Codex Sinaiticus 3 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

I lived in Italy for a year, and that's what people called them. Here in Spain, I haven't heard it, but I see results from different countries for "tiene rastas". In fact, more results than for "tiene dreadlocks".

I'm not saying that it's correct; I'm not saying that dreadlocks are the same thing as rastafarians; I'm not saying that all Spanish and Italian speakers say this. I'm just saying that it is indeed said in these languages. It is notable that the cultural association of rastafarians with dreadlocks causes the two to be linguistically confused. — Chameleon 3 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

I am spanish and I can assure you that the word "rasta" also means here what you know as a dreadlock. It is a colloquial form, I mean, a term anyone can understand (from your average teenager to grandmothers). People that consider themselves rastafari or whatever, use the term dreadlock and usually think that the other people who call them "rastas" (specially the ones who have this hairstyle) don´t know anything about the origins of dreadlocks, etc. Other, more informal term usually used by crust punks is "trunyos" (with an Ñ instead of "ny", I don´t know if you can read it because its a spanish letter). The word literally means "turd", but it´s not used in a pejorative way, more like in a joking way. Violenciafriki 01:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

While here in Honduras dreadlocks are so unpopular that only the odd Rasta ever wears them, SqueakBox 02:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Gold"?

What's all this "gold" nonsense? What's wrong with the perfectly good word "yellow"? It's not limited to Rastafarianism, I see yellow being called "gold" everywhere in Star Trek too. Is there some negative connotation to the word, or do people just want to sound posh and high-and-mighty? — JIP | Talk 10:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't know about Star Trek but the Rastas have always used the word gold and never the word yellow, so as an encyclopedia we must use the word gold in refernce to them, otherwise we would be doing something original and unsourced. The Rastas love to act high and mighty, even posh by their own lights, it goes back to Garveyism and black pride; Garvey was very high and mighty as a way for black people to take pride in themselves. Haile Selassie being a mighty king is part of the same process. The Ethiopian flag, as a symbol of African liberation, needs a splendid word like Gold. That is very much what Rastafari is all about, -- --SqueakBox 14:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

"Gold" is widely used as a colour - the German flag, for example, is Black-Red-Gold. People specify non-primary shades of colour all the time. There is a symbolic meaning as well, of course. Do you advocate that the American military awards be called the "brown star", the "grey star" and the "yellow star" as well? Guettarda 15:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is a source. I think gold is the colour used by Ethiopians, --SqueakBox 16:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, when people say "gold" in cases such as flags or uniforms, the colour they are talking about is yellow. Gold is a metallic colour, yellow is a normal, plain colour. The stripes in the Rastafarian or German flags don't shine in the sunlight, and neither does Jim Kirk's shirt. The situaton is different with the military awards, as I understand they are indeed made to look like precious metals (if not actually are of precious metals). Do you advocate calling wood "bronze" and rocks "silver"? — JIP | Talk 04:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I advocate is calling it the colour the Rastafarians call it which is gold. It is not for us to make judgements about the Rastas, merely to record how they are. Bring here some evidence that the Rastas say red, yellow and green, and I will bring a thousand sources that it is red, gold and green. I don't advocate calling the colour anything particularly, but I strongly advocate having an accurate article without original research or someone non rastas ideas of colour trashing the accuracy of the article. You cannot change what the Rastas think, and we are not here to define the words to describe colours. We are writing an encyclopedia article on the Rastas. This is a ridiculous discussion that will clearly go nowhere because this article will not be changing gold to yellow. Source your claims that Rastas say yellow, or drop the whole topic, --SqueakBox 15:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, my example was flawed. It doesn't change the fact that gold is used as a colour and the Rasta use of "gold" has symbolic (as well as chromtic) meaning. Unless you are proposing that we get rid of all these made up colours like "aquamarine" and "beige" and "pink", I don't see your point. Guettarda 17:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't do anything. It should be a reflection of the world in which we live, it's history, etc. You need to take your colour proposal scheme somewhere else, but not bring it here to wikipedia. If people choose to call a yellow flag gold it is not for wikipedia to tell them they are wrong. I wouldn't recommend beginning any crusade on this issue by trying to get Rastas to change their use of the word gold, --SqueakBox 18:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to change the way Wikipedia works, much less the way Rastafarians think. I was only looking for the reason Rastafarians call yellow gold, and now I have found the reason. (Although I still don't know why Star Trek calls it gold.) — JIP | Talk 20:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason anyone ever calls yellow "gold"? Because language is just kind of crazy that way. Nothing to get too riled up about.

Lisa: I'd like 25 copies on Goldenrod.
Clerk: Right.
Lisa: 25 on Canary.
Clerk: Mmhmm.
Lisa: 25 on Saffron.
Clerk: All right.
Lisa: And 25 on Paella.
Clerk: Ok, 100 yellow.

75.21.86.126 17:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that quote should end that debate! Bulbous 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though this has been adequately covered so I won't dwell on it. Since my source are many first hand accounts of Rastafarian and non-Rastafarian Jamaicans, I won't cite it as anything more than that (and won't put this in the article itself) but it has been explained to me numerous times that, "Black is the color of the people of Africa, Green is the color of life and their sacrament to Jah Rastafari, Red is the color of the blood spilled through slavery and war, and Gold is the color of the treasures of Africa that have been raped and stolen from the land." Yellow isn't quite as fitting. --NoPhE4R 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything which SqueakBox says regarding the mission of an Encyclopedia is true. It shouldn't dictate usage or behavior, it should report facts. None of this, of course, provides any reason for not using the word "yellow" to describe color of interest to Rastas. Because the fact is that the color is yellow. Fact one is that the Rastas call it "gold". Fact two is that it is yellow. Luckily, for the dignity of all concerned, Wiki may continue to use "gold" with a clear conscience, since "gold" and "yellow" are synonymous when applied to flags. This goes back to heraldic practice. Terms for metals and furs, and color words in Latin are used to designate colors in flags, crests, and banners. Rastas aren't the only people who like to act high and mighty. All European governments also have a certain weakness for pomp and self-puffery. My point is just that what is at issue here isn't Rasta practice, but the actual identity of the color. Which is yellow. Which in this context is gold.

This whole conversation is rediculous as the colors on a flag are meant to represent different ideas or ideals. What we decide to call that color has everything to do with what is meant by that color. By calling it yellow one is neglecting to fully appreciate the meaning behind the choice of gold as a flag color is meant to convey an idea, that of eternal and original wealth and prosperity. It has nothing to do with being high and mighty regarding the naming of a color. That is a reactionary and frankly stupid position to hold. Flags are symbols meant to illustrate various ideas and they use images and colors, like all other forms of symbolism, to do this. Thus, the use of gold on a flag is in no way an attempt to sound more high and mighty, but rather a way to communicate.... you dolt.