Talk:Rastafari/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Colors of the flag dispute

When I was in Jamaica, I got to know a lot of Rastafarians. They did tell me that the "Red" stands for blood, but that the "Yellow" (Gold) stands for the sunshine, and the "Green" stands for the plantations of Jamaica. It was a question I remember being asked a lot thereafter "Do you know what the colors mean?". From their naturalist lifestyles, I wouldn't think they would embrace gold for richness.

Well maybe they figure sunshine is more valuable than gold, that would sound right, and it is the sunshine which feeds the green plants, SqueakBox 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Green Stands for Jamaican plantations only when it is on a Jamaican flag. Red, Gold, Green stand for thes things universally.-Sky

The colors of the flag are universally held to represent the earth (green) which is supposed to be at the bottom (to the earth), the erternal wealth of africa which does not mean money but rather the richness of african heritage, and both the blood of the martyrs and those who died unjustly and of those who live to find Zion in this everliving life. Any other understanding stems from this original one and has been changed to suit the individual as he or she sees fit, which is perfectly fine from the viewpoint of Rasta as it is up to each person to find their own overstanding. To try too hard to find a definition or one set of meanings is missing the point.

isms and schisms

I know relatively little about this movement. The article says that the term Rastafarianism is considered offensive to followers, but doesn't explain why. Can anyone explain this to me? Also, the article doesn't seem to clearly provide the term that the followers of this movement find appropriate. I personally have no position one way or the other, I'm merely curious about this interesting movement.Loomis51 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rastas are ideologically opposed to all kinds of isms and don't consider Rastafari to be yet another ism, SqueakBox 16:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Trustafarian up for deletion

I've just put Trustafarian up for deletion. It is completely unsourced and little more than an attempt to be divisive and derogatory towards people on account of a) race, b) faith, c) economic state - what else is left? Please stop by and vote on the article's deletion page. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why Rastafari and homosexuality

Why is the debate about homosexuality in the Rastafari movement highlighted in the article? Homosexuality is a touchy issue in pretty much every other religion. Why is the debate given notable mention here and not in, say, the articles on Judaism, Christianity or Islam?Loomis51 10:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A very good question. There are some editors here who will doubtless disagree and say this material should stay but I personally agree with Loomis. Perhaps someone would care to offer an explanation to this question if they want the material to stay in the article, SqueakBox 14:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the homosexuality is very touchy topic in whole Jamaica. Homosexuality is illegal in face of a law and many local churches do also preach against "sodomites". The point im trying to make is that gay bashing within rastafari is not releated to the movement itself but to the whole country in general. Rasjani 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality, rather the intolerance of it, should be mentioned wherever it arises if it is pertinent. It is true that culturally Jamaica as a whole is very one sided on the topic, whereas Christians, for example, can be pretty clearly divided on the issue. The issue brought up here is not that it is irrelevant to Jamaica or Rastafari(-anism?) but is relevant in other places where it does not appear. This divide is a line that goes through virtually every culture. "Conservative” Catholics have a tack clearly different from say, the Episcopal Church. Some faiths call Episcopalians "false" Christians, certainly an offensive remark, simply because they table the discussion. Anti-homosexuality should be pointed out in those articles and instead of being removed here. --NoPhE4R 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Clockwise/Counterclockwise

The article presently states: "The person honored by being allowed to light the herb says a short prayer before doing so, and it is always passed in a clockwise fashion." Is this properly sourced? Is this even clear? A clockwise direction viewed from above is counterclockwise viewed from below. Should it be more correctly stated that the pipe is passed to the left? Should this be taken out? Whig 18:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti rasta POV

who was baptised Berhane Selassie (Light of the Trinity) in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church before his death, a step also taken later by his widow Rita. What is this statement about Bob marley doing in the opening paragraph of this a5rticle. It was cleasrly yet another malicious edit from a christafari advocate obsessed with discrediting Rastafrai, as a result it must not be removed immediaterly as this encyclopedia is not an excuse for people to discredit rastafari becausing they are promoting thieir own religious beliefs, SqueakBox 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of Title is NOT "POV"

He had the title. That's a fact, and not a POV. Wikipedia has a ploicy allowing use of honorifics for royalty, and nobody has shown different. On the contrary, there are numerous articles that use honorifics with the title. For example:

Line of succession to the Throne of Liechtenstein

--ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, this is related to a rather long discussion Codex and I just wrapped up -- see our talk pages for details. --Improv 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To date, no one has bothered to offer even a weak argument to try to explain why they feel what I wrote above here on discussion is wrong. Therefore, this POV edit (The fact of his Royalty was internationally recognised by the League of Nations and the United Nations, who themselves always styled Him with the honorific as any monarch, and as are many other monarchs on wikipedia) will have to be reverted.

The only weak argument I have seen offered anywhere is from people who seem to have a dim understanding of what the honorific stands for, and who seem to think it is bestowing a religious title equivalent to Christ, which is not normally allowed here on wikipedia on most articles in reference to Jesus. This is not at all comparable. Every government in the world recognized His Imperial Majesty with that honorific, and a policy making an exception in this case has yet to be draughted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There are references in this article itself to Selassie not prefaced by H.I.M. and it is not needed in the image caption. I looked at quite a few images of Elizabeth II in a variety of articles and the captions do not say "Her majesty..." or anything of the kind. This insistance here of inserting "H.I.M." (and not even, I would note, the full actual title) is a reverential practice, and certainly not NPOV. The NPOV principle cannot be negotiated. Jonathunder 13:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What is NPOV? I agree with ውይይት but would like to know what this NPOV or POV as it is sometimes called actually is. Ras Billy I 13:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jona, You're trying to apply a rule that doesn't exist. I demonstrated that the rule doesn't exist, and admin Improv even backed down, because it doesn't exist. You have not demonstrated your ridiculous assertion that there is any POV in referring to H.I.M. as H.I.M, so making bellicose statements really don't help, like "The NPOV principle cannot be negotatiated" (and I suppose that makes you the arbiter?) That is how everyone around the world always referred to H.I.M. in diplomatic circles, and not only the Rastas. The longer you continue this, the more apparent it becomes that you are trying to invent a special "rule" to cover this one case of royalty only, based on some emotional argument that you have toward the subject. Once again, I repeat, royal honorifics are used all across wikipedia on numerous articles, their use is NOT deemed POV, and this is a LEGITIMATE, RECOGNISED TITLE, not a religiously-bestowed one like "Prophet" or "Christ". Stop trying to concoct some imaginary unwritten rule that says it's "unpermissible POV" in this case and this case only, while still permissible for other royalty.

By the way, Skanking, POV = Point of View, NPOV = Neutral Point of View. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I take ውይይት point. Jesus was just a poor carpenter whereas Selassie I was a real monarch in the real world up till 32 years ago and was obviously recognised as such by the great majority of countries and peoples of the world. Ras Billy I 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is nearly universally recognized as a monarch. Do any of captions in images of her on Wikipedia say "Her majesty"? I haven't seen a single one that does, and I have checked many. Jonathunder 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the editors of Elizabeth II had a consensus to include it, it would not be prohibited by any written guideline. You don't get to make up unwritten rules as you go along, and suggesting that this article be bound in any way by decisions taken at another wikipedia article on Elizabeth II as some kind of 'precedent', is recognisably faulty logic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a real title and used a lot by Rastafarians who refer to him as H.I.M. (or him) so it kind of makes sense to have it. I would have thought on an article about the Rastafari it would be more neutral to refer to him as H.I.M. Ras Billy I 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The article should discuss the title, of course, and why Rastafarians use it (to show reverence) but that is not the same as USING the title in captions, which not even articles about the Queen do. NPOV is policy, and that means not having articles not be reverential but simply explainitory. Thumbelina 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not been following the discussion, but I have already pointed out an entire series of articles that use (not just discuss) honorifics for royalty. There is no policy against it, nor should there be. It is not used strictly by Rastafarians, it is internationally recognised as belonging to His Majesty Haile Selassie, and this is the crucial fact. You have no right to deprive H.I.M. of a legitemately recognised title of royalty that other monarchs and their families are freely allowed to use on wikipedia, solely for the sake of your own opinionated pov. This discussion is ongoing at the MOS talk page; feel free to give your opinions there, but PLEASE hold of on all further edit warring and accept the status quo of policy until such time as it may be changed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How are we going to resolve this one? All this edit warring cant be helpful to the encyclopedia. How do these issues get sorted? I support using the honorific but it seems if we keep making changes like this any regular reader would end up being sceptical of the article and would like to see some kind of way forward or compromise found. It seems looking above that this is not the first controversial issue here but the Rastafarianism issue got fixed eventually from the look of things so lets please try and resolve this too. Thanks. Ras Billy I 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, since the edit-warring is getting rather tiresome. bikeable (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a Link for "Rastafarians History"

Hello, I am proposing a link to a website with documentation typed from books. Maybe people are interested to read, but it's very long. URL is : http://www.rootsreggaeclub.com/culture_reggae_afro/the_rastafarians/the_rastafarians_main.htm

How can I know if it is approved or rejected?

Wisebwoy 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you should put the link in yourself. I haven't been here long myself but it looks like a good link to me, Ras Billy I 00:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have put it in myself. Hope that is cool. Ras Billy I 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

H.I.M.

Would "Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia" be an acceptable compromise? It's factually accurate, clear to any reader (more so than H.M.), and avoids accusations of POV. Guettarda 15:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That matches pretty closely what other image captions of royalty do, such as for Elizabeth II. I couldn't find a single one that uses "her majesty" and to say "his majesty" is part of Selassie's name is just flatly incorrect. Thumbelina 22:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, to say it isn't part of his name is flatly incorrect. All international standards of diplomacy use it, other wikipedia articles have it, and policy allows it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"H.M." refers to part of his title; it's not "part of his name". His full title was "His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie I, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God". His name was Haile Selassie. Thumbelina 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

His name is Lij Tafari Makonnen and His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie I, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God is his title. Ras Billy I 00:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tafari is a childhood name, not a Christian name. He was baptised as an infant, Hayle Sillasie (Power of the Trinity). He took this as his Coronation name, but on official documents his full name as Emperor usually appeared as Qedamawee Hayle Sillasie Niguse Negest ze'Ityoppya, or as He usually signed with his initials, QeHaS Ni. Ne. ze'I. Sometimes in full it appeared as Girmawee Qedamawee Atsie Hayle Sillasie Niguse Negest ze'Ityoppya. In official documents in English (even international and diplomatic ones) it quite often appeared with his full royal name as H.M. Emperor Haile Selassie I. It's really a moot point, because as long as there is no written policy prohibiting use of honorifics, they are just as permissible here as they are for other royals, and I am devoted to keeping the unwritten rules invented-as-you-go-along by a few opinionated persons with a clearly hostile agenda, from depriving His Majesty from his legitimately, internationally recognised title as a King -- so for as long as I am here, the problem isn't ever going to be solved by their incessant edit warring; it is a matter of following strictly the written policy, and not making up unwritten, arbitrary policies. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in "edit warring" but I do support Codex's use of HM or HIM (which I prefer) though I also think Emperor Haile... is better than Haile... Ras Billy I 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think Selassie's greatest achievement has been to be recognised in the highly racist international circles that were the reality of the pre WWII world as the only legitimate black leader on the planet, and that his example as indeed the great king that Garvey said black people need to become then inspired the black liberation movements both in Africa and in the Americas so if there is one person deserving to be called His Imperial Majesty it is Selassie, and what Codex is saying about this being a deserved and internationally recognised title and not just something among the Rastafari is indeed so. Ras Billy I 00:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unwilling Messiah

Should the comments and opinions of HIM be mentioned in relation to the Rastafari movement? Right now, it makes it seem as if HIM was in agreement with the views of the Rastafari as God. Homagetocatalonia 17:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that he was an unwilling messiah and it certainly is not for wikipedia to claim such a thing. It is very clear from the article that Selassie was not a cult leader, nor did he in any way manipulate the devotion of the Rastas toward him. He also was on record as stressing the importance of religion and morality and it is far fetched to say that Selasie would be unhappy with the positive effect the Rastafari have on many poor, disturbed Afro communities both within and outside his beloved Africa by promoting his messages of racial harmony and living a moral life would at best be pure speculation. Ras Billy I 17:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict w. Billy) Anything can be mentioned as long as it is strictly NPOV. But the phrase "Unwilling Messiah" is only an inference some have made from His comments, pertaining to his Miaphysite faith (stress on divine nature that is worshipped, but perfectly combined with human nature of Christ), and "unwilling" was never explicitly stated by him as far as I know. The Rastafarian interpretation of his literal comments, is that he was rather a "Discrete Messiah". They have pointed to numerous verses throughout the Gospels to assert that Jesus was always similarly discrete, keeping everyone guessing about his identity, but only revealing his divinity privately to a few select individuals, and commanding them to be discrete about it. In fact, there is enough material on this topic to fill a whole page. They also cite Gospel verses that the true Messiah would never reveal his true identity to the world at large, for anyone claiming to be so would be an imposter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This subject is actually dealt with at Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia#Haile Selassie I's attitude to the Rastafarians but I guess we could also cover this theme in this article. Ras Billy I 17:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pic

Please dont remove the pic. I believe having a pic of the object of worship of a religion is standard and cannot imagine why anyone would remove it. if it hadnt been a regular I would have assumed it was pure vandalism, SqueakBox 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The whole article is comically NPOV, with little or no critisism of Rastafarianism. It reads like propoganda literature. Not exactly up to Wikipedia standards.

Well do something about it then, leaving your note here is hardly like to inspire others to do so. Whgat kind of criticisms do you refer to? And why comical? El Rojo 15:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be NPOV on wikipedia. What is the problem?

We have been through the title issue numerous times. What exactly is the "POV" in referring to H.I.M. as "His Imperial Majesty"? Yes, that really is part of His legitimate title as a Sovereign, and that is a FACT - not an opinion! Facts are facts, learn to deal with them! Don't you have anything better to do with your time on wikipedia than try to rob H.I.M. of his internationally recognised Sovereign title? You are only going to encounter endless resistance here, when there are so many much more constructive things you could be doing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"is not a religion but a philosophy"

I have heard this line before... e.g. I know quite a few Christians which will tell you things like "Christianity is not a religion". These people, whether they are Christians or Rastafaris or Pagans or whatever, are reacting to the bad flavour that the word "religion" gives some people, by trying to claim their brand is different... fine... but the point is that from the scholarly point of view (and the commonsense point of view as well, for that matter), a system full of beliefs about God, etc., is a religion. So, I don't think this phrase can be NPOV. At the very least, is needs to acknowledge that both academics and most ordinary people would consider it to be a religion, even if some (a few, many, all) of its own followers don't agree with that description. --SJK 11:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it make any sense that the opening statement of the article states that Rastafari is not a religion, while the rest of the article generally refers to it as a religion? Bulbous 18:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this article misleading regarding the Rastafarian Movement by emphatizing religious aspects and neglecting political aspects. IMHO in such a dispute the best is to keep things simple and describe how they grew in various directions, so i would start mentioning the very beginning at the very beginning: that the Rastafari Movement was the first movement of slave liberation in the Caribbeans. It grew proportionally to class consciousness among the slaves and the sign of growing hair was a sign of liberation from slavery. This is the basic where everything started, as a large movement of oppressed people redempted themselves from the oppressors. As a bibliographic reference in case you want to edit further this article *please* have a look at the book by Horace Campbell "Rasta Resistance" ISBN: 0865430357 - i find several incongruences between the way this article describes Rastafari Resistance and the way it is depicted in such well researched historical documentation. Please note that, given the widening of this movement in recent times, it has been subject to several distorsions which are also mentioned in the book, which also mentions the religious aspect as a natural consequence of the ignorance in which the slaves were kept. jaromil 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaromil, please do not attempt to change history. Slavery ended in 1838. The Rastafari movement began in 1930. 'Nuff said. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Best to edit according to what you say, making sure you reference your edits. Obviously like any religion Rastafari contains a whole different bunch of people united in certain beliefs and not in others. I dont agree Rastafari was the first slave liberation movement in the Caribbean, this role fell to Garveyism, though I would argue that Rastafari was a development of Garveyism. To say the religious aspects of the movement are based on ignorance is wrong unless one assumes that all religion is based on ignorance (a valid point of view but definitely a point of view) and if one assumes all religion is based on ignorance it would be hard to argue that one was a member of the Rastafari movement. We need to take care not to have Rastafari in this article reflect the beliefs of a minority of politically motivated individuals, neither Horace Campbell nor anyone else has a monopoly on defining Rastafari and to label those with a more conservative outlook (as HIM had) as introducing distortions into the movemenht is inaccurate I would say, indeed it is the distortions of the left that IMO are those which distort the movement, so edit and lets take it from there, SqueakBox 15:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that "knowledge is power", then lack of education was the first problem for slaves to acknowledge their condition and claim their human rights: it's not a coincidence that, as you mention, it started from Garvey, the first slave who could study law and who greatly inspired the Rastafari movement at its roots. Walter Rodney was another one who studied and became very important as well, but he was too linked to Marxism to survive the secret services during elections in Granada, so he was murdered for his popularity. Thru the years the Truth in the words of Marley, Tosh and Burning Spear has been decaying in the commercialization of the culture, certain aspects took over in the popularization of the Rastafari message and enthusiastic religious celebrations often casted shadows over more intellectual socio-political analisys, a process that Horace Campbell warns as manipulated by colonialist interests. Regarding religion I apologize for my previous formulation: i didn't ment to directly link religion to ignorance, but i understand it may sound as such in my previous quickly written sentence. Let me clarify quoting the concept i had in mind, inspired by Campbell: a mass of people who hasn't access to education and is confined in the social role of "lowcast" work can find redemption and organize as a movement basically in two ways: acquiring education (accessible to few) and/or worshipping a religion that vehicles self-determination (accessible to many). The two ways aren't separated nor should be IMHO, by tracing a picture of the Rastafari movement we should take both into account. Now looking at the incipit of the article i see: 2 paragraph about Bible quotes, the King and religious Formulas, then "other factors leading to its rise include the sacred use of cannabis, and various Afrocentric social and political aspirations" - i believe it could be better formulated introducing those social and political aspirations as well as the religious aspects, starting from their common roots: liberation from slavery. jaromil 23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well do feel free to edit and if Codex or I disagree strongly with anything we will doubtless reedit - thus is the wikipedia way. I dont agree at all that the commercialisation of Rastafari has been a bad thing, I would say it has been unequivocally a positive thing, perhaps because I believe in commerce, something Garvey was strongly in favour of himself. The commercialisation of reggae has not only brought the Rasta message and HIM to the world, it has created a music style unmatched by any other religious movement either in modern times or arguably ever. I for one look forward to you editing the article, SqueakBox 00:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

names...

"much as academics now refer to "Eskimos" as "Inuit""

The one problem with this is that not all "Eskimo" are "Inuit". Especially in Alaska where you have the Yupik etc.

Please edit the article to reflect this. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Persecution

Persecution of Rastafari is a new article to add to your watchlists. There is a whole list of Persecution of...various religions articles but there was nothing on Rastafari, yet both historically and currently with cannabis amongst other thingds the Rastafari suffer persecution. My own belief is that you put up a picture of His Majesty etc and everyone thinks you are a herb smoker, which can certainly bring problems in many parts of the world. Anyway contributions to the new article are very welcome, SqueakBox 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure many people would view anti-reefer laws as "persecution."

So what? even were your speculation true, SqueakBox 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Whole chunks of this article are lifted verbatim from various of the referencing pages. I have a vague recollection that that's not OK. Forgive me if I'm wrong.Carrie S. 18:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please give specific examples, so we can fix them. As far as I know this article is a collaborative effort of multiple authors, if there are any sites out there with the same wording, chances are they're "mirrors"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, please give specific examples that can be investigated as you are right that such a practice is not acceptable, though like Codex I am surprised to see such a claim re this article, SqueakBox 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Why the picture change? It seems to me the first one was better. Bulbous 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well at least this pic partly answers some charges that have been made that the article was ignoring the Omega side of Rastafari! Why do you like the other one better? It is still at the top of the Haile Selassie article, so at least now also there is more variety between the two. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Bulbous 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, SqueakBox 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I have had to learn how to resize images in my job and so thought I would let wikipedia enjoy the fruits of this. Now we have lost the Queen Omega pic I think the cropped one we have is really good, SqueakBox 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources

This article puts forth a lot of information with virtually no sources. Please see WP:CITE for further information. I like the article, but the almost the entire thing could be deleted for lack of citations from reliable sources. Editors need to do some serious research. Bulbous 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's what you might do to be helpful: Put {fact} tags on the specific sentences you want to challlenge or have doubts about. That way it will help the authors of this article to look for supporting citations. Putting a blanket tag at the top of the article rarely does any good because we don't know specifically what we are supposed to be looking for. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Codex, I appreciate your article and your efforts, but editors have to understand that sources are needed to present material. This whole article is unsourced. As per WP:CITE, "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor". That is, editors have the RIGHT to remove anything unsourced, which is pretty much the entire article. You should try to provide sources for *everything*, but in particular pay attention to statements such as "They feel/believe/think that"... which pervade the whole text. This article was tagged as unsourced not just for fellow editors to help fix it, but also to call to the attention of Wikipedia administrators the problems with this article. Bulbous 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]

Please dont remove references or your edits doing so will be reverted. You do not have the right to remove references. Before removing the article see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. if you want to help make a better article that would be great. The tag has been onm long enough, SqueakBox 17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I only removed one single reference, that being the song lyric. Please read WP:RS. A song lyric is not a reliable source and may not be used as a reference in Wikipedia.

You removed dozens of tags from my edit. Please use the talk page before further changes are made. Bulbous 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:RS needs rewriting then as so much rastafari doctrine comes from song lyrics, and in this case it is unique, so please do not remove these without discussing here, a good case of WP:IAR methinks. A lot of the material here is from the Joseph owens book and I am referenciong that, SqueakBox 17:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway where within [[WP:RS does it deny song lyrics in this particular case, just giving a page is of no use to me, SqueakBox 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Bulbous, but you do not get to make up the rules as you go along here. So where did you invent this new rule about song lyrics? Reggae lyrics happen to be the primary mode by which Rasta doctrine was diffused to a wide audience. They do indeed speak for many Rasta doctrines, and yes they are verifiable. As far as demanding a cite for every single statement... Eesh! There IS a reference section, so {unreferenced} is inaccurate, unfactual, and inappropriate. If you think there are not enough treferences, I suggest using {moresources} instead. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I put in loads of refs that you just deleted Bulbous. That cannot help the article. Please calm down and lets talk it through here. If you continue you will be in danger of violating WP:3RR, SqueakBox 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You're probably closer to WP:3RR than me! Anyway, the point is that the whole article was written from what seemed to be a very POV standpoint, and gave little or no specific references. You've gotten a good start going, but you need a lot more work. I encourage you to continue. Also, if possible, try not to quote everything from the single source. Bulbous 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Codex, I used the tags very sporadically, actually. The problem is that the article makes large numbers of unreferenced contentious claims. I've monitored this article carefully, and every time an "outside" editor makes a good faith change, it is immediately reverted by yourself. Keep in mind that editors have the RIGHT to remove unsourced claims, especially contentious ones. This wouldn't happen if you gave proper references for your claims. You are on the right track, but you have loads of work to do. Bulbous 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone reading this has a copy of the reference I added, Rastafari A Way of Life by Tracy Nicholas. I have unfortunately lost my copy, that was the 1979 edition, but remember most of what it says. I do have a copy of 'Itations of Jamaica' by Millahwrd Faristzaddi, and other such literature, but the Nicholas book is about as good a scholarly work on the Rastafari movement as one could get. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bulbous, Codex and I watch this article and we want it to prosper. If you want to help, eg get it to FA standard, you are very welcome. There are genuine issues re Song lyrics and sure we need to get to an FA standard. Please help us but hindering will just produce a lot of emotion. I think I can speak for Codex in saying we want the best for this article, please help!!!!! SqueakBox 19:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to help. Right now, with so few references, I think this is a very poor article. However, with proper referencing, I think it would be a very good article. In order to help the article along, I tagged it with "unsourced" in the past. That was removed, and I was asked to tag specific claims. I did so, and those tags got removed, too. Keep in mind that I've never removed any content from the page other than the song lyric, and I would agree that could be contended. For my efforts, Codex has gone so far as to imply that I'm a "prick". Bulbous 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have now removed that sentence as it was uncalled for on my part. I realize you could have done far worse as it almost seemed like you were threatening to do. Bear with us and I am confident that published sources can be found for everything, or nearly everything. And SB and I are not the only two contributors of course! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are up to your old tricks again, reverting another user's "more sources" tag? I must say that I am quite unimpressed that you chiefly use a single source for your article, but you admit that you don't even have a copy of it? Bulbous 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The article does use multiple sources, SqueakBox 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)