Talk:Kwanzaa/Archive 3

message: I just cut a paranthetical description of torture from the article.  According to , Karenga was convicted of torturing two women, not "several" (is there a source for more than two?), and the description of the torture may suggest something about the character of the religion's founder, but doesn't necessarily reveal much about the "Principles" of the celebration.  I suggest that the material belongs in the article about Karenga, as opposed to the "Principles of Kwanzaa" section here.  Note also the fact that this article has an "Origins" section.  Jkelly 23:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it doesn't belong in the "Principles of Kwanzaa" section, but it's a bit irresponsible of you to simply delete the information.  Move it into another section if you think that is necessary.  A problem I keep having this article is that people want to remove factual information that is uncited or ill-placed, not because the fact is uncited or ill-placed, but because it displeases them.  If  it is a fact, and it contributes to the article, then don't just delete it.  Move it to where you think it is more appropriate and cite a source.  We want the article to grow, not shrink.  I'm not trying to criticize you, I think people in general need to realize this. --~ Jared ~ 00:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:V and WP:CITE about the appropriateness of removing unsourced information.  I further suggest that it is an open question as to whether detailed descriptions of Karenga's torture "contributes to the article" -- it is not obvious to me that it would be what the casual reader would come to this article looking for.  Jkelly 00:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, but my main beef with that sentence now is that it got the chronology wrong.  The article on Karenga had a source cited on his infamous torture, so please do a bit more research before acting like a sentence is so unsupported/uncited.  --~ Jared ~ 00:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Torture?

message: First point: I don't see why you insist on the wording "Kwanzaa is a holiday celebrating" as opposed to "Kwanzaa celebrates".  The wording you chose is unnecessary, it has already been established that Kwanzaa is a holiday.
Second point: How is the fact that most African Americans are from West Africa a POV?  It's a provable statistic and I cited a very reliable source.  Almost ALL African Americans originated from the West coast of Africa.  Do you mean to tell me that they were being shipped from East Africa?  If so you know nothing about the triangular slave trade.  East African slavery served mainly to deliver female slaves to the Middle East.  Saying that this was "total povitude" is completely BS.  Facts cannot be POV, and I cited sources as you insist.  What else do you want?
Since Big Brother felt it necessary to censor me, my source was from here 1, it is an excerpt from P.D. Curtin's, "Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census".  Curtin is an expert on the subject and the book is very reliable. ~ Jared ~ 00:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now unprotected, but I will not tolerate POV-pushing edits without discussion. -- SCZenz 00:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then.  I would like to know whether you consider my second point up there to be POV-pushing. ~ Jared ~ 02:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? Hardly.

message: as requested at WP:AN/I#Kwanzaa and after reviewing the article I have sprotected the article to deal with a long string of vandalism from many sources. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sprotected 

message: I think the info in the intro is good enough.   We can work on it if something more is needed -- what more is needed?   We aren't using any hypertechnical terms.
I'd also like to remove the verification flag.   We have sources for the '66 date.   It's more a matter of conflicting sources than lack of citations.
-Justforasecond
Perhaps we could mention the discrepency somehow with a sentence saying something (haha, alliteration) like, "Kwanzaa was mentioned as early as /earlier date/, when it was mentioned by the NYT as Kwanza [sic].  It hadn't become an established/outlined/visible practice until /second date/.  It doesn't have to be worded quite like that, I was just making an example.  That's my suggestion.  ~ Jared ~ 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing context and verification flags 

message: I think it's very important to include.  He was a black nationalist and while he might have renounced violence after his stint in the joint, those are the clear drivers of his philosophy.  His goals are the creation of a new society with African-Americans (and I dispute that word because he wants them to have a seperate country) only and to secede from the US.  Or get a chunk of territory or whatever.  It's also a matter of his credibility.  If the founder and leader of a religion was a pedophile, would you trust it?  How about a former criminal in general convicted of what he did?  Not including it is a POV that does little more than turn this page into a shill for Kwanzaa.  Other religions and groups are required to have their significant dirt up on their pages for NPOV, not sure why this page should be exempt. -- Jbamb 15:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the short rant on POVness at the end, lets take it bit by bit. Yes, he was a blacknationalist at the time of creation (in the article lead). Violence is a clear driver for his philosiphy? If thats true, and it seeped into Kwanzaa, go find me a credible cite, and we'll put it in. Kwanzaa as a tool for black seperation? Great, again, prove it. He was *not* a criminal at the time of the creation of the holiday, which is an issue of the wrong direction. However, if and when he continued to define the holiday after his conviction and prison term, thats plenty notable. Whether I do trust a religion or not based on its founder is my buisness, and mine alone, and to expand, the reader's buisness and the reader's alone. They are welcome to follow the wikilink for further details. I doubt the lead of Christmas has an expansive list of the sins of [[Peter] Mark Luke Paul and Jesus himself, or a lengthy diatribe on the flaws of the Catholic Church, all of which could be tied into the "credibility" of Christmas--Tznkai 15:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.  Response to above 

message: Nandesuka, I agree with you about the link you removed, but that was not the extent of your edit.  What problem do you have with including the creation date of kwanzaa in the introduction?  It seems to me that it is self-evident that that is something to be included in the introduction.  You also insisted on making some sentences less concise, this doesn't make sense, and I'll take it upon myself to fix that.  Please don't revert things like that, it really is rather pointless.  ~ Jared ~ 03:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jared, those changes were accidental -- my only target was the link.  Feel free to put those changes back in.  Nandesuka 03:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty. :) ~ Jared ~ 03:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Edit? 

message: Alrighty. I got here from WP:AN/I with reports of a link edit war. Upon looking over the history, I think both sides have some valid points. Frontpagemag.com is a prominent conservative website, and I think that their criticisms of Kwanzaa deserve at least an external link. (Given the extent of right wing criticisms of this holiday, I think a NPOV "Criticisms of Kwanzaa" section in the article might also be appropriate.) At the same time, I agree that "Racist Holiday from Hell" is an unnecessarily inflammatory article title. So I have linked a different anti-Kwanzaa article from frontpagemag.com. Please discuss on talk if you think this is a problem. Firebug 11:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the different (non-offensively titled) frontpagemag article link is an appropriate compromise. Nandesuka 03:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: The lead should be edited to:
: Kwanzaa (sometimes spelled Kwaanza) is a week-long secular Holiday ...
(The alternate spelling Kwaanza is explained much lower in the article, and is also a redirect to here.)
-- 62.147.39.46 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thaks for the suggestion. :) ~ Jared ~ 20:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kwaanza in lead 

message: This article seems to be self-contradictory. First, it says that Kwaanza is celebrated by "a small minority of African-Americans," then later states that "many African-American families celebrate Kwanzaa along with Christmas and New Year's". Which is it?Benami 00:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Small and many are both POV terms.   If a "small minority" is 20%, any many is "millions" they're consistent.   Actual stats or references to them would be better.  -Justforasecond 03:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lets not be excessive with removing anything resembling useful language.--Tznkai 03:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Justforasecond is right - it is less POV to simply state the number or the percentage of people practicing, unless you intend to put the entire sentence into perspective by laying out ALL of the numbers. - Super Librarian--71.250.88.213 14:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: I removed the reference to Karenga being a former Black Panther, as that appears to be untrue.  For example, the page about him suggests that he was part of the US Organinzation, which was at odds with the Black Panther Party.  Can anyone find information that would confirm he was a Panther?
BTChicago 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Panther 

message: Stop it. Both sides are revert warring. Both sides have important and valid points to make. It's great that you started using the discussion page. Hopefully you'll be able to reach some kind of agreement by listening to each other instead of reverting blindly. I believe that both Cyde and Goodandevil are in violation of 3RR, but (a) I haven't counted and (b) they haven't been warned, so no block. Yet. Consider yourselves warned. FreplySpang (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert warring 

message: I have removed the POV tag, because on reviewing this talk page I can not determine what specific points in the article it is claimed are POV.  If someone can point to specific language that is POV (beyond vague phrases like "puff piece"), I will gladly restore it.  Thanks, Nandesuka 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not sufficient to provide guideance on what, exactly, is POV.  Reading the controversy section, I certainly see nothing there that "paints critics as fools."  What do you think is doing that?  Perhaps you could discuss your suggested additions here.  Please be more specific.  Also, you've had your 3RR warning.  Do not revert again. Nandesuka 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, given that Christmas meant nothing to the Early Christians and was instead an attempt to draw various "pagans" into Christianity, one could easily argue that Christmas has a checkered past and is a made-up holiday.  In fact, one might even point out that the three "founders" of Christianity were convicted felons; were they not? Jim62sch 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag removed 

message: And as long as we're on the subject, can anyone find a reference for the "weasel words" that "some say" the Kinara appropriates the symbol of the Jewish Menorah?  I may be bad at using Google, but I haven't been able to figure out who says this, exactly.  It may be that the Kinara was inspired by the Menorah, certainly there are some major similarities, but where are the references to support either of those points?  Kaisershatner 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found numerous sources which all state "The kinara should not be confused with the menorah" but none which claim appropriation. The menorah has nine candles, the kinara seven. The menorah's center candle is higher than the others, the kinara has all on the same height. I'm removing that text until and unless a verifiable source is found. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful. See menorah; the nine-candle version (the chanukiah) is used for Hanukkah, but the seven-candle version is the traditional symbol of Judaism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is well taken, and certainly illuminates my ignorance of the menorah. The lack of a cite for the claim remains the central issue. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm certain no-one here has suggested "stealing."  I would be happy with something like "critics have pointed out the similarity of the Kinara with the traditional Jewish menorah, suggesting Karenga was influenced by or appropriated this symbol..." except I can't find any evidence that any critics actually have said this.  So let's substantiate that claim or not include it.  :)  Kaisershatner 18:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kinara and Menorah

message: FWIW, this article, along with a few others, is the subject of a Free Republic "Action Alert". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, lets just play nice and hope that they have some real knowledge to share. Strong POV doesn't cripple all editors--Tznkai 04:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, I realize you're probably irritated at the tone of the discussion here, but there's no need to generalize about people who visit Free Republic.  It smacks of the same kind of prejudice  you are right to condemn.  Kaisershatner 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Meh, there's a big difference between me exercizing my right to free speech on the discussion page and issuing a call to arms to go out and vandalize Wikipedia.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Either way lets take it as it comes.--Tznkai 04:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *I am.  I'm surprised we haven't been "hit" yet.  Maybe they just don't care about Kwanzaa.  It's not like I'm proposing a preemptive block on the page or anything.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Cyde, I think there's a difference between Progressivism in the United States and the general concept of progress. --DDerby-(talk) 08:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Republic "Action Alert"