Talk:Kwanzaa/Archive 1

message: I don't know enough about the subject to really contribute to this article, but this anonymous user, who clearly has some kind of axe to grind with Ron Karenga, is making extremely dubious changes to the article. His latest edit, which I have reverted, inserts such bizarre things as "(Kwanzaa is collectively referred with Maoism)" (what does "collectively referred with" even mean?). I'd like to request that this user provide individual citations for changes he or she wishes to make to the article, particularly controversial ones such as this. RadicalSubversiv E 07:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 24.165.102.68

message: I just encountered this article for the first time. It's highly POV, not well written and arguably racist. I've reverted to the last version with DreamGuy's name on it, and I've made a few minor copy-editing changes, but it probably needs a re-write.
I also removed the paragraph that said: "In an interview with the Washington Post, Karenga said, "People think it's African, but it's not. I came up with Kwanzaa because Black people wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of Bloods are partying." This needs a date and preferably a link to the article. Slim 03:30, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
----
There is a great deal of effort behind the article I wrote, the research and studies took a length of time which did not need to be deleted by someone who doesn't realize the information was sound.
:Would you mind signing your comments?  It makes it easier to keep track. I don't agree that the information was sound. It was not referenced and was written in a way that was POV, unencyclopedic and, at points, arguably racist. It sounded a little as though the author had an axe to grind. I am sorry if you put a lot of work into obtaining the information, but perhaps all it needs is a different presentation, using neutral words, a neutral tone, and with references to reputable publishers (newspapers, books etc) so that readers can check the veracity of it. You might want to take a look at some policy pages for ideas, for example, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability  Slim 04:24, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
----
I continually re-add the references and links that are being deleted.
::Hello again. If you revert this again, I will request page protection, because it cannot be left up as it is.  You are inserting your own opinions. Here are some examples of the problems with your article. 
Racist and offensive: "The fact is, there is no Ur-African culture. The continent remains stubbornly tribal. Hutus and Tutsis still slaughter one another for sport."
POV and arguably racist: "Now, the point : There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent. Nobody ever ennobled a people with a lie or restored stolen dignity through fraud. Kwanzaa is the ultimate chump holiday."
Unencylopedic: "This year, President Clinton signed his fourth Kwanzaa proclamation. He crooned . . . "
POV and/or needs reference: "The inventors of Kwanzaa weren't promoting a return to roots; they were shilling for Marxism. They even appropriated the term "ujima," which Julius Nyerere cited when he uprooted tens of thousands of Tanzanians and shipped them forcibly to collective farms, where they proved more adept at cultivating misery than banishing hunger. "
Needs date and, if there is one, a link to the article: "In an interview with the Washington Post , Karenga said, "People think it's African, but it's not. I came up with Kwanzaa because Black people wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of Bloods are partying (see external links & references).
These are just examples.  Slim 04:36, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Racist?  These are not my opinions - it is from an article on the Official Martin Luther King Jr website.  I cited quotes from the Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere.  I refered to books written by Karenga.  I myself am an African American!  So how is this racist?
**Sir or Madam, that is not the "offical Martin Luther King Jr" website. That is a site hosted by Stormfront (online site), a very obnoxious neo-Nazi/White power organization. I've reverted again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are taking this information from reputable publications, you must provide references (citations) and quotations. But you must also use information that is relevant to Kwanzaa. It seems that you are inserting anything that you find insulting e.g. Africans killing each other for sport. That has nothing to do with Kwanzaa; it is offensive; and it is not expressed in a neutral tone i.e. it is unencylopedic.  Please understand that you cannot simply insert your own views into an article; and you cannot formulate an argument. You can only report, in a very neutral way, what others have said. Please read the policy pages I linked to above before doing any more editing. Slim 04:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
YOU KEEP DELETING MY REFERENCES!!!
----
I've protected the article after reverting the most recent of the anon's reversions. I'll try to remember to unprotect it tomorrow. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: What is the problem with reporting on the criticisms? According to the Wikipedia NPOV policy, "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate." Including the Snow article seems to be a description of the debate, not an official advocation of that side of the debate. Putting, for example, that there "is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent" as the first sentence of the article would violate the policy, but including this as a description of the debate over Kwanzaa seems to be crucial to the intent of Wikipedia, not a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Am I misinterpreting Wikipedia's policies in my support of the inclusion of Snow's article - if not in its full text under a clearly-labeled "criticisms" header, at least as a link? Peoplesyak 14:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with reporting criticisms. But that's what it has to be: reporting. We can't insert our own opinions. We're meant to report facts and opinions that have already been published in reputable publications, then give those publications as references. But they do have to be reputable -- not neo-Nazi websites. If someone reputable has said: "There's no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent," that would have to be given as a quotation with a citation. The article has to be written in a neutral voice. It can't be an opinion piece. There would be nothing wrong with including quotations from the Snow article (depending on what it says: I haven't read it) so long as they're relevant and not needlessly offensive. The previous version was very offensive, including references to Africans "killing each other for sport." I'm moving your comment and my reply to the bottom of the page, so it's easier for others to follow the debate. Slim 14:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
*Sources are important. Sure, Snow's opinion might be valuable; some of this little revert war that occurred could have been short-circuited if it had been pointed out that what the anon was posting was just a cut-and-paste. Sources are important. The so-called "offical MLK Jr" website is astounding in its duplicity, and I'd be inclined to distrust every word printed there. For example, under the header "Jews and Civil Rights: Who led the civil rights movement" is an excerpt from a book by David Duke. Under the heading "The Death of the Dream: The Day Martin Luther King Was Shot" is an allegation that King was brutally beating one of the three white women he was sleeping with. Et cetera. It's all hate pieces. I find it extremely hard to believe that the anon poster was not being disingenuous about the nature of the website he was quoting from: a Nazi filth pile. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Mr. Billion, if you feel those two articles are too OTT, by all means delete them. The only reason I left them in is that they discuss the criminal record of the founder, which is arguably relevant. On the other hand, they do take clear delight in describing it, so they do seem racist. All the other racist material that was in this article has been removed, so I'm personally hesitant to remove these two links as well. But if you want to do it, I wouldn't object. Slim 17:02, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
*I've removed the links myself. If someone wants to tack them onto the Ron Karenga article, fine. But I think the last sentence in the "Criticisms" section suffices. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: DELETED:
*"Another objection is the fact that Karenga's Marxist and Black-Separatist political beliefs are reflected in the principles, which are code words for elements of his advocacy. "Self-determination" denotes the shunning of non-African American society and commerce, and "cooperative economics" calls for a socialistic, collectivistic economic philosophy."
This is not relevant.  There is nothing about Kwanzaa that speaks to black separatism.  Self-determination is simply what it says.  Cooperative economics is no different from, say, farmers' co-ops, rural or extremely local economies of scale that operate on the barter system or other in-kind transactions.  It's also about blacks patronizing black businesses [gasp! what a concept!].  If you want to take this article into some ridiculous, overblown, comparative discussion of indigenous, African socialism versus Marxism, Karenga's personal affinity for Marxist ideology and Dr. Julius Nyerere's Arusha Declaration and their implications, then bring it on.  But I do not believe this is the place.  GET OVER IT! Go grind your freakin' axe elsewhere. 
There is an ugly tendency on Wikipedia in articles dealing with African-Americans for people to pick and pick and pick and pick anything and everything ad nauseam.  Often ill-informed and/or ridiculously pretentious criticisms, which, IMO, are a particularly perverse/rampant form of white arrogance, anti-black antipathy -- or of just hopelessly old-line knee-grow mind-sets.  The first set of objections will have to suffice.  This other stuff is more of the same -- pure bull (only even more extraneous) -- and it is disappeared.deeceevoice 10:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullcrap "Criticisms"