Talk:Kwanzaa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kwanzaa article.



I do not know who William Norman Grigg is and have redlinked his name in the article. If he is notable enought to be mentioned in the article for his opinion then he should be getting his own article- or at least his own stub. Therefore he should remain redlinked to encourage someone who actually knows who he is to write an article. Angrynight 14:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Grigg, for what it's worth, is senior editor of the John Birch Society's magazine, and, unsurprisingly, is a font of far-right opinion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is this "unsurprising"? Justforasecond 18:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It's unsurprising because JBS is a well-known ultra-conservative group. --Cyde Weys 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not know who Sara McGill is. Apparently she wrote a book titled "Kwanzaa" published in 2005. A google search for her and the word "Kwanzaa" returns only this page and others citing it. Amazon.com does not seem to have any author named Sara McGill and has no book titled simply "Kwanzaa" published in the year 2005. I can find no information on this author or her book. Can someone confirm this is in fact a real book, seeing as this article quotes two sentences from it? An ISBN would be nice, in order to make Ms. McGill's quotation verifiable. Thanks. 66.17.118.207 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't find anything that proves she exists, other than this quote (which is being disseminated, sourced at Wikipedia.) I'm thinking that whole paragraph mentioning her "quote" needs to be deleted up to the Peterson quote, along with the Grigg paragraph. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

...It appears to have been put in here. The contributor hasn't been around much since. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] karenga the felon

In light of record-time revert from Chihuahua, why is it OK to say "karenga the political activist" but not "karenga the political activist and convicted felon"? "felon" is more verifiable than the "activist" description.

Justforasecond 18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source of someone criticizing Kwanzaa as a holiday because of Karenga's felony then that can be included. Otherwise I don't see what it has to do with Kwanzaa. Home Improvement doesn't say "Home Improvement starred Tim Allen, a convicted drug dealer and actor" because it has nothing to do with the show. However, you'll find it mentioned in the article on Allen himself. This seems appropriate to me. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This wasn't in the criticism section, this is in the "history" section. The section calls Karenga a "political activist" and it formerly called him the "director of the black studies department at long beach state". Why is political activist more relevant than convicted felon? If you want to mention Allen's drug dealing go ahead -- it would make for a more informative article as Allen is always portrayed as some sort of good guy. Few realize "Santa" is a drug dealer. That said, I imagine the article describes Allen as an actor because he acted on the show. Justforasecond 19:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what section it's in, my points above stand. Find something that's critical of Kwanzaa as a holiday because of its founder's misdeeds, then maybe that can be characterized somehow. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well thankfully its not up to you because this logic makes little sense. What other piece of information is only allowed in here if someone uses it to critize kwanzaa? If you're curious though the highly critical "Kwanzaa, racist holiday from hell" article does use Karenga's torture of two women to indict Kwanzaa[1] Justforasecond 00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant; not a Wikipedia article. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The simplest reason that this change gets reverted is that it's not true. Kwanzaa was not created by a convicted felon; it was created by a political activist who some years later would be a convicted felon, as well as a university professor, university department head, chairman of the on Multicultural Education and Campus Diversity, author of the mission statement of the Million Man March, etc., etc. The only reason you want to include the "convicted felon" detail there is the same reason you've tried to put pejorative and other irrelevant stuff into the article -- you want to promote your own POV, as displayed on your user page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Smokey, "I second that emotion," JP. It doesn't belong. That's JFAS's m.o. He's been playing the same games at Ron Dellums. deeceevoice 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This is still an issue? Justforasecond, please stop entering uncited information into the article. Justforasecond, please stop trying to create a brand-new narrative within the article. Justforasecond, please stop over-representing minority views within the article. Jkelly 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Responding to the RFC entry: - in the context of Kwanzaa, the criminal or other record of its founder is not particularly relevant. Those who want to know more about him, can read his own, personal, article. That's broadly how user:Katefan0 comented, and I broadly concur. This article has a controversy section that nicely seems to cover the controversies which relate to the holiday. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

hardly surpring -- katefan0 has already stated her position here. Justforasecond 05:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
To be fair... political activist doesn't have anything to do with Kwanzaa either. How about Ron Karenga, the founder of the black nationalist United Slaves Organization (also known as the "US Organization"), created Kwanzaa in California in 1966, in order to give African Americans an alternative holiday to Christmas.? Thanatosimii 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
yes thana, if we wanted to keep the truth about karenga hidden that would be a step in the right direction, and makes sense in the introductory section, but in the "history" section there's more room for a longer description of the man that doesn't leave users walking away thinking he created kwanzaa and that's all there is to him, and also doen't require them to click on one more link and open another page. if not the history section the controversy section seeems to be a pretty obvious place to put this content. this almost *always* comes up in articles critical of kwanzaa...but wiki is censoring it. i just did a google search for "kwanzaa karenga", and sure enough, after the wiki page and the "official kwanzaa page" the next three articles mention kwanzaa's conviction: a page titled What Bush, Post didn't tell you about Kwanzaa saying "Five years after he invented Kwanzaa, Karenga was sentenced to prison"[2] the next article, The Story of Kwanzaa says "On September 17, 1971, Karenga was sentenced to one to ten years in prison on counts of felonious assault and false imprisonment. T" [3] the next article, The Kwanzaa Hoax, says "He was sent to prison in 1971" "[4]. And these are just the first results. Wiki is supposed to be a beacon of information -- we're not here to hide information. The reasons stated for not including this information are that its "guilt by association", but I think our readers are sophisticated enough to seperate Kwanzaa from Karenga. Justforasecond 03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
However, having seen this little pissing match go on for some time, I'd have to say that the purpose of the inclusion of such information is not to be accurate, or to keep the "beacon on information" lit, but rather to cast aspersions on Karenga and, by association, Kwanzaa. It's really a rather old trick, part and parcel of effective propaganda, the purpose of which is to create doubt in the mind of the reader by use of irrelevant negative associations.
Here's an idea -- let's use your logic and add "convicted felon" to the first mention of Jesus on the Christmas article (and the Easter, Christianity, etc., articles) and see how long that little piece of truth stays in those articles. •Jim62sch• 11:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, if there's a controversy section in the article, all the controversial stuff goes in that section. It's not relevant up front whether or not the guy's a convicted felon, as that information doesn't affect the average kwanzaa participant. It's also not relevant in the history section if he wasn't a felon when he created kwanzaa. Does that make sense? However if there's a controversy section, by all means put the conviction in there since that's very relevant to the controversy. Maadio 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] misleading text inserted by jpgordon

"There has been criticism of Kwanzaa's authenticity and relevance, and of the motiviations of its founder, Karenga. The origins of Kwanzaa are not secret, and are openly acknowledged by those promoting the holiday"

Because of the linguistic structure, the typical reader would think that this "acknowledgement" corresponds to the "authenticity, relevance, and motivations of its founder" in the previous sentence. Seeing a reference there gives this sentence the feeling of legitimacy. However, if you follow the link provided, it does not address this material. Beyond that, the "not secret" description is pointless -- nothing in wikipedia is secret; the entire world has access to it.

Justforasecond 05:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Excuse me? When did I insert that? Please show diffs; that's neither my writing style nor my edit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Here ya go: [5] Justforasecond 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
And you really don't recognize that as my reverting your edit? I didn't create the original text; I changed it back to the original text after your attempt at POV insertion, as I've been doing pretty constantly. Do I need to go through the exercise of explaining to you how [6] is POV? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, a blind revert, how charming. Justforasecond 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Not blind at all. I read it, recognized your usual POV edit, and reversed it. "Blind reverting" would mean following you around and reverting your edits without regard to their content. Keep your pejoratives straight. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, if you are inserting low-quality content that you haven't even read that's blind reversion and uncivil. Justforasecond 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Since that's not what happened, fish have wings. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh really, Joshua? You didn't even recognize the text -- asked for diffs even. Justforasecond 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, really. You claimed I had inserted the text; I said show me; since I hadn't inserted it, the rest of your blather is just your usual disingenuous noise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to remain civil, jpgordon. Thanks! Justforasecond 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh how utterly cute. I write a comment and then think better of it and delete it, and you re-insert it against my wishes and then chide me for incivility? Hypocrite. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil, jpgordon. Justforasecond 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy is not incivility; reinserting a comment an editor thought better of and then chastising him is indeed hypocritical. Further, your repeat of the sentence looks suspiciously like baiting. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone a hyprocrite is a personal attack, Chihuahua. Please don't encourage uncivil behavior. Justforasecond 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Not if the shoe fits, Justforasecond -- believe it or not, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA aren't there to squelch discussion or to provide some form of immunity from comment to an editor who is clearly violating those two principles (hence a "charge" of hypocrisy). Noter too, that KC did not call you a hypocrite and then walk away, she provided you with a concrete reason why your behaviour was indeed hypocritical. Constructive criticism (like accuracy) is not incivility.
Admittedly, in the case of jpgordon, tu quoque is not necessarily the best of defenses, but as I agree with KC that you were baiting him, it is most certainly an understandable response. •Jim62sch• 11:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in.

  • Justforasecond, perhaps you're not familiar with the history of this article, it has been attacked by racists in the past, therefore we're a little on edge about the article.
  • Justforasecond, it was in my opinion not necessary to note that the website doesn't mention the founder's criminal record. How many websites offer negative information about their principals?
  • Jpgordon, the phrase in question is, in my opinion, not great: "There has been criticism of Kwanzaa's authenticity and relevance, and of the motiviations of its founder, Karenga. The origins of Kwanzaa are not secret, and are openly acknowledged by those promoting the holiday". The two sentences are not parallel. Something like "Proponents counter with argument XYZ" would be in order I think. Herostratus 08:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
JFAS is fully familiar with the history of this article. Just look at his userpage, where he declares his POV, and then his edits to this article, in which he attempts repeatedly to insert his POV into the article -- enough times now, over the last year or so, that he's been warned and then blocked for disruption. He knew full well he was inserting POV. As far as the phrase in question is concerned, sure, it needs to be improved; I've not said otherwise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, I was afraid that that might be the deal. Well, I've been watching the article since the freeper attack last year I think it was, and I'll help out at keeping it neutral. Herostratus 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate it. Anyway, the problem's resolved itself; JFAS has agreed to stay away from Kwanzaa and has been unblocked. I really shouldn't engage at all, but I don't like being lied about -- in other words, I rose to his bait. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is so much of this article written twice, including citations?

elpincha 03:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

C'mon. As of current edition, the places that point to Refs 1 and 12 contain exactly the same text. And it's just one example. Read once from beginning to end, and you'll notice a lot of repetition. I am not editing out of respect and knowing I'd make a mess of it. elpincha 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If you know something is wrong, either fix it -- this is, after all, a wiki -- or tell us exactly what's wrong. You're right that the quote is repeated; the section on "History and etymology" and the section on "evolution" could use merging. Anything else? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
OK... text pointing to references 5 and 14 is basically the same... etc. Once again, if you read the article beginning-to-end, you'll notice some more repetition. I am not qualified to edit the article as I do not know enough about the subject matter and I do not celebrate Kwanzaa myself; any remaining inaccuracies could embarrass me in the future. I'd rather see somebody undertake the cleanup who knows and cherishes Kwanzaa. And please be assured that my only motivation in this discussion is my wish to make the article better, even if not editing it myself. (Personal note to jpgordon: maybe you are too involved here and just fail to see the issues... it is a known phenomenon, and that is why all writers have editors and proof-readers and what have you. No disrespect intended.) elpincha 18:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Beg pardon? I'm not involved at all; I've paid little attention to the article as a whole, but instead have mostly been fighting the vandals and POV pushers who want to infest the article. I do understand what you mean, though -- "programmer's blind spot", we call it. But feel free to edit the article! Nobody has to be "qualified"; in fact, distance from the subject matter is sometimes advantageous. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it me, or are there contributors here that have nothing else to do other than to find anything black on Wikipdedia, and do their best to illustrate everything negative they can find. Of course as a side note these obsessives are ok if articles about white people also include or illuminate negative aspects on those articles, but of course our obsessives won't be the ones taking the extra effort to do so themselves. Oh hey, Justforasecond, how's it going by the way? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coulter song

That'll work. Though I don't think the "some" is 'weasely' (a source is provided), your edit makes it more specific. Thanks. Ufwuct 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiles, one of the times collaboration worked! Yay us! You may wish to take a look at Weasel_words#Generalization_using_weasel_words: "People say…" (Who are the people who say it?) - IMHO, "some say" is a variation on "people say" - since it is some people who would have said it, yes? No insult was intended, just tightening up the prose a little. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kwanzaa is coming...

...shall we consider semi-protecting the article now, or should we wait until the usual barrage of abuse starts, as it will? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


I am not an account-holding member of wikipedia, but what steps need to be taken to have that sign above the top of the article stating "the neutrality of this article is disputed?" This article cites heavily bias sources (ann coulter!?) and the majority of it seems to be trying to belittle and ridicule the holiday as a whole. Especially as the season approaches, I'd hate for someone trying to learn more about Kwanzaa come to see this page as it is. -Sekou

  • Well, let's talk. Which particular parts of the article do you find non-neutral? We've been working pretty hard for a couple of years to make and keep this article neutral; we appreciate any help we can get. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I've celebrated Kwanzaa myself for many years, so I may have a little bias. The quote in the second paragraph of the History and Etymology page, if you look at the source, is from a politically charged website and is somewhat tertiary. I think it deserves some balancing evidence, or at least some mention that it is not a direct quote.

I do think it is important for people to know about what Karenga may have said, but I think there should also be more information about how the celebration is conducted, common practices, etc. The holiday itself in-practice is somewhat separate from the person who created it.

Also I think the word "exclusively" in the first sentence makes for further stigma towards the holiday, even though in actuality it doesn't try to exclude... from the official site: "Any particular message that is good for a particular people, if it is human in its content and ethical in its grounding, speaks not just to that people, it speaks to the world."

But the article is coming along, definitely a lot better... Hope you don't run into too much trouble during the holidays -Sekou

  • Feel free to add or change stuff! You don't need a Wikipedia account (though there's not much reason not to get one) to edit. (Unless the vandalism gets nasty in the next couple of weeks, in which case you will need an account.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a warning to the revert editor

Do not walk through an article and remove my edits with out a discussion, you have reverted everything i have done for no reason. Discuss before starting an issue, Karenga is a Pan-Africanist, go and look up the term. Kwanza is a Pan-African holiday, --Halaqah 17:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Language

black and black people doesnt fit in with kwanza, Karenga calls it an African American holiday, dont turn around and start talking about black and black holiday. He clearly more often than not calls it a Pan-African holiday. Jpgordon went crazy and reverted everything i added, he didnt look at the context of sentences which in one hand said blacks and the next African American. Indians are black, so which black group are you talking about? I have not changed any of the quoted material, do not revert anything i have done with discussing it here. even the image i moved to get rid of the white space he/she reverted.--Halaqah 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That's why you need to talk first before making comprehensive changes to an article. What I was mostly reacting to was the blanket change from "black nationalist" -- which is how Karenga is described on his own page, and is how he described himself as he founded Kwanzaa, and so on. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and part of the collaboration is discussing big changes -- especially when it's an article like this that consistantly gets pasted by POV vandals, especially around Kwanzaa time, we're perhaps excessively vigilant. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok i understand notice i have listen to what you have said and havent changed back the things which are quoted. I dont think the kwanzaa article should be used to discuss ron karenga, that can be done on Ron Karenga. I understand because i watch out for certain topics which are subjected to all forms of mad people. --Halaqah 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah. Karenga has a lot of unsavory stuff about him -- my personal opinion is that he seems like an utter creep (read some his grossly sexist stuff, for example) -- but Kwanzaa isn't about Karenga, except in passing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found u either love him to bits or hate him, there is no middle ground. He knows how to change or adapt i respect him for that. --Halaqah 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more games

I really dont know who edits here,

almost exclusively by African-Americans in the United States of America.[citation needed]

I have not removed this strange remark about "Exclusively" I am not African American and i celebrate Kwanzaa, so do many people in Africa. I will let you go and get a solid reference. PLease not the reference i have added from the mouth of the creator. everywhere it says PAN AFRICAN and these people delete this and said "black nationalist"--Halaqah 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to get Kwanzaa Stuff?

I know there aren't supposed to be commercial links on Wikipedia, but would someone be so kind as to post some links on where to get Kwanzaa decorations? They are HARD TO FIND, and my wife and I have been trying to find some for our kids...

Thanks!

-- Mkamensek (talk) - The LeftOverChef

  • Amazon has 'em. Just search for "kwanzaa".Cancel that, they're almost all the same thing, an "art poster" of some candles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] request protection

Far too many people are coming here and vandalizing the page, i will back any request for page protection. why does wikipedia allow unreg users to do this? It always means someone has to stand guard on these pages. --Halaqah 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/w/a/Talk%7EKwanzaa_d880.html"