Talk:Kwanzaa/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Torture?

I just cut a paranthetical description of torture from the article. According to [1], 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)

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)
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)
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)

POV? Hardly.

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)

From Daddy Now, you are showing your Big Brother censorship tendencies in the worst way. You have locked down this article at the precise time that it will be seen the most, and you have locked it down while is reflects your whitewashing, truth-denying, fact ignoring, history deleting, Ministry of Truth version is out there for the masses to consume. You locked it without noting that you were the subject of severe questions that you reflect a Point of View. You are an apologist, an idealogue, a propagandist, and worse than that you have power. It is your kind of heavy handed censorship that will run Wikipedia into the rocks. ~ Jared ~ 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

One last note of mine. Please be sure to answer the arguments I made, and not just complain about the harsh words my dad threw at you (something you have set a precedent of doing). ~ Jared ~ 00:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The page is now unprotected, but I will not tolerate POV-pushing edits without discussion. -- SCZenz 00:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
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)

sprotected

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)

removing context and verification flags

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)

Possible POV Dispute?

I re-added thar Kwanzaa was created in the 1960s to the introduction. Apparently this was a "POV" or was somehow "controversial" but I can't imagine how. Perhaps they disagreed with the usage of "created", but I think that would be ridiculous, it must be more for someone to feel the need to remove it. If people don't like it I guess we could re word it to, "originating in the 1960s" if that sounds any better, but I think that would be silly. ~ Jared ~ 02:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A few other POV disputes I forsee that need to be handled are.

1. Whether it is necessary to mention Karenga's criminal record. If so, where, and how much should be said about it?

IMO, we should have a sentence or two about it in a section about the influences and creation of kwanzaa. ~ Jared ~ 03:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, let's see. Did he have a criminal record when he created Kwanzaa? (The confusion over the creation date is critical here.) To what degree did his criminal record or his criminal acts affect Kwanzaa? To what degree is whatever led to his criminal record reflected in the underlying philosophy or the actual practice of Kwanzaa? No original research on this, please -- if reputable sources indicate there's any relevance, we should include it. Otherwise, it's just a detail of a period of Ron Karenga's life, to be documented in Ron Karenga. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, an actual response from Gordon, a first, I must say I'm impressed. You've given me a bit to think about, the point I would like to make is: I never said is criminal history was a direct influence on kwanzaa, but it does say something about Karenga's character and personality. If you mean to tell me that the personality and character of the creator of a holiday should not be considered when regarding the holiday itself, I will simply laugh at you.
The confusion over when they occured is important, but not critical. It was only important because the information on his criminal record was being introduced at the wrong time chronologically to kwanzaa, and in the wrong context.~ Jared ~ 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I would say its notable when something is created by a convicted felon. So you can say. Karenga futhered devleoped kwanzaa after his release from prison... without going into to much detail, unless those details have a causal relationship with what you're about to say. Leave the details for Karenga's article. I mean, think of the alternative equivlent.
Christmas, the celebration of the Birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a convicted political subversive and blasphemer, who was said to commited acts of sorcery, including healing the sick and lame with ungodly power.... I hope I made my point--Tznkai 00:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
No, you have not made your point. You have only demonstrated that you do not understand at all. Jesus of Nazareth did not create Christmas. He is the object of the Christmas celebration that was created long after he died. It would be analagous if you were to have information that demonstrated that a person, or group of persons, invented Christmas to further a political ends -- and perhaps they did. But, you have not presented that evidence and your anaology is inapposite. So, now tell me, please, why it is not relevant to know that the creator of Kwanzaa is a Marxist, black sepearatist, multiculturalist, political activist if one is trying to understand the Marxist, black nationalist, polictical "holiday" he invented. ~ Jared ~ 03:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I can explain this pretty well. Jesus in fact was a convincted political subversive and blasphemer, said to. etc. etc. etc. These are vital to the understand of Christinaity, and christmas in its infancy as Christ's Mass was a celebration of christ. Christ was celebrated because he was a political subversive, and blasphemer. These however, were secondary to the true reason he is celebrated, because of his position as Savior. The object of worship is easy just as important the causality of a holiday. Its both a violation of the principles of causality and WP:NOT to say because he later was a convict, that Kwanzaa was the product of a convict. The fact that Jesus is, or Karenga is, any number of things, is ultimatly irrellivant until you prove its relevance. For example, Jesus probably was right handed. While a fact, it has no causal relationship to well, anything. There is an inherent notability a black nationalist creating a celebration of blackness. As for his Marxism, that may well be true, but you're going to have to proove a causal relationship.--Tznkai 03:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
You are supposed to be demonstrating that you understand. You have done the opposite. I will grant you all of your premises about Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus had no influence over yule logs, christmas trees, present giving, wreaths, nativity scenes, christmas caroling, egg nog drinking etc. Therefore, his personal political beliefs, while relevant to the Christian movement, have nothing to do with the trappings of *Christmas*. Karenga's personal beliefs have *everything* to do with the "holiday" that he created and that he currently expounds and exlplicates. Try to get it this time and not to impress me with your whiz bang sophomore's understanding of Chrtianity. In fact you concede my point, but love to carry on so much that you will not admit it. Swallow your pride and admit that Karenga's biography is critical to an understanding of his inventions.
If you thought your "radical" statements about Jesus would send me running, you picked the wrong fight, probably based on your bigoted assumptions about someone who would want to make clear that Karengs is (1) a felon (2) a Marxist (3) a multiculturalist (4) a political agitatator (5) black sepratist.
Do you spend a lot of time on other articles trying to argue that Hitler's anti-semitism had nothing to do with Nazism? ~ Jared ~ 04:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:Civility WP:AGF--Tznkai 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I was a bit agitated with you, but it's hard to be too remorseful when considering a rather aggravating past argument of yours: "Christmas, the celebration of the Birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a convicted political subversive and blasphemer, who was said to commited acts of sorcery, including healing the sick and lame with ungodly power.... I hope I made my point" That was your entire argument. Rather than posting links to Wikipedia guidelines I thought you had violated, I took the time to respond to your argument. Please extend the same courtesy to me. Don't just try to jump on the moral high ground now that you've lost the argument. ~ Jared ~ 05:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:AGF. We will begin the discussion again when you are ready to discuss. You clearly misunderstood my intentions, and you have forgotten my intentions are irrelivant to getting this article into encylopedic quality. You are treading on thin ice, and have been repeatedly, undergoing clear violations of civility standards (conduct) as well as quality standards such as WP:NOR. You still need to fufill the burden of proof dictated by WP:CITE and WP:NOR, as well as explain a casual relationship with a convinctions five years after a holiday was formed.--Tznkai 05:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I really don't think it's relevant. I think it's sufficient to have a link to his bio in this article and then on his bio have information on his criminal record. --Cyde Weys votetalk 00:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Whether Karenga's Marxist beliefs were an influence on the 7 Principles of Kwanzaa.

I think that Marxism is an obvious influence. Two of the principles were translated as "Cooperative economics" and "Collective work and responsibility" these aren't the kind of beliefs that most people would think of if they were choosing values for a holiday they were created. The "Cooperative economics" text is a piped link to the African socialism article. If people decide that Marxism or socialism aren't an influence and that they really are only old African values, then the piped link should obviously be removed, sinced African socialism originated in the 1960s. ~ Jared ~ 03:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No Original Research. Thanks. Nandesuka 03:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Karenga's US organization met on the property of Dr. Alfred Ligon, founder of the Aquarian Bookstore, the first and largest black bookstore in Southern California. Ligon was a scholar in Eastern Religions and metaphysics and attracted a set of black intellectuals into his sphere. While there were certainly aspects of Socialism in Karenga's worldview that wasn't so much the point of the Kwanzaa celebration as creating an event that ordinary people could understand. He was simply 'alternative' before such things became current.

As one of the children in the original celebration, I'm going to get involved here to give some context which is evidently missing from the struggles of people trying to make sense of reference materials without much understanding of the people involved in the creation of Kwanzaa. I say people because so many of Kwanzaa's critics focus on the personality of Karenga as if he was the only creative black individual in Los Angeles involved with such matters. That is far from the truth. Cobb 22:37, 26 December 2005

Thanks! You have remarkable insight into the situation then. While we'll all WP:AGF and do our best, I just have to remind you that WP:NOR does not allow the use of personal experiance as a source (which is at times unfortunate)--Tznkai 16:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
That's fine with me, I've been blogging too long to write in this reference-speak. I'll gladly cede that to someone who has that style so long as the inferences make sense. --Cobb 11:54, 27 December 2005
The reason that there is "so much focus on the personality of Karenga" is that he proclaims himself as "Dr. Maulana Karenga Creator of Kwanzaa" on "the official Kwanzaa website" -- he does not allow for Kwnazaa to be the creature of any of the, undoubtedly numerous, "creative black individuals" in LA at the time. This article is about Kwanzaa. It is not about how many creative African Americans lived in LA, then or now.
Turtle's Dad

3. Response to above

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)

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)

It's important to understand some of the aims of Black Nationalism in the context of the substance of the new identity nationalists were in the process of establishing. Kwanzaa is, in that regard, with the possible exception of Dap, the primary cultural celebration in the legacy of the changing from Negro to Black. There was and is clearly a difference between 'cultural nationalists' and 'militant nationalists'. Most of the people who picked up Kwanzaa as early adopters were 'cultural nationalists' who were more interested in the transformation of the minds of Negroes than the transformation of America itself. --Cobb 11:50, 27 December 2005

Last Edit?

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)

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)
Alrighty. :) ~ Jared ~ 03:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

External links section

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)

I think the different (non-offensively titled) frontpagemag article link is an appropriate compromise. Nandesuka 03:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Kwaanza in lead

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)

Thaks for the suggestion. :) ~ Jared ~ 20:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

West African Dispute

How is it POV at all to point out that most African Americans are descended from West Africans but Karenga chose an East African language for the terms in Kwanzaa? That's not a POV at all, I had a respectable source documented for the fact. You people really do infuriate me sometimes. ~ Jared ~ 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually the POV crap I deleted was the other stuff; I deleted the sentence about Africans because it was worded terribly and I really didn't find that it added much to the article. So what if he chose an Eastern African language to name the religion and its concepts even if the majority of slaves were from Western Africa? It's just a name. --Cyde Weys votetalk 05:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Whats the relevance?--Tznkai 05:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (edit conflicted) Well, it's certainly a fact. But what's the relevance of it? The POV (or perhaps OR) part, interestingly, is in the words even though. Let's see how it scans without that:

Karenga chose Swahili, an East African language, to celebrate African American ties to Africa. Census data indicates that most African Americans are descended from West African people.

One asks what is the relevance of the second sentence? Why is it there at all? I venture it's to indicate that it would have made more sense or been more authentic or something if Karenga instead had chosen Yoruba or some other West African language. And that's a personal POV. Does Karenga discuss the choice of Swahili in any of his writings? If so, what does he say about that choice? That would be an interesting addition (since, indeed, it's at first glance an odd choice.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the "gee whiz" kinda stuff we can leave to wikilinking--Tznkai 05:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Karenga chose Swahili not out of ignorance but because Swahili is a well-known symbol of Pan-Africanism, as it's the most widely-spoken non-European language in Subsaharan Africa. Swahili in fact became popular with African American activists starting in the 60s; that context should be mentioned in the article.--Pharos 15:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Intresting. Got a cite?--Tznkai 16:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I've found a pretty good article on Swahili that touches on this. (PDF) (HTML)--Pharos 18:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Pan-African movement arose among the black people of the Diaspora in the nineteenth century, and reached its peak between 1910-1950. Freedom fighters such as Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah were products of that movement, so was the Organization of African Unity (established in 1963). From the beginning, pan-Africanism had a cultural and political agenda (return to Africa, defense of African values and heritage, equal rights for Africans, unity of all Africans, freedom of African countries from the colonial yoke, etc). However, the movement rarely emphasized the revival or promotion of African languages. It was only in the sixties that some African scholars began calling for a pan-African language. The first call was made by Wole Soyinka of Nigeria in the mid-1960s. He proposed that Kiswahili should be declared the continental language of Africa (cf. Mulokozi 2000).

In 1985, this call was taken up by the Ghanaian writer, Ayi Kwei Armah, who wrote: There is one African language admirably suited to function as our common ancillary language. That is Kiswahili. It enjoys structural and lexical affinities with a lot of African languages over large areas of the continent: East, South, Central and even the lower West. Flexible and highly absorptive, it can take inputs from practically every African language in its future development... The technical problems likely to arise are soluble. It may be desirable, for instance, to simplify the syntax or at least to streamline it. In addition, the existing vocabulary would have to be constantly enriched, as in every living language. This could best be done in a conscious, systematic way, by drawing from the vast lexical storehouse constituted by the continent's languages, especially those of the West and the South. That might facilitate final acceptance as our common language, since each region would recognize its genius in the common pool..." (p. 832).

African governments heeded this call by admitting Kiswahili into the OAU; otherwise, not much else has been done todate.4

Good research! Thats pretty notable. We can update this and pan-african article

Numbers

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)

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)
Lets not be excessive with removing anything resembling useful language.--Tznkai 03:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
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)

Tradtions of Kwanzaa

I see no mention on what the African-Americans do on Kwanzaa, (i.e Shout out "Habari Gani", etc.)

I added a little of this. There could be more. -Justforasecond 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to correct and add some swahili to the mix. --User:mbowen 28, December 2005 (PDT)

NPOV

entire article is a puff piece about a very very controversial topic - POV is rampant and the tag is most definitely appropriated until POV is eliminated Goodandevil 15:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How is Kwanzaa "controversial"? It's a holiday. Give it a rest. And the POV tag goes until you can point out even a single part of the article that is POV. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As noted in my comment upon adding the tag, the "controversies" section is even biased! The tag will remain. I will report vandalism in progress and take other measures to expose your protection of extreme POV on this page. Goodandevil 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is exactly what you are doing. And once again you go on spouting off nonsense about "extreme POV" without showing one thing that is POV about the article text. Even this "comment upon adding the tag" you refer to is entirely blank. As for the Controversies section being POV ... well, maybe it is. It does mention Karenga as being a "convicted felon", which frankly isn't relevant, so that should probably go. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The controversies section has a biased quotation that supposedly sums up the controversy - but does so with the clear POV that paints any critic as having no rational basis for the criticism. NPOV tag stays. Stop reverting. Goodandevil 16:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What quote?
NPOV tag goes. Stop reverting. Just because you have a quibble does not mean the article is POV. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it's a quote, not something being said by the editors of Wikipedia themselves. Do you think all pages of Wikipedia should be censored of all POV quotes? Adolph Hitler would be terribly dumbed down, and frankly, it be whitewashing history to do so. But let's examine the quote in detail and I will show you how even the quote is not POV:

While the observance of Kwanzaa has spread to other countries,

This is a verifiable fact

there are many people of African descent who do not know the purpose of Kwanzaa or how to celebrate it.

Also a verifiable fact. Many people, including Africans, are ignorant about Kwanzaa.

Others refuse to celebrate Kwanzaa because it is not a true African tradition.

Again, true. Kwanzaa is not a "true African tradition" (being invented in the 1960s), and there are people who refuse to celebrate it for this reason.

Yet, for the millions who observe it,

Millions do observe it; citations are provided in the article for this.

the holiday emphasizes the strength of African history and the beauty of African culture.

That is what Kwanzaa was created for and what it continues to do.

Now, exactly what about this quote was POV? --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, the "strength and beauty" needs a cite, someone else referring to "strength" and "beauty". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's already a quote. The quote as a whole is being cited as coming from this person; you're saying we also need to cite every claim the person makes in their quote? Ridiculous. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, wasn't paying sufficient attention. Never mind. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a non-POV versiono f the "controversies" section. It sums up the criticisms without any POV creeping in. The controversies section as it is now is an apologia for Kwanzaa - which paints any criticism as silly or stupid:Goodandevil 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Kwanzaa is a controversial subject. Some people take issue with its authenticity, noting their view that Kwanzaa's themes mirror those of cummunism more than those found in any African culture. Some criticize the appropriation of the Jewish menorah, which is renamed the Kinara in Kwanzaa. Kwanzaa's inventor, a convicted felon who has a checkered past, is also often criticized in an effort to discredit the Kwanzaa movement. Still others consider a holiday that was created to celebrate one race as an example of racism.Goodandevil 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Oh, brother! Please. Your paranoia is showing, like it was a skirt stuck up in your panties. Kwanzaa is not a "movement" and it is a far cry from racism. Please get out your dictionaries: Racism is the "The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them. " (The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin ) No where in anything about Kwanzaa is their anything at all promoting the idea of superiority of the African race over others, nor is their any interest in domination over others. Racism is also "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000) Nowhere in anything to do with Kwanzaa is there anything that suggests that race accounts for any differences among people, in fact, I don't think there is the slightest concern about sameness or difference between one people or another. Frankly, there isn't even the slightest interest in making those kinds of distinctions.

Kwanzaa celebrates the qualities of Unity,Self-Determination,Collective Work and Responsibility,Cooperative Economics,Purpose,Creativity, Faith. These are not race specific qualities. They are qualities which many individuals of all races and nations, and just about every other people in the world already posses - as a people, nation, whatever. It is accepted in others - no one has a problem with the Irish celebrating St. Patrick's Day, or Chinese celebrating Chinese New Years, or the German tradition of Oktoberfest, though each of these is a celebration of what it is to be Irish, Chinese, or German, and also a celebration of important values that are hared among people of these shared backgrounds and histories. Why are you so afraid of black people possessing something similar? What are you so afraid of?

You need only look around you to see that Africans in Africa and those of the diaspora have suffered mightily, (on the whole and generally speaking), having survived the ravages of slavery -- a people torn from homeland, language, customs, culture, identity a continent stripped of its resources, both human and natural, generations of its young ripped from their birthplace, there culture, their identity -- everything that everyone else in the world has been able to maintain was strategically and systematically destroyed. And, you see the aftermath -- what becomes of human beings when they have been stripped of what defines them -- everywhere around you. And maybe THAT is what scares you. What you did. Like Frankenstein's monster. That, and the thought that they might one day regroup and seek revenge. But, if you saw the movie, he really wasn't all that bad, you know. Come to think of it, the villagers were a lot scarier...

All Kwanzaa is is an all too small attempt to restore a sense of tradition and custom, or shared principles among a people from whom they have been ripped away. What is so wrong with that? Who is that hurting? Could it possibly hurt anyone as badly as this People have already been hurt? Maybe. But not for another 6 or 10 generations at least. So, please. Spare me.

Did you ever see Michael Moore's bowling for Columbine? Remember the scared Puritans? You sound just like them. Get a grip! If African Americans, African Europeans, African Caribbeans and African South Americans were ever to regain, as a whole, as a People, even a fraction of what was beaten out of them, if they all actually came to live and embrace these principles everyday, every hour, every minute of their lives, guess what -- they wouldn't even be bothered with the white - excuse me, European -- world. What for? There'd be no need, and no interest. Remember, it was the European world that came down into Africa (wreaking havoc everywhere it went) -- Africa, as a force, never went north. And why should they have? They were doing just fine, and would have continued to do so, had they been left alone.

So please, whoever you are, African descended, European descended, or other. PLEASE! Get over yourselves.

But...to be fair, let me try to see it from your perspective. I mean, maybe you *should* be scared. After all, Africans are still here, aren't they. Native Americans pretty much bit the bullet, unfortunately. If Africans hadn't of been so strong, maybe Africa would have been "The New World," instead of North America...Hmmm...I guess maybe there is something to fear in a people who not only survived attempted genocide, but continued to live on....crippled, damaged, and injured maybe, but still standing. And getting stronger. So maybe you have reason to fear, after all...hmmm...

Nah. Like I said, they never went up north. Weren't tryin' to take over anybody, other than fighting with their own neighbors. And probably wouldn't have been interested in doing anything different. Why would they? What for? They were already rich.

As for it being a "real" holiday, hey, what the hell? What are they supposed to do? Go back four, five, six generations, figure out which family "owned" them, what country or countries, ("nations" or "peoples" would probably be a more accurate terminology to use) they "bought" their enslaved Africans from, then, find out what the holidays were in those places of origin, and finally, start practicing the "Real" holidays? Or, are they supposed to wait for the day when they take over America, rid the land of the "Oppressor" in the "Kwanzaa Revolution of 2076" and, rename the country "Kwanzaaland", and then celebrate December 26 - 31 as "Kwanzaaland Independence Week?" Please.

African Americans are working from scratch because scratch is what they have to work with. You should be so resourceful. Besides, just like every other holiday, it comes from somewhere, someday, because someone thought it up, and someone thought :"Hey! Let's make this a regular thing! We'll take the 25th of December, and use it to celebrate Christs birth. And to make it really official, let's use the evergreen trees that the Norse pagans and Celtic Druids used to celebrate the Winter Solstice, and we'll put candles and lights on it like those German Pagans, the Saxons, and then everybody will have something in common and it will be easy to unite everyone around Christ, (and then we can take control of the world!)." Or, how about this "Ok, so here's the plan. We take the Babylonian Tree of Life, and turn it into a candelabra, and light one candle each day and call that a menorah, and then the Jews and the Babylonians will have something in common to celebrate (and then we can take over this little part of Palestine and call it our Holy-land, and then we can rule the world!)..." Oh, but wait, that IS kinda what happened, isn't it..? Hmmm....

Point is: Holidays do not just exist without beginning. Relax. Enjoy the fact that you were there at the start, and think of the stories you'll have to tell your great grand kids! Unless, of course, the U.S. has become Kwanzaaland by then....Gee...hope you were on the right side of things....

And, finally, as for documentation, citations, etc., Cyde Wheys and KillerChihuahua said it all already. - Super Librarian

Black Panther

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)

Crrect. His Marxist past and avowed socialism will also need to be discussed, as one of the key criticims of Kwanzaa is that its "7 principles" are simply Marxism in disguise as Africanism. Likewise, his black seperatist past will also need to be discussed as a key critique of Kwanzaa is that it promotes racial division. These are not critiques made out of ignroance or fear, rather out of a desire to ensure the truth about the holiday and its origins are known so that people choose to follow it or respect it knowing what it is and what it is not. If people understood it to be socialism or black sepeartisim in disguise, perhaps many people would reject it. As it is, many people are unfamiliar with the holiday roots and the genesis steeped in socialism, radicalism, and black seperatism. Of course the hideous crimes of Ron Karenga (nee Ronals Everett) are also of note, as are the killings perpetrated by the violent movement he helped lead. Seems that it is undeniable that Kwanzaa is controversial - and to hide the controversy in this article is to hide the truth. Goodandevil 22:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring

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)

Thank you - and until the POV issue is cleared up the POV tag stays, per wiki policy. Goodandevil 22:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

POV tag removed

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)

I have outlined the portions that are POV - the article limits mentiosn of controversy that MANY people associate with Kwanzaa to one tiny section at the end, and that section itself is an apologia for Kawanzaa and paints critics as fools. I have tried to edit for balance but it keeps getting rverted by the same people removing the tag. This silly attempt to force this article to embrace political correctness and ignore the widespread belief that Kwanzaa is a sham is what makes wikipedia suspect by so many. The article should tell us what people wjo love Kwanzaa think it is - but it should also be honest about the controversiaes associated with Kwanzaa. Sorry - the POV tag stays until the article includes a fair and neutral presentation. Goodandevil 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


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)

Nahhh, I don't think so. It doesn't stay. You still haven't offered anything specific. This whole "controversy" over Kwanzaa is manufactured. Hell, the fake controversy War on Christmas is a lot bigger. You're not editing for balance, you're editing for a very specific point of view. Enjoy your block. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Kwanzaa as hoax

Criticism of Kwanzaa is a bit more than a "challenge [to] it on grounds of its authenticity and relevance" as the article currently reads.

Critics of Kwanzaa call it a hoax.

As Goodandevil mentions above, the so-called Controversies section doesn't contain anything controversial about Kwanzaa itself, only a broad attack on its critics for "it is often attacked by proxy through its founder" without describing what that attack would be. The section is refuting an attack that's not even made in the article -- in fact it's been removed from the article!

A real Controversies section needs to be added to the article, identifying the critics (and there are many), describing what the criticism is (and it's more than Karenga's felony record), and citations in publications.

Kwanzaa is real is the politically correct thing to say, but it's only one POV. It just seems to be the only POV that the editing cabal here wants in the article. patsw 02:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

please WP:CITE per WP:V - thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 02:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's real. What a peculiar idea. You might not like its origin, you might not like its philosophy or practices, you might not like its name, you might not like Karenga, you might not like all sorts of things. But Kwanzaa is real, in the same way that Christmas is real: a holiday invented by a specific person at a specific time of year for for specific reasons, celebrated by some, ignored or loathed by others. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently agnostic on the issue of whether this article is NPOV - I don't really know enough about the subject to say for sure. What I am certain of is that the editors who feel as if negative aspects of Kwanzaa or its history are underreported should find some citations that support this viewpoint (rather than repeatedly arguing over whether a tag is justified or not). I, for one, have no objection to the inclusion of appropriate cited material, and I expect many other contributors would agree. Oh, and I'm also certain that I'm not part of any editing cabal. Just my two cents. Kaisershatner 03:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not about what jpgordon claims to be real or what patsw likes about its origin. It's about writing an encyclopedia that includes the significant aspects of Kwanzaa and editors not being advocates of its reality or advocates of its hoaxness. That's what a discussion board is for. I don't know what to make of jpgordon's comment you might not like all sorts of things.
Jpgordon, is that a threat to me that you will preemptively delete content which presents the case that Kwanzaa is a hoax even if it the source is identified and cited according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines? patsw 13:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
"Threat"? I expressed an opinion with a bit of mockery, certainly, but there was no threat involved. Identify, cite, and add to article in an NPOV fashion, giving appropriate weight to the facts presented, and you're just being a plain ordinary editor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Colleagues - let's try to bring the conflict down a few levels. At root is an argument about whether facts that "present the case that Kwanzaa is a hoax" are underrepresented in the article, right? I can't speak for Jpgordon, but the typical editor here agrees with Patsw that the goal is "writing an encyclopeida that includes the significant aspects...and editors not being advocates." So I'm guessing we can all agree on that. About the issue of "hoax," I'm not sure how you're using that word. If your point is "hoax," as in a con game, sham, or falsehood perpetrated to deceive, then it's my view that you're mistaken. Apparently millions of people do celebrate this holiday, and the fact that it was recently invented or fabricated doesn't mean people aren't celebrating it and observing its principles. Therefore, it's not a "hoax" from that standpoint - it's real enough for the people who celebrate it. If you're suggesting that it's a "hoax" because it is not actually derived from any African cultural holiday, then I would reply that the article does address the "invention" of Kwanzaa and the lack of direct roots in any African holiday. Maybe more could be said about that, it does seem to be an objective fact. If you're using "hoax" to imply the creators of Kwanzaa are taking advantage of celebrants for some secondary gain, (the way perpetrators of a hoax or con game usually do) then it would be great if you could provide some kind of evidence of that. (Frankly, there is much irony in Karenga's Marxism and the growing commercialization of this holiday, since capitalists do appear to be making a profit selling Kwanzaa stuff, and presumably Karenga takes a dim view of that, but that is actually counter-evidence that he is gaining personally from this). Finally, if your point is the "hoax" of Kwanzaa is that it promotes values that are ironic in light of its inventor's felony conviction for brutal assault and his association with violent radical political movements that perpetrated at least one documented murder, then I would answer that this is poisoning the well or guilt by association. There's no doubt in my mind that Karenga is not the sort of person I would turn to for moral values instruction, but the holiday Kwanzaa is not a celebration of Karenga. I don't even think his development of a holiday with any positive potential mitigates in any way his reprehensible criminality, but I still wouldn't make the Kwanzaa article about its founder, other than noting (1) he has a controversial past, and (2) attacks on the "legitimacy" of the holiday are often targeted against the terrible past actions of its founder. Both of those points are noted in the article at present. Readers who want to know more about Karenga can click the wikilink - that's why it's there. I look forward to your thoughts, and again I entreat everyone to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Cheers, Kaisershatner 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Kaisershatner, I'm not asserting that Kwanzaa is a hoax. You are asserting it is not a hoax. That's advocacy of a point of view. Editing a controversies section of a Wikipedia article is about describing the controversy not about answering the arguments raised. It's not my "point", it's the point of critics of Kwanzaa, and you're already debating them before I add a word of text to the article! The criticism of Kwanzaa is likely to have been already answered in published form elsewhere. That would be the source of a rebuttal to a well-cited Controversies section and not your opinion or original research. patsw 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
We also assert that the moon landing and the Holocaust aren't hoaxes. NPOV doesn't require that every fringe view be represented equally. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Why characterize the criticism of Kwanzaa, or the assertion of it being a hoax as a "fringe view"? Is that meant to intimidate me or create guilt by association? This is what I have in mind:
If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. patsw 18:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm beginning to worry a bit about my language; just in this discussions, you've interpreted a straightforward statement as some sort of threat: Why characterize the criticism of Kwanzaa, or the assertion of it being a hoax as a "fringe view"? Is that meant to intimidate me or create guilt by association? and is that a threat to me that you will preemptively delete content -- does anyone else reading here intrepret my statements as attempts to intimidate or threaten patsw or anyone else? I like to think of myself as being able to intimidate and threaten without being ambiguous about it, and I prefer to do so intentionally, or not at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I suppose I am asserting it is not a hoax, based on the documented and cited evidence that millions of people celebrate it, apparently in good faith. It's not my point of view, it's an objective fact, and it is hardly Original Research for me to "assert" this. I'd ask you again to be precise about what you mean by "hoax," in case I don't understand what you're saying, and further, if it is not your point that it's a "hoax," then provide some sources that describe this "controversy," and I, for one, will support their inclusion (subject to their not being part of the above logical fallacies). Kaisershatner 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the user who thinks the controversies section is POV and inadequate. The controversies section, if you are going to have one (I personally don't think it is necessary) should include other problems with the celebrations such as Karenga's problems, the lack of African tradition etc. In addition, the user who compared Kwanzaa to Christmas is way out of line. Even though one is not of a certain faith, surely one can respect the beliefs of the faith. Kwanzaa has no comparison to Christmas or Hanukah, for that matter. To the believer, those holidays are created by the works of God and were not founded. They were celebrated for millenia outside of any state recognition. Kwanzaa was founded by a convicted felon to spread Marxist, and separatist views in the African-American community. This is why this article is having trouble being stable. The proponents of Kwanzaa want to raise it to a level it is not, and in response the opponents, want to ridicule it-- which is not necessary or warranted. Kwanzaa is not as important or significant as Christmas or Hanukah, just like President's Day is not as important or significant as Passover or Easter. It is what it is. Ramsquire 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You've got at least a few factual errors in there. "To the believer" those holidays are created by the works of God? Doesn't make any sense regarding Christmas; the particular placement and winter rituals of Christmas were put into place independent of any works of God, but rather by various people such as Pope Julius and John Chrysostom. It might celebrate something a believer thinks is a work of God, but the holiday itself is purely a human invention. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There are NO factual errors. You even make my point at the end of your post. Christmas is celebrated because according to Christian belief, God took the form of a human through a virgin birth to redeem mankind of its sins. The agreed upon date of the holiday may be man made, and some of the current practices pagan in origin, but the celebration isn't the creation of any Pope or early Christian leader whereas Kwanzaa is the creation of Karenga. Whether people decided to celebrate Jesus's birth in December, January, or July is irrelevant as the holiday is about God's intervention in human history. But at it's core, it remains about Christ's birth (to the Christian). Against that backdrop, Kwanzaa or any secular celebration, like Flag Day or Columbus Day doesn't measure up. Now there is nothing wrong with celebrating these holidays but it is misguided to place them on equal footing with this religious holiday or any other. Although, I am not Jewish, I would be able to understand why someone who was Jewish would object to a user here calling Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur a man made holiday no different than Labor Day.
It seems to me that you are equating things like the Yule Log, the winter date, the Christmas tree, Santa Claus, the gift giving, etc. as being all part and parcel of Christmas. But it is not. Strip away all of that and you would still have Christmas. Take Karenga out of the mix, do you still have Kwanzaa? No because Karenga invented it. Ramsquire 19:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, all Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, and even did so considerably before it was decided to set aside one day a year to especially commemorate the event. Now, if someone discovers some ancient document in the Vatican Archives that proves that the person who first had the idea to celebrate Christmas was really a dirty rotten scoundrel, does that mean that Christians stop celebrating Christmas? Certainly not. Similary, one can believe in the celebration of African culture in Kwanzaa without holding up Karenga as a moral exemplar. I see no difference here between religious and secular holidays; all celebrations are values-based, and at some level cannot be evaluated objectively.--Pharos 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding Kwanzaa-as-hoax -- that seems to come completely from one particular writer, an editor named William J. Bennetta. In what way is he or his opinion notable enough to name? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Kinara and Menorah

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)

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)
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)
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)

For what it's worth the candelabrum has been around for a terribly long time. It relates to more than just Judaism. It's sort of a traditional religious symbol. I wouldn't say that Kwanzaa's use of a candelabrum is necessarily "stealing". --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Kinara Menorah potato patato - Check it out: Our Tora Stone Tel Shemesh About.com Tree of Life About.com Menorah -SL--68.45.57.193 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW - the problem here is not whether or not you used the word "stealing." It is the implicit message you are trying to create by including the history of the symbol at all. There have been many points made here about the fact that other religious symbols associated with Christmas and Hannukah also have histries of their own - yet in the articles on Christmas and Hannukah, no one feels the necessity of undermining the symbols by including statements about their origins. When people put an emphasis on such things, they betray the racism in their hearts, and expose themselves for what you are. Nicely turned phrases, seemingly neutral language does not hide the truth. -- SL--71.250.88.213 05:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic "Action Alert"

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)

You know, this probably explains some of the ridiculousness we've seen on this article in the past few days. And now it's only going to get worse. Just great. I like how they say, Wikipedia is a liberal "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, it is very popular and very "progressive". They say that as if being progressive is a bad thing. They're right, no progress should be made whatsoever; we should all be stuck back in the Stone Age. Bunch of morons. And I didn't realize how racist these people are. Geez. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
  • 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)
Perhaps. Either way lets take it as it comes.--Tznkai 04:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)