Talk:Rastafari movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance within African diaspora.
Peer review Rastafari movement has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
Archive 1 - to 25 Feb 2005
Archive 2 - to 26 Jul 2005

Contents

[edit] What about women

Are there codified politics regarding women in this movement. I have been told by many of some sexist habits and very binary divisions of sex roles. However this article doesn't really mention women. Why not? I would like to know more about lifestyle and present day realities... even if the movement is hard to quantify and is not homogenous, descriptions can be accurate and incomplete at the same time if they are honest about it.

[edit] Rastafari as a racist movement

It is a testament to the ultra-liberal bias of Wikipedia that this goes ignored. The whole ideology is overtly anti-white, even violently so. There is no hesiation to mention racism elsewhere...double standard? -- Ari

"Even violently so"? What do you mean? There are Rastafari practitioners in almost every (if not all) races. True, the "original" or rather, the early rastafari have been pro-black and anti-white, but who could blame them? The movement was borne in the early 1900's; the time of racial segregation=legal racism, apartheid and whatnot, even the holocaust was still to come... So, if I knew that my family and my ancestry had been slaves for 600 years, I might be little pissed,wouldn't you? But, a few things changed that racial aspect; First of all, when Haile Selassie spoke in the UN, he spoke VERY strictly against racism. Secondly, we've come a long way from the racism of the 1930's, the whole worlds changed. And all rastafari are not anti-white, quite the opposite nowadays, but they are very much against "Babylon", which is the modern global corporate-ruled, corrupt world, which happens to be mainly ruled by whites...

Peace, Oliver--Oliver Filo 11:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  Ari? Who/What is that? Don't try to slander the beliefs and ways of Rastas. My parents are Rastas.

I was born in the states, and i didn't learn racism in my home, I learned it in public schools. And when I brought it home, I met the wrath of my mother.

  Rastas are people and it's no secret that the people screwing Jamaica and many parts of Africa,

a continet that Rastas love is being torn apart by people who are white, not saying that many dark skinned Africans aren't mindlessly sheading blood. So you can't blame them for being human. It's not OK, but someone is always going to be overly frustrated.

  Go meet a REAL Rasta then tell me who the racists are.

70.22.44.22 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is already mentioned, that some of the beginnings were violently anti-white, but this can no longer be said today. I find that Rastafari today is multi-racial and much more a force *against* racism. In fact, the movement has become a much closer reflection of Haile Selassie's views, by becoming far more educated than it was in the beginning. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to this article because a co-worker is Rastafarian, and I want to know more about it. This co-worker is white. Apparently he is also self-hating. :-) crazyeddie 06:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of racism are ridiculous. While Bobo Ashanti have perportedly racist elements, 12ToI have none; Marley himself was born of a white father. InI also was born of a white father, proudly so. 782 Naumova 17:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How can a white person follow a religion designed for black Africans?

By doing so. The real question that begs is why cant they? You are making assumptions about white and black people being separated, IMO, that dont correspond to reality. Its a bit like asking how could a black person marry a white person, SqueakBox 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember in the 80s the USA network used to show a interview with the band 3rd World where Bunny Rugs says "The way InI see it, JAH is the Faada of all people - whether them realize it or not". Don't assume it to be a religion designed only for black Africans, it claims to be the Truth from the beginning of time, not designed for only certain people. If "the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes" to JAH, then that caste-classification based on flesh is exactly the kind of thinking Rastas try to reject from their minds. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


I've always wondered what it's all about so I just read the article now. It does seems a bit racist. I mean take these statements:

"the black Messiah who will lead the world's peoples of African origin into a promised land of full emancipation and divine justice". As I see it their are two interpretations; either the "people's of Africa" are black, or as everyone originated in Africa, it refers to everyone. The former is a completely racist statement, in that only the coloured people are lead to salvation. If it's the latter (including those in "Babylon") why not just say so?

They don't like the scissors, razor or the comb because they're Roman/Babylonian inventions! Is that to say that no one combed their hair before the Romans? But anyway, thats like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would they like them if an African had invented them? Also as a side issue, it's completely selective, running water was a Roman concept and the radio that Bob Marley's songs are broadcast on was invented in "Babylon". No problems there though! Also, I noticed Haile Selaisse I has a Roman numeral after his name!

"Part of the reason the hairstyle was adopted, was to contrast the kinky hair of black men with the straighter hair of whites". Fair enough if your black, but why would a white man do that?

It's basically a slave religion: Only descendants of slaves would have a problem with the English language. Immigrants, converts, whites, or even Ethiopians themselves shouldn't, so why the animosity towards it. Repatriation "a central doctrine" doesn't really concern anyone else.

I know that western society isn't perfect. Perhaps no society can be, we are human after all. But what makes Ethiopia so perfect in contrast with "Babylon"? Isn't democracy better than a Monarchy?

I've don't really have any knowledge of it other that what I read in the article, so I'd welcome any responses.

Everytime 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just checked up this Marcus Garvey "prophet"..... "...black nationalist and recognized Rasta prophet, believed that white achievements were due to white children being taught that they are superior. By the same token, he held that if black children are taught that they are superior, then there is a greater chance that they will succeed in life". That's undeniably racist. 87.192.69.100 14:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Garvey was never a Rastafarian. It is Haile Selassie's well-known views on race that hold precedence for most Rastas. However, there is one small sect known as 'Bobo Shanti', that holds Garvey to be equal to Haile Selassie, as part of a trinity (this is not the view of most other Rastas) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there's a racial component to Rastafarianism, but racial is not synonymous with racist. This religion and philosophical stance is an historical reaction to white repression of blacks in Jamaica and the United States. It was perfectly reasonable for the victims to view traditional Christianity as an instrument of that repression--because it was wielded thus. Rastafarianism is not racist, but, rather, a means of surviving racism and triumphing over racism. TheScotch 11:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Gold"?

What's all this "gold" nonsense? What's wrong with the perfectly good word "yellow"? It's not limited to Rastafarianism, I see yellow being called "gold" everywhere in Star Trek too. Is there some negative connotation to the word, or do people just want to sound posh and high-and-mighty? — JIP | Talk 10:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't know about Star Trek but the Rastas have always used the word gold and never the word yellow, so as an encyclopedia we must use the word gold in refernce to them, otherwise we would be doing something original and unsourced. The Rastas love to act high and mighty, even posh by their own lights, it goes back to Garveyism and black pride; Garvey was very high and mighty as a way for black people to take pride in themselves. Haile Selassie being a mighty king is part of the same process. The Ethiopian flag, as a symbol of African liberation, needs a splendid word like Gold. That is very much what Rastafari is all about, -- --SqueakBox 14:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
"Gold" is widely used as a colour - the German flag, for example, is Black-Red-Gold. People specify non-primary shades of colour all the time. There is a symbolic meaning as well, of course. Do you advocate that the American military awards be called the "brown star", the "grey star" and the "yellow star" as well? Guettarda 15:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here is a source. I think gold is the colour used by Ethiopians, --SqueakBox 16:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, when people say "gold" in cases such as flags or uniforms, the colour they are talking about is yellow. Gold is a metallic colour, yellow is a normal, plain colour. The stripes in the Rastafarian or German flags don't shine in the sunlight, and neither does Jim Kirk's shirt. The situaton is different with the military awards, as I understand they are indeed made to look like precious metals (if not actually are of precious metals). Do you advocate calling wood "bronze" and rocks "silver"? — JIP | Talk 04:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What I advocate is calling it the colour the Rastafarians call it which is gold. It is not for us to make judgements about the Rastas, merely to record how they are. Bring here some evidence that the Rastas say red, yellow and green, and I will bring a thousand sources that it is red, gold and green. I don't advocate calling the colour anything particularly, but I strongly advocate having an accurate article without original research or someone non rastas ideas of colour trashing the accuracy of the article. You cannot change what the Rastas think, and we are not here to define the words to describe colours. We are writing an encyclopedia article on the Rastas. This is a ridiculous discussion that will clearly go nowhere because this article will not be changing gold to yellow. Source your claims that Rastas say yellow, or drop the whole topic, --SqueakBox 15:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, my example was flawed. It doesn't change the fact that gold is used as a colour and the Rasta use of "gold" has symbolic (as well as chromtic) meaning. Unless you are proposing that we get rid of all these made up colours like "aquamarine" and "beige" and "pink", I don't see your point. Guettarda 17:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't do anything. It should be a reflection of the world in which we live, it's history, etc. You need to take your colour proposal scheme somewhere else, but not bring it here to wikipedia. If people choose to call a yellow flag gold it is not for wikipedia to tell them they are wrong. I wouldn't recommend beginning any crusade on this issue by trying to get Rastas to change their use of the word gold, --SqueakBox 18:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to change the way Wikipedia works, much less the way Rastafarians think. I was only looking for the reason Rastafarians call yellow gold, and now I have found the reason. (Although I still don't know why Star Trek calls it gold.) — JIP | Talk 20:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The reason anyone ever calls yellow "gold"? Because language is just kind of crazy that way. Nothing to get too riled up about.
Lisa: I'd like 25 copies on Goldenrod.
Clerk: Right.
Lisa: 25 on Canary.
Clerk: Mmhmm.
Lisa: 25 on Saffron.
Clerk: All right.
Lisa: And 25 on Paella.
Clerk: Ok, 100 yellow.
75.21.86.126 17:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that quote should end that debate! Bulbous 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though this has been adequately covered so I won't dwell on it. Since my source are many first hand accounts of Rastafarian and non-Rastafarian Jamaicans, I won't cite it as anything more than that (and won't put this in the article itself) but it has been explained to me numerous times that, "Black is the color of the people of Africa, Green is the color of life and their sacrament to Jah Rastafari, Red is the color of the blood spilled through slavery and war, and Gold is the color of the treasures of Africa that have been raped and stolen from the land." Yellow isn't quite as fitting. --NoPhE4R 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything which SqueakBox says regarding the mission of an Encyclopedia is true. It shouldn't dictate usage or behavior, it should report facts. None of this, of course, provides any reason for not using the word "yellow" to describe color of interest to Rastas. Because the fact is that the color is yellow. Fact one is that the Rastas call it "gold". Fact two is that it is yellow. Luckily, for the dignity of all concerned, Wiki may continue to use "gold" with a clear conscience, since "gold" and "yellow" are synonymous when applied to flags. This goes back to heraldic practice. Terms for metals and furs, and color words in Latin are used to designate colors in flags, crests, and banners. Rastas aren't the only people who like to act high and mighty. All European governments also have a certain weakness for pomp and self-puffery. My point is just that what is at issue here isn't Rasta practice, but the actual identity of the color. Which is yellow. Which in this context is gold.

This whole conversation is rediculous as the colors on a flag are meant to represent different ideas or ideals. What we decide to call that color has everything to do with what is meant by that color. By calling it yellow one is neglecting to fully appreciate the meaning behind the choice of gold as a flag color is meant to convey an idea, that of eternal and original wealth and prosperity. It has nothing to do with being high and mighty regarding the naming of a color. That is a reactionary and frankly stupid position to hold. Flags are symbols meant to illustrate various ideas and they use images and colors, like all other forms of symbolism, to do this. Thus, the use of gold on a flag is in no way an attempt to sound more high and mighty, but rather a way to communicate.... you dolt.

[edit] Rastafari

After discovering that Ras Tafari redirects to Selassie I have deleted the disambiguation page and redirected it here, --SqueakBox 03:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

This should be no problem, since Ras Tafari is his name. It also means Head Creator in Amharic. So it can refer both to Haile Selassie and to Abrahamic God name in Amharic. When put together as Rastafari it is the name of the movement (concerning whether Rastas should be seen as cult - maybe, but it has bad meaning, religion - no).

Greetings,

I can't tell you how many times I've seen people say that Ras Tafari means "Head Creator" in Amharic. However, this is not quite the case. Yes, one of the meanings of Ras is indeed "Head". But the correct word for "Creator" is feTaree; note, in this word the F comes before the T, and it is a T, a slightly more aspirated sound than t, and also the next vowel is "a" as in "father". However, His Majesty's given name is not /feTaree/, but rather /teferee/. This means, "One Who is raspected". Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 23:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ras Tafari IS H.I.M.'s name, but it does not mean head creator. His pre-coronation name was Tafari Makkonen, and Ras denotes Ethiopian royalty. By the way i too am a Rasta, and do not agree with any thought of ism in the title, but like that "ism" is mentioned in the article. - Sky

[edit] Bible Quotes

I am not a Rastafarian myself so correct me if I'm wrong. The first quote mentioned (Exodus 10:12) is out of context, completely. The full quote is as follows: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they may come up upon the land of Egypt, and eat every herb of the land, even all that the hail hath left." The word "eat" is not a command but verb in the future tense. This is even move evident when reading the original Hebrew text, since in Hebrew the two tenses vary more. For Hebrew readers, the original text is: ויאמר ה' אל משה נטה ידך על ארץ מצרים בארבה ויעל על ארץ מצרים ויאכל את כל עשב הארץ את כל אשר השאיר הברד.

Rastas are accused by many Bible scholars of taking Bible quotes out of context. They use the King James version of the Bible ands don't engage in Hebrew scholarship, --SqueakBox 16:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the editors of the King James Version were trying not to offend King James; they wrote in the King's English at the time (1600) that today, with modern readers, is especially prone to misinterpretation. Of course, noone can seriously take this partial quote about the locusts plaguing Egypt, as meaning any kind of dietary prescription. I am a Rasta and a scholar, but please bear in mind that the roots of this movement was not in scholarship but in poor, often illiterate dwellers among the shanty towns of Jamaica, who although earnest, were prone to making many minor inaccurate assumptions of this type, that later proved to be false. Wherever that quote originated, it was probably not from a serious scholar, but neither were they necessarily trying to deceive intentionally, to overstate the Biblical case for diet. Rastas have been smoking and studying the Bible and praying for Wisdom for 75 years now, so rest assured, our knowledge of the original text and language has increased accordingly, from the state it was in at the beginning of the movement.
--I R I E I T E S
As a Rastafarian what do you think of the title of this article-that is the word rastafarianism? --SqueakBox 01:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well listen to the lyrics to the song 'Get Up, Stand Up'. In some versions Peter Tosh sings it as 'We're sick and tired of your ism-schism game', that speaks for all InI so this is a big reason InI do not say Rastafarianism. If it is offensive to most Rastas, or even to many, that is reason enough to retitle it to Rastafari - then perhaps the dispute flag could come down. Academics sometimes adjust their nomenclature arising from such sensitivities; for instance, after the Shah of Persia formally requested the international community to refer to his nation as Iran, or when around the same time, His Imperial Majesty requested them to call the name of His Kingdom "Ethiopia" rather than "Abyssinia".
Thanks for your comment - it's an argument that we have been trying to make before. May I request that you register a user name - that way, when the dicussion of naming the article comes up again you can participate in in the discussion. May I ask where you are from, btw? I'm a Trini. Guettarda 15:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I've read this in the article "They are also criticised for using the English language (and particularly the King James version) of the Bible, as many have no interest in Hebrew or Greek scholarship. However, in recent years a greater interest in the Amharic Orthodox version, authorized by Haile Selassie I in the 1950s, has arisen among Rastas." - I don't understand the link between using a certain version of the bible and and the idea that you can't use a version if you don't know Hebrew or Greek. This needs explaining as it doesn't make any sense (to me). The congregations of most churches using that bible won't have studied the classics either. Secretlondon 00:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and some others who know more about this specific question may be able to answer it better. Rastafarianism has had no scholarship from the get-go, where as your local Methodist church may not have many greek or hebrew scholars but certainly has had many in the organization through the years. The Rastafari movement has had very few, and consequently some of their doctrines are based on what most if not all scholars consider misinterpretations of parts of verses. This seems to cause problems for them, but from certain philosophical perspectives it is irrelevant. For Kierkegaard such scholoarship is objective, not subjective, and is thus useless for faith. Faith is all that matters to belief in God for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattssw (talk • contribs)
This editor is displaying exactly the same kind of condescending attitude we have seen for 4000 years. 'There are no scholars, they have always been illiterate etc.' There are plenty of Rasta scholars. Perhaps they just don't meet your definition of the word 'scholars' of the scribes and pharisees party.. As a matter of fact, a higher percentage of Rasta are scholars who speak several languages, than in any local methodist Church library. This condescension seems quite methodical, though. Our king, Haile Sellassie I was and is the greatest Scholar Who ever lived. Many of the bredren follow in His footsteps, and you are just projecting a falsehood when you say we aren't learning Greek and Hebrew, believe that if you want. We say Rasta is Reality, because the Truth cannot ever change and always shows that we were right all along, once the smoke-screen clears, you too will see who is seated upon the Throne. Now as far as the topic of Bible quotes, the quotes are given in reference to use of hemp being provided to man from Genesis, Proverbs and Psalms. Then the article goes on to state: "Note, however, the lack of Bible references to smoking of herbs." This is an inaccuracy in our interpretation, so I am going to do some better scholarship and correct this with more references from the Bible. 172.163.116.235 14:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, the lack of biblical scholarship would only be relevant if the Bible were true, SqueakBox 14:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there a criticism section in this article? These people believe some crazy things--I mean, do people even bother criticizing it, just because, you know, it's so beyond the pail? -Kmaguir1 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a huge logic to Rastafari but like any complex subject it may appear incomprehensible to thosen who dont understand where the movement is coming from. Surely all religion is by nature absurd, if it wasnt it wouldnt be religion and for me this makes Rasta a genuine faith. By all means find some sourceable criticism and add it but saying the Rasta beliefs are beyond the pale wont wash eg in their belief that life is to be lived here on earth and not in some promised after life Rastas have shown themselves to be far more rational than other religions, and in His Majesty they have chosen a man of high moral calibre to be God and King, much better than all those false prophet cult leaders like Hubbard, Moon, etc, SqueakBox 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


I understand where the movement is coming from--a desire to smoke weed. And worship a man who IS dead, and himself denied association with the movement. Is that what Christ did to Peter--mislead him with His answers? -Kmaguir1 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Christians worship a man that has been dead 2000 years. It isnt true that Selassie denied association with the movement, he remained dissassociated with it but that is something entirely different. His primary duty was to his Ethiopian subjects because his job was to be Emperor and he couldn't have abandoned that to become a cult leader and if he had the Rastas would have lost faith in HIM. I dont think a desire to smoke weed is what makes a Rasta, there are for more weed smokers than Rastas in the world who feel no need to be Rastas or for the most part justify there use of weed. More importantly Rasta is so much more than smoking weed, as Christianity is so much more than drinking wine. So I would guess from your comments that you dont understand where Rasta is coming from, SqueakBox 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark 4:20 - "Plant the seed and it shall grow" is this a joke? seems like a big coincidence for it to be 420

Greetings and Blessings in the name of Jah Rastafari Haile Sellassie I, I would like to add some facts to the name Ras Tafari: Ras=Head Tafari=To be Feared thus meaning Head to be Feared, I would like to add that the current picture of the Rastafari or Rastaman is too hippyish, that picture does not show the true livity of a Rastaman esp. the toungue sticking out, find a more humble elder picture cause that pic makes I and I look bad. From Ras Imes-RNCI-USA

[edit] Moving

I am moving Doctrines back to the main article, --SqueakBox 16:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haile Selassie

I have footnoted to an external source to flag the fact that there is documented real historical disagreement among Rastafarians as to the supposed "divinity" of Haile Selassie. I think some careful clean-up work needs to be done to this article to make it NPOV. Whig 06:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The nature of this 'disagreement' is strikingly parallel to a ism-schism game that arose in the Early Church: homoousia v. homoiousia, etc. But the sides in this debate have "agreed to disagree," to avoid following that same road. There is no question that Monophysitism prevailed in Africa, His Majesty stood as Defender of the Ethiopian Church, that was solidly Monophysite, meaning a belief that the Messiah's Divine Nature cannot be separated from His human Nature, but is rather united (Tewahido) in one indivisible Nature. This reflects the Ethiopian belief taught by the Emperor that "Man cannot worship man"; - we worship Messiah not because He is man, but rather because He is God on Earth, God the Son in physical form.

None the less, one of the major "Houses" or "Mansions" (namely, Twelve Tribes) has articulated a position with respect to His Majesty's Divinity that is remarkably similar to the position of Arianism regarding Christ (a schism of Christianity that flourished roughy 300-700 AD.) They revere His Majesty as a prophet and a wise leader, but stop short of declaring H.I.M. to be the Messiah. A small clarifying paragraph to this effect ought to be included, but you are right, when you delve into this pov question it is vital to be extremely careful. Also, some web sites have sprung up lately purporting to represent lesser "new" sects of Rastafari, but these are sometimes viewed with great suspicion as a trick of Babylon or "wolves in sheeps clothes" since they appear to exist only on the Internet, and push statements about H.M. Selassie I that border on disrespectful, while these same ones (on the Internet) cantinue to take the Name of Ras Tafari in vain, by applying it to themselves while simultaneously preaching negative doctrines about H.I.M... These web sites are not regarded as genuine "Rastas" by most of the other Mansions, but 12 Tribes is a genuine Mansion and is recognised by the other main Mansions - (Niyabinghi, Bobo, Orthodox.) These Mansions at present have small differences in doctrine, structure and approach, but membership is loose enough to allow for a great number of "freelance" Rastas as well, those who follow JAH Path on their own without affiliating themselves with any one sect. His Majesty Haile Selassie is the only one person in the Movemant whose Teachings and sayings are central, and one of His most famous is the one that says "Country is common; Faith is private." --

    • I R I E
    • I T E S

I find it quite peculiar to underline that Haile Selassie was "the only black head of state in the world" in his time. For example, Liberia had Charles D. B. King as a president from 1920 to 1930, and Edwin Barclay from 1930 to 1944, both of which were black heads of state. 86.198.100.27 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Tehem 22:55, September 20, 2006 (UTC) [edited date & signature 22:39, September 21, 2006 (UTC)]

Correct, and I'm sure Haiti was another... Probably should be emended to read "monarch"... Codex Sinaiticus ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Houses

Irie Ites!

I have added a major improvements to the discussion on the houses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mansions_of_Rastafari

Please check it and see what`s good to go.

Blessed, Rastavox user:Rastavox

[edit] POV?

This seems a blatantly non neutral article, which over-generalizes about the "Western mind" (???) and Christianity.

Seconded. Nicolasdz 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This section in the intro is definitely POV: "It was the first commune of its type in Jamaica, and at its zenith was an oasis of peace and prosperity for those living there." Declaring that something was an oasis of peace and prosperity is not at all encyclopedic. Atamasama 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

'Some early elements of Rastafari were closely related to indigenous religions of the Caribbean and Africa, and to the Maroons, though these syncretic elements were largely purged by the Nyahbinghi warriors - dreadlocked Rastas who fought the corrupting power of some leaders who sought to add them to the Rastafari doctrines'

How is this article even B class? 'corrupting power'-very encyclopedic172.141.98.38 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please find some sources and add this material, the connection with the Maroons has been well documented though I am not sure anyone much has purged anything in Rastafari, the whole movement is too anarchic for that up till now, but again if you can find some good sources please add to the article, SqueakBox 18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No I was quoting something from the article and remarking on its POV, 'corrupting power' dosent sound right at all, that was my point.172.141.98.38 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, SqueakBox 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancies in article regarding Haile Selassie's titles

Regarding the following statement in the Haile Selassie and the Bible section:

This is partly because of his titles King of Kings, Lord of Lords and Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah. These titles match those of the Messiah mentioned in Revelation. However, these were traditionally accorded to all Ethiopian emperors, even before Revelation was written.

I'm wondering in particular about the last assertion, "even before Revelation was written." Upon what is this based? If it is based on the Kebra Nagast (which itself seems to have appeared no earlier than the 13th century) then this should be clarified in the text. Revelation was evidently written in 96 CE or earlier. Known documentation shows that Sembrouthes, a king of Axum was the first to use "King of Kings," circa 250 CE. I'm not sure when "Lord of Lords and Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah" was added to the title, but I suspect it was not created until the Solomonic dynasty, which asserted direct lineage to Menelik I (also see Talk:Menelik I). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I am the one who added "even before Revelation was written". Whatever your ferenj "documentation" may say (for whatever ulterior purpose), Amharic books say that the titles ንጉሠ ነገሥት ሞዓ አንበሣ ዘእምነገደ ይሁዳ (Niguse Negest, Mo'a Anbessa Ze'imnegede Yihuda) were indeed created with the Solomonid dynasty -- that is, circa 980 BC. However, I'm not sure that "Lord of Lords" was ever used as an Imperial title, so perhaps that bit could be removed. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 21:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Howdy, no ulterior motive, though I did wonder whether I might come off that way. There are discrepancies between what is presented in this article, and other articles such as Menelik I and Solomonic dynasty. Shouldn't these be reconciled or addressed somehow? (The other English Wikipedia articles are IMO rather thorough in their citation of references, thanks in large part to User:BanyanTree and User:Llywrch. As you point out they are English references, yes, but that's what is available to Anglophones.) I trust your vouching for the Amharic texts; I can barely make out the letters, much less translate the meaning, since I'm a kai as you correctly guessed. (But as Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam," inadequate farenj documentation and all). ;-) Also: a more minor issue, but I'm curious about your changing the word "which" back to "that." In such cases "which" makes more sense, e.g. in the way the clause itself follows a comma (I may be an annoying grammarian but I'm not trying to be pedantic about this). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. FYI, you might be interested to know that there are two different articles for Kebra Negast/Kebra Nagast. I've proposed a merge; the former would seem to be the correct spelling (or is it Kebre?), the latter has more info. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature of followers of Rastafari

I have been looking through the article, and have found the terms Rastas, Rastafarians and Rastafari (in addition to their singulars) being used more or less interchangeably throughout the text to refer to followers of the Rastafari faith. However, reading a paragraph at the top of the article, one notices this:

The movement is sometimes called "Rastafarianism"; however, this is considered improper and offensive by the Rastas themselves.

If the term is indeed offensive, then we need to 1) reference why it is offensive; and 2) remove the use of the term from the rest of the article. Also, I feel we need to standardise the term used throughout the article, and I would like to ask for the opinion of editors to this article as to which of the three terms is correct for the article, in an effort to build consensus for this matter. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull 00:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The only times "Rastafarianism" is mentioned in the article is in a discussion of why the term is offensive. At least one citation is already given in the article on this issue. More were given in the long discussions above on this. Jonathunder 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jonathunder, thank you for replying to my query. I would like to point out that "Rastafarian" does indeed occur in the article text elsewhere other than in the discussion about its offensive character, please see these examples:

From section Doctrines:

  1. "...offer them except more suffering. Rastafarians see themselves as conforming to a vision..."
  2. "...their existence gave some credence and impetus to early Rastafarians, validating their belief..."
  3. "...who sought to add them to the Rastafarian doctrines."

I believe that these are outside of the discussion of the offense of the term. In addition, there is still the use of "Rastas" interchangeably with "Rastafari" - we should try to gain consensus on this matter somehow. I thought it best to raise this on the talk page rather than jump straight in and edit, since I assume this is an ongoing debate. As for the discussion above, that refers to the name of the article - not the nomenclature within the article itself.

Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk page) (e-mail) 04:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Earth Changes delete

Hey, would you people care to give your opinion about Earth changes? The article is about to be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_changes Subramanian talk

[edit] Rastamen

The word Rastaman links here, although the article doesnt mention anything about the appearance and LIFESTYLE. Not all Rastamen are rastafarians but it's also an appearance, fashion, lifestyle or code of behaviour. Should we rather redirect Rastaman to dreadlocks? Pictureuploader 00:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No I don't think so, I think you should add the necessary detail to the article, SqueakBox 00:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree; this article is strictly about Rastafari movement and should remain so; if "Rastamen" are something different, they should have their own article, (maybe linked to/from this one) especially as those who follow appearance and fashion are referred to as "wolves in sheeps clothes" by the Rastafari. Codex Sinaiticus 03:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I don't agree with Pictureuploader's interpretation. For me a Rastaman is by definition a follower of Rastafari. Yes there may well be a Rasta lifestyle, and there certainly is a Rasta appearance and code of behaviour but you would need to source your claim that many of those who take on the Rasta appearance and lifestyle and code of behaviour are not Rastafarians, and that would just be for starters. I do feel the issue needs dealing with here, basically because I dispute that rastamen are anything other than the followers of Sellassie I. Just having dreads and somoking weed doesn't make one into a Rasta. I have also redirected Rastawoman, Rastawomen and Rastamen here, SqueakBox 14:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A discussion above proved that the word rasta is used in some languages for dreadlocks. This is tha case with my native language also, where rasta is also used to describe any wavy line as well. Following this, rastaman has a wider meaning. In any case, there are separate pages about christians and christianity, as well as islam and muslim. Why not create a separate Rastaman article where all differet issues and interpretations can be easily discussed? Pictureuploader 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

you dont have to be a rasta man to beleive that salassie was god...im a rasta i think of of him as soloman....i think this article is to black and white...it needs to be smoothed out so ppl actually understand wut rastafari does,it free's god from religion...and this sounds like a religion..its a spiritual movement more of...and u follow the laws to get a better understanding of nature...jahs left hand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 420bonghits (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On intro

Hi Codex, I'd like to remove the section of text that you reinserted into the Rastafari Movement article -- I don't think, as is, that it is grammatical nor is it stylistically or content-wise within the range of what makes a good article. I'm curious what you feel the rationale for its inclusion is. I see a lot of problems with the article as a whole -- it does read a bit like a soapbox, going beyond being descriptive to incorporating perspective-laden terms, and I think that this is part of what should be rewritten to make it better. --Improv 00:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The sentence currently reads (with the text in question bolded):
For Rastafari, Selassie I remains their god and their king, who stood with great pomp and dignity in front of the world's press and representatives of many of the world's powerful nations.
  • What is the grammatical problem with that???
  • What is out of range for this topic??? (Rasta's faith system)
  • What is the POV problem with this??? (It clearly states "For Rastafari, does not imply anything about what anyone else believes...)
In short, why exactly do you want to suppress this statement from the article??? Codex Sinaiticus 00:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


I have put
For Rastafari, Selassie I remains their god and their king, who they see as worthy of worship and as having stood with great pomp and dignity in front of the world's press and representatives of many of the world's powerful nations.
Thus we distinguish the fact that it is Rastas who think this about Selassie I. I agree with Codex that it is important to include this statement because it is stating what Rastas think and beleive about Selassie I, highly relevant to the article, SqueakBox 01:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Squeakbox, your edit makes the edit grammatically sound, and I appreciate that. I still don't think the sentence is coherent, but it is grammatical -- the incoherence lies in the fact that it mixes a statement of relation (For Rastafari, Selassie I remains their god and their kind) with a side comment that doesn't fit with the general premise (He stood with great pomp and dignity...). To understand how it doesn't fit, look at the sentence with the first statement of relation removed: For Rastafari, Selassie stood with great pomp and dignity in front of the world's press and representatives of many of the world's powerful nations. I don't think it fits, nor does it really work as an independent sentence -- that's why I think that dependent clause should probably go. --Improv 02:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I also think the article has several general problems that I've seen with other articles written mainly by groups described by the article -- it tends to overuse terms used by the group as descriptive, rather than simply describe those terms from the outside. Some degree of use of terms can be appropriate, but in my opinion this article, again like those on several other groups, incorporates them to an inappropriate level in a way that undermines the scientific, encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia. The article has the definite feel of being written by enthusiastic Rasta rather than being written about Rasta. --Improv 02:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Who is this guy and where did he come from, he is our wost nightmare on the road to Damascus, IYAH
I would suggest that if you see the wikipedia articles on Rasta as part of a religious quest, you're approaching Wikipedia in the wrong way. --Improv 13:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I edited this article a lot before but haven't for months. I plan on going through it this w/end and seeing what can I do. In the meantime I have divided said sentence into 2. I am sure Improv is acting in good faith, and personally welcome his contributions, SqueakBox 13:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Improv isn't Rasta's worst nightmare, that would have to be the nutcase in London who wants Reggae banned and who does things like walk up to African Presidents in airports and demand they be placed under arrest!
Seriously, most of wikipedia was written by people who have a vested stake in the area it is about - you can find what Improv is describing in articles written about Muslims by Muslims, articles written about Christians by Christians articles about video games by video game players, it seems everyone on wikipedia is tolerant of this, and yet only Rastas are not even allowed to have one word written about them unless it describes them "from the outside"... I think that is not fair especially when we have taken great pains to ensure that every sentence remains written from a NPOV much as the rest of wikipedia is... Yes it presents the Rasta viewpoint, but it states clearly that's what it is, so it is legitimate in that respect and no different from the rest of wiki in that respect... But we should take each controversial sentence in here on a specific case-by case basis if there is any dispute and not speak in generalities... +
Sqeak, as always, I appreciate your support, but I have a small quibble over the grammar... You see, as a grammar expert, I can tell you there was nothing wrong grammatically with my version, but your version introduced a couple of grammatical errors, particularly in something called 'parallelism', also 'who' vs. 'whom'... I am going to correct that one more time, and hopefully you will see what I am talking about! Respect to all, Codex Sinaiticus 14:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand and in fact noted that what I mention is not unique to Rastas. I don't mean to be singling out Rastas -- over my edit history, you'll find that I've also commented on and been engaged in long discussions when this happened on articles related to Libertarians, troll groups, and several others. It's true that policy is unevenly applied, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a policy, rather that more work is needed to help it work more fairly. If you spot similar issues in other groups, by all means point them out, and if you want my take on those issues (and my support, if I happen to agree with you), drop me a note on my talk page. If anything, an overly self-congratulatory article hurts the opinion of the community on Rastas -- I must confess to some irritation at every group that uses their article as a vehicle for self-promotion. Sure, Rastas (and Libertarians, and Christians, and ...) think they're great/special/unique. That's to be expected. The rest of the world doesn't need to hear about it. What we do want to provide is information on who Rastas (and others) are through an informative, nonpropogandic, solid article on their history, perspectives, influence, theology, etc. Our project is about making worthwhile articles like that for all topics worth covering. I don't think the current article is bad, but it's not what it could be. --Improv 16:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuals and Rastas. Someone here claimed that they are all abused in Jamiaca. I want proof of this. Although this may be your personal experience it does not mean all or most Jamaicans share this view

I'm not a member of wiki and I'm not sure if this is the proper place to point it out, but I'd just like to clarify to those of you that handle this sort of thing that an ital diet is NOT vegan or vegetarian. It forbids the eating of RED meat, not ALL meat-- ie poultry and sometimes fish (the fish thing is iffy). I think better statement would be to say "The ital diet corresponds to the Jewish kosher diet or the Moslem concept of halaal food."

[edit] Colors of the flag dispute

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

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

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


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

[edit] isms and schisms

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

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

[edit] Trustafarian up for deletion

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

[edit] Why Rastafari and homosexuality

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

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

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

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

[edit] Clockwise/Counterclockwise

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

[edit] Anti rasta POV

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

[edit] Use of Title is NOT "POV"

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

Line of succession to the Throne of Liechtenstein

--ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • FWIW, this is related to a rather long discussion Codex and I just wrapped up -- see our talk pages for details. --Improv 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
To date, no one has bothered to offer even a weak argument to try to explain why they feel what I wrote above here on discussion is wrong. Therefore, this POV edit (The fact of his Royalty was internationally recognised by the League of Nations and the United Nations, who themselves always styled Him with the honorific as any monarch, and as are many other monarchs on wikipedia) will have to be reverted.
The only weak argument I have seen offered anywhere is from people who seem to have a dim understanding of what the honorific stands for, and who seem to think it is bestowing a religious title equivalent to Christ, which is not normally allowed here on wikipedia on most articles in reference to Jesus. This is not at all comparable. Every government in the world recognized His Imperial Majesty with that honorific, and a policy making an exception in this case has yet to be draughted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Jona, You're trying to apply a rule that doesn't exist. I demonstrated that the rule doesn't exist, and admin Improv even backed down, because it doesn't exist. You have not demonstrated your ridiculous assertion that there is any POV in referring to H.I.M. as H.I.M, so making bellicose statements really don't help, like "The NPOV principle cannot be negotatiated" (and I suppose that makes you the arbiter?) That is how everyone around the world always referred to H.I.M. in diplomatic circles, and not only the Rastas. The longer you continue this, the more apparent it becomes that you are trying to invent a special "rule" to cover this one case of royalty only, based on some emotional argument that you have toward the subject. Once again, I repeat, royal honorifics are used all across wikipedia on numerous articles, their use is NOT deemed POV, and this is a LEGITIMATE, RECOGNISED TITLE, not a religiously-bestowed one like "Prophet" or "Christ". Stop trying to concoct some imaginary unwritten rule that says it's "unpermissible POV" in this case and this case only, while still permissible for other royalty.
By the way, Skanking, POV = Point of View, NPOV = Neutral Point of View. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Elizabeth II is nearly universally recognized as a monarch. Do any of captions in images of her on Wikipedia say "Her majesty"? I haven't seen a single one that does, and I have checked many. Jonathunder 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If the editors of Elizabeth II had a consensus to include it, it would not be prohibited by any written guideline. You don't get to make up unwritten rules as you go along, and suggesting that this article be bound in any way by decisions taken at another wikipedia article on Elizabeth II as some kind of 'precedent', is recognisably faulty logic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The article should discuss the title, of course, and why Rastafarians use it (to show reverence) but that is not the same as USING the title in captions, which not even articles about the Queen do. NPOV is policy, and that means not having articles not be reverential but simply explainitory. Thumbelina 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you have not been following the discussion, but I have already pointed out an entire series of articles that use (not just discuss) honorifics for royalty. There is no policy against it, nor should there be. It is not used strictly by Rastafarians, it is internationally recognised as belonging to His Majesty Haile Selassie, and this is the crucial fact. You have no right to deprive H.I.M. of a legitemately recognised title of royalty that other monarchs and their families are freely allowed to use on wikipedia, solely for the sake of your own opinionated pov. This discussion is ongoing at the MOS talk page; feel free to give your opinions there, but PLEASE hold of on all further edit warring and accept the status quo of policy until such time as it may be changed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Proposal for a Link for "Rastafarians History"

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

How can I know if it is approved or rejected?


Wisebwoy 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Repetition

I'm sure some of those pictures appear twice.

[edit] H.I.M.

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

Yes. That matches pretty closely what other image captions of royalty do, such as for Elizabeth II. I couldn't find a single one that uses "her majesty" and to say "his majesty" is part of Selassie's name is just flatly incorrect. Thumbelina 22:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, to say it isn't part of his name is flatly incorrect. All international standards of diplomacy use it, other wikipedia articles have it, and policy allows it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"H.M." refers to part of his title; it's not "part of his name". His full title was "His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie I, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God". His name was Haile Selassie. Thumbelina 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Unwilling Messiah

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

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


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

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


[edit] Pic

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

[edit] NPOV

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

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

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

[edit] "is not a religion but a philosophy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] names...

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

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

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

[edit] Persecution

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

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

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

[edit] Copyright

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

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

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

[edit] Picture

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

Well at least this pic partly answers some charges that have been made that the article was ignoring the Omega side of Rastafari! Why do you like the other one better? It is still at the top of the Haile Selassie article, so at least now also there is more variety between the two. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Bulbous 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Lack of sources

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

Here's what you might do to be helpful: Put {fact} tags on the specific sentences you want to challlenge or have doubts about. That way it will help the authors of this article to look for supporting citations. Putting a blanket tag at the top of the article rarely does any good because we don't know specifically what we are supposed to be looking for. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Codex, I appreciate your article and your efforts, but editors have to understand that sources are needed to present material. This whole article is unsourced. As per WP:CITE, "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor". That is, editors have the RIGHT to remove anything unsourced, which is pretty much the entire article. You should try to provide sources for *everything*, but in particular pay attention to statements such as "They feel/believe/think that"... which pervade the whole text. This article was tagged as unsourced not just for fellow editors to help fix it, but also to call to the attention of Wikipedia administrators the problems with this article. Bulbous 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm trying to help. Right now, with so few references, I think this is a very poor article. However, with proper referencing, I think it would be a very good article. In order to help the article along, I tagged it with "unsourced" in the past. That was removed, and I was asked to tag specific claims. I did so, and those tags got removed, too. Keep in mind that I've never removed any content from the page other than the song lyric, and I would agree that could be contended. For my efforts, Codex has gone so far as to imply that I'm a "prick". Bulbous 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I have now removed that sentence as it was uncalled for on my part. I realize you could have done far worse as it almost seemed like you were threatening to do. Bear with us and I am confident that published sources can be found for everything, or nearly everything. And SB and I are not the only two contributors of course! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Vandalism

Those editors reverting vandalism from this page might want to take the time to leave a message on the vandal's Talk page. See, for example, here. Bulbous 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, SqueakBox 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

Please source that black is a rasta colour. Its easy to source Red Greeen and Gold, eg Ras Michael et al, SqueakBox 17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well for a start there's Steel Pulse, "Rally round the flag, rally round the red, gold, black and green" 71.253.143.177 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

I'm confused... if the Rasta movement was originally racist, what's up with all the "one love" crap? And why are there white Rastas?

It was originally a black power movement in a place where there were just black people (the lower social stratas of 1930s Jamaica) but it then grew and changed. Nothing crap about One Love, SqueakBox 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Babylon System

Suddenly under the Symbols the "Babylon System", obviously the enemy, enters the article without any further explanation. I propose to either eliminate it or, better, to explain the word. 01:38, 20 June 2007 (GMT+1)

[edit] Language section

The final bullet point reads 'One of the most distinctive modifications in "Iyaric" is...', but this is the first use of the word 'Iyaric' in the article. Could someone who knows what it means add an explanation for this term? It reads like there used to be one there, but it got edited out at some point... Edjack 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Jah

Rastafari Makonnen is not exactly considered to be God himself. Rastafarianism, being a Zionist religion pays homage to the Christian/Jewish god, whose avatar is sometimes referred to as "Jehova". Jah simply means Jehova. The many references to Rastafari's godliness are more in relation to his apparent holiness and closeness with God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.122.69 (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "cultural value system"?

Rasta, or the Rastafari movement, is a cultural value system that accepts Haile Selassie I, the former Emperor of Ethiopia, as God incarnate, whom they call Jah.

I won't argue that cultural values have a lot to do with Rastafari, but if it's defined (as it is here) by the deification of Haile Selassie, shouldn't this opening sentence call it a religion or a spiritual movement? The assertion that Haile Selassie was God incarnate is in fact a spiritual belief, not a cultural value. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 18:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, can we have a source for Rastafari as a spiritual movement, if so it should be changed with the ref added. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware that you have just defined Rastafari as a religion? Bulbous 07:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to clean up this article

I think now is the time to start to improve this article. The first thing that needs to be done is proper sourcing for the many disputed claims. For example, the Owens book is improperly referenced at least a dozen times. I'm going to provide a significant amount of lead time for this work to get underway, but after the grace period is over, unsourced statements will be removed. Bulbous (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no special reason not to continue following the standard procedure for this, which is: you mark the specific statements you want to challenge, have doubts about, or want to see sourced, then allow editors some time to find the sources or improve the material. That has been working fine so far: lately I have been keeping the number of "citation required" tags down to the current number of zero, by adding a cite every time and every place a tag is added. Making it into a blanket instruction for the whole article without being given anything specific to look for is a little harder to do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the task that I have set out is a tough one, due to the large amount of text and the small amount of sources. Please remember that in the past, I did tag individual statements for citation (and there were several dozen). Unfortunately the response was that the tags were either replaced with a blanket reference to the Owens book (no page numbers were given) or else they were simply removed. Perhaps we can begin at the beginning and properly cite the statements that refer to the Owens book, and then maybe find sources for the Ganja section (which pretty much is completely unsourced). I realize that this will take some time, but it has to be done. Bulbous (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I guess I can start by looking for back-up refs for all the statements now attributed to Owens. The Ganja section is quite long; if you could get me started by tagging some specific statements in that section that ought to be referenced, it would help. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No rush, as long as someone is working on it. It's too bad we can't actually get a copy of the Owens book. Presumably, that would make things much easier. Bulbous (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1101301103 400.jpg

Image:1101301103 400.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African american topics?

I don't exactly see the relevance of the "African American" topics to this article. The majority of topics in the block are very specific to the United States. Rastafari is not specific to the United States. 216.36.27.114 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Merge: Afterlife and Immortality

These sections should be merged and retitled. If life is "Everliving", there really is no "afterlife", so this section is inappropriately titled. Also, this section referenced physical immortality, which has its own section a bit later. Bulbous (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)