Talk:Kwanzaa

Describing Ron Karenga

In this article, Karenga was described as "An African-American scholar and social activist." The description of Karenga in the main article about him says he "is an African American author, political activist, and convicted felon." However, after I edited this page to include the fact that he is a felon, my edit was removed, because another editor felt that it made this "article read as if Wikipedia has a weird grudge against a random US holiday."

I did not know that the inclusion of verifiable and indisputable facts makes an article sound like it has a "grudge." For the sake of balance, I believe it is important to present both positive and negative information. There seems to be some disagreement on this point.

An earlier removal of the description of Karenga as a convicted felon pointed out, correctly, that he was not a convicted felon in 1966, when he created Kwanzaa. However, he was not a scholar or author at that time, either.

Since there is conflict over how to describe Karenga, I have removed the descriptors. Anyone interested in knowing more about Karenga can follow the link to the main article about him. Godfrey Daniel (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, wait. What's a "scholar"? In 1965, he interrupted his doctoral studies, according to the article; what's the definition of "scholar" that this doesn't fit? Anyway, yeah, removing all the characterizations works fine. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering he is a known rapist/kidnapper/torturer http://www.google.ca/search?q=kwanzaa+rapist+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a That information should be, and must be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.47.212 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The season to be nasty

Looks like vandalism season may come early this year...watchers, keep your eyes open. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected until Jan. 15. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology not correct

"The name Kwanzaa derives from the Swahili phrase "matunda ya kwanza", meaning "first fruits"." - This statement should not stand. It is correct that the name is claimed to come from this phrase. But I am not familiar with any concept of "first fruits" in Swahili language or in East Africa. There is in the lands of the Waswahili no season without fruits (like in the northern hemisphere) thus the idea of "first fruits" cannot come from Swahili language. Besides there is no way to make a "kwanzaa" from the word "kwanza" (=first) in Kiswahili Language. --Kipala (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong beyond recognition. The concept of "first fruits" exist in every single agricultural society in human history. Come on my man, that is common sense. The Waswahili are Bantu people and the vast majority of them, just like the vast majority of all other Bantu people have been agriculturalist since the beginning of time and are still until today. The word is malimbuko, this word literally means first fruits.

Again, every single agriculturally based society (that is every single human society that lived on other than cows blood and milk-pastoralist-or berries, fruits, and rodents-hunter gathers-) every single one of these societies have first fruit festivals on the calender as a ritual of renew. This is so common sense its amazing you would say there isn't a word for first fruits in Kiswahili. If your people planted food (and that is the majority of humans who ever lived), than you have a word for first fruits, this even goes into your religion, like the resurrection and sometimes combines with religion like Mardi Grai and Carnival.

So, please show more intellectual curiosity. But this is besides the point. Kargenga can call his festival what ever he wants. That is what is known is making history, as opposed to those who sit on the sidelines and provide commentary. All culture is a reinvention and adaption of a previous one. Again, all culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavinga (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are interesting observations. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that indeed this is all bogus, as you suggest. However, as presented above this is what WP calls "original research" or "original synthesis". I don't mean to dismiss it; rather, you may wish to pursue assertions of it within reliable sources. After all, it's imaginable that a phrase whose literal meaning is something like "first fruits" is used metaphorically, or in reference to one or more particular fruits, etc etc. As for "kwanzaa" [double "a"], is there any leeway for idiosyncratic orthography? (To take an example from Japanese, the word ジャーナル might be written within English as "journal", "janaru", "jānaru", "jya-naru", "zyânaru", "jaanaru", etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that comparison is that KiSwahili is written with Latin alphabet, and as such there is no transliteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.229.17.103 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Uups I did not look into this discussion for a while.

1. About first fruits (User:Mavinga): your claim looks indeed like an interesting but unsubstantiated orignal research. No, there will hardly be any "first fruits" if we talk about a tropical climate where you have fruits all year round. In East Africa, where Kiswahili is at home, you have the coast (this is Swahililand proper as the name of the language says "Swahili" = Arabic "sawahil" = coast) where fruits grow all year round. Upcountry you have dry and rainy season (s) (some areas 2 rainy seasons) so you have a season of field crops; then still "fruit" comes at different times of the year depending on type of tree and local climate (mangos abundantly in the dry season, more toward its end) - cf [http://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/rai/sites/responsibleagroinvestment.org/files/FAO_Value%20chain%20Analysis_Kenya%20Case.pdf this FAO-study if you like something to refer to - I see interestingly that in two directly neighbouring areas like Lamu and Tanu River Delta the main harvest periods of 2 annual periods for mango- are different!). Coconut you get all year round. That is very mch different from colder areas where you have a dormant vegetation for some months without any harvest.
2. About "kwanzaa" [double "a"] idiosyncratic orthography (user:Hoary): No, there is no leeway as Swahili has been written with Latin script for more than a century. Kwanzaa is obviously an external neologism created by Karenga in the USA combining "kwanza" (=first) and the verb "zaa" (to procreate, produce). I never met an Swahili speaker who understood this if he was not first given an explanation of this American custom. Reminds me of the German "handy" (for a mobile phone) - this looks English (more so than Kwanzaa looks Swahili) but it is just "Denglish" (Deutsch-English).
3. About freedom of inventing customs ("Kargenga can call his festival what ever he wants") - sure! Then still the claim that this is a Swahili word is just made up. Kipala (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Food?

Hi! I know nothing about Kwanzaa, so maybe my question will look a bit odd. Is there any specific food associated with Kwanzaa? A "karamu" is mentioned in the article but no menu or example of food/recipes is included. I think food is always an important "first contact" with a culture or a tradition, so it's worth mentioning. Thanks. 70.83.220.148 (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a great question -- it would be worthwhile to find some proper Wikipedia references for such a thing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Kwanzaa Principles - All year long

I am interested in knowing how many African-Americans live by the seven Kwanzaa principles throughout the year. I have just purchased a new book (I think that it is new for 2009) titled Harambee! Kwanzaa Family Guide. It has a few chapters about the deeping meaning of being "African", but so far, I'm most impressed with the way it gives guidance on how to "Practice" Kwanzaa all year. Your thought?

Harambee! Kwanzaa Family Guide

Damonclp (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Lemon T

Black vs black

Seriously, this article has every use of the word "black" capitalized as though it were a proper noun. As I mentioned to the editor who seems to have a problem agreeing with me, black is a color or can be used as an adjective. Unless its being used in the title of a book or film, there is no reason it should be capitalized. It is not a proper noun. In the article Black People you can see that the term "black people" is not a race (a situation where it would be capitalized, ex. Nigerian people) but rather a definition of how someone looks, description being an adjective. The word black should not be capitalized within this article. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 23:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem rather confused.

1. Black is a color or can be used as an adjective: you confuse meaning and part of speech.
2. the term "black people" is not a race: no, a term cannot be a race, just as it cannot be a color or a tree or a Dalek.
3. the term "black people" is not a race (a situation where it would be capitalized, ex. Nigerian people): the Nigerian people are (is) not a race.
4. the term "black people" is not a race [. . .] but rather a definition of how someone looks, description being an adjective: It's not a definition. And a description does not imply an adjective. ("He's a dick" is a [rude] description; it's a short sentence devoid of a single adjective.) Whether capitalized or not "Black" as a "racial" term is not primarily a description of appearance, as any relevant sociological work makes clear.

One place where you do make sense is your straightforward statement that Black/black "is not a proper noun". Note that although "Californian" isn't either, "californian" would raise hackles; so things aren't quite this simple. Still, "black" is an adjective, sometimes used as a fused modifier. The Guardian (which avoids capitalization even more than most contemporary British sources do) prescribes lowercase "black" but proscribes its use as a fused modifier.

According to my understanding of the AP Stylebook (I lack a copy at hand), it would prescribe "black nationalism" but "many Blacks".

The 14th edition (the most recent that I happen to have at hand) of The Chicago Manual of Style devotes §§7.33–35 to this matter, allowing for either "black" or "Black" regardless of the part of speech or syntactic construction.

Curiously, there's nothing about this at Wikipedia's own MOS (capital letters). Would you like to raise it there? -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say that as the very first paragraph in MOS (capital letters) states "Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult the style guide on proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name." I think that right about sums up the issue with this article and my issue with excessive and improper use of capital letters. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 02:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed a handful of occurrences to upper case to match the source of the quotes. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Aspensti would care to cite a recent style guide that both (i) prescribes "black" (or clearly prefers it to "Black") and (ii) allows its use as a fused head. Such a style guide may exist, but my own quick look didn't turn one up. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The current edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (Fifteenth edition) states §§8.43 Color Designations based loosely on color are usually lowercased, though capitalization may be appropriate if the writer strongly prefers it. See also 8.41.

black people, blacks, people of color

white people, whites

but

Negro, Negroes

Caucasian, Caucasians

However, based on my previous reference to MOS (capital letters), Wikipedias stance on capitalization is to avoid any unnecessary capitalization except for "proper names, acronyms, and initialisms". —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 03:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I've no particular objection to that (though I'd go further, following the Guardian to write "Nato", "Nasa", etc). But do note that "Black", so capitalized, is widespread in Wikipedia (eg within Black British). If you think that lowercase would be better, you are likely to have a greater chance of success if you bring up the matter persuasively at WP:MOS. Or, if you do want to be BOLD, then to lower the case without referring in your edit summaries to grammar. ¶ Incidentally, isn't there a certain incongruity when an objection to the "excessive and improper use of capital letters" is made by somebody with your choice of signature? -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't care. I happened upon this article and decided to make the proper repairs that I felt fit. I have no intention or scouring Wikipedia changing all of these particular errors. BTW, my signature is a collection of acronyms :-) —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 21:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the word Black capitalized each time but the word white is always lower case? Shouldn't the two words be equal stylistically? Would it be considered racist if I used lowercase blacks and uppercase Whites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.17.80 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dubious citing

Whatever you may think of Kwanzaa (or capitalization), this article is pretty dreadful. It's sourced only spasmodically, and the footnotes include ... well, let's look at one gem:

Kwanzaa: origin, concepts, practice, p. 21, cited at {{cite web|url=http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=917|title=Believersweb.org|accessdate=2005-12-29}}.

This turns out to be:

What is Kwanzaa? / Written by: Morrow, Carlotta Posted on: 11/29/2003 / Category: Misc. / Source: http://christocentric.com/Kwanzaa/

Believersweb says of itself:

Welcome to the Believersweb.org. Our goal is to be a blessing to you by sharing Bible based articles, sermons and sermon outlines, book reviews and other helps for your Christian walk.

Nothing here that suggests anything like journalistic, let alone academic standards.

Let's look at Morrow's cited "source", http://christocentric.com/Kwanzaa/ . It turns out to be her own:

The Truth About Kwanzaa – New eBook! / Fact filled eBook that explains the shocking and true / reasons why Kwanzaa was created! / THE TRUTH ABOUT KWANZAA / (Instant PDF download) / $9.95

Christocentric.org is a blog by people whose main interests seem to be the evils of Kwanzaa and gay marriage! (Or possibly even gayness in general, though I didn't bother to look!) Hey, exclamation points are addictive! (That's enough exclamation points. -- ed.)

And this source does not look particularly bad by the standards of this article.

Come on, people, you can write a better article than this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad source, see http://www.officialkwanzaawebsite.org/faq.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.26.186 (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Junk removal

The article attributed something to:

<ref name="levine2006">{{cite news |first=Jed |last=Levine |title=Have yourself a merry little solstice |url=http://dailybruin.com/news/2006/nov/28/ihave-yourself-a-merry-little-/ |format= |work=Daily Bruin |publisher=University of California, Los Angeles |date=2006-11-28 |accessdate=2007-12-27 |quote=Karenga himself admitted during the early years of Kwanzaa that the holiday was meant to be an alternative to Christmas, since his original stance was that Christianity was a white religion that black people should reject, even writing that “Jesus was psychotic.”}}</ref>

That link is dead, but here it is at web.archive.org. It starts:

I’m with Bill O’Reilly on this. / I’m tired of all this “Happy Holidays,” politically correct mumbo jumbo.

This is an opinion piece. It doesn't even pretend to be scrupulous. As a Wikipedia source, it's complete garbage. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

verdict of a blowhard

We're told:

In 1999, syndicated columnist and later White House Press Secretary Tony Snow wrote that "There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent."[25]

Indeed he did. But he was secretary for Dubya. (What if he were instead described as "syndicated columnist and regular guest host of the Rush Limbaugh Show"?)

The problem is, the article is just another rant. In one place:

The continent remains stubbornly tribal. Hutus and Tutsis still slaughter one another for sport.

In another:

Genocidal maniacs have wiped out millions in Rwanda, Uganda and Ethiopia.

So who's to blame for what happened in Rwanda, Snow? The sporting Rwandans, or the genocidally maniacal Rwandans?

Snow (who's dead) probably didn't care. (Those in the reality-based community who actually do care could do worse than read the relevant section of Jared Diamond's Collapse.)

All sorts of incidents, issues and people cause outrage in one or other of the large number of right-wing US talking heads. But outrage is their stock in trade. If the particular outrage isn't shown to have done anything, I suggest that it's insignificant and doesn't merit a mention. -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd already removed it; User:Sourcechecker419 returned it, not sure why. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There are other people who have found the holiday a bit questionable, see for example The Kwanzaa Hoax by William J. Bennetta. Then again, how much does this matter, if people find celebrating Kwanzaa satisfying? Not that it, equally, merits the denial of the truth. Everyone for example knows historical Christ was not born on the 25th of January, but people still celebrate Christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.229.17.103 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is Bennetta and why should anyone care? That question has been posited here repeatedly over the years, and nobody has come up with any way his opinion qualifies as valuable or notable enough for inclusion in this article (other than that they like his opinion.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer, J P, but I would note two things about him: (i) there's an "a" at the end of "Bennetta", (ii) on the same website he debunks "intelligent design". He may indeed be a nobody and not worth citing, but let's not do him the disservice of confusing him with the known Dubya associate William Bennett. -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the blowhard again, as well as a real weak source pointing to a real weak source in the criticism section. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kwanzaa film

Is everyone OK with me removing the Kwanzaa film section and adding it into a See also section? From what is discussed, they film doesn't seem particularly notable, and I'm sure there are numerous films involving the holiday. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

The author states "In the late 2000s, Kwanzaa has been observed less commonly than ever" must be in error since the late 2000's are still future. If on the other hand he/she means the first decade of the 2000 millennium a better wording is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.65.18 (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this. It is a valid fact that the holiday is always changing and it is not the same as in the 70s.futurebird (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Karenga, Karenga, Karenga

There is way too much about this guy in this article. He may have had some of the first ideas but the holiday is much bigger than him now. It is annoying to me as someone who enjoys this holiday to have everything about it so closely associated with a guy who's views are... dubious. I think this articles fails to convey what Kwanzaa represents to people who celebrate it today. futurebird (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's stuff about Karenga that you think is better removed, please explain here, and if you get agreement it will be removed. If there's Karenga-unrelated material that meets Wikipedia's relevant criteria (verifiability, no original research, etc etc) and that you think should be added, feel free to add it (you don't need to get agreement beforehand for addition). -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.82.73 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious? He was an insane, racist, kidnapper, rapist, torturer. Everything about him should be associated with kwanzaa just to show how wrong it is. http://www.google.ca/search?q=kwanzaa+rapist+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Vandalised Kwanzaa Article

Someone should probably fix this...I don't know enough sorry, see the "informative" box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.23.207 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Swahili Terms? (IPA)

I'd like to see some IPA pronunciation keys inserted next to words that are both Swahili or Swahili in origin. It would be a great help to readers who have had no prior experience pronouncing these terms (also, it would help with not embarrassing oneself when wishing someone a happy Kwanzaa). These are the terms I think are hard to determine pronunciation from just reading the word:

1. matunda ya kwanza
2. Nguzo Saba/Nguzu Saba
3. Kawaida
4. Umoja
5. Kujichagulia
6. Ujima
7. Ujamaa
8. Nia
9. Kuumba
10. Imani
11. Habari Gani?

We may also want to include the word Kwanzaa itself, because, though it is in the American English vernacular, pronunciation may not be apparent to English-speaking readers from other countries whom have never heard of the holiday. » ɧʒЖχ ^{(ταικ•κоŋτяљ)} 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I support these changes. futurebird (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of days

Doesn't each day of Kwanzaa have its own meaning? I was expecting to find this information here. Be great if someone could add it. Thanks. Jaque Hammer (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source

Is this article by Ann Coulter, really a reliable source?VR _talk 05:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

An article by Coulter is a reliable source for the thinking of Coulter, that's all. -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, you're right if you mean we can use it as a source for Coulter's views on Kwanzaa at Coulter's own article (i.e. Ann Coulter). This is because WP:SELFPUB says "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..." This article is about Kwanzaa, not Ann Coulter. Therefore the sources used here should be about Kwanzaa, and have expertise in African-American culture and heritage etc.VR _talk 04:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

SELFPUB seems irrelevant here. Some person other than Coulter seems to be publishing Coulter. (On the other hand I'm no expert in far-right US websites; perhaps this really is Coulter who is publishing Coulter.) But yes, the article is about Kwanzaa, not Coulter, and Coulter does not seem either to be well-informed about Kwanzaa or to approach it with intelligent open-mindedness. If opinions about Kwanzaa among the hard right themselves become significant, then I suppose that some material such as this can be cited as examples. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No it is not because she is a loud mouth and has no serious content to add. it should not be here, she knows Nada about Kwanzaa, did not study the subject, is not African-American. only thing she is is notorious. Since when did notorious = thinker.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that she's not African American matters at all. And in the US I thought that expressing strong if unsupported opinions and outshouting your opponents in TV "discussions" was the prime way to become a quotable "pundit". But you're right about the rest. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire passage that states "Moreover, there has always been an element of American society, from conservative political commentators to academics, who feel that Kwanzaa is simply a 'made up' holiday." is entirely pointless. The article CLEARLY states how the holiday was created in the late 60's, and is well sourced. This is a F-A-C-T, so it seems like subtle race-baiting to attempt to place such criticisms at the feet of "conservative political commentators to academics." The facts speak for themselves, do they not? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and Mother's Day, Thanksgiving, Valetine's Day, and others are also made up holidays--every holiday has some point of origin. Festivas for the rest of us. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean we should just strike the pointless passage? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would be bold, but if anyone objects, we should take time to discuss it. The two sources for that phrase are clearly not neutral, and I see no value in the statement myself, but others may differ. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual freeze

The article has been semi-protected as usual this time of year; the scum rises early, it seems. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Scum? Like Kerenga? http://www.google.ca/search?q=kwanzaa+rapist+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.47.212 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. We have a whole article about him, and it describes his rather unpleasant history completely. Doesn't mean the article on the holiday he created should be vandalized. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

White institutions

"Mayes adds that white institutions now celebrate it.[13]" This reads like here-say.

First, what does it mean that "white institutions" celebrate it? What is an example of a white institution?

In the quoted article, this quote reads like a desperate attempt to give the holiday more multicultural credibility. It is also cited a bit out of context. The main article actually says, "... said Mayes, adding that white institutions celebrate it as part of a broader diversity initiative", which seems to say less that these institutions believe in the holiday and rather that they include it among the usual winter holiday laundry list, in an attempt to avoid the appearance of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.54.249 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this is refering to white Rastas.--124.171.201.191 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hanukkah

No mention of the Hanukkah influence and similarities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.9.149 (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be an interesting addition to the article; do you have a reliable source discussing it? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I've reverted another editor twice. The source does not support the statement that Kwanzaa is often derided as a made up holiday--it does deride Kwanzaa, and it does not appear to me to be a reliable source. The reference to futurama episode needs a reference as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's out again. We have this argument about this exact same "source" every year; who is Bennetta and why should anyone care what his opinion is? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Every year without fail, almost like a holiday ritual. but only Kwanzaa gets this treatment.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Symbols

According to the official Kwanzaa website (http://www.officialkwanzaawebsite.org/symbols.shtml) these are the symbols of Kwanzaa: crops, mat, candleholder, corn, 7 candles, unity cup, gifts, the black, red, and green flag, and the poster of the 7 principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

These symbols should be given in the article, hopefully before the start of Kwanzaa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - have a happy holiday. Jonathunder (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why in Gawd's name is this talk page so long?

Why are people so fascinated with this holiday that is celebrated by a few million people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.31.9 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's 34kB long, which is not so very long for the talk page of an article. I can guess at the reasons for the popular fascination with this holiday but I have no hard evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Futurama...--124.171.201.191 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Popularity section issues

In the Popularity section, the article states:

and now between half and two million people celebrate Kwanzaa in the US, or between one and five percent of African Americans. Mayes adds that white institutions now celebrate it.

Two issues with this. The first is that the US population is currently around 300 million (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html). This means that 1/2 to 2 million people is less than one percent, not 1 to 5 reported. I would correct it, but the second problem is that the link gives a 404 (http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/897568.html).

Catherguy (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I misread it. "1-5 percent of African Americans" not of Americans. Still, it'd be nice to fix that citation.

Catherguy (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)