Jump to content

Talk:Kwanzaa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jpgordon (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 27 December 2006 (→Critic of Kwanzaa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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

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

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

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

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

Brotherhood of a New Destiny / Karenga Quote

The link for the Karenga quote on placing Kwanzaa near Christmas is dead. I have found a new link that shows it was posted by an anti-Kwanzaa site with no reference to when Karenga said this. I haven't found when the statement was added, but it seems that this is a press release attempting to denounce the holiday and has no reference to when Karenga supposedly said all this. Do we have a direct quote from an unbiased source? If not, I'm going to remove the quote as it is a bit inflammatory. Thesilence 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

karenga the felon

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

Justforasecond 18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

misleading text inserted by jpgordon

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

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

Justforasecond 05:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go: [5] Justforasecond 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you really don't recognize that as my reverting your edit? I didn't create the original text; I changed it back to the original text after your attempt at POV insertion, as I've been doing pretty constantly. Do I need to go through the exercise of explaining to you how [6] is POV? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a blind revert, how charming. Justforasecond 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not blind at all. I read it, recognized your usual POV edit, and reversed it. "Blind reverting" would mean following you around and reverting your edits without regard to their content. Keep your pejoratives straight. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, if you are inserting low-quality content that you haven't even read that's blind reversion and uncivil. Justforasecond 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since that's not what happened, fish have wings. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, Joshua? You didn't even recognize the text -- asked for diffs even. Justforasecond 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really. You claimed I had inserted the text; I said show me; since I hadn't inserted it, the rest of your blather is just your usual disingenuous noise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to remain civil, jpgordon. Thanks! Justforasecond 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh how utterly cute. I write a comment and then think better of it and delete it, and you re-insert it against my wishes and then chide me for incivility? Hypocrite. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If I may jump in.

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

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

elpincha 03:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Coulter song

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

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

Kwanzaa is coming...

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

This is a warning to the revert editor

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


Language

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

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

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

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

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

No more games

I really dont know who edits here,

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

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

Where to get Kwanzaa Stuff?

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

Thanks!

-- Mkamensek (talk) - The LeftOverChef


request protection

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


How can this be added?

Seven symbols are displayed during the Kwanzaa ceremony to represent the seven principles of African culture and community. Mkeka (M-kay-cah) - This is the mat (usually made of straw, but it can also be made of fabric or paper) upon which all the other Kwanzaa symbols are placed. The mat represents the foundation of African traditions and history.

Mazao (Maah-zow) - The crops, fruits and vegetables, represent traditional African harvest celebrations and show respect for the people who labored to grow them.

Kinara (Kee-nah-rah) - The candle holder represents the original stalk from which all African ancestors came. It holds the seven candles.

Mishumaa (Mee-shoo-maah) - In the seven candles, each candle represents one of the seven principles. The candles are red, green, and black -- symbolic of the African people and their struggles.

Muhindi (Moo-heen-dee) - The corn represents African children and the promise of their future. One ear of corn is set out for each child in the family. In a family without children, one ear is set out symbolically to represent the children of the community.

Kikombe cha Umoja (Kee-com-bay chah-oo-moe-jah) - The Unity Cup symbolizes the first principle of Kwanzaa -- the unity of family and of the African people. The cup is used to pour the libation (water, juice or wine) for family and friends.

Zawadi (Sah-wah-dee) - The gifts represent the labors of the parents and the rewards of their children. Gifts are given to educate and enrich the children -- they may include a book, a piece of art or an educational toy. At least one of the gifts is a symbol of African heritage. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms?

Aren't there quite a few critics of Kwanzaa? I think it deserves a section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.66.50.130 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Videos and Media"? "Music and Stories for Kwanzaa"?

M&S4K reads like a promotion. And the second Videos and Media link, the footnote to M&S4K and the last external link are the same. Should be changed. Vitriol 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually re-wrote the music section, songs of Kwanzaa, I see no reason to delete it, If it is a valid aspect of kwanzaa it should be left, if however it had no kwanzaa content it should be removed, a physical video of the founder explaining Kwanzaa is a million words. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, I didn't realize that's what that was -- it's just an unreadable blob, at least on my browser, and nothing on the page says what it is -- so I figured there was just one paragraph there and a link to a different site. But why don't we just link to the YouTube thingy ourselves rather than go through that site? We need more information for the second link. However, the entirety of the "music" section was, The Kwanzaa Principle of KUUMBA celebrates creativity. A growing number of artists have been inspired to to add their offerings to make Kwanzaa a living event. Jacquie Godden is one such artist who has created "Invocations for Kwanzaa: 7 Nights with Nana & Achebe" which features a collection of stories and songs for the whole family, and for the classroom. -- followed by one of the three links to http://www.kwanzaamuse.com/. There's no doubt that that one's commercial. Now, if you can come up with a few notable artists to show that a "growing number" have been inspired, please do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The video comes from that site, i dont think linking to Utube is a good idea you get all sorts of garabage up there plus it would nt have the explaination and isnt a kwanzaa site, many people i have notice just use utube to stream videos, it is free and they dont fill up there sites. But the video is branded with the name of the site so it is there video, they have a lot of karenga videos up there. I might have to delete the 2nd one because i know the film is about Kwanzaa but there is no links etc, Yes the 2nd one was one company selling one product, When i rewrote it i was saying the same thing they should be a diverse group of sources but i only found that one site.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the video is owned by that site they created it, watch it and see. I have added details about the other kwanzaa film.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinara/Exodus

In response to the claim that the kinara is borrowed from Judaism's menorah, it says, "However, there is a tradition of Black Jews and the Exodus, the "going forth" of the Children of Israel, has historically been a metaphor for their struggle as a people."

What?! What does that have anything to do with the kinara? Blacks seem themselves metaphorically as Jews, and therefore used Jewish symbols? If that's what it's trying to say, then it should be clearer. The menorah has nothing to do with Exodus or "going forth".


Kwanzaa is fake

Lets end this stupid debate, it is not a valid claim, as all holidays have a start date, the very xmas is more fake than Kwanzaa if the word fake means what they say it means. All holidays are invented, thanksgiving the Passover at some point they enter world culture. Kwanzaa is not from the continent of Africa but it is a valid African Holiday, a New World African holiday. The founder is African and the culture is African hence it is African, not traditional but contemporary.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is it a invalid assertion, this is not a list of issues with Kwanzaa it is an encyclopedia and in it the issue is what is kwanzaa not a string of every mad person who has a opinion on Karenga or Kwanzaa. Imagine if every article did that for say G Bush? So we need to filter down to what is a valid critic, FAKE isnt valid because all holidays have an origin and thus most of them are made up. It is thus not a valid discussion, And yes we debate here what to include into the article to make it encylopedic and some debates, as someone said from unqualified people have no place here.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Critic of Kwanzaa

All references especially negative ones need to be 100% i dont think any extreme racist people should be cited as a source on what is a traditional African holiday or not, such a source needs to come from a historical figure or someone who has some idea about African celebratory practices, A man who sums up Islam as "evil" and then attacks Kwanzaa really is not a man with a sound mental or academic character to be cited here. Bring an African academic who says it isnt African and then that is valid, because many Africans say it is valid as karenga is an Africa so Kwanzaa is African, and since an African created it is a valid African holiday, point being bring real sources not mad people or haters Jesse Lee Peterson take a look at his record he under no circumstances belongs here. See wiki policy on quality sources, haters are not allowed. he is probally just jealous of Karenga.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please remove some of the POV from your argument here and let's get to the actual relevant part. Is Peterson sufficiently notable as a critic of Kwanzaa to be quoted in this article? There's no requirement that the critics meet your particular criteria. (PS -- I also think he's quite vile, but our personal opinions of him are not relevant.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Let me reassert Jesse Lee Peterson opnions are not valid, He is not an African historian, he has no knowledge of African culture or African religions. Further more he is a highly controversial charecter who is know for unreasonable statements which are against African Americans, re Katrina. We do not list a list all personal opinions on Kwanzaa, i am sure every one has one, he is not a crediable source.Wikipedia:Reliable sources i will go further have a read of Appeal to authority, Peterson violates NPOV and is an extream source. for all of these reasons his comments cannot be admitted here, his personal opinions do not belong in an encyclopedic context.


Everyone has an opinion, he is a vile human, find someone else who has some sort of credit as a qulified cultural historian, a religious African figure. You can not validiate the rantings of a clearly confused man, a man who is know to be a racist, and a bigot. Imagine if someone quoted Hitlers views on Judaism or Africans? His views are invalid by nature of his legacy.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPgordon, I am Carlotta Morrow. I received a call from a reporter in Canada who wanted to interview me from seeing my website mentioned as a critic's source on Kwanzaa. Much to my dismay, my source was deleted. Why? Simply because no one knows who I am? I used researched material including Karenga's own writings to show that he indeed created Kwanzaa as a substitute not only for Christmas, but for one's religion. Many people have written me asides from the reporter in Canada who is also questioning why my source is removed. There appears to be bias and only "well known" people deserve a spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im2old (talk • contribs) 17:04, December 27, 2006 (UTC)

Thank your for your explanation JPGordon. But I'm wondering, why have a page of critics or criticism if people's sources can't be used? And what if other's inserted our information? I am a critic of Kwanzaa but when would my factual information be used? No matter my personal opinion regarding Kwanzaa, I had presented information that showed contradictions using Karenga's own words from two of his books on Kwanzaa. This information is unopinionated, presented in a way where anyone can make up their own minds on what was written.Im2old 20:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • It doesn't matter. WP:NOR means precisely that you can't introduce your own research or your own opinions into any article on Wikipedia. The original research is you showing contradictions. You'll run into exactly the same problem if you attempt to use your own site as a source, anywhere on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine this , The Reverend Peterson also stirred up controversy in September of 2005, when he penned a column for the conservative World Net Daily in which he accused black people stranded in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina of being "welfare-pampered," "lazy" and "immoral." [4]. I can add someone opinions to every article on wikipedia, we have to ask what is the reason for adding his content, who is he, what does he know. he is not a sound charecter by his own rantings, he is not a solid figure in the African community and since we are talking negative things we need to extra careful, do u understand this is negative stuff so bring proper sources.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No some of the critic is valid, i know we dont know who they are but they are not blatent bigots. the content is more important than the who.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course the "who" is important. Tony Snow is far more notable than that John Birch guy, for example, so there's more reason to present his argument. Besides, you're now arguing against yourself: "the content is more important than the who." Which is it? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No I am just saying we need to have content, that man above has neither content or who. But content must come first. The discussion of the Jewish symbol(whatever) is a good one i actually was thinking so myself, so original quality critic. I think you should readd that because it is far more important tnan Tony, he says something which has no case. I think ... and?? It is just an opinion. But someone discuss the candles and the "copying" from Judaism is far more valid and i think it should in there before a "who".--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlotta Morrow, Christian freelance writer, uses Karenga's own writings to criticize the holiday, writing that Karenga claims Kwanzaa was created as an alternative to Christmas in his early accounts, but contradicts himself in his most recent writings.[1] - - William Norman Grigg noted the seven-branch candle holder, the Kinara, was not used in African traditions, and suggested a symbol of Judaism, the menorah, was borrowed to match the seven principles of Kwanzaa.[2] However, the use of a kinara may not be as incongruous considering the lengthy history of African-Americans identifying themselves with the Jewish people in their own slave history.

the above comments are far more encyclopedic because the explain themselves they discuss an argument. NOT "Kwanzaa is FAKE" .... how?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Kwanzaa Critics should be given their own page which is separate from the definitions, origins, and current practice of the celebration. The recent phenomenon of raising and emphasizing the criminal record of Karenga began a few years ago by a group of Christian Conservatives in response to the fact the George W. Bush sent out a positive Kwanzaa wish in one of his addresses. This started with Mulshin, Malkin, Coulter, Shaidle and several others whose credibility simply lies with their popularity as bloggers and columnists. I have all the details in my blog, but I would prefer that someone more familiar with the arcanities of WikiCredibility write this stuff 'impartially' here. I'll be encouraging academics to come here. -- Michael David Cobb Bowen 14:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr. Bowen. Let the critics have their own page and you will have a great assortment of people entering valid sources that will show give a complete picture of Kwanzaa.Im2old 20:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citation in "popularity"

Citation needed in "popularity" can be found within this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-MY8I_kwJY&eurl=

I can't edit it though because I'm a newly registered user. Anyone else? =)

Absolute141 08:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)absolute141[reply]

POV

The last paragraph in the criticism section reeks of POV. It almost sounds like the writer is on a soapbox. I'm not sure whether it is fixable or should just be deleted. And I was hoping someone could tell me where the holiday is popular. I'm from South Carolina, which has a large black commnity, and I don't know anyone who celebrates it. I recently read a quote from a black professor of African American studies in Charleston who said that he doesn't know anyone who celebrates it.


Tony Snow is a problem

Kwanzaa is fake, anyone can say this. Why? Where? How? When. Is TOny snow an African Academic, is he African American, is he an authority on African history and culture? Does he live in the "hood". Was he born in Africa? Does he speak Swhahili, is his wife African? Why is his statements on a pro-Israel site? Why didnt he make his comments on an African-American site? Who is his audience? What are his motives? What is the core of his argument? For all of these reasons he offers nothing to the comprehension of some of the issues of Kwanzaa and it should be removed forthwith. The material by the non-notibles is far more significiant and academic contribution. The memorah is a valid observation, the merit of the critic comes first. I would love to see us try and add Karenga or any AA to a Critism of the Talmud, i dare you to try.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does the Talmud have to do with anything? If the menorah is a valid observation, then it should be no problem to find a reliable source, or at least a notable voice, discussing it. Tony Snow is in himself notable. His opinion may well be bullshit, but it is a criticism of Kwanzaa from a notable source. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read the issue with the memorah and you will see, i use the talmud as a point of Neutrality where there is 2 rules running on wikipedia. Anyway, he might be notable on the WHITE house, but he is not notable on Kwanzaa or African CUlture, that is the standard. Can Britney Spears as "famous" as she is start making political statements, or can George Bush discuss the Maafa they cant, notable extends to remit of your field of knowledge. The lady who discuss the memorah is far more notable in her observation.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying the quality of the critic is important, see the stuff you deleted about the similarities to Judaism, i must have spelt the thing wrong, but even i always said "isnt that a Jewish symbol Karenga uses?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good, then find a good source that discusses it. I'm not even sure what the point is of the seven-branch candle holder, the Kinara, was not used in African traditions, and suggested a symbol of Judaism, the menorah, was borrowed to match the seven principles of Kwanzaa. Why is that a criticism, anyway? It's an interesting aspect in discussing the symbology Karenga devised for Kwanzaa, certainly, and perhaps this detailed discussion might belong in Kinara (which needs some work, I think.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Jews claim that he stold aspects of the Jewish faith, just like they say we shouldnt use Holocaust in African Holocaust it is part of an Anti-African camp which says we piggy back of off other peoples culture.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, then find a good source that discusses it. In fact, the Bircher that's cited there doesn't even say anything about it other than, "Karenga" appropriated the menorah from Judaism; even if he were a reliable source, what he said isn't what the article is saying. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Dr. Karenga's Contradictions". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "The True Spirit of Kwanzaa, Norman Grigg". New American. Retrieved December 20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kwanzaa&oldid=96808032"