Talk:Kwanzaa/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Edit request on 20 December 2012

References 14 and 15, linking to swagga.com are not functional. 160.83.72.209 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added the {{deadlink}} tag to those links. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Protected for the season, as usual

Given that it's official vandalism season, I've protected the article for a while. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly don't endorse vandalism, but I don't see any mention in the article of the real background of convicted criminal Ron Karenga, nor the fact that he simply made up the holiday of Kwanza. Is the need for Political Correctness so strong that even facts no longer matter at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Shrug. People can click on his name to read his history, of course; and when he invented Kwanzaa (the article does indeed say Kwanzaa was created by him), he wasn't a convicted criminal. We also don't mention Karenga's pair of doctorates in the article, nor his connection with the Million Man March, nor the widely-used textbooks he's authored. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Dartmouth Review is not a reliable or quality reference source for this article

The following statement uses the Dartmouth Review as a reliable source. The Dartmouth Review is a highly controversial source with a controversial journalistic history involving race, and its article referenced here does not present an unbiased point of view and does not support with primary source evidence assertions which are contested. As such, the following statement should not be included in an unbiassed article about Kwanzaa on Wikipedia:

"During the early years of Kwanzaa, Karenga said that it was meant to be an alternative to Christmas. However, as Kwanzaa gained mainstream adherents, Karenga altered his position so that practicing Christians would not be alienated, then stating in the 1997 Kwanzaa: A Celebration of Family, Community, and Culture, "Kwanzaa was not created to give people an alternative to their own religion or religious holiday."[6]" ^ J. Lawrence Scholer, "The story of Kwanzaa", Dartmouth Review, 15 January 2001. Glitteritude (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about this, because I know the statement is true. Let me review and get back. Ok I am back. I have to say the objections noted above are not sufficient. They could be thrown at anything and claim to have hit it. I have seen language like "controversial" used but race is always controversial, and nothing in that article is more controversial compared to some of the other ref used. --Inayity (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Whew, did some digging. One guy said the problem with Africa is it was not colonized Enough D'Souza (part of the group)Maybe we do not need there opinion. But the statement I believe is accurate.--Inayity (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be, indeed -- and it's made difficult to determine by the sheer number of places that cite the Dartmouth Review article as gospel. But we should hope the author was drawing upon some or another real source. We just need to find it before the thing can stand. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that the paragraph no longer cites the Review, but instead sources Karenga's views from his own published works and sources that are sympathetic to him, what exactly is the problem with it? 50.136.204.132 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

sorry i reverted myself just re-looked at your edit summary.--Inayity (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced (and incorrect) claims about Kwanzaa and Swahili language

From the text: "The name Kwanzaa derives from the Swahili phrase matunda ya kwanza, meaning "first fruits of the harvest".[3][4] " I am well aware that this is the claim of Kwanzaa proponents. It is, however, not correct. And it is not referenced because citing a book (which has nothig to say about Swahili language) and a website which has no scholarly value does not really make a reference.

• anacostia.si.edu claims "Kwanzaa is a Swahili word that means "first" and signifies the first fruits of the harvest. " No, "first" can be expressed by "kwanza" but that is not "kwanzaa". And it definitively does NOT signify "first fruits of the harvest". (this is "matunda / mazao ya kwanza". Kwanzaa is NOT Swahili but a "new American word" invented by Mr. Karenga). There are enough good Swahili dictionaries around. This claim can not be veryfied from any of those. (see http://kamusi.org/ The living dctionary on the Internet and http://kess.co.tz/swa-eng/k.html the dictionary edited by TUKI od University of Daresalaam, nor any other).

• Mayes, Keith A. (2009). Kwanzaa: Black Power and the Making of the African-American Black Holiday Tradition - is being referneced here but DOES NOT support the claim that "kwanzaa" is a Swahili word and has the claimed meaning in Swahil.

Thus as unreferenced statements the text should be removed or at least worded in a way that makes it clear what is Karengas claim and what is Swahili language. Kipala (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This is correct. There is no such word as Kwanzaa in Kiswahili, but only 'kwanza' which simply means 'first'. Matunda ya kwanza does not mean 'harvest' but only 'first fruit'

It is worth noting that Kiswahili is a polyglot language, being a mixture of Arabic and Bantu languages, with a smattering of English, Portuguese and Hindi. Its prominence in East Africa arises, sadly, out of the fact that it was the language of the coastal slave traders and its spread was brought about initially by the disruption of the tribes that stood in the path of the slavers as they traversed Tanganyika, from Bagamoyo on the coast to Lake Tanganyika. Its further spread was brought about by its use as the language of command in the King's African Rifles throughout British East Africa and, in a thoroughly bastardised form, by the British settlers in Kenya (giving rise to much mirth). It was so much associated with colonial and Arab oppression that educated East Africans preferred not to speak it. It was given impetus under the Nyerere government in Tanzania and has taken its place as the Tanzanian national language and the language of urban communication in Kenya and eastern Uganda. Various forms of Kiswahili are now spoken as far afield as Kinshasa. Those in the disapora might care, however, to reflect on its origins and the fact that it was completely unknown in West Africa (from which most slaves transported to the USA were taken). If it's an authentic West African language that's sought, a better choice would be between Hausa, Mandingo or Yoruba— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6f:8d41:f7d8:18aa:ac7e:e62b:9da8 (talk • contribs)

Unreferenced (and incorrect) claims about Kwanzaa and Swahili language

From the text: "The name Kwanzaa derives from the Swahili phrase matunda ya kwanza, meaning "first fruits of the harvest".[3][4] " I am well aware that this is the claim of Kwanzaa proponents. It is, however, not correct. And it is not referenced because citing a book (which has nothig to say about Swahili language) and a website which has no scholarly value does not really make a reference.

• anacostia.si.edu claims "Kwanzaa is a Swahili word that means "first" and signifies the first fruits of the harvest. " No, "first" can be expressed by "kwanza" but that is not "kwanzaa". And it definitively does NOT signify "first fruits of the harvest". There are enough good Swahili dictionaries around. This claim can not be veryfied from any of those. (see http://kamusi.org/ The living dctionary on the Internet and http://kess.co.tz/swa-eng/k.html the dictionary edited by TUKI od University of Daresalaam, nor any other)
• Mayes, Keith A. (2009). Kwanzaa: Black Power and the Making of the African-American Black Holiday Tradition - is being referneced here but DOES NOT support the claim that "kwanzaa" is a Swahili word and has the claimed meaning in Swahil.

Thus as unreferenced statements the text should be removed or at least worded in a way that makes it clear what is Karengas claim and what is Swahili language. Kipala (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no objection to rewording on etymology. I propose going for Kwanzaa is a neologism which Karenga formed from the Swahili word "kwanza" meaning "first". He claims this refers to a Swahili expression "matunda ya kwanza" which is supposed to mean "frist fruits of the harvest" but in fact just says "first fruits".

Up to here is what can be safely said and verified from any dictionary, PLUS the inability to reference anything about "Swahili harvest festivals" of which I so far found no reference anywhere. Until recently I was at loss from where Karenga might have got the idea of "first fruits" which definitely does not work in the climate zone of Swahili tradition along the coast of the Indian Ocean (something grows all year round in the tropics) - but then I came across a South African festival (cf Incwala) which indeed is a "first fruits" occasion what makes sense outside the tropics. If Karenga did not just take his idea from some North American custom it may indeed have been the Swazi festival which he decided to declare "all-African" and express in some language reminiscent of Swahili, for which however, he invented a new word. Some of his other linguistic inventions are really humourous, like answering to the Swahili greeting "habari gani" by of of those slogans he prescribes during the Kwanzaa week -but this irony obviously is lost on non speakers of Kiswahili.. Kipala (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No need for us to construct a new definition the definition on Wikipedia goes by what RS say it is. Even if that is not 100% true according to someone somewhere. Unless most scholarly sources use the language proposed by Kipala then it should stay as is with perhaps a Note.--Inayity (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Pls help: what is "RS"? Beside my point is not Kwanzaa. The article contains an unreferenced and incorrect claim about Swahili language. That should not stand. I have shown above that the references in the article are ether nonexistent or not usable. Kipala (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this the sentence? --Inayity (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)The name Kwanzaa derives from the Swahili phrase matunda ya kwanza, meaning "first fruits of the harvest" - it has two references, all you need to do is add a [note]ref.--Inayity (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get the point what "RS" is which you referred to? Besides I pointed out that there are not 2 references. see above. Kipala (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As stated before you can add a note to the sentence. BUT I have googled it and many sources say that is what it means by a few sources, .Self-Awarness through Swahili.--Inayity (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE, why dont you tell me what you meant by "RS" up there? Why don't YOU add a note a) showing scholarly sources for the claim that "Kwanzaa" is Swahili (I gave you THE standard dictionary by TUKI), b) showing that "matunda ya kwanza" should mean "first fruits of the harvest" (which it does NOT, it just means "first fruits", without harvest), c) showing any indication for a Swahili Tradition of "frist fruit festivals".... DO IT, DEAR!!

Just in case you don`t find any reference, please do not tell us that "googling" whatsoever is a reason to keep unfunded and disputed alligations here. Googling is an excellent tool sometimes to find good and valid references - and often it gives us just crap. Need to say that???

Else the present wording IS misleading. "Neologism" is the right label of this kind of expression, and it is exactly what the official Kwanzaa website explains how they made this new word up (have you read it? One kid too much and they needed one letter more?). Besides I just see that meanwhile the "official website" itself refers the idea of "first fruits" to the Swazi festival (definitely not Swahili and being extra-tropic not "typical African"); 2 years ago when I checked last they did not say it yet but claimed some general "African tradition"). So there is more to change to make it understandable. Anyway please bring your references! I showed above that the present citations are worthless because note 3) Mayes says NOTHING about etymology and no. 4) just repeats stuff while obviously not having any knowledge of Swahili language. I wll not impress you with the claim that I am speaker of that language that's why I challenge you to bring valid references (knwowing that you will not get them as it stands). Cheers!!! Kipala (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The right sentence is what RS say it is, your proposal is Original research WP:OR. I do not actually have to do anything more than what I want to do. I have labelled it and corrected it and already given you a JSTOR link. That is the extent of my contribution, the burden is on you.--Inayity (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's that time again

Another season, another semi-protection. I suppose we could just sit back and wait for the inevitable vandalism, but nah, I don't think so. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro-active semi-protecting that no one could argue with--Inayity (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks as always for doing this. it's a headache every year how the trolls and the amateur googlers with axes to grind come out of the woodwork. Elefuntboy (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, have to start it early this year. Twits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2015

lolol its fun Lancecatheyneal (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done, please be more specific if you are requesting an edit. Thank you. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 18:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit about Kawaida

Hej.
As it is Kawaida is a redirect to African_Philosophy#Kawaida.
That section does not exist (anymore?) in that article, so it leads to the top of that article. As it is dubious if information about Kawaida would really belong there in the first place, I want to suggest changing the Kawaida redirect into a red link / not existing page. This to me would be better than pretending that there would be more information to get at African_Philosophy. At least atm. Kawaida is not even mentioned once over there - and maybe rightly so. thanks, and Joyous Kwanzaa 46.142.19.19 (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It must be December!

It must be semi-protection time again! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is too once sided!

Why is there no information on how this is a made up racist holiday! Or anything criticizing it? Seems to one sided pro kwanzaa! 71.166.33.65 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Every holiday is made up, none of them are natural (well, solstices may be natural, but some humans choose to mark them). '''tAD''' (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the IP contributor, in that the article does say that it is a "made up ... " holiday.

• It was created by Maulana Karenga and was first celebrated in 1966–67.

Whether it is racist is an opinion. Would anyone like to find an RS that calls it racist?

I'm more interested in whether there are still people claiming it is a traditional African celebration, rather than an American one created half a century ago. That, is a recently-created American celebration of traditional African culture. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's so African, that it uses the Semitic word 'saba' for 7 (compare with 'sheva/shiv'a' in Hebrew, and similarly in Arabic)

That's another thing that the ueber-PC author forgot to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the whole thing is bogus, that's why. 67.235.123.157 (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Saba is Swahili for "seven". Swahili is a creole with multiple language inputs. 140.182.64.23 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

and Semitic and African aren't necessarily contradictory - Amharic is a Semitic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.232.89 (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And one of the two main components of KiSwahili, a language that is indeed fully and uniquely African in origin, is Arabic. (The second main "parent" is Bantu-stock languages. KiSwahili developed, in Africa, as a result of booming trade and cultural exchange with the Middle East.) Read a book, for God's sake. Laodah 01:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's only November!

But there seems to be an early start to stupid season here. Semi-protected as usual. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks as always for what you do around this time of year. Elefuntboy (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

I've never heard anyone mention this made-up holiday. I noticed it on a calendar I bought. There is no natural way to say "aa" in English, so how is kwanzaa pronounced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.113 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No natural way to say "aa"? Aaron the aardvark must be sorely disappointed.

In formal Swahili, adding the second "a" serves to shift the emphasis to this syllable, as in kwan-ZAA, but is it not in practice pronounced that way.Mukogodo (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

good comeback, as neither of those is a native English word, and the "aa" is pronounced differently in them. Your aid in pronunciation proves the original poster's point.

High-quality source

I've been finding a lot of good stuff in Kwanzaa: Black Power and the Making of the African-American Holiday Tradition by Keith Mayes - it's neither boosterish nor scoffing, and very comprehensive. If anyone ever tried to take this article to GA or FA that would be something important to utilize.--Pharos (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There's also some interesting background provided by US constitution expert Ann Coulter:[1]Santamoly (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's funny. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

How many people celebrate?

I was looking around online to see how many people really celebrate Kwanzaa but most of the articles I can find on the subject are all asking the same question and some are doubting that a significant number of people celebrate it. Lice000 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Outside of a very small African Studies academic community and a slightly larger number of black baby boomer creative types, virtually no one celebrates Kwanzaa. It probably isn't much of an exaggeration to suggest it gets more attention from white liberals and traditional media than from actual celebrants. 109.103.81.34 (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Vainamoinen

We have a section for this: Kwanzaa#Popularity.--Pharos (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Even the minimum estimate (6 million in the U.S.) is a lot of people.50.1.19.91 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I never got a chance to add them, but there have also been a bunch of surveys by Public Policy Polling over recent years.--Pharos (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Karenga felonies

This has been an old issue on this article, and consensus has always been againstWP:UNDUE emphasis on the crimes of the founder.--Pharos (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Heavens. It's only October. Is it already time to protect the article? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Judaism Connection

It would be appropriate to educate the public on the origins of Kwanzaa, and include its connection to the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. i.e. The creation of the first candelabra, the memory of collective suffering and oppression. Not only would this be accurate, but also serves to connect people in a peaceful way. Dghitis (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

What connection is there other than Kwanzaa's adoption of a non-Hanukkah menorah? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is one sided.

This holiday was created by a known racist. But nothing is said about that. This article is one sided. Now I know everyone might not agree with this statement. But that does not give you the right to remove this. I would like to have a discussion on how we can make this more balanced article. 71.244.220.133 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to go through the archives and read the previous discussions on the matter, for a start. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have and all I see is people removing the dissuasion and telling people to “shut up”. Like a few days again. I don’t get why this only shows the positive side but won’t allow criticism. I’m pretty sure Wikipedia allows that. I believe it was you who said that. I really think that your bias behavior should be reported.71.244.220.133 (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add that not only was it created by known racist, the holiday itself was created for racist purposes. "give Blacks an alternative to the existing holiday and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society.” --potter's best

From the article: "The celebration honors African heritage in African-American culture." Some of us think that's worth celebrating. If you don't, there are countless other holidays. Merry Christmas. Jonathunder (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Chuck D, graduate of Goldsmiths university of London??

Chuck D has accomplished many things, but one of them doesn't appear to have been graduating from Goldsmiths. ("featuring Chuck D, graduate of Goldsmiths university of London," in the last sentence in the last section, Adherence.) Checking the sources cited, neither one refers to Chuck D as a graduate of Goldsmiths, nor do any other information sources indicate that he is. Since the article is semi-protected I can't edit it. But recommend that someone do so. Not sure if this claim is vandalism or an innocent mistake whose origin is not apparent to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.244.15 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this, looking into it, and writing it up here. Do please consider acquiring a username and editing under it; doing so has no downsides that I can think of. ¶ This is just one of many silly additions that this article attracts; it was made nine months ago. Jpgordon, I start to think that the article would benefit from year-round semi-protection. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There's something to be said for that. I'll consider it after this round expires, and I'll try to keep a closer eye on the article in the vandalism off season. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 08:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Not Neutral Point-of-View

This article does not accurately describe the founding of Kwanzaa and omits important relevant information about its founder. Sbelknap (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Please be specific about what should be changed on this article, which is about the holiday, not about Karenga. Jonathunder (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I've looked back through the edit history. This issue has been raised in the past. There are some valid edits that were reverted or edited away. Kwanzaa was invented as part of a violent, Marxist, black separatist movement. This fact is not adequately addressed in this article about Kwanzaa. It is certainly relevant to the founding of the holiday. This seems like a whitewash of well-established history.Sbelknap (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The clause asserting that Kwanzaa was founded in the same spirit as Juneteenth has been removed, as no citation supports this assertion, which is clearly false.Sbelknap (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This assertion seems odd, "The choice of Swahili, an East African language, reflects its status as a symbol of Pan-Africanism" Two books are cited, but the citation given provides no page number or exact quote. I don't see this on google books. Can we get a more precise source for this? Or some alternative source that can be validated independently? Else, this doesn't make much sense, except in some sort of Marxist pseudo-history. Sbelknap (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Might I possibly suggest that you address this some time other than during the holiday itself? This article gets very disrespectful treatment if not protected during the holiday season, and there's no urgency to this discussion. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The goal is to make this article reflect a NPOV. Please, let us focus on content.Sbelknap (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you read a single word I just wrote? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. The most respectful thing we can do when editing the kwanzaa article (or any wikipedia article) is to aim for quality. We are building an encyclopedia here. Whether these edits occur during Kwanzaa or at some other time is simply not relevant to the mission of wikipedia. Please review WP:OR and WP:OWN. wikipedia is an open project and is not owned by any particular editor or group of editors. Our goal here as editors is to provide information that is relevant, accurate, and neutral. That is all.Sbelknap (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It strikes me that noting the identity of principles between Kwanzaa and the Symbionese Liberation movement would be warranted, as would any properly-sourced referenced to how that came to be. John2510 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Do you know of a source? DeFreeze's work, The Seven Principles of the SLA is often cited, but I can't seem to find this. The best source I know of is The Straight Dope, from a staff report. This source is often reliable but I'm not sure if it is acceptable as a reliable source for wikipedia. I do see material by Cecil Adams cited as reliable elsewhere in wikipedia, and my own experience is that Cecil is quite reliable. But if we could find a source that is explicitly a wikipedia-approved reliable source, that would be better, methinks. Sbelknap (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The article ought reflect that the popularity of Kwanzaa has waned in recent times.Sbelknap (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The assertion that Karenga is a secular humanist is outrageous. There is no evidence provided to support this wild assertion. Removed.Sbelknap (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How many sources for that one do you require? I see a thousand hits on "karenga" "secular humanist" "-wikipedia", some from supporters, some from opponents. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the best-quality source of which you are aware so that other editors can assess. I've read extensively about Kwanzaa and its founder. The assertion that Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga, (born Ronald McKinley Everett) is a secular humanist would appear to be absurd. We need authoritative secondary or tertiary sources; wikipedia is not a place to describe your own independent research.Sbelknap (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see this source for relevant context.Sbelknap (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something in that issue, but I don't see where it mentions Karenga in particular vis-a-vis secular humanism. Which article? (I don't feel like reading the entire thing to find the context you're referring to.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Karenga misogyny is here described. Misogyny is explicitly *not* a secular humanist value, and is provided for context. Again, please provide your best single citation from a secondary or tertiary source that Karenga is a secular humanist. All that I can find is various tangential use of the term in relation to Karenga, none of them citing primary sources. The echo chamber is large but without reliable sourcing. Sbelknap (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you search on page using your web browser for "Karenga" you can easily find the relevant material at the cited secular humanism.org source.Sbelknap (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Or scroll down to page 10 of Volume 15 number four of Free Inquiry. Here's the quote, Ron Karenga reportedly made "his" women walk at least three paces behind him. Now, please provide a good source for the assertion that Karenga is a secular humanist. Sbelknap (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I've seen him described as a "secular humanist" in at least one source, but that doesn't mean much. That's not an earned title, or a profession, or even his main claim to fame. It's currently unsourced here and I'd be fine with it being taken out - subject to someone: 1) finding a source; and 2) arguing that the characterization by the source is relevant here. I think it's important to keep in mind that the article isn't about Karenga, and its references to him should be in context. John2510 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding quality of cited sources, two works are cited as having been published by the University of Sankore, which does not exist. There was a Sankore Madrasah that existed about a half-millennium ago. Is there an ISBN and legitimate publisher for these books? If not, out it goes. Sbelknap (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC) One has an ISBN. The other does not. Neither one appears to have a legitimate publisher. These look like self-published works. Sbelknap (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. http://www.sankorepress.com/about-us.html seems to exist. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned, there is an ISBN for one but not for the other. There is also a web page for sankore press, which appears to not be a legitimate press. The point is that there is no "University of Sankore". No such entity exists. Calling something the "University of Sankore Press" implies that there exists a "University of Sankore" which lends a false imprimatur to the publisher. The bar is quite low these days for "publishing" The University of Sankore Press is not listed in any index of reputable publishers I can find. Neither is it listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English-language_book_publishing_companies The University of Sankore Press is not BBB accredited nor can I find other information about this business. At a minimum, we ought to have the ISBNs for books cited in wikipedia. The provenance of these works is highly dubious; perhaps we can pair each cite of these books with alternative reliable sources? Sbelknap (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sbelknap, you make some excellent observations. (Most closely above: that there is no "University of Sankore", and that the name "University of Sankore Press" is misleading.) However, I disagree with at least one assertion, namely: "At a minimum, we ought to have the ISBNs for books cited in wikipedia." I assume that you're talking about books published after ISBNs became commonplace (and this happened a lot later in some nations than in others). But even if you're talking about books published since 2010, I disagree. Make a random selection of twenty books published since 2010 with ISBNs and twenty ditto without ISBNs: on average, the former will be a lot better than the latter. But ISBNs are made available for books that are utter garbage. I thought that most editors realized this; what fewer may realize is that reputable publishers will sometimes put out good books without ISBNs. I'm currently tinkering with a drastic expansion (so far on my hard drive only) of what's currently a (Kwanzaa-irrelevant) stub, I'm making a lot of use of an ISBN-less book published as recently as 2017, and I shall vigorously defend this use if questioned. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I agree entirely with you. In the case of sankore press, it does appear that they generate ISBNs for their books. So, if they exist, we ought to include them.Sbelknap (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Section cohesiveness/new section?

There are a few additions that just don't make sense under the current section headings. The way most of the "Observances" section reads it seems more like a list of "what people do to celebrate during kwanzaa." Therefore, I'm not sure the last sentence about the president's tweet makes much sense there. I.e. it's a section about traditions, not about who has mentioned its actual observance.

On a similar note, the "Adherence" section seems to deal with how the holiday's popularity has changed/how many people still adhere to the holiday/where else in the world adherents might have grown or shrunk in population in recent years/etc... Thus, the paragraph about Kwanzaa as an example of postmodernism feels very out of place with its philosophical bent. The last sentence about The Black Candle documentary also seems like it should not be in this section.

I'm not sure if there is an easy catchall new section in which to place all of the above paragraphs, but they just make the flow of the article very weird and disjointed in their current locations. The documentary and tweet could maybe go under something about Kwanzaa in more recent years? The philosophy part might go there too, but seems like that might be a different section entirely. I'm not sure if that's a section that's worthwhile though, as it could easily devolve into political issues, as it seems a lot of the talk mentions this. --Ebertar (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Good point! I attempted to address this with a new section. What do you think?Sbelknap (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Kwanzaa and its Founding

Kwanzaa was founded as a separatist non-religious holiday. It was (originally) a response to serious violation of the civil rights of African-Americans. This is an important aspect of the holiday. It is not coatracking to mention historical facts that are directly relevant to the founding of the holiday. This article continues to be problematic. I invite engaged editors to review WP:OWN and WP:POV. If there are alternate ways of presenting these historical facts, I am certainly open to that. But deleting factual material that is relevant is not OK. Instead, improve the material. Or add context. The nature of Kwanzaa did change as society responded in various ways to the unfairness with which many African-Americans were treated. Sbelknap (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what someone else said: that the article is about the holiday, rather than the founder. Previously, I added the founder's comments about his reasons for starting it - which seemed to me to be the ideal source and a good summary. I supported removal of the characterization "secular humanist" in describing the founder, but wouldn't favor replacing it with "black separatist." Characterizing him, in any fashion, is simplistic and needlessly controversial. Given Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature, I think characterizations should be avoided wherever possible. John2510 (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Your addition about the founder's reason for creating Kwanzaa was a step in the right direction. However, the current version doesn't quite convey that the holiday was created as a non-commercial (i.e., Marxist), non-religious, non-white alternative to the Christmas holiday. As the holiday evolved over time, it became more commercial, less racist, and less adversarial. Sbelknap (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

African Pledge and Principles of Blackness

The article states "A Kwanzaa ceremony may include ... a reading of the African Pledge and the Principles of Blackness" No explanation is given for what the African Pledge states or what constitute the Principles of Blackness. Wikipedia has no page for either, and this page is the only place either of those phrases appear on Wikipedia. A citation link is given to an article on Epicurious, a food site, that makes no mention of these, and another citation to a book on Google books, The Nguzo Saba and the Festival of First Fruits. The Google books search says that neither the phrase "African Pledge" nor the phrase "Principles of Blackness" appear in that book. Can anyone provide an explanation with referenced citations? If this can't be done after a reasonable time, I suggest those claims be omitted from the article as unsupported. 217.155.66.190 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Karanga was convinced that the women were trying to poison him. He and three members of his cult had tortured the women in an attempt to find some nonexistent “crystals” of poison. Karenga thought his enemies were out to get him. Heck even the scam’s creator, Maulana Karenga admitted it was a fraud. In 1978 he told the Washington Post’s Hollie West:

“I created Kwanzaa,” laughed Ron Karenga like a teenager who’s just divulged a deeply held, precious secret. “People think it’s African. But it’s not. I wanted to give black people a holiday of their own. So I came up with Kwanzaa. I said it was African because you know black people in this country wouldn’t celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of bloods (blacks) would be partying!” Kwanzaa ceremonies have no discernible African roots. No culture on earth celebrates a harvesting ritual in December, for instance, and the implicit pledges about human dignity don’t necessarily jibe with such still-common practices as female circumcision and polygamy. The inventors of Kwanzaa weren’t promoting a return to roots; they were shilling for Marxism. They even appropriated the term “ujima,” which Julius Nyrere cited when he uprooted tens of thousands of Tanzanians and shipped them forcibly to collective farms, where they proved more adept at cultivating misery than banishing hunger. So what is Kwanzaa? It’s the ultimate fraud. It is a holiday created by a man responsible for violently torturing two women–and it has a fascist goal of separating the races. If Black people in America would like to come up with a holiday that celebrates their valuable contribution to America I would not object. Nor would I object to a celebration of the rich Western Africa culture that many of them lost when they were dragged from their homeland to become slaves.

It is hard to understand why anybody would want to follow a violent felon, in a made-up holiday that mistakes racism and segregation-ism for spirituality, and fiction for history. And especially in the days of “me too,” I don’t understand why black women would encourage the celebration of this holiday when one considers its inventor. But then again, t then I never understood why white women continued to stand behind and promote Ted Kennedy and/or Bubba Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael51586 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It's that time of year again!

Semi-protected until the middle of January 2022. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't this Fellow Karenga an Ex-Convict?

This article really seems to gloss over the facts, which are that this "holiday" was made up by an ex-convict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't mention his shoe size, either. This article isn't about him, it's about the holiday, so how is that relevant to the holiday? However, his Wikipedia page mentions it. -- Count Robert of Paris (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, that's not true. This no-quotes holiday was invented by a future convict. But that still has nothing to do with the holiday. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The simple fact that the guy was a convicted criminal is far more relevant than his shoe size, of course. There are good people who think this "holiday" is something organic and real, but the truth is that it was just made up by a criminal and calling him an "activist" is glossing over the reality. Wikipedia should be honest and non-partisan in its articles if it aspires to have credibility as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

And again...

Semi-protected through the end of January again. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)