Talk:Rastafari

Motion to restore the Order of Primus St. Croix

07:39, 17 April 2021‎ Midnightblueowl →‎Mansions of Rastafari: reverting the recent mass addition of text about one (fairly obscure) Rasta group; this material relies heavily on Primary Sources and is certainly WP:Undue in its length. This should not be restored as per WP:BRD; Talk Page discussion would be the next step.

After reviewing the reasons cited by Midnightblueowl for the reversion of the subsection "Mansions of Rastafari" we find that the classification "undue weight" is unfounded and therefore the decision to revert unsubstantiated. Bearing in mind that the Order of Primus St. Croix is one of the youngest established Rastafari mansions today and that it has only existed for less than twenty-one years the material surprisingly doesn't rely heavily on primary sources. At the time of this writing, out of a total of twenty-five sources cited only eleven are primary; seven of those eleven are from one book (just different page numbers) which means there's only five primary sources used out of a total of nineteen distinct references. Moreover the moderator stated that it's "certainly undue in its length" yet the section is only fourteen sentences long. WP:Undue ("Due and undue weight") is a subsection of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints."

When determining proper weight we must consider the fact that the mansions of Nyabinghi, Bobo Ashanti and Twelve Tribes of Israel are mentioned on the page a total of eleven times outside of the "Rastafari Mansions" subsection. Entire subsections of the page devoted to superficial characteristics such as "Appearance", "Diet," "Language" and even large subsections detailing narcotics usage are published with impunity yet one sentence about the Order's denouncement of cannabis isn't allowed, that's undue weight. Furthermore the only reason why the Order of Primus St. Croix seems to have a disproportionate amount of content compared to the other mansions in the subsection is because the other mansions practice poor scholarship and haven't taken the time to update their Wikipedia entries in the subsection which could easily be enhanced by them at any point in time. Here we take the opportunity to say that it's not our fault that competing mansions neglect their own Wikipedia content. We're essentially being penalized and our achievements and contributions to the movement have been censored because of the other organizations' indifference which is why the consequences of the reversion are clearly inequitable and hardly "neutral" at all. The marginalization of our Order is nothing new, only this time the ostracism has been performed under the guise of Wikipedia protocol technicalities (see also 1 Corinthians 4:9-14). Nevertheless in an effort to avoid WP:BRD "deadlock" we propose the following resolution: the subsection "Mansions of Rastafari" has been expanded upon so that the prominent common Rastafarian mansions have a significantly larger body of content than the Order of Primus St. Croix which has been included at the end of the subsection so that it can no longer be mistakenly perceived as "undue in its length," completed per Wikipedia:BRD's "attempt a new edit" guidelines.Czar Petar I (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that, as an apparent member of the Order of Primus St. Croix, you may feel that it is unfair that other denominations (Mansions) of Rastafari are discussed in the article but that your own is not, but that is not sufficient reason for Wikipedia to give this particular group coverage. We give coverage to the major Mansions that exist, and we determine what is major by looking at which ones are covered in the WP:Reliable Sources - namely academic studies of the Rastafari movement. At present, those sources do not appear to discuss the Order of Primus St. Croix. If, in the years to come, they do begin to discuss the Order of Primus St. Croix, then we could certainly add some information about it to the article.

Bear in mind that this is a WP:Featured Article - it's rated among our top quality articles - and that is why we are going to be very cautious about how it is changed. As per WP:BRD, you were bold in your edits, but because these edits were controversial, they were reverted. It is then incumbent on you not to WP:Edit War to restore the material you want into the article, but rather to try and gain consensus for your additions at the Talk Page. You should absolutely not be edit warring to get your desired additions into this Featured Article, as you have already done once. Make your case as to why and how this article should be changed and if you can convince other editors, then we may be able to reach consensus. If needs be, we can take the situation to some form of WP:Dispute resolution, such as WP:RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems big addition is in wrong article.--Moxy- 08:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We've never stated that we feel that it's "unfair" that other mansions of Rastafari are discussed in the article and that our own isn't, nor have we attempted to argue that something like that is sufficient reason for Wikipedia to approve the information about the Order. Midnightblueowl stated, "You should absolutely not be edit warring to get your desired additions into this Featured Article, as you have already done once." Please explain how we've already done this once before. The last sentence of our initial motion clearly states that we've "attempted a new edit" as according to Wikipedia:BRD's Cycle guidelines which state: "To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." We've merely "attempted a new edit" which addressed your initial concerns about "undue length," we haven't started any "edit war" and would appreciate it if we weren't falsely accused of any negative behavior from here on out.

Further, after reviewing WP:Reliable Sources cited by Midnightblueowl it states, "If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the official seal on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source." [...] "More importantly, many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material. A textbook might include commentary on the proclamation (which is secondary material) as well as the full text of the proclamation (which is primary material)." The book "Seventy Years Accomplished" includes copies of the letters written by Kenyatta Felix which he left behind for investigators at the crime scenes, however it also contains extensive commentary on those letters and many other Rastafari doctrines (355 pages worth to be exact) therefore we've come to the conclusion that the book we initially considered to be primary is actually a secondary source, it was cited seven times in our edit and mentioned in the original motion. We understand that our Order is "controversial" however that alone isn't sufficient reason for Wikipedia to remove content. We request that this case be escalated through WP:RfC and we've already taken the initiative to file a dispute and notify you here.Czar Petar I (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Restoring controversial text after it has been removed (as you did here) constitutes edit warring. You should not be trying to make substantial changes to an FA-rated article after concerns have been raised about the content of your additions. That's not how Wikipedia works. But as the issue is now being dealt with over at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, let's see how that develops rather than continuing to debate the issue here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

For reference Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard stated: Closing because- there has been insufficient discussion at this time. Only a handful of messages have been posted on the talk page- and DRN asks that editors give a significant good faith effort before coming here. Also- I would like to remind all involved editors that 1- Accusing someone of an edit war when they are not in one is not WP:AGF- and 2- filing editor is reminded to read WP:BRD, you made a bold change- it has been reverted- now you must discuss the proposed change on the article talk page. Other editors will work with you to find an acceptable compromise. Finally- please disclose a WP:COI and read the policy on conflicts of interest- it is recommended that on pages you have a connection to- you suggest changes on the talk page and refrain from actually editing them yourself. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Czar Petar I (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

There are other forms of dispute resolution available. One is Wikipedia:Third opinion, but as we have already had the de facto third opinion of User:Moxy, that may be a little superfluous. The other option is Wikipedia:Request for Comment. That seems like a good avenue to take if you still want to try and attract support for your proposed additions. I don't mind setting that up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Czar Petar I (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Bro 86.188.243.18 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

JAH in Psalm 68:4

In the section "Jah and Jesus of Nazareth" it says, "The term "Jah" is a shortened version of "Jehovah", the name of God in English translations of the Old Testament."

In Psalm 68:4 KJV the term "JAH" is given as the actual name of the God: "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."

This piece of scripture is worth noting and of significant importance for three reasons: 1.) It is the only time God is referred to as "JAH" in the KJV Bible, 2.) the Psalms of David are a scriptural pillar of Rastafari beliefs, 3.) the scripture instructs the reader to 'sing praises to JAH' (music praising JAH is a central theme of Rastafari culture). 2601:804:380:1220:E963:EF73:B7DC:C6C (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Abrahamic faith in lead?

Is there any reason it's not mentioned prominently in the article that it's an Abrahamic faith? Based on my like 10 minutes total of reading (take me with a grain of salt) isn't it pretty roundly considered to be so by religious scholars? toobigtokale (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

We would need WP:Reliable Sources to make such a claim in the article. We could probably find an RS somewhere that describes it as such, but it's certainly not a common claim in the specialist literature on Rastafari, which is extensively cited in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through Google Scholar and found some recent sources that would support the claim that Rastafari is Abrahamic. I have both introduced those into the main body of the article and amended the opening sentence so that it includes the identification of Rastafari as an Abrahamic tradition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you give sources that Rastafari is an Abrahamic religion?

Thanks. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The citations are cited in the article, should you wish to look them up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the Abrahamic faith claim is likely to be further challenged in the future; possibly merits refs in the lead next to that claim per WP:LEAD. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide sources that say it is not an abrahamic religion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Um? Because I’ve never seen a Rastafarian person call themselves a part of Abrahamic religions. They don’t consider themselves that at all. And don’t be rude to me? SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And plus there wasn’t any citations next to the Abrahamic religion claim so that’s why I asked. I’m not scrolling all the way down to see some obscure claim, I’d like it to be provided in the first sentence. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not being rude. But this is how Wikipedia works. We use reliable (secondary) sources. Which is why I asked you to please show me reliable sources that categorize Rastafarianism as being non-Abrahamic. Your personal interaction with members of this faith is irrelevant to article content as it would constitute original research which we do not use. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The only reason I asked for a source because it doesn’t provide a source next to the Abrahamic religion claim, which is why I questioned it. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And plus there wasn’t any citations next to the Abrahamic religion claim so that’s why I asked. I’m not scrolling all the way down to see some obscure claim, I’d like it to be provided in the first sentence. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There are actually two citations for the statement that the religion is Abrahamic. They are in the body because we generally exclude over-citation from the lede. This is a WP:MOS thing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay I’ll check them out. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Specifically please see MOS:LEAD As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. (emphasis mine). Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Although restating to be clear, per MOS:LEADCITE, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. This claim has been challenged, so we should now put the refs next to the claim in the lead. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you're misinterpreting that. The verifiability has not been challenged nor is it likely to be. The sources in the body are, in fact, high quality. If you insist on putting the citations in the lede I won't personally stand in your way. But others might. And If you try to delete from the lede as uncited I will revert. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the other user, I'm actually toobigtokale from above, who suggested adding the Abrahamic faith info in the first place. I don't think I'm misinterpreting that quote; think of the purpose behind the policy. We're not just catering to people who'd bother to dig through the body to find the refs, we're catering to the 99% of people who leave articles within 1 minute because they basically only read the lead. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said, be my guest to move those two refs up into the lede if you wish. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Please watch the tone; it's bordered on snippy and condescending several times in this thread. Please be more mindful of this in future. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my point though. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree that the verifiability will never be challenged. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Edits reverted without explanation

I'm adding this here for transparency, so others can join the discussion, but I also posted a version on Midnightblueowl's page to alert them.

I noticed that three of my recent edits to the Rastafari article were reverted without any explanation in the edit summaries.

I'll explain my reasoning for those edits (mostly wording tweaks), so others can chime in.

Firstly, "Rastafarian" (and "Rastafarianism") is largely an exonym of which Rastafari disapprove. They tend to reject the idea that it's an "-ism", and the article reflects that. Importantly, most articles highlight when something is an exonym and when the subjects at hand may disagree with its usage, so this should too, without a strong policy-based reason to do otherwise. Note that the title itself is Rastafari because we've had this debate before.

The other edits were mainly for brevity and WP:NPOV. E.g., the following wording is both overly long and minimises the beliefs of the group:

"Central to the religion is a monotheistic belief in a single God, referred to as Jah, who is deemed to partially reside within each individual."

This is over-hedging, since we've already said these are their beliefs, so it's clear we aren't saying their beliefs are true in Wikivoice. We don't need to hold their views in metaphorical scare quotes, since it implies disdain.

Tweaking that to the following is more direct, and less likely to be read as pushing an antagonistic POV:

"Central to the religion is a monotheistic belief in a single God, referred to as Jah, who partially resides within each individual."

(Nor are we overly complicating the language to explain their beliefs here.)

Similarly "a specific interpretation of the Bible" is weak and vague. Specific how? I would argue it also appears to fail WP:NPOV, because it again minimises those views and holds them in an overly sceptical light. It's simply more accurate to move the text about Rastafari being Afrocentric up here to say "an Afrocentric interpretation of the Bible", not least because the interpretation they rely on descends from the Ethiopian movement in early Revivalist Black churches in the Americas, and the Back to Africa movement in general. The context is well explained over at Black nationalism#Rastafari (and there are sections above it about Bedwardism, which was an important influence on Rastafari, and the Back to Africa movement).

Finally, "Some practitioners extend these views into black supremacism" is WP:UNDUE in the lede because the term "black supremacy" appears only twice in the article—once in the title of an early "proto-Rastafari" book, and once in a section that says:

"There is no uniform Rasta view on race.[104] Black supremacy was a theme early in the movement, with the belief in the existence of a distinctly black African race that is superior to other racial groups. While some still hold this belief, non-black Rastas are now widely accepted in the movement.[108]"

"Widely accepted" versus "early in the movement"/"some still hold this belief" suggests "black supremacy" is the minority view (and an outdated one at that), and therefore this is likely undue given the prominence it has. At best, one could say "Early Rastafari was criticized as black supremacist, though practitioners of all races are accepted by most Mansions of Rastafari today."

I'd be keen to hear others' views and see if we can get consensus here for some of these tweaks—or can at least iterate upon them. Lewisguile (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl Pinging you here too. Lewisguile (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. First, let me apologise for reverting the edits without an explanation, something I don't normally do. I was editing very late at night and trying to get things done quickly. I should have left an explanation. Sorry on that front, Lewisguile.

My concerns were generally about what I saw as a level of WP:POV-pushing in the lead of a Featured Article. The removal of any reference to black supremacism, coupled with certain wording changes, looked like an attempt to alter the text to promote Rastafari rather than offer a general overview. POV-pushing edits are something we already get a lot of at this page (and at other religion pages, of course). If that was not your intention, then I apologise for misunderstanding you. As you have shown clear good-will in bringing the issue to the Talk Page, I am sure that we can discuss the issue further and perhaps re-introduce some of your edits back into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate your explanation. And, of course, I recognise that we do get those edits on pages such as this. I've seen them myself.

Do you have any specific feedback on the suggestions I've made here? I've explained why I think they're policy based and why I think the existing lede is already POV-pushing, even if unintentionally.

Re: black supremacy in particular, the issue I see is that the lede should follow the article, in due proportion, and not include material that isn't in the body itself. Since it's only briefly mentioned in the article (once in the lede and once in the title of a book which is considered "proto-Rastafari", leaving only one other mention), it seems WP:UNDUE to leave it as it is.

As a comparison, the pages on Islam and Christianity don't mention religious extremism within those faiths in their ledes. It seems to me extremism is something in all religions, so it doesn't make sense that it has undue weight here. Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise (as I said in another reply) so I can't necessarily agree or disagree with the reverts. Thank you for clarifying the reason for them with an explanation here though. CharlieEdited (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise. All I did on the article was add a hatnote, so I don't feel like I can fully participate in this discussion. I do think explanations should be provided for reverts though unless it's vandalism and/or disruptive editing. CharlieEdited (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, why am I being pinged here? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @CharlieEdited.

You were in the recent edit history, @RedactedHumanoid. My apologies if you're unacquainted with the subject. You might just have been doing some admin/copy edits. Lewisguile (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this topic in the talk page, my edit was just a simple changing of a link target. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again. Thanks for clarifying. Lewisguile (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to respond to some of your points; my concern about changing "sometimes called Rastafarianism" to "sometimes called Rastafarianism by outsiders" is because we do have evidence, cited in the article, of certain Rastas using the term Rastafarianism themselves. It may be a term that many Rastas dislike, but some evidently use it, so we cannot simply state that it is a term used by outsiders alone. As for adding "The terms Rastafarian and Rastafarianism are often considered controversial among practitioners" to the end of the first paragraph, I just don't think it is necessary at that prominent juncture. We already go on to explain the situation in greater depth in the "Definition" section.

Some of the issues where you have trimmed out wording do cause issues. Changing "Rastas emphasise what they regard as living "naturally"," to "Rastas emphasise living "naturally",", for example, implies that Rasta lifestyles are indeed natural. This is obviously what many Rastas believe, but it is far from being universally-accepted objective truth. We need to be careful with the wording so as not to come across as promoting Rastafari to our readers. It is our job to just give a clear, succinct, and accurate overview of the movement, and I think the existing status quo wording largely does that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

1. I do think clarifying the use of Rastafari versus Rastafarianism thing is important in the lede, as we would do for other exonyms. Similarly, most exonyms enjoy some usage within-group, but that isn't the same as saying they're the word that the majority of the group uses. If we can't explain it, we should probably drop Rastafarianism from the lede (or add a note).

2. Rastas emphasise living "naturally" is already using quotes (and directly attributes this quote to Rastas), indicating this is an opinion. Wikivoice would be Rastas live naturally. What's currently there is bending over backwards to disassociate from the ideas in a way that seems like POV-pushing.

The issue is with the repeated hedging of the view itself in a tone that isn't consistent with similar subjects. Lewisguile (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Having checked Ngrams, Rastafari does seem to be more common than both Rastafarian and Rastafarianism, as well: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Rastafari%2CRastafarian%2CRastafarianism&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

The Encyclopaedia Britannica leaves Rastafarianism out of its intro altogether, so that may be the solution? https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rastafari They refer to the practitioners mostly as Rastas, but I can see Rastafarian is used in at least one section, so I'd settle for leaving Rastafarian in if we removed the -ism (which appears to be the main thing practitioners themselves object to). Note that EB was updated last month, so has the benefit of being pretty recent, too. Lewisguile (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)