This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
I just cut a paranthetical description of torture from the article. According to [1], Karenga was convicted of torturing two women, not "several" (is there a source for more than two?), and the description of the torture may suggest something about the character of the religion's founder, but doesn't necessarily reveal much about the "Principles" of the celebration. I suggest that the material belongs in the article about Karenga, as opposed to the "Principles of Kwanzaa" section here. Note also the fact that this article has an "Origins" section. Jkelly 23:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
First point: I don't see why you insist on the wording "Kwanzaa is a holiday celebrating" as opposed to "Kwanzaa celebrates". The wording you chose is unnecessary, it has already been established that Kwanzaa is a holiday.
Second point: How is the fact that most African Americans are from West Africa a POV? It's a provable statistic and I cited a very reliable source. Almost ALL African Americans originated from the West coast of Africa. Do you mean to tell me that they were being shipped from East Africa? If so you know nothing about the triangular slave trade. East African slavery served mainly to deliver female slaves to the Middle East. Saying that this was "total povitude" is completely BS. Facts cannot be POV, and I cited sources as you insist. What else do you want?
Since Big Brother felt it necessary to censor me, my source was from here 1, it is an excerpt from P.D. Curtin's, "Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census". Curtin is an expert on the subject and the book is very reliable. ~ Jared ~ 00:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
From Daddy Now, you are showing your Big Brother censorship tendencies in the worst way. You have locked down this article at the precise time that it will be seen the most, and you have locked it down while is reflects your whitewashing, truth-denying, fact ignoring, history deleting, Ministry of Truth version is out there for the masses to consume. You locked it without noting that you were the subject of severe questions that you reflect a Point of View. You are an apologist, an idealogue, a propagandist, and worse than that you have power. It is your kind of heavy handed censorship that will run Wikipedia into the rocks. ~ Jared ~ 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
One last note of mine. Please be sure to answer the arguments I made, and not just complain about the harsh words my dad threw at you (something you have set a precedent of doing). ~ Jared ~ 00:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
as requested at WP:AN/I#Kwanzaa and after reviewing the article I have sprotected the article to deal with a long string of vandalism from many sources. Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the info in the intro is good enough. We can work on it if something more is needed -- what more is needed? We aren't using any hypertechnical terms.
I'd also like to remove the verification flag. We have sources for the '66 date. It's more a matter of conflicting sources than lack of citations.
Perhaps we could mention the discrepency somehow with a sentence saying something (haha, alliteration) like, "Kwanzaa was mentioned as early as /earlier date/, when it was mentioned by the NYT as Kwanza [sic]. It hadn't become an established/outlined/visible practice until /second date/. It doesn't have to be worded quite like that, I was just making an example. That's my suggestion.
~ Jared ~ 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I re-added thar Kwanzaa was created in the 1960s to the introduction. Apparently this was a "POV" or was somehow "controversial" but I can't imagine how. Perhaps they disagreed with the usage of "created", but I think that would be ridiculous, it must be more for someone to feel the need to remove it. If people don't like it I guess we could re word it to, "originating in the 1960s" if that sounds any better, but I think that would be silly. ~ Jared ~ 02:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
A few other POV disputes I forsee that need to be handled are.
IMO, we should have a sentence or two about it in a section about the influences and creation of kwanzaa. ~ Jared ~ 03:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that Marxism is an obvious influence. Two of the principles were translated as "Cooperative economics" and "Collective work and responsibility" these aren't the kind of beliefs that most people would think of if they were choosing values for a holiday they were created. The "Cooperative economics" text is a piped link to the African socialism article. If people decide that Marxism or socialism aren't an influence and that they really are only old African values, then the piped link should obviously be removed, sinced African socialism originated in the 1960s. ~ Jared ~ 03:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Karenga's US organization met on the property of Dr. Alfred Ligon, founder of the Aquarian Bookstore, the first and largest black bookstore in Southern California. Ligon was a scholar in Eastern Religions and metaphysics and attracted a set of black intellectuals into his sphere. While there were certainly aspects of Socialism in Karenga's worldview that wasn't so much the point of the Kwanzaa celebration as creating an event that ordinary people could understand. He was simply 'alternative' before such things became current.
As one of the children in the original celebration, I'm going to get involved here to give some context which is evidently missing from the struggles of people trying to make sense of reference materials without much understanding of the people involved in the creation of Kwanzaa. I say people because so many of Kwanzaa's critics focus on the personality of Karenga as if he was the only creative black individual in Los Angeles involved with such matters. That is far from the truth. Cobb 22:37, 26 December 2005
I think it's very important to include. He was a black nationalist and while he might have renounced violence after his stint in the joint, those are the clear drivers of his philosophy. His goals are the creation of a new society with African-Americans (and I dispute that word because he wants them to have a seperate country) only and to secede from the US. Or get a chunk of territory or whatever. It's also a matter of his credibility. If the founder and leader of a religion was a pedophile, would you trust it? How about a former criminal in general convicted of what he did? Not including it is a POV that does little more than turn this page into a shill for Kwanzaa. Other religions and groups are required to have their significant dirt up on their pages for NPOV, not sure why this page should be exempt. -- Jbamb 15:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It's important to understand some of the aims of Black Nationalism in the context of the substance of the new identity nationalists were in the process of establishing. Kwanzaa is, in that regard, with the possible exception of Dap, the primary cultural celebration in the legacy of the changing from Negro to Black. There was and is clearly a difference between 'cultural nationalists' and 'militant nationalists'. Most of the people who picked up Kwanzaa as early adopters were 'cultural nationalists' who were more interested in the transformation of the minds of Negroes than the transformation of America itself. -- Cobb 11:50, 27 December 2005
Nandesuka, I agree with you about the link you removed, but that was not the extent of your edit. What problem do you have with including the creation date of kwanzaa in the introduction? It seems to me that it is self-evident that that is something to be included in the introduction. You also insisted on making some sentences less concise, this doesn't make sense, and I'll take it upon myself to fix that. Please don't revert things like that, it really is rather pointless. ~ Jared ~ 03:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Alrighty. I got here from WP:AN/I with reports of a link edit war. Upon looking over the history, I think both sides have some valid points. Frontpagemag.com is a prominent conservative website, and I think that their criticisms of Kwanzaa deserve at least an external link. (Given the extent of right wing criticisms of this holiday, I think a NPOV "Criticisms of Kwanzaa" section in the article might also be appropriate.) At the same time, I agree that "Racist Holiday from Hell" is an unnecessarily inflammatory article title. So I have linked a different anti-Kwanzaa article from frontpagemag.com. Please discuss on talk if you think this is a problem. Firebug 11:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The lead should be edited to:
(The alternate spelling Kwaanza is explained much lower in the article, and is also a redirect to here.)
-- 62.147.39.46 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
How is it POV at all to point out that most African Americans are descended from West Africans but Karenga chose an East African language for the terms in Kwanzaa? That's not a POV at all, I had a respectable source documented for the fact. You people really do infuriate me sometimes. ~ Jared ~ 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Karenga chose Swahili, an East African language, to celebrate African American ties to Africa. Census data indicates that most African Americans are descended from West African people.
The Pan-African movement arose among the black people of the Diaspora in the nineteenth century, and reached its peak between 1910-1950. Freedom fighters such as Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah were products of that movement, so was the Organization of African Unity (established in 1963). From the beginning, pan-Africanism had a cultural and political agenda (return to Africa, defense of African values and heritage, equal rights for Africans, unity of all Africans, freedom of African countries from the colonial yoke, etc). However, the movement rarely emphasized the revival or promotion of African languages. It was only in the sixties that some African scholars began calling for a pan-African language. The first call was made by Wole Soyinka of Nigeria in the mid-1960s. He proposed that Kiswahili should be declared the continental language of Africa (cf. Mulokozi 2000).
In 1985, this call was taken up by the Ghanaian writer, Ayi Kwei Armah, who wrote: There is one African language admirably suited to function as our common ancillary language. That is Kiswahili. It enjoys structural and lexical affinities with a lot of African languages over large areas of the continent: East, South, Central and even the lower West. Flexible and highly absorptive, it can take inputs from practically every African language in its future development... The technical problems likely to arise are soluble. It may be desirable, for instance, to simplify the syntax or at least to streamline it. In addition, the existing vocabulary would have to be constantly enriched, as in every living language. This could best be done in a conscious, systematic way, by drawing from the vast lexical storehouse constituted by the continent's languages, especially those of the West and the South. That might facilitate final acceptance as our common language, since each region would recognize its genius in the common pool..." (p. 832).
African governments heeded this call by admitting Kiswahili into the OAU; otherwise, not much else has been done todate.4
This article seems to be self-contradictory. First, it says that Kwaanza is celebrated by "a small minority of African-Americans," then later states that "many African-American families celebrate Kwanzaa along with Christmas and New Year's". Which is it? Benami 00:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no mention on what the African-Americans do on Kwanzaa, (i.e Shout out "Habari Gani", etc.)
entire article is a puff piece about a very very controversial topic - POV is rampant and the tag is most definitely appropriated until POV is eliminated Goodandevil 15:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
How is Kwanzaa "controversial"? It's a holiday. Give it a rest. And the POV tag goes until you can point out even a single part of the article that is POV. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 16:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As noted in my comment upon adding the tag, the "controversies" section is even biased! The tag will remain. I will report vandalism in progress and take other measures to expose your protection of extreme POV on this page. Goodandevil 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is exactly what you are doing. And once again you go on spouting off nonsense about "extreme POV" without showing one thing that is POV about the article text. Even this "comment upon adding the tag" you refer to is entirely blank. As for the Controversies section being POV ... well, maybe it is. It does mention Karenga as being a "convicted felon", which frankly isn't relevant, so that should probably go. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 16:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The controversies section has a biased quotation that supposedly sums up the controversy - but does so with the clear POV that paints any critic as having no rational basis for the criticism. NPOV tag stays. Stop reverting. Goodandevil 16:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
First of all, it's a quote, not something being said by the editors of Wikipedia themselves. Do you think all pages of Wikipedia should be censored of all POV quotes? Adolph Hitler would be terribly dumbed down, and frankly, it be whitewashing history to do so. But let's examine the quote in detail and I will show you how even the quote is not POV:
This is a verifiable fact
Also a verifiable fact. Many people, including Africans, are ignorant about Kwanzaa.
Again, true. Kwanzaa is not a "true African tradition" (being invented in the 1960s), and there are people who refuse to celebrate it for this reason.
Millions do observe it; citations are provided in the article for this.
That is what Kwanzaa was created for and what it continues to do.
Now, exactly what about this quote was POV? -- Cyde Weys vote talk 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a non-POV versiono f the "controversies" section. It sums up the criticisms without any POV creeping in. The controversies section as it is now is an apologia for Kwanzaa - which paints any criticism as silly or stupid: Goodandevil 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, brother! Please. Your paranoia is showing, like it was a skirt stuck up in your panties. Kwanzaa is not a "movement" and it is a far cry from racism. Please get out your dictionaries: Racism is the "The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them. " (The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin ) No where in anything about Kwanzaa is their anything at all promoting the idea of superiority of the African race over others, nor is their any interest in domination over others. Racism is also "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000) Nowhere in anything to do with Kwanzaa is there anything that suggests that race accounts for any differences among people, in fact, I don't think there is the slightest concern about sameness or difference between one people or another. Frankly, there isn't even the slightest interest in making those kinds of distinctions.
Kwanzaa celebrates the qualities of Unity,Self-Determination,Collective Work and Responsibility,Cooperative Economics,Purpose,Creativity, Faith. These are not race specific qualities. They are qualities which many individuals of all races and nations, and just about every other people in the world already posses - as a people, nation, whatever. It is accepted in others - no one has a problem with the Irish celebrating St. Patrick's Day, or Chinese celebrating Chinese New Years, or the German tradition of Oktoberfest, though each of these is a celebration of what it is to be Irish, Chinese, or German, and also a celebration of important values that are hared among people of these shared backgrounds and histories. Why are you so afraid of black people possessing something similar? What are you so afraid of?
You need only look around you to see that Africans in Africa and those of the diaspora have suffered mightily, (on the whole and generally speaking), having survived the ravages of slavery -- a people torn from homeland, language, customs, culture, identity a continent stripped of its resources, both human and natural, generations of its young ripped from their birthplace, there culture, their identity -- everything that everyone else in the world has been able to maintain was strategically and systematically destroyed. And, you see the aftermath -- what becomes of human beings when they have been stripped of what defines them -- everywhere around you. And maybe THAT is what scares you. What you did. Like Frankenstein's monster. That, and the thought that they might one day regroup and seek revenge. But, if you saw the movie, he really wasn't all that bad, you know. Come to think of it, the villagers were a lot scarier...
All Kwanzaa is is an all too small attempt to restore a sense of tradition and custom, or shared principles among a people from whom they have been ripped away. What is so wrong with that? Who is that hurting? Could it possibly hurt anyone as badly as this People have already been hurt? Maybe. But not for another 6 or 10 generations at least. So, please. Spare me.
Did you ever see Michael Moore's bowling for Columbine? Remember the scared Puritans? You sound just like them. Get a grip! If African Americans, African Europeans, African Caribbeans and African South Americans were ever to regain, as a whole, as a People, even a fraction of what was beaten out of them, if they all actually came to live and embrace these principles everyday, every hour, every minute of their lives, guess what -- they wouldn't even be bothered with the white - excuse me, European -- world. What for? There'd be no need, and no interest. Remember, it was the European world that came down into Africa (wreaking havoc everywhere it went) -- Africa, as a force, never went north. And why should they have? They were doing just fine, and would have continued to do so, had they been left alone.
So please, whoever you are, African descended, European descended, or other. PLEASE! Get over yourselves.
But...to be fair, let me try to see it from your perspective. I mean, maybe you *should* be scared. After all, Africans are still here, aren't they. Native Americans pretty much bit the bullet, unfortunately. If Africans hadn't of been so strong, maybe Africa would have been "The New World," instead of North America...Hmmm...I guess maybe there is something to fear in a people who not only survived attempted genocide, but continued to live on....crippled, damaged, and injured maybe, but still standing. And getting stronger. So maybe you have reason to fear, after all...hmmm...
Nah. Like I said, they never went up north. Weren't tryin' to take over anybody, other than fighting with their own neighbors. And probably wouldn't have been interested in doing anything different. Why would they? What for? They were already rich.
As for it being a "real" holiday, hey, what the hell? What are they supposed to do? Go back four, five, six generations, figure out which family "owned" them, what country or countries, ("nations" or "peoples" would probably be a more accurate terminology to use) they "bought" their enslaved Africans from, then, find out what the holidays were in those places of origin, and finally, start practicing the "Real" holidays? Or, are they supposed to wait for the day when they take over America, rid the land of the "Oppressor" in the "Kwanzaa Revolution of 2076" and, rename the country "Kwanzaaland", and then celebrate December 26 - 31 as "Kwanzaaland Independence Week?" Please.
African Americans are working from scratch because scratch is what they have to work with. You should be so resourceful. Besides, just like every other holiday, it comes from somewhere, someday, because someone thought it up, and someone thought :"Hey! Let's make this a regular thing! We'll take the 25th of December, and use it to celebrate Christs birth. And to make it really official, let's use the evergreen trees that the Norse pagans and Celtic Druids used to celebrate the Winter Solstice, and we'll put candles and lights on it like those German Pagans, the Saxons, and then everybody will have something in common and it will be easy to unite everyone around Christ, (and then we can take control of the world!)." Or, how about this "Ok, so here's the plan. We take the Babylonian Tree of Life, and turn it into a candelabra, and light one candle each day and call that a menorah, and then the Jews and the Babylonians will have something in common to celebrate (and then we can take over this little part of Palestine and call it our Holy-land, and then we can rule the world!)..." Oh, but wait, that IS kinda what happened, isn't it..? Hmmm....
Point is: Holidays do not just exist without beginning. Relax. Enjoy the fact that you were there at the start, and think of the stories you'll have to tell your great grand kids! Unless, of course, the U.S. has become Kwanzaaland by then....Gee...hope you were on the right side of things....
And, finally, as for documentation, citations, etc., Cyde Wheys and KillerChihuahua said it all already. - Super Librarian
I removed the reference to Karenga being a former Black Panther, as that appears to be untrue. For example, the page about him suggests that he was part of the US Organinzation, which was at odds with the Black Panther Party. Can anyone find information that would confirm he was a Panther? BTChicago 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Crrect. His Marxist past and avowed socialism will also need to be discussed, as one of the key criticims of Kwanzaa is that its "7 principles" are simply Marxism in disguise as Africanism. Likewise, his black seperatist past will also need to be discussed as a key critique of Kwanzaa is that it promotes racial division. These are not critiques made out of ignroance or fear, rather out of a desire to ensure the truth about the holiday and its origins are known so that people choose to follow it or respect it knowing what it is and what it is not. If people understood it to be socialism or black sepeartisim in disguise, perhaps many people would reject it. As it is, many people are unfamiliar with the holiday roots and the genesis steeped in socialism, radicalism, and black seperatism. Of course the hideous crimes of Ron Karenga (nee Ronals Everett) are also of note, as are the killings perpetrated by the violent movement he helped lead. Seems that it is undeniable that Kwanzaa is controversial - and to hide the controversy in this article is to hide the truth. Goodandevil 22:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Stop it. Both sides are revert warring. Both sides have important and valid points to make. It's great that you started using the discussion page. Hopefully you'll be able to reach some kind of agreement by listening to each other instead of reverting blindly. I believe that both Cyde and Goodandevil are in violation of 3RR, but (a) I haven't counted and (b) they haven't been warned, so no block. Yet. Consider yourselves warned. FreplySpang (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you - and until the POV issue is cleared up the POV tag stays, per wiki policy. Goodandevil 22:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the POV tag, because on reviewing this talk page I can not determine what specific points in the article it is claimed are POV. If someone can point to specific language that is POV (beyond vague phrases like "puff piece"), I will gladly restore it. Thanks, Nandesuka 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have outlined the portions that are POV - the article limits mentiosn of controversy that MANY people associate with Kwanzaa to one tiny section at the end, and that section itself is an apologia for Kawanzaa and paints critics as fools. I have tried to edit for balance but it keeps getting rverted by the same people removing the tag. This silly attempt to force this article to embrace political correctness and ignore the widespread belief that Kwanzaa is a sham is what makes wikipedia suspect by so many. The article should tell us what people wjo love Kwanzaa think it is - but it should also be honest about the controversiaes associated with Kwanzaa. Sorry - the POV tag stays until the article includes a fair and neutral presentation. Goodandevil 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Nahhh, I don't think so. It doesn't stay. You still haven't offered anything specific. This whole "controversy" over Kwanzaa is manufactured. Hell, the fake controversy War on Christmas is a lot bigger. You're not editing for balance, you're editing for a very specific point of view. Enjoy your block. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Criticism of Kwanzaa is a bit more than a "challenge [to] it on grounds of its authenticity and relevance" as the article currently reads.
Critics of Kwanzaa call it a hoax.
As Goodandevil mentions above, the so-called Controversies section doesn't contain anything controversial about Kwanzaa itself, only a broad attack on its critics for "it is often attacked by proxy through its founder" without describing what that attack would be. The section is refuting an attack that's not even made in the article -- in fact it's been removed from the article!
A real Controversies section needs to be added to the article, identifying the critics (and there are many), describing what the criticism is (and it's more than Karenga's felony record), and citations in publications.
Kwanzaa is real is the politically correct thing to say, but it's only one POV. It just seems to be the only POV that the editing cabal here wants in the article. patsw 02:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's real. What a peculiar idea. You might not like its origin, you might not like its philosophy or practices, you might not like its name, you might not like Karenga, you might not like all sorts of things. But Kwanzaa is real, in the same way that Christmas is real: a holiday invented by a specific person at a specific time of year for for specific reasons, celebrated by some, ignored or loathed by others. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the user who thinks the controversies section is POV and inadequate. The controversies section, if you are going to have one (I personally don't think it is necessary) should include other problems with the celebrations such as Karenga's problems, the lack of African tradition etc. In addition, the user who compared Kwanzaa to Christmas is way out of line. Even though one is not of a certain faith, surely one can respect the beliefs of the faith. Kwanzaa has no comparison to Christmas or Hanukah, for that matter. To the believer, those holidays are created by the works of God and were not founded. They were celebrated for millenia outside of any state recognition. Kwanzaa was founded by a convicted felon to spread Marxist, and separatist views in the African-American community. This is why this article is having trouble being stable. The proponents of Kwanzaa want to raise it to a level it is not, and in response the opponents, want to ridicule it-- which is not necessary or warranted. Kwanzaa is not as important or significant as Christmas or Hanukah, just like President's Day is not as important or significant as Passover or Easter. It is what it is. Ramsquire 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
And as long as we're on the subject, can anyone find a reference for the "weasel words" that "some say" the Kinara appropriates the symbol of the Jewish Menorah? I may be bad at using Google, but I haven't been able to figure out who says this, exactly. It may be that the Kinara was inspired by the Menorah, certainly there are some major similarities, but where are the references to support either of those points? Kaisershatner 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth the candelabrum has been around for a terribly long time. It relates to more than just Judaism. It's sort of a traditional religious symbol. I wouldn't say that Kwanzaa's use of a candelabrum is necessarily "stealing". -- Cyde Weys vote talk 18:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Kinara Menorah potato patato - Check it out: Our Tora Stone Tel Shemesh About.com Tree of Life About.com Menorah -SL-- 68.45.57.193 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW - the problem here is not whether or not you used the word "stealing." It is the implicit message you are trying to create by including the history of the symbol at all. There have been many points made here about the fact that other religious symbols associated with Christmas and Hannukah also have histries of their own - yet in the articles on Christmas and Hannukah, no one feels the necessity of undermining the symbols by including statements about their origins. When people put an emphasis on such things, they betray the racism in their hearts, and expose themselves for what you are. Nicely turned phrases, seemingly neutral language does not hide the truth. -- SL-- 71.250.88.213 05:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, this article, along with a few others, is the subject of a Free Republic "Action Alert". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You know, this probably explains some of the ridiculousness we've seen on this article in the past few days. And now it's only going to get worse. Just great. I like how they say, Wikipedia is a liberal "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, it is very popular and very "progressive". They say that as if being progressive is a bad thing. They're right, no progress should be made whatsoever; we should all be stuck back in the Stone Age. Bunch of morons. And I didn't realize how racist these people are. Geez. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
I just cut a paranthetical description of torture from the article. According to [1], Karenga was convicted of torturing two women, not "several" (is there a source for more than two?), and the description of the torture may suggest something about the character of the religion's founder, but doesn't necessarily reveal much about the "Principles" of the celebration. I suggest that the material belongs in the article about Karenga, as opposed to the "Principles of Kwanzaa" section here. Note also the fact that this article has an "Origins" section. Jkelly 23:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
First point: I don't see why you insist on the wording "Kwanzaa is a holiday celebrating" as opposed to "Kwanzaa celebrates". The wording you chose is unnecessary, it has already been established that Kwanzaa is a holiday.
Second point: How is the fact that most African Americans are from West Africa a POV? It's a provable statistic and I cited a very reliable source. Almost ALL African Americans originated from the West coast of Africa. Do you mean to tell me that they were being shipped from East Africa? If so you know nothing about the triangular slave trade. East African slavery served mainly to deliver female slaves to the Middle East. Saying that this was "total povitude" is completely BS. Facts cannot be POV, and I cited sources as you insist. What else do you want?
Since Big Brother felt it necessary to censor me, my source was from here 1, it is an excerpt from P.D. Curtin's, "Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census". Curtin is an expert on the subject and the book is very reliable. ~ Jared ~ 00:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
From Daddy Now, you are showing your Big Brother censorship tendencies in the worst way. You have locked down this article at the precise time that it will be seen the most, and you have locked it down while is reflects your whitewashing, truth-denying, fact ignoring, history deleting, Ministry of Truth version is out there for the masses to consume. You locked it without noting that you were the subject of severe questions that you reflect a Point of View. You are an apologist, an idealogue, a propagandist, and worse than that you have power. It is your kind of heavy handed censorship that will run Wikipedia into the rocks. ~ Jared ~ 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
One last note of mine. Please be sure to answer the arguments I made, and not just complain about the harsh words my dad threw at you (something you have set a precedent of doing). ~ Jared ~ 00:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
as requested at WP:AN/I#Kwanzaa and after reviewing the article I have sprotected the article to deal with a long string of vandalism from many sources. Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the info in the intro is good enough. We can work on it if something more is needed -- what more is needed? We aren't using any hypertechnical terms.
I'd also like to remove the verification flag. We have sources for the '66 date. It's more a matter of conflicting sources than lack of citations.
Perhaps we could mention the discrepency somehow with a sentence saying something (haha, alliteration) like, "Kwanzaa was mentioned as early as /earlier date/, when it was mentioned by the NYT as Kwanza [sic]. It hadn't become an established/outlined/visible practice until /second date/. It doesn't have to be worded quite like that, I was just making an example. That's my suggestion.
~ Jared ~ 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I re-added thar Kwanzaa was created in the 1960s to the introduction. Apparently this was a "POV" or was somehow "controversial" but I can't imagine how. Perhaps they disagreed with the usage of "created", but I think that would be ridiculous, it must be more for someone to feel the need to remove it. If people don't like it I guess we could re word it to, "originating in the 1960s" if that sounds any better, but I think that would be silly. ~ Jared ~ 02:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
A few other POV disputes I forsee that need to be handled are.
IMO, we should have a sentence or two about it in a section about the influences and creation of kwanzaa. ~ Jared ~ 03:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that Marxism is an obvious influence. Two of the principles were translated as "Cooperative economics" and "Collective work and responsibility" these aren't the kind of beliefs that most people would think of if they were choosing values for a holiday they were created. The "Cooperative economics" text is a piped link to the African socialism article. If people decide that Marxism or socialism aren't an influence and that they really are only old African values, then the piped link should obviously be removed, sinced African socialism originated in the 1960s. ~ Jared ~ 03:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Karenga's US organization met on the property of Dr. Alfred Ligon, founder of the Aquarian Bookstore, the first and largest black bookstore in Southern California. Ligon was a scholar in Eastern Religions and metaphysics and attracted a set of black intellectuals into his sphere. While there were certainly aspects of Socialism in Karenga's worldview that wasn't so much the point of the Kwanzaa celebration as creating an event that ordinary people could understand. He was simply 'alternative' before such things became current.
As one of the children in the original celebration, I'm going to get involved here to give some context which is evidently missing from the struggles of people trying to make sense of reference materials without much understanding of the people involved in the creation of Kwanzaa. I say people because so many of Kwanzaa's critics focus on the personality of Karenga as if he was the only creative black individual in Los Angeles involved with such matters. That is far from the truth. Cobb 22:37, 26 December 2005
I think it's very important to include. He was a black nationalist and while he might have renounced violence after his stint in the joint, those are the clear drivers of his philosophy. His goals are the creation of a new society with African-Americans (and I dispute that word because he wants them to have a seperate country) only and to secede from the US. Or get a chunk of territory or whatever. It's also a matter of his credibility. If the founder and leader of a religion was a pedophile, would you trust it? How about a former criminal in general convicted of what he did? Not including it is a POV that does little more than turn this page into a shill for Kwanzaa. Other religions and groups are required to have their significant dirt up on their pages for NPOV, not sure why this page should be exempt. -- Jbamb 15:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It's important to understand some of the aims of Black Nationalism in the context of the substance of the new identity nationalists were in the process of establishing. Kwanzaa is, in that regard, with the possible exception of Dap, the primary cultural celebration in the legacy of the changing from Negro to Black. There was and is clearly a difference between 'cultural nationalists' and 'militant nationalists'. Most of the people who picked up Kwanzaa as early adopters were 'cultural nationalists' who were more interested in the transformation of the minds of Negroes than the transformation of America itself. -- Cobb 11:50, 27 December 2005
Nandesuka, I agree with you about the link you removed, but that was not the extent of your edit. What problem do you have with including the creation date of kwanzaa in the introduction? It seems to me that it is self-evident that that is something to be included in the introduction. You also insisted on making some sentences less concise, this doesn't make sense, and I'll take it upon myself to fix that. Please don't revert things like that, it really is rather pointless. ~ Jared ~ 03:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Alrighty. I got here from WP:AN/I with reports of a link edit war. Upon looking over the history, I think both sides have some valid points. Frontpagemag.com is a prominent conservative website, and I think that their criticisms of Kwanzaa deserve at least an external link. (Given the extent of right wing criticisms of this holiday, I think a NPOV "Criticisms of Kwanzaa" section in the article might also be appropriate.) At the same time, I agree that "Racist Holiday from Hell" is an unnecessarily inflammatory article title. So I have linked a different anti-Kwanzaa article from frontpagemag.com. Please discuss on talk if you think this is a problem. Firebug 11:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The lead should be edited to:
(The alternate spelling Kwaanza is explained much lower in the article, and is also a redirect to here.)
-- 62.147.39.46 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
How is it POV at all to point out that most African Americans are descended from West Africans but Karenga chose an East African language for the terms in Kwanzaa? That's not a POV at all, I had a respectable source documented for the fact. You people really do infuriate me sometimes. ~ Jared ~ 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Karenga chose Swahili, an East African language, to celebrate African American ties to Africa. Census data indicates that most African Americans are descended from West African people.
The Pan-African movement arose among the black people of the Diaspora in the nineteenth century, and reached its peak between 1910-1950. Freedom fighters such as Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah were products of that movement, so was the Organization of African Unity (established in 1963). From the beginning, pan-Africanism had a cultural and political agenda (return to Africa, defense of African values and heritage, equal rights for Africans, unity of all Africans, freedom of African countries from the colonial yoke, etc). However, the movement rarely emphasized the revival or promotion of African languages. It was only in the sixties that some African scholars began calling for a pan-African language. The first call was made by Wole Soyinka of Nigeria in the mid-1960s. He proposed that Kiswahili should be declared the continental language of Africa (cf. Mulokozi 2000).
In 1985, this call was taken up by the Ghanaian writer, Ayi Kwei Armah, who wrote: There is one African language admirably suited to function as our common ancillary language. That is Kiswahili. It enjoys structural and lexical affinities with a lot of African languages over large areas of the continent: East, South, Central and even the lower West. Flexible and highly absorptive, it can take inputs from practically every African language in its future development... The technical problems likely to arise are soluble. It may be desirable, for instance, to simplify the syntax or at least to streamline it. In addition, the existing vocabulary would have to be constantly enriched, as in every living language. This could best be done in a conscious, systematic way, by drawing from the vast lexical storehouse constituted by the continent's languages, especially those of the West and the South. That might facilitate final acceptance as our common language, since each region would recognize its genius in the common pool..." (p. 832).
African governments heeded this call by admitting Kiswahili into the OAU; otherwise, not much else has been done todate.4
This article seems to be self-contradictory. First, it says that Kwaanza is celebrated by "a small minority of African-Americans," then later states that "many African-American families celebrate Kwanzaa along with Christmas and New Year's". Which is it? Benami 00:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no mention on what the African-Americans do on Kwanzaa, (i.e Shout out "Habari Gani", etc.)
entire article is a puff piece about a very very controversial topic - POV is rampant and the tag is most definitely appropriated until POV is eliminated Goodandevil 15:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
How is Kwanzaa "controversial"? It's a holiday. Give it a rest. And the POV tag goes until you can point out even a single part of the article that is POV. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 16:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As noted in my comment upon adding the tag, the "controversies" section is even biased! The tag will remain. I will report vandalism in progress and take other measures to expose your protection of extreme POV on this page. Goodandevil 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is exactly what you are doing. And once again you go on spouting off nonsense about "extreme POV" without showing one thing that is POV about the article text. Even this "comment upon adding the tag" you refer to is entirely blank. As for the Controversies section being POV ... well, maybe it is. It does mention Karenga as being a "convicted felon", which frankly isn't relevant, so that should probably go. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 16:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The controversies section has a biased quotation that supposedly sums up the controversy - but does so with the clear POV that paints any critic as having no rational basis for the criticism. NPOV tag stays. Stop reverting. Goodandevil 16:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
First of all, it's a quote, not something being said by the editors of Wikipedia themselves. Do you think all pages of Wikipedia should be censored of all POV quotes? Adolph Hitler would be terribly dumbed down, and frankly, it be whitewashing history to do so. But let's examine the quote in detail and I will show you how even the quote is not POV:
This is a verifiable fact
Also a verifiable fact. Many people, including Africans, are ignorant about Kwanzaa.
Again, true. Kwanzaa is not a "true African tradition" (being invented in the 1960s), and there are people who refuse to celebrate it for this reason.
Millions do observe it; citations are provided in the article for this.
That is what Kwanzaa was created for and what it continues to do.
Now, exactly what about this quote was POV? -- Cyde Weys vote talk 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a non-POV versiono f the "controversies" section. It sums up the criticisms without any POV creeping in. The controversies section as it is now is an apologia for Kwanzaa - which paints any criticism as silly or stupid: Goodandevil 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, brother! Please. Your paranoia is showing, like it was a skirt stuck up in your panties. Kwanzaa is not a "movement" and it is a far cry from racism. Please get out your dictionaries: Racism is the "The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them. " (The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin ) No where in anything about Kwanzaa is their anything at all promoting the idea of superiority of the African race over others, nor is their any interest in domination over others. Racism is also "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000) Nowhere in anything to do with Kwanzaa is there anything that suggests that race accounts for any differences among people, in fact, I don't think there is the slightest concern about sameness or difference between one people or another. Frankly, there isn't even the slightest interest in making those kinds of distinctions.
Kwanzaa celebrates the qualities of Unity,Self-Determination,Collective Work and Responsibility,Cooperative Economics,Purpose,Creativity, Faith. These are not race specific qualities. They are qualities which many individuals of all races and nations, and just about every other people in the world already posses - as a people, nation, whatever. It is accepted in others - no one has a problem with the Irish celebrating St. Patrick's Day, or Chinese celebrating Chinese New Years, or the German tradition of Oktoberfest, though each of these is a celebration of what it is to be Irish, Chinese, or German, and also a celebration of important values that are hared among people of these shared backgrounds and histories. Why are you so afraid of black people possessing something similar? What are you so afraid of?
You need only look around you to see that Africans in Africa and those of the diaspora have suffered mightily, (on the whole and generally speaking), having survived the ravages of slavery -- a people torn from homeland, language, customs, culture, identity a continent stripped of its resources, both human and natural, generations of its young ripped from their birthplace, there culture, their identity -- everything that everyone else in the world has been able to maintain was strategically and systematically destroyed. And, you see the aftermath -- what becomes of human beings when they have been stripped of what defines them -- everywhere around you. And maybe THAT is what scares you. What you did. Like Frankenstein's monster. That, and the thought that they might one day regroup and seek revenge. But, if you saw the movie, he really wasn't all that bad, you know. Come to think of it, the villagers were a lot scarier...
All Kwanzaa is is an all too small attempt to restore a sense of tradition and custom, or shared principles among a people from whom they have been ripped away. What is so wrong with that? Who is that hurting? Could it possibly hurt anyone as badly as this People have already been hurt? Maybe. But not for another 6 or 10 generations at least. So, please. Spare me.
Did you ever see Michael Moore's bowling for Columbine? Remember the scared Puritans? You sound just like them. Get a grip! If African Americans, African Europeans, African Caribbeans and African South Americans were ever to regain, as a whole, as a People, even a fraction of what was beaten out of them, if they all actually came to live and embrace these principles everyday, every hour, every minute of their lives, guess what -- they wouldn't even be bothered with the white - excuse me, European -- world. What for? There'd be no need, and no interest. Remember, it was the European world that came down into Africa (wreaking havoc everywhere it went) -- Africa, as a force, never went north. And why should they have? They were doing just fine, and would have continued to do so, had they been left alone.
So please, whoever you are, African descended, European descended, or other. PLEASE! Get over yourselves.
But...to be fair, let me try to see it from your perspective. I mean, maybe you *should* be scared. After all, Africans are still here, aren't they. Native Americans pretty much bit the bullet, unfortunately. If Africans hadn't of been so strong, maybe Africa would have been "The New World," instead of North America...Hmmm...I guess maybe there is something to fear in a people who not only survived attempted genocide, but continued to live on....crippled, damaged, and injured maybe, but still standing. And getting stronger. So maybe you have reason to fear, after all...hmmm...
Nah. Like I said, they never went up north. Weren't tryin' to take over anybody, other than fighting with their own neighbors. And probably wouldn't have been interested in doing anything different. Why would they? What for? They were already rich.
As for it being a "real" holiday, hey, what the hell? What are they supposed to do? Go back four, five, six generations, figure out which family "owned" them, what country or countries, ("nations" or "peoples" would probably be a more accurate terminology to use) they "bought" their enslaved Africans from, then, find out what the holidays were in those places of origin, and finally, start practicing the "Real" holidays? Or, are they supposed to wait for the day when they take over America, rid the land of the "Oppressor" in the "Kwanzaa Revolution of 2076" and, rename the country "Kwanzaaland", and then celebrate December 26 - 31 as "Kwanzaaland Independence Week?" Please.
African Americans are working from scratch because scratch is what they have to work with. You should be so resourceful. Besides, just like every other holiday, it comes from somewhere, someday, because someone thought it up, and someone thought :"Hey! Let's make this a regular thing! We'll take the 25th of December, and use it to celebrate Christs birth. And to make it really official, let's use the evergreen trees that the Norse pagans and Celtic Druids used to celebrate the Winter Solstice, and we'll put candles and lights on it like those German Pagans, the Saxons, and then everybody will have something in common and it will be easy to unite everyone around Christ, (and then we can take control of the world!)." Or, how about this "Ok, so here's the plan. We take the Babylonian Tree of Life, and turn it into a candelabra, and light one candle each day and call that a menorah, and then the Jews and the Babylonians will have something in common to celebrate (and then we can take over this little part of Palestine and call it our Holy-land, and then we can rule the world!)..." Oh, but wait, that IS kinda what happened, isn't it..? Hmmm....
Point is: Holidays do not just exist without beginning. Relax. Enjoy the fact that you were there at the start, and think of the stories you'll have to tell your great grand kids! Unless, of course, the U.S. has become Kwanzaaland by then....Gee...hope you were on the right side of things....
And, finally, as for documentation, citations, etc., Cyde Wheys and KillerChihuahua said it all already. - Super Librarian
I removed the reference to Karenga being a former Black Panther, as that appears to be untrue. For example, the page about him suggests that he was part of the US Organinzation, which was at odds with the Black Panther Party. Can anyone find information that would confirm he was a Panther? BTChicago 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Crrect. His Marxist past and avowed socialism will also need to be discussed, as one of the key criticims of Kwanzaa is that its "7 principles" are simply Marxism in disguise as Africanism. Likewise, his black seperatist past will also need to be discussed as a key critique of Kwanzaa is that it promotes racial division. These are not critiques made out of ignroance or fear, rather out of a desire to ensure the truth about the holiday and its origins are known so that people choose to follow it or respect it knowing what it is and what it is not. If people understood it to be socialism or black sepeartisim in disguise, perhaps many people would reject it. As it is, many people are unfamiliar with the holiday roots and the genesis steeped in socialism, radicalism, and black seperatism. Of course the hideous crimes of Ron Karenga (nee Ronals Everett) are also of note, as are the killings perpetrated by the violent movement he helped lead. Seems that it is undeniable that Kwanzaa is controversial - and to hide the controversy in this article is to hide the truth. Goodandevil 22:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Stop it. Both sides are revert warring. Both sides have important and valid points to make. It's great that you started using the discussion page. Hopefully you'll be able to reach some kind of agreement by listening to each other instead of reverting blindly. I believe that both Cyde and Goodandevil are in violation of 3RR, but (a) I haven't counted and (b) they haven't been warned, so no block. Yet. Consider yourselves warned. FreplySpang (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you - and until the POV issue is cleared up the POV tag stays, per wiki policy. Goodandevil 22:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the POV tag, because on reviewing this talk page I can not determine what specific points in the article it is claimed are POV. If someone can point to specific language that is POV (beyond vague phrases like "puff piece"), I will gladly restore it. Thanks, Nandesuka 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have outlined the portions that are POV - the article limits mentiosn of controversy that MANY people associate with Kwanzaa to one tiny section at the end, and that section itself is an apologia for Kawanzaa and paints critics as fools. I have tried to edit for balance but it keeps getting rverted by the same people removing the tag. This silly attempt to force this article to embrace political correctness and ignore the widespread belief that Kwanzaa is a sham is what makes wikipedia suspect by so many. The article should tell us what people wjo love Kwanzaa think it is - but it should also be honest about the controversiaes associated with Kwanzaa. Sorry - the POV tag stays until the article includes a fair and neutral presentation. Goodandevil 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Nahhh, I don't think so. It doesn't stay. You still haven't offered anything specific. This whole "controversy" over Kwanzaa is manufactured. Hell, the fake controversy War on Christmas is a lot bigger. You're not editing for balance, you're editing for a very specific point of view. Enjoy your block. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 22:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Criticism of Kwanzaa is a bit more than a "challenge [to] it on grounds of its authenticity and relevance" as the article currently reads.
Critics of Kwanzaa call it a hoax.
As Goodandevil mentions above, the so-called Controversies section doesn't contain anything controversial about Kwanzaa itself, only a broad attack on its critics for "it is often attacked by proxy through its founder" without describing what that attack would be. The section is refuting an attack that's not even made in the article -- in fact it's been removed from the article!
A real Controversies section needs to be added to the article, identifying the critics (and there are many), describing what the criticism is (and it's more than Karenga's felony record), and citations in publications.
Kwanzaa is real is the politically correct thing to say, but it's only one POV. It just seems to be the only POV that the editing cabal here wants in the article. patsw 02:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's real. What a peculiar idea. You might not like its origin, you might not like its philosophy or practices, you might not like its name, you might not like Karenga, you might not like all sorts of things. But Kwanzaa is real, in the same way that Christmas is real: a holiday invented by a specific person at a specific time of year for for specific reasons, celebrated by some, ignored or loathed by others. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the user who thinks the controversies section is POV and inadequate. The controversies section, if you are going to have one (I personally don't think it is necessary) should include other problems with the celebrations such as Karenga's problems, the lack of African tradition etc. In addition, the user who compared Kwanzaa to Christmas is way out of line. Even though one is not of a certain faith, surely one can respect the beliefs of the faith. Kwanzaa has no comparison to Christmas or Hanukah, for that matter. To the believer, those holidays are created by the works of God and were not founded. They were celebrated for millenia outside of any state recognition. Kwanzaa was founded by a convicted felon to spread Marxist, and separatist views in the African-American community. This is why this article is having trouble being stable. The proponents of Kwanzaa want to raise it to a level it is not, and in response the opponents, want to ridicule it-- which is not necessary or warranted. Kwanzaa is not as important or significant as Christmas or Hanukah, just like President's Day is not as important or significant as Passover or Easter. It is what it is. Ramsquire 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
And as long as we're on the subject, can anyone find a reference for the "weasel words" that "some say" the Kinara appropriates the symbol of the Jewish Menorah? I may be bad at using Google, but I haven't been able to figure out who says this, exactly. It may be that the Kinara was inspired by the Menorah, certainly there are some major similarities, but where are the references to support either of those points? Kaisershatner 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth the candelabrum has been around for a terribly long time. It relates to more than just Judaism. It's sort of a traditional religious symbol. I wouldn't say that Kwanzaa's use of a candelabrum is necessarily "stealing". -- Cyde Weys vote talk 18:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Kinara Menorah potato patato - Check it out: Our Tora Stone Tel Shemesh About.com Tree of Life About.com Menorah -SL-- 68.45.57.193 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW - the problem here is not whether or not you used the word "stealing." It is the implicit message you are trying to create by including the history of the symbol at all. There have been many points made here about the fact that other religious symbols associated with Christmas and Hannukah also have histries of their own - yet in the articles on Christmas and Hannukah, no one feels the necessity of undermining the symbols by including statements about their origins. When people put an emphasis on such things, they betray the racism in their hearts, and expose themselves for what you are. Nicely turned phrases, seemingly neutral language does not hide the truth. -- SL-- 71.250.88.213 05:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, this article, along with a few others, is the subject of a Free Republic "Action Alert". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You know, this probably explains some of the ridiculousness we've seen on this article in the past few days. And now it's only going to get worse. Just great. I like how they say, Wikipedia is a liberal "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, it is very popular and very "progressive". They say that as if being progressive is a bad thing. They're right, no progress should be made whatsoever; we should all be stuck back in the Stone Age. Bunch of morons. And I didn't realize how racist these people are. Geez. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)