Talk:Rastafari/Archive 1

A Christian religion?
Is Rastafarianism considered to be a Christian religion?? If not, how is it related? Is it another Abrahamic faith??
 * I just added a paragraph on this subject. The only definite classification possible is that Rastas are Abrahamic, without controversy.  Some rastas believe they are Orthodox Christians, Protestant Christians or Jews, and some do not classify themselves as any.  It has also been influenced greatly by indigenous Native American and African religions, as well as Hinduism.  An early group identified themselves with a group of Catholics that did not accept the authority of Rome.  So, to answer your question... there is no answer. Tokerboy 19:08 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)


 * I Think this is an overreact. While most of the practices and beliefs are equal

to those of Jews and Christians, some are added by "black glasses" of "no more white downpression" standpoint. It is true that Rastas are divided into several sects, being more agressive, for example, Pope as non-Biblical instiution etc. They mostly relate to such East Orthodox Churches as Ezhiopian Chucrh. This is an intresting branch of Christianity, much different from any Europian

stream, it is kind of old mixed Christianity and Judaism untouched by Pope and schizma fuss and fights.

To be quick, just see for yourselfs: Rastas are ancient Christians, and they believe they share the Jewish destiny. They connect both Old and New testament in the way it is connected, but usualy not fully recognoized, but also extend this bridge with such beliefs as (see):

SEE ORIENTAL ORTHODOXY IMPORTANCE OF DAVID LINEAGE (FROM Melchizedek TO CHRIST AND BEYOND) ARK OF CONVEYANT IN ETHIOPIA MORE PROPHETS - SEE MARCUS MOSIAH GARVEY NEW MESSIAH: SEE HAILE SELASSIE CONQUERING LION OF TRIBE OF JUDAH

More to come, Blesses


 * I think some mention should be made of how Rastafarians are similar to and different from the above religions, but I don't know enough to really do so. The information I collected is in the third paragraph (currently) if anybody else feels qualified to add some mentions at Christianity, Judaism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Protestantism and maybe even Hinduism. Tokerboy 20:08 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)


 * A living God in Rastafarianism is 'just' one black downpressor man from the Land called Zion or Egypt, who had an Amharic-Christian name of the Holly Trinity. So this partly answers your question. Think also about the cross. Ethiopian Orthodox Church as I am informed has a holiday named The Day of the true 'Holly' Cross. And black, black reggae music is a message from This Man. Or to simply say, you can be an atheist and rastafarian at the same time. And more, there might also be some rasta's axioms scattered all around...
 * A living God in Rastafarianism is 'just' one black downpressor man from the Land called Zion or Egypt, who had an Amharic-Christian name of the Holly Trinity. So this partly answers your question. Think also about the cross. Ethiopian Orthodox Church as I am informed has a holiday named The Day of the true 'Holly' Cross. And black, black reggae music is a message from This Man. Or to simply say, you can be an atheist and rastafarian at the same time. And more, there might also be some rasta's axioms scattered all around...

Well, you cant be Rasta and atheist. If you listen reggae, you just might nit see Bible and Rasta all over. Or you think Sean Paul is Reggae? :-)

Reggae is not "message from this man" but it is music FOR the king (God)


 * {Buffalo Soldiers, Axum's Monolite, the Ark of the Covenant, Ganja at the King Solomon's grave, Menelik I, Menelik II, Battle of Adowa, Creation Rebel, Door Peep, Soldier of His Majesty ... (not to mention futher...} Best regards and respect. --XJamRastafire 15:22 May 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * The Tawahedo Orthodox Church is not unique in having the Sunday of the Cross. All the Orthodox Churches do.  If it is true that one can be an atheist and be a rasta, then that means that Rastafarianism is utterly ANTI-CHRISTIAN and ANTI-ABRAHAMIC and should be identified as such. Dogface 15:07, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I am under the impression that Rastas tend to be quite dogmatic, at least with some of the core matters of their faith (such as the existence of Jah). In any case, a theistic religion that allowed atheism would be most extraordinary... I'm afraid I don't understand your comment at all, XJam. Tuf-Kat 18:28, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you look at the guy's personal page, you'll see that he's Slovenian and lives in Slovenia. I don't think he has much direct experience with the topic at hand.  That he lists "Buffalo Soldiers" as a Rasta topic pretty much clinches it.  The Buffalo Soldiers were in the US Army, and if they had any religion in common, it would have been Evangelical Protestantism.  They weren't exactly lifted from Jamaica to fill the slots. Dogface 18:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, Reggae movement is strong in Slovenia. Buffalo Soldiers were forced to fight and this is just and example of black mans suffering Rastas compare to the Jewish history.


 * More ignorance. The buffalo soldiers were not forced to fight--they were all volunteers.  The USA had halted the military draft by that time, since the US Civil War was over.  Likewise, equating commercialized "reggae" with Rastafari is simply false.  It doesn't matter how many Bob Marley posters one hangs up in the bedroom.  If one is willing to claim that a Rasta can simultaneously be an atheist, one proves complete ignorance of Rastafari.  Likewise, the Tewahedo Church (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) has made it very plain for decades that they DO NOT consider Rastafari to be part of Orthodox Christianity as practiced within Ethiopia or within any Church in communion with the Tewahedo Church.  Tewahedo doctrine is that of the Syrian Orthodox, of the Coptic Orthodox, of the Armenian Orthodox, and closer to that of Russia-man than to that of Rasta-man. Dogface 17:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree the line about Janet Reno does not belong here at all? It definitely doesn't belong where it is in the article, formatted the way it is. But I would also say that there needs to be a paragraph on the clash between the religious use of substances and the drug laws in the U.S.--not this half-assed stab with little exhaustive research behind it.

Homophobia
An anonymous user added:

[More information is requested regarding the history of homophobia and misogyny within this group, and efforts both current and past to progress.]

I second it. Tokerboy

Well, only dancehall music is homophobic. Rastas don`t like homosexuals but do not condemn it so openly and homophobic.

Police seek Jamaican singer after armed attack on gay men

Sports Giant Threatens Antigay Reggae Singers

Puma threatens sponsorship withdrawal over anti-gay reggae row

Police Begin Criminal Probe Of Beenie Man, Three Other Anti-Gay Singers please sign your postings using " ~ "

thanks for these links. to quote from the first (article from The Guardian):
 * Few can agree on the source of such homophobia. But most agree the church plays a crucial role. "Evangelical Christianity is very strong, and there is a prudishness and hypocrisy that comes with that," said a representative of J-FLAG. "They ignore the part that says don't have sex out of wedlock and focus on gays."


 * Others claim the sheer geographical size of islands in the Caribbean makes them more socially conservative. "So long as you are stuck living close to your family then you never really get the space to make the kind of choices about your life that will challenge the values and practices you've been brought up with," said Erin Greene, a member of the Rainbow Alliance of the nearby Bahamas.

Rastafarianism is not mentioned as a possible source.

also, please explain how the sentence Homosexuality is seen as sinful and decadent, and so homophobia is found in a lot of Reggae songs matches the fact that homophobic lyrics are far more frequent in Dancehall than in Roots reggae, while the latter is more dominated by Rastafari imagery and ideology.

I'm all for exposing the downsides of the Rasta ideology in this article, too, but I would prefer to have a reliable source establishing such a causal connection before we state it in the article. regards, High on a tree 21:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

oh, and a reference for Queer-bashing is celebrated by some Rastafarians please. the links posted above contain none. Neither do the recent reports by (German) Amnesty International about homophobic murders in Jamaica make any reference to Rastafarianism. regards, High on a tree 22:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ijahman Levi was a significant rasta reggae ideologist, and in one of hia early albums the back cover quoted some old testament verses condemning homosexuality. Clearly an example of Rasta homophobia in reggae. Can't remember which record or which quote and my records are 6000 miles away, but I will do my best to get more information.Squiquifox 04:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bob Marley was Rastafarian.

Statistics
"There were about 1,000,000 Rastafarians world-wide in 2000. An estimated sixty percent of Jamaicans identify themselves as Rastafarians." But in Jamaica there were living 2.5 million people in 2000. So something's not correct here. Guaka 11:45, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * "There are perhaps as many as 100,000 [one hundred thousand] Rastafarians in Jamaica" (from Lonely Planet Jamaica's rather extensive and reliable "Rastafarianism" chapter). The Lonely Planet website says ...the island's percentage of Rastafarians stands at just over 10 percent.
 * and from Demographics of Jamaica: Religions: Protestant 61.3%, Roman Catholic 4%, other, including Rastafarianism 34.7% - in other words, the number must be far below 30%, not 60% (these figures seem to be from the CIA world factbook)
 * here evil Babylon (in form of the U.S. Library of Congress) is quoted as Rastafarians constituted roughly 5 percent of the population [in the 1980s], which roughly matches the first Lonely Planet figure.
 * here Reuters says About 5 percent of the population are Rastafarians. quoting Source: Europa World Book 2003; NI World Guide 2003/2004
 * I will change the figure in the article to "about five to ten percent". More information is welcome. regards, High on a tree 21:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rastafarianism or Rastafari?
I have been told that it is more strictly correct to call the Rastafarian religion "Rastafari", instead of "Rastafarianism". Any thoughts on the matter? (Rastafari currently redirects to Haile Selassie.) --Suitov 13:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have only ever read it "Rastafarianism" I recently reverted some edits on this page (probably by an anon) that changed all the words "Rastafarianism" to "Rastafari". The reason why I reverted the edits and why Rastafari redirects to Haile Selassie III is because Rastafari or more accurately "Ras Tafari" was the name of Haile Selassie III before he was crowned Emperor. Ras was his first name and Tafari was his last name. I have never met any Rastafaris I am just a student of religions (technically nuclear engineering) so I don't know what they like to be called these days. --metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  14:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression Rastafari is a more correct (or more commonly used by insiders) term for Rastafarian or Rastafarians. AFAIK, the religion itself is usually called Rastafarianism. Rastafari should be a disambig page, then, I think, since it could point to Rastafarianism or Haile Selassie. But I could be wrong (ordinarily, I would see what religioustolerance.org uses, but last time I checked, they had nothing on the subject, which is unusual for them) Tuf-Kat 16:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

What rastas don't like about rastafarianism is the ism. To them the world is too full of isms, and all religious sects are just more isms. Rastas don't see Rastafari as another ism, but as something radically different. Hugh Mundell and Prince Lincoln Thompson in Mecanical devices from his Natural wild album both rail against various isms. Gone dung says Prince Lincoln about isms. So there is no doubt that ideologically Rastas do not like the word Rastafarianism. Squiquifox 04:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the data
I looked through the 5 most recent theses and dissertations avaiable through UMI (University Microfilms - they have all theses and dissertations done in the US) and I looked for anything with the keyword Rastafari, Rastafarian or Rastfarianism. These were the five most recent (that's as far as I had time to get).


 * Christensen, Jeanne. 2003. The philosophy of reasoning: The Rastafari of Jamaica. PhD dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder


 * The author discusses Rastafari, and calls, the people, the philosophy and the and the faith by that name. This is the usage the Rastafari themselves employ because they are suspicious of the western 'isms': Rastafarian or Rastafarianism (p.9)


 * Stanley, Cathy S. 2002. Expanding the small space: Rastafarians as knowledge producers (Jamaica). Ed.D dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois.


 * The author alternates between usage of Rastafarians (for the people, culture and movement) and Rastafari (for the philosophy/religion)


 * Raphasha, Makgompi Hamilton. 2002. Misrecognition and nonrecognition of Rastafarian identity in South Africa: A critique of 'Prince'. LLM thesis, University of Toronto


 * Author uses the terms Rastafarian and Rastafarian religion


 * Sterling, Marvin Dale. 2002. In the shadow of the universal other: Performative identifications with Jamaican culture in Japan. PhD dissertation, UCLA


 * The author uses Rastafari for the religion and culture, with Rastafarian as an adjective, and Rasta for the person.


 * Price, Charles Reavis. 2001. No cross, no crown: Identity formation, nigrescence, and social change among Jamaica's first- and second-generation Rastafarians. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.


 * The author used the term Rastafarians for the people and Rastafari for the movement and the culture (although he quotes Rex Nettleford (from (1967) using the term Rastafarianism).

Among the dissertations and theses available with one of the names in their title, Rastafari appeared 17 times, Rastafarian(s) 8 times and Rastafarianism appeared 1 time.

In Google (English) Rastafari - 138,000 hits, Rastafarian 169,000 hits (95,100 hits for Rastafarians), Rastafarianism 77,300 hits. As shown in usage above, Rastafari is more often used for the culture/religion while Rastafarian(s) for the people or as an adjective. So, all hits for Rastafari is for the noun, the culture, while Rastafarian(s) is a mixture of noun (the people) and the culture. I think there is a pretty good case for using Rastafari. Guettarda 01:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The OED seems to lean towards Rastafari

Rastafari, Ras Tafari [f. the name Ras Tafari (cf. RAS), by which Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia (1892-1975) was known from 1916 until his accession in 1930.] A Jamaican sect which believes that Blacks are the chosen people, that the late Emperor Haile Selassie is God Incarnate, and that he will secure their repatriation to their homeland in Africa. Also pl., the members of this sect, and attrib. So Rastafarinism, Rastafarism, Ras Tafarism; Rastafarite, a member of this sect.

Rastafarian A. adj. Of or pertaining to the Rastafari sect. B. n. A member of this sect. Hence Rastafarianism.

Rasta [Shortened form of RASTAFARI or RASTAFARIAN(ISM).] a. = RASTAFARIAN n.   b. = RASTAFARIANISM. Freq. attrib. and Comb. Hence Rastaman, a (male) Rastafarian. Guettarda 02:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed name change
I would like to see the article changed to Rastafarians or Rastafari, Rastafarianism is a terrible name.--Squiquifox 18:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. I was surprised to find the article under this title really. I suppose it isn't really a big thing, but common courtesy suggests the title shouldn't be one that adherents have a legitimate objection to. The only problems I envisage are,
 * 1) Making sure we don't lose the edit history of the existing article. I think the history can be moved, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know?
 * 2) Working out what exactly to move it to. Rastafari itself is a disambig page, quite rightly since it could refer to Haile Selassie or to the religious/social movement. I suppose that means putting this page at something like Rastafari (religion) or, my preference, Rastafari (movement).


 * While we're at it, I suggest we create a policy page Too much 'ism' and 'schism' to help people get along. I'm joking, but it would be fun, eh? Mattley 15:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Adherents to the Church of Christ may believe themselves to be the only true Christians, but that doesn't mean we disambiguate at Christianity. This move (i) asserts a Rasta POV in the most visible area of the article: its title, (ii) subjects the page to unnecessary disambiguation, and (iii) violates our naming conventions, which, for better of for worse, prescribe titling under the common names of things.  Bring your proposal to WP:RM if you like, but I advise you not to act without clear consensus.  ADH (t&m) 02:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you get the idea that the idea that anyone intends acting without clear consensus. This is a tentative proposal, as I think the above contributions make clear. Leaving that aside, you raise some interesting points, some better than others. The Church of Christ example is hardly germane. Aside from having to do with religion it is a completely different situation. A more relevant example might be mormon and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As for the unnecessary disambiguation, well that already exists. A lot of people with a more than a passing interest in the subject will, I suspect, type in Rastafari and have to go through that page. That isn't to say it must move, but you know, rastafari is a real term that people really use, so we're stuck with the problem of disambiguation whatever we do.
 * The other two points, on the naming conventions and the assertion of a rasta POV in the title are more inclined to make me think again. Whether or not it really does assert a rasta POV in any meaningful sense could probably be disputed, but that is something to be reflected on. Mattley 11:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I never suggested that anyone would act without clear consensus, but I've seen enough people jump the gun on similar moves (only to later have them reversed after a lengthy and often pointless WP:RM process, the redirect then having an edit history) to know that preemptive advice is certainly prudent. The disambiguation scenario already exists, yes, but only for certain cases, whereas it's proposed that it be disambiguated for all cases.  "Rastafarianism" is the common, neutral term, and the one more likely to be referenced in article text—that's justification enough for me.  ADH (t&m) 12:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

The current title will put off rastafarians and people who support rastafari coming to read the site as a source of information, and then becoming wiki editors and adding some much needed information to this article. So we need these people to make a good quality article. What do you think would happen if the articles on Christianity and Islam had pieces in the article that the believers of said religions would find so offensive that they would be put off either reading or editing said article and possibly anything else. It is the believers in Christianity and Islam who can add much rich material in a neutral way to their articles. We must not exclude rastafarians from this article, or any other. We could do with some knowledgeable help in the reggae section, and this title does not help there either. So I agree, the title is not NPOV, it is anti rastafarian. This in the title itself is a disaster. i think the consensus is in favour of changing the title. I would like to call it Rastafari (religion), and redirect rastafarian and rastafarianism to it but leaving open the disambiguation page. I would like to do it quickly, and if it isn't done quickly I would like to NPOV the article. Until this issue is sorted i have removed the following point of clarification. The proper name of the faith that worships Haile Selassie I is "Rastafari." Referring to it as "Rastafarianism" is like calling Buddhism "Buddhistism." Added by User:67.41.144.251. I take this as another vote in favour. --Squiquifox 01:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have put a neutrality notice on this article because I think Rastafarianism is not NPOVv until this issue is resolved. --Squiquifox 19:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) To quote,"The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with." People clearly want to disagree with this title, which again is clearly a controversial one --Squiquifox 20:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

some suggestions and queries
There are quite a few terms from rasta-oriented reggae that aren't listed here or at Roots rock reggae and Rastafarian music. I'm thinking in particular of Natty Dread, Dread and Dreadlocks for Rastafarian and Baldhead for non-believer. Also ganja-related terms like lambsbread, chalice and many more that I haven't been able to decipher from records. Plus usages like I-man. Don't know if this is the place for it, but it would be useful if reggae newbies had somewhere they could find this out. It took me forever to work out that Natty Dread wasn't an actual person. I thought he was some religious teacher or something. Perhaps a reggae glossary is needed. Also, I thought this page might benefit from a clearer explanation of where the name Jah for God derives from. Isn't is Psalm 68? It's the one with 'Ethiopia shall stretch out her hands to the LORD' in it as well I think. I was under the impression that it was pretty important. I won't make any changes myself because I'm not knowledgeable enough to risk offending someone's sensibilities, but thought I'd offer a few suggestions. While i'm here, where does the oft-repeated lyric 'Jah is I light and I salvation, I shall not fear...of whom shall I be afraid' derive from? And what is Johnny Clarke singing in Top Ranking that sounds like 'All friars under manners'?

Cheers Mattley 13:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That lyric, which most notably occurs in Lee "Scratch" Perry's "Dreadlocks in Moonlight," is from the Bible (Or the Book of Life, if you're I and I), Psalm 27:1: "The Lord is my light and my salvation- who shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life- Of whom shall I be afraid?"

Also, to address another issue, it isn't correct to call Rastafari Rastafarianism, because Rastas use the words "isms and schisms" to denote the religious seperation of Bablyon, whereas Rastafari is a 'whole' religion, insofar as the concept of I and I and the brotherhood of man is concerned. In most cases that I am aware of, Rastas prefer to be known as Rastafari or simply "I," as their religion is outside of Babylon and not subject to the "isms and schisms" as such. I'm about 95% sure of this, but perhaps it differs among different Rastas and groups of Rastas... So, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

The user above me is totally totally correct in asserting that we need a Rasta glossary, as most Reggae/Dub/Ragga etc. speaks almost an entirely different dialect, with different grammar and conjunctions and even curse words and such, not simply a few slang and religious words with an accent. There is a good one available online, of which I at this moment cannot remember the URL...

Do not confuse Jamaican Patois ("Creole"), which is a language spoken by most Jamaicans, with Rasta expressions. There is an entry under 'Jamaican English'.

Changing doctrine section
I would like to make radical changes to this section. While the Holy Piby was one of many sources for the development of Rastafarian doctrine in the early thirties the book deserves no more than a small mention. I would use Joseph Owen's book Dread, The Rastafarians of Jamaica as a primary source. Unlike this section as it is the book expounds ideas that match the rastafarian beliefs as expressed in reggae music. I think reggae music must be seen as the richest source of information about rasta doctrine that we have. The Owens unlocks many of the keys to Rasta doctrine, whereas the currenty article does not even penetrate the surface, and appears to have been written by people who do not know what rastafarian doctrine is.--Squiquifox 01:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

removals
I removed the speculative sentences in the history section about marijuana smoking originating at Pinnacle and that Haile Selassie rejected Rastafari. There is no evidence to support the former, only that marijuana use did already exist. There is controversy around what Selassie thought of the rastas, and various contradictory reports, which the sentence ignored, thus being NPOV. how come obscure Walter Rodney gets a paragraph and immensely important Bob Marley gets nothing. This is plain bad, i.e. doesn't reflect the reality of the history of Rastafari. The problem with this article is it is mostly a rewrite from one particular source, and not a good one, I think --Squiquifox 20:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding codespeak
Hey, I removed the use of the term Babylon and did some other cleanups on the article. While I feel that it is in some circumstances ok to use custom terms in an article (e.g. kosher in articles on food), it shouldn't be done without good reason, especially when there's a decent way of saying what it is to be said without said custom words. The article actually needs some work to keep it from feeling like a propoganda piece for Rastafari.. --Improv 17:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is very important to give this article a NPOV. Sometimes an author will unconsciously bring in their own biases. I have seen similar arguments over Margaret Thatcher and Elizabeth II. I believe content POV should be solved by adding and not taking away. Style POV can be corrected without affecting content. This article needs to explain rastafarian doctrine in as coherent a manner as possible. This is a very complicated thing to do, especially as Rasta doctrine tends to come from and held by people with limited or no education, and therefore tends to come across as largely incoherent, particularly in an academic setting. I imagine religions like mormonism are more directed to educated people, while Buddhism, Christianity, Islam etc have highly educated scholars, making these other religions possibly easier to write than is Rastafarianism. Yet we need to take on the challenge of explaining this religious force in a wiki way. If I have pro-rasta sympathies this means I want to see a really high quality Rastafari site. I do not want it to be a vehicle for rasta propaganda. I guess there can be a fine line between explanation and propaganda, but this is a line we walk as wiki editors, especially taking on problematic pages such as Rastafarianism. If anyone has any way my new paragraphs on schisms, immortality, the bible, Amharic etc,please add material from a different perspective. I will be extra careful in not trying to bring a pro rasta bias into what I write. I am not even remotely a Rasta, but am fascinated by it as a cultural phenomenon, and have been for 25 years. --Squiquifox 21:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

politics
I have moved what was in the political section to doctrine and rewritten it so it is about actual politics and the Rastas. SqueakBox 00:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dubious consensus
User.Aloan has ignored the evidence that indicates that 4 people want the article moved and one does not, claiming there is no consensus, There is a consensus, and this is outrageous power tripping from a sysop. He or she also pulled the debate early.--SqueakBox 16:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Therer is now also a debate about this issue at Village pump (policy), and I will include the comments on that page as well when trying to see what consensus has been reached on Friday. --Squiquifox 18:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) In trying to drum up support for your argument elsewhere, you took the risk of inviting additional opposition as well; both RickK and Anárion spoke unequivocally against the move.  4:3 is not consensus, and if we consider ALoan's removal to be an implicit vote, it's an even tie.  A.D.H. (t&m) 17:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to see RickK be counted as a no. Where is User:Anárion's vote? I cannot find one anywhere at the pump or another no vote. 4-2 is still a clear consensus. If ALoan wanted to have voted he could have done so, and left someone else to admin the case. Austin Hair's surmising the thought of ALoan has no place in this talk page. I have taken the issue to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents after advice. See my talk page. Also if we are going to include the offending religious sensibilities section of the village pump discussion it should also have been included, and indeed be included, on the talk page here--SqueakBox 17:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

This article is now back in the requested moves section. --SqueakBox 17:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry - my mistake. I have moved the discussion back to WP:RM.  On checking WP:RM, I see that my error arose because Rastafarianism → Rastafari was listed under a header which read February 13 whereas the first comment was made on 14 February. In any event, I don't think I deserved the remark "outrageous power tripping from a sysop".  I do happen to be an admin, but anyone can cut and paste a debate from WP:RM onto a talk page.  Assume good faith.


 * I have apologised at User talk:SqueakBox and I apologise here too. As I said on User talk:SqueakBox, I think the debate is pretty evenly divided between maintaining the status quo, with a page at the common usage "Rastafarianism", and moving changing the article's title to something that Rastafarians will find less offensive.  I think the parallel with mormons and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is quite relevant.


 * However, to avoid any further issues, I will move the discussion back and not move it when its 5 days are up. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have apologised to User:ALoan for my hasty comments here, and am very happy with his response. I had accidentally put the article into 13 February because I am UTC-6, so the error was partly my fault.BTW my changing my user name from Squiquifox to SqueakBox had nothing to do with Wikipedia. It is a personal matter and I have explained it at my user page. Sorry if it has generated any confusion. --SqueakBox 18:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
User:220.255.11.4 vandalised this site as well as Wikipedia. They spotted him/her in 2 minutes whereas it took us 8 and a half hours! --SqueakBox 17:30, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Name change
here is the talk from the requested moves page and the village pump, which no administrator wants to touch. It seems no consensus has been reached either to change the name or leave it as it is. According to sspecial requests we must take the issue back here to resolve it. I will comment later--SqueakBox 16:57, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC).

Rastafarianism → Rastafari
This article needs to be dealt with by an administrator as it has been here for 6 days. There is probably no consesnsus on the proposed move. --SqueakBox 17:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) formerly User:Squiquifox

because of the offensive nature of the the word Rastafarianism to Rastafarians both excludes believers and as a title is not from an NPOV but from an anti-rasta viewpoint. There has been a consensus to cchange the name on the talk page but the dissenting voice asked for the change to be put here. i think it is very wrong in an encyclopedia like this to use a term offensive to believers. This is not a question of free speach. It is a question of being inclusive, and encouraging rasta believers and all religious believers to come and share their knowledge, both about their religion and other subjects. Rastas, for instance, are a mine of information about reggae music. I paste below the talk page comments.--Squiquifox 01:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) User:Squiquifox is SqueakBox 22:28, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the article changed to Rastafarians or Rastafari, Rastafarianism is a terrible name.--Squiquifox 18:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. I was surprised to find the article under this title really. I suppose it isn't really a big thing, but common courtesy suggests the title shouldn't be one that adherents have a legitimate objection to. The only problems I envisage are,
 * 1) Making sure we don't lose the edit history of the existing article. I think the history can be moved, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know?
 * 2) Working out what exactly to move it to. Rastafari itself is a disambig page, quite rightly since it could refer to Haile Selassie or to the religious/social movement. I suppose that means putting this page at something like Rastafari (religion) or, my preference, Rastafari (movement).


 * While we're at it, I suggest we create a policy page Too much 'ism' and 'schism' to help people get along. I'm joking, but it would be fun, eh? Mattley 15:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Adherents to the Church of Christ may believe themselves to be the only true Christians, but that doesn't mean we disambiguate at Christianity. This move (i) asserts a Rasta POV in the most visible area of the article: its title, (ii) subjects the page to unnecessary disambiguation, and (iii) violates our naming conventions, which, for better of for worse, prescribe titling under the common names of things.  Bring your proposal to WP:RM if you like, but I advise you not to act without clear consensus.  ADH (t&m) 02:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you get the idea that the idea that anyone intends acting without clear consensus. This is a tentative proposal, as I think the above contributions make clear. Leaving that aside, you raise some interesting points, some better than others. The Church of Christ example is hardly germane. Aside from having to do with religion it is a completely different situation. A more relevant example might be mormon and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As for the unnecessary disambiguation, well that already exists. A lot of people with a more than a passing interest in the subject will, I suspect, type in Rastafari and have to go through that page. That isn't to say it must move, but you know, rastafari is a real term that people really use, so we're stuck with the problem of disambiguation whatever we do.
 * The other two points, on the naming conventions and the assertion of a rasta POV in the title are more inclined to make me think again. Whether or not it really does assert a rasta POV in any meaningful sense could probably be disputed, but that is something to be reflected on. Mattley 11:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I never suggested that anyone would act without clear consensus, but I've seen enough people jump the gun on similar moves (only to later have them reversed after a lengthy and often pointless WP:RM process, the redirect then having an edit history) to know that preemptive advice is certainly prudent. The disambiguation scenario already exists, yes, but only for certain cases, whereas it's proposed that it be disambiguated for all cases.  "Rastafarianism" is the common, neutral term, and the one more likely to be referenced in article text—that's justification enough for me.  ADH (t&m) 12:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

The current title will put off rastafarians and people who support rastafari coming to read the site as a source of information, and then becoming wiki editors and adding some much needed information to this article. So we need these people to make a good quality article. What do you think would happen if the articles on Christianity and Islam had pieces in the article that the believers of said religions would find so offensive that they would be put off either reading or editing said article and possibly anything else. It is the believers in Christianity and Islam who can add much rich material in a neutral way to their articles. We must not exclude rastafarians from this article, or any other. We could do with some knowledgeable help in the reggae section, and this title does not help there either. So I agree, the title is not NPOV, it is anti rastafarian. This in the title itself is a disaster. i think the consensus is in favour of changing the title. I would like to call it Rastafari (religion), and redirect rastafarian and rastafarianism to it but leaving open the disambiguation page. I would like to do it quickly, and if it isn't done quickly I would like to NPOV the article. Until this issue is sorted I have removed the following point of clarification. The proper name of the faith that worships Haile Selassie I is "Rastafari." Referring to it as "Rastafarianism" is like calling Buddhism "Buddhistism." Added by User:67.41.144.251I. I take this as another vote in favour. --Squiquifox 01:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support (I think) - Rastafarianism is a "white people" word - it's a polite, sanitised word for what were a gritty underclass...still are really, despite the popularity in the "metropole". I don't know if Rastafari (religion) is the best name for it.  Does Rastafari really need to be a disambiguation page?  I always thought Ras Tafari for the man (or the race horse), Rastafari (or Rasta) for the people.   Not my field, but I always thought it was two words for the prince, one word for the people. Guettarda 03:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree about moving it to Rastafari, it should not be a disambiguation.--Squiquifox 05:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My position on this has changed a bit since this discussion first started (and before it was moved to this page). I'm still sympathetic to the original idea of altering the article title, but I can also see the point of some of the objections raised by Austin Hair. I'm also sceptical of the idea that we should be actively recruiting followers of particular religions to contribute to articles on said religions, which is likely to take things too far in the other direction. Put me down as an abstention, for now at least. Mattley 14:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, oppose, because although my concerns about disambiguation have been addressed, the principal one—neutrality and common usage—has not.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate defines Rastafarian as "an adherent of Rastafarianism." This is the usage you will find in print media, independent publications, other encyclopedias, and everyday speech, not to mention elsewhere in this encyclopedia. The Rasta objection to the term is based not on the fact that they've given their faith another name, but rather that it isn't a "faith" or "-ism," simply the Truth. This is hardly a neutral point of view.

And I seriously doubt that the article's creator had an "anti-Rasta POV," as Squiquifox suggests. Lacking any evidence at all, I'll assume the best of intentions in his choice of title.

If we're to pander, a more neutral title like Rastafarians would be acceptable, but I cannot conscionably support this. ADH (t&m) 18:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am not wanting to actively encourage believers of a particular faith to participate. I am wanting to not actively discourage them! I never suggested the original author was knowingly coming from an anti-rasta point of view. Giving good faith I imagioine he was ignorant of the objection to this article's name. Actually there is dispute including in the academic world about the use of the word rastafarianism, eg see Joseph Owens, book Dread, so it not starightforward as Austin Hair seems to think. I repeat, I do not see Rastafarianism as being other than a POV attack on Rasta, and clearly I am not alone. This issue will not go away, because the article offends rastas. Shall we make this argument about NPOV? --Squiquifox 19:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have put a neutrality note on the article until this issue is resolved. --Squiquifox 20:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. ADH (t&m) 21:28, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I definitely was not joking. You cannot deny there is a dispute aroud this title. See my further comments on the discussion page. I think it is entirely apprpriate, and do not understand why you think I was joking. --Squiquifox 22:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This earlier discussion on the talk page may be of interest, but I don't consider it to have votes in the current debate. --Squiquifox 22:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What rastas don't like about rastafarianism is the ism. To them the world is too full of isms, and all religious sects are just more isms. Rastas don't see Rastafari as another ism, but as something radically different. Hugh Mundell and Prince Lincoln Thompson in Mecanical devices from his Natural wild album both rail against various isms. Gone dung says Prince Lincoln about isms. So there is no doubt that ideologically Rastas do not like the word Rastafarianism. Squiquifox 04:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure every faith loves the idea of having something to distinguish itself from the truckload of other faiths, because deep in the collective psychology, each faith would love to be the only one in the world. The idea that there are other comprehensive worldviews that other people use that compete against it must be deeply disturbing :) Speaking as someone who fits into a few different categories that are called -isms, I don't see what the big deal is. Not to oppose the page move, just pointing out what I see as a silly argument. --Improv 13:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was 82.182.134.91 who changed rastafarianism to rastafari, but had his work reverted by Sunborn. Another example of a person being offended by the word rastafarianism. --Squiquifox 22:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I personally bitterly oppose freedom of speech being lost in the name of religion e.g. in the case of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti but i think this is not about freedom of speech it is about having a wikipedia open to as wide a range of people as possible. I am not even suggesting all references to rastafarianism be removed from the article or wikipedia, merely from the title. There is also a wider debate on this issue than just at Wikipedia. If we decide to keep rastafarianism we are making a statement within that debate whether we like it or not. I am surprised people are supporting an excluding policy? It could be argued this exclusiveness has rascist overtones if it is actively and knowingly done. Or do we just want rationalist white middle class educated people (like me) to contribute to and read wikipedia. --Squiquifox

I have just added this to the article itself.

Rastafarians claim to reject isms and schisms. They see a wide range of isms and schisms in Babylon society, and want no part of them. They strongly reject the word Rastafarianism, because they see themselves as having transcended isms and schisms. This has created some conflict between Rastas and some members of the academic community studying the Rastafarian phenomenon, who insist on calling this religious belief Rastafarianism, in spite of the disapproval this generates within the Rastafarian movement. The reason the academics call it Rastafarianism is to do with the structure of the English languge, which tends to demand the use of the word Rasstafarianism (and at the very least the writer or speaker has to make an effort in order to avoid using the word) when talking or writing about the Rastas in an academic way. Rastas see no need to talk about their religion in an an analytical and objective way. (See Vocabulary section below). They use their minds to figure out life through a rastafarian perspective. --Squiquifox 16:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's really that offensive to Rastafarians, I say go ahead and move it to Rastafari, and slap a disambig notice on the top to lead to Ras Tafari. After all, I'd like to believe that, had Wikipedia existed 50 years ago, we wouldn't have had an article on black people under "Nigger", even though that word was constantly used for them.  Place a redirect at Rastafarianism, of course, but we shouldn't allow a naming convention to result in us insulting a group of people like that.  Rules are made to be broken, after all.  --HBK 17:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why Austin Hair thinks I am lobbying at WP:RM when the only reason I went there was after his suggestion to do so if I wanted to change the article name, and in respect of his strong objection to changing the title. I am not lobbying, I am trying to generate a debate within the community about the subject. The democratic way to try to build consensus where there is conflict. The history of this article is clear evidence that some people who read the site have felt offended, but those who have changed things to counteract this trend have been inexperienced users, and haven't done it skillfully. Indeed I removed a paragraph to this effect from the article at the start of this debate that was not wiki style or appropriate for an encyclopedia. I strongly disagree that the common word is Rastafarianism. It is not a word used either in rastafarian communities or the many popular third world places where rastafari is popular. It is a label given to the rastas by a small, educated, elite.


 * Personally, I've never heard it referred to by another name, but I've heard of it infrequently enough that I can't say that the usage I've heard is authoritative. I don't care if the community prefers another name -- common usage should prevail (and it's important to note that in the popular third world places, they may not be speaking English, so perhaps the grammar is a bit different there and -ism isn't a common suffix in their language. This is just a comment and not a vote -- I don't feel comfortable commenting on the standard English term because I've heard it so infrequently. --Improv 18:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we speak English in the Caribbean. Jamaicans may be hard to understand, but when they write, it's English.  The word "-ism" has a lot of connotations (as Squiquifox mentions above) that derive from the English use of the suffix...AFAIK it has a lot to do with the clash of "-isms" which was the Cold War.  Cf. Black Stalin's 1985 kaiso Ism schism.  As for the English usage, does anyone call the Bahai Faith "Bahism" or "Bahai-ism"?  Why isn't is "Christianisn" or "Muslimism" or any of the other usages?  Not saying we should coin a new word, but the word that was coined (presumably by academics) was not an inevitability.  Guettarda 20:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Therer is now also a debate about this issue at Village pump (policy), and I will include the comments on that page as well when trying to see what consensus has been reached on Friday. Both the Spanish and portuguese wikipedias say rastafarianismo and are (not recent) translations of the English article, whereas I am sure most Latin Americans don't say rastafarianismo. If you think they do, can you prove it? I suspect the same is true for French (French wiki says Rastafarisme but that may well not be what the African french speakers call it?). So I think the language issue is a red herring. Even in the rich English speaking world I am sure the great majority do not think of Rasta as Rastafarianism. This is plain common sense. Where in reggae (a vital source of information about rastafari) is there a reference to Rastafarianism? So apart from being offensive it is not common usage. --Squiquifox 18:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Dutch wiki uses Rastafari as does the German for the title.--Squiquifox 19:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mecca has similar title problems, because to some Muslims the word spelt this way in English in refernce to the Muslim holy city is considered offensive. They write Makkah. The argument to use the spelling Mecca is that most English speaking people know the city as Mecca. There has been lots of argument at Talk:Mecca. So obviously the religious sensibilities are not taken into account here. I still think rastafarianism is not the word most english speakers would use to search for the article. --Squiquifox 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In a Google test Rasta produced 1,710,000 hits, rastafari 321,000 hits, Rastafarian 210,000 hits while Rastafarianism has 84,000 hits. --SqueakBox 01:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I fear that the religious angle is clouding this a bit. I certainly wouldn't endorse the view that we should 'avoid offending religious sensibilities' in some general, abstract way. No-one ever goes out of their way to avoid causing offence to my deeply held political convictions, do they? No. And we'd be a pretty poor encyclopedia if we never said anything that might offend someone's beliefs and convictions. I can certainly see why some editors above have reacted to this as though it offered a license for religous POV warriors to stamp their prejudices all over wikipedia, without any opposing criticism. That's a definite danger to avoid.


 * But I'm not sure that's what this issue is about. It seems to me more akin to Red Indian or Aborigine, which you'll note redirect to Native American and Indigenous peoples respectively. The problem with calling this article Rastafarianism is that it just isn't used by the people to whom it applies. Our choice of term runs the risk of saying "Wikipedia is run by a bunch of educated white guys in North America and Britain. You call it Rastafari? How quaint. But tough. We're calling it by the tern WE choose."


 * Now, I'm not suggesting that the original creator of the article meant to convey this impression - but I do think it's likely to give that impression. It's an impression that would be reinforced by some of the reactions to the proposed move. We don't want to seem exclusive, arrogant, ignorant and Western-centred when we could so easily avoid it, do we? Mattley 14:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Rastafari is the religious/political movement.  Rastafarian is an adherent of Rastafari.  Ras Tafari is Haile Selassie.  Rasta can refer to either Rastafari or Rastafarian.  (Morgan Heritage says, You don't have to be dread to be rasta.)  Rastafari, Rastafarian and Rasta are used as adjectives. -    — BanyanTree 18:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. -Sean Curtin 19:11, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. I had commented on the implied suggestion that the WP always uses the movement's own name that it does not, but that was not an opposition vote. I am convinced by the argument for moving it. Jordi·✆ 18:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose, one several grounds. First, in my experience, Rastafarianism is the most common term throughout the English-speaking world used to refer unambiguously to the movement/religion as a whole, and thus use of this is in line with our policy. Second, the grounds the Rastafarians themselves quote for disliking the term (that it reduces their beliefs to one more religion) is inherently POV, and must not be considered. (Guess what, every religion thinks it's the only correct one.) Third, the "-ism" ending is standard English for making a noun out of an adjective (and I think everyone concedes that "Rastafarian" is the usual adjective form), used on lots of names that absolutely are not meant disparagingly (q.v. "Anglicanism", "Catholicism", "Bhuddism", "Hinduism", "Judaism", etc), which get used all the time in serious contexts as respectful names. To take offense where none is meant is tasteless. It may be Rastfarian doctrine that "Rastafarianism" is offensive, but Wikipedia policy it not subject to Rastafarian doctrine. Noel (talk) 18:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to do the move now, so I may as well come out of the woodwork and oppose the move because I think Rastafarianism is the most commonly-used term. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Rastafari is another name for Haile Selassie. Rastafarianism is the name of the religion. The proposal is akin to moving Christianity to Christ, jguk 19:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are advantages to using the most common term for the religion as the title of the article, and we wouldn't be having this discussio if Squiquifox and a couple of others hadn't argued that "Rastafarianism' is offensive to Rastafarians. He asserts that Rastas have negative associations with "-ism's" in general, and says that they view the characterization of their religion as an "-ism" to be a kind of insult.  I don't doubt that this reflects Squiquifox's point of view; however, I am not prepared to accept his assertion that this represents the view of the majority of Rastafarians without some evidence.  To be honest, considering the widespread use in English of the suffix "-ism" without negative connotations, and of the term "Rastafarianism" for the religion, I have a hard time believing Squisquifox's assertion. I can't believe that all Rastas have developed an antipathy to the English suffix "-ism".  It just seems nuts, to be blunt.   Squiquifox: please cite sources that this is indeed Rastafarian doctrine, or some evidence beyond your personal testimony that it is the sentiment of a consensus of Rastafarians.  --BM 19:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that this is not my opinion. I am not personally offended by the word Rastafarianism, nor am I anywhere near being a Rastafarian. --SqueakBox 22:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't believe me when I say all Rastas have an aversion to isms and schisms you are not only being closed minded but you are failing to have good faith in me, which I resent. If you would look at Rastafarianism's history you would see I have contributed a great deal of content to help elucidate this mad doctrine of Rastafari. So I want to state very clearly that I do think the Rastas have a great aversion to the English suffix -ism, and that this aversion fits entirely with the rest of their beliefs. Formerly User:Squiquifox --SqueakBox 22:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here are some quotes. "You have catholicism, protestantism, liberalism, socialism, all kind of ism and schism, Babylon system", sings Lincoln Thompson in Mechanical devices. "All kinds of ism and schism, Babylon system" was also sung by Hugh Mundell, another Rastafarian, in Run, Revolution Run. Lincoln Thompson's music reflects a deep faith in Rastafari, and with these words it doesn't take too much to conclude what he thought about his faith being called Rastafarianism. Roots reggae is littered with anti ism and schism lyrics because being anti ism and schism is Rastafarian doctrine, as outlined in the article. Also check out Joseph Owens. If this seems mad to BM, probably lots of other rasta doctrines also seem mad. You wouldn't be the first person to see Rasta doctrine as mad but that has not stopped the growth of the movement. Calling rastafarians mad does not help create a good article either.
 * Oppose. Rastafarianism is the most common term throughout the English-speaking world. Just as most catholics term the church Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church is the most common term throughout the English-speaking world and common usage sould be a guide. Philip Baird Shearer 22:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, Squeakbox: Well, I just don't find these quoted lyrics mocking "-ism's" as very convincing. That seems like a reasonable thing to write mocking song lyrics about, since the plethora of "-ism's" is at the very least amusing, but it does not imply that Rastafarians find "Rastafarianism" offensive and insulting to them.   I believe you are convinced of what you say, and I certainly do not intend to challenge your good faith, only your conclusions. But if inference from these lyrics is the only thing convincing you, I'm afraid I'm not going to go along with you on this one, and I don't think we should change the article's title because of hints in some songs that Rastafarians might not like that label.   I've spent an hour earlier today looking for any evidence in Google that Rastafarians  object to "Rastafarianism" as the name in English of their religion, and I didn't find any.   In fact, I came up with a couple of blogs of Rastafarians where they referred to it as Rastafarianism themselves.     If the aversion is as great as you say, I would think you could produce a couple of direct quotes from Rastafarians to that effect -- you know, asking people not to use that term, or criticizing them for doing so -- and not leave us relying on inferences from song lyrics.   I thought you were a Rastafarian, by the way.  Your admission that you aren't does not increase my confidence that you are right about what Rastafarians think on this subject.  --BM 22:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well the first evidence I can give is part of what started this problem in the first place. This article has a history of people either reverting all the terms Rastafarianism into Rastafari or putting in a paragraphs stating that this word is offensive. These have been inexperienced users not using correct style or knowing correct procedure for trying to get things changed round here. So there was persistent opposition coming from somewhere before I arrived on the scene. I would be interested if BM could provide a link to these blogs? and thanks for putting the time in to look. he might consider editing at what I have written in the article on this subject, but only if he is confident in doing so. I do not think my own beliefs make the slightest difference to how well I understand this phenomenon. --SqueakBox 23:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I support this, after having read all the arguments above. Jonathunder 23:23, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Since User:BM said Well, I just don't find these quoted lyrics mocking "-ism's" as very convincing I decided to look a little further. I looked through the 5 most recent theses and dissertations avaiable through UMI (University Microfilms - they have all theses and dissertations done in the US) and I looked for anything with the keyword Rastafari, Rastafarian or Rastfarianism. These were the five most recent (that's as far as I had time to get).


 * Christensen, Jeanne. 2003. The philosophy of reasoning: The Rastafari of Jamaica. PhD dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder


 * The author discusses Rastafari, and calls, the people, the philosophy and the and the faith by that name. This is the usage the Rastafari themselves employ because they are suspicious of the western 'isms': Rastafarian or Rastafarianism (p.9)


 * Stanley, Cathy S. 2002. Expanding the small space: Rastafarians as knowledge producers (Jamaica). Ed.D dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois.


 * The author alternates between usage of Rastafarians (for the people, culture and movement) and Rastafari (for the philosophy/religion)


 * Raphasha, Makgompi Hamilton. 2002. Misrecognition and nonrecognition of Rastafarian identity in South Africa: A critique of 'Prince'. LLM thesis, University of Toronto


 * Author uses the terms Rastafarian and Rastafarian religion


 * Sterling, Marvin Dale. 2002. In the shadow of the universal other: Performative identifications with Jamaican culture in Japan. PhD dissertation, UCLA


 * The author uses Rastafari for the religion and culture, with Rastafarian as an adjective, and Rasta for the person.


 * Price, Charles Reavis. 2001. No cross, no crown: Identity formation, nigrescence, and social change among Jamaica's first- and second-generation Rastafarians. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.


 * The author used the term Rastafarians for the people and Rastafari for the movement and the culture (although he quotes Rex Nettleford (from (1967) using the term Rastafarianism).

Among the dissertations and theses available with one of the names in their title, Rastafari appeared 17 times, Rastafarian(s) 8 times and Rastafarianism appeared 1 time.

In Google (English) Rastafari - 138,000 hits, Rastafarian 169,000 hits (95,100 hits for Rastafarians), Rastafarianism 77,300 hits. As shown in usage above, Rastafari is more often used for the culture/religion while Rastafarian(s) for the people or as an adjective. So, all hits for Rastafari is for the noun, the culture, while Rastafarian(s) is a mixture of noun (the people) and the culture. I think there is a pretty good case for using Rastafari. Guettarda 01:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * After doing some quick research, I have come to the conclusion that Rastafari is a more common word for the religion. I thus Support the rename. It's important to note that this is not out of sensitivity to anyone, but rather a conclusion on common usage. --Improv 05:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been going through "The Rastafarians" by Leonard E. Barrett and "Dread Jesus" by William David Spencer" looking for a reference on the objection to "Rastafarianism". I can't find one, but I can confirm that neither uses the term. Both call it Rastafari or the Rastafarian movement. Support. Mattley 15:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have also spent some time trawling for references online to support our contention that rastas have an objection to the term, and have found a few. The difficulty of finding references for this may well be systemic: are there any rastas in academia? How many of them have internet access? These are issues we should bear in mind on this issue. To reiterate my own position, I don't contend that we should move this page because rastas might find it offensive but because it Rastafari is by far the most commonly used term amongst those who have any kind of familiarity with the subject. I provide the links below principally to try to answer the objection that the whole 'ism' issue might stem simply from a misinterpretation of reggae lyrics.


 * One should not refer to 'Rastafarianism' because 'No ism, no schism' is a Rastafarian proverb, usually quoted to deny that there exists a religion called 'Rastafarianism' (Jamaica Gleaner)*
 * "We consider it our way of life, not an 'ism'," says bassist Isis, explaining the preferred term for his faith is "Rastafari."
 * 'the faith we practice is called rastafari or rasta for short. not rastafarianism as we need to fight the ism and the skism, explains a rasta on a messageboardd

Mattley 17:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most-common-usage must be our guide; adopting the viewpoint of the religion when it goes against common English usage is POV, especially when it also has the side effect of a disambig issue. Wikipedia has already had this debate with regards to Mecca, and the result was to retain "most-common-usage" and leave it at Mecca. —Lowellian (talk) 01:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

A fine argument if only rastafarianism was the common usage, which it is not. I note no-one has tried to prove this obscure term is the common usage, doubtless because they cannot prove it. --SqueakBox 16:57, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Village pump (policy) discussion

Not offending religious sensibilities
Should we avoid offending religious sensibilities? especially in an article about a particular religion. Rastafarians consider Rastafarianism to be an offensive word. There were a series of non-user name attempts to change the use of this word within the article but they were reverted. Now the article is at Requested moves to try to move it to Rastafari in order to avoid offending the religious sensibility of Rastas, and to turn them away from using wikipedia. I strongly feel we should respect the religious sensibilities of the Rastas by changing the title, but there is a dispute. I wonder what Christianity and Islam do about this issue. And how people think about this as a wider issue.Squiquifox 02:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is to use most common name. People know it as Rastafarianism.  RickK 07:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Compare Mormonism: Mormons tend to prefer Latter Day Saint theology for their religion (and Latter Day Saints instead of Mormons), but since Mormon is the better known term the article is there. Jordi·✆ 07:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope that "Morons" in the previous sentence is a typo. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops... it is. I have some very good LDS friends, and certainly do not think they're in any way intellectually challenged. Jordi·✆ 09:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that rastafarianism is the term people use, but that is a separate debate. Sure the Mormons don't call themselves mormonist but they (presumably?) don't object to the word whereas Rastas (and some of those generally supportive of and open to Rastafari) strongly object to the word rastafarianism which creates problems on the site and will likely continue to do so if the name is not changed. Rick seems to be saying we should not worry about offending religious sensibilities, something I cannot agree with for an encyclopedia. Will see if I can find anything on Islam, which I imagine may also face this religious sensibilities problem. I personally bitterly oppose freedom of speech being lost in the name of religion e.g. in the case of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti but i think this is not about freedom of speech it is about having a wikipedia open to as wide a range of people as possible. I am not even suggesting all references to rastafarianism be removed from the article or wikipedia, merely from the title. There is also a wider debate on this issue than just at Wikipedia. If we decide to keep rastafarianism we are making a statement within that debate whether we like it or not. I am surprised people are supporting an excluding policy? It could be argued this exclusiveness has rascist overtones if it is actively and knowingly done. Or do we just want rationalist white middle class educated people (like me) to contribute to and read wikipedia. --Squiquifox 15:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Squiquifox has slapped a NPOV tag on the article in question and is now lobbying for the move on WP:RM. (I think. It's hard to tell, at this point.)  A.D.H. (t&m) 15:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the idea (as I said on the RM page). I realise that "Rastafarianism" is a widely used term, but it's an outside observer's term, not their term for themselves. If this term is indeed offensive (although I have never discussed that issue with a member of the religion, I have interacted with enough rastas that this sounded very likely), I think it is a disingenuous title for the article. Who wants to be called by the name the anthropologists made up for you? I grew up very middle class and "high colour" (bonus points if you know what that means), but even I would not use the word "Rastafarianism". And Trinidad isn't Jamaica. We don't use offensive terms to describe people. Maybe there are people who feel that's part of the problem with Wikipedia (not implying that of the current discussion), but frankly, I wouldn't be here if policy was to do so. While in the grand scheme of things there are far more objectionable words, that doesn't mean that people should be so dismissive of the idea.

More importantly, I don't see this as a free speech issue, or "endorsement of religion". We wouldn't put the main article at Mohammedan - it hasn't been in common usage for a while, but you are comparing a (relatively) empowered group (Muslims) with a highly disempowered group (Rastas). Guettarda 16:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have written this paragraph and put it in the doctrine section.

Rastafarians claim to reject isms and schisms. They see a wide range of isms and schisms in Babylon society, and want no part of them. They strongly reject the word Rastafarianism, because they see themselves as having transcended isms and schisms. This has created some conflict between Rastas and some members of the academic community studying the Rastafarian phenomenon, who insist on calling this religious belief Rastafarianism, in spite of the disapproval this generates within the Rastafarian movement. The reason the academics call it Rastafarianism is to do with the structure of the English languge, which tends to demand the use of the word Rasstafarianism (and at the very least the writer or speaker has to make an effort in order to avoid using the word) when talking or writing about the Rastas in an academic way. Rastas see no need to talk about their religion in an an analytical and objective way. (See Vocabulary section below). The use their minds to figure out life through a rastafarian perspective. --Squiquifox 16:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why Austin Hair thinks I am lobbying at WP:RM when the only reason I went there was after his suggestion to do so if I wanted to change the article name, and in respect of his strong objection to changing the title. I am not lobbying, I am trying to generate a debate within the community about the subject. The democratic way to try to build consensus where there is conflict. The history of this article is clear evidence that some people who read the site have felt offended, but those who have changed things to counteract this trend have been inexperienced users, and haven't done it skillfully. Indeed I removed a paragraph to this effect from the article at the start of this debate that was not wiki style or appropriate for an encyclopedia. I strongly disagree that the common word is Rastafarianism. It is not a word used either in rastafarian communities or the many popular third world places where rastafari is popular. It is a label given to the rastas by a small, educated, elite.

Speaking of protecting religious sensibilities, i'm glad we now include a photo of Baha'u'llah. We aren't in the practice of practicing religion here :) --Alterego 18:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I note that there is still no picture of Muhammad. But if we're going to talk about people's sensitivities, aren't we going to have to move all of the Native American tribe names, since most of them are some variation of "the enemy" or "sh*t eaters" or whatever, given to them by other people?"  RickK 20:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * While many of them are, in most cases the tribes have accepted/embraced the names that they are known by...and Sioux redirects to Lakota. Quite frankly, if a names was raised as being offensive by a tribe, I feel that we should move the article - after all, redirects don't work too badly.  Of course, I don't really know know offensive Rastafarianism actually is, but it is an ism, and I have no reason to doubt what Squiquifox is saying - it fits with what I know.  Guettarda 20:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The thing I really don't want to have happen is for us to set a precedent for a certain kind of thing that evangelical (xian) groups are starting to do now. Those groups are deciding to define Christianity not as a religion, but instead as a "personal relationship with lord-and-savior-blah-blah-blah". They thus play word games to shield themselves from all the other religions and attempt to set themselves as apart and different. Of course, as other religions catch on, and if we respect their term redefinitions, then there won't be any religions left, just "personal relationships with ..", "belief of the forefathers", "obedience to god", and other terms designed to make it hard to talk about religion. There need to be limits to how much definitional weight we give to perspectives. Fortunately, in this case, I don't think it applies (or if it does, only weakly), so I don't care so much what name the article takes. --Improv 21:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Those groups are deciding to define Christianity not as a religion, but instead as a "personal relationship with lord-and-savior-blah-blah-blah" - does this mean they would give up their tax exempt status and all the other rights that go with it? Might not be a bad trade off - might fix the US budget deficit. :)  Guettarda 22:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But doesn't providing tax exempt status to churches violate "Congress Shall Make no Law ..."? Ben.
 * We may be straying a bit off-topic, but as I understand, no it does not. The reason is that religious organizations arn't the only type of legal organization to have tax-exempt status. In fact, they typically fit well into the categories for nonprofits, as they don't have a profit motive, and meet certain other criteria that I'm not deeply familiar with. --Improv 13:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mecca has similar title problems, because to some Muslims the word spelt this way in English in refernce to the Muslim holy city is considered offensive. They write Makkah. The argument to use the spelling Mecca is that most English speaking people know the city as Mecca. There has been lots of argument at Talk:Mecca. So obviously the religious sensibilities are not taken into account here. I still think rastafarianism is not the word most english speakers would use to search for the article. --Squiquifox 00:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I fear that the religious angle is clouding this a bit. I certainly wouldn't endorse the view that we should 'avoid offending religious sensibilities' in some general, abstract way. No-one ever goes out of their way to avoid causing offence to my deeply held political convictions, do they? No. And we'd be a pretty poor encyclopedia if we never said anything that might offend someone's beliefs and convictions. I can certainly see why some editors above have reacted to this as though it offered a license for religous POV warriors to stamp their prejudices all over wikipedia, without any opposing criticism. That's a definite danger to avoid.


 * But I'm not sure that's what this issue is about. It seems to me more akin to Red Indian or Aborigine, which you'll note redirect to Native American and Indigenous peoples respectively. The problem with calling this article Rastafarianism is that it just isn't used by the people to whom it applies. Our choice of term runs the risk of saying "Wikipedia is run by a bunch of educated white guys in North America and Britain. You call it Rastafari? How quaint. But tough. We're calling it by the tern WE choose."


 * Now, I'm not suggesting that the original creator of the article meant to convey this impression - but I do think it's likely to give that impression. It's an impression that would be reinforced by some of the reactions to the proposed move. We don't want to seem exclusive, arrogant, ignorant and Western-centred when we could so easily avoid it, do we? Mattley 14:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please look at this excellent article in the Jamaican Observewr about Rastafari. {http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20010820t210000-0500_12939_obs_rastafari_and_politics.asp] Nowhere does it talk about rastafarianism, yet this is very knowledgeable, good quality article from a balanced, academic point of view. So the name is not common, another bit of evidence.--SqueakBox 21:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:Aloan has unilaterally decided to close this debate at requeasted moves, claiming there is no consensus to move the article in face of a 4-1 vote in favour of doing so. Can a sysop ignore consensus and make their own decisions, even going against consensus. If so, why. --SqueakBox 16:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * My bad. Please see Talk:Rastafarianism for further discussion. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see a secular society,and a secular reference work,as to some extent having the obligation to offend religious sensibilities.Religions tend to define themselves in an exclusivist fashion that one must take exception to unless one is a believer of that religion.Allowing the various religions to define how they are referred to is a path that one must take any step of reluctantly.Equally right is equally wrong,too.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 02:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Houses
Irie Ites!

I have added a major improvements to the discussion on the houses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mansions_of_Rastafari

Please check it and see what`s good to go.

Blessed, Rastavox user:Rastavox

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastavox (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Earth Changes delete
Hey, would you people care to give your opinion about Earth changes? The article is about to be deleted: Articles_for_deletion/Earth_changes  Subramanian talk

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subramanian (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Repetition
I'm sure some of those pictures appear twice.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.64.118 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rastafari as a racist movement
It is a testament to the ultra-liberal bias of Wikipedia that this goes ignored. The whole ideology is overtly anti-white, even violently so. There is no hesiation to mention racism elsewhere...double standard? -- Ari

"Even violently so"? What do you mean? There are Rastafari practitioners in almost every (if not all) races. True, the "original" or rather, the early rastafari have been pro-black and anti-white, but who could blame them? The movement was borne in the early 1900's; the time of racial segregation=legal racism, apartheid and whatnot, even the holocaust was still to come... So, if I knew that my family and my ancestry had been slaves for 600 years, I might be little pissed,wouldn't you? But, a few things changed that racial aspect; First of all, when Haile Selassie spoke in the UN, he spoke VERY strictly against racism. Secondly, we've come a long way from the racism of the 1930's, the whole worlds changed. And all rastafari are not anti-white, quite the opposite nowadays, but they are very much against "Babylon", which is the modern global corporate-ruled, corrupt world, which happens to be mainly ruled by whites...

Peace, Oliver--Oliver Filo 11:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ari? Who/What is that? Don't try to slander the beliefs and ways of Rastas. My parents are Rastas. I was born in the states, and i didn't learn racism in my home, I learned it in public schools. And when I brought it home, I met the wrath of my mother. Rastas are people and it's no secret that the people screwing Jamaica and many parts of Africa, a continet that Rastas love is being torn apart by people who are white, not saying that many dark skinned Africans aren't mindlessly sheading blood. So you can't blame them for being human. It's not OK, but someone is always going to be overly frustrated. Go meet a REAL Rasta then tell me who the racists are. 70.22.44.22 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is already mentioned, that some of the beginnings were violently anti-white, but this can no longer be said today. I find that Rastafari today is multi-racial and much more a force *against* racism. In fact, the movement has become a much closer reflection of Haile Selassie's views, by becoming far more educated than it was in the beginning. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to this article because a co-worker is Rastafarian, and I want to know more about it. This co-worker is white. Apparently he is also self-hating. :-) crazyeddie 06:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of racism are ridiculous. While Bobo Ashanti have perportedly racist elements, 12ToI have none; Marley himself was born of a white father. InI also was born of a white father, proudly so. 782 Naumova 17:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How can a white person follow a religion designed for black Africans? '''THE SAME WAY BLACK PEOPLE CAN BECOME MORMONS... >:-p''' By doing so. The real question that begs is why cant they? You are making assumptions about white and black people being separated, IMO, that dont correspond to reality. Its a bit like asking how could a black person marry a white person, SqueakBox 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember in the 80s the USA network used to show a interview with the band 3rd World where Bunny Rugs says "The way InI see it, JAH is the Faada of all people - whether them realize it or not". Don't assume it to be a religion designed only for black Africans, it claims to be the Truth from the beginning of time, not designed for only certain people.  If "the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes" to JAH, then that caste-classification based on flesh is exactly the kind of thinking Rastas try to reject from their minds. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always wondered what it's all about so I just read the article now. It does seems a bit racist. I mean take these statements:

"the black Messiah who will lead the world's peoples of African origin into a promised land of full emancipation and divine justice". As I see it their are two interpretations; either the "people's of Africa" are black, or as everyone originated in Africa, it refers to everyone. The former is a completely racist statement, in that only the coloured people are lead to salvation. If it's the latter (including those in "Babylon") why not just say so?

They don't like the scissors, razor or the comb because they're Roman/Babylonian inventions! Is that to say that no one combed their hair before the Romans? But anyway, thats like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would they like them if an African had invented them? Also as a side issue, it's completely selective, running water was a Roman concept and the radio that Bob Marley's songs are broadcast on was invented in "Babylon". No problems there though! Also, I noticed Haile Selaisse I has a Roman numeral after his name!

"Part of the reason the hairstyle was adopted, was to contrast the kinky hair of black men with the straighter hair of whites". Fair enough if your black, but why would a white man do that?

It's basically a slave religion: Only descendants of slaves would have a problem with the English language. Immigrants, converts, whites, or even Ethiopians themselves shouldn't, so why the animosity towards it. Repatriation "a central doctrine" doesn't really concern anyone else.

I know that western society isn't perfect. Perhaps no society can be, we are human after all. But what makes Ethiopia so perfect in contrast with "Babylon"? Isn't democracy better than a Monarchy?

I've don't really have any knowledge of it other that what I read in the article, so I'd welcome any responses.

Everytime 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just checked up this Marcus Garvey "prophet"..... "...black nationalist and recognized Rasta prophet, believed that white achievements were due to white children being taught that they are superior. By the same token, he held that if black children are taught that they are superior, then there is a greater chance that they will succeed in life". That's undeniably racist. 87.192.69.100 14:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Garvey was never a Rastafarian. It is Haile Selassie's well-known views on race that hold precedence for most Rastas. However, there is one small sect known as 'Bobo Shanti', that holds Garvey to be equal to Haile Selassie, as part of a trinity (this is not the view of most other Rastas) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there's a racial component to Rastafarianism, but racial is not synonymous with racist. This religion and philosophical stance is an historical reaction to white repression of blacks in Jamaica and the United States. It was perfectly reasonable for the victims to view traditional Christianity as an instrument of that repression--because it was wielded thus. Rastafarianism is not racist, but, rather, a means of surviving racism and triumphing over racism. TheScotch 11:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)