Talk:Rastafari/Archive 6

Editing for encyclopedic style
I've made a few edits with the aim of making the style more encylopedic and cleaning up some wording that seemed awkward. I note that there are parts that need sources, particularly Politics. I have left the parts that spell out Rastafarian beliefs and doctrines pretty much untouched. The parts from History downward still need work. Looie496 (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Til has been doing a good job in the Timeline section. I was going to mention that "Ethiopian world view" para as an example of something that made no sense. I wonder if it is possible to make the timeline more "chronological"? Right now, it seems to jump around without any particular historical order. Bulbous (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow Zenwhat you seem like kind of a troll. Why is this such an important subject to you that you're constantly posting contentious comments?  If you're trying to knock Rastafarians it's not quite working; you're just coming across as a bigot.  Just my opinion. Liliuokalani (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from making comments about specific editors. You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:Don't call editors trolls, for example. Bulbous (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kebra Nagast.jpg
The image Image:Kebra Nagast.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Haile Selassie I's reactions to Rastafari beliefs
I note that this article goes into some detail on the beliefs Ras have about HIM, but says almost nothing (aside from a couple of sentences at the end) about how he regarded these claims. I, for one (two? :), would like to know more about that aspect of things if anyone has more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie_I_of_Ethiopia#Haile_Selassie.27s_attitude_to_the_Rastafari has even less information on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.22.172 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Peace, I have put everything I have in answer to that question here: Ites, ፈቃደ (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of rastafarians
The article about Haille selassie mentions 600,000 followers of the Rastafari movement, this article about Rastafari itself mentions 1.000.000 Rastafari faithful. Assuming that both sentences are describing the same type of people, then at least one of those numbers must be incorrect. If the sentences are describing different kind of people (for example 1.000.000 Rastafaris of wich 400.000 that are merely interested in Rastafari, and 600.000 others that are more hardcore believers), then those wordings should be made equal, to avoid confusion about the number of members of this religion.(TimDeCink (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC))
 * The 600,000 figure is current. The 1,000,000 figure was taken from a book written in 1999. The difference is due to the fact that the Haile Selassie I article is a historical article with a lot of different people working on it. This article is a propaganda piece, and people who try to correct/improve it are dealt are usually shamelessly reverted. Bulbous (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, Bulbous? This article adheres to NPOV and to claim otherwise is, presumably, because it fails to fit your own openly stated anti-Rasta POV. Better to leave the article to those with no agenda, hidden or otherwise, either in favour of or against the Rastafari movement. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

can we move this citation?
I noticed this in the "Rastafari Today" section. I assume it is perhaps intended to be additional reading on the subject of the spread of the Rastafari movement in Japanese culture: For a review by two sociologists of how the Japanese Rasta movement can be explained in the context of modern Japanese society, see Dean W. Collinwood and Osamu Kusatsu, "Japanese Rastafarians: Non-Conformity in Modern Japan," The Study of International Relations, No. 26, Tokyo: Tsuda College, March 2000 (research conducted in 1986 and 1987).

I believe this slows down the flow and disrupts the tone of this section. I also feel that with one sentence this section now reads like a single person telling me information as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia with factual contents. While this is a very great reference, completely valid to the subject discussed and definitely a necessary resource - perhaps it would be better served by moving it into the references section or even including it in a newly-formed Additional Reading section, which could also help trim the External Links. Any opinions on this or does anyone definitively know of a policy before I actually move something around? --ocrasaroon (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed work group
There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Citation needed"
It appears someone has been a douchebag and added "" after nearly every sentence. Would it be alright to remove those? If anything, Template:Refimprove should be added to the top. -- 71.187.32.39 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here on wikipedia, we call that a "driveby", not a "douchebag"... But your other points are good,  and I do agree with them.  No matter how many easily-found references are added, there will always be some perhaps with an axe to grind who will come back and insert the tag gratuitously, in abundance, and  wherever they possibly can, in lieue of discussing any of it here.  Such tags can almost always be removed as nuisance tagging. B'er Rabbit (Briar Patch) 14:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it, FYI. -- 71.187.32.39 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"truth"
The opening paragraph uses the word "truth" to imply a "true" connection to "God" and the Trinity and all that. This does not seem to be a neutral point of view.

Should it be reworded?

--Mainstreetmark (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be reworded. Three sentences from the lead (Haile Selassie is the physical body through which the Power of the Trinity exhibits its power here on earth, making H.I.M Haile Selassie I in reality the Holy Trinity. An example of this truth lies in the coronation name of Jesus, Emmanuel, which means God with us. It was at this point, Jesus the Christ, became one with God, or God in reality here on earth.) should be reworded, since they do not make it clear that this is just a belief. The way it's written makes it seem like an assertion of plain fact. Lupusrex (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-contradiction about beliefs
This article has a slight contradiction concerning the universality of the belief among Rastas that (1) Jesus is a human incarnation of God, and (2) Jesus's teachings were corrupted by western society, or "Babylon." The second paragraph of the subtitle "God" begins with these two sentences: Some Rastas accept the Christian doctrine that God incarnated onto the Earth in the form of Jesus Christ, to give his teachings to humanity. However, they often feel his teachings were corrupted by Babylon. The keywords are "some" and "often," indicating that a significant portion of Rastas do not subscribe. The opening sentence two paragraphs later seems to indicate the opposite: Acceptance of the God-incarnate status of Jesus is central in Rastafarian doctrine, as is the notion of the corruption of his teachings by secular, Western society, figuratively referred to as Babylon. Maybe some clarification is in order. --69.143.225.186 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Tyler Scott 8/25/09

Babylon Definition
The article states 'called Babylon, which literally means "confusion"'. I think this should read something along the lines of 'Babylon, said to mean "confusion".' According to the Babylon article, the Akkadian word from which we get "Babylon" actually means "Gateway of the gods," and the meaning "confusion" is introduced from the Hebrew Language. Philwkpd (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede Needs Work
Lede needs considerable cleaning. Anybody want to lend a hand or should I get to work?Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Could someone put in some information about the Rastafari movement and homosexuality?

http://rastafaritimes.com/rasnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1046544979,7430,.shtml

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20070421T210000-0500_122074_OBS_THE_RASTA_VIEW_ON_HOMOSEXUALITY__.asp

http://www.experiencefestival.com/rastafari_movement_-_homosexuality

207.196.191.232 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Same text on different website
Found on a different website exactly the same text as here, Im not sure if that is allowed or legal. Heres the link: http://www.important.ca/rastafari_history.html Dont know if it was copied from here or if the one who wrote te article here copied it from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.241.58.190 (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What about women
Are there codified politics regarding women in this movement. I have been told by many of some sexist habits and very binary divisions of sex roles. However this article doesn't really mention women. Why not? I would like to know more about lifestyle and present day realities... even if the movement is hard to quantify and is not homogenous, descriptions can be accurate and incomplete at the same time if they are honest about it.

I understand your concern. It is probably true that some of those who claim this philosophy, especially in rural conservative areas of Jamaica (especially Bobo Ashanti), may be associated with sexist behavior toward women. Often in these societies, I've been told, women would be considered second class citizens. However, the same could be said for conservative christian, muslim, or jewish societies, as well as many others. If I think of "Christian" for example, I do not necessarily think sexist, although Amish people, who are Christian, may practice clear sexism. Rastafari itself is not about sexism, and in fact most rastas outside rural Jamaica would be among the least sexist of individuals as it is critical in Rasta philosophy to treat all people as a manifestation of the Almighty, and this would obviously include women. Rasta does not teach sexism, it is not part of the philosophy of Rasta, and in many ways true Rasta thinking is contrary to sexism. For this reason I would not recommend adding a discussion of sexist behavior toward women to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.202.38 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with 144.92.202.38 and agree with the original poster. This argument needs to address the question of the role of women in Rastafarian ideology. Hash789 (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Move to Rastafari

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rastafari movement → Rastafari — Per this discussion, there seems to be differences of opinion on whether the article title should contain the word "movement". The word Rastafari alone is used as a noun to refer to this religious movement, although I'm not sure which name is used more commonly. Another alternative would be Rastafarianism, I suppose. Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd support a move to Rastafari, I think it's the better, less patronising choice; oppose Rastafarianism for the reasons given in the article. Guettarda (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably should have had a closer look at the article before opening my mouth... Nomination amended. Jafeluv (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to oppose the move for reasons of ambiguity in terms. Rastafari movement is what this article is specifically about, and is an accepted term.  The term "Rastafari" by itself can also refer to an individual member(s) of the movement (singular or plural), the God of the movement, as well as the various concepts of the Holy Spirit, or Godhead, within the movement, etc.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Ras Tafari himself. —   AjaxSmack   02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone have sources to inform the discussion? Maurreen (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Eulenspiegel has a point about terms. However, the previous Rastafari page, as I recall it, was woefully overgeneralized, inaccurate, and outdated, to the point of being useless. It was a page that clearly mislead the public about the teachings of this movement and would cause a curious reader to mislabel the followers of this philosophy. Other posters are correct in stating that many of the contributors who blocked necessary revisions were more concerned about formalities than about accuracies. The new page called "Rastafari movement" is a better description of the Rastafarian philosophy. I would also support not using the term Rastafarianism" because of the -ism suffix and its diametric opposition to the philosophy of Rastafari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjjerde (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits
The recent edits significantly improve the content's accuracy. The previous page on Rastafari was so distorted and overgeneralized it was useless to the general population as far as its ability to convey information about this philosophy. I have authored most of the page on Ital, a major lifestyle component of Rastafari, but did not even know where to start regarding the main page. Further the discussion on that page was so ridiculous; the contributors were obviously more concerned with their own opinions and meeting some sort of dogmatic expression than with conveying accurate information.

To the contributors of this new version: excellent start! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.202.38 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a bit unclear to me what you mean by "recent edits" and "this new version". Apart from the removal of a few short sections and the addition of one, the bulk of this article has remained largely unchanged since at least December.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1.10 Inexistant
Hey there's a link in the table of contents or whatever to 1.10, when you click it it doesn't do anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.111.212 (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, it was a result of this edit - fixed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"About five to ten percent of Jamaicans"
Someone removed that statement as unsourced. I agree that there is a discrepancy with the less than one percent according to the 2001 census as cited by the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. However, I'd like to remark that the "five to ten percent" were based on several other sources, see Talk:Rastafari_movement/Archive_1 (back then, correcting an earlier "estimated sixty percent" in the article ;) - the good practice of citing them directly wasn't as common back in 2004. I have added some of it back (also quoting newer editions of the original sources which have appeared since then), as it seems valuable to mention different estimates, especially in the case of a largely unorganized religion. I'd also like to point out the additional discrepancy between the 24,000 according to the 2001 Jamaican census and the one million worldwide estimate for 1997 (citing "Chanting Down Babylon"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have three times pointed out that Emperor Haille Selassie told the Rastafarians that he was not the Christ, but that was removed. World Magazine pointed that out, by the way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.241.199 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please check your facts. You may be thinking of when he told a Canadian journalist when questioned if he was Christ returned, that he was a human being, and that he had told this to the Rastafarians. We have to keep his answer precise without adding or subtracting anything, because the Rasta POV is that Christ is indeed also a human being as well as God the Son, who is also recorded in the Gospels as refusing to directly answer similar questioning by the authorities at his trial. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect link to Jata
The article contains a link to a town in Poland called Jata. This appears to be an accident; the sentence is about India. Ben (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Babylon System
The term (Babylon System) is used in several places. However it is not defined or a reference provided. Given it's not common enough to come up easily in a search engine it presents a problem for the reader (in this case me). I'd propose an edit to define it, but I don't have background to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeReader (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Article On The Holy Spirit
Could someone please create an article on the Rastafarian belief, concerning the Spirit of God? Thank you in advance.--Splashen (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey's comparison to John the Baptist
I will like to mention that I made a contribution to state that Marcus Garvey constantly gets compared to John the Baptist, because of their similar mission. Such mission was to persuade others of the coming of the divine. --Karla032692 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Karla A.

Rasta is not a religion
Rasta is not a religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.34.147 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fulfilled Rastafari
Other than from themselves I can find no reference to Fulfilled Rastafari on the web and there are no refs that don't come from them in this article. I therefore propose to remove the section from both here and the mansions article. Please let me know if you object and we can discuss first. BoboRastafari (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd indeed!
Cf. what Jehovah's Witnesses are called! Intuitively JW:s are apart, while Rastafari are trinitarian Christians. WP, however choose some stance of blatantly ignoring theology. WP sucx! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 02:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Holy Spirit
This sentence is subjective "Furthermore, "I and I" is used instead of "We", and is used in this way to emphasize the equality between all people, in the recognition that the Holy Spirit within us all makes us essentially one and the same." Towards the end it says "recognition that the Holy Spirit within us all This is extremely subjective and presumptuous. Please change this to make it written from a more secular standpoint. Alpedio (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; it was not well phrased for an encyclopedia. I tried to improve it. 86.160.218.68 (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Rastafarianism
This should be the name of the article as it is the common name, period.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong premise, wrong conclusion; and you've been WP:TROLLing here for quite some time now based on that opinion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what everyone calls it. Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's what "everyone" calls it, then the people who call it something else, do not exist. That supposition is plainly false, as is your assertion that "everyone" calls it that.  You are trolling here, just as if you went to Talk:Ethiopia and said "Abyssinia should be the name of the article, because that's what everyone calls it", or if you went to Talk:Inuit and said "Eskimo should be the name of this article, because that's what everyone calls it."  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone still calls it rastafarianism, except a few, "nearly everyone" is a common sense of the term everyone but I am not going to write out every remote possibly when I choose my nouns. The rastafarians themselves don't call it that but they also get really uppity and black about it whenever they talk about it at all really aggressive people. Inuit or Eskimo are equally used, only ever heard Abyssinia on old maps, hmm Shall we be forced to call it Myanmar even though everyone calls it Burma?LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the last shred of good faith you're not a troll just went out the window! 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Then why do I have 5 did you know articles baby boy?LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Luciferwildcat, may I  very strongly suggest that you read WP:TPG and WP:CIVILITY before offering further comments here? You may have a point that the term Rastafarians is more commonly used than Rastafari movement, but your comments and presentation of yourself leave a great deal to be desired. Speaking as someone who has around 50 DYK articles, I have to say that very few people consider that single statistic to necessarily mean that those individuals are always right. "Baby boy" is also another very questionable and unfortunate choice of language. I do note that the encyclopedia Africana calls its article on the subject "Rastafarians", so I acknowledge that there is some basis for saying this might as well. However, I also very much believe that conduct such as I have seen above in no way contributes to a civil and productive atmosphere. I think, if you want to pursue the subject, that presenting oneself in a more civil way would very definitely be a step in the right direction. I also note that there have been previous discussions about a name change in each of the first two pages of archives of this talk page. I think it would make a great deal of sense to at least review those previous discussions before starting another discussion on the same topic. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do note that Lucifer isn't even arguing for the name "Rastafarians" but rather for exclusive use of the name "Rastafarianism" which is already cited in the lede as being a variant which is particularly offensive to members of the movement in Jamaica. In other words, he's going well out of his way to be offensive (and racist in his "they get really black about it" comments above) to members of a religion, which is prohibited by multiple wp policies. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Rastafarian as Satanist
In the bible, the anti-Christ is an important figure. It is defined in 1 John 4:3 as a spirit that does not confess that Jesus is Christ IN THE FLESH. If Haile Selassie was Christ, then Jesus was not (Christ is the Jewish title for Messiah, and the Jews do not assign Jesus with that title.) In 1 John 2:18, the possibility of multiple anti-Christs is enumerated.

For this reason, some have argued that worshiping Haile Selassie is Satanist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltek (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hamiltek, did you come here just to try to provoke a disturbance ("troll"), by blaring your own personal opinion / bias / theory ("soapbox") with a religious attack completely mischaracterizing others' belief systems ("strictly forbidden by cornerstone wikimedia policy"), or do you perhaps have anything such as a "reliable source" other than yourself, to whom we could consider attributing such a contorted P.O.V. and non-sequitur logic?  Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)