Talk:Rastafari/Archive 8

Review of recent article overhaul by a Rastafarian reader
Recently the Wikipedia administration had Babylon agents overhaul the article using biased, Babylon sources of scholars, scribes and pharisees who take a hostile or condescending view of our religion. As a result, this article has become yet another hit piece written for us by our enemies, portraying us in a negative, condescending light. It uses outdated sources to portray the outdated theologies of black supremacism which most of us discarded decades ago in accordance with the central crucial teachings of our living God Haile Selassie I on race equality . We see and know well that Babylons response to any and all opposition to it in this current time is merely to silence and stifle any dissenting voices, because it is important to Babylon to save itself embarrassment of thinking anyone actually exists who disagrees with it. What needs to be overhauled is the administration of this disgraced English language project. You will learn exactly when it is too late in death that it was only His Majesty Haile Selassie I Who holds ALL the cards all along this whole time, so delete all dissent like your communist mentality calls for at the peril of your souls for all is recorded into Selassie I matrix. 172.58.232.213 (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * From the perspective of a Rasta believer, it is perhaps going to be inevitable that this article will appear as a work of Babylon because Wikipedia insists on the use of WP:Reliable Sources, namely the publications of academics and the mainstream media. For Wikipedia's purposes, the primary sources produced by Rastas themselves will rarely be regarded as sufficiently reliable (unless of course a Rasta is also an academic scholar of Rastafari and writes about the movement as a scholar-practitioner), particularly as they may not fairly represent the diverse beliefs of different Mansions. For what its worth, scholars such as Peter B. Clarke and Ennis B. Edmonds are—while not being Rastas themselves—clearly sympathetic to the black positive message that the religion promotes, so I think it a little misleading to claim that the article relies upon "scholars, scribes and pharisees who take a hostile or condescending view of our religion". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, since all religions are made-up rubbish, I can see how a rational encyclopedic treatment might seem hostile to believers. 86.191.58.247 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP obsessed with homosexuality appears to be a sock, probably Til Eulenspiegel
Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel/Archive. See range contributions I note that at least one of those IPs was blocked several times as a Til sock. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor has used five different IP addresses over the past few days (172.58.232.213; 172.56.35.34; 172.58.200.100; 172.56.34.137; 172.58.216.147), all of which are based in the Northeastern part of the United States. From what I gather, these IPs are a little scattered (Jersey City; Brooklyn; Philadelphia; Brookyln again, and then Woonsocket, Rhode Island), although that could be an error. Alternately, if this is correct it could be that the editor in question is moving around; or that we are actually dealing with WP:Meat puppetry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Til Eulenspiegel is likely the sock behind these, given their longstanding history of sock puppetry and professed Rasta beliefs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit summary used in this and similar edits is disruptive, and ought to be removed from the revision history unless there is some special reason not to do so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rastafari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121225084336/http://documentaryparadise.com/religion-documentaries/rastamentary/ to http://documentaryparadise.com/religion-documentaries/rastamentary/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard term for adherents to the religion
Is there a standard term set for adherents to the religion. Basically, should it be uniformly Rastafari or is it acceptable to replace it on occasion with Rastafarian? I'd rather establish that here in talk than get into a revert war. I'd prefer us to stick to the term adherents call themselves, but if there's variation there too I'm perfectly open to being corrected. That said, I'm not receptive to the argument we should change an accurate word up on the basis of variety of word use alone. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many practitioners refer to themselves as "Rastas", which I think is probably the best option when referring to them in this article. Practitioners often refer to themselves as "Rastafari" too, but given that that is also the name of the religion itself, I think that it would cause many readers confusion where we to use this term in both senses. Many Rastas dislike the term "Rastafarianism" and some academics caution against using it, but I'm not so sure about "Rastafarians" itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd be fine with using Rastas then. My main concern is that, wherever possible, we represent their faith as-practiced, and that includes calling them what they prefer to be called. I suspected Rastafarian wouldn't fit that definition, thus my objection. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Rasta City" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rasta City. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 03:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Rastafari
This article have a propagande. where did you get this information from? As a Rastafarian I feel touched by reading these things. Many fake information about ideology and origins of rastafari moviment. Rasta Gio (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This complaint lacks substance and detail. El_C 14:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rasta Mural, Sheshemane (11417146756).jpg (discussion)
 * Twelve Tribes of Israel headquarters.jpg (discussion)
 * The headquarters image has been kept,, if you want to use it again. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Gelato
Do you want Fidel Castro to come to the United States and ban cannabis in ALL 50 STATES? Of course, not. The gelato (cannabis) article was just approved but it is ONLY A STUB. Please make it good article or Fidel may come knocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No Citation
I am new to Wikipedia. Per the policies that I studied of Wikipedia, everything needs to be cited from the secondary source. However when i went through this article (first three paragraph's to be specific), I do not see anything cited. Would like to understand more on this front.--Stanford113 (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello there, Stanford113. It is important that all information in the main body of an article is cited to WP:Reliable Sources, however the opening section (usually called a "lead" or "lede") only serves to summarise what the rest of the article says. For that reason, we don't actually need citations in the lede so long as the information it summarises is appropriately cited at a later juncture of the article. You will sometimes find Wikipedia articles where citations do appear in the lede, but (at least in my experience) it's not widely considered best practice by Wikipedia editors. You can find out more about the purpose of the lede at Manual of Style/Lead section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you--Stanford113 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion to restore the image of the official cross of the Order of Primus St. Croix
Due to the fact that the Order of Primus St. Croix had to take the time to painstakingly research and add content to the other competing mansions in the subsection "Rastafari Mansions" just to be able to negotiate the possibility of minuscule recognition, we kindly request permission to restore the image of our cross.--Czar Petar
 * pls review Conflict of interest and Advocacy-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 09:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * From Advocacy: "Expertise alone is not advocacy" [...] "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." We assume that Conflict of interest is being cited because we're incorrectly being accused of "promoting" rather than "informing." We made sure that the content was completely neutral and even added content to the competing mansions in the same subsection after someone cited "undue length." We don't get paid to make Wikipedia edits, in fact no one is paid by the Order at all and everything we do is voluntary. Our personal YouTube channels and social media accounts are even demonetized intentionally so as to avoid financial motivations and we don't have 501c3 tax exempt status because we are obscure Rastafarians who don't even accept donations. We understand why editors with a potential conflict of interest are "strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" however we're confident that through reasonable discourse on this talk page we'll be able to reach a consensus.Czar Petar I (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

COI Disclosure
I write to disclose a potential conflict of interest regarding the subsection "Rastafari Mansions" per Dispute resolution noticeboard's recommendations from 18 April 2021. Although the source that I cited in my edit of the subsection dated August 30, 2019 written by me called Newly Discovered Documents Reveal, Ras Tafari Crowned “Lord of Lords” in 1917 states at the bottom of the "About the Author" description: "Afenegus Petar Vukotic is the Vice-Chairman of the Judicial Administration Commission and President of the Supreme Imperial Court of the Order of Primus St. Croix at the Church of Haile Selassie the First Through the Body of Jesus Christ in St. Lucia, British Virgin Islands" this is no longer the case as our hierarchy and understanding has changed (this includes the Minister of Justice Omar Tobijah's position as well). Currently the "Court" is in limbo and may never recover due to the fact that many important documents are yet to be found concerning Imperial Ethiopian case law (see also The Mysterious Case of the Ethiopian Archives). To be brief, without certain records we're unable to judge our communities correctly and therefore our Court has permanently closed until further notice. As of right now I'm a member of the community but I'm not considered to hold a specific office therefore I'm an expert on the topic yet I'm not an "employee" currently. I suggest that the editors republish my edit about the Order of Primus St. Croix in order to document the mansion's achievements thus far; I can also answer anyone's questions regarding the Order's beliefs if someone thinks that a revision may be necessary or if the wording needs to be changed etc. The new book that I was supposed to finish this year is also uncertain due to the absence of specific records from our library, please let me know if I can be of any assistance thanks for all you do.Czar Petar I (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should the Article Include a Paragraph on the Order of Primus Saint Croix?
Main question: Should this paragraph (here) about the Order of Primus Saint Croix, and an image of the Order's logo, be added to the "Mansions of Rastafari" sub-section of this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Votes

 * No: This is a Featured Article, so we must be very cautious about whether additions represent an actual improvement; this paragraph and its accompanying picture do not improve the article. The "Mansions of Rastafari" sub-section lists the major Rastafari groups (called "Mansions") as are discussed in WP:Reliable Sources, principally the writings of academic specialists on Rastafari. None of these academic specialists write about the Order of Primus Saint Croix. (Google Scholar does not bring up any sources that discuss the group itself). Simply put, the Order does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:Notability. Perhaps it will in future, but at present it remains a small, fairly new, and uninfluential sect within the broader Rastafari movement, one that has not attracted attention from the writers of secondary or tertiary sources. The proposed paragraph has been written by a member of the Order, thus representing WP:Advocacy. It relies heavily on WP:Primary sources written and published by the Order itself. Including such a lengthy paragraph about this group, one that is longer than those of any other Rasta group, is wholly WP:Undue given that the group is ignored by secondary/tertiary literature. If we were to include a paragraph on this group, we would have to include paragraphs on every Rasta group out there—there are probably hundreds—and the article already slightly exceeds the recommended length for articles at Wikipedia. In all, this addition is unnecessary, contrary to Wikipedia's policies on what to include, and would undermine the article's FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No: per all of above comment. Carlstak (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes: I appreciate that, as an apparent Grand Master Editor for Wikipedia, you may feel that controversial encyclopedic information can potentially undermine Featured Article status, but that is not sufficient reason for Wikipedia to remove particular content. Although Google Scholar doesn’t mention our Order verbatim it does reference Primus St. Croix and Omar Tobijah, two prominent members, one being eponymous (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/233191332.pdf). WP:Notability’s “Why we have these requirements” section states: “We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with WP:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.” Although the consensus here may very well be that we’re a small, un-influential and insignificant sect WP:Notability advises: “Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.” As regards to the repeated and unfounded claims of advocacy, WP:Gaming the system’s “Various levels of intent” prudently cautions, “However clear such an intent might subjectively seem, one should not cast aspersions about the mentalities or motivations of other editors.” WP:What Wikipedia is not’s “Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion” section suggests: “Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.” This is important because not one objection has yet to be made concerning the tone or actual substance of my NPOV edit; therefore the content is presumably not an issue. WP:Identifying and using primary sources section entitled, “Identifying and using primary sources” and subsection “"Primary" does not mean "bad"” says, “"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable".  While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.” Not to mention that, “sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions” (Five pillars, “Wikipedia has no firm rules” section). Returning our focus to the beginning of this thread: I sincerely tried to address the initial concern, which was the WP:Undue length of the Order of Primus St. Croix’s paragraph in relation to the other mansions in the subsection, by attempting a new edit per WP:BRD's Cycle guidelines; adding credible information to the other mansions in order to offset the size ratio of the Order’s paragraph in relation to other mansions per WP:Undue weight guidelines, that edit can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rastafari&diff=1018458335&oldid=1018288655. Not only was my proposal completely and instantaneously rejected but I was also then immediately falsely accused of edit warring which forced me to open a DRN in the very first round of discussion where I eventually had to, reluctantly, cite WP:AGF due to the severity and degree of the false accusations towards me. WP:Gaming the system describes “Gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior” as, “Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction.” Also, “The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view” (WP:Consensus’s “Through discussion” section). If the only real issue here is that the “article already slightly exceeds the recommended length for articles at Wikipedia” and that my attempted new edit is “unwieldy” (Midniteblueowl’s description during DRN) then surely we can come to a consensus soon as I’m willing to compromise.  I’ve already demonstrated my willingness when I attempted a new edit; I even deliberately filed two separate motions, one for the image and one for the text so that they can be discussed independently because the text of my edit holds priority over the image and is certainly negotiable separately. The idea that if we allow a single paragraph for the Order in this one subsection it will somehow undoubtedly create precedent for hundreds of other Rasta groups to add content indiscriminately on the page is being exaggerated because precedent isn’t a likely outcome here at all as WP:Precedent “is not intended to be binding policy.” Although I do sympathize with maintaining a perfect FA rating that’s actually not the purpose of Wikipedia, the focus should be on “our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia” per Policies and guidelines. Therefore I would like to see some suggestions of compromise from the other side rather than every naysayer taking an all-or-nothing position. In closing, just as I have been mischaracterized as edit warring and practicing advocacy so too has my edit been mischaracterized as WP:Undue. “In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view” (WP:Consensus, “Consensus-building” section, “In talk pages” subsection). Czar Petar I (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The source you cite from Google Scholar (which mentions two members of the Order in passing, and does not mention the Order itself at all) is only an essay written by an undergraduate student as part of their coursework. I'm surprised it has even been uploaded online; it is not an example of a peer-reviewed academic publication. If academic specialists begin discussing the Order as a significant and noteworthy part of the Rastafari movement (which I am perfectly willing to accept may happen in future) then I would be wholly supportive of including some reference to it in this Wikipedia article, albeit to an extent proportionate to the group's importance and influence in the movement (i.e. in a much shorter, more concise form that the recently proposed paragraph). However, while academic and specialist literature on the religion fails to make reference to the Order, I see no compelling reason for Wikipedia to do so. It's our job to follow the example of the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you prefer to wait until a handful of niche scholars' literature catches up to the facts on the ground then I have no further objections. However, if we're relying on specific scholars to dictate the content on the page then I expect no objections whatsoever when the secondary literature acknowledges the prominence, achievements and influence of the Order and I expand upon my original paragraph. Though Wikipedia articles may be dictated by mainstream scholars the evolution of the Rastafari movement isn't. His Majesty has exclusively endowed the Order of Primus St. Croix with the authority to reform the Rastafari faith and the reformation taking place right now is historic; expect a motion for our own subsection in the near future (Matthew 3:2). Czar Petar I (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No I am not seeing any wp:reliable sources that would support such an inclusion. - 109.249.185.75 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No: As per Midnightblueowl. Sea Ane (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No: Midnightblueowl has made a compelling argument, and I do not believe the proposed language will enhance the article. Pistongrinder (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No - The Order is not discussed in depth in reliable, independent, secondary sources, so any mention of it would be WP:UNDUE. The major groups are already mentioned and I find Midnightblueowl's argument compelling and policy-based. Also, even a member of said order should be able to see that the wall of text proposed in this version is too much for an article about Rastafari in general, right? RetiredDuke (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I found none of the arguments to be "compelling" at all yet I conceded my position based on the guidelines cited concerning independent secondary sources; not a problem. I don't expect Wikipedia editors to understand the global developments of the reformation of the Rastafari movement in real-time which is why I initially stressed the importance of making exceptions. The Order of Primus St. Croix is responsible for reforming the entire movement which is why the "wall of text proposed" is far too short especially for an article about Rastafari in general. The revelations published by the Order and the achievements attained have brought the old era to an end therefore this Wikipedia article will remain outdated indefinitely (but will have FA status, congrats). Czar Petar I (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, due to lack of WP:Reliable Sources to support its inclusion. Idealigic (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Nah rastafari
Jah 161.29.151.83 (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)