This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
After discovering that Ras Tafari redirects to Selassie I have deleted the disambiguation page and redirected it here, --SqueakBox 03:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
This should be no problem, since Ras Tafari is his name. It also means
Head Creator in Amharic. So it can refer both to Haile Selassie
and to Abrahamic God name in Amharic. When put together
as Rastafari it is the name of the movement (concerning
whether Rastas should be seen as cult - maybe, but it has
bad meaning, religion - no).
Greetings,
I can't tell you how many times I've seen people say that Ras Tafari means "Head Creator" in Amharic. However, this is not quite the case. Yes, one of the meanings of Ras is indeed "Head". But the correct word for "Creator" is feTaree; note, in this word the F comes before the T, and it is a T, a slightly more aspirated sound than t, and also the next vowel is "a" as in "father". However, His Majesty's given name is not /feTaree/, but rather /teferee/. This means, "One Who is raspected". Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 23:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Ras Tafari IS H.I.M.'s name, but it does not mean head creator. His pre-coronation name was Tafari Makkonen, and Ras denotes Ethiopian royalty. By the way i too am a Rasta, and do not agree with any thought of ism in the title, but like that "ism" is mentioned in the article.
- Sky
Bible Quotes
I am not a Rastafarian myself so correct me if I'm wrong.
The first quote mentioned (Exodus 10:12) is out of context, completely.
The full quote is as follows:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they may come up upon the land of Egypt, and eat every herb of the land, even all that the hail hath left."
The word "eat" is not a command but verb in the future tense. This is even move evident when reading the original Hebrew text, since in Hebrew the two tenses vary more.
For Hebrew readers, the original text is:
ויאמר ה' אל משה נטה ידך על ארץ מצרים בארבה ויעל על ארץ מצרים ויאכל את כל עשב הארץ את כל אשר השאיר הברד.
Rastas are accused by many Bible scholars of taking Bible quotes out of context. They use the King James version of the Bible ands don't engage in Hebrew scholarship, --SqueakBox 16:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the editors of the King James Version were trying not to offend King James; they wrote in the King's English at the time (1600) that today, with modern readers, is especially prone to misinterpretation. Of course, noone can seriously take this partial quote about the locusts plaguing Egypt, as meaning any kind of dietary prescription. I am a Rasta and a scholar, but please bear in mind that the roots of this movement was not in scholarship but in poor, often illiterate dwellers among the shanty towns of Jamaica, who although earnest, were prone to making many minor inaccurate assumptions of this type, that later proved to be false. Wherever that quote originated, it was probably not from a serious scholar, but neither were they necessarily trying to deceive intentionally, to overstate the Biblical case for diet. Rastas have been smoking and studying the Bible and praying for Wisdom for 75 years now, so rest assured, our knowledge of the original text and language has increased accordingly, from the state it was in at the beginning of the movement.
--I R I E I T E S
As a Rastafarian what do you think of the title of this article-that is the word rastafarianism? --SqueakBox 01:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well listen to the lyrics to the song 'Get Up, Stand Up'. In some versions Peter Tosh sings it as 'We're sick and tired of your ism-schism game', that speaks for all InI so this is a big reason InI do not say Rastafarianism. If it is offensive to most Rastas, or even to many, that is reason enough to retitle it to Rastafari - then perhaps the dispute flag could come down. Academics sometimes adjust their nomenclature arising from such sensitivities; for instance, after the Shah of Persia formally requested the international community to refer to his nation as Iran, or when around the same time, His Imperial Majesty requested them to call the name of His Kingdom "Ethiopia" rather than "Abyssinia".
Thanks for your comment - it's an argument that we have been trying to make before. May I request that you register a user name - that way, when the dicussion of naming the article comes up again you can participate in in the discussion. May I ask where you are from, btw? I'm a Trini. Guettarda 15:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I've read this in the article "They are also criticised for using the English language (and particularly the King James version) of the Bible, as many have no interest in Hebrew or Greek scholarship. However, in recent years a greater interest in the Amharic Orthodox version, authorized by Haile Selassie I in the 1950s, has arisen among Rastas." - I don't understand the link between using a certain version of the bible and and the idea that you can't use a version if you don't know Hebrew or Greek. This needs explaining as it doesn't make any sense (to me). The congregations of most churches using that bible won't have studied the classics either. Secretlondon 00:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I understand your concern, and some others who know more about this specific question may be able to answer it better. Rastafarianism has had no scholarship from the get-go, where as your local Methodist church may not have many greek or hebrew scholars but certainly has had many in the organization through the years. The Rastafari movement has had very few, and consequently some of their doctrines are based on what most if not all scholars consider misinterpretations of parts of verses. This seems to cause problems for them, but from certain philosophical perspectives it is irrelevant. For Kierkegaard such scholoarship is objective, not subjective, and is thus useless for faith. Faith is all that matters to belief in God for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattssw (talk • contribs)
This editor is displaying exactly the same kind of condescending attitude we have seen for 4000 years. 'There are no scholars, they have always been illiterate etc.' There are plenty of Rasta scholars. Perhaps they just don't meet your definition of the word 'scholars' of the scribes and pharisees party.. As a matter of fact, a higher percentage of Rasta are scholars who speak several languages, than in any local methodist Church library. This condescension seems quite methodical, though. Our king, Haile Sellassie I was and is the greatest Scholar Who ever lived. Many of the bredren follow in His footsteps, and you are just projecting a falsehood when you say we aren't learning Greek and Hebrew, believe that if you want. We say Rasta is Reality, because the Truth cannot ever change and always shows that we were right all along, once the smoke-screen clears, you too will see who is seated upon the Throne. Now as far as the topic of Bible quotes, the quotes are given in reference to use of hemp being provided to man from Genesis, Proverbs and Psalms. Then the article goes on to state: "Note, however, the lack of Bible references to smoking of herbs." This is an inaccuracy in our interpretation, so I am going to do some better scholarship and correct this with more references from the Bible. 172.163.116.235 14:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree, the lack of biblical scholarship would only be relevant if the Bible were true, SqueakBox 14:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't there a criticism section in this article? These people believe some crazy things--I mean, do people even bother criticizing it, just because, you know, it's so beyond the pail? -Kmaguir1 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually there is a huge logic to Rastafari but like any complex subject it may appear incomprehensible to thosen who dont understand where the movement is coming from. Surely all religion is by nature absurd, if it wasnt it wouldnt be religion and for me this makes Rasta a genuine faith. By all means find some sourceable criticism and add it but saying the Rasta beliefs are beyond the pale wont wash eg in their belief that life is to be lived here on earth and not in some promised after life Rastas have shown themselves to be far more rational than other religions, and in His Majesty they have chosen a man of high moral calibre to be God and King, much better than all those false prophet cult leaders like Hubbard, Moon, etc, SqueakBox 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand where the movement is coming from--a desire to smoke weed. And worship a man who IS dead, and himself denied association with the movement. Is that what Christ did to Peter--mislead him with His answers? -Kmaguir1 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well Christians worship a man that has been dead 2000 years. It isnt true that Selassie denied association with the movement, he remained dissassociated with it but that is something entirely different. His primary duty was to his Ethiopian subjects because his job was to be Emperor and he couldn't have abandoned that to become a cult leader and if he had the Rastas would have lost faith in HIM. I dont think a desire to smoke weed is what makes a Rasta, there are for more weed smokers than Rastas in the world who feel no need to be Rastas or for the most part justify there use of weed. More importantly Rasta is so much more than smoking weed, as Christianity is so much more than drinking wine. So I would guess from your comments that you dont understand where Rasta is coming from, SqueakBox 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Mark 4:20 - "Plant the seed and it shall grow" is this a joke? seems like a big coincidence for it to be 420
Greetings and Blessings in the name of Jah Rastafari Haile Sellassie I, I would like to add some facts to the name Ras Tafari: Ras=Head Tafari=To be Feared thus meaning Head to be Feared, I would like to add that the current picture of the Rastafari or Rastaman is too hippyish, that picture does not show the true livity of a Rastaman esp. the toungue sticking out, find a more humble elder picture cause that pic makes I and I look bad. From Ras Imes-RNCI-USA
Moving
I am moving Doctrines back to the main article, --SqueakBox 16:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Haile Selassie
I have footnoted to an external source to flag the fact that there is documented real historical disagreement among Rastafarians as to the supposed "divinity" of Haile Selassie. I think some careful clean-up work needs to be done to this article to make it NPOV. Whig 06:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
The nature of this 'disagreement' is strikingly parallel to a ism-schism game that arose in the Early Church: homoousia v. homoiousia, etc. But the sides in this debate have "agreed to disagree," to avoid following that same road. There is no question that Monophysitism prevailed in Africa, His Majesty stood as Defender of the Ethiopian Church, that was solidly Monophysite, meaning a belief that the Messiah's Divine Nature cannot be separated from His human Nature, but is rather united (Tewahido) in one indivisible Nature. This reflects the Ethiopian belief taught by the Emperor that "Man cannot worship man"; - we worship Messiah not because He is man, but rather because He is God on Earth, God the Son in physical form.
None the less, one of the major "Houses" or "Mansions" (namely, Twelve Tribes) has articulated a position with respect to His Majesty's Divinity that is remarkably similar to the position of Arianism regarding Christ (a schism of Christianity that flourished roughy 300-700 AD.) They revere His Majesty as a prophet and a wise leader, but stop short of declaring H.I.M. to be the Messiah. A small clarifying paragraph to this effect ought to be included, but you are right, when you delve into this pov question it is vital to be extremely careful. Also, some web sites have sprung up lately purporting to represent lesser "new" sects of Rastafari, but these are sometimes viewed with great suspicion as a trick of Babylon or "wolves in sheeps clothes" since they appear to exist only on the Internet, and push statements about H.M. Selassie I that border on disrespectful, while these same ones (on the Internet) cantinue to take the Name of Ras Tafari in vain, by applying it to themselves while simultaneously preaching negative doctrines about H.I.M... These web sites are not regarded as genuine "Rastas" by most of the other Mansions, but 12 Tribes is a genuine Mansion and is recognised by the other main Mansions - (Niyabinghi, Bobo, Orthodox.) These Mansions at present have small differences in doctrine, structure and approach, but membership is loose enough to allow for a great number of "freelance" Rastas as well, those who follow JAH Path on their own without affiliating themselves with any one sect. His Majesty Haile Selassie is the only one person in the Movemant whose Teachings and sayings are central, and one of His most famous is the one that says "Country is common; Faith is private." --
I R I E
I T E S
I find it quite peculiar to underline that Haile Selassie was "the only black head of state in the world" in his time. For example, Liberia had Charles D. B. King as a president from 1920 to 1930, and Edwin Barclay from 1930 to 1944, both of which were black heads of state. 86.198.100.27 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Tehem 22:55, September 20, 2006 (UTC) [edited date & signature 22:39, September 21, 2006 (UTC)]
Correct, and I'm sure Haiti was another... Probably should be emended to read "monarch"... Codex Sinaiticus ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
POV?
This seems a blatantly non neutral article, which over-generalizes about the "Western mind" (???) and Christianity.
This section in the intro is definitely POV: "It was the first commune of its type in Jamaica, and at its zenith was an oasis of peace and prosperity for those living there." Declaring that something was an oasis of peace and prosperity is not at all encyclopedic. Atamasama 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
'Some early elements of Rastafari were closely related to indigenous religions of the Caribbean and Africa, and to the Maroons, though these syncretic elements were largely purged by the Nyahbinghi warriors - dreadlocked Rastas who fought the corrupting power of some leaders who sought to add them to the Rastafari doctrines'
How is this article even B class? 'corrupting power'-very encyclopedic172.141.98.38 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Please find some sources and add this material, the connection with the Maroons has been well documented though I am not sure anyone much has purged anything in Rastafari, the whole movement is too anarchic for that up till now, but again if you can find some good sources please add to the article, SqueakBox 18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No I was quoting something from the article and remarking on its POV, 'corrupting power' dosent sound right at all, that was my point.172.141.98.38 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This is partly because of his titles King of Kings, Lord of Lords and Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah. These titles match those of the Messiah mentioned in Revelation. However, these were traditionally accorded to all Ethiopian emperors, even before Revelation was written.
I'm wondering in particular about the last assertion, "even before Revelation was written." Upon what is this based? If it is based on the Kebra Nagast (which itself seems to have appeared no earlier than the 13th century) then this should be clarified in the text. Revelation was evidently written in 96CE or earlier.
Known documentation shows that Sembrouthes, a king of Axum was the first to use "King of Kings," circa 250 CE. I'm not sure when "Lord of Lords and Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah" was added to the title, but I suspect it was not created until the Solomonic dynasty, which asserted direct lineage to Menelik I (also see Talk:Menelik I). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I am the one who added "even before Revelation was written". Whatever your ferenj "documentation" may say (for whatever ulterior purpose), Amharic books say that the titles ንጉሠ ነገሥት ሞዓ አንበሣ ዘእምነገደ ይሁዳ (Niguse Negest, Mo'a Anbessa Ze'imnegede Yihuda) were indeed created with the Solomonid dynasty -- that is, circa 980 BC. However, I'm not sure that "Lord of Lords" was ever used as an Imperial title, so perhaps that bit could be removed. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 21:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Howdy, no ulterior motive, though I did wonder whether I might come off that way. There are discrepancies between what is presented in this article, and other articles such as Menelik I and Solomonic dynasty. Shouldn't these be reconciled or addressed somehow? (The other English Wikipedia articles are IMO rather thorough in their citation of references, thanks in large part to User:BanyanTree and User:Llywrch. As you point out they are English references, yes, but that's what is available to Anglophones.) I trust your vouching for the Amharic texts; I can barely make out the letters, much less translate the meaning, since I'm a kai as you correctly guessed. (But as Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam," inadequate farenj documentation and all). ;-) Also: a more minor issue, but I'm curious about your changing the word "which" back to "that." In such cases "which" makes more sense, e.g. in the way the clause itself follows a comma (I may be an annoying grammarian but I'm not trying to be pedantic about this). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. FYI, you might be interested to know that there are two different articles for Kebra Negast/Kebra Nagast. I've proposed a merge; the former would seem to be the correct spelling (or is it Kebre?), the latter has more info. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Nomenclature of followers of Rastafari
I have been looking through the article, and have found the terms Rastas, Rastafarians and Rastafari (in addition to their singulars) being used more or less interchangeably throughout the text to refer to followers of the Rastafari faith. However, reading a paragraph at the top of the article, one notices this:
The movement is sometimes called "Rastafarianism"; however, this is considered improper and offensive by the Rastas themselves.
If the term is indeed offensive, then we need to 1) reference why it is offensive; and 2) remove the use of the term from the rest of the article. Also, I feel we need to standardise the term used throughout the article, and I would like to ask for the opinion of editors to this article as to which of the three terms is correct for the article, in an effort to build consensus for this matter. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull 00:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The only times "Rastafarianism" is mentioned in the article is in a discussion of why the term is offensive. At least one citation is already given in the article on this issue. More were given in the long discussions above on this. Jonathunder 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Jonathunder, thank you for replying to my query. I would like to point out that "Rastafarian" does indeed occur in the article text elsewhere other than in the discussion about its offensive character, please see these examples:
From section Doctrines:
"...offer them except more suffering. Rastafarians see themselves as conforming to a vision..."
"...their existence gave some credence and impetus to early Rastafarians, validating their belief..."
"...who sought to add them to the Rastafarian doctrines."
I believe that these are outside of the discussion of the offense of the term. In addition, there is still the use of "Rastas" interchangeably with "Rastafari" - we should try to gain consensus on this matter somehow. I thought it best to raise this on the talk page rather than jump straight in and edit, since I assume this is an ongoing debate. As for the discussion above, that refers to the name of the article - not the nomenclature within the article itself.
The word Rastaman links here, although the article doesnt mention anything about the appearance and LIFESTYLE. Not all Rastamen are rastafarians but it's also an appearance, fashion, lifestyle or code of behaviour. Should we rather redirect Rastaman to dreadlocks? Pictureuploader 00:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
No I don't think so, I think you should add the necessary detail to the article, SqueakBox 00:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree; this article is strictly about Rastafari movement and should remain so; if "Rastamen" are something different, they should have their own article, (maybe linked to/from this one) especially as those who follow appearance and fashion are referred to as "wolves in sheeps clothes" by the Rastafari. Codex Sinaiticus 03:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I don't agree with Pictureuploader's interpretation. For me a Rastaman is by definition a follower of Rastafari. Yes there may well be a Rasta lifestyle, and there certainly is a Rasta appearance and code of behaviour but you would need to source your claim that many of those who take on the Rasta appearance and lifestyle and code of behaviour are not Rastafarians, and that would just be for starters. I do feel the issue needs dealing with here, basically because I dispute that rastamen are anything other than the followers of Sellassie I. Just having dreads and somoking weed doesn't make one into a Rasta. I have also redirected Rastawoman, Rastawomen and Rastamen here, SqueakBox 14:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
A discussion above proved that the word rasta is used in some languages for dreadlocks. This is tha case with my native language also, where rasta is also used to describe any wavy line as well. Following this, rastaman has a wider meaning. In any case, there are separate pages about christians and christianity, as well as islam and muslim. Why not create a separate Rastaman article where all differet issues and interpretations can be easily discussed? Pictureuploader 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I tried to do that in October 2008, but User:Til Eulenspiegel attacked it and destroyed it asking for "scholarly researches" which can't be found because "Babylon system is the vampire, falling empire, // Suckin' the blood of the sufferers, // Building church and university, // Deceiving the people continually". I used the sources which were possible for the case, but the destroyers rejected them as not academic enough (the admin who deleted it is an active scholar judging by his userpage). The initial destroyer also said that those who regard simply ganja, dreadlocks, and reggae (lifestyle) are "wolves in sheeps clothes" and don't deserve an article. That's how babylon oppresses freedom for soul, by forcing everyone to be scholars that attend specific assigned academies and without right to think and analyse things in any other way. So that, those who come out from universities are then good "soldiers of babylon" ready for fulfilling the tasks the babylon system need (making money and weapons, arresting ganja smokers, disallowing disliked Wikipedia articles (censorship) and so on). --ssr (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
you dont have to be a rasta man to beleive that salassie was god...im a rasta i think of of him as soloman....i think this article is to black and white...it needs to be smoothed out so ppl actually understand wut rastafari does,it free's god from religion...and this sounds like a religion..its a spiritual movement more of...and u follow the laws to get a better understanding of nature...jahs left hand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 420bonghits (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
On intro
Hi Codex, I'd like to remove the section of text that you reinserted into the Rastafari Movement article -- I don't think, as is, that it is grammatical nor is it stylistically or content-wise within the range of what makes a good article. I'm curious what you feel the rationale for its inclusion is. I see a lot of problems with the article as a whole -- it does read a bit like a soapbox, going beyond being descriptive to incorporating perspective-laden terms, and I think that this is part of what should be rewritten to make it better. --Improv 00:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The sentence currently reads (with the text in question bolded):
For Rastafari, Selassie I remains their god and their king, who stood with great pomp and dignity in front of the world's press and representatives of many of the world's powerful nations.
What is the grammatical problem with that???
What is out of range for this topic??? (Rasta's faith system)
What is the POV problem with this??? (It clearly states "For Rastafari, does not imply anything about what anyone else believes...)
In short, why exactly do you want to suppress this statement from the article??? Codex Sinaiticus 00:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I have put
For Rastafari, Selassie I remains their god and their king, who they see as worthy of worship and as having stood with great pomp and dignity in front of the world's press and representatives of many of the world's powerful nations.
Thus we distinguish the fact that it is Rastas who think this about Selassie I. I agree with Codex that it is important to include this statement because it is stating what Rastas think and beleive about Selassie I, highly relevant to the article, SqueakBox 01:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Squeakbox, your edit makes the edit grammatically sound, and I appreciate that. I still don't think the sentence is coherent, but it is grammatical -- the incoherence lies in the fact that it mixes a statement of relation (For Rastafari, Selassie I remains their god and their kind) with a side comment that doesn't fit with the general premise (He stood with great pomp and dignity...). To understand how it doesn't fit, look at the sentence with the first statement of relation removed: For Rastafari, Selassie stood with great pomp and dignity in front of the world's press and representatives of many of the world's powerful nations. I don't think it fits, nor does it really work as an independent sentence -- that's why I think that dependent clause should probably go. --Improv 02:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I also think the article has several general problems that I've seen with other articles written mainly by groups described by the article -- it tends to overuse terms used by the group as descriptive, rather than simply describe those terms from the outside. Some degree of use of terms can be appropriate, but in my opinion this article, again like those on several other groups, incorporates them to an inappropriate level in a way that undermines the scientific, encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia. The article has the definite feel of being written by enthusiastic Rasta rather than being written about Rasta. --Improv 02:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Who is this guy and where did he come from, he is our wost nightmare on the road to Damascus, IYAH
I would suggest that if you see the wikipedia articles on Rasta as part of a religious quest, you're approaching Wikipedia in the wrong way. --Improv 13:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I edited this article a lot before but haven't for months. I plan on going through it this w/end and seeing what can I do. In the meantime I have divided said sentence into 2. I am sure Improv is acting in good faith, and personally welcome his contributions, SqueakBox 13:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Improv isn't Rasta's worst nightmare, that would have to be the nutcase in London who wants Reggae banned and who does things like walk up to African Presidents in airports and demand they be placed under arrest!
Seriously, most of wikipedia was written by people who have a vested stake in the area it is about - you can find what Improv is describing in articles written about Muslims by Muslims, articles written about Christians by Christians articles about video games by video game players, it seems everyone on wikipedia is tolerant of this, and yet only Rastas are not even allowed to have one word written about them unless it describes them "from the outside"... I think that is not fair especially when we have taken great pains to ensure that every sentence remains written from a NPOV much as the rest of wikipedia is... Yes it presents the Rasta viewpoint, but it states clearly that's what it is, so it is legitimate in that respect and no different from the rest of wiki in that respect... But we should take each controversial sentence in here on a specific case-by case basis if there is any dispute and not speak in generalities... +
Sqeak, as always, I appreciate your support, but I have a small quibble over the grammar... You see, as a grammar expert, I can tell you there was nothing wrong grammatically with my version, but your version introduced a couple of grammatical errors, particularly in something called 'parallelism', also 'who' vs. 'whom'... I am going to correct that one more time, and hopefully you will see what I am talking about! Respect to all, Codex Sinaiticus 14:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand and in fact noted that what I mention is not unique to Rastas. I don't mean to be singling out Rastas -- over my edit history, you'll find that I've also commented on and been engaged in long discussions when this happened on articles related to Libertarians, troll groups, and several others. It's true that policy is unevenly applied, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a policy, rather that more work is needed to help it work more fairly. If you spot similar issues in other groups, by all means point them out, and if you want my take on those issues (and my support, if I happen to agree with you), drop me a note on my talk page. If anything, an overly self-congratulatory article hurts the opinion of the community on Rastas -- I must confess to some irritation at every group that uses their article as a vehicle for self-promotion. Sure, Rastas (and Libertarians, and Christians, and ...) think they're great/special/unique. That's to be expected. The rest of the world doesn't need to hear about it. What we do want to provide is information on who Rastas (and others) are through an informative, nonpropogandic, solid article on their history, perspectives, influence, theology, etc. Our project is about making worthwhile articles like that for all topics worth covering. I don't think the current article is bad, but it's not what it could be. --Improv 16:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Homosexuals and Rastas. Someone here claimed that they are all abused in Jamiaca. I want proof of this. Although this may be your personal experience it does not mean all or most Jamaicans share this view
I'm not a member of wiki and I'm not sure if this is the proper place to point it out, but I'd just like to clarify to those of you that handle this sort of thing that an ital diet is NOT vegan or vegetarian. It forbids the eating of RED meat, not ALL meat-- ie poultry and sometimes fish (the fish thing is iffy). I think better statement would be to say "The ital diet corresponds to the Jewish kosher diet or the Moslem concept of halaal food."
