Talk:Rastafari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleRastafari has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 2, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Review of recent article overhaul by a Rastafarian reader[edit]

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 It uses outdated sources to portray the outdated theologies of black supremacism which most of us discarded decades ago in accordance with the central crucial teachings of our living God Haile Selassie I on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[edit]

Wikipedia: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[edit]

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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


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

Standard term for adherents to the religion[edit]

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)

@Simonm223: - 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)

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rastafari/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 01:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


I have read the article (and made a few minor edits, which I don't think disqualify me from doing a review). The article is generally very good, though there are a few passages where one can quibble with the writing, and a slightly different wording might be better.

The six good article criteria are,

1. That the article be well-written. As noted, I think the article meets this standard. I will note the minor respects in which it could be improved.

2. That the article be "Verifiable with no original research". On a first look through the article, this criterion also appears to be met. I have to note that I am not an expert on the subject, but looking at the sources, they do appear to be respectable academic sources (though this isn't absolutely essential, you could give me your own brief assessment of them). I suggest that the "further reading" section is perhaps too long and contains too many items. Most readers are not likely to want a list as long as this.

I can definitely see you point about being rid of the Further Reading section (as it is rather long), although I'm hoping to actually bring in some more material from it into the article over the next year or so, before taking the article to FAC. If you think it should really be taken out at this stage, I can do so, although I'd lean towards retaining it, at least for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I was suggesting that it might be shortened somewhat, not totally removed. It certainly seems too long to me, but I leave it entirely up to you to decide what to do with it; I insist on nothing. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

3. That the article be "Broad in its coverage", which means that a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic, and b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. The first part of that is not a problem; the article clearly does address the main aspects of the topic. However, the second part, b, is the main problem I see with passing the article. Rastafari is a very long article, and it is difficult not to suspect that it does at least sometimes go into unnecessary detail, necessitating at least some cutting back. From the work I have done on trying to write good articles, I completely understand how, when you get really interested in and passionate about working on a subject, you add more and more detail, because the subject is so absorbing. Sometimes one goes into overdrive and just adds too much. I will re-read the article and consider how it could be cut back; I definitely suggest that you also re-read the article, and also suggest some ways that it could be cut back.

You're right. There are definitely many parts of the article where it could be cut back. I'm giving it a go now but do let me know if there are any particular parts where you think I could go in with some more pruning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll get back to you soon on this. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

4. That the article be neutral. Yes, the article is neutral. Carefully, painstakingly, and obviously so.

Thank you for saying so! It's something that I try hard to ensure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

5. That the article "does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". Well, there have been some recent reverts, but these appear to be nothing more than reversions of run of the mill vandalism.

6. That the article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". Yeah, the images look fine. I'll check the boring stuff like "media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content" soon.

Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll add some other points that come to mind.

The lead states "Central is a monotheistic belief in a single God—referred to as Jah—who partially resides within each individual and who incarnated to Earth as Jesus Christ". This sounds slightly awkward; is "incarnated to Earth" really the best possible language? Some alternative phrasing should be possible; can you suggest one?

  • I've split the sentence in two and expanded the latter part somewhat: "Central is a monotheistic belief in a single God—referred to as Jah—who partially resides within each individual. Rastafari also maintains that Jah incarnated to Earth in human form as Jesus Christ." I've left "incarnated" in place, because I think that it probably is the best (and most accurate) term, but I'm certainly open to suggestions about alternatives. "Avatar" smacks too much of Hindu conceptions of theology in this context and just saying "born" on Earth I think misses the whole thrust of the idea being put forward, that of a god becoming human. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem isn't the term "incarnated" by itself, rather "incarnated to" as a phrase. For all I know, it may be the exact term preferred in scholarly sources, and I don't insist it be changed. Yet it reads somewhat oddly, and I've never encountered the specific expression "incarnated to" anywhere except in the lead of the Rastafari article. Instead of "incarnated to Earth in human form as Jesus Christ", I might have expected to find something like "appeared on Earth in human form as Jesus Christ". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh, in that case I totally agree. "incarnated to" doesn't make particular sense. Instead I've gone with "Jah incarnated in human form". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
        • That's fine and a definite improvement over what was there before. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Though the article probably needs to be cut back somewhat, sometimes there are places where more a little more information would help. For instance, the article states, "After Black Power declined following the deaths of Malcolm X, Michael X, and George Jackson, Rastafari filled the vacuum it left for many black youth". I realize that Malcolm X, Michael X, and George Jackson are all relatively well-known figures, but many readers nevertheless will not know who they are (and recall that Michael X and George Jackson are both less well-known than Malcolm X). Just a few added details, a word or two to give readers more context and describe who these people are, would help here.

  • I've changed the sentence to the following: "After Black Power declined following the deaths of prominent exponents such as Malcolm X, Michael X, and George Jackson,". Do you think that that does the trick or should I go into greater detail? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, what I had in mind (and what I would have done if it were an article I had been working on) would have been to add a brief short description for each of the three figures, maybe "Muslim minister" in the case of Malcolm X, "civil rights activist" in the case of Michael X, and "author" in the case of George Jackson. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I think that that may be adding an unnecessary level of detail at this juncture, and it's difficult to divide these three in this way as there is some overlap in the descriptions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you could profitably remove the link to Pastafarianism from the "See also" section. It is a redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monster, an article about a joke-religion/religion parody with no substantive connection to Rastafari. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Part of the "Definition section reads, "Scholars of religion have categorised Rastafari as a new religious movement. The scholar of religion Leonard E. Barrett referred to it as a sect, and the anthropologist Sheila Kitzinger and the sociologist Ernest Cashmore as a cult, while scholar of religion Ennis B. Edmonds argued that it could best be understood as a revitalization movement." A little too much repetition of "scholar of religion" there and throughout that section; it gets grating. I would remove "scholar of religion" before the names Leonard E. Barrett, Ennis B. Edmonds, Maboula Soumahoro, Darren J. N. Middleton, and Midas H. Chawane, since context of the section as a whole makes it clear that's what they are; I'd also remove "scholar" from before the name "Katrin Hansing", for essentially the same reason.

  • I've taken these out, although it may be that in future (particularly at FAC), others ask me to add them back in as it leaves the professional credentials of the named individuals absent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Put them back in if you like. I'm not trying to be dictatorial. It's just that in my view, the "Definition" section makes it clear that the people whose views are cited are scholars of religion by beginning with the words "Scholars of religion", making the repetition of "scholar of religion" every few sentences or so repetitive, grating, and unnecessary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
      • They can stay out for now, I think. I agree with you that that paragraph flows better without the constant repetition of "scholar of religion". It's just that at previous FACs I have found some editors being pretty insistent that we have the 'job descriptions' in there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Part of the "Definition" section reads, "In various countries, it has received legal recognition as a religion. Others have emphasised its political stance, particularly in support of African nationalism and Pan-Africanism, and thus seen it as a political movement, or as a "politico-religious" movement." That is a little unfortunate, since while the "others" presumably refers to other scholars of religion, the placement of the sentence beginning "Others" following that beginning "In various countries" might make it sound as though the "others" referred to other countries. I don't think readers would likely be confused, but some re-ordering or rewriting of text would make that passage read better. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • You're right, this could be improved by a rewording. I've given it a go; take a look and let me know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Your altered wording avoids the problem and is an improvement. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is mostly clear and informative, but there are still cases one can point to where the meaning of a given statement isn't apparent. For example, in a statement like, "Due to the view that God exists within everyone, Rastas believe that all members of the religion are intrinsically connected, and thereby regard statements like "you and I" as being insignificant", it is not apparent what "statements like 'you and I'" means or what it means to deem them "insignificant". In the few cases like this where the meaning of something isn't apparent it should be removed if it cannot be explained in terms readers can find comprehensible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I see your point about this particular sentence. I've decided to completely remove it rather than trying to reword it, as it is not essential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Freeknowledgecreator! I appreciate you taking the time to read this article and offer your thoughts - I know that it's a fairly long read, but I hope that you found it interesting. I certainly think that it's a fascinating topic. Let me know if there were any other aspects of the article that you would like me to tackle. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Don't worry, I'm not the kind of reviewer who will make you wait for weeks for a response. I'll have more to say soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The lead states, " Scholars of religion and related fields have classified it as both a new religious movement and a social movement. " Entering into nit-picking territory, is that an ideal phrasing? I may be mistaken (don't hesitate to tell me if I am), but the grammar of the sentence seems to suggest that there are two different things ("scholars of religion" and "related fields") that have both classified Rastafarianism as "both a new religious movement and a social movement". A wording that was only slightly different would avoid this. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I could simply cut the reference to "social movement" here, if you think that would help? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states, "Rastas also typically express hostile attitudes to homosexuality, regarding homosexuals as evil and unnatural; this attitude derives from references to same-sex sexual activity in the Bible." The "hostile attitudes to homosexuality" part of that is linked to Homophobia. You may or may not agree, but the link could be viewed as tendentious. I am aware that "homophobia" is often used loosely as a term for any kind of disapproval of homosexuality. However, the term can also be taken, correctly or not, as referring to a specific kind of mental disorder, and its use in an article like this could be seen as equating religiously-based opposition to homosexuality with a mental disorder. I'll leave it to you to decide whether to keep the link or not, but I would probably remove it myself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I can remove the Wikilink, that's not a problem. It's a shame we don't have an article on 'religious objections to homosexuality' or something more precise that could be used here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The importance of some of the material on homosexuality might be challenged on WP:PROPORTION grounds. For example, "In the 1960s, the scholar Sheila Kitzinger suggested that this horror of homosexuality "may be an indication of a heterosexuality which is not markedly pronounced" among Jamaican practitioners", and, "The scholar of religion Fortune Sibanda suggested that there were likely homosexual Rastas who deliberately concealed their sexual orientation because of these attitudes". The former is one scholar's opinion and it may look gratuitous to include it. The importance of the latter is open to question since it is a near certainty that some members of conservative religious groups will not be openly homosexual because of attitudes to homosexuality within those groups. For example, it is almost certainly true that some Catholics conceal their sexual orientation because of Catholic teachings, but this isn't noted in the article Catholic Church, presumably because it is obvious enough not to need stating, and trivial in that sense, however important it may be in the lives of the individuals concerned. Likewise the Islam article does not note that some homosexual Muslims conceal their sexual orientation because of Islamic teachings, although that's almost certainly true as well. I don't insist that either of those sentences be removed, but consider it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you're right here, there is too much of a focus on this particular issue. I've cut the Kitzinger quote as that is totally superfluous, really. I agree to some extent on the Sibanda point, but I also think that it works quite well in place. Thus I've only trimmed back the latter sentence so that it states: "Homosexual Rastas probably conceal their sexual orientation because of these attitudes". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for trimming it. I won't insist you remove it completely, though I would be inclined to remove it myself. It is an example of a tendency to somewhat excessive detail in the article, something which I noted above at the start of the review (a point you haven't taken particularly seriously as yet). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I'll have a re-read through the article now and see what could do with a trim. I'm sure I'll find some additional bits and pieces here and there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
"Nyabinghi Rastas refuse to make any compromise with Babylon, and are often critical of reggae musicians like Bob Marley whom they regard as having collaborated with the commercial music industry." Presumably a comma should follow "Marley"?
I'm not going to endlessly bog you down with minor points. The review may take a few more days. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
More soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've checked the images used in the article. There does not appear to be any copyright problem with any of them (the image captioned "A Rasta man with tuff dreads" states "The factual accuracy of this description or the file name is disputed"; this does not seem to be a copyright problem, however). Congratulations on producing such a well-illustrated article. More soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've looked through your changes to the article since the review began; they almost all look good, except in one case, you've changed a sentence to read, "Highlighting its political stance, particularly in support of African nationalism and Pan-Africanism, some have seen it as a political movement, or as a "politico-religious" movement". In this case, I would prefer "Emphasising" (which is closer to what was there before) rather than "Highlighting", as the meaning of that term would be slightly more difficult for readers to recognize. I will re-read the article as a whole soon and make some more comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree. "Emphasizing" would be better here. I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
One passage reads, "Many Rastas themselves, however, do not regard it as a religion, instead referring to it as a "way of life", or as a "spirituality". Midas H. Chawane nevertheless noted that it met many of the proposed definitions of religion". Should "proposed definitions of religion" read instead as "proposed definitions of a religion"? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that either actually work here, but I'm happy to change it to "a religion". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The article seems to contain some unnecessary repetition. For instance, in the "Definitions" section, it states, "It is thus difficult to make broad generalisations about the movement without obscuring the complexities within it", while in a following section, "Beliefs", it states, "the sociologist of religion Peter B. Clarke stated that it was "extremely difficult to generalise" about Rastas and their beliefs". It wouldn't seem that the article needs both of those statements, which cover the same ground. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've removed the second example and merged the references at the first instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The article states, "According to the anthropologist Stephen D. Glazier, Rasta approaches to the Bible result in the religion being "highly Protestant in outlook"". This is potentially confusing. Rastafari isn't actually a branch of Protestantism. I would assume that what that statement means is that its outlook in some way resembles that of Protestantism, but that is an assumption I'm left having to make, because it's not 100% clear. So the statement could be reworded and clarified. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've changed this sentence to the following: "According to the anthropologist Stephen D. Glazier, Rasta approaches to the Bible result in the religion adopting an "outlook" that is very similar to forms of Protestantism."
The article states, "This attitude may be more pervasive among Rastas living in Africa itself, who are more familiar with the realities of the continent's political problems." This could be written a little more simply, for example as "This attitude may be more pervasive among Rastas living in Africa itself, who are more familiar with the continent's political problems". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states, "In Jamaica, Rastas do not typically vote"; syntactically, "In Jamaica, Rastas typically do not vote" would seem better. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states, "Some Rastas express the view that cannabis smoke serves as an incense that counteracts perceived immoral practices, such as same-sex sexual relations, in society". The "such as same-sex sexual relations" part is once again unnecessary detail on homosexuality. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A fair point. I think that I selected that example because it was that which was explicitly given in the cited source, but it isn't intrinsic to the point being made, so it can go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
More unnecessary repetition. In the "Music" section, the article states, "Its popularity led to the emergence of "pseudo-Rastafarians", individuals who adopted the cultural trappings of Rastafari—such as dreadlocks and cannabis use—without sharing the religion's beliefs. Many Rastas grew critical of reggae, believing that it had commercialised their religion", and under "International spread and decline: 1970–present", it states, "Reggae's popularity led to a growth in "pseudo-Rastafarians", individuals who listened to reggae and wore Rasta clothing but did not share its belief system. Many Rastas were angered by this, believing it commercialised their religion". This kind of repetition really needs to be removed, especially since the article is so long even without it. I would think the second of the two quoted passages could be cut. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've removed it, although taken it from the "Music" section rather than the "History" section as I actually think it has greater pertinence in the latter given that the whole of the "pseudo-Rasta" thing is just as much about wearing dreadlocks and smoking marijuana as it is about listening to reggae. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Despite the article's great length, I'm not seeing a fundamental objection to passing it as a good article. But let's get these remaining issues dealt with first. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Passed article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Principal article template[edit]

The {{Rastafari}} template is the principal template for the topic, but was removed from the top of the page after being placed there. It hasn't been on the page for awhile, although it creates a concise and cohesive map to the Wikipedia collection on the topic. As templates don't show up on mobile a non-flag first image (the flag image duplicates the template top-image) should be used while placing the template under it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this (the GAN) is the best place to talk about the use of templates. Let's move it to the main Talk Page, if that's okay with you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Rasta City" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rastafari&oldid=933513524"