Talk:Haile Selassie/Archive 1

NPOV???

Wow. "In keeping with his cherished principle of collective security, for which he was an outspoken proponent, he sent a contingent under General Bully, known as the Kagnew Battalion, to take part in the UN Conflict in Korea where they fought valiantly against Communist forces in the defence of democratic South Korea."

NPOV anyone? There are people, outside of a few right-wing propaganda artists, that would consider South Korea under Syngman Rhee and the occupiers "democratic" in any way. Hell, even by bourgeois standards there wasn't a free election until 1988!

Citation & Reference Cleanup

This is a really great informative article but I think the references need to be properly documented next to the sentences it is taken from. I feel that it would be a great disservice to misquote or take out of context information that the reader will interpret as the word of Rastafarians. --Unreal128 14:49, 21 Apr 2006

Her Main enemies

Her Excellence fight against the three fascism: Desproportion and Brutal Italian Invasion, Komiterm and muslim extremists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.121.159 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This article lacks in objectivity. References, references...

Opening comments

Wayzaro or Wezero? (His lady mother and his lady wife.) Which is the correct transliteration of the Amharic courtesy title? Wetman 06:34, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about it. Another one: Woizero - see bellow. In my native we even also use two names for Selassie, but I prefer the name written not as in English but Hajle Selasije, as was written by Danilo Jelenc who spent a quarter of a century in Ethiopia as a mining expert and I guess he knows how to spell Amharic words - at least in his own native. I would also like to discuss about the following matter (as Sir BS would say). On November 22 2003 J.J. added a 'better' Selassie's portrait. What in fact did he really mean with that? What is a better portrait? The previous photography was taken at one particular moment and I think it is the 'best' portrait of that particular time. There is no other 'better' portrait I guess. Our lives are one long lines from our births to the end. We are 'the best' in all our times during the lives. And another thing - after him Head removed J.J.'s picture according to some copyright laws. Who owns copyright for all Selassie's photopgraphs in fact? His family? The goverment of Ethiopia itsefs? ... Best regards. --XJamRastafire 05:39, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

____

Here's the genealogy of relating Haile Selassie and Menelik II from this site (it seems to not have a copyright but needs to be confirmed):

titles in italics

Negus Sahle Sellassie (1795-October 12 1847, Debra Berhan)

m. 1.Bezabech Wolde (d. 1870/1871, Sela Dengay)

son. Negus Haile Malakot Sahle Selassie (1825-November 9 1855)

m. Ejigayehu (d. August 27 1877)

son. Menelik II

m. 2.Woizero Yimegnushel

son: Tenagne Worq Sahle Selassie (1830/1835-d.August 28 1887)

m. Dejazmatch Wolde Mikael Gudesa (d. 1879/1880)

son. HH Ras Makonnen Wolde Mikael (May 8 1852, Derejo Maryam,Gola nr Harar,Ethiopia - March 21 1906, Harar,Ethiopia)

m. Yeshimabet Aliye (1864 - March 14 1894, Harar,Ethiopia)

son. Haile Selassie

• Hi, as regards the correct transliteration of ወይዘሮ (which btw. is the exact equivalent of English "Mrs.", being applicable to any married woman) : Of the alternatives I've seen in the above discussion, "Woizero" comes closest to representing the actual pronunciation. "Wayzaro" is a spelling formerly used by people ignorant of the pronunciation, based on the fact that linguists ca. 100 years ago used to transliterate it as /wäyzäro/. Note the two dots over the ä; many type setters 100 years ago did not have this character, so they changed it to "a", unfortunately resulting in even more bizarre mispronunciations of a lot of transliterated names. "Wezero" doesn't even come close, since the second of the four Amharic letters (the Y) isn't even represented here, though it is distinctly audible. Personally, I would transliterate this title as "Woyzero". Codex Sinaiticus 15:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ordinal

I have removed the ordinal. Under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) an ordinal is only used when there is a second monarch of that name and hence a need to disambigulate. That is also how most monarchies use ordinals, eg, texts do not refer to Queen Victoria I, King Louis Philippe I, etc. Though some monarchs are explicitly given an ordinal when proclaimed, it is invariably dropped from usage and not used until someone with the same name becomes monarch. FearÉIREANN 23:27 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

Then are just reggae musicians and Rastafarians that do not conform to wiki style :-). Probably because he is the first for them and there won't be no other one. Ever. Or perhaps that he is the one and only. :-). Otherwise thank you for explanation. And further on. This convention is on the other side strange. As someone change the name with the state suffix. Would there be any Hailse Selassie of (let us say) Macedonia? --XJamRastafire 00:20 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Monarchs up until the mediæval period on wiki tend to described by means of name + ordinal (if more than two) with some references if a clear one could be clarified to the state over which they ruled. Modern monarchs are all in the form of [[{Name} {ordinal if more than one} of {name of state}]], with the name used in english unless a native name is used also in english or there is no english equivalent. (eg, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia not Tsar Nikolai II, Kaiser Wilhelm II not Kaiser William II). So if the was a Haile Selassie in both Ethiopia and Macedonia, they would be in as [[Haile Selassie of Macedonia]]. [[Haile Selassie of Ethiopia]].

The reason for not using an ordinal is simple. In general usage, singular monarchs are not referred to by an ordinal. Using one (as happened on wiki in the past) on some occasions tends to lead others to add one it all over the place, producing Queen Victoria I (which many people would not recognise immediately having never been called that except on the most formal state documents), Louis Philippe I, Juan Carlos I, etc. Ordinals are designed for disambigulation purposes so that you can tell which King Louis, which Tsar Nicholas, which Pope John Paul, which Queen Elizabeth. So unless there is a second monarch of that name, the ordinal is unnecessary. Monarchs with the same name that reigned in different locations are distintinguished by country being included. An ordinal wouldn't help of both Haile Selassies were the first or had a same later ordinal. I hope that clears things up. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:49 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, of course. As is Queen Victoria (not Queen Victoria I of Great Britain) there was only one Karantanian King Samo and not King Samo I of Karantania. --XJamRastafire 01:27 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Rastas pronounce Haile Selassie I pronouncing the one as I as in I did I am etc. Keeping no ordinal is correct for wiki. Squiquifox 02:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is continued below. The common reference to Haile Selassie is with the ordinal, although this may not follow a general convention with other monarchs/emperors. Whig 09:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

If I may add something here, His Majesty's official name included the ordinal during his lifetime. He was officially Kedamawi Haile Selassie (Haile Selassie I) in all official and unofficial references. Although not common practice among western monarchies, there have been notable exceptions, most recently, Pope John Paul I who adopted the ordinal with his name. The pope is afterall the monarch of the independent Vatican City state, and as such follows monarchial practice in these matters. Sendeq

Pronunciation

Does anybody happen to know the correct pronunciation of "Haile Selassie"? A pronunciation key of some sort would be helpful for those of us who are easily confused by trailing e's :)

I've only ever heard it pronounced "Hi-Lee Sir-Lass-ee" (including by my former African History lecturer who met the Emperor at least once). Timrollpickering 17:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, I do... While pronunciation in other languages may be somewhat looser, in Amharic the correct pronunciation is High-leh Sihl-la-sey. Using more linguistic notation, it would be /Hayle Sıllasé/... (é here does not mean a stress or accent on that vowel, but that it is a longer sound as in "hey"...) Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 15:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Selassie and rastafari

Have created rasta section and placed a rasta reference at the beginning. Haile Selassie is now better known as a historical religious figure than as a historical political figure, and I am sure that that will be even more so in 100 years time. So this side of Haile Selassie's persona does need stressing. He is a religious symbol. Him being so means rastas will be interested in what the site has to say about him (as muslims are interested in what wikipedia has to say about Mohammed. Personally I think it makes accuracy and neutrality very important in this article. Squiquifox 22:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) 100,000 Rastas waiting for Selassie in Jamaica sourced from Guardian UK [1]

I think that here you are speaking from your prersonal experience of Emperor Haile Selassie. Although he may indeed be better known in the Afro-Carribean community as a religious symbol, in the African community he is regarded as a political and historical figure. Please do not generalize about public perception as to make that kind of claim reputably, you would need to conduct a massive world wide poll. How His Majesty will be regarded in 100 years time cannot be predicted now. It is not "neutral" to stress the Emperor as purely a Rastafarian religious figure, when for 72 million fellow Ethiopians he is not seen that way but as an important historical and political figure. I think there is more than enough room for both views. Sendeq 18:40 May 4, 2006

He is indeed well known in Africa almost exclusively as a historical and political figure, but in the Caribbean, Americas and Europe he is known primarily as a religious figure. It is not just a few islands, it is over a third of the world. Depending on how Asia views him, his status as a religious figure is just as important if not MORE than his status as a political figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmccohen (talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rastafari disambiguation page

Right now there is a disambiguation page at Rastafari, with a redirect from Ras Tafari. I have proposed at Talk:Rastafari that this page be abandoned, that rastafari redirects to Rastafarianism and Ras Tafari to Haile Selassie. Comments here please. --SqueakBox 22:34, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. ςפקιДИτς 00:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Done ages back, but cheers for the support, SqueakBox 00:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sub-sections

I think we do need the headers to stop the article getting chaotic. Please say why you want to get rid of them here, don't just revert. I think we should have them because that is what wiki give them to us for.--SqueakBox 04:31, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I used them in his life because it had become disorganised. Wikipedia articles, without someone at the controls, do have a natural tendency toward disorganisation, and sub-sections really counter this, which is why they are there. They also help the reader--SqueakBox 04:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't revert; I simply deleted them. I have no idea what the article looked like prior to the version I worked on.

But to address your point, SqueakBox, it looks either ugly or silly to have a section or sub-section title for each paragraph in an article. A paragraph is a natural grouping of material on a given topic; if the article needs a header to tell the reader what each paragraph is about, then every paragraph so marked should be rewritten for clarity. We really should not have a header for a passage smaller than 2 or 3 paragraphs. -- llywrch 05:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is that okay now? --SqueakBox 05:19, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Closer to what I'm thinking, yes. I admit that I wasn't comfortable messing with the sub-sections under "Biography", but I feel you did the right thing there. The paragraph about the Order of the Garter needs to be better integrated into this article, but I don't know enough of the details to make the proper change. I'm still uncomfortable about the subsections under "The Rastafarians", but nowhere near enough to remove them; because this section touches upon an overlooked topic -- the spiritual & intellectual importance of Ethiopia outside of Africa -- I'm hoping that when someone is able to add that information to this article it won't appear jarring at all. -- llywrch 17:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Presentation, how things look, has never been my strong point; I tend to be thinking about content and organisation; I will cetainly keep your concerns in mind wherever I work. I suspect the spiritual & intellectual importance of Ethiopia outside of Africa deserves an article to itself, linking to Selassie, Garvey, the Rastas, etc. I will see if I can comne up with something. --SqueakBox 18:13, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Little thing

Fascinating stuff, but there seems to be a paragraph or two missing between (a) Selassie's exile and return to Ethiopia (which would, I assume, explain why is listed as a British Field Marshal and why he has the Order of the Garter), and (b) Selassie's return to Ethiopia and the 1955 constitution. What did the chap do?-Ashley Pomeroy 18:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both the Garter and the Field Marshal's baton were post war develpments, although his anti-Fascist stands and his war time activities were among the reasons for both. Sendeq

Believe/Prove/Know

I don't quite understand this insistence on saying Rastafarians don't need to "believe" (as opposed to "prove") that Haile Selassie is Jah (They say that they know Selassie is God, and therefore do not need to believe it.). This wording makes it sound like Rastafarians don't believe that Selassie is Jah - which is or course nonsensical. My guess is that what's behind this is a desire to draw a distinction between facts (which one "knows"), which are undoubtly true, and axioms (which one "believes"), which might not be true. I would assume that Rastafarians wish to elevate their view of Selassie to the former class, and that's behind this wording change. However, as it stands, it reads very confusingly, being seemingly contradictory. If the text wants to say that Rastafarians view the equivalence between Selassie and Jah as a fact, not a belief, then it should just say so, as opposed to this confusing wording. Noel (talk) 13:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I will rewrite. Joseph Owens book Dread deals with this issue extensively (and is my source). Bob Marley immortalised it in Ride, Natty, Ride (from Survival) when he sang "we must know and not believe". A lot of the Rasta sections in other articles need rewrites, which I will get around to some time, but I will do this today, --SqueakBox 15:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that word means what they think it means.

Redirect

Trey Stone (talk · contribs) bypassed wikipedia procedure and changed the article to Haile Selassie, thus distorting the record history. Please don't repeat, --SqueakBox 19:14, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC). He did not realise, --SqueakBox 19:33, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed name change

I propose we rename the article Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia. See Juan Carlos I of Spain. Haile Selassie I is common usage amongst Rastafarians, --SqueakBox 19:33, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

see #Ordinal for this discussion.--PRB 13:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read that already. it doesn't explain Juan Carlos I of Spain, and in the light of this I want to reopen the debate (which was months ago) --SqueakBox 15:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure we shouldn't make it Haile Selassie I of Abyssinia. Whig 16:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Why Abyssinia? You'll have to have a good reason to get my support for your intriguing idea, --SqueakBox 16:46, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Because the country was historically called Abyssinia and remained so when Ras Tafari became Emperor Haile Selassie I. Whig 16:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it then became Ethiopia long before he died, which is why I don't think it is a great idea, --SqueakBox 16:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

A fair point. I think we might want to mention Abyssinia in the article, though. Whig 02:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Ethiopia was only refered to as Abyssinia by non-Ethiopians. Haile Selassie I was crowned "Emperor of Ethiopia" as all his predicessors were. Abyssinia is what non-Ethiopians referred to the Semetic inhabited highlands of central and northern Ethiopia and Eritrea, and is not correct. Sendeq

I do want to agree with SqueakBox above, though, that we should use the ordinal in the title for this entry, for two reasons. First, because it does reflect the general usage, and second because it does not express a POV. Queen Victoria is not generally called by her ordinal, nor are most monarchs where there is no II, III etc., but I think here a foolish consistency is undesirable. Whig 02:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

And it is Juan Carlos I of Spain. The fact that the Rastas do use the I is important in that they refer to him a lot. This article deals with a dead political figure who is being deified, and so we must treat him as such, --SqueakBox 02:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's going to require some careful editing to keep this properly contextualized and NPOV, but I absolutely agree that the deification issue must be addressed properly and fairly. Whig 03:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to get a sense of the general opinion on this move. The convention does preclude the ordinal, but the convention is not policy, and is not followed as in the case of Juan Carlos I of Spain for specific example as given by Squeakbox above. We need not be consistent as long as we maintain NPOV. Those disagreeing, please speak up. Whig 09:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that the ordinal is not used only by Rastafari. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Whig 09:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh???

Why is this article not titled Haile Selassie? --Hottentot

For much the same reason that we have William I of England as opposed to "William the Conqueror". Loganberry (Talk) 23:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Or, more importantly, why we have Juan Carlos I of Spain even though both were/are the first and only, SqueakBox 23:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

What in the world is this "Power of Trinity" business? An explanation please. I think this article needs to be divided in two, one for Haile Selassie the head of state, and another to discuss his role in the Rastafarian religion.

• "Power of Trinity", translated into Ethiopic, is "Haile Selassie".
• I disagree that the article be divided. All the information about His Majesty can and should be on one page, not two pages.
• His Majesty" is part of his name, being part of his official title, and as such, is appropriate for the lead, so I'm reverting your blanking of it. Codex Sinaiticus 14:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with one not 2 articles. Selassie I is now better known as a religious symbol. It would be like splitting Mohammed off into his political life, and him as a religious symbol, SqueakBox 15:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

At the time of Mohammed, they did not have the means that we do today to archive such information. We DO have the means for Haile Selassie. His most important and well known speeches are political. (I was introduced to him in my studies as a political figure.) To my knowledge he neither validated or denied the fact that he was divine, which is something most religious figures do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.205.99 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Rasta Christafari edits

The unmistakable hand of anti-Rasta Christafarian has been editing this article. Please don't use anti-Rastafarian Christafari material as source material for this article. Material from their site is not reliable as a reliable source for wikipedia articles concerning Rastafari or Selassie I as it is a very small Christian cult with no kind of mainstream credibility and a mission to discredit Rastafari and replace it with Christianity, something not to be engaged in on the pages of wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are refering to that is objectionable to Rastafarian beliefs, and I'm also not sure what "Christafarian" is. Although it is only fair that Rastafarian beliefs be included in any article about the Emperor, he was also a devout Christian and a historical figure, so those sides of his life and legacy must be represented also. It is not right to ask non-Rastafarians to refrain from adding to this article. As an Ethiopian, Emperor Haile Selassie I was and is an important part of my legacy and that is distinct from Rastafarian beliefs. I'm sure you agree that faith and history are not the same. There is plenty of room for both points of view. I have yet to see anything hateful or vindictive directed at His Majesty on this article. Sendeq 18:40 May 4, 2006

Time

Please leave the Time magazine pic here. It is great to see it in the other Person of the Year article but I suspect more than anyone else there the Time article had a huge impact on SelassieI's place in the world, especially in regards to Rastafari, and therefore it is entirely inappropriate to remove the pic from the article, SqueakBox 14:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You'd be right that it would be inappropriate to remove the image from the article if it was actually discussed in depth what Time said, why they awarded him the Person of the Year and how it impacted the man. However, none of these things are being done. Currently we have over 200 covers of TIME magazine, all claiming fair use. This is BAD. I am removing the image from the article until someone sorts out the issue where we describe the things I have just stated. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you actualy had read the article. I have fixed the Time magazine link and put the pic in the relevant paragraph. The fact of him being personality of the year is irrelevant,. The fact that the article inspired the Rastafari movement is utterly relevant and clearly makes it fair use. This is what we have

The belief in the incarnate divinity of Emperor Haile Selassie I began after news reports of his coronation reached Jamaica, particularly via the 2 Time magazine articles about the coronation the week before and the week after the event. Okay? SqueakBox 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK by me. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ta Bu Shi Da Yu, it looks like the November 1930 cover in question was not a "Man of the Year" issue, although He was MOTY 1935. So I'm not sure that particular cover belongs at Person of the Year anyway... Cheers, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Really? Will get that checked out. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A WWII story

My late father, a great history buff and World War II fighter, often recounted the following incident: Sometime during the 1930s, Ethiopian forces under Haile Selassie captured a regiment of Italian invaders. The Ethiopians allegedly cut off one of each soldiers' testicles, and then set them free -- a symbolic gesture to cast shame upon the fascist invaders. I have not found any documentation on that this incident, and was wondering if any one else has.Rastapopoulos 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a completely false story, probably created to propogate the image of Ethiopians and Africans in general as uncivilized barbarians. In the speech he gave upon returning to his Palace in Addis Ababa on May 5, 1941, the Emperor instructed his people to forgive the invader in the spirit of Christ. Indeed, when the British began rounding up all the Italians to put them in prisoner of war camps in Kenya and Tanganyka (now Tanzania), the Emperor quietly encouraged his people to help many Italians hide from the British. He desperately needed the help of these Italians in maintaining the infrastructure they they had built during their five years of occupation. As a result, a large community of Italians remained in Ethiopia, devoted to Haile Selassie, for the duration of his reign. User:Sendeq 10:45, April 28 2006

About this practice in the Horn of Africa of castration of prisoners of war (which did happen, but with less frequency, into the 19th & 20th centuries) see Mikedash's entertaining story at Talk:Battle of Adowa. -- llywrch 18:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This would only present Africans as uncivilized or barbaric if we assumed that Westerners and Asians did not participate in war crimes. I think we're all aware of what occured in abu Ghraib, Malmedy, the Japanese PoW camps, My Lai, the German invasion of Russia, and so on. Also, in regards to his demand that soldiers forgive their enemies that you cite, remember that soldiers frequently in the heat of battle ignore the civility demanded of them by their government (and that the quote given is a few years after the war). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.68.217 (talk) 17:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

'rastafar - ian' or rasta

The term 'rasta-farian' is deemed insulting and part of a categorisation scheme which is rejected by rasta,

Is it possible to change these references to Rasta instead? I don't think it would make the article read any worse and think it is appropriate, Muslims would not be referred to as mohammedans, no? 194.112.58.194 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the term that is strenuously rejected by the Rastafari is the one that puts the -ISM at the end. I am not aware of anyone who objects to the term "Rastafarian", and am aware of a number that self describe this way. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Codex. The term Rastafarian is not considered insulting by Rastas and I am bemused as to why anyone would think it was. See the band The Rastafarians for instance. Rastafarianism is a problematic term, though, which is why I so vigorously opposed that as the original Rastafari movement article name, SqueakBox 13:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What some Rastas do object to is the pronounciation Rasta[fair]ian, preferring Rasta[far]ian as the correct pronounciation, indeed this is the way The Rastafarians on their song I-hold (behold) the Rastafarians pronounced it, SqueakBox 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

HIH Princess Romanework Haile Selassie

Someone has continuously edited the section that mentions Princess Romanework, stating that she was allegedly born of an "alleged" union with Woizero Altayech, and stating that there were "questions" as to whether she was really the Emperor's daughter. This would be considered hugely scandalous within the Imperial family as there is absolutely no question that Her Imperial Highness was the Emperor's daughter. Every single geneology of the Imperial family, from the official tree published by the Imperial government during the monarchy to the Almanach de Bruxelles (which lists the geneology of non-European royal houses) includes the Princess as the Emperor's eldest child, and mentions his brief union to Woizer Altatyech. It is true that the Emperor's relationship with Woizer Altayech was not a "church marriage", but rather a form of "common law" union that was common in Ethiopia in those days, particularly among young nobles who did not think they were ready for the insoluable church marriages. Her Imperial Highness was recognized as the Emperor's eldest child during her life, was granted the title of Princess and Imperial Highness upon his coronation, was given in marriage by him personally, and was buried within the Imperial family crypt at Holy Trinity Cathedral with his other children. It is offensive to her survivors to be told that their ancestry is questioned especially when no one in Ethiopia or the Imperial Family does so. User:Sendeq

Yes, there is so a question that he ever had any union with Altayech, this only comes from other sources but not from anything His Majesty himself ever mentioned or wrote in his copious records, nor in his Autobiography, that he himself stated did not leave anything important out.. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As you will note, the Emperor's autobiography is virtually devoid of personal details and is not a memoire at all, but rather a political testament he wrote largely during his exile. He does not mention many people in his family. Indeed the Emperor seldom mentions anything personal in his writings or speeches. The rare examples are the statements he issued upon the death of the Duke of Harrar, and the death of Empress Menen. For example there is virtually no mention in his autobiography of his youngest son Prince Sahle Selassie, or his neice and nephews by his elder brother, and virtually no mention of his mother and his maternal relatives such as his grandmother Imahoi Wolete Giorgis and his aunt Woizero Mamite who both had a significant role in his upbringing. Indeed the Emperor's maternal relatives, who are very numerous remain a mystery to most people. This does not call into question thier legitimate relationship. Whether or not the "union" with Woizer Altayech was a marriage or not, the Emperor and the Imperial family recognized (and continue to recognize) Princess Romanework as his eldest child, include her and her children and grandson Lij Sibistianos (Sebastian) in the Imperial family tree. There are numerous other people who have and continue to claim the Emperor as their parent, but each and everyone of them has been denied by the Imperial family, and none made the allegations during the Emperor's reign. They are all highly suspect, but to class Princess Romanework with them is quite wrong. User:Sendeq

Well a member of the Imperial family once assured me personally that His Majesty only had relations with one woman during his entire life, and that was Empress Menen, and that he was perfectly celibate both before and after his marriage to her, so that is what I believe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Intersting statement when the official family tree of the Imperial family includes the Princess. I urge you to e-mail the Crown Council of Ethiopia and ask them if Princess Romanework was the Emperor's daughter. I too have contacts with members of the Imperial family and can assure you that they do not question her parentage. Indeed Wikipedia is the only place I have ever seen her parentage questioned. I will make a point of asking H.I.H Prince Ermias for the benefit of this page.User:Sendeq

This may be the truth or may not be . . . but are there are verfiable sources (e.g., books, articles, news reports) that confirm that this Princess Romanework was ever said or thought to be Emperor Haile Selassie's daughter? If not, then the whole question becomes moot due to Wikipedia:Verifiability. If this can be shown, then are there the same materials that can show her parentage has been questioned? These should then be added to the article as references. Unfortunately, personal communications from the Imperial family do not qualify as verifiable evidence.

I have no opinion about what is true or not -- & I have no reason to doubt what either of you have written. Yet I hope that both of you agree with me that if there is no question about who her parents are, then Wikipedia shouldn't raise suspicions (& cause unneeded embarassment or anguish for a living person) over it unless it can be shown that the matter was discussed in public at some point. -- llywrch 04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is there are many printed geneologies that make no mention at all of Romanawork, but there are a few that do. I am suspicious of the ultimate source for the ones that do, (which seem more recent) beause I know that his enemies at various times have tried to convince the people of all sorts of lies about him, some of the bigger and more blatant ones make this seem like simple stuff... But some of them are more subtle... I would call this more subtle because it would undermine Orthodox concepts of the sanctity of marriage if it could be proven that either the Emperor or EMpress had multiple relationships, divorces, other children etc. and this is something people are always trying to prove, but never succeeding to convince 100% of the people. So if you can track down the source, make sure to mention what the source is, as per any wikipedia article, but that not everyone can believe it. I just did a search of the online archives of the Haile Selassie fan club e-mailing list, which goes back almost six years, and has incredibly comprehensive discussion of the minutest detail of the Emperor's life. And wouldn't you know it, apparently the name 'Romanework' has never even come up once in that list. Some of the best experts, even some who knew him personally, like Mr. Pankhurst, are on that list. So allow me some time to pose a query to that group, and see what various people there would have to say on the matter of 'Romanework'. The name 'Romanework' by the way, means 'Golden pomegranate', in Ethiopia I think this would not be considered a name for nobility. The name 'Altayech' means 'invisible', not a normal name, and this also seems a teeny bit suspicious to me, that Haile Selassie is alleged to have had a brief marriage with "Miss Invisible' before he was 20 years old!... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Altayech" means "Has not been seen" which if taken literally means "invisible" but in the context of names means "her equal has not been seen" and is in fact a common name in Ethiopia. The fact that Romanework is a name that has been regularly used within the Imperial dynasty can easily be deduced by reading the histories of the various branches of the dynasty in which several women by that name are mentioned. Sendeq 14:55 18 May, 2006

There is at least one woman of noble birth by the name of Romanework: the daughter of Ras Mengesha Yohannes, who was married to Iyasu V (as documented at Iyasu V of Ethiopia, & confirmed in Bahru Zewde's book). Further, I'm not certain what the damage would be to HSI's reputation if it came out that he had an earlier marriage/sexual liaison & a daughter from it: practically every Ethiopian Emperor is recorded as having more than one wife/mistress/concubine, despite the protests of the Ethiopian Church. By having one wife, Haile Selassie was one of the exceptions -- as was Yohannes IV, who was celebate after the death of his wife. It might make him suspect in European/American eyes, but only because they have put HSI on a pedestal. -- llywrch 01:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Almanach de Bruxelles uses as it's only source of information, members of the current and former reigning families whose geneologies it prepares. It is very reputable and no one has ever questioned it's veracity. It lists Princess Romanework and her heirs as decendents of Emperor Haile Selassie. Please go ahead and ask Professor Pankhurst about the parentage of Princess Romanework, and he will tell you that she was the fully recognized daughter of Emperor Haile Selassie. The fact that she is not mentioned by an online "fan club" is neither here nor there. Just because she is not as well known as someone like Princess Tenagnework doesn't mean she was of questionable parentage. There is no smear on the Emperor's reputation in Ethiopia or with the Orthodox church due to the fact that he had a daughter previous to his marriage with the Empress. The Emperor and Empress never violated the sanctity of their marriage once they entered it, so as far as the Church is concerned they are in good standing. There has never been any credible proof that any of the people that claim to have been fathered by the Emperor after his marriage, but Princess Romanework does not fall in this category. Most monarchs in Ethiopian history have had offspring outside of their marriage to their official consorts. None of Menelik II's children were with his wife Taitu. It does not make Emperor Haile Selassie any less of a pious and religious person. I'm not sure either how this hurts his reputation since the Princess was born before he was married to Empress Menen. Empress Menen's children by her previous marriages are not something people need to be "convinced" of. People without a knowledge of Ethiopian aristocratic circles may need convincing, but her children were and are publicly aknowledged members of the aristocracy and are treated by the Imperial family as close relatives. Again, if you trust Professor Pankhurst as a source, please go ahead and ask him about the Empress Menen's previous marriages and her children. Woizero Romanework Mengesha who is mentioned by llywrch as having been married to Iyasu V is a separate person, who was considerably older than Princess Romanework. Sendeq 15:26 1 May 2006.

Er, my point was that the name "Romanework" has been used in noble Ethiopian families as a name for their daughters, & I supplied the first example I could find. It was not my intent to suggest that they were the same person, & I apologize if that was how my comment came across. -- llywrch 04:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize at all. The name Romanework has a very long history in the Ethiopian Imperial dynasty. The sister of Emperor Lebna Dengel (also known as Dawit II, was named Romanework, and it is her son Hamelmal who founded the Gojjam branch of the Solomonid Dynasty. Sendeq 14:02 2 May 2006

If as was alleged by some contributes (without any foundation) that Princess Romanework was adopted, then why would only the Emperor adopt her and not his wife? If she had been an adopted daughter, both Emperor Haile Selassie and Empress Menen would have adopted her, not just the Emperor. Secondly, there are several people who were informally adopted by the Imperial couple and other members of their family, none were made Princes or Princesses and none were given the dignity of "Imperial Highness". Princess Romanework was both. User:Sendeq

Amharic

The Amharic text of his name uses the ":" separator for a space. In all other articles, the space is not put as ":" but as a simple space. Should we change the ":" to a space here, or add ":" to all articles using Ge'ez lettering? Both are used today, but usually the ":" is not very often used (e.g. in texts like newspapers).

Yom 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Race

The Royal Family of Ethiopia is white. They just have dark skin. They even look lighter than the avearge Ethiopian. But all Ethiopians have white features. 71.224.207.169 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No you are wrong. You are assuming all black people look the same whereas there is in fact enormous genetic diversity in the black peoples of Africa. Ras Billy I 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. White people have features similar to Ethiopians because all populations outside of Africa are descended from a small group of Africans from Northeast Africa (i.e. Ethiopia, Somalia, the Horn). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 18:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia has been a mix of many ethnic groups for years. People have come from various parts of Africa and Arabia to settle Ethiopia in historic and prehistoric times so the features of Ethiopians vary a lot. Skin color is meaningless and since this is an encyclopedic article we need not worry about these issues anyway. Imperial78

There are a lot of ethnic groups, yes, but the amount of Arab blood in Ethiopians is minimal. There is in fact more Ethiopian blood in (peninsula) Arabs than the other way around. As I said before, Ethiopians look the way they do because they are most closely related to the ancestral population that left Africa and populated the rest of the world. Long noses are an adaptation of humans to arid climates and high altitude. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 15:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No one said "Arab" blood. The Ethiopic languages are South Semitic along with Old South Arabian (Sabaeans) and Modern South Arabian. Neither the Ethiopians nor the Old South Arabians have "Arab" ancestors. Old South Arabian inscriptions are known in Ethiopia since ancient times. Imperial

You said people from the Arabian peninsula have settled in Ethiopia, so I thought that's what you meant. I do believe that Old South Arabians were probably at one point in the past no different from Ethiopians, though there's obviously an ethnic difference b/w Ethiopia and Yemen today (though not a huge one). It was more a pre-emptive strike against the myth that Ethiopians are descended from Sabaean migrants (which is false as the evidence points to a minimal migration community that lasted for a couple decades before disappearing through either intermarriage or return to Yemen), while the evidence points to an indigenous (which should be the default if it weren't for Conti Rossini's silly guess) nature (e.g. the existence of semitic-speaking peoples in Ethiopia at least since 2000 BC, but most likely being the origin of Semitic languages as per Afro-Asiatic archaisms not in other Semitic languages and not due to Cushitic substratum influence). If you want to continue the discussion, though, you should take it to my talk page, as it's entirely off-topic here. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 04:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

All people did did not come out of Northeast Africa. They came from present day Iraq. East Africa is from Cush son of Ham who landed on Mount Ararat after The Flood. Northeast Africa is from Mitzrayim, another son of Ham. Mitzrayim means Egypt in Hebrew. Ancient Egypt was not black at all. They were white just like Semites and other Mediterranean peoples are white.

The bible isn't an accurate determinant of geneological ties. I trust genetics in that. Here's an example of how your thinking is flawed: Ethiopians speak semitic languages, yet Ethiopians are black. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 00:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

To get onto the topic at hand again, Yom, I don't think the Emperor would agree with you that the Bible isn't accurate -- or that genetic so-called evidence (which is constantly shifting and contradicting itself, depending on "whose" scientists are funded by "which" governments pushing "which" ideologies) is in any way more reliable... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, Feqade, I really don't care what the Emperor thinks is reliable. I am speaking for myself, here. It's true, though, that gentics is a new field, and still has a lot of growth in accuracy and analysis to do. Either way, none of this is pertinent to the article, so I have no idea why we're having this discussion, so I would suggest that anyone who wants to continue it take it to someone's/ones' talk page/s. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, as long as we are all in agreement that Selassie was black, something that both he himself and the world have considered to be self-evident. Ras Billy I 15:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe the Emperor would choose the Bible over science, either, and wouldnt want to rush to reject scientific evidence too quickly myself. Ras Billy I 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Black" is not a scientific or genetic term. Ethiopians are a mix of several populations which their genetics show, both caucasoid and negroid. "Black" does not mean anything. Imperial78

I agree that scientifically it is a fairly meaningless description. On the other hand socially and culturally the term black in relation to skin colour is charged with meaning, as Selassie very clearly stated in front of the UN in what is now known as his "War" speech. Ras Billy I 22:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lest he be misquoted, what the Speech actually states is that the color of a man's skin should ideally be no more significant than the color of his eyes... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that is what he said. My point is that he was also in effect saying that in the reality skin colour is of far more significance in the worlds of politics and culture than eye colour, and I think that while this is the case somewhat less today than in 1968 there is still a long way to go to see His Majesty's ideal become a reality. Essentially he was saying skin colour is far more important than eye colour in the present reality and that humanity needs to transcend this obsession with skin colour if it wants peace, neither of which has occurred to date. Ras Billy I 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think saying that Ethiopian Royalty were white would cause considerable outrage among them. It is to be remembered that for years, Prime Minister Aklilu Haptewold's French born wife, Colette Haptewold, was never permitted to attend any court functions as the wife of the Prime Minister, but merely as one of many invited guests. Madame Haptewold was European and white, and it was not deemed seemly that a white woman be aknowledged as the wife of the Prime Minister. If the Ethiopian royal family had regarded itself as white, it would hardly have discriminated against Madame Haptewold in such a manner.

I have seen somewhere before that, in the 19th century, Semitic Ethiopians considered themselves "white" (as opposed to non-Semitic Africans), but French and other Europeans to be "red". Thus they still would have made a racial distinction between themselves and French. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Semetic Ethiopians in the 19th into the 20th never considered themselves white "nech", nor did they consider themselves black "tiqur". Europeans were considered "nech" or white, and sub-Saharan Africans for the most part were considered "tiqur" or black. Ethiopians of that age considered themselves a race apart that included red "qey", mixed-red "qey-dama" and dark "teyim". These catagories are outdated, and Ethiopians for the most part today consider themselves to be blacks. There are some who still subscribe to the old order of Ethiopians as a race apart from the white and black races. User:Sendeq

Are you sure it wasn't the Europeans they called Red and themselves white? I'm pretty sure that's what I read one time in Levine or someplace..ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain. Ethiopians continue to refer to Europeans and Nech (white), and the term Qey (red) is still used to refer to Ethiopians or other blacks of light complexion. Qey-dama (literally red-checkered) is a medium complexioned person, and Teyim is a darker complected person. Tiqur is someone of the darkest complexion. It is generally used nowadays for the entire black race. User: Sendeq

"The Royal Family of Ethiopia is white. They just have dark skin. They even look lighter than the avearge Ethiopian. But all Ethiopians have white features. 71.224.207.169 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)" ""Black" is not a scientific or genetic term. Ethiopians are a mix of several populations which their genetics show, both caucasoid and negroid. "Black" does not mean anything. Imperial78" -the terms race, caucasoid and negroid are obscolete and have no legitimate scientific meaning. race is a social construct, someone apparently didn't get the memo. the monikers "black" and "white" are just as useless, but people generally get what you mean in context. lol @ "The Royal Family of Ethiopia is white. They just have dark skin.", classic. well, we all know (in context) who started the "race" debate... wikipedia needs to ban the word "race". that will put an end to this bs.

They are white but have dark skin, lol indeed. Unfortunately wikipedia is duty bound to reflect the world as it is not as we would like it to be and while I agree that scientifically race is a dubious concept in the world it is a very real concept. Given that the Rastafari do take concepts of race seriously the issue of Selassie's race is a real issue, SqueakBox 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My revert

I accidentally hit enter when I was trying to hit ' in my edit summary, so I'll state my reason here. The article is talking about the "word" "I" (first person-pronoun), not the letter, which is not inherently a first person pronoun. Also, the Tewahedo faith is not actually monophysite (it is in fact considered insulting) but miaphysite, like other Oriental Orthodox churches. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Rastafari does indeed refer to the word I not the letter I (which is inherently meaningless in its condition of being a letter) as Yom correctly states. Ras Billy I 20:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Orphans

I added info about the Armenian orphans Haile adopted, but some of it should probably be moved to a seperate article about them, or their leader. I didn't want to start a seperate article about them with the transliteration I was using, since it looked like a French transliteration and I would prefer someone with better knowledge of standard transliteration do this... Thanks! --RaffiKojian 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New main pic

I dont like the new main pic at all. I can understand the reluctance to use the same pic here as at Rastafari movement but the current one is an artist's depiction and IMO greatly inferior for use as the opening picture. I will look into seeing whether the pics the Spanish version of wikipedia uses and want to know what other people feel? SqueakBox 18:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

font?

Instead of the Ge'ez I see a bunch of little squares which means that the current font has no representations for those characters. What font would I need? Can anyone see these characters? Perhaps it would be better to have a jpeg instead of a font that most people do not have.

Jason

i agree, what are the little squares meant to represent? 60.241.157.7 11:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The font you need in your computers font folder is called GFZemen.ttf. You can download it for free at several places on the web. Without it, you will see only little squares or question marks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thnx. It was obvious that these ??? were the real thing as they are to be found all over both wikipedia and the wider internet, SqueakBox 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue for WP:Village Pump if you want to change policy but has no relation to this article and further removing of the unreadable characters will be treated as vandalism and may result in the editor being blocked. You have been warned, SqueakBox 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Title of Haile Selassie

The grand nephew of Haile Selassie, Asfa-Wossen Asserate once said in an Interview in Germany, that the Title of Emperor Selassie was not Lion of Judah, this was rather a misunderstanding. The original German Interwiev:

Bei der Nennung des Löwen von Juda heißt es dann immer, das sei Haile Selassie. Wobei wir alle wissen, wer der wirkliche Löwe von Juda ist. Das ist Jesus Christus. Doch das ist ja nicht der Titel der äthiopischen Kaiser. Das ist ein Missverständnis. Die Europäer hatten das falsch verstanden. Im Mittelalter schrieben die äthiopischen Kaiser an verschiedene europäische Königshäuser. Die Briefe fingen an mit: Der Löwe von Juda wird siegen. Das heißt aber nichts anderes als: Ich bin Christ. Jesus wird siegen. Da die Europäer ihre Briefe aber immer mit der Nennung der eigenen Titel begannen, also mit "XY der II., Kaiser von..., König von..., Graf von...", dachten sie, der äthiopische Briefkopf trüge den Titel des Kaisers und fingen dann an, ihn den Löwen von Juda zu nennen.

Translated:

If it comes to the lion of Juda, it is always said, that it would be Haile Selassie. But we all know, who the real lion of Juda is; Jesus Christ. However this is not the title of the Ethiopian Emperors. That is merely a misunderstanding. The Europeans misunderstood it. In the medieval ages the Ethiopian Emperors wrote letters to certain european monarchs. The Introduction of the letter was: The Lion of Juda shall be victiourisly. Though this just means: I'm a Christian, Jesus will be victiourisly. Due to the fact that europeans always introduced a letter with the naming of their own title, e.g. "XY the II., Emperor of..., King of..., Earl of...", they thought, the Ethiopian letter started with the title of the Emperor and so they began calling him the lion of Juda

I just thought this might be revelant. (I apologize for any grammatical mistakes, but I'm from Senegal and my English is quite limited) --84.146.230.235 22:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Asfa-Wossen Asserate (or Asfaw Wossen Asrate) is a bit more distant a relative to Emperor Haile Selassie than a grand-nephew. His great-great grandfather, Ras Darge Sahle Selassie was the brother of Emperor Haile Selassie's grandmother, Tenagnework Sahle Selassie. His great-grandmother Woizero Tisseme Darge was Ras Makonnen's first cousin. Thus Asfa-Wossen's grandfather, Ras Kassa Hailu (son of Woizero Tisseme) was Emperor Haile Selassie's first cousin once removed. That would make Asfa-Wossen the Emperor's first cousin thrice removed.

Sightings

It is being reported on various Rastafari forums that Haile Sellassie was sighted in Ethiopia on November 14th, 2006. This should be researched. Here is the initial bulletin posted on MySpace:

"His Majesty sighted in Ithiopia : posted on myspace bulletins by Ras Iyahkayah Haile Selassie I seen today Nov 14/06 in Ethiopia! We heard this morning of children playing outside an Ethiopian Church near Lake Tana in Ethiopia. Astonished, the children ran into the Ethiopian church reporting to priests that they saw a man (later said to be HIM) in a flame of fire with several lions around the fire. It is said that the Orthodox Church called for praying and fasting all day today."

Please give us a url so we can investigate, though this is more for Rastafari movement than this article, IMO, SqueakBox 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a URL: http://forums.rasta-man.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1163600736, and another http://groups.msn.com/RastaItes/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=6007&LastModified=4675598659438993090

Haile Selassie was born in 1891, so in 2006 he would have been 115 years old. --Streona (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Reggae and cannabis

"who have popularized his name and character through reggae music and their use of cannabis as a sacrament with which to worship him." was added tot he opening (which expanded through another editor today), its easy to source that cannabis and reggae are both so very connected to His Majesty that they deserve to be linked in the opening, SqueakBox 23:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, before you remove the ????

Please read WP:ETHM. It only looks like ???? because you do not have GFZemen or another Ethiopic TrueType font in your computer's font folder. (This should not be an issue with newer computers.) It is not to be removed, just because you have an older computer or can't see it - that isn't fair to other people who do have the font, and can see it. Thank you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of me having an older computer. It's a matter of me not having my font set to Ethiopian. I'll leave it, but I don't suspect most people have their computers set to Ethiopian font unless they are Ethiopian or understand the Ethiopian language. It looks very strange to have a bunch of question marks in an English language article. It looks like someone inserted incorrect coding. I don't really see the point of including non-English fonts and words in English language articles. Unless the reader understands the other language, it isn't very useful or educational.Spylab 16:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not just Ethiopian. For instance Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, a very similar article and a different culture uses the same ?????.--Ztep 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll reiterate what I said before which is that the place for this discussion is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). The discussion is not relevant to this page or this particular article, SqueakBox 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis and the law

Do we have any information on whether cannabis was illeagal in Ethiopia during HIM's reign? It would be interesting for the Rastafari section. According to

this map

it is illegal but often unenforced, SqueakBox 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I read once somewhere where one of the Jamaican Rastas who visited Ethiopia in the 1950s reported that it could be bought in the marketplace as long as it was consumed at home... Sorry I don't remember where I read that... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Squares

Sorry, but I was just reading this article doing some research, and saw all those squares up in the man's name portion, are those supposed to be there? Or are they some error in typing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandbrgcatholic2728 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

You need a bit of software tor ead them, they are in a script your web browser wont handle. And they definitely should be there, SqueakBox 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Famine

By all means add stuff to the paragraph about the 70s famine. Do not make a duplicate section in the wrong place (as a subsection of the fifties and sixties). making duplicate material by dealing with an event twice is poor editing, please dont, SqueakBox 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. So where should i move it? It is certainly a huge event in Ethiopian history where around 200,000 people died. It was a major event in history of internationally televised documentaries. But most importantly, it helped end the supposedly 2 thousand(?) years of Ethiopian monarchy and contributed to the cause for the coup, to bring a military Mengistu rule. Again, even most importantly, an estimated 200,000 people died. This unquestionably needs its own section. But if you prefer a subsection, let me know where i should move it. Thanks.infonet6 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an extensive paragraph already in the later years section and it needs to be merged into that. I have no objection to the material, or the creeating of it as a subsection in the later years section. What I object to is dealing with the issue in 2 separatye places, SqueakBox 01:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unique resources of The European Library

Maybe you like to insert this: * "haile+selassie") 64 resources on "haile selassie" in The European Library Harvest

greetings Fleurstigter 08:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The name Tafari Makonnen

Is Tafari Makonnen a baptismal name, i.e. a Christian name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.174 (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Does any one heard about him when he was alive?

Not even a single mention to the word "Dictator"... wonder if ever any one with more that 40 years old has ever wrotte in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.132.143.241 (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be confused with ...

Do people believe that a {{distinguish}} might be appropriate on this article? For anyone who has seen the names written, Haile Selassie and Haile Gebrselassie would not be easily confusable, but for people who have only ever heard the words said, some might believe that the latter is named "Haile Gebr Selassie" and thus be confused by this redirect. Since a dab template clearly isn't appropriate, I think their names are similar enough to warrant a distinguish tag. - Revolving Bugbear 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Romanework

We actually did some investigation on a research group dedicated to His Majesty Haile Selassie I last June, to track down where these reports of a previous marriage came from, since they do not appear in any reputable or official sources. I ended up asking Princess Esther Selassie, who runs the website dedicated to her Great-grandfather's Life, if she had anything that could prove or disprove, or possibly shed light on this. Her response simply pointed us to her website family genealogy, where Princess Romane Work is clearly listed as the eldest daughter of HIM Haile-Selassie + Empress Menen; no mention is made that she had any other mother, no reliable or official record of a marriage to or relationship with any 'Altayech' has to date been found, and the websites you list seem to repeating some decades-old gossip that was circulated in the non-Ethiopian press (there is an abundance of this kind of thing, especially in Italian and Cuban press at various times). She is not the only member of the royal family who has told me personally that the 'previous marriage' thing is bogus, either. Til Eulenspiegel 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Haile Selassie married Menen on 30th July 1911 (http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Ethiopia/shoa6.htm). Romane Worq was born in 1910.(http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/states/ethiopia/ethiopia.html). Either she was born before the marriage of her parents or she was the daughter of the famous Altayech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.192.191 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am quite willing to accept Princess Esther's information that she offered (in direct response to this question) as being correct. Both of the sources you just linked as evidence, directly contradict the genealogy she referred me and others to, on this question. I would not call 'Altayech' "famous" if there is no official Imperial record of her alleged marriage nor relationship with the Emperor whatsoever, only hearsay. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Role of Yesehaq

I have provided a source that indicates that Yesehaq was dispatched to convert Rastafari. Another editor keeps adding an unsourced statement which does not contradict what I added. What's the problem? Bulbous (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, let's honestly look at who's pushing POV here - on Dec. 26, the article already noted that Selassie was a devout Christian who believed that apart from Christ there is no salvation. Christians believe in Jesus, and no other gods. If Selassie was a Christian (as the article states he was), then the Rastafari belief that he is the messiah contradicts his own beliefs. That all necessarily arises from the existing text. But as soon as I edited the section to state that, it was reverted and I was accused of "unacceptable unsourced POV-pushing". Are you somehow suggesting that Selassie was both Christian and believed in himself as a deity? Bulbous (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be Original Synthesis. If you have a source making this point, please attibrute it per NPOV, but don't introduce an Original Synthesis argument of your own that is clearly designed to attack and weaken the Rastafari Movement's well-known and significant views. There are a plethora of significant viewpoints regarding whether or not Rastafari Movement contradicts Selassie's religion. There is no clear statement from Him that it does or does not; the Rasta interpretation of His response when asked about Rastafari by Canadian news reporters, is usually that He avoided giving a direct answer. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rastafari movement article is complete OR and POV rubbish. This article is mostly much more well-sourced and written, but the preceeding section "The Rastafari Messiah" (for example) is completely unsourced and replete with "Citation Needed" tags. I have gone out of my way to research and source my edit, and you have the gall to call what I wrote "POV". If you can specificly cite one of your "plethora" of viewpoints noted above please do so, because as it stands this article currently states Selassie's view that "one is doomed apart from faith in Christ". Original synthesis or not, there is no possibility that he could be both Christian and accept the Rastafari view. The two are hopelessly mutually exclusive.

I will continue to do research in order to source more specific refutations. They are many out there - but finding ones reliable enough to stand up to the critical-thinking challenged is proving difficult. If you want to start eliminating any statements in these articles which are not specifically sourced, then I'm with you... but there will be very little left. You can start by sourcing or gassing the whole "Rastafari Messiah" section. Bulbous (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the POV you are pushing, that Rastafari and Christianity are incompatible. You don't have the authority to state this as fact, and most Rastafarians would vehemently dispute your POV. Their POV is significant too, so please refrain from attacking members of a world religion, as this is explicitly not allowed by Wikipedia Rules. A typical Rastafari POV is that Haile Selassie I is the returned Christ, as the miaphysite doctrine of the Ethiopian Church holds that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine in one indivisible Nature, there is nothing that His Majesty ever said about worshipping a human (Christ) that Rastas do not also apply to HIM, because they see HIM also as the returned Jesus, as they have every right to do under freedom of worship. He never categorically stated that He was not Jesus, I challenge anyone to find where He supposedly did. He only stated that He was a human, which of course the Ethiopian Church also believes about Jesus. I know there are several Rastafarian editors here who will not allow you to use an ostensibly neutral forum like Wikipedia as a platform to attack, ridicule or belittle their firm religious beliefs, if that is your agenda here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not attacking or belittling anyone's religious beliefs in any way, and suggesting that I am will not make this logical challenge vanish. I am merely stating (again) that Selassie's Christian beliefs were mutually exclusive with Rastafari beliefs. In particular, as you have stated, they may believe that he is the Christ, while he believed that he was not, and there are several quotes from him to this effect. If I can reliably source those, then that should solidify my statement that his beliefs are incompatible with Rastafari. However, what I have come to expect is more evasion and loose interpretation. Bulbous (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is still your POV, since practically no Rastafarian would ever agree that Haile Selassie's views are incompatible with Rastafari in any way. According to the rules, if you get a source that makes this specific argument, you can certainly attribute the POV to whose POV it is, otherwise it is your own argument that no RS has been shown to make, and original synthesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot find a quote in which Selassie actually blatantly says, "I am not Jesus Christ". Christians do not walk around verbally denying that they are the God in which they believe - that much is logically obvious. For one to suggest that a person could both be a devout Christian AND Christ himself requires so much illogic that I don't even want to begin attempting to refute it. Fortunately for me, I don't have to. The source I already quoted says "he denied being a deity". That much, right there, is enough to justify what I said. If he truly accepted the Rastafari belief that he was the Christ, he would also have to believe that he was the Christ. But our source says he denied it. Therefore my statement still stands as true - that his belief system was incompatible with that of the Rastafari.

But I'm also interested in knowing how a typical Rastafari that belives that Selassie is Christ gets around the idea that he sent Yesehaq to the Carribean to convert Rastafarians to Christianity (and get them to renounce him as Jah)? Bulbous (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, the typical Rasta view does not see any contradictions whatsoever in Selassie's being Head of the Orthodox Church and also the returned Jesus Christ. So, if you present a POV source that is anti-Rasta, we still have to make sure it is neutral. No, you will never find any quote where he blatantly denied being Jesus, believe me, many have looked and not found. Even though he was asked this question pointblank by reporters, he still avoided saying that, much as Jesus is said to have avoided answering the authorities directly at his trial. The typical Rasta view is that He never admitted to the world His identity as Christ, but neither did He ever directly deny it, or ever say anything that Jesus wouldn't have said, including "I am a man". Many, many people have noted that Haile Selassie was supremely discreet and subtle at all times, eg. we find even Haile Selassie I's own Autobiography full of statements like:

"When the Empress [Taytu] repeatedly asked me in order to find out about this matter with certainty, I was firm in my statement that there was no-one who had asked me to join the conspiracy. Therefore she declared that she was very pleased about my not letting out the secret and told me: 'I know the truth. Your refusal to let out the secret is because you are a very discreet man.'" Chapter 3 (later in Chapter 4, she shames Ras Tasamma, whom the nobility had been conspiring to make regent in her place, by telling him "Come now, tell me frankly and say: "this I had not heard and that I had not known" - resulting in Tafari's appointment to the governorship of Harar.)

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also in answer to what you said, when I wrote: "you will never find any quote where he blatantly denied being Jesus, believe me, many have looked and not found..." - that was actually an understatement on my part! This is actually quite relevant to what you said: In 1956, the British governor of then-colonial Jamaica became quite concerned that there was a movement of subjects paying homage to someone other than the British monarch. So the governor, Sir Hugh Foot, personally alerts British Intelligence, which hatches a top secret plan to get an actual signed statemant from His Majesty that He was not the Messiah[7][8]; however try as they might, finally in 1959 the British diplomats in Addis Ababa had to respond that this plan was utterly unfeasable, as British Intelligence was NEVER going to obtain what it wished (reminding me somewhat of Wile. E. Coyote!) Beep beep! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

'Trying to pick holes in Rastafari is like trying to pick holes in any religion; easy enough from a scientific viewpoint but having nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Your claim that Rasta thinking is flawed, and then trying to prove it is flawed, should not be done here, and I broadly agree with Til Eulenspiegel's comments. While you are correct Bulbous that Christians don't normally deny that they are personally Christ this is because nobody is claiming that they are. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I am not criticizing anyone's beliefs or trying to "pick holes" in anything. I am merely defending an edit I made that was reverted, and I believe that I have categorically done that. Selassie was sourced as denying that he was a deity. Rastafari believe he is. Therefore, Rastafari beliefs contradict his. That's enough justify what I wrote. Unless - and this may be what Eulenspiegel is suggesting (but not saying outright) that he was being evasive or misleading. Alternatively, you may be saying that the source is oversimplifying or incorrect. Either way, the citation stands unrefuted. Bulbous (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That source is certainly incorrect and sloppy, since there is in fact no record of his denying it, and as I have just demonstrated, even the British government was unable to procure any such thing, despite 3 years of trying in the late 50s. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that brings us to the heart of the matter. At Wikipedia, the only claims that belong in an article are those that have been previously published by Reliable Sources. In this matter, we have one. Whether we believe what it says to be true or not is irrelevant. Unless you can find a Reliable Source that contradicts the one we have, we are bound by what it says. I agree that neither of us nor the British Government (in the '50s, prior to the visit to Jamaica) were able to find exact statements on point. But certainly the Washington Post has much greater access to information than we. That is what makes them a Reliable Source, just as we are not. Bulbous (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit is not acceptable, it violates our no original research policy, you simply can't put it in even with a reliable source, and you clearly have not provided a source that backs up your staement. This edit is no better for the same reason. If you want to prove that Selassie I's beliefs contradict Rastafari theology wikipedia is absolutely not the place to do it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Squeak Box, you have proven time and again that you do not understand what does and does not belong in Wikipedia. If I can reliably source it, I can include it (with few exceptions). If I cannot reliably source it, it does NOT belong in Wikipedia (like most of the Rastafari movement article) no matter how many people may believe it to be true or untrue. The sentence that now stands is almost verbatim from the source, and you have absolutely no justification for reverting it. If you choose to attempt to do so, then we're going to have an edit war. Bulbous (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Err perhaps you would care to give diffs re your sweeping claim that I do not understand what deserves to be on wikipedia. You are an editor with less than 500 edits and no track record re our neutrality policy or anything else really. You simply cannot and will not use wikipedia to promote your personal beliefs. I don't do such a thing and nor should you. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you do use Wikipedia to promote your personal beliefs. I have been monitoring the Rastafari movment article for over a year now, and have watched you continually censor edits that you disagree with. You cannot simply continue to quote one book without page numbers to justify everything you want to say. I am tempted to get a copy of the Owens book to force you to indicate page numbers for your continued citations. As it stands, you're simply saying to editors - "It's in there, trust me - you go find it". Bulbous (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I have reverted a few editors who want to use the page to promote their beliefs. They and you seem to have other than the best interests of the encyclopedia as primary goal here. As for your assertion that I cannot use a very well established and well known book as multiple sources, what utter rubbish! Why not? Its a reliable source. And we do assume good faith in such situations, as we do with any non-internet or foreign language sources so stop trying to claim otherwise as if that will win you an argument, as it won't. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You can use the book - if you quote page numbers. most of us don't have easy access to the book, so we can't verify your claims, but I suspect half of what is in the articles isn't in the book. I know of one other editor in the other article who made edits and cited a source but mentioned he had lost his copy and was working from memory. Bulbous (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulbous: Books are reliable sources for Wikipedia, but electronic sources are preferred.

Squeakbox: If there is a reliable source that establishes that HSI unquestionably denied being a deity, then it most certainly does have a place in Wikipedia. I agree that the way that the edits you referred to above were framed was troublesome, but whether or not HSI believed he was Jah is very significant to this article. I haven't looked at the source yet, though. - Revolving Bugbear 21:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'd prefer electronic sources, because they are more commonly available. Personally, I can't verify SqueakBox's edits because I don't have access to his source. Without his mentioning page numbers, I have to rely that he is correct and not selectively interpreting the text as he is with the Washington Post source. FYI, here is the paragraph from that source. It's almost quoted verbatim:

"Yesehaq's work in the Caribbean began after Selassie visited Jamaica in 1966 and was thronged by local Rastafarians, who saw Selassie as a modern-day messiah. According to church leaders, Selassie denied being a deity and urged Yesehaq to try to draw the Rastafarians to the Ethiopian church. Yesehaq served many Jamaicans and others of Caribbean descent, in the islands and in immigrant enclaves in the United States. Among them was Marley, at whose funeral Yesehaq officiated in 1981".

Carfully note that the source doesn't say that Selassie denied being a deity. It says that *church leaders* said he did. I imagine any devout Rasta would assume that the Church was saying that for their own purposes. Bulbous (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The Washington Post article is at worst a deliberate fabrication, and at best sloppy and misinformed research, and it is an anti-Rasta POV source that does not belong in a neutral article. Believe me, if anyone, anywhere had a quote where he unambiguously denied being a deity, I would be in a position to know about it, as I am heavily involved in research into His Majesty's Life. If you think you have such a quote, please send it to the Haile Selassie I research and discussion group at groups.yahoo.com/group/haileselassieiofethiopia, researchers would love to see it. Do not repeat lies of the Washington Post and pretend they are neutral, and discontinue your persecutorial attitude against those who do not follow whatever your own doctrine happens to be. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we don't have the luxury of being free to deny Reliable Sources just because they contradict our personal beliefs. The edit was well sourced and well written. If everyone were allowed to deny sources just for personal reasons, then very little would get done. I was hoping that common sense would prevail in this matter - but it looks like we are headed to dispute resolution. You have no basis for your continued rejection of this edit - other than you simply don't want it there. Bulbous (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are failing to understand the reliable source guideline. It does not allow fro the kind of POV pushing you are engaging in. Wikipedia does not care whether Selassie is divine or whether God exists, and to reason from his claim of being a mortal as proof he was not divine is not credible. Jamaican.com is not a reliable source and the NG news article is contradictory, to say the least of it, does not it attempt to source that he denied this. Indeed it could be used as evidence that he admitted he was divine. There is no public record of him having denied his divinity. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when the Jamaican Gov't specifically asked HIM to address the unruly crowds and deny his divinity, he is said to have told the Rasta elders "I am who you say I am", and the NG article is equally good source for that if you want to open up the whole divinity debate in the article. There are also the little-known videos and photos of HIM conferring medals and honours upon the leaders of the Rastafari movement in Jamaica, whom He specifically called "the faithful" on the video. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In this instance, it is not a reliable source, it is a POV, biased source with fabricated or false information, and we should not use it to prove a false point. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is the exact equivalent of saying "I have proved Jesus was illegitimate, because I have a reliable source - it is in the Talmud!" Except that the Washington post is probably LESS reliable. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Til: What, exactly, leads you to believe that the WP article is so full of fabricated information? WP is a serious newspaper Jamaicans Online and National Geographic agree that he often denied this claim. Here is a recording of him doing exactly that. - Revolving Bugbear 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Any source that claims he denied his divinity is either wrong or lying, you will have to do better than that to be convincing, like try to find an actual record of him denying it. The "recording" you linked is no such thing, instead he said:

"I had heard of that idea. I also met certain Rastafarians. I told them clearly that 'I am a man,' that 'I am Mortal,' and that 'I would be replaced by the oncoming generation, and that they should never make a mistake in assuming or pretending that the human being is emanated from a deity.'"

Any Rastas who have studied the Ethiopian Orthodox doctrine of miaphysitism do not disagree with any word he said here, pointing out that Jesus would have said exactly the same thing, and find this no challenge to their beliefs that he is the Messiah, because they do believe he is a man, just as Christians believe Jesus was a man, they accept that he is mortal, just as Christians accept that Christ suffered death, and they aver that they worship him for being part of the Trinity, not because of his becoming flesh, so they say the deity is emanated from the human (Christ), not the other way around. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now THAT is definitely POV. The Post is not a POV - it is a newspaper. We are not trying to avoid POV together - we need to be neutral. And that means that differing points of view are not to be excluded - they are to be given weight according to the majority view. Outside of the most zealous of Rastafari, I don't know of anyone who is denying that Selassie made it quite clear that he was not the messiah that some claimed him to be. This is the majority viewpoint. Eulenspiegel's is the minority viewpoint. And claiming that the Post is not a reliable source will not win any points with mediators... it is referenced all over WP. Bulbous (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is about presenting all reasonable points of view not about avoiding presenting any points of view. And at least 2 editors here are certainly denying your claim that Selassie denied his divinity, a claim you then use to try and debunk Rastafari, as evidenced in your edits. And debunking Rastafari is not a WP:Notable or reasonable point of view that deserves inclusion in this article any more than in the articles of similar Messiahs. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you will try to discredit my attempt to improve this article as an attempt to "debunk Rastafari", because you have no reasonable reason to revert my edit. In fact, I have not pushed any point of view other than specifically what was stated in the reliable source. I have several times stated that I am not criticising anyone's views. Bulbous (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "The Washington Post is a paper, not a point of view"... ROFLOL... Now pull the other one... I had always heard there was somebody out there who would believe everything they read in the Washington Post, and now we know who it is! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If The Washington Post is accurate you will be able to find other reliable sources backing up that Selassie expressed this to church leaders. Your claim to be in the majority, Bulbous, is entirely not backed up by fact while your assertion that some fantasy mediators would support you in your POV pushing show a poor understanding of our policies and how we construct articles. The important thing is to write dispassionately on the subject, and this article has been subject of frequent assertions from editors who wish to use it to debunk Rastafari. There are loads of places on the net where you can debunk Rastafari, this is not one of them. You also realise, I hope, that following your logic we have a reliable sources that he admitted his divinity to Rasta leaders so one could add both that he did and did not deny his divinity according to different sources, following NPOV, or just not mention either, which is what I suggest, but we will not present as undisputable fact either that Selassie denied he was divine or that he admitted it. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're most certainly right! You can easily provide a reliable source, if you have one, that said that Selassie admitted being divine to Rasta leaders. In that case, both viewpoints could be presented. But they key is that it still has to hold up to WP:RS, as the Washington Post does. If you have such a citation, please include it below, as I am quite interested. I am also still interested in why Selassie sent Yesehaq to get Rastafari to renounce him. I mentioned that above, but no one seemed interested in explaining it to me. Bulbous (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Err, that was the NG source above that stated such a "fact"[9], but really neither that or the Washington Post source are reliable in this case, though clearly the NG source no less so. I dont believe that he ever did get Yesehaq to do what you claim and you have not provided a reliable source for this assertion. What is certain is that many rastas, such as Bob Marley, joined the EOC without relinquishing their Rasta beliefs or lifestyle. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And once again, I dispute that the Washington Post is a reliable or unbiased authority on the question of Selassie's divinity; I do not believe that it is possessed of some new information or statement from him that we don't already know about, and I find it entirely unconvincing. It is anti-Rasta propaganda. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reliable source for many issues but not for this assertion. BTW Bulbous has opened what is IMO a way premature mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-30 Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia‎ , to my eyes because he knows edit warring won't allow him to get his way. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What we need as reliable sources here are articles or other citable material such as books etc that focus specifically on the issue of his divinity. The NG source is actually about Bob Marley while The Washington Post source is actually about the funeral of an EOC patriarch, ie neither focusses on whether Selassie admitted his divinity or not, therefore these sources are not reliable to demonstrate anything about his divinity. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That NG article incorporates a contradiction, but it does state that "he often denied that he was God". What you have provided is a corroboration of the Washington Post claim. I have actually seen that wording elsewhere as well, and will try to locate it again. However, those two reliable sources together should be more than sufficient for the disputed edit. Bulbous (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am disputing that no matter how many sources make this claim that he said something he did not say, they are all false, because if it were true, we would have an actual quote of him saying it. You are attempting to use these secondary sources to propagate a falsehood, something he did not say, which reminds me of what he said in his autobiography preface about those who put words in his mouth. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. You can say they are "all false" as much as you want, to whomever you want. You just CAN'T SAY IT HERE. I have actually had a breakthrough in research and reliably sourced several more citations that say the Selassie claimed NOT to be God. I have also located several bibliographies that reference print books which make this claim as well. You might dispute the WP article, but if you're going to continue to dispute more and more additional references, do it elsewhere. Bulbous (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can say it here, I have every right, and I reject your pretended authority to dictate to me what I cannot say. I am through with assuming your good faith, it is evident that your sole purpose here is to do as many enemies of Rastafari have done throughout all eras, and (not "neutrally") attack the religious faith by making this fraudulent claim, and to try to convince people of the utterly unproven and unsourced lie that His Majesty ever denied his divinity. You are not being very convincing, because it is an unprovable point. As I said, you could also easily get a whole list of secondary sources based on the Talmud to make the case that Jesus was illegitimate, and proclaim they are all "reliable sources", and what you are doing here is NO DIFFERENT. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For all the world except the most stubborn of Rastafari adherents, statements such as the McNeil CBC quote, together with the "We have been a child..." and other quotes noted in the article, are very clear denials of divinity. But that's hardly the point. I don't need to find what you are calling a "primary source". The fact that other sources have clearly said it gives me the license to include it in the article, plain and simple. But, while we wait for external guidance, can we turn our attention to the paragraph following the disputed text? It's rambling and unfocused, and can probably all be cut, up to the Shashamane part. Suggestions? Bulbous (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, I am going to trim the text after the disputed edit. It seems like it was just a back and forth about the divinty of Selassie anyway. If anyone wants to re-write it, I have no objections. Bulbous (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I'm waiting to see either Til or SqueakBox present a reliable source - just one - which reports that Selassie stated he was divine. Their attempts to find reasons to prohibit the several reliable sources Bulbous has presented are unsupported by the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Til or SqueakBox, please find me the part of that guideline which says a primary source will be necessary to report what church leaders claim Selassie said. Picaroon (t) 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It isnt a reliable source because the article is not about Selassie and his divinity, nor does it show any expertise int he subject, just some journalist attending a funeral. We certainly do not need to provide a double negative re him not denying his divinity and we certainly already have a source with the same level of verifiability as Bulbous's that he admitted his divinity. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven;t been paying close attention, but neither Squeakbox nor I have been making any claim that Selassie ever stated he is Divine, because he never did. That is a red herring. The question we are disputing is the claim that he denied he was divine, he never did this either. Although several propaganda sources and people who attack Rastafari claim he did, they are all mistaken, for there is no record of this denial, and to accept these sources just is not neutral. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. You've confirmed that there are no sources which oppose this view. So, can you please elaborate on why accepting these sources is "just not neutral"? If several reliable sources say one thing, and no reliable sources contradict them, then it is perfectly neutral to cite these reliable sources in the article. What part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contradicts me? None of it does. So I'm afraid I'm going to have disagree with your claim that the use of these sources is not neutral. Picaroon (t) 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmed no such thing. The question of whether or not he ever claimed divinity would be an entirely separate one from the claim being made that he denied divinity. The failed attempts of the British and Jamaican authorities to procure any denial have been sourced to photocopies of original correspondence that makes this plain, and can also be mentioned. There are plenty of detailed discussions among Rastas online making clear their POV that he never actually denied this, and the part of NPOV you don't seem to get is that it requires significant views on any given question not to be ignored, please do not take advantage of the fact that online discussions of Rastas probably would not meet your RS standards to try and deny this is the point of view or that it exists. For the same reason, Wikipedia can not proclaim the Book of Mormon to be a forgery, the most it can do is say who might think it is one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"The failed attempts of the British and Jamaican authorities to procure any denial have been sourced to photocopies of original correspondence that makes this plain, and can also be mentioned." Those are primary sources. You are attempting to interpret them to say something, and this interpretation of yours can not be utilized in the article, as it is original research, which is forbidden by our policy. If you want to cite an interpretation of primary sources, you need to find an interpretation of these primary sources in reliable sources. You may not cite your own interpretation to primary sources. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which says editors may not use primary sources to make " analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."

"There are plenty of detailed discussions among Rastas online making clear their POV that he never actually denied this, and the part of NPOV you don't seem to get is that it requires significant views on any given question not to be ignored, please do not take advantage of the fact that online discussions of Rastas probably would not meet your RS standards to try and deny this is the point of view or that it exists." I won't deny this view exists, as I'm sure it exists. Can you find any of these discussions which involve contributors whose posts qualify as reliable sources, as per Wikipedia:reliable sources? If so, they can be cited in the article. If not, then this view can't be cited in the article. That's really quite simple. If the view is widely held among Rastas that he never denied being divine, it should be easy to find a reliable source for that.

Bulbous wants to note, using reliable sources, that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims Selassie denied being divine. You are free to include an opposing view, if you can source it reliably. What you may not do is come up with non-policy or guideline-supported reasons for not including the sources he added. Picaroon (t) 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not true as the washington Post artilce is not a reliable source for this issue as that is not the focus of the article, which is what it would need to be to meet verifiability. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Therer are no sources that oppose this view merely indicates the complete lack of notability of this view. You

cannot draw any further conclusions than that and atemptiinmg to do so is original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The view that is so non-notable it has been referenced in three reliable sources? Compared to any other view, for which we have yet to see any reliable sources, I'd say it seems to be a pretty notable view, actually. Picaroon (t) 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Three reliable sources. All I have been shown is one unreliable source, ie the WEashington Post article on an Ethiopioan priest. To see one reliable source would be great. Bulbous aalso wishes to state the view as fatc not as the Washington Post states as NPOV would demand, with a reliable source. I certainly hope you are nopt sugesting the National; Geogrphic News article on Bob Marley counts as a reliable source, as this is the article that states that Selassie admitted his divinity. Lest find some reliable sources that focius on this issuie as if we cannot it won't be notable anyway, I am happy to look but have found nothing so far, only stuff about his divinity according to Rastafari. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have claimed the Washington Post source is unreliable because it is not mainly about Selassie and the question of divinity. Thing is, that doesn't make it unreliable. A fact need not be covered ad nauseum to be inserted into Wikipedia; would you support removal of most of the birth and death dates in Wikipedia articles because their sources don't cover them in depth? No. So, while you've established that the Post does not cover the issue in depth, you have not established that it is unreliable. Please quote from a policy or a guideline to demonstrate why you think the Post is "unreliable".

"as this is the article that states that Selassie admitted his divinity" The National Geographic article does not state Selassie admitted his divinity; it says "Haile Selassie was uncomfortable with the Rastafarians' belief in his divinity and often denied that he was God." Note the "and often denied that he was God" part. It then goes on to the "he is said to have told the movement's spiritual leaders there, "I am who you say I am."" Where does it state he admitted his divinity? Please quote from the article, as I have, to show where he "admitted his divinity", as you put it. The "I am who you say I am" is not an explicit confirmation one way or the other, and to use such a vague comment to support point of view won't wash. Picaroon (t) 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Footage of HIM Visit giving awards, medals and decorations to his faithful Rastafarian worshippers in Jamaica, 1966

None of Selassie's supposed "denials of his divinity" was actually a denial of his divinity if you read carefully. Being Ethiopian, he used an Ethiopian metaphor known as "sem & worq" in his answers, carefully avoiding making such a denial, and frustrating the British and Jamaican authorities who sought to get him to do just this, as I have already cited to primary sources. I also found footage of his 1966 visit to Jamaica here, the Jamaican authorities were fervently expecting him to put the Rastafarian movement to rest by denying divinity, and asked him to, but he refused to give them what they want, and instead gave medals, awards, and decorations to his faithful Rastafarian worshippers, as you can see in the video at approximately 2:43. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just it - I can say it's pretty clear and you can say it's pretty vague and we can debate it until the end of days. That's why we have the rules about reliable sources. Neither of us has to be "right"... we just have to show that someone ELSE published it, and then it can be included "rightly" or "wrongly". Bulbous (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then in order to work out any kind of compromise, we have to bring out all the sources and work out some kind of wording that makes clear where the different viewpoints are coming from, and not "side" with any of them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are sources which state he did not deny his divinity? You can't look at movie footage and draw a conclusion from it; that's original research, which we have a policy against. Can you find any reliable sources on par with the ones Bulbous already has which truly, explicitly contradict them? Wikipedia editors making inferences based on Selassie's actions as shown in film are not acceptable source material; we need reliable sources that have already made inferences from this footage. Picaroon (t) 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this article is going to be turned into a biased attack on the Rastafari faith by making false claims that he denied divinity when he didn't, and make yet another failed attempt to convince Rastas of this fabrication, the least I could do is put actual footage of HIM meeting with Rasta elders onto the talk page, where it might help to counter some of these false claims if any other Rastas who might be reading decide to see it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have made claims regarding "bias" and "non-neutral" and "false claims" and so on, but you have yet to substantiate them. Please desist with these claims until and unless you can somehow prove them. Claiming the things are false does not make them so without proof, which you have yet to provide a shred of. Picaroon (t) 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we don't have a reliable source yet that he confirmed his divinity so we definitely need to start there and if we can find a reliable source for that then we can find sources contradicting it but if we cannot get a reliable source that he denied his divinity then that is that. We need an article or something similar on this subject of his divinity, one throw away line in a newspaper article on a completely different subject is clearly an unreliable source. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a sentence like "Some sources have claimed that HS denied being a deity, however most Rastas dispute this view." Would anyone disagree with that, or challenge it? Whatever we write should follow such a neutral formula to give both sides, per NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, if based on the current set of unreliable sources the most we can say is some sources claim he admitted his divinity to various people (with examples) and others state that he denied his divinity to various people (with examples), and then mention the Rasta dispute in the next phrase. But really we need to find some sources that discuss the issue in a verifiable way. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Some sources claim Selassie denied being a deity", let's stop there. We have three citations for this, they are found here. Looking good so far. Second half of the sentence: "however most Rastas dispute this view." Alright, if you can find a reliable source for this, go ahead and include it. There are millions of Rastas, and if most of them dispute them, it should be easy to find a source that says this, right? So, can you find any? If you can, I have no objection to the second half of your sentence. If you can't, then it would seem the second half of your sentence is unverifiable. Picaroon (t) 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A Rasta webmaster who is highly respected in the online Rasta community, called Ark I, has written an article expressing quite well the usual Rasta take on these claims that fully backs up everything I have been saying. He has posted it on a few pages at his website, http://www.jah-rastafari.com ... for example, here. You even stated that you do not doubt that this is the Rasta POV, but I understand that you might want to verify it elsewhere beside this talkpage. Thanks to Squeak, we already have plenty of RSS saying that Rastas generally consider Haile Selassie to be Divine, so I also wonder if it is necessary to "prove" further that obviously these same Rastas don't believe he denied it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We acnnot do that because we have equally reliable sources that he adnmitted his diuvinity, see my edit conflicted statement above yours, and remeber NPOV trunmps, also how can you defend these unreliabnle sources as reliable sources, you have failed to address the unreliability of any sources so far which 2 editors here are both saying is so, ie the sources are unrelaible and fail to verify the claims. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also please don't dsay lets stop there, Picaroon, as I am already gathering more sources.

"remeber NPOV trunmps". Yes, I remember. I've responded to your claim that the Post is unreliable above. "ie the sources are unrelaible and fail to verify the claims". Um, it clearly verifies the claim; it states the claim. You really can't get much clearer verification than that. Picaroon (t) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we have a source that says Selassie was never comfortable with his divinity, this is far more neutral than that he denied it. And this is why mediation is ridiculously premature, we need to gather more sources to develop this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a subscriber, can you quote the whole paragraph for me? I look forward to how you defend the Tribune's words as "far more neutral". Thanks, Picaroon (t) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

False dichotomy : Christ vs. Human

In answer to questions on the subject, Haile Selassie I is on the record as replying by listing several attributes about himself, every one of which is also an attribute that Ethiopian Orthodox Christians also believe about Jesus Christ. eg. "I have been a child", "I am a human" "I am mortal". These are all also attributes of Jesus Christ (in addition to divinity) according to the doctrine of miaphysitism, as His Majesty was well aware when he said this.

How his statements can possibly be construed as an explicit denial that he was the returned Christ, involves making some logical fallacies, the main one being false dichotomy, by those who are ignorant of miaphysitism. The essence of miaphysitism is that Christ was human, in addition to being divine; this is what all Ethiopian Orthodox Christians profess.

If admitting he is human is taken as mutually exclusive to being divine (a separate question which no evidence of him ever addressing can be found) then these same attributes could be equally applied as evidence that he did not believe Jesus Christ was divine. Because every argument that disqualifies Selassie from being the Messiah supposedly on grounds that he was human, has also been used to attack the miaphysite belief that Jesus was human and divine. To the miaphysite way of thinking, there is no dichotomy between being human and being Christ at the same time whatsoever; this is the very essence of miaphysitism. So his confirming that he is human, which is all he ever did, can not be used to attack those who believe in his divinity, which question he not only studiously refrained from addressing, but also completely frustrated deliberate British and Jamaican government attempts to coerce him into addressing, as records indisputably demonstrate.

He absolutely refused to rebuff the Rastafari movement as he was asked several times to do by the British and Jamaican "authorities", this is a provable and proven fact. Instead, he gave them land, recognition, and awards.

Those whose agenda was to get him to rebuff the Rastafari movement did not give up so easily and even today we see them here attempting to force the same words into his mouth that he pointedly refused to speak, using falsified or confused accounts that apparently assume that one cannot be both Christ and human at the same time, or that admitting to being human is somehow admitting to not being Christ.

This agenda of forcing words into his mouth that he never once spoke is not neutral and should have no place here; you can find POV sources that have used to attack Rastafari tenets like the Washington Post, etc. etc. etc. but they are still POV sources propagating a falsehood. This blatant attack on my religion by accepting as factual, biased and inaccurate sources that have been used to attack my religion, will be resisted by all means possible, and if you succeed in this POV travesty coup, I can promise it will be used on every Rastafarian forum as yet another example of supposedly "neutral" English Wikipedia project's farcical process that usually ends up being totally hostile to the truth, and is openly antagonistic to our religious faith, far from "neutral". If you are going to embrace a newspaper like the Washington Post as an infallible authority on Haile Selassie, you may just as well declare that Mussolini's newspapers are reliable sources that he ate donkeys, or that Castro's newspapers are reliable sources that he sacrificed children. This blatant bias is offensive to me as an editor, as a Rastafarian, and on every level. You would also do well to study what he wrote in his Autobiography: "Some people have written the story of my life representing as truth what in fact derives from ignorance, error or envy; but they cannot shake the truth from its place, even if they attempt to make others believe it." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

About "reliable sources"

These are all the very same "reliable sources" that I have seen used many times by anti-Rastafarian proselyte missions, like "Christafari", to attempt to deliberately confuse and mislead the faith of younger Rastas, and convince them that His Majesty denied divinity when they know full well this is an untrue or at best unproven allegation as I have explained. I don't see how it can possibly be "neutral" for Wikipedia to embrace as factual, these false allegations from whatever source, that are routinely used by proselytes to win "converts" away from their Rastafari faith. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly true, and we simply cannot and will not accept the Christafari argument especially with so many sources contradicting this. Christafari or Rastafari POV pushing has no pace here, what we do care about is having a neutral article on this important historical figure, while repecting the religious beliefs of anybody but not supporting those of anybody as true. Note nobody is trying to push the view that Selassie admitted his divinity but some editors pushers are trying to promote a view whose only aim is to debunnk Rastafari. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Where you gentlemen are completely missing the mark is that "neutrality" does not mean that we avoid presenting certain points of view. Please refresh yourself with WP:NPOV - All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. What this means is that the overwhelming majority point of view that Haile Selassie denied being divine must be represented in this article. The neutral part is not about avoiding POV, it is about fairly mentioning all significant points of view. If you can present a reliable source that states that he did claim to be divine, then please bring it forward so that it may be included. But as of yet you have not done so and have indicated that you have no intention of doing so. You are welcome to add your own material as backed by reliable sources, but you have no justification for censoring mine. Bulbous (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but the controversial, disputed and polemic nature of this claim means that the claim must be attributed to its source in the wording of it, not embraced as if factual; WP:NPOV is perfectly plain on this point. You need to state exactly who it is that holds this POV in the text, so we know where it is coming from, without trying to hide it as if it were undisputed. If you want to write "according to x, y and z, Selassie denied his divinity", that fits the formula outlined in NPOV perfectly, and hopefully we can work with that; I will then be adding quite a few references to elucidate Haile Selassie's relationship with the Rastafarian movement myself. This is a point that could use elucidation anyway; many uneducated people have mistakenly assumed or asserted that he never heard of the Rastafarians, or was naive about what they believed, or had never met with them, or even, owing to the kind of misinformation that is routinely put out there, that he publicly repudiated them, all of which is demonstrably false. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By x, y and z I mean the actual sources that are making this claim, such as the Washington Post article reporter, et al. Don't state as fact that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church actually said this, unless you have the actual statement from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and which specific "church leaders" have ever said it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reliable source, and until and unless we see a source that contradicts it, I don't think there is a need to preface its statement about the church leaders with "according to Washington Post reporter Debbi Wilgoren". That's only needed when there are actually reliable sources disputing the issue, which it seems there aren't (if there are, let's see them). Stating the Ethiopian Orthodox Church says he denied being divine is perfectly acceptable unless we have a contradiction of some sort from another reliable source. Think about it this way: do we write articles saying "According to A book, John Lennon was born in 1940". "According to A magazine, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003". No. When you have presented a reliable source that says church leaders never claimed Selassie wasn't divine, then it would be necessary to preface the statement with "according to Washington Post reporter Debbi Wilgoren". But "According to Ethiopian Orthodox Church leaders, Selassie denied being divine" is an acceptable way to word the sentence unless its claim is challenged by another reliable source. Picaroon (t) 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favour and re-read WP:NPOV one more time. There is no consensus that this is a reliable claim by the Washington Post, and in point of fact it is a disputed claim that will continue to be disputed. I am sorry you are unwilling to adopt a compromise wording as required by WP:NPOV that makes plain where the POV is coming from, and not oblige Wikipedia embrace a lie that has been used by proselytes to attack my religion. You could find "reliable sources" attacking the tenets of any major religion, but if you're gonna use them at all, you'd better attribute 'em. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First, you have yet to provide any reason for considering the Washington Post unreliable except for the fact that it the topic isn't on the subject of Selassie's divinity. I've already shown that this is no reason for calling it unreliable, so we've dropped the issue. Now, you claim that the Washington Post's statement about the church's claims are for some reason questionable, but have produced no evidence, no sources, none whatsoever to suggest that church leaders have not, in fact, stated Selassie was not divine. Until you do, there are no policies or guidelines that support your opposition to this source.

Second, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view does not require a compromise wording for viewpoints that have not been backed up by reliable sources. Wording that incorporates two different, reliably sourced viewpoints is only required when there are two different, reliably sourced viewpoints to be included in the article. Since there are no sources for any other viewpoint, we can not include any other viewpoint, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. That's what policy says - we don't include unverifiable information. Picaroon (t) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, and we have not dropped any issue, you cannot speak unilaterally for both sides in this dispute. You are trying to turn this article into a rubber-stamp Christafari attack piece against my religion by using biased sources as factual and you know it very well. You know full well that this view is contested by Rastas but it seems you are attempting to deny them any voice whatsoever on pretext of a spin-doctoring, wiki-lawyering interpretation of RS and NPOV that is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. Why don't you go to the article of any other religious figure and say the old "We can say this is all BS because here are all the sources that say so, and the opposing view doesn't count, because all of it's sources are unreliable, because the opposing view doesn't count, therefore all of it's sources are unreliable, because we say so" circular argument. I've been on wikipedia for 3 years and that's the oldest trick in the book for forcing an article to present only one "favoured" POV, and it is Wikipedia's ugliest flaw and black mark. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

← Whoa there! Can you turn down the rhetoric a notch, please? I think Picaroon is honestly trying to be fair here, and you seem to be allowing righteous indignation to colour your judgement. I'd be interested in SqueakBox's view of the content in question, and it would be good to see this discussion back to specifics of content changes requested rather than imputing motives. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I have calmed down now and while celebrating the new year countdown, am now concentrating on satisfying Picaroon's demand for sources and am finding my research quite educating; this is one of the sources I have found that holds, just as I have been saying, the viewpoint there is that says he never either admitted nor denied divinity: Must God Remain Greek?: Afro Cultures and God-Talk by Robert E. Hood, p. 93 ISBN 0800624491 [10]

I am finding other relevant sources in my search so far and adding them to the Mediation page also. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The link that you have provided does not even mention HSI. - Revolving Bugbear 12:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? Did you scroll to the bottom, looking out for highlighted words? (It is Google Books you know! ;) ) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference included mentions that he had neither admitted or denied divinity prior to his visit to Jamaica. I think we can mostly agree that the issue came to a head after his Jamaica visit, when he saw the extent of the Rastas worship. This is why the 1950's British Embassy information is not terribly relevant. Bulbous (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any source saying the alleged denials "came after the Jamaican visit"? If not, that is OR. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not. They do not give any dates. But if they did come after the visit, as I think we can call agree they did, my sources are not contradicted by the Hood source. Bulbous (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Til: The National Geographic article I linked above indicates that the Jamaica incident happened in 1966. The recording of the interview I linked above is from 1968. We don't need a source to tell us that 1968 happened after 1966. - Revolving Bugbear 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: The Mediation cabal process appears very close to working out a neutral, referenced compromise wording that will be acceptable as neutral for all parties and takes all the sources into account, see the page for the proposal. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Shashamane

To avoid potential POV conflicts, I have edited this reference to say almost exactly what both listed sources say. Bulbous (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-Mediation

I have added the mediated text and replaced the middle section as I advised I would do above. I think it was mostly the result of a previous edit war over divinity, and it didn't seem to add anything to the article. As we had dropped the opening line of the section, I did begin the section with "Haile Selassie I was the..." instead of the mediated "He was the..." I hope no one objects. I also added an editorial note for future editors who may not read the dispute on the talk page. Bulbous (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am relieved that we have come to a wording for this section that everyone agrees follows NPOV. There is much more that could be said to properly elucidate the controversy over the interpretation of His Majesty's quoted, firsthand remarks, and fairly represent what prominent Rastafarians say about this. I still feel that Bulbous tried to give me an impossible task in mediation, by demanding that I find references for the Rastafarian position, while simultaneously telling me that any references for the Rastafari position are a priori disqualified. This reminds me the very kind of prejudice that the Rastafari movement has always faced from the beginning; it will always, no matter what, be viewed as "illegitimate" in the eyes of some, who would deny it any voice.

It could easily be established that His Majesty met with a Rasta delegation who travelled to Addis Ababa in the mid 50s, and that he had long been made aware of them and their beliefs. I believe it has also been established that an unambiguous denial of divinity was long sought from His Majesty by Jamaican colonialist authorities as early as 1956, but was never obtained. As long-sought as such a clear denial was, you would think all of the "sources" now jumping up and down claiming they finally got what they had always been looking for, would have something a little better to wave around than vague, undated, hearsay and a few statements where he affirms only that he is every bit as human as Jesus Christ, which is of course no threat to Rasta doctrine. At any rate, this is a wording we can all live with for now, and anything added to the section from now on, will have to be carefully referenced and meet consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

One positive that comes out of mediation is that we can all see what is expected of us with regards to Reliable Sources. This will help us greatly when it comes to approaching the "Rastafari Messiah" section, as this section is somewhat lacking in sources. The Owens book is cited 5 times without page numbers. We need to source the claims about Cannabis, the description of the state visit, and the claims by Rita Marley. If the Owens book is to be used, please cite specific page numbers. How we far in cleaning up this section will reflect on our success in moving on the the Rastafari movement article, which is in far worse shape than this one. Bulbous (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest proceeding with extreme caution and not prolonging the conflict with an original (and easily disproven) theory that he supposedly changed his stance at some point and repudiated the Rastafari Movement. Much extra information could be sourced to counter this false idea, if it is the one you are trying to suggest. If you really want to go there and insist on dragging this thing out further, we have plenty of reliable sources and records regarding his continued interactions with the Shashemene settlers, beginning with the first family in 1948, up throughout the 1970s, when he continued to intervene directly in the Rastafarians' behalf, and to visit them in Shashemene, after meeting with the leaders of both Jamaican political parties (Manley and Shearer), when they each visited him in Ethiopia in the year 1969 to discuss the movement. I assure you, at no point did he ever change his supportive stance nor repudiate his followers, anyone saying this speaks of ignorance, or else is trying to discredit Rastafari faith with misinformation that is easily proven false. So, if that is why you are here my advice is quit now while you are ahead and just leave it alone because we do have the documents and references. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about or who you are addressing, but all I'm saying is that the "Rastafari Messiah" section needs to be properly sourced. It currently is not. The section we just hammered out was the "Haile Selassie's attitude" subsection which I would be happy with if it stays just how it is. Bulbous (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Til is addressing me. I changed the section above the "attitude" section because, as it read, I felt it was misleading. - Revolving Bugbear 01:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Rastafari Messiah

I am pleased to see that this section is undergoing improvement. Here's what I think still needs to be done:

1) This line needs to be dropped, as it is not about Haile Selassie. "and also the distinctive dreadlocks of the Rastafari, along with their worship of him using cannabis as a sacred herb which they believe brings them closer to him and has become the basis for claims of religious persecution against the Rastafari movement".

2) The visit to Jamaica section needs to be re-written according to sources, because right now it is contradicted by the Gleaner source. (I.e. Mortimer Planno persuaded Selassie to debark, etc).

3) The Rita Marley stigmata paragraph needs to be properly sourced. Rasta-man-vibration.com is a fan site and not a reliable source. Also, it mentions nothing about stigmata.

Comments? Bulbous (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: #3: Rita Marley even mentions "stigmata" in her published autobiography, so that should be easy to source. I'm not sure what you mean about #1 and 2. 70.105.52.165 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good, let's quote what Rita says and give a page number. The line about cannabis and persecution is not about Selassie I, it is about the Rastafari movement and it belongs in that article, not in this one. And the Jamaica visit information is contradicted by the Gleaner article. For example, the gleaner article says that Mortimer Planno greeted Selassie I when he came off the plane, it doesn't say that he persuaded him to do so. Bulbous (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys have completely missed the point again. You need to quote RELIABLE SOURCES in order to include something. Simply mentioning "interviews" or citing a book is not good enough. If it is a print work, please cite the PAGE NUMBER which supports your edit. Any item lacking a reliable source can be immediately removed. Bulbous (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What edit are you referring to? The stigmata claim appears on p. 43 of Rita Marley's book, this has been reliably sourced and properly referenced, is relevant and should not be removed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, we must have been editing at the same time. Good work! We still need page numbers for any references using the Owens book (and there are many). However, even with references, the point about dreadlocks and cannabis has absolutely no relevance in an article on Haile Selassie. Bulbous (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The section about Rita Marley, as it stands, is a little misleading, because Bob Marley stated that, even though he held the Rastafarian faith and thought HSI was "godly", he did not believe he was divine / God / whathaveyou. The way it is written now implies that he did. (It's worth noting, actually, that many people who identify themselves as members of Rastafarianism do not believe HSI was Jah.) - Revolving Bugbear 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken, it is not at all misleading because in every major biography about Bob Marley I have ever read, and every on-camera interview of him I have ever seen, etc. Bob makes quite explicit his faith that Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia is Divine, JAH, and the Almighty, etc. I have never even seen any source maintaining as you do that Bob Marley ever denied this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

continued disagreements

Please look up the source I added with page numbers for all the facts of the 1966 visit - Catch a Fire, p. 15, 210 and 211 - it's all there, for just one source. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Til, can you reference one of those pages online? I find it hard to believe that this article says that:

1) 100,000 Rastafarians showed up at the airport 2) Cannabis was "widely and openly smoked" 3) Mortimer Planno convinced Selassie I to debark. Currently, these claims stand *refuted* by the Jamaica Gleaner, so we have a bit of a problem. Bulbous (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Online? So it doesn't exist unless it's online? Well luckily for you, it is. Try Google books. Every one of those claims is backed up by Tim White's account (and every other account) of the visit. The Gleaner doesn't contradict any of them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking for it online is just a courtesy to disprove that you are merely exaggerating. If you have a Google books source, please share with us. Otherwise, the Gleaner article clearly refutes these three points:

1) "thousands gathered on the tarmac"

2) "smell of ganja wafted through the air"

3) Motimer Planno greeted the Emperor *after* he came to the top of the stairs to deplane.Bulbous (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "contradictions". Most accounts of the trip mention all of these same things, and "thousands" is not contradicted by other accounts including White's which speak of "over 100,000". Just do a google books search for "Catch a Fire" by Timothy White. I have never seen anyone pick apart at valid sources to this minutiae extent on any other single other article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This may be because the "Rastafari movement" article is contstructed nearly from whole cloth. If you feel that you are correct that White alleges > 100k, then fine, please give me a link where I can read this for myself. If you are attempting to conceal this information, then by all means, continue. Bulbous (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you have set yourself up as the judge, jury and executioner of the sources in this article without regard to consensus. It is well known that there are parties out there who seek to delegitimize Rastafari by any trick in the book. Removing the account of Plano meeting the Emperor at the top of the steps until it was safe to come down is a concrete example; this is a supremely important iconic event that appears in ALL the sources, including the Gleaner, not to mention available FOOTAGE of the incident, if you still have any doubts what happened. We could find numerous more sources about the size of the crowd, but no more sources should be necessary to meet your unprecedented standard which always seems to be raising the bar impossibly high. And the ganja smoking is mentioned by all sources including the Gleaner and is confirmed the video sources, so on what grounds do you remove or obscure this fact, and replace it with a half-truth that cuts out or minimizes the significance and magnitude of the event, to give the impression as if there were only a few thousand "weird" and "dangerous" people present who the military had to fend off from His Majesty's dignity? The one-sided version you are trying to write has no parallel in any source; you will be hard pressed to find any source, if you bother to do the research, that omits the Plano incident and the ganja smoke, etc. I am beginning to regard your actions against this article's well-sourced account as trolling. It seems there's one in any crowd, the sort that likes to provoke major international incidents just for the cheap thrills. Well I hope you got your thrills now, so how cheap were they? From the Rasta point of view this is all vaingloriousness, because the facts are facts and they are recorded on video and it is too late to undo them or pretend they never happened. Please leave this article alone and stop attacking the Rastafarian movement / pushing a hostile POV - unless you have done any actual research into sources on Haile Selassie I that you wish to contribute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We now have 8 good accounts, none of which contradict the footage, for the Emperor's Kingston, Jamaica reception at the airport on April 21, 1966. Every one of these cited pages can be looked up on Google Books (except for the 9th source, Owens). Providing a link directly into my Google-books search, even preserving my highlighted search terms, is a convenience to you, but is by no means a requirement if you cannot assume good faith with my sources enough to take the 30 seconds needed to find them yourself. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I am not trying to omit these facts entirely, I just want them written as sourced. And the only source which you have provided for my reference says that Planno greeted Selassie at the steps, it does not say that he persuaded him to deplane. If my questioning of the incident has led you to research this and confirm it through sources, then together we have just made this article better. If I am assuming good faith on your part, it would be reasonable of you to provide me with a quote supporting your edit. But you still refuse to do so. Where's the good faith there?

Secondly, my problem with the ganja part was the wording. The Gleaner says that the "smell of ganja wafted through the air". That has happened at just about every rock concert I have ever been to - but it is a far cry from claiming that it was "widely and openly smoked". Without a source, and as of yesterday there WASN'T ONE, this amounts to original research. Bulbous (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh.... now I know why you won't quote any sources - because they contradict what you are saying!!! First of all, most of the cited pages can NOT be reached from Google books. I'm still looking, but I have found one that can (Walker, p.121). This passage A) says NOTHING about cannabis B) says Planno was the first one to greet Selassie C) is silent about the number of persons present and D) says that Selassie DENIED BEING GOD. Here's another one (Habekost, p. 83) - A) silent on ganja B) silent on head count C) says that Planno "appealed for order". I'll challenge you once again: give me ANYTHING that backs up the disputed sections. If you can, then I will desist. It's THAT SIMPLE. Bulbous (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be pretty unequivocal about that. "Selassie, denying he was God, ...", p. 222. - Revolving Bugbear 18:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoonfeeding the sources

All the sources have been given, with page numbers, and all are available on Google books, with the exception of Owens. I should not have to type out all the quotes and spoonfeed them to anyone, I don't care who you are. This took me one hour.

1) "Bob Marley and his guitar were always in demand at Rasta celebrations. When Mortimer Plano, a Rasta elder, held meetings, Bob was also in attendance, providing a soundtrack to the religious gatherings. Planno had made his name on the day Haile Selassie came to Jamaica. Rastas had surrounded the imperial plane, chanting, singing and smoking spliffs. It was unclear what the emperor made of the scene. Planno escorted Haile Selassie from his aircraft. For years afterward, Planno made a habit of giving guests huge blowups of a photo of him beside the emperor. To some Rastas, it was a bit like one of the Twelve Apostles handing out copies of da Vinci’s The Last Supper." Before the Legend: The Rise of Bob Marley - Page 145 by Christopher John Farley

2) "Planno again came to public attention in 1966 when Emperor Haile Selassie arrived in Jamaica on an official state visit. Amid the tumultuous welcome that destabilized normal official state protocol, Planno went inside the plane and then returned to the tarmac, announcing: “The Emperor has instructed me to tell you to be calm. Step back and let the Emperor land.”" Black Heretics, Black Prophets: Radical Political Intellectuals - Page 189 by Anthony Bogues

3) Selassie’s appearance had a massive effect, both spontaneously an enduringly. Over 100,000 Rastas turned out to meet the plane and line the motorcade’s route into town, and at the airport the police lost it totally as any form of official welcome was abandoned when the crowd surged over the tarmac to surround the aircraft. Faced with this incredible outpouring of emotion, it was several hours before the Lion of Judah would venture out and down the steps. The government had to call on one Mortimer Planno, a greatly respected Rasta elder, to mediate between the mass of people on the runway and the Emperor’s party. Coming from an establishment loath even to acknowledge Rastafari – beyond possible exploitation of it – this was a previously unimaginable shift in protocol which, as far as the government was concerned, went downhill from there as they had to invite Planno to all civic functions during the visit. In spite of this superficially beinging the government and the House of Dread closer together, in the longer term Rasta reaction was diametrically opposed to what the government had hoped for. The visit assumed divine proportions, giving enormous heart to Haile Selassie’s Jamaican followers. Also, and highly significantly, the turnout at Palisadoes Airport was a show of force, which left both the ruling class and the dreads themselves in no doubt as to the true scale of Rastafari on the island. This Is Reggae Music: The Story of Jamaica's Music - Page 193 by Lloyd Bradley

4) On April 21, 1966, Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, the living Jah or god of Rastafari, arrived in Jamaica on a state visit. Mortimer Planno, possibly the most prominent Rasta leader of the day, was the first person to meet Selassie at Kingston’s airport. Planno bounded up the portable steps placed at the side of the aircraft and greeted the Emperor as he emerged from inside the plane. The tarmac below was completely covered in an ocean of dreadlocks, individual Rastas whose awe burst out from the anticipation that held them captive when the Ethiopian state leader stepped into view. Dubwise: Reasoning from the Reggae Underground - Page 221 by Klive Walker

5) Of course, the highlight was Haile Selassie’s visit in 1966. During this visit, Rastas received prominence and visibility hitherto unimaginable. To begin with, it took Mortimer Planno, an eminent Rasta elder, to quiet the large crowd that flocked to the airport to welcome the emperor. Many had broken through the police lines and were surrounding the plane. Repeated attempts by government officials failed to bring them under control, and the emperor could not deplane. Planno’s appeal from the steps of the plane finally brought the crowd under control. Rastafarian representatives were invited to participate in state ceremonies and found themselves socializing and dining with the upper and middle classes at King’s House (the residence of the governor general). In addition, the Rastas sought and received a private meeting with Selassie. Most important, the exposure and dignified conduct of the Rastas during the visit of Haile Selassie marked another step in the rapprochement between Rastafari and the establishement. As John Paul Homiak contends, the visibility of Rastas at important state functions “conferred a sort of ‘warrant of credibility’ on the movement”. Rastafari: From Outcasts to Culture Bearers - Page 86 by Ennis Barrington Edmonds

6) When the Emperor was unable to leave the plane due to the massive turnout at the airport, some prominent Rasta leaders had to be asked for assistance. A dreadlocked slum dweller, Mortimer Planno, one of the most respected elders of the movement, standing among the helpless security forces on the gangway of the plane, appealed for order. This image did away once and for all with the image of Rastafari as some sort of fringe millenniarian cult. Prominent Rastas had to be invited to take part in official functions during the visit, while “the political leaders had to take a back seat” (Campbell: 1985:127). The event, with the anarchic implications of control not by state authorities but by Rastafarian leaders, “has been interpreted by members of the movement as a major validation of their status” (Yawney 1979). Now it was evident that the Rastas were a force to be reckoned with, and Campbell notes that “the profound feelings expressed by the black masses led the Jamaican ruling class to conclude that there had to be ‘new modes of relationship with this respectable force (1985: 127). Verbal Riddim: The Politics and Aesthetics of African-Caribbean Dub Poetry - Page 83 by Christian Habekost

7) On April 21, 1966, Haile Selassie paid a state visit to Jamaica, and a crowd of Rastas estimated at 100,000 surrounded his plane on the tarmac. Selassie remained inside the plane for a half hour after landing, supposedly frightened by the unexpectedly lavish reception. It was not until Rasta leader Mortimer Planno (later a guru of Bob Marley’s) calmed the assemblage that the emperor emerged. During his visit, the Emperor made no official comment on the sect’s evaluation of his spiritual status, but a rumor quickly spread in Rasta circles that a secret communiqué had been passed by the emperor to some of the Rasta elders, instructing them to “liberate Jamaica before emigrating to Ethiopia.” When Selassie’s Ethiopian airliner, emblazoned with a roaring Lion of Judah insignia and trimmed in stripes of red, green and gold, touched down at Palisadoes airport at 1:30 PM on Thursday afternoon, April 21, 1966, there were more than 100,000 people there to greet him, most of them Rastas or members of Afro-Jamaican societies... Shortly before the droning engines of the imperial plane were heard in the heavens, the sky brightened and seven clouds resembling gigantic dogs surged out of the mass of low hanging overcast. As the rear wheels of the aircraft alighted on the runway, blinding sunlight sprang from the firmament and countless jaws dropped in unison. Most of the assemblage sank to their knees. As the door to the plane swung open and Selassie stepped out, a deafening tumult went up from the masses, who beat on calabash drums, lit firecrackers, waved bunting, shook banners and signs that read: “Human Rights Now,” “Behold the Lamb of God,” and “Lay Not Thine Hand on the Lord’s Anointed.” They shouted exhorations like “Hail the Man!” and sounded the huge Abeng bullhorns of the Maroons... Protocol was ignored in the passion of the spectacle. All prearranged introductions and presentations were discarded as police batons and army bayonets were thrust aside and the faithful pressed forward, trampling on the red carpet that had been rolled out. Standing at the top of the portable steps, Selassie raised a trembling hand, either to wave hello or to call for order – it was impossible to interpret the gesture. Then he began to weep, tears rolling down his gaunt face. The crowd cried with him, many Rastas remembering the biblical passage which said that Christ wept when he beheld the multitudes. Selassie went back into the plane, and did not reemerge until Rasta elder Mortimer Plano ascended the steps at the request of the authorities to address the zealots, telling them to make way so the emperor could get to Governor-General Clifford Campbell’s limousine for the ride through Kingston to King’s House. Hurriedly escorted down the steps, Selassie declined to walk on the red carpet en route to the waiting car, a move that puzzled journalists on the scene... The next evening, rumors swirled around Selassie’s visit. The Rastas alleged that during a pre-dinner reception at the governor-general’s house, Donald Sangster, the acting Prime Minister, had had the audacity to stamp his foot at Selassie’s pet lapdog and that the dog had responded with a roar not unlike that of a lion. After dinner, Selassie reportedly distributed gifts among the government officials and guests. The Rasta leaders who had attended received gold medals bearing the Ethiopian seal, while certain politicians, including Sangster, received cigarette cases – from the nonsmoking Selassie – that resembled miniature coffins. Catch a Fire: The Life of Bob Marley by Timothy White p. 15, 210, 211.

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. But EVERY SINGLE SOURCE QUOTED says that Mortimer Planno appealed for calm, and convinced the CROWDS to quiet down. Not a single one says he "persuaded [Selassie] to do so". Can you not read? Secondly, only one single source addresses the cannabis angle, and that does not in any way rise to the level of "widely and openly smoked" as the article states. Finally, the "visit was a success" line is simple weasel-worded nonsense. I will grant you the 100,000 line in my next edit. I'll leave the Planno section as is for further discussion. Bulbous (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous is 100% correct. The 100,000 number is established by these sources. However, there is nothing about Planno reassuring HSI, only that he calmed the crowds, apparently at Selassie's request. It says that some people were smoking, not that vast numbers of them were. The claim that "it was a success" is just silly weasel-wording -- say what happened, don't judge it. And the line about "never rebuked" is still inappropriate, as many sources -- including the Walker you cite -- say that he did deny divinity. - Revolving Bugbear 23:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed getting ridiculous...! You are required by WP:NPOV to respect all significant points of view. The Rastafarian viewpoint on this is very significant, as every one of my sources should give you the idea of how significiant this is to Rastafari. Yet despite going through and hammering this out in mediation, you still seek to assert that POV, biased and inaccurate sources can be used as "the underlying truth" and endorsed as if the Rastafarian viewpoint did not exist or was insignificant. We read what Bradley wrote for instance: "Coming from an establishment loath even to acknowledge Rastafari – beyond possible exploitation of it – this was a previously unimaginable shift in protocol..." There is no question that long after it is too late to do anything about it, there is still obviously a loathness to accept Rastafari as fully legitimate as certain other, more questionable interest groups. And read again what I just quoted from Habekost: "Prominent Rastas had to be invited to take part in official functions during the visit, while “the political leaders had to take a back seat” (Campbell: 1985:127). The event, with the anarchic implications of control not by state authorities but by Rastafarian leaders, “has been interpreted by members of the movement as a major validation of their status” (Yawney 1979). Now it was evident that the Rastas were a force to be reckoned with, and Campbell notes that “the profound feelings expressed by the black masses led the Jamaican ruling class to conclude that there had to be ‘new modes of relationship with this respectable force'(1985: 127)."

Obviously, if this "“has been interpreted by members of the movement as a major validation of their status” (Yawney 1979)" then you can rest assured that it is the very thing that those biased persons who dispute their validity, would want to chip away at and minimize by any semantic trick feasible, but facts are facts, and these ones are documented on film. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Til, I will always respect any point of view that is legitimately sourced, because that frames it as an honest point of view. Right now, your edits are unsourced, and there is no proof that *anyone* aside from yourself, believes as you do. That's why you have to provide sources... because otherwise what you are saying is "Original Research", or more simply put YOUR OPINION. Bulbous (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done nothing on this article but add ample RSS to each and every one of my edits for nearly a week now, as anyone can see. For you to pretend, even now, that my "edits are unsourced" makes you sound more like a biased troll than ever, really hard to take seriously. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You have worked really hard and you have improved this article by adding many more reliable sources, and I urge you to continue your work. The problem we have now is that none of the sources back up what the article says. For example, no source says that Planno "persuaded" Selassie to come off the plane. Not one. I will agree that he calmed the crowd down. I will agree that he was the first to greet the Emperor when he came down. Your sources back that up completely. But not a single one says what the article does. So, while the incident itself has been very heavily sourced, the actual wording is unsupported. Why are you "attached" to that wording. Did you even write it personally? What is so wrong with wording it as your many sources do? Bulbous (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the current version of the article? I have changed it a few hours ago so that it no longer says that Planno "persuaded" the Emperor to deplane. I think you will find the current version is perfectly in agreement with the sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Why have you wasted so much of our time and energy arguing for the old wording, when you have just improved it immensely? However, we still have some work to do (aside from the broken "Dread" citation). You have changed the ganja reference, dropping the unsourced word "widely". I still object to "openly" as that has not been sourced. I could just as easily change it to "secretly", but there is no evidence for that wording, either. At this point, it's just an opinion. Also, the final line "from then on the visit was a success". That's just weasel wording - it is meaningless. In what way was it a success? Successful for who? Our job is to report what happened, not to draw conclusions from it. Please refer to WP:WEASEL. But at least we are making progress. Bulbous (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued reversions

Please contribute to this discussion using the talk page or leave it alone. If you have nothing valuable to contribute, go bug someone else. Bulbous (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox added the reference to the Owens book on Rastafari only the other day. This is a scholarly and legitimate source. Your repeated demands for immediate page numbers do not justify removing this legitimate source by any policy or guideline; this is only antagonistic behaviour. The book is easily available but if you do not have access to it, please make an effort to assume good faith and that Squeakbox, a highly experienced editor, is not making up the information, or pulling a fast hoax; at least until such time as page numbers are added, hopefully soon. OK? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the Owens refs when I had the book. You are assuming bad faith with me and that is not acceptable. Owens, a catholic priest, was one of the major contributors to the academic study of rastafari during the 20th Century and this reliable source must be accepted as such, nor Bulbous do you have any authority to assume bad faith with me as an editor. Please start assuming good faith. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good faith involves coming to the talk page and discussing your revisions, not immediate knee-jerk reversions. I'm not suggesting you remove the Owens references forever; merely until you identify page numbers. Until that time, it is an improper source, and does nothing to either enhance the article or advance this discussion. Continued reference to the same work over and over and over every time you are challenged for sources is evidence that you have none. Bulbous (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read AGF? Continually removing valid and reliable sources and calling those reliable sources "improper" on pretext of a page number, is evidence of your not showing good faith in the first place. There is no justification under WP:VER for removing material for which sources have been provided, and WP:CITE, a guideline, calls for page numbers but does not suggest assuming bad faith with sources that are waiting for page numbers or removing them; it only advises removing unsourced statements fom biographies of living people, and otherwise using {{fact}} or possibly {{verify source}}. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "assuming bad faith". I am sure that SqueakBox is honestly trying to improve this article, as are you. What I *am* assuming is that, as you are showing with your 12 sources (none of which support the wording), he has taken a source and twisted what was written. I have seen this over and over in these two articles, and the administrators that got involved with the last mediation tried to explain this to you. It looks like we are headed that way again. Did you not notice that it was you and they who were arguing? Bulbous (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. You have again removed these valid, reliable references to Joseph Owens's book on the pretext of page numbers no less than six times in the past 24 hours, which is about 3 times too many per other policy. I think that is evidence of extremely bad faith at the least. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not changing any subject. Without page numbers, these citations are improper and WORTHLESS. They, and the edits they support, can be removed at any time as per WP:RS. You have to understand where this comes from, though. This all stems back to the Rastafari movement article. Some time ago, I noted that it was largely unsourced. So I tagged a lot of suspect lines with a {{Fact}} tag. So SqueakBox went ahead (after mindlessly reverting my tags a few times) and replaced every {{Fact}} tag with an identical reference to the Owens book, as if to say "You just never mind. It's all in that one book. So there". I won't let him get away with that stunt here, because this article (unlike that one) is mostly good. Bulbous (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RS says no such thing, and you can't just make up a new policy. RS says only, similar to the other guideline, CITE, that immediate removal is justified in the case of living persons, but doesn't even mention the case of page numbers, like CITE does, otherwise <fact> or <verify source> tags can be used for anything you want to challenge and are skeptical of, to await the reference being cited and give the author a reasonable chance to cite it. The actual policy, as opposed to guideline, is VER and says removal of info would only be justified if there are no references whatsoever, but there is nothing allowing you to remove a reference and say "bring it back only when you have page numbers", I would advise instead the verify source template which produces and then waiting a reasonable time for someone to research and get that information. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So the question becomes, why leave it if it does absolutely nothing for us? You've already provided a slew of references. We don't even need the Owens book in this section; it's spurious now. Why not delete it and bring it up again when we can all review *what it actually says* together? Why continue to defend it, other than to simply be difficult? Bulbous (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you meant 'superfluous'; it is *not* spurious. I agree that someone ought to get a hold of the book at the earliest opportunity and learn exactly what it says, and on what page; in the meantime a 'verify source' tag would be more appropriate as a show of good faith.

Also I suggest you reread the entire mediation page to refresh your memory, instead of misrepresenting it to say I was arguing with the mediators, which is totally false. The truth is that you demanded that I find sources for the Rastafarian POV, while simultaneously telling me (unilaterally) that the Rastafarian POV does not count because it is as you put it "faith-based", thus any sources for it are disqualified a priori; so you set me an impossible task that I refused to accept. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned "faith-based" with respect to self-published websites that are not usable as RS. Your back-and-forth with the administrators is even viewable on this page, so there's no point trying to deny it. What you will *not* notice is me arguing with them at any point. Bulbous (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Til, the Planno section is much better now. Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say the whole section is greatly improved. Many sources have been added, and the edits are verifiable. That's all I wanted to see from the beginning! Excellent work! Bulbous (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1101301103 400.jpg

Image:1101301103 400.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are several paragraphs in the article that consist of a single sentence. These should either be expanded or collapsed into the preceding paragraph. In “Later Years,” some information that was touched on in “40’s and 50’s” is repeated. The additional comments should be moved into the proper chronological section and appropriately cited. Additionally, I wonder if there should not be an expanded section on his legacy, including his imperial successor (and an explanation why succession is correct de jure but not de facto rather than the other way around).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have added citation tags throughout the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The following images have improper copyright/fair use tags: [:Image:Ethiopia-zauditu.jpg], [:Image:1101301103 400.jpg], [:Image:SelassieInJerusalem.jpg], and [:Image:Haile Selassie LOC 8e00855.jpg],

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   jackturner3 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)