Talk:Haile Selassie/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

GA Nominee

If any body can help me add more descendants in the "Issue" Section it will be greatly and very much appreciated! After this i think deleting the descendants section is upcoming CtasACT (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

All of his children are already listed there. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thats not the problem, im just suggesting putting his children/grandchildren in a template box in this new section called "Issue" is better than the text. featured articles like Elizabeth II and George VI and exc have the template box. The descendants section will most likely be deleted after the box is finished laying out the descendants. CtasACT (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

So as you can read from the Title, the major parts of the Article are finished, the only parts which are really needed is getting more citations, citations of high quality sources directed at the problem, there are a couple of missing citations, and second we must make it as neutral as possible, opinion pieces are not what you can call "high quality" unless of course its directed at "Legacy" section which i added, or public/media opinions about Selassie I. So i hope other editors can help me add sources, since it seems i am the only one editing here CtasACT (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so the article is not as I thought, it needs major fixing, i had initially thought it was virtually finished, but no, the Legacy part will need to be expanded well more with at least over 500 words. With multiple citations. The Article in simple words is not "perfect" and i want to make it as perfect as possible to, yes: and i don't want to be seriously the only one contributing, since the effects aren't being felt yet, so join in! CtasACT (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Sections

What is supposed to be the difference between "sources" and " bibliography"? Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Well thanks for notifying me, the sources should be deleted and inputted in the bibliography section only, this can be seen in Elizabeth II article where only references, notes, and the bibliography appear and not a source, thanks very much! CtasACT (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Removing the Sources breaks existing references. You must stop doing it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Uncle G: as far as I can see everything in "Bibliography" should really be in "Further reading". "Sources" contains the sources called by short-form references in the text. DuncanHill (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I was fairly sure that one of them was superfluous to one or both of the other two, just not which way their contents should be migrated. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations

There's rather a lot of duplication in the citations. The autobiography translated by Edward Ullendorff is cited in several different ways and with at least two different publication years, for example. There are a couple of other sources where the full citation is repeated several times merely differing in page number. Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of incomplete and even misleading citations, too. Along the way to settling on {{sfn}} or whatever, a lot of the citations, which are not even clear on what they are citing, need fixing. For examples:

  • Gates, Henry Louis, and Anthony Appiah, Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience. 1999, p. 902.
  • Gates and Appiah, Africana (1999), p. 698.

should be

  • {{sfn|Fay|1999|p=902}}
  • {{sfn|Munro-Hay|1999|p=698}}
  • {{cite encyclopaedia|editor1-first=Henry Louis|editor1-last=Gates|editor1-link=Henry Louis Gates|editor2-link=Kwame Anthony Appiah|editor2-first=Anthony|editor2-last=Appiah|encyclopaedia=Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience|date=1999-01-01|title=Halie Selassie I|author1-first=Robert|author1-last=Fay|location=New York|publisher=Basic Civitas Books|isbn=978-0965032742}}
  • {{cite encyclopaedia|editor1-first=Henry Louis|editor1-last=Gates|editor1-link=Henry Louis Gates|editor2-link=Kwame Anthony Appiah|editor2-first=Anthony|editor2-last=Appiah|encyclopaedia=Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience|date=1999-01-01|title=Ethiopia|author1-first=Stuart|author1-last=Munro-Hay|location=New York|publisher=Basic Civitas Books|isbn=978-0965032742}}

Notice that the authorship of the cited articles has been wrong for 16 years, and it has not even mentioned the name of the articles in the encyclopaedia, or pointed out that two different encyclopaedia articles are being cited here. There is rather a lot of wikignoming needed here, after 19 years.

Uncle G (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Are there more possible problems with the citations to fix, and to note have we possibly come to a conclusion to be the Bibliography or Sources or further reading problem? Which should we use in the article. Since Queen Elizabeth II article only uses Bibliography, but other Good or Featured articles like Queen Victoria use both "Further reading" and "Bibliography." So the use of Bibliography or sources/further reading section(s) will need to be decided in this talk page, and if a decision is made it will need to be implemented before the GA nominee thing gets officially reviewed by other users. But that needs to be Conveyed by User:DuncanHill and User:Uncle_G, i will simply watch while you much empierced editors decide on it! CtasACT (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Typo: experienced CtasACT (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's more your and other editors' decision than mine. I recommend my own preference using {{sfn|Author(s)|Year|pages}} and no <ref></ref> at all, especially as there are already some references in that form, but you could equally go with the list-defined-references option with <ref name="AuthorYear"/>{{rp|pages}} for the page numbers instead. As for the section headings, note that they've been all over the place in this article over the years. You're probably best off with a simple change to 
      == Notes ==
{{reflist|group=nb}}
== References ==
=== Citations ===
{{reflist|25em}}
=== Sources ===
{{refbegin}}
<!-- list of source citations goes here -->
{{refend}}
= Further reading ===
{{refbegin}}
<!-- list of non-source citations goes here -->
{{refend}}
      but there's no requirement for exactly that. Don't think that you'll fix everything in one go. You have 19 years of multiple editors mixing things up to clean up. Speaking from experience: Bite off what you can chew, which will be fixing up just the book citations so that they aren't repeated and all have the full authorship and correct publication dates and whatnot, and see what's next after that. Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
      Okay will implement them today, if not most likely tomorrow, sorry i am quite busy now! CtasACT (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
      Can you give me a list of citation numbers, for example which citations are wrong as you can tell, there are about 304 citations, which numbered citation(s) are wrong, so that i can fix the date and number, a citation number would be good to locate them. So not to confuse not how many citations are wrong but what is the numbered cited source which is wrong, it may be the 184th cited source which is wrong or the 90th cited source, the exact numbered cited source(s) which are wrong would be nice to fix. CtasACT (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
      Yes i see the problem, thanks for listing the problem in the Notes section! Since again i am new i might need extra time to fully fix the notes part, but again for the References if there are citation problems i would be very happy to try to fix them! CtasACT (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Generalissima (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 08:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


Unfortunately, this meets the criteria to quickfail (see WP:GAFAIL) due to the citation problems and cleanup tag. Please feel free to nominate this again once the problem has been resolved, though! This article has been improved a lot lately and I think it can get up to GA level with a bit more work. Generalissima (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad Faith Editing

I'm confident that this page has been extensively edited by one Petar Vukotic, a Serbian-American Rastafarian convert internet personality, to undermine accounts of human rights abuses and misrule by Haile Selassie's regime. User:Czar_Petar_I's contributions (such as changing a mention of "Harari people" to "Harari criminals") are consistently skewed against opponents of Selassie and cite, in several places, an article by Petar Vukotic on the apparently defunct website Rastafari Coalition.

If Czar Petar and Petar Vukotic are the same person, this is a clear violation of the policy against original research-and if they somehow aren't, this article is buttressing bold claims about the culpability of the Ethiopian state with religious apologia. Kolonokavi (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Have no idea if those two are the same person, but could you reference the exact section of the article that needs to be fixed, will sure be willful, but clearly won't add words as "regime" a more neutral world would be "administration" unless used from a quoted source which repeats the same thing. Other than that, a two side of the story would be better than Haile Selassie was a 'dictator' or was a 'good' person rather a neutral article is needed for that specific section which highlights both sides CtasACT (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The section of the article affected by the specious Vukotic article spans from the 1970s subheading to the Revolution subheading. Kolonokavi (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
As for the descriptions of Selassie's Ethiopia as a regime, I apologize, I throw that around as a pretty neutral descriptor but I see the connotation. Kolonokavi (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for the late response, i have deeply read which parts you referred to and they seem to be fine, so i simply just will request humbly of you to edit the parts you feel to violate Wikipedia's neutral standpoint policy, and i have good belief (if you choose to edit) that they would be of good faith: As i said i do not know who these two or one for all i know individual(s) are, so i will try to say it will be better if you remove or add context in the 1970s section, than it is for me, because i haven't clearly been able to identify any rule breaking. So add or remove anything you believe violates Wikipedia's policies CtasACT (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
No worries will try to fix any propaganda problems, by tomorrow should be all fixed CtasACT (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Kolonokavi, its most likely them since they posted the same "1957 penal code" from this articles talk page on their instagram. [1] [2]. I've edited out the parts in the 1970s onwards section that you were concerned about. Magherbin (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove contradicting statement

User:CtasACT, Languages were indeed banned, why did you restore the content? [3] I've discussed this already in the talk page. see here [4]. What does the reference state? Post the quote because I cant see any of the three references. The regime used underhanded policies hence using the constitution to refute this is not appropriate as I explained to the other user. For ex: "Emperor Haile Selassie followed a secret policy of controlling and limiting the promotion of high ranking officers of Oromo origin" [5]. Magherbin (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Again that is highly debated, legally speaking as the Sources have stated no laws were published through Parliament or Imperial Decree which "officially" banned languages, the Wiki pages highlights that those two must be differed. You are going in the realm of allege, we must differ that, and find the middle ground, the middle ground is that de-facto there maybe a case of banning any languages, but at an official level no laws were passed during the Emperor's administration which did such a thing. CtasACT (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
So per Wikipedia's neutral policy the original Wiki seems fine highlighting both sides of the alleged side and official legal aspect CtasACT (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going in the "realm of allege" when Oxford published articles state so. Why did you remove the oxford source that I added in? [6]. Can you quote one of the references that you restored? Would like to know the context. Magherbin (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please give your side, we are trying to get to the bottom of this, i did not add any of those top references they simply where there before i even edited the Haile Selassie article, to my understanding three sources which other users added claim to suggest no laws officially banned languages, again please clarify if those sources published by previous users is legally accurate CtasACT (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
In my understanding citation #20-22 claim " there was never an official law or government policy that criminalised any language" any sources which legally contraindicate them or the sources never state such a thing? CtasACT (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 26, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass Pass
2. Verifiable?: Pass Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Pass
5. Stable?: Pass Pass
6. Images?: Pass Pass

The article has seen great improvements by CtasACTs recent commendable work. I thank them for their valiant contributions. I hope the original reviewer can find it in their heart to grant this page the merited title of Good Article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— SweaTheSerg (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What parts do i need to improve since it seems it has passed all the 6 metrics under your gracious review so that it can be reassessed. CtasACT (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
As I understood it, it would be in the hands of the original reviewer (in this case being Generalissima) to reassess it. But this might be mistaken. I can't find any flaws that would discourage it from nomination. SweaTheSerg (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@SweaTheSerg: This is not the case; the reviewer of a first GA has no special role in later GAs.
However, this is currently not a full GA review: you have to give your justification on how the article passes each of the 6 criteria, as well as doing a review of sources used in the article to ensure that they match the text used.
Swea, I see this is your first GAN review, so please make sure to review the instructions at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Reviewing and look through other GA reviews of similar articles. Here's some similar GAs and their reviews; this is the kinda depth that we gotta do for these things to make sure they're up to snuff.
I understand a source and prose review can be a really intimidating task for new editors (I know it was for me at first) so feel free to ask for a second opinion (that's a way you can close the review) if you are unsure.
Generalissima (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
My apologies. I seem to have missread or missunderstood an instruction somewhere in the GA page, yet I can't seem to re-find it. To be fair I did write a more thorough review but I scrapped it when understood it as unneccisarry. Stupid, I know. Anyhow I'll take my leave and hope I learned something. SweaTheSerg (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This seems very interesting, since @SweaTheSerg, seems to have "passed" this article, and agrees to list it as a good article according to this log [1] but in this log here [2] it seems the article "failed" the criteria? This has really confused me since @SweaTheSerg gives a pass to each criteria with a green checkmark sign indicating each crtirea has passed, yet nonetheless gives a failed grade. I think this is an error since according to the green checks filled by @SweaTheSerg the article passes all criteria and thus a pass and not a failed article. And if you still insist in the fact it has "failed" please give appropriate reasons to (why?) it has failed your assessment so that i can FIX and you reassess it. As @Generalissima pointed out, GA dicussions on minor fixs can be done through a process, meaning the GA is on hold till the problems for this case @SweaTheSerg has seen so that the article can be again reassessed rather than wait a few more months to wait in line for it to be reviewed again. So @SweaTheSergSweaTheSerg please do list the problems you've noticed so that they have be addressed rather than shunned, since again [2] shows a section "Failed "good article" nomination" yet instills green checks to ALL the 6 criteria giving it in detail a passing grade. Anyways can you expand on the matter? CtasACT (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Your confusion is wholly warranted, and I apologize. But again, it was all a misunderstanding on my side. In my previous review I did try to state it as passing. However, I will do another, thorougher read-through and review - partly to compensate for the lack of content and clarity previously. This revised review will likely need a second opinion by a more experienced editor. I was planning on using a different template, but the ones you provided are superior in clarity, so I will use one of them.
Again, I do apologize, and I hope my reassessment won't take too much extra time. SweaTheSerg (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@SweaTheSerg i wanted to check back on the review process since the article is long i do understand why any updates haven't been added, nonetheless i would like to ask even if a little what you have determined or at least thought-out of the article at this stage. CtasACT (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I do apologise for the time this takes; I've got other business in life I'm taking care of. At this time I would say that the references seem all well to me, though this is outside my comfort zone (as I understand, the discrepancy that was found there earlier has been resolved), and I request another pair of eyes to gaze upon them. I've found no copyright violations, and I greatly appreciate the heavy use of quotes and other media, the use of Psalm 68:31 as an introduction in that related section, as well as the audio alternative.
Though I do wonder if one could clarify (in the 'coat of arms' section) that the Order of Seraphim is a Swedish order. If this cannot be done without reading as awkward, it should be avoided, of course, but it's a proposal. Otherwise, I could note oddities in the audio version of the article, but I understand that such is not under any of our command.
It will take additional time to finish the review, but I do promise this will not exceed one week. I thank you for your patience. SweaTheSerg (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Some comments:
1. Though it's probably true; I'd say "Zewditu was far from an honorary ruler" would be a biased representation. It should instead state what Zewditu did to merit this reputation - and/or what contemporary persons saw in her.
2. There's an error in the 1940s and 1950s section. The statement "...more widely spread throughout the empire. " is split between two paragraphs.
3. Again, I belive one could clarify that the Order of Seraphim is a Swedish order in the coat of arms section. SweaTheSerg (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay fixed all of that, as my edit log to the page reads "Fixed coat of arms section, fixed the split sentence in two paragraphs, and fixed a Wikipedia:NPOV problem on Zewditu section + Added Scholar Sources following WP:RS" So anymore problems you could see i should fix? CtasACT (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the source for the paragraph "In 1967, he visited Montréal, Canada, to open the Ethiopian Pavilion [...]" is very clear. Furthermore, I think the links in the See Also section could either be alphabetically ordered, or at least have the more relevant links further up.
But that's about it. I'll deliver my full statement within the aforementioned timeframe, though, I warn that I still need someone else to look over the reference material before I can award the article a full score. SweaTheSerg (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@SweaTheSerg fixed both of those, added two sources, and fixed the See also via alphabetic order. The reference material I'll try to make someone else join the conversation, within 1-2 days from already in discussion with them, so they can give a verdict on if the references are enough, or need some fixing. Seems productive! CtasACT (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Great! Just one more thing, I just realized that this image in the wollo famine subsection is without a clear source provided (is it the one bellow?) A link to where the data is found should also be placed on the commons page. SweaTheSerg (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@SweaTheSerg fixed it in commons, added the source, i made the graph partial: based from data which i now have linked to two sources! CtasACT (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@CtasACT SweaTheSerg (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@SweaTheSerg, might need to wait a bit, but i believe within a span of 5 days we would have a guaranteed reference reviewer whom i have been talking to, a little patience and this article would get the reference check from a third party! I am very grateful for your patience and staying still and vigilant in this review process to this point! CtasACT (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@SweaTheSerg, The article references/sources were reviewed by @Векочел, lots of fixs had to be done, but i and @Векочел fixed all that should be fixed, and they have said that the sources now finally satisfy and meet the GA criteria! I now think the Haile Selassie article is ready to be passed by you: as a GA as a third party has thoroughly reviewed it and deemed it now meets the GA standards! CtasACT (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Splendid! Although it's quite a formality at this point I might as well submit the whole statement for the approval:
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The use of short paragraphs makes it easy to read and follow.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    This section is the work of @Векочел, who has gracefully overseen and corrected the reference material.
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It follows the neutral point of view policy, and represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    There are no ongoing edit war or content dispute, the article doesn't drasticly change day-to-day:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable and apropiate captions.
    All media is applied well. There are a good amount of images, as well as multiple audio and video recordings:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Congratulations my friends! I will now start the work of actually giving the article its award. SweaTheSerg (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@SweaTheSerg CtasACT (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@SweaTheSerg Thank you for your gratitude on my improvements to this article, but to the previous message i left i would like to know if one of the two statements are correct, 1) The article has passed as the green checks marks left in all 6 criteria's has concurred to me, 2) The section tiled of Failed "good article" nomination is true, and if so please do explain to me each part you have seen and felt needs to be improved in detail so that i can fix them to have you reassess it. This is because all confusion in this discussion can be of no point, and we can focus on the parts if any you saw that needs to be fixed, fast. CtasACT (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Charles III/GA2 & Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/GA1 might be good blueprint to this GA2 review to read and then get back to the parts that i need to fix if any, so that we can possibly make this a successful case of making it a possible Good Article! CtasACT (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@SweaTheSerg A good example of a review would be Talk:Tupou VI/GA2 where the reasons are explained to which category it passes and why, and what improvements can be made, so i would highly and graciously recommend you view that as an example for your possible decision in this review. CtasACT (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Векочел

CtasACT and SweaTheSerg, I have been asked by MSincccc if I could look at the sourcing of this article. I plan to do so shortly. Векочел (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Do so! It doesn't really concern us if it is you in this case (Asked by a fellow Wiki user) or any other user, @SweaTheSerg asked for a third party and you do well fit that, and we would gladly welcome your review and possible advices for this article! CtasACT (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@Векочел read my previous message, you are well welcomed to review the references! CtasACT (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
There are quite a few sections without sources. These are either going to have to be cited or be removed. My inclination is that this article should be failed. However, I'm open to reconsider if some sources can be added. Векочел (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Векочел Thanks for letting me know i will replace all of them, but please cite the source numbers to be exact, There are 365 sources, all are numerically numbered from citation #1 to citation #365, it would help me to delete and replace them faster. But will try to do so! Thanks CtasACT (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Векочел I fixed about 6 of the sources, i couldn't find Geo cities, Sewasew & Black past, for Encyclopedia Aethiopica (there's two of them) i removed the blog post one which is at the top of the page, but citation #64 which seems to be an actual Encyclopedia so i kept it. But again for the other citations i will try to remove them if i find them, if you already know where they are it would be appreciated if you removed them. I also added replaceable sources as reliable as Oxford, and National Geographic's, and such. CtasACT (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@CtasACT Thanks, I will continue my review shortly. Векочел (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replaced the Geo cities one, and also fixed the Sewasew one, i added more reliable sources, i also added multiple sources to unsourced sections of the article from RS CtasACT (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Векочел CtasACT (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

My initial comments, more to come later:

  • Why should we consider source 10, Major religions ranked by size, to be reliable?
  • Encyclopedia Aethiopica appears to be a blog post.
  • Rastafari Coalition doesn't seem like a RS.
  • A better source than Africa Media Online could probably be used to explain the title Empress Zewditu granted him in 1928.
  • Solomonic crown heraldry is non-RS.
  • Unless I'm missing something, Sewasew is another blog.
  • Why is The Collector, a work of fiction, referenced in this article?
  • Is there a better source available for the 1936 war with Italy than Black Past?
  • Geo cities doesn't seem like an RS.

Continued:

  • I don't think MTL Blog is an RS.
  • Is it possible to get an English translation for sources 225, 257, 360, 362, and 364 thru 367?
  • Sources 227 (Eritrean's Martyrs Day) and 229 (Dates in Eritrean History) don't appear to be from a reliable website. You can keep the other sources in that section.
  • 231 is from the Huffington Post, but the article was written by an independent contributor and so a better source is needed.
  • Don't use Rastafari Coalition as a source.
  • I think a better source is needed than Mongabay.
  • Do not use Fox News as a source (see 269 and 334).
  • It would be preferable to use perhaps reliable news sources for 271 and 272.
  • Look for more reliable sources than Rastafari speaks, rasta-man-vibration.com, ecadforum.com, and Ethiopian World Federation.
  • Could an actual source be found for the claim that Bob Marley's song is dedicated to Haile Selassie, rather than using just a description? (See citation 295)
  • I also do not consider Shashamane, Life Is an Excellent Adventure, Deadline Hollywood, and Contested Histories to be reliable sources.
  • I would suggest you look for a more reliable source than Anadolu Agency (i.e., not closely affiliated to an authoritarian government). However, this is only a personal suggestion.
  • I would be careful about relying on The Crown Council of Ethiopia website.

Векочел (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Replaced almost if not all the sources you mentioned, with some expectation for the Huffington Post although it was written by an independent writer i would assume that the independent writer has the requirements to guest post for The Post, the article also is most interviews from high level Ethiopian officials and complied in a news format, and since i could not find any other sources i figured it should stay. And for the English translations i could not find any English ones, but per WP:Verifiability we can cite non-English sources when English sources do not exist. In this article that seems the case. And last point i think the crown council should only be used for Titles or coat of arms of the Emperor, and not be used for anything else, and i think that is what it does in this article so i left it. But the majority of the citations have been removed and replaced by Reliable Sources. CtasACT (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@CtasACT, looks good. That's all I have for the source review. Векочел (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Векочел Thank you so much your review does significantly help this article! CtasACT (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haile_Selassie/Archive_4&oldid=1220983697"