Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-30 Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia

Request details
Please provide guidance on the dispute over the wording of the following diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haile_Selassie_I_of_Ethiopia&diff=181031674&oldid=181030547

This edit was made pursuant to the following source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201952.html

and is almost verbatim quoted from the above source. Editors are in dispute over the wording "denied being a deity" although the source clearly states this. Arguments against range from discrediting the source (Washington Post) to calling the edit POV.

Who are the involved parties?
User:Til Eulenspiegel User:Bulbous User:SqueakBox

Could I get each of you to make a short, concise summary of the case for/against under this heading? And if you ahve any issues with mediation, please document it here too. docboat (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from participants

User:Til Eulenspiegel

User:Bulbous

User:SqueakBox

User:Picaroon

What's going on?
Continued reversion of a properly sourced edit.

What would you like to change about that?
Edit should stand or mediation could support its reversion.

Mediator notes
If the protagonists accept my mediation, I would suggest that we start from this point: the issue seems to be purely about the verifiability and validity of sources. So let us start by listing the sources. I would like the protagonists from both camps to provide the sources here:

Sources where HS claims divinity

 * Few and extremely rare and hard to source, possible allusion to these claims in Nat. Geog. article, but actually irrelevant to the question, which is did he ever deny divinity. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources claiming HS denies divinity

 * Washington Post (Wikipedia article) says: According to church leaders, Selassie denied being a deity and urged Yesehaq to try to draw the Rastafarians to the Ethiopian church.
 * National Geographic (Wikipedia article) says: Haile Selassie was uncomfortable with the Rastafarians' belief in his divinity and often denied that he was God.
 * The BBC (Wikipedia article) says: Haile Selassie never regarded himself as God, nor did he adhere to Rastafari.
 * Mirror, Mirror: Identity, Race and Protest in Jamaica, Rex Nettleford, William Collins and Sangster Ltd., Jamaica (1970) presumably says something similar, although it doesn't seem to be online. This academic paper, which cites Nettleford's work, states "Even when Haile Selassie denied being the Second Coming of Christ, it seemed not to have any effect on his perceived divine position through the eyes of the Rastafari (Nettleford, 42)."

Sources claiming HS does not deny divinity

 * http://www.jah-rastafari.com - a highly respected Rasta website in the Rasta online community has an article by the webmaster, Ras Ark I, explaining that he never denied divinity: A lot of people use the interview answer below to say that Selassie is not Jah. But it is just misinterpretation of his words... I have heard that an Ethiopian that listened to this interview said that Selassie I never said mortal...
 * I have found a few online rasta discussion groups and rasta forums where the members dispute his ever denying divinity and completely explain rasta position on this, but I will not link them unless requested.
 * I will check several Rasta publications and literature for more exact references with page numbers that certainly mention this matter, in the near future. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just found one RS with a very interesting and neutrally worded summary of the question, that should also be useful for the section: It's often said, though no definite date is ever cited, that Selassie himself denied his divinity. Former Senator and Gleaner editor, Hector Wynter, tells of asking him, during his visit to Jamaica in 1966, when he was going to tell Rastafarians he was not God. 'Who am I to disturb their belief?' replied the emperor. - Reggae Routes: The Story of Jamaican Music By Kevin O'Brien, p. 243. ISBN 1566396298  Once again, he refuses a request to deny, according to this footnoted source.
 * Just found this too: Must God Remain Greek?: Afro Cultures and God-Talk by Robert E. Hood, p. 93 ISBN 0800624491 states the exact same viewpoint I have been saying, that he never confirmed nor denied divinity: No doubt enormous numbers of Rastafarians felt prophecies had been fulfilled when Haile Selassie, who never affirmed nor denied his divinity, thereby only heightening the mystery, made a state visit to Jamaica in 1966.
 * The Nation Newspaper: African Crossroads - Spiritual Kinsmen The Nation is Barbados' leading newspaper. The Dec. 24 editorial by Dr. Ikael Tafari, director of the Commission for Pan-African Affairs, reads:

''Significantly, Selassie never rebuked the Rastafari for their conception of him as the Christ. On the contrary, he presented the patriarchs of the movement with gold medallions – the only recipients of such an honour when he visited Jamaica in 1966.''

Despite repeated urgings by the British governor of Jamaica at the time that he "correct" the brethren/sistren by denying his divinity, Selassie never complied.

Instead, he rewarded them with 500 acres of prime land at Shashamane, outside Addis Ababa.

And when an article – by a Rastafari student at the University of the West Indies at Mona, Karl Philpotts – expounding his faith was published in Jamaica's leading daily newspaper, the Emperor wrote him personally, commending him for "his enlightening article" (I personally saw the letter).

In short, Selassie's actions suggest he saw the Rastafari doctrine as "valid" – and, in this context, there was no legal question of the brethren's freedom of religion at issue.


 * If anyone could find a copy of The Testimony of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I Defender of the Faith by Karl Phillpotts Naphtali, available through One Drop Books, it apparently outlines much more illuminating evidence and testimony, including His Majesty's letter to Philpotts alluded to by Dr. Ikael Tafari above. This would also be a reference for a Rastafarian (specifically TTI) POV as requested. But I have been tasked with finding references for the Rastafarian POV that are not references for the Rastafarian POV, so this could be kind of difficult. Here, I did find part of a must-hear interview that prominent reggae star Mutabaruka did with Phillpotts for Cutting Edge in 2000, discussing the contents here and is quite illuminating.

Further discussion of sources
Following on from that, we should be able to see some facts. Discuss on from that point, shall we?
 * I appreciate your research. I am afraid that jah-rastafari.com (and other such sources) do not meet the "reliable" criteria. It is a religious-based self publication. There are dozens of Christian religious-based websites that make opposing claims. I skipped all of them when doing my research, focusing on published works or major media outlets. The Hood source is an excellent one - but it only states that he had denied divinity up to the Jamaican visit. My opinion on this is that his visit to Jamaica was an eye-opening experience for him, and the point at which he started to issue denials (i.e. the wikiquotes, the CBC interview, etc). Most of our material comes from a point after the visit. In any case, that's all OR - but the point is that the sources don't necessarily contradict each other. Bulbous (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are attempting to maintain that I have not demonstrated that this significant viewpoint exists and is published as a pretext to deny the Rastafari movement a voice and present solely polemic sources, this would seem like bad faith. The leading newspaper of Barbados and the two books are not religious based publications, and nothing specifies when he allegedly denied, only one saying clearly the date is never given. If you were only talking about the blogs, I apologize for misunderstanding. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Insults will not help your case any. I was not attempting to suggest that the books were not reliable sources - in fact, I called one of them an "excellent" source. I was only referring to the website. If we were to go down that road, there would be dozens of faith-based sites making all kinds of fantastic claims. Note, too, that I have not referred to other non-Christian sites such as Jamaicans.com that tend to present a point of view unfriendly to Rastafari.


 * As to the timing of the denials, you are still presenting material that predates or coincides with his visit to Jamaica. I'll go ahead and concede that there is no record of him denying his divinity prior to or during his visit. My personal belief is that he started work on converting Rastafari *after* his visit (i.e, the dispatch of Archbishop Abuna). Our supporting material (the wikiquotes, the CBC interview, etc.) all came *after* 1966. I am suggesting that most of the denials are post 1966. Can you source anything after that period? Bulbous (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again I apologize for jumping the gun before absorbing your response more closely, I see now you are accepting what the rss say, at least up until the Jamaica visit. And you have an interesting theory that he changed his stance at some point following the 1966 visit, but we can't do too much with unpublished theories.  By the way, the recorded and translated quotes of His Interview Bill McNeely where he confirmed that (like Jesus) he is human, was at the time of Montreal Expo '67, which is the probable source of the confusuon. It seems the BBC, Post and Nat Geog., and Nettleford conflict with more specialized sources, so I will concede also that there is a difference of opinion among the conflicting sources, and in case anyone still doubts, this should demonstrate that this is indeed a sensitive, controversial and disputed issue with definite opposing viewpoints, requiring extra caution. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that there is a conflict of sources at all. I will accept your sources as being evidence of lack of denials prior to and during the Jamaica visit in 1966. That does not mean that my sources stand in conflict with yours, as they do not give timings. As I see it, Selassie simply did not realize the depth and breadth of the Rastafari movement in Jamaica when he arrived. The Wikipedia article says he was reluctant to even deplane! I think that during his visit he was still absorbing the situation, and was careful not to say anything definitive, not wanting to alienate any of his supporters. I believe it was only after he returned that he decided how best to deal with the sitution. That is when the denials began, and I suggest that is what the sources are referring to. Bulbous (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While what you think may be interesting it has no encyclopedic value. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are most certainly conflicting theologies at stake here, and it is unnecessary to establish that Rastafari viewpoints are significant to the entire section, let us recall again the words written at WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing that we have a difference of opinion or dispute. I am saying that the sources you provided, together with mine, are all valid and don't contradict each other. Yours say that Selassie I never denied his divinity during or prior to his Jamaica visit. Mine say he denied divinity. They all make total sense within the context I have outlined above, and considering that my sources are probably referring to all the quotes and statements he made *after* his Jamaica visit! Bulbous (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, alternatively, they are based on a misinterpretation of his statement in Canada 1967 where he did not actually deny divinity; this POV unlike your theory at least is shared by many. There is no reason to expect harmony of sources on a topic that has been a point of great debate between Rastafarians and their detractors such as Christafari. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. But the fact that you feel they are based on a misinterpretation is merely your opinion. And that's quite possibly the very heart of our dispute - that you feel my sources are wrong and/or misinformed. However, you do not get to make that judgement here at Wikipedia. While the 1967 CBC claim may be rejected by "many", it is accepted by "most" and probably forms the basis of the sources I mentioned. However, there is also the 1973 Fallaci interview, and the "House built on granite" quote from his autobiography in 1976. Bulbous (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not my opinion alone, it is also a crucial part of Rasta belief in his Divinity. We have plenty of good sources already that the concept of his Divinity may be described as a Rastafarian belief. Thus it is axiomatic and unnecessary to "prove" that obviously they do not believe he denied divinity; how could they if his divinity is their belief?  But even so, I have demonstrated that this is a serious bone of contention on the subject between the opposing POVs, Rastafari vs. their detractors such as Christiafari. And once again, unlike your theorizing and hypothesizing, the Rastafari POV qualifies as a signficant POV and is certainly not mine alone. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have you on record stating that is *your* belief. Can you find a reliable source that states it is a theory held by many? In any case, it hardly matters for our purposes. The point is, the sources that claim he denied divinity stand uncontradicted by any other sources. That should serve to end our dispute. But if you find a reliable source that says that a significant number of people dispute his denials, we could add that to the article. But that doesn't mean we simply don't include the sources that say he denied divinity. The two don't cancel each other out. Bulbous (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been asked to find reliable sources that a significant number of people dispute his denials and have done so, what more would it take exactly to satisfy your request? Shall I keep looking, or is there in fact any standard that you wouldn't attempt to raise the bar higher than?? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to share them with us? Bulbous (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we've all made our positions pretty clear, with some research pending, so here's where we are right now: Sources that say he claimed divinity: 0 (Doesn't look like this should be included in the article)

Sources that say he denied divinity: 4 (Unless contradicted, this should be included in the article)

Sources that say he *never* denied divinity: 0 (Perhaps additional research may provide sources, but as of now, there is no basis to state this).

Sources that say he did not deny divinity prior to 1966 or during his Jamaica visit: several (This could be included in the article).

Sources that say a significant number of people reject statements that he has denied divinity: 0 (Pending research)

I'm going to take a shot at proposing a revision that incorporates these elements. Let me know what you think:

"Haile Selassie had no role in organizing or promoting the Rastafari movement. He was the titular head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and until his visit to Jamaica in 1966, he had never confirmed or denied that he was divine. During his visit he specifically declined to refute the Rastafari belief that he was God. After his return to Ethiopia, he denied divinity (according to church leaders) and dispatched Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq Mandefro to the Caribbean to help draw Rastafarians to the Ethiopian church".

References to be appended. Bulbous (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this solution is unacceptable; it incorporates your own Original Research. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I didn't notice the parentheses. It may be workable because it says "(according to church leaders)" with proper attributation to what was sourced  so I think I may agree to a compromise like this for neutrality. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "according to some EOTC leaders", acknowledging that there are also divisions in the EOTC with competing patriarchs, dioceses, etc.. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree to this wording, here is my proposal:
 * He was the titular head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and until his visit to Jamaica in 1966, he had never confirmed nor denied that he was divine. During his visit he specifically declined to refute the Rastafari belief that he was God. After his return to Ethiopia, he dispatched Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq Mandefro to the Caribbean to help draw Rastafarians and other West Indians to the Ethiopian church, and according to some church leaders, denied his divinity.
 * Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I specifically included that "according to" as that was how the WP worded it, and also is less contentious. I'd like to keep the whole denials section together in the middle if possible. I think it flows better. Bulbous (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try adding in whatever compromise wording we agree to first and see how it looks, before trying to merge anything, we seem to be pretty close to an agreement. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was using the exact wording of the Washington Post to avoid further dispute, but considering that you have tweaked it a bit, I'd like to make one small change, myself. Can we change "church leaders" to merely say "sources"? Bulbous (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess that is justifiable, provided the npov formula in the compromise does not drop out, it's fine with me Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Start made to mediation - first get the sources straight. Next step will be to agree on a suitable form of wording which reflects those sources. Need to get the protagonists to agree on how to move through this process docboat (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * References being added as requested. Participants agree to mediation. docboat (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, this has been a wonderful discussion. Can I take it that the proposed solution below is acceptable to all parties? If so, can this mediation page be closed? My thanks to you for the manner in which this has been carried out! docboat (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean the proposal at the bottom of the page, then absolutely I agree. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks alright to me. Picaroon (t) 00:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is great, amazingly we all reached a neutral and souced consensus; thanks to everyone, especially Bulbous for your patience! Thanks also to Docboat for a great job mediating! Feel free to implement the compromise wording anytime! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Discussion has been moved to talk page - better clarity. docboat (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

 * Til Eulenspiegel (with thanks to Bulbous): Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He was the titular head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and until his visit to Jamaica in 1966, he had never confirmed nor denied that he was divine. During his visit he specifically declined to refute the Rastafari belief that he was God. After his return to Ethiopia, he dispatched Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq Mandefro to the Caribbean to help draw Rastafarians and other West Indians to the Ethiopian church, and according to some sources, denied his divinity.