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

Discussion
Comment
 * I strongly reject this as way too premature, we have been discussing this no more than a day and the situation is far from locked. This is about 2 weeks too premature, I am happy to engage in mediation in a fortnight if this issue is not resolved but this is a classic case of one determined editor edit warring against 2 other editors who disagre with his or her POV insertion regarding the alleged divinity of Selassie, and one wonders if this is because he knows he cannot get his way edit warring. Bulbous has also posted inappropritae templates in spite of having been warned not to accsuing the other editors of edit warring whereas the evidence points to overwhelming edit warring by Bulbous, so I don't support mediation at this time. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the Washington Post source clearly is not reliable as it as an article on the funeral of an E5thiopian priest, it is not an article about the divinity of Haile Selassie. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bulbous is using POV sources to push his own theological doctrine and tilt the balance of neutrality in the article. The fact is there is no record whatsoever of his ever making such a denial, and the unreliable sources that say he did are, at best, erroneous and confused. Indeed I produced proof on the talkpage that the British government beginning in 1956 secretly attempted to get the Emperor to sign such an explicit denial and rebuff the Rastafari movement, for the sake of their colonialist "subjects", but they had to abandon this project in 1959 when they realized this was never going to happen.  If he had ever actually made any such denial at any time, it would be well-known to say the least, and easily sourced. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have cited three more reliable sources, a BBC article, a National Geographic article, and a major scholarly publication exactly on point. I have added these to my original edit, though the respondents have indicated that no amount of citation will stop them from reverting my edits. Bulbous (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, indeed, the additional sources were removed immediately after they were posted - probably attempting to hide them from the mediators. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haile_Selassie_I_of_Ethiopia&curid=42120&diff=181104714&oldid=181104120Bulbous (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I reverted, because these secondary sources are not credible and are being used to push a falsehood, there simply is no primary source as they falsely claim. And if I was trying to hide it from the Mediators, why would I write in the same edit summary for you to wait for the Mediation before attempting to insert your theological POV into the article?Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post, the BBC, the National Geographic, and a Rhodes Scholar/University Professor/Jamaican Order of Merit recipient are ALL not credible? Bulbous (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still no primary source, the secondary sources are wrong or biased, and are misquoting him to say something he categorically did not say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are convinced in your viewpoint. That's okay. But being convinced of something is not justification for this condemnation of any and all sources which say Selassie denied being divine. The Washington Post article on the archbishop's funeral states "According to church leaders, Selassie denied being a deity and urged Yesehaq to try to draw the Rastafarians to the Ethiopian church." Bulbous tried to add that church leaders have stated Selassie is not divine, citing this and other sources. You have not provided any sources, let along reliable ones (such as the Post), to demonstrate a claim of divinity by Selassie. Until you find sources which state Selassie claimed he was divine, reverting Bulbous's straightforward addition from multiple reliable sources is an indefensible action. Picaroon (t) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But Selassie never once claimed to be divine nor denied it, and the Washington Post nor the other sources making this claim that he denied it do not convince me, if they convince wikipedia it only shows how gullible wikipedia is to believe a totally false claim from secondary sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put this bluntly. It does not matter whether you are convinced by these sources. It matters that these sources are considered reliable by our guidelines, and no evidence has been found to demonstrate they might be incorrect (eg, reliable sources which say he claimed to be divine - I'm waiting to see just one of those).


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on reporting what other sources have already said. We have a clear guideline to determine what sources are reliable - that guideline is reliable sources. Your and SqueakBox's reasons for opposing the use of the Washington Post and the other sources Bulbous has provided up with are not policy- or guideline-based. If you want to found another project where only direct quotations suffice for sources, go right ahead. But that is not how we source things on Wikipedia, so you're going to have to accept these sources being used in the article on Selassie. Picaroon (t) 03:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And that is how you turn articles into attack pieces against a belief system and pretend it is "neutral". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's what you think, you might want to fork Wikipedia to a new project, and write up some new rules on verifiabilty, reliable sources, and original research which are more in line with your views. While you're on Wikipedia, however, you are required to follow Wikipedia's policies. Picaroon (t) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Squeakbox, that doesn't make it at all unreliable. It's an article about an Ethiopian priest. It makes a statement about something some other Ethiopian priests said. It's a perfectly reliable source for reporting on the church leaders' claim that Selassie denied being a divine being. I advise both Til and SqueakBox to review Reliable sources; you'll find it does not back up either of your claims. If you disagree, quote the sections which support your claim that none of these sources are good enough. Picaroon (t) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, I have read the article, seen the talk page comments, and read this page. So I have an idea of the parameters. I would like you three to work with me on getting the issues straight, without engaging in too much emotion - I know you feel strongly about it, but we should work toward resolution - an acceptable phrasing which reflects truth, is verifiable and acceptable as an encyclopaedic article. So if you would be so good as to put aside personal attachment to your own individual POV (which are valid, I know, but work with me on this please!) and make a start on getting the facts down. I would suggest, as a start, that each of you look at the issue as if you were the opposing party. Think about the matter from an opposing (your POV may be incorrect!) viewpoint, and then complete the areas above I have created for you. It would be really great if you did not make comments against another POV at this time - just let it stand a while, and then we can get some perspective. OK so far? docboat (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Bulbous (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, the section headers should read:

== Sources claiming that HS denied divinity ==

== Sources claiming that HS did NOT deny divinity ==

A header reading "Sources where HS claims divinity" is irrelevant, since everyone from all parties agrees that he did not ever claim divinity, unless the National Geographic article can be used as evidence, since it suggests there are some Rastas in Jamaica who claim he told them directly that "I am who you say I am", i.e. JAH. But this dispute is not about claiming divinity, instead the dispute is whether or not he actively denied his divinity, as some dubious sources allege. The firsthand quotes of his actual words indicate that the dubious sources are based on a misunderstanding, since he is actually not denying divinity, but rather stating his humanity -- which is indeed an attribute of Jesus Christ, who is also considered divine according to the doctrine of miaphysitism that His Majesty taught. There are also primary sources that can be quoted as basically a flurry of correspondence dated to the late 50s, between the British colonialist authorities in Jamaica and Whitehall, and the British Embassy in Ethiopia, discussing the recent failed attempts to get him to issue a clear statement rebuffing the Rastafari movement and declaring he is not the Messiah; the Embassy laments that he would not do this and says the idea will have to be dropped indefinitely; far from rebuffing them, he gave them a large plot of land near one of his palaces and visited them often, aside from giving gold medallions to his worshippers on his 1966 trip to Jamaica, on video that anyone can see. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added the heading as suggested. As someone with no preconceived ideas about the issue (I find this all fascinating, actually!) I am proceeding from a point of absolutely no knowledge or biases. I would, if attentive to the discussion, wish to know if there is anything, any reason at all, to assume HS had ever claimed divinity such as we see with the Japanese emperors through to Hirohito. If there is no such evidence, then the call that he should somehow deny a divinity he never claimed in the first place is spurious. Does that sound OK? docboat (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "If there is no such evidence, then the call that he should somehow deny a divinity he never claimed in the first place is spurious." Are you sure you understand the context here? The Rastafari, not Selassie, claimed Selassie was God; no one disagrees with this. Bulbous and I, citing the multiple, reliable sources he found and which we have no reason to think false, think that Selassie denied being God (he was Christian, after all). Til and SqueakBox challenge the accuracy of these sources, and both claim he never denied being God. Picaroon (t) 02:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "He was Christian after all" sounds like original research to me, and is precisely the argument we don't need here (fine in the Christafari page though). Prince Philip is Christian and hasn't denied his divinity either. Really the issue is disputed in the real world where it is dealt with at all and that is what we must reflect. The idea that he "is Christian anyway" is not appropriate. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox, are you now saying that Haile Selassie I was NOT a Christian? Please elaborate, as I sense your views are diverging from Til's. Bulbous (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you misunderstood me there. Selassie clearly was Christian, for that matter Jesus was clearly Jewish. My point is that we cannot draw any conclusions re Selsaaie's (or Jesus's or Prince Philip's) divinity from this. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the major point of mediation, I think - to tease out the various strands of the issues, and throw some light on the whole question, so we can get to an agreed statement of facts - verifiable etc etc. I shall add your name to the list above for a short statement of the issues as you see them (see above recommendation for participants) to assist in getting every POV out there, without emotion or ownership of a stance, From that point I think you can get to an agreement. As far as I can see it, the mediation process is not about what I can contribute, but how I can help you all to come to a common agreed stance. Adding a quick point here: can anyone explain to me how an article about HS appears to place a lot of weight on what Rastafarians feel about HS? It sounds to me, an ignorant bystander, somewhat like Prince Phillip being required to deny his deified status because some South Pacific islanders feel he is a god (apparently because they saw his picture included in an air drop of supplies, or something like that) - it defies reason he should do that, and so I ask the same question of this article. Can anyone explain that to me in clear terms?? docboat (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try. If you search for Prince Philip, most of the results will not be about claims of his divinity, or even mention them. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed - no references in the first pages of search. No issue. Many thanks for the references included above - they do help to illuminate the discussion. docboat (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)