This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
No, that article has just now been started and needs to be given a chance to grow. You don't rip up seedlings from the very minute they're planted (unless you are Sheriff John Brown) I don't understand why you have seemingly been antagonistic to this article literally within minutes of its creation by another user. An article with that scope could easily surpass the current size of this one; there are abundant references surviving from a long reign. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I've been antagonistic, and I'm not proposing to "rip up" anything: just to move it to a section in this article. I have no opinion on the life and work of Haile Selassie, but "modernize" is a rather loaded term, and I don't expect every reader would see all the legislation listed as modernization. Since it's short and unreferenced, why not let it grow here, and when it's big enough split it away, with a more neutral title, such as Ethiopia during the 20th century or Ethiopia during the rule of Haile Selassie? Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing to merge as of yet, don't you get it? It hasn't been written yet. The only paragraph there was lifted from this article, so at this point, "merging" would be tantamount to outright deleting because you object to describing Haile Selassie's career as "modernizing". A move proposal isn't really the way to deal with that kind of objection. You need to allow a reasonable amount of time being patient while that article takes form, before you rush in and want everything done your way at once. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"Want everything done your way at once" is not at all a fair description of what I've done here. I've changed no content at all, apart from adding category tags. I did tag the page for single point of view and unref, 20 minutes after it was created, and you removed the SPOV tag. Two days later I proposed merge here, and you removed that mergeto tag from the article too. Have I broken the letter or spirit of any WP guidelines? Please WP:Assume good faith: I am trying to improve the article. Altered Walter (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, would you be willing to give it a few days then, I am sure this can be developed into a full, multi-pov article in the new Ethiopian history series before long. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Certainly! Let's talk again in the first week of January, in case the article's creator is taking a break over Christmas. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I wlll expand this article over the next few weeks. This is an attempt to complete the History of Ethiopia series. Modernization under Haile Selassie is only a working title as that is what the info box referred to it. I will reconsider the title later. However, merging it would be completely counter productive. This article will have less to do with Haile Selassie and more about political and economic development in early to mid twentieth century. That is just too long a title right now. Sorry, I have been busy restarting the Ethiopia WikiProject. I will get back to this soon. አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This article includes a large quotefarm, which is claimed to have consensus...somewhere (link please?). However, all of the quotes are on Wikiquote, and it would be more appropriate to leave that content on that site rather than include it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought this had been already discussed here once, but apparently not. If you read the nature of the quotes and their significance to understanding the topic, especially the thinking and philosophy of the Emperor, and to international world affairs during the time frame 1930-1974, I strongly feel shuffling them off to wikiquote where many readers are less likely to click, would be doing this article more of a disservice to learning about the topic, despite what someone wrote at WP:QUOTEFARM. One of the most important and notable things about Haile Selassie I is the quality of speeches he is remembered for giving, in his addresses to the United Nations, the U.S. Congress, etc. and this section is a sample selection of some of his most important teachings ever. He is regarded as such a highly important figure in African History as one of the principle architects of Post-WWII Decolonialization and the OAU, that his words ought to be allowed to remain on his page as a notable exception to any generic guideline to the contrary, and I would be perfectly willing to request for comments on this to sound out wider consensus. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Til is right, the quotes are appropriate and of interest to the reader. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 01:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be more helpful to the reader to have the quotes contextualized and supported by article content, rather than isolated and unexplained in a separate section. Ideally, we would have reliable secondary sources discussing these quotes/speeches. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
That sounds fine. Just make sure if you want to remove a quote rather than change its context that you open a discussion here. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 16:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Date of the 1963 speech (the famous "War speech")
I realized that the date given in the article was wrong : it was originally "6 october 1963", as it appears in Important utterances of HIM emperor Haile Selassie I (p. 460-471). But this date is wrong. A quick look to the NY Times archives shows that Haile Selassie I adressed the general assembly on the 4th of October 1963. The UN photos archives tell the same. --Jahsensie (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Good work. The 6th was a Sunday, making it highly unlikely to have occurred on that day but please add your sources as refs to the article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 00:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 2013 December 29. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Most people in fact do say "Haile Selassie the First", because that is the common name and the officially correct name. On whose behalf are you speaking when you say "no one"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
On whose behalf are you speaking when you say "Most people"? How do you know what most people say? Srnec (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I know what people say who know anything about it, I also know what people say who don't know anything about it or if they do get some infantile pleasure from forcing it to be wrong, and you don't seem to be in the first category. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I, too, know what people say who know anything about it. I cited some of them who've written books below. Srnec (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. Since there is no Haile Selassie II and the name is distinctive (in English), there is no need use the numeral. Srnec (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
But it is not the correct name, it is incorrect not to use the correct and most common name. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
What's incorrect about it? My brother I call "John", but his birth certificate does not say just "John". I suppose I am being incorrect? Srnec (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
In this case the I is part of the name, unlike with King John, so it should not be omitted from the title. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not talking about King John. I suppose you think his mother named him Haile Selassie I? I wonder how he ever got near the palace with such an auspicious name. Srnec (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't suppose anything like that. That's how you run off with a false premise. His baptismal name is irrelevant fpr article title purpose, we are using his regnal name, which is unequivocally "Haile Selassie I" and was internationally recognised as such. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The protocol for British monarchs is always to omit any numeral as long as there is only one instance of the name, hence "John", "Mary" etc. rather than "John I" or "Mary I". It would be incorrect to apply the British protocol in this case. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We are not required to follow monarchical protocol in all cases. After all, James VI and I isn't his name any way you look at it. Srnec (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Support - Adding the ordinal is superfluous and probably wrong, given that there is no HS II. I appreciate that it is used in many references (not all) but that does not make it correct. The usage is common because people infer incorrectly from the names of other monarchs, e.g. Elizabeth II, that the ordinal is required for someone of that rank. It could only be 'correct' if it can be shown that he was crowned as such, i.e. that his title in Amharic did in fact use the otherwise superfluous number. Imc (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
You are in error; that is not the reason "Haile Selassie I" is the most wp:common form in this case, and in the case of Ethiopian Emperors. The regnal name in Amharic is properly "Qedemawi Haile Selassie" where "Qedemawi" is a word that means "the First" and the standard protocol for translating this in proper English is always "Haile Selassie I" and never appeared without the I in any diplomatic or official usage, nor that of anyone familiar with this topic. So once again we should go with the name that is 1) more common and 2) most correct, and not an incorrect form. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
OK then, any references for the standard protocol including the numeral in Amharic? For myself, I lived in Ethiopia for a time as a child, during his rule, and as I remember he was always Emperor Haile Selassie in English (not saying that I would necessarily remember any use of the numeral). Imc (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
How about the English translation of My Life and Ethiopia's Progress for example, I think it always has the I wherever the name appears. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: For what it's worth, a cursory browsing of contemporary news accounts shows both "Haile Selassie" () or "Haile Selassie I" () were commonly used. (Strictly speaking, wouldn't the correct name be "His Imperial Majesty the Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Haile Selassie I, Elect of God, Emperor of Ethiopia?" Though presumably WP:HONORIFIC rules this out.) -- Gyrofrog(talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
News headlines often get it entirely wrong out of ignorance, I saw one from 1935 reading "Haile Reserves Decision on Gamble" referring to him as just "Haile" so I doubt that method can settle much. Nobody is suggesting moving to a page with all of those honorific titles, which would be inappropriate per wp:honorific, and they are not really part of the name but titles. But a dynastic numeral on the other hand -is- part of the name and should certainly be included where it is part of the name as in this case. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Support The proposed title is clearly the COMMONNAME and it does not require disambiguation. WP:NCROY is a guideline that explicitly admits of exceptions, not an inflexible rule. Neljack (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
How is it clearly the COMMONNAME? Did I miss something? The current title is clearly not only the COMMONNAME but the correct name of the individual, and the proposed name is a misnomer and less common. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
See this Ngram, which shows that it is the common name (even subtracting the red line from the blue) and that it refers almost unambiguously to this guy. Nobody is buying this "misnomer" crap. Srnec (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Srnec, you can only speak for one person, yourself. Why do you attempt to speak on behalf of everyone else by saying "Nobody is buying this "misnomer" crap"??? Congratulations, you just proved something is "crap" and a "misnomer" by using Appeal to Google. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Haile Selassie is also a common Ethiopian name, so I'm sure some references do not refer to Haile Selassie I. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a common name, yes, but it is almost completely absent from English books until after Ras Tafari Makonnen's rise (cf. Ngram). This suggests that it overwhelmingly refers to the emperor, as I said. Srnec (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
In the ACLS Humanities E-Book collection, I get "Haile Selassie I" 13 times in 7 monographs and just "Haile Selassie" 150 times in 46 monographs. Rastafari: Roots and Ideology by Barry Chevannes prefers "Haile Selassie", using the numeral only once when referring to his coming to the throne (not the first mention). "Hayla-Sellase" appears 85 times in 2 monographs, including A History of Modern Ethiopia, 1855–1991 by Bahru Zewde. Srnec (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Til. He isnt just a historical figure but a religious figure and the fact that as a religious figure he is known as Haile Selassie I (as can be demonstrated in secondary references) should definitely carry weight in this debate, I fear too little weight has been given to him as a religious figure till now in this debate. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
What does his being a religious figure have to do with his regnal number? Srnec (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Err, common usage. As a politician and Emperor from almost 40 yrs back his name isnt used commo0nly much in 2013, as a religious figure, God for up to a million ppl, his name is very commonly used in 2013 and the common usage is Haile Selassie I (with the I pronounced as in the first person) so all these support using commonname as a justification are simply wrong. Very depressing to see such ignmorance and contempt for Selassie as a religious figure appearing on wikipedia, sigh♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 00:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence of common usage. Others have provided reliable sources, results from Google Ngrams and results from searches on academic source collections. Moreover, calling him just "Haile Selassie" instead of "Haile Selassie the First" no more shows contempt for him as a religious figure than just "Jesus" (instead of "Jesus Christ") shows contempt for him as a religious figure. Srnec (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Err, Christ is a title, not remotely the same, You can try this though the best explanation fo the importance of the I in Haile Selassie I that I have read is in Joseph Owens' book, Dread. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 14:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Correct Squeakbox, and in logical terms, "Christ" here is a "flawed analogy" being used to drive a fallacious conclusion. 1) Regardless of how some prefer to read or pronounce it, the I is properly a dynastic Roman numeral translating Amharic Qedemawi ("the first"). 2) The I is part of the complete regnal name. 3) Wikipedia always includes dynastic numerals as part of the regnal name if they are part of the regnal name 4) It is part of the regnal name here, in this case 5) Some people don't like that fact (See WP:IDONTLIKEIT) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The link SqueakBox provided says nothing about the importance of the ordinal in Rastafarianism. I have not read Dread, can SqueakBox quote a pertinent passage?
This all has nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines on naming, however. Can Til point me to a guideline that says "Wikipedia always includes dynastic numerals as part of the regnal name if they are part of the regnal name"? I cannot find it in WP:NCROY. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
We use the regnal name by policy. That is why, if we have Juan Carlos I and John Paul I in the article title, there is no sound reason for omitting it here, for exactly the same reasons. I is a dynastic numeral and if it is part of the regnal name, it is part of the regnal name. This has come up a few times before if you check the archives. Imposing the convention for British monarchs on an Ethiopian king should not be acceptable any more than for the current Spanish king. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like you want to selectively focus on your chosen "factoid" but if I say anything that doesn't support what you are attempting to foist, it's a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Once again: Juan Carlos I. This article cannot be moved if that one is allowed to remain, regardless of what wikipedians vote. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Well wikipedians are voting not to have any consensus here and the default is to not move♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 01:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
This article cannot be moved if that one is allowed to remain, regardless of what wikipedians vote. That's not how it works, and you know it. (I have no idea what "factoid" you're talking about. Why don't you discuss the sources I cited that prefer to omit the numeral?) Srnec (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I know "how it works" according to you: Spain need not conform to the convention for British monarchs' regnal names, but Ethiopia can be made to. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That seems to be the part you have absolutely no knowledge of, but you will need to do some homework and research to find the answers because there is not enough room here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This is non-sense. Many people in Ethiopia can be named Haile Selassie, but Tafari Makonnen was crowned as Haile Selassie the first (Qedamawi), and nothing else. What if royalty was coming back in Ethiopia, with a king named Haile Selassie II (Degmawi) ? There should be another debate to rename this page ? --Jahsensie (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
There are many people named Napoleon as well. Srnec (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Very strongly oppose as he was known officially in all languages with the ordinal, even in Amharic. There is no "requirement" whatsoever mandating in what contexts a monarch can or cannot use an ordinal. Indeed, in the British court case MacCormick v Lord Advocate it was ruled the British monarch had the right to use any kind of ordinal they so pleased. Obviously this does not apply to Ethiopia in any legal sense but it shows there is nothing dictating the usage of ordinals. So that is a wholly invalid justification.
Furthermore, it is my impression that royals have their articles titled according to their actual title rather than common usage - i.e. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and not Kate, Duchess of Cambridge. Furthermore, one cannot use the occurrence of a more casual name as invalidation of the usage of the proper name - if one were to compare usage of "King Juan Carlos" to "King Juan Carlos I" the occurrence of the non-ordinal title does not negate the proper one! Finally, I brought it up elsewhere, but if for wikipedia Chelsea Manning's self-identification is paramount, why is it not here? I am in full accordance with Til Eulenspiegel and shall making sure no move is made.--Simfan34 (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of this move did not indicate a clear consensus and also resulted in a title that applies British protocol to Ethiopia, while not applying it to Spain and her monarch Juan Carlos I. All of this was explained and the only reason offered in favor of the move was an ngram, illegitimate per WP:SOURCECOUNTING a well as skewered. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Given that if you read the RM it is clear that 4 editors oppose and 4 editors support this has to be the most disgraceful closure I have seen in my 9+ yrs at wikipedia, and certainly should be contested at Wikipedia:Move review. I suggest solely contesting on the grounds that actually there is no consensus whatsoever. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 00:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It was a good close. There was no actual response to the claim that the name more commonly appears in sources without the ordinal than with it.--Cúchullaint/c 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That does not prove justification on its own. There must be a way to a place to contest this, I know consensus is not a requirement but this is shameful. Til Eulenspiegel, please keep me informed of proceedings. --Simfan34 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Cuchullain, as long as there is a complete lack of consensus (4 supporting, 4 opposing) it doesnt matter what claims were made♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 14:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The strength of the argument absolutely does matter; this isn't a headcount. But even still I see 5 supports and 3 opposes, and one that makes no recommendation. The supports were also more strongly grounded in policy and provided evidence that the proposed name is more common.--Cúchullaint/c 05:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
are they the right pictures? because it looks like he grows from a black child into a 50 yearold spaniard en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lij_Tafari_Makonnen_(edit).jpg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haile_Selassie_in_full_dress.jpg