Talk:Ethiopia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains material from the CIA World Factbook which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain.
Peer review Ethiopia has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about African countries during the week starting 26 March 2006.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] What a weird picture

What's with the cow-horse hybrid picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.63.126.94 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a goat, the high-resolution version is on Flickr. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is Incorrect

"Ethiopia is one of the oldest nations in the world, and the only African nation to have enjoyed continuous sovereignty throughout and beyond the Scramble for Africa" This is untrue; Liberia was another African country that remained sovereign throughout the Scramble for Africa, as well as during World War 2. Can somebody please change this in the article? (Anonymous, March 16 2007 16:48 PST)

True, the wording should be improved. But I think Ethiopia can claim to be the only African nation that was never successfully colonized, since Liberia was colonized by African-Americans. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independence?

WHEN DID ETHOPIA EXIST?? DOES ANYONE KNOW?? (unsigned)

No. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

this article fails to recognize that ethiopia has no date of independence. no, it's not "nationalistic pride" as the moron who posted before claims. it's the truth. also, this article is biased on the current regime--yes, it is as a matter of fact a regime--and makes it look like the protesters blew themselves up because the government lied about it. did you know that voice of america had three of their reporters there arrested and killed? please take this article off the good articles list because as a regular wikipedia reader i am very angry with the biasement and factual inaccuracies of this so-called "good" article.

______

I concur that the article dosen't seem to be well proofread or sufficently factual or objective. A lot of good info and pictures, but it needs to be combed over by folks in the know. Fulvius 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ethipian Millennium

What is your opinion about Ethiopia Concerning

Economy,
peace,
Politics, and
development of Democracy

in the new millenium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebe26 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 October 2007

  • Please note: this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, and not the article's subject in general. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deforestation

The Deforestation section appears to be a school (middle to high school) level essay on deforestation in Ethiopia simply copied and pasted into this section. As such, it makes too many exploratory statements about the nation that are covered elsewhere in the article. In addition to the tone being drastically different, the section also cites sources in an un-wiki format. Lutskovp 19:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ethiopia is one of the seven fundamental and independent centers of origin of cultivated plants of the world." stands out as a comically pompous sentence. I googled it and found it's probably based on an article by a "Prof. N. I. Vavilo" from 1931... titled "The Problem of the Origin of the World's Agriculture in the Light of the **Latest** Investigations" (emphasis mine) so... if this opinion was conjecture in 1931, i can't see it as being encyclopedic in 2006/2007... Here's where it's lifted from "http://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/vavilov.htm" -- sorry for interrupting, it just made me laugh. Wish I knew more about Ethiopia and could help out. 220.152.112.132 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC) lb

Whether or not that's the source, there are many more contemporary ones with similar statements, although not so confident that there are 7 centers of origin. It is considered one of them, as a center of origin for a few, and a secondary center of diversification for some others (e.g. barley). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holidays

The "Holidays" table is certainly only for one specific year, as many of the Christian and Islamic holidays are movable feasts. This should be stated somewhere!

  • Well, I've made an attempt at it, making a note of holidays that vary from year to year. So this calendar will work for the rest of 2005. Also, I was not sure what Mulud (May 2) is (a Google search indicates it might be an Indonesian holiday). I have removed this, at least for now. -- Gyrofrog 04:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

Arabian origins to Ethiopian civilization Africans are almost completely removed from the study of their own history. A history viewed through 18th century eyes which apply 18th century models of geography and race interpretation based on limited knowledge and understandings. Thus 8th century Africa is understood through 18th century models which would have been non-existents in that period. The concept of Southern Arabia’s relationship is understood today by the current geo-political models of Africa and Arabia. However at the pre-Axsumite history in Ethiopia this notion would not have held and thus almost distractive to think in these 21st century geographical terms of African and Arabia. Thus to see the people from Arabia as non-African is baseless as no one would assume the Ormo from Kenya were a non-African race. --82.43.64.41 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The historical section only includes the most recent events. Someone should summarize the earlier history. --Shallot 12:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I like the 'timket' celebration. It is a wonderful. —preceding unsigned comment by 213.55.64.98 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cush founded Ethiopia in 6280 B.C. There were two capitals, Napata and Meroe. Ethiopia in it's earliest history included not only Africa but Southern Asia as far as India, according to Herodotus (525 B.C.).Prof. Dorsey, one of the foremost and realistic of the modern Anthropologists says, "Wherever the Indian Ocean touches land it finds dark-skinned people with strong developed jaws, relatively long arms, and kinky or frizzly hair. Call that the Indian Ocean, or Negroid division of the human race" (Why We Behave Like Human Beings, p. 44). Gotta go, I'll include more later. Tom 05/22/06

1) I wish people would remove politics from history and stop pumping themselves up with false empty pride from something that if it was not mythical, happened so long ago that it has no bearing or reflection on what you are and what you did today on your own. History should be an objective rendering of facts which maight give insight and background to present day realities, but let alone ancient history you cannot even honestly take credit for what your own mother and father did!
2) The hypocrisy! There is no reason for "Ethiopians" of today, to usurp the history of peoples in Sudan (Meroe and Napata) and even as far away as the Indian Ocean and call it theirs based on the rantings of some ignorant ferenji who could not distinguish between the nations of black people with kinky hair. The whole name "Ethiopia" is ferenji to begin with and ignorantly generalizes all black people south of Egypt as one nation. So unless you are writing "History of Subsaharan Africa (South Arabia and South Asia), you don't need to repeat the Europeans ignorance and take pride from forgery, ignorance and false information when it suits you, then accuse them of racism or cultural imperialism or whatever when it doesn't suit you.
2) You want to find racism and cultural imperialism? Know yourself. What do you call describing Damot, Saba, Axum etc as if it was the only and unified chronological history of the same one country and same nation over three millenia until modern Ethiopia? I guess it is ok to use "Ethiopia" to describe the history of the Abyssinian kingdoms because they are the ones who adopted this European name based on the European ignorance of thinking there was just one nation with people of burnt faces south of Egypt (from Greek version of the) Bible. But what about the history of the peoples who were CONQUERED when this Abyssinian Empire EXPANDED. Where is the mention of that? Don't these people have their own history? Or were they just barbarc half-animals with no history until they became associated with the civilized northerners from the Abyssinia? Ring a bell? Who is the racist now? Who is the cultural imperialist now?
If you have an accurate and honest portrayal of Ethiopia's geopolitical history (using correct terminology), it could actually shed some light on the CURRENT problems facing the country (regarding seccesionism, ethnic conflicts etc) instead of denying and hiding from the highly uncomfortable truth. Other than not being racist or ethnically/culturally chauvinistic towards the majority of Ethiopians (the "Galla", "Shankilla", "Taltal" and many other slaved peoples) you would also be doing yourselves a favor by facing up to your problems and dealing with them instead of continuing the sins of your fathers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.251.132 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You say the name Ethiopia is "ferenji"??? Tell that to Haile Selassie I, he is the one who argued considerably and at length that it is the most appropriate name for the nation to be known by internationally, instead of Abyssinia! This is a page for discussing specific changes for the article and what sources back them up, not soapboxing our opinions. It seem like you are vaguely lecturing those who wrote this article, which is a very good article. So what specific changes would you like to see, and what sources back them up? We already have listed both opinions about the name, both the traditional view that it is indigenous, and the more recent ferenji view where they try to take credit for it for the Greeks by folk-etymology. NPOV means all significant views are going to be represented, along with their sources, are you suggesting that only one view be represented? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous contributor might be interested to see other Wikipedia articles such as Kingdom of Kaffa, Welayta people, or Kingdom of Jimma just to cite a few examples. But again, this talk page is for improving the article, not for debating the subject (nor is it for personal attacks). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not anonymous I am zeragito, I just hadn't logged in sorry. Thank you for that link now this is what I'm talking about! I am also talking about the Oromo migrations, the Gada system, the Harar sultanate and all these things which should not be "separate" articles unless you are trying to say they belong less on the Ethiopia page because they are not really Ethiopians. Why do I have to find a separate article on them? Why are they not on the Ethiopia page? ARen't they Ethiopians?
Zeragito, I think your concerns are completely valid but there is no need (nor place) for the combative tone. "Sins of your fathers," "ignorant farenji" and "pot-smoking Ras-Tafari" do not advance the discussion at all. I think the information in the articles I mentioned could be better incorporated into the article, though not in too much detail — that's why they have separate articles. (Otherwise the main Ethiopia article could become unmanageably long.) I haven't looked at the separate History of Ethiopia article lately so I don't know if or how well it represents this same information. Though it might be a better place to go into a bit more depth than the Ethiopia article itself. P.S. You can sign and timestamp your comments using four tilde characters: ~~~~ -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There may be many opinions but there is only one truth and that is 'Ethiopia' is a ferenji name and it is a reference to an area which never existed as one unified vast Empire. There is no basis to state that or describe history as such. But you are right, all opinions should be represnted and the facts backing them, it will be clear for all to see then which is more than likely to be the true one, let the people judge for themselves. As far asking Haile Selassie I questions about the truth in this or that, well he is dead by the way and I don't know why I should take the ramblings of a man who usurped the throne from his brother in law, maintained a medeival feodal nation and stashed billions of dollars worth of a famine prone countries meager wealth in swiss bank accounts (being recuperated as we speak), as some kind of authority on the truth of anything. I am not a pot-smoking Ras-Tafari either so I don't recognize him as immortal god (he died after all). As far as changes, I don't mind reading about Damot, Axum and the many "Kings" or "Emperors" and the era's in which they ruled "Ethiopia". My point was not that this was false information. My point was that this is only PART of the picture and does not describe or represent ALL of Ethiopia's many peoples and their history. Emperor Amda Seyon or Gabremskal or whoever from back in 1426 or 1527 or whatever was not emperor of ALL Ethiopia as we know it today in 2006. They were ruling of an area which may have called itself "Ethiopia" at that time but it only corresponds with a small part of what is known as "Ethiopia" today in 2006 catch my drift? In fact their history does not even represent the majority of the Ethiopian people today, who had other things going on at 1427 or 1527 and were not "Ethiopians" then. What about THEIR history? What about the history of when "Ethiopia" took them over and slaved them? No mention of that? So basically Ethiopian history is only about the "Habesha", everybody else (Majority of Ethiopians) is just irrelevant until they are put into the context of being part of the "Habesha" Empire? You see what is wrong with this picture?

Why don't Ethiopians look like the rest of the africans in Africa? Ethiopians have straighter noses and different hair, were Ethiopians mixed with Indians or something long ago?

No, with Arabs

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.193.101 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the rest of Africans don't necessarily resemble each other, either. But Ethiopians (generally) belong to a different haplotype than, say, people from West Africa. I assume this is what you meant. I am compelled to advise you that this type of discussion can become contentious, but more importantly, this talk page is specifically for discussing changes and improvements to the Ethiopia article. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Why don't Ethiopians look like the rest of Africans in Africa?" Are you suggesting you can tell Ethiopians from Somalians apart? Or from Eritreans? Or Norther Sudanese? Africans in general look different from one another, the same with Asians and Europeans who come in a variety of colors. The modern history of colonialism has been highly eurocentric, racist and ignorant to the core. One where Africans were depicted as a one, when a simple look throughout sub saharan Africa suggests the people there come in (for a lack of a better terms) - all shapes and colors. unsigned Nov 9, 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.52.169 (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopians look different from the rest of sub-saharan africans because they have more arab influence than other parts of africa, more mixed. It is possible to generalize and say that all africans (blacks) look the same, as it is so with europeans, asians, indians, or southern europeans ("arabs", etc.) without being a "racist". The history of Africa (non-arab africa) is one of being colonized by civilizations from the north or elsewhere, and the historical kingdoms of africa are either of arab origin, arose out of the remnants of arabs, or from the influence (technology and etc.) of the colonizers. It can be a difficult pill to swallow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.220.181 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ethiopians look different from the rest of sub-saharan africans because they have more arab influence..." If you could find any shred of evidence supporting your claim, then your opinion could be considered non-racist. Otherwise, this is the same garbage that has been pushed around by non-black (often Aryan) people and deluded Ethiopians, who are both racist to the bone. Every archiological, linguistic and historical legend and myth has so far shown that Ethiopians, more accurately Abyssinians, are people who have maintained unmatched integrity in lineage as well as national autonomy throughout human civilization. Most of what is attributed to Egypt also comes from the land further below as similar findings have shown to be the case. These are the same people who taught the world how to build city states along the lines of the city state of Athens, the pride of Aryan civilization. Read the series of books titled Black Athena by Martin Bernal to gain a better perspective of the lie you have been fed by the gatekeepers of the Aryan Model of human civilization. The Aryan Model is a racist invention that is barely 300 years old. Most of us have believed our history to be as told by these racist historians. It is time that we all tell our own stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.195.252 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secular state

I'm confused by this statement:

Ethiopia is the oldest secular state in the world.

Was Ethiopia ever a secular state before the Derg era? And then this is immediately followed with:

Christianity was officially adopted...

- Gyrofrog 05:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • See "Clean up" section below. I reworded this and moved it to "Demographics." - Gyrofrog 23:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why don't Ethiopians look like the rest of the africans in Africa? Ethiopians have straighter noses and different hair, were Ethiopians mixed with Indians or something?

I thought Ethiopia was a secular nation (officially) furthermore I also thought that if not balanced, Muslims outnumbered Christians. Anyway, the introduction page alludes to the contrary. --Merhawie 08:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

eritreans, ethiopians, north sudanese, djbouti's, and acient egyptians all look alike because we originated form the same people. we have closely related ancestors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.183.240 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

Someone placed a "Clean up" template here and so I've made an attempt to clean up the first paragraph. Some of the information seemed a little specific for the first paragraph, considering there are specific sections in the article (which themselves contain links to more specific articles). I moved some information to the "Geography" section and some to "Demographics." I wasn't really sure what to do with this:

Even then, much of the country never gave way to the occupying power, and groups of rebels (known as Patriots) continued to fight a guerilla war against the Italians. The Italians were ousted in 1941 with the help of the British Army.

...but I didn't think it really belonged in the introductory paragraph, which is why I've removed it (for now). The article still needs a lot of work, though. - Gyrofrog 23:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who cares what they are mixed with? Are you American? Most Americans are always obsessed with race and color. If you must know, the further south you get in Africa the darker the skin. Everyone in the Middle East and South East Asia are mixed with African, Caucasian and probably some Asian (eg Chinese, Vietnamese etc), due to ancient immigration/emigration, trade and slavery. If you look over in Central and South American you will see the same type of mixtures from Europeans (Spanish/Portugese) and African Slaves. Okay? Can we try to live in the new millenium now?MPA 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)MPA —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)
The Ethiopians that don't look like the rest of Africans are of semitic descent either by facial structure (straight nose, dark large eyes) and skin tone . The reason you can clearly tell East Africans apart in general is due to their historical relationship with the middle east. Think of ancient Egyptians and you will see that they have the same facial structure and skin tone as the Ethiopians you are referring to. India has nothing to do with the way Ethiopians look. Ethiopians are Ethiopians and can not be considered a mix since they have stayed racially consistent for such a long time. Due to the hegemonic role it played in the Red sea region, Axum (Ethiopia) has ended up with various peoples who are diverse in appearance. But the semitic Ethiopians had been at the center of Ethiopia's history. NegasiChristos (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this must have been disconnected from some previous discussion. But I don't think it has anything to do with this section, "Clean up", nor does it have anything to do with improving the article, which is the purpose of this talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anuzutica

Hello. An anonymous editor has created an article Anuzutica and linked to it from Ethiopia and Derg. This is a prank, right? Maybe someone who is a regular editor of Ethiopia can comment. Thanks in advance for any information. Regards and happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 16:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I am almost positive that it's a prank (and I feel like a chump for qualifying that with "almost"). I'm nominating Anuzutica for deletion. - Gyrofrog 20:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for following up. I'll take a look at the vfd listing. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date of independence

Ethiopia's date of independence sure is attracting a lot of attention. Specifically, various individuals keep deleting it. We went through something similar a month or two ago when the date kept going back and forth from 1941 (defeat of Italian forces) to 1944 (Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement). The December 1944 date would seem to be official, and this is cited within the article (twice). Unless someone can provide a good explanation as to why this date is incorrect, the article should use "December 1944." Otherwise I, for one, will continue to revert edits if I see the date changed or deleted. I have left comments on the talk pages of those who have made such edits over the last couple of days. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And speaking of the date of independence, should the relevant sentences be moved from the introductory paragraph down to the "History" section? Maybe just mention something like "except for the Italian invasion" in the first paragraph, and move the specific info to "History." IMHO it seems a little weird to have a citation in the first paragraph (and I do think we should keep the citation). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think there's a bit of nationalistic pride mixed with a plausible claim here -- it all depends on how you interpret the Italian interlude: should one see it as a period of colonialism, admittedly delayed 50 years from the height of the colonial movement; or should it be seen as one more occupied country in the way several European countries were occupied by Axis Powers during World War II? There is evidence to support either view.
Ethiopia could be said to have fallen into the same catagory as, say Sudan or Morocco, where a European power absorbed an internationally-recognized polity by placing a thin layer of foreign beauracrats & military over a local elite who were self-identified with that polity, & in many ways continued to run things. For both of those countries, European control was an interlude which merely suspended, but did not change, the dynamics within that country prior to annexation. If this is the case, then one could say that Ethiopia did have a "date of independence", & it needs to be defined.
On the other hand, a number of countries were effectively occupied or absorbed in the manner Ethiopia was, & re-emerged after WW II. Examples would be Czechoslovakia, Austria, & I believe Thailand (by the Japanese). As Thailand would show, not all Occupied Countries were in Europe. In this case, then the question of a "date of independence" is moot. Is there a "date of independence" for, say, the United Kingdom?
As I understand it, Ethiopians are very jealous -- & rightly so -- over the possession of the longest recorded continuous history for any country in Africa -- excepting, of course, Egypt. But to support this claim, some contrary details get overlooked; for example, there is a lengthy Dark Age between the end of the Axumite Kingdom (circa AD 700) & the beginning of the Zagwe dynasty (either AD 950 or 1150). This jealousy does not allow a dispationate consideration of the question whether Ethiopia actually ended in 1936, & therefore whether there was a "date of independence". -- llywrch 21:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
True, I didn't want to have the date there, as it only pertained to 8 years or so out of several centuries. But when the original 1941 vs. 1944 dispute came up, the case for the latter seemed pretty clear. I suppose one option (perhaps the most neutral of all?) is simply to omit the Date of Independence from the infobox entirely. This has been done with both the France and Japan articles, for example (though I'm not sure of the specific reason for the omissions where those 2 are concerned). That way, let the reader see the details for him or herself while reading the actual article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another approach would be to put the date in with a footnote explaining the controversy, perhaps with a reference to the place in the article where it is addressed. That way, the date is included, but the reader is made aware that there are other views. Ground Zero 22:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it is incorrect to put that Ethiopia received it's independence from Italy, as it was already a sovereign country before Italy occupied it. Also after Italy left Ethiopia retained the same languages, culture, laws, borders, government structure, and regime (including the return of the previous monarch in exile); these are some things that many other European countries didn't have after World War II, but France is not listed to have gained it's independence from Germany.
In short to portray Italy's five year control of Ethiopia was anything more then a brief occupaion by Italian Fascists, would be misleading. Mesfin 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is won by citing France and none of Europe celebrate independance after German occupation, big difference Most of Ethiopia was never under Italian rule. only a few key cities, only thing changed is now Ethiopians say "chow" , baka!--Halaqah 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about the wording in the introductory paragraph. Is it really correct to say "unbroken sovereignty"? Did Italy not exert sovereignty over the Empire when it conquered it in the mid-30's until 1941? --Merhawie 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

having a 5 year partial occupation isnt a violation of a nations soverignity.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 09:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks for responding; are you sure about sovereignty? It seems from the definitions that all that is necessary is that political and legal will be exercised over the region. In does not require a mandate from the people, so it would seem that the word sovereignty seemed out of place. It's really only the word that is being used that seems improper to me. Do you see what I mean? --Merhawie 14:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links and references

Does anyone else think that the list of external links is becoming unwieldy? I think the list could be pared down but I'm not sure where to begin. There also seems to be some jockeying for the "pole position" where some links are moved further up the list, which I assume is to gain visibility. I've been trying to keep the "CIA Factbook" and "Maps of Ethiopia" links near the top, as these are actual references (or in the former case, a primary source) for the article itself. Perhaps these two should go under the "References" section instead, and just alphabetize the rest? And speaking of "References," this section was deleted a while back. I've since restored it, as it contains a "Works cited"-style reference (the only one for this article, thus far). Specifically, that citation is for the date of independence (see above, "Date of independence"). I thought if it was included in the article, there might be less modifications/deletions of that date (again, see above). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should I even read this at all???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.52.216.253 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independence

As far as I know, Ethiopia was never a British colony, so how could it gain independence from Britain in 1944, as the article states?

It was an Italian colony taken by the British in WWII, they would have occupied and administered the country til 44--nixie 11:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

A paragraph with links on the languages of Ethiopia is needed.

There is now a partial list. I have a question about languages, though. I'm under the impression that the Amharic language is no longer the sole official language. However, I doubt that all of the languages are official. Anyone know for certain? I bring this up because of an edit that occurred to the Somali language article. There were some mistakes, but the editor did assert that Somali is one of the official languages in Ethiopia. I assume this is true, at the very least in Somali Region. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 5 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)


Hello. I am working on the german site and made a Projekt:Ethiopia and tried to find all articles still to be written. Could be usefull for this site, though it is German. For Languages of Ethiopia try this wonderfull site-- Andro96 14:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ethiopia was not colonized neither by the Italians nor the Birtish. Ethiopia is the only Indepedent country in the history of Africa.

Yes Ethiopia is the only independent country in Africa which has never fallen under European colonizers.The five year Italian occupation(1937-1941?)was only restricted to few urban areas and it will never be regarded as colonialism since there is no settled administration or what so ever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.55.92.82 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What this page needs

this article needs a COMPLETE list of all the ethiopian ethnic groups. unfortunately, i don't know near all of them myself, so i can't contribute this to the article. Gringo300 07:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The economy section definately needs touching up. 68.118.41.239 12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopian names

As I understand it, Ethiopians do not have family names. In other words, the Ethiopian historian Taddesse Tamrat's proper name is a compound noun with a space in it, like "ice cream". Since this is based on materials 20+ years old, is this still the case? Should we have an "Ethiopian patrol" to fix this mistake where we find it? -- llywrch July 1, 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Ethiopians use their Fathers name as their second name... than their father's father's name and so on. EX:(your name, your fathers, your grandfathers, your great, grandfathers, your great, great, grandfather....ect) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.198.245.57 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eras B/CE vs. BC/AD

Two anonymous editors have changed the eras from the earlier CE to AD. First 132.24.126.26 (talk · contribs) [1] on Jun. 8, 2005, and now today, 81.19.57.146 (talk · contribs) [2]. Both changes were made without edit summaries, and neither adds anything except perhaps a specific POV to the article. Since the original usage [3] was CE, I am, in keeping with what I believe is the least POV way to approach this, at least until the argument about the proper use of eras is settled, reverting both to CE, pending explanations for why they were changed. Tomer TALK July 5, 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Whether we call it CE or AD it still doesn't change the fact that our modern calendar (European or Ethiopian) is solely in reference to Christ's birth. Attempting to secularize the calendar by substituting CE for AD doesn't change the christianity-based calendar. So, why not call it for what it really is, AD. NegasiChristos (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I see the Amharic?

Amharic just shows up like this on my computer: ??????????????????? just a bunch of question marks. How do I download the font? Revolución 18:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I found this link at the Amharic Wikipedia. I can't remember which one I used, I think it was GF Zemen (under the "TruType") section (that was for the Mac - I think I got Virtual Ge'ez to work in Windows). What type of computer are you using? (It might make a difference.) --
Thank you! Revolución 23:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Gyrofrog (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Amharic is a stupidly difficult font to find; I got a few of them from around the net, by Googling for Amharic truetype unicode font, and eventually one worked. Try Gyrofrog's first. :) --Golbez 20:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Technically it's Ge'ez or Ethiopic, as other languages (Tigrigna & Tigre, to name only a couple) use the same writing system (analagous to our use of the Roman alphabet). Finding the font is not as hard as getting it to work. I gave up trying on my older Powerbook (still running Mac OS 9). Typing the language is another story - I remember seeing an Ethiopic typewriter - and I assume there is some way to map a regular computer keyboard to the font. Kind of a moot point as I can barely read it anyway! ;-) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm using WinXP and in IE at least, ጌኤዝ fonts show up just fine. Tomer TALK 00:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Actually it is spelled ግዕዝ...! I have been an admin at http://am.wikipedia.org since August, and the site has improved a lot in the last couple of months, but we still need more contributors who can write Amharic! If anyone reading this writes Amharic, or knows someone who does, let them come and contribute! If you can't see the font, look for a link on the main page there that says "Can't see the font?"...
And while I'm at it, some other wikipedias in Ethiopian languages that haven't really got off the ground yet include:
  • Tigrinya (ti.wikipedia.org)
  • Oromifaa (oo.wikipedia.org)
  • Afar (aa.wikipedia.org)
So if you happen to know anyone with any ability in those languages, do pass the word along! አመሰግናለሁ Codex Sinaiticus 15:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


I cant see any of the fonts but i can see the fonts on the Amharic version of the site---Halaqah 19:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

see font section on the amharic wikipedia


Slightly OT in this discussion, but just to keep a record: I have added a link to Ge'ez in the language section. 129.27.236.74 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Someone mind adding something about religion? Isn't this considered a very holy place in some religions especially Rastafari?

There is information on religion, and links to further information, under both Demographics and Culture. - BanyanTree 16:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This was edited from the front page. I'm not sure by whom. In 944 B.C. Zera, King of Ethiopia, invaded Egypt and Palestine with one million men (according to the Bible) and is beaten back by disease and the armies of Asa, King of Judea. In 70 A.D. Juda, the eunuch of Candace was baptised by the Apostle Philip. Also in 70 A.D. Candace established Christianity at her capitol, Axum, making Ethiopia the first Christian nation. In 341 A.D. Christianity was restored in Ethiopia by Abraha and St. Frumentius. Ethiopia is mentioned in the bible (King James Version) several times beginning as early as Genesis 2nd chapter 13th verse. These early Africans were religously vibrant centuries before their encounter with Greeks or Europeons. Tom 05/22/06

That was me, Tom. The Ethiopia in the Bible in most cases is almost assuredly referring to Nubia, and not the modern Ethiopian state or its predecessors. The 341 AD date is a little off, too, btw (more like 320s).:Yom 16:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm confident of the middle 4th century for the restoration of Christianity in Ethiopia but I feel the difference too small to be debate worthy. I do however agree that the Ethiopians referred to themselves as Nubians. There were two types of Ethiopians and also two capitals, Napata and Meroe (whose mighty ruins still stand). The Northern Ethiopians had wooly hair and the southern ones had straight hair. Hair texture was their only difference. Cush established an empire extending through China, India and Afghanistan. The bible also speaks of Arabian Ethiopians, who were Cushs offspring living in Midian (II Chron.21:16; Hab.3:7) The connective proof between the ancient and modern Ethiopians is their written langauge, (Ghez) which is derived from the Meroitic Ethiopia. Ethiopia also extended south-east on the Red Sea. This was Habashat-the Abaseni (Abyssinia) of the Greeks. It was also founded by Cush with it's capital being Axum. These two Ethiopias drifted apart in the 4th century A.D. when the Abyssinian Ethiopia invaded the Nubian one. The first king of the Abyssinian Ethiopia was Ori, 4470 B.C. Haile Selassie I, was its 334th ruler. Modern Ethiopians have a connected list of their kings since Ori. Ancient and modern Ethiopia are both Geographically and genetically connected. I really wish that you hadn't erased my input on the front page. It was well placed. Tom 5/22/06

Ignoring the 4th century date (it doesn't really matter as it's not sure anyway what time exactly Ezana's inscriptions were made), I still have to disagree with you fundamentally on your characterization of pre-Aksumite history. Who are the Northern Ethiopians & Southern ones? I've heard of Eastern & Western (Indian and African, respectively) and even Leuko (white - in NW Africa) ones, but never N & S. The reference to the Cushites having an empire (by Herodotus, right?) was most certainly him just naming the places that had dark-skinned inhabitants and assuming they were all from the same empire. Ethiopia certainly included modern Ethiopia (Habeshat), but it didn't begin to be used exclusively for it until the 4th century under Ezana. Certainly Meroitic influences can be seen in pre-Aksumite civilization (more specifically pre-D'mt), but how can you say they were the same? Firstly, the Meroitic language hasn't even been deciphered yet, so any claim that Ge'ez is its direct descendent is preposterous. And Ori? Where are you getting this from? The connected list you are referring to is actually very broken. Only 1270- is for certain, with the Zagwe dynasty not completely fixed (due to lists with more and fewer names in existence), a gap between Aksum and Zagwe that no one knows the size of, numerous gaps in the list of the Kings of Aksum, a huge unknown gap between D'mt and Aksum (With D'mt only having 4 known kings, - W`RN HYWT, R'DM, RBH, and LMN). Unless you're talking about the legendary list (which is technically unbroken), but that doesn't match up at all with known Kings of Aksum and can be largely disregarded for the construction of a king list. Your addition may have been well-placed, but it wasn't well-researched. I'm curious where you get this "Ori" figure from, though. That's a new one for me.
Yom 01:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, had to take a break for awhile. Yom, for Ori, you'll have to research a little more with Ethiopians. You have already stated that you don't trust the Ethiopians Chronical of themselves, preferring I suspect the Chronicals of non-Ethiopian historians. This outside research is why the front page of this article is focused on Ethiopia A.D. instead of centuries of regal B.C. existence. To state that Ethiopia's first verifiable kingdom of power rose in the first century B.C. required the ommission of several centuries of history. But enough of that. This page of this article was about religion. About 691 B.C. Tirhakah became the third Pharoah of the Twenty-Fifth Egyptian Dynasty during the Ethiopian (occupational) period. Ethiopia earlier had conquered Egypt to the mouth of the Nile. His control over Egypt and Ethiopia gave him unlimited power. Isaiah 37:9 The Old testament is full of facts about Ethiopia's dominance as what was then a world power. Tom 06/07/06

Not the first verifiable kingdom (as of now that's either D`mt or Punt, depending on the latter's location), but the first verifiable kingdom of great power. Tirhakah was the king of Ethiopia, but not Ethiopia as we know it today, but rather the kingdom of Kush, located in present-day Sudan. Most references to the bible of Ethiopia were translated from Hebrew Kush back when Ethiopia was also a term to mean any black person or black Africa (and not necessarily a specific empire or place). I don't distrust Ethiopian chronicles in General (any more than I trust English chronicles about themselves), I just think that there will be an inherent bias, and that some of these texts have been written centuries after the events they describe (e.g. the kings lists).
ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is modern day Sudan. But it was part of the vastness of the Ethiopian Empire. Ethiopia today is like Rome is today. Like Mexico once owned Texas. Like Great Britain once was. What some modern day Scholars think was a symbolic use of the word "Ethiopian" by Herodotus, was in fact Ethiopian. Herodotus actually talked with the people of these lands. He was not guessing who they were or stereotyping them. They told him who they were. Abyssinia was also founded by Cush with its capital in Axum. When Abyssinian Ethiopia invaded Nubian Ethiopia it could be likened to our own Revolutionary War. Ethiopia in its earlier history included not only Africa but Southern Asia as far as India. Modern day Scholars are pompous and narrow in their belief that a darkened people could have possibly had such a vast and dominant civilization as Ethiopia once was. Like the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, the Egyptian Empire, they fell. But they were an Empire of great power centuries before the Romans or the Greeks who gave much to us in the way of religion and civilization. The Ethiopia of today is not disconnected from the Ethiopia of old. It is just a shadow of it. If modern scholars would connect (instead of separating) the dots, they would see Ethiopia in its former greatness. Tom 06/08/06

I have a concern about the figures for Christianity and Islam. Whomever came up with those number cited a three or four page report from some person. Almost all official cites, including the CIA WorldFactbook (mentioned by the author also) shows Islam as the predominant religion. Therefore I will mend those figures and add something in the intro of this country where the poster claims "Ethiopia is the oldest Christian country in Africa".

MPA 12:51pm, December 25, 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia is the oldest Christian country. Islam may dominate now, but that wasn't the case long ago. In 70 A.D. Candace established Christianity at her capital, Axum, making Ethiopia the first Christian nation. Also in 70 A.D. Juda the eunuch of Candace was baptisted by the Apostle Philip. In the mid 4th century Christianity was restored to Ethiopia by Abraha and St. Frumentius. Tom 01/03/07

[edit] CIA

I believe the mission of the CIA includes (true and otherwise) propaganda as well as collecting and distributing information. What they say about the religion of a country may reflect the US policy about the country as much as it does their actual findings.

Uhm, okay. Since the research team for the CIAFactbooks are Phd's, I can't imagine that they would alter any information for political reasons. Even if we were to discard, the CIA Factbook, every other official sight reports Islam as the majority religion. I can't seem to understand this resistance to facts. mpa September 1, 2007 1:01pm EST (US) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

Why is there a portal template in this page? This shouldn't be there, because the portal doesn't exist. I didn't want to delete it, because maybe someone is already in the process of making it and/or there is a policy (that I don't know about) about putting portal templates every here and there. --Dungo (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. Whenever the portal is ready, it can then be added to the article. El_C 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

http://www.newtimes.co.rw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2892&Itemid=35

Archer7 22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, that's not a copyvio... It was written two weeks ago and borrowed from here; our article history will reveal it was added in stages by numerous people ages ago... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. Archer7 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
As I've noted elsewhere, the reporter cobbled together text from several Wikipedia articles. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] etymology

"older Ethiopian sources state that the name is derived from "'Ityopp'is", a son of Cush, son of Ham who according to legend founded the city of Aksum." Older? Older than what? Older than Herodotus? What evidence is there for these sources? Paul B 00:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, there is no such son of Cush in the Book of Genesis. Genesis 10.6 states "The sons of Cush: Seba, Hav'ilah, Sabtah, Ra'amah, and Sab'teca." The etymology of the word is undisputed in all respectable sources. Paul B 00:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"respectable" is your code word for "Non-Ethiopian". Any Ethiopian source is evidently automatically not respectable according to you, eh> ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex, you obviously don't know the meaning of the phrase "systemic bias". You have provided no evidence of any "older" sources than Herodotus and Homer. The oldest known use of the term is in Homer, who is highly unlikely to have known anything about the actual land of ethiopia, and uses the term to refer to lands in the east and west. Herodotus refers to "eastern ethiopians", by which he seems to mean southern indians. I am aware of no evidence at all of any written Ethiopian sources as old as this. The Bible makes no mention of this son of Cush. Can you refer to any? You are trying to turn this into some issue regarding "Eurocentrism", as though Ethiopian sources must be more authentic because they are indigenous. Well the Romans believed they were descended from Aeneas and the Trojans, but we don't believe that now. Are you going to say "respectable" is your code word for "Non-Roman" to anyone who queries this story on pages devoted to ancient Rome? Paul B 01:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly tempted to encourage you two to have a nice cup of tea, but instead will ask for sources that are not Wikipedia or one of these mirrors. (I just did a search for and got a load of mirrors.) And would somebody clarify which form of Christianity's version of the Bible and which legend we are talking about? Maybe I'll go get that cup of tea... - BanyanTree 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's usually spelled with one p. Why two ps are used here, I don't know. "Ityop'is", "Etyop'iya" is just a variant spelling of the word Ethiopia. Paul B 01:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Banyan, I don't know what you mean by "which form of Christianity's version of the Bible". There is only one form of the Book of Genesis. Paul B 01:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They're all exactly the same? I was not aware of that. I was just thinking that the Bible that Codex would be thinking about, as one of the contributors to Amharic Wikipedia, might be the Ge'ez version of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church or something similar, so there would be bound to be wording issues. In any case, it's good to see that an agreeable version was worked out. (Codex, I finally downloaded the fonts so I can finally see your username.  :) ) - BanyanTree 03:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Systemic bias is your comment and your pov that non-Ethiopians know all about Ethiopian history better than Ethiopians do. You obviously think any traditions Ethiopians have about their own origins are automatically to be brushed aside because you think Ethiopians are unreliable - either lying or stupid - while outside "experts" have all the answers for them. That's the kind of attitude that makes me sick, but I know it's out there and I will have to deal with it. Why are you citing Herodotus and Homer? Do either one of them say that "Ethiopia" comes from a Greek word meaning "burnt faces"??? No, Herodotus says on the contrary that it comes from the "sons of Ethiops". Making this name into a Greek word for "burnt faces" is the amateurish folk etymology, found in neither Herodotus nor Homer. That's not what it means at all, that lie is just another systematic way of insulting or poking fun at Ethiopia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with poking fun at Ethiopia, any more than we "poke fun" at the Romans. Using language like "lies" is wholly inappropriate and in any case is mere assertion. Ethiopian traditions are not "automatically" to be brushed aside, they are to be treated with the same skepicism, on the same grounds, as any other traditions. It is not "amateurish folk etymology" at all, though I accept that there is some dispute about it. It is a reasaonable view, far more reasonable than the notion that Homer would use a word derived from a mysterious son of Cush. You still hgave procided no evidence of "older" Ethiopian chronicles. I'm sure we can reach a reasonable solution here, but the version you are defending is unsupported. Paul B 01:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't it "reasonable" that Homer would use a name derived from Cush? Oh yeah, because the name is in the Bible, and even the tinyest scrap of information in the Bible must be minimalized if not discarded, I almost forgot... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, because it's very unlikely that Homer would be aware of the Torah. And the name "Ethiopia" is not in the Bible anyway. Please stop being so indignant and consider the actual evidence. Paul B 01:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Homer wouldn't have to be aware of the Torah to have heard of the name Ethiopia, and of course I know that name is not in the Torah anyway. But as for actual evidence, I just did a search for the spelling Ityopis, and the oldest copy of the Book of Aksum, the Ethiopian history that tells about this, is dated to the 1600's. A reference or cite to this can be worked into the article. I don't know when the "burnt faces" folk etymology was first proposed, but if you feel it is earlier than the 1600's, that will also need a cite. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I think it's reasonable to wonder why the Bible - which is a lot nearer than Greece to the land we call Ethiopia - never uses this word if it was indigenous, and why this son of Cush is not in Genesis? However, the Greeks do use this word, and the first time it is used, in Homer, it does not appear to refer the land we now call Ethiopia. As far as I am aware the "burnt faces" etymology is a lot earlier than 1600. It's an ancient Greek interpretation of their own word. Paul B 01:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is it then? Cite please... I'm really curious to know where the "burnt faces" bit first appears... As I said, it's not in Homer or Herodotus, and all Herodotus says is that they are the "sons of Ethiops"... BTW The "land we now call Ethiopia" called itself by that name long before the 1600's... Hard to prove how long, but it does definitely appear on 4th century Aksumite inscriptions, as one of the names they were calling themselves... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well 4th century isn't surprising - there's considerable Hellenisation at that date. I'm not aware of a "sons of Ethiop" passage in Herodotus, and as I say, he also uses the word to refer to the peoples of what appears to be India (though he may have believed that the south of Africa and India were geographically linked). Paul B 02:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There is even a site in the city of Aksum that is said to be Ityopis' tomb, but of course that would also be difficult to prove for a skeptic of Ethiopian traditions...! Glad we worked out a npov, anyway, sorry if I got a bit wiki-stressed, you know how it adds up after a while... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul says that the name "Ethiopia" isn't in the bible. Look in King James, Genesis 2:13; Amos 9:7; IIChron 21:16; Isaiah 37:9 etc. I can go on. Not only is Ethiopia mentioned, it's existence is contemporary with the Garden of Eden, centuries before Homer or Herodotus. Can one be considered an authority on Ethiopia and not know these things? This does not speak to the debate above, but more to the omission of Ethiopia's importance in the developement of our concept of religion and civilization itself. See Religion above for more information. Tom 05/21/06

Christians in modern "Ethiopia" desperately insist on claiming the name Ethiopia for their country (even though ancient Ethiopia is really a civilization based in Sudan) because it is extremely important to them to be affirmed by the bible. The reason that Haile Sellassie changed the name of the country from Abyssinia to Ethiopia is because Abysinnia is not mentioned in the bible(but mentioned in the Koran). Well that will not do now will it for a Christian monarch who claims to have descended from King Solomon.

BTW when "Ethiopians" refer to each other on a casual everyday basis they refer to each other as "abeshas". Rarely do they say Ethiopiawi (Ethiopian). The land of Abeshas is not once mentioned in the Bible (let us be honest my fellow "Ethiopians". Ethiopia in the bible and Greek sources refers to any place but modern Ethiopia in the real sense. Ancient Ethiopian civilization is centered in Northern Sudan, and it is possible that parts of Eritrea was part of it's empire but only as it's periphery.

Sudanese Muslims are not interested as being recognized by the bible and so they did not call their country Ethiopia. So there is no reason why Abeshas can not claim it. Just let us not lie to each other and believe silly things like Candance was Abesha (she was northern sudanese), or Philip was Abesha (he was probably Sudanese too).


Modern Ethiopians also claim Saba as part of Ethiopia again for the same reasons, but Saba is not part of Modern Ethiopia. Saba is in Yemen.

Modern Ethiopians really need to be honest and stop living a lie because these lies are used to uphold ethnic superiority theories that is causing havoc in the political sphere of the country.

Academicians really need to hold their ground and not be intimidated by "Ethiopian" historians who claim racism and bias when their myths are challenged by facts (or lack of facts). Ethiopian "historians" are very biased and ethnocentric actually.

Actually, in the Iliad, Zeus and the other gods go to a 12-day feast with the Ethiopians. Not sons of Ethiops, or any of that jazz, but Ethiopians. Greek αιθίοψ aithiops means having a charred skin color or with a tanned complexion. Note that the ai dipthong sounds like ee in feet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.189.10 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amharic spelling

The Amharic version of Ethiopia is spelt with six letters at the top right (summary information), but with only five in the main body of the text. The UNGEGN transliteration system gives i-ti-yo-pi-ya or ye-i-ti-yo-pi-ya (ignoring a few accents). The shorter version sounds more likely, but perhaps somebody fluent in Amharic could comment. I have had no difficulty downloading the Zemen font.

As to what the name means, many years ago I met an Ethiopian who claimed it meant "bird feathers". At least I thought he said that, but maybe I mis-heard "burnt faces". User: Fitz Hugh

That is a good question. Amharic ኢትዮጵያ Ityopp'ya is Ethiopia, as the article says. The word on the top right, የኢትዮጵያ yä-ityopp'ya, is part of the official title, "Federal Democratic Republic "of" Ethiopia", the extra character at the beginning የ "yä-" is the part that corresponds to the word "of" (it is a genitive prefix). Always glad to help. Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Why the POV section? The dispute was settled. Unless someone gives me a good reason, I'm going to remove the tag. Yom 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Which dispute was that, the spelling? Doesn't seem like a PoV dispute, nor does it seem sufficient for tagging a section that way (especially the introduction). I'd say go ahead and remove it and I will leave a note for the editor, if no one e3lse has. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it's the spelling. I'm guessing he's talking about the row over "Ityopp'is," but that has been settled. I'm removing it now. Yom 20:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The neutrality tag was added by a vandal only a few minutes before you queried it. It had nothing to do with any debates. Paul B 20:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

Is someone joking with this statement: "Ethiopia has historically had one of the best economies in the world."? While I realize the 1974-2000 period was especially bad, Ethiopia hasn't had one of the best economies in the world for at least a couple millennia. The CIA World Factbook gives a much more realistic assessment: "Ethiopia's poverty-stricken economy is based on agriculture, accounting for half of GDP, 60% of exports, and 80% of total employment. The agricultural sector suffers from frequent drought and poor cultivation practices." The POV of the economy section is seriously biased.

How do you compare 1974-2000 with a "couple" millenia. I suggest you read your history book. 86.150.253.85 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to argue that the cause of the famine in Wollo and Tigray was natural. This is wrong! Please see the article 1984–1985 famine in Ethiopia 86.150.253.85 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Dear friend

The first rule of etymology is to ascertain the earliest form and use of the word and observe chronology.

IMHO, the word derives from Greek Αιθιοπία (Aethiopia), from Αιθίοψ (Aethiops) "charred complexion", from αιθής (aethes) "charred, burned" + όψ (ops) "eye, face, complexion", since the first who mention the word Aethiops and Aethiopia were Homer and Herodotus.

The word did not have a "fun" or "negative" meaning as many today believe. Proof for that is that Aethiops was an epithet of the gods Zeus and Apollon. (Lykophron 537 and others)

Kassios

Well thank you for your opinion, but IMHO that is a folk etymology that you can't find anyone suggesting until much, much later. The earliest attestation may well be Homer and Herodotus, but neither of them says it comes from "aethes" "ops" or any other Greek words. On the contrary, all Herodotus actually says is that they are the "children of Aethiops", whom I would guess is the same person said to have founded Aksum according to longstanding native Ethiopian tradition, and whose tomb may still be seen nearby. As it stands, both theories are mentioned in the article, so I'm really not sure why you have to rock this boat any further, if you don't actually have anything new to add. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would suggest it is far more likely that personal names such as "Kam" (Egyptian KEMET=Black), "Kush" (Hebrew Kush=Black) and "Ityopis" (Greek aethes=burnt) all started out as personal names, and only came to mean "black" in these other languages later on, since their descendants named for them were black. In other words, the Greek word "aethes" may well come from the name Ityopis by way of folk etymology interpreting the last part as "ops"... That makes just as much, if not more, sense as assuming the other way around. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
As for "epithets of Zeus and Apollo", did you know that, according to the very earliest Germanic sagas, the Germanic race is descended from Thor, the first blonde / blue-eyed person, who was said to be the son of Memnon, who was king of - guess where - that's right, Ethiopia...! Hmmm, I guess that "proves" that the ancestry of the Germanic race originated in Ethiopia, huh...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

In the science of glossology it is by definition rather difficult to come to "facts", since, by its nature, it relies on scientific conclusions based on data after the appropriate researches (in philology, history, archaeology, etc.). These are "flexible", since they can (and must) change whenever something new comes to light, due to new traced data, so then the previous scientific conclusions must be adjusted to the new data. Therefore, in order to be historically accurate, we should accept the given scientific conclusions until something else comes up.

Now, in our situation: It is more than a fact that the word Αιθίοπς (Aethiops) in Ancient Greek language means "charred complexion", (or, in modern terms: "tanned complexion"). As well as the first rule of etymology, which I mentioned in my previous post, another basic rule is to observe the cognate forms, if there are any. To mention just a few of the Ancient Greek words starting with the prefix αίθ- (aeth-) ("charred, inflamed, burned"):

αιθαλέος , aeth-aleos - "smoked"

αιθάλη , aeth-ale - "smoke"

αιθόμενος , aeth-omenos – "to be charred, to be burned, to be inflamed"

αίθοψ , aeth-ops – "who looks like fire, who has charred complexion, who is fiery"

αίθω , aeth-o – "to burn, to ignite"

αίθων , aeth-on – literally "the inflamed one, the brilliant one".

It is well known that personal names are developed from common nouns and verbs and not the other way around. So I can’t find a reason why Homer and Herodotus should state the etymology of Aethiops or Aethiopia in their texts! So it is definitely not a "folk etymology that you can't find anyone suggesting until much, much later" here, it is more than obvious that the personal name Αιθίοψ (Aethiops) derives from αίθης (aethes) + οπς (ops), and actually is a form of αίθοψ (aethops). Anyone with a basic knowledge of the rules of etymology can see that.

Now, about the epithet Αιθίοψ (Aethiops) of gods Zeus and Apollon. I am not sure what exactly you meant there… Anyway what I wanted to say is that all the epithets given by the Greeks to their gods were honorific words, so they couldn’t have a negative meaning. Obviously Apollon and Zeus were also named Αιθίοψ simply because Apollon was the god of the sun (fire>brilliance>tanned>charred) and Zeus as the master in Olympous mountain was above all, so also closer to the sun, a good reason to be called Αιθίοψ!

To conclude:

IMHO, the relation between "Ityopis" and Ethiopia is folk etymology and it is more likely that "Ityopis" derived from Ancient Greek Aethiopia. So until new evidence will justify a stronger relation between "Ityopis" and Ethiopia, we have to rely on Αιθιοπία - Aethiopia – Ethiopia.

With respect to the science of etymology

Kassios

Once again, thank you for stating your opinion, and using "IMHO" to make clear that it is your opinion. Much of the language you used in giving your opinion is pretty heavy, as you started out correctly by stating that it is difficult to come by "facts", but then you go on to say that in the absence of "facts", we must rely on "science" (as if there is some difference) and then you proceed to define what "science" is, according to your definition, which seems very one-sided and biased against the Ethiopian account, in favor of the view that Greeks invented the name. I have not seen anything in your rant that really convinces me. Again, I ask: Since both viewpoints are already being given equal prominence in the intro to the article, why exactly are you stirring up this kettle of fish? There is no reason why the Ethiopian viewpoint on where the name 'Ethiopia' comes from should not be mentioned, if maybe you are suggesting deleting it and mentioning only the notion that Greeks invented the word. Language like "we should accept the scientific conclusions" and "although there are no facts, these are the science and rules of etymology" and finally summing it all up with "we have to rely on Ethiopia = Aethiops" - I presume with the pronoun "we", you are speaking for yourself only, because you are aren't speaking for me. I give greater weight to all the Ethiopian accounts, sorry if that bothers you. And yes, the reason none of the ancients mentioned that Ethiopia means "burnt faces" is because it is a neologistic theory. If you yourself know so much about the "science of folk etymology" (now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one!) then you ought to know that it is entirely possible that the Greeks upon hearing of the name 'Ityoppis who ruled in Aksum, were reminded of one of their own words, and mutated it into "Aethiops". That, my friend, is how a "folk etymology" works. I'm through arguing this silliness, it's stressing me out, you can argue here to your heart's content, as long as you don't try to muck with the article by removing the sourced Ethiopian account of where their name originates. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend

1. I am using the term "IMHO" to be polite. I can refer you to a number of approved dictionary and etymology works to back up my "humble opinion", if you like.

2. "Science" and "facts" are not quite the same, as you state. Science is the way that you reach facts, and I am really sorry if you are not familiar with that.

3. Who ever reads our dialogue, can tell for themselves who is biased and ranting.

4. It is for the benefit of the article that both viewpoints are there but to me the uncertain one is the second one. However, history will tell.

5. "although there are no facts, these are the science and rules of etymology" and "science of folk etymology": Don’t quote things I haven’t said. If you didn’t understand what I meant, you can ask me.

6. If I wanted to "muck with the article" I would have done so already.


To conclude: We obviously have different ways of thinking. And to remember a quote by Socrates:

"When two people have a dispute, the loser is actually the winner because he learns something new."


Friendly

Kassios


I would like to point out that the word in question already turns up in Mycenean Greek as "ai-ti-jo-qo", see here. The native etymology bears all the hallmarks of a later re-interpretation. Florian Blaschke 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd sentence in "History" section

The following sentence was at the end of the paragraph discussing 17th century history:

At the same time, the Oromo people began to question the Ethiopian Christian authorities in the Abyssinian territories, and demanded to keep their own religion.

I removed it because it seems very odd to me. Firstly, there's no single religion practiced by Oromos (nor was there at that time, certain elements being influenced by Islam, Orthodox Christianity, and "Waaqfeta" (sp?)). Secondly, I'm not aware of any southern rebellion occuring at this time, though there has often been fighting in this area. Can someone provide some evidence to substantiate the claims and reword it to be more specific?

Yom 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

I have the list of most languages from the 1994 census (along with the number of speakers if needed). I believe someone said earlier that all langauges should be listed (even the minor ones). I don't think this is necessary, but I will post all 84 (in order of number of native speakers) below for future use (S-Semitic, C-Cushitic, O-Omotic, N-Nilo-Saharan).

Amara S Oromo C Tigrinya S Somali C Guraginya S Sidama C Welayta O Afar C Hadiyya C Gamo O Gedeo C Kafa O Kambaata C Awngi (Agew) C Kulo O Goffa O Bench O Ari O Konso C Kamir C Alaba C Gumuz N Berta N Koyra O Timbaro C Yemsa O Neur N Basketo O Mocha O Male O Me’en N Gidole C Konta O Anuak N Hamer O Maraqo C Qabena C Burji C Gawada C Dasenech C Sheko C Saho C Harari S Dizi O Dorze O Mello O Shinasha O Suri N Oyda O Mesengo N Nyangatom N Mao O She O Argobba S Zayse O Fadashi N Tsamay C Zergula O Chara O Mossiya C Dime O Bodi N Arbore C Nao O Mursi N Kachama O Kunama N Kemant (Agew&Beta Israel) C Koma N Ganjule O Mer O Shita N Gamili N Guagu N Kwama N Gebato N Mabaan N 139,047 speak other languages (but only 110,555 members of those langauges).

From [4] (Grover Hudson, the same linguist who posits a Semitic speaking Ethiopia at least as early as 2000 B.C.).

Feel free to format the list so that it's more readable. I don't know how and don't have enough time to do so right now.

Yom 01:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done a side-by-side compararison, but it looks like Languages of Ethiopia may have the complete list. I actually did a quick count of 91, though we say there are 84 languages. - BanyanTree 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually I get 78 ignoring extinct languages and counting all Gurage languages (including Silt'e - since that's what my above list does) as one. Nevermind, though. I didn't know such a list existed. Yom 01:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user has removed Ge'ez, Rer Bare, and Weyto from the language list. I know for a fact that Ge'ez and Weyto are extinct, and I'm guessing Rer Bare is too. Should we keep them in the list with a note that they're extinct (and disambig 84 languages to 84 living languages) or leave them out altogether?

Yom 04:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population

The current population figure comes from the UN, which puts Ethiopia at ~77.5 million, as opposed to a little less than 75 million by the CIA. The UN also puts Egypt at about 74 million (where the CIA says 78.8). However, those numbers seem to come from here: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ (a 2004 simulator) for 2005. It was made only 2 years ago, so you'd think the population figures would still be relatively accurate for this year, but they disagree greatly w/ CIA figures (a complete reversal for Egypt & Ethiopia). Which of the two figures should we use? I believe all other articles use the CIA factbook.

Yom 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We might have discussed this elsewhere, but I've been using the population figures from the Central Statistical Agency for my articles on the Regions, Zones & Woredas of Ethiopia, on the assumption that the officials of a country should have the best & most accurate information about their own population statistics. (And I also suspect that both the UN & the CIA derive their figures either directly or indirectly from the Ethiopian census records that the CSA produces; at most, these 2 agencies use different steps in arriving at their population totals.)
FWIW, as of 2005, the CSA estimated the population of Ethiopian as 75,067,000 -- which falls between the other 2 estimates & a bit below the average for all 3 numbers. -- llywrch 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
For reference, here are figures from several reliable sources:
I think we should use the country's own estimates since 2006 figures are available. I'll go ahead and change the population figurein the infobox. Polaron | Talk 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia would be the THIRD most populous nation, not second. Nigeria is first, followed by Egypt. DJDavis92 03:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia rankings are based on UN data, which puts Ethiopia's population at at 79.3 million and that of Egypt at 74 or 75 something million (74.033 for 2005). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Hello, I reorganized the "demographics" section with culture, religion and languages. I added detail, mostly from the sub-articles, some from personal knowledge, as the section did not look like a proper "demographics" section with so little content (while there is so much to tell about Ethiopia, what a country!). For famous musicians I applied the "must have article" rule. True, this is not perfect, but it works and even encourages creating extra articles on favorite musicians. I could not explain each single move while editing, but will answer questions in detail and am looking forward to see other suggestions in writing or just bold edits. "Demographics" is really a tricky concept; while demography is very well defined, "demographics" usually serves merely as a collection for people information: sociology, anthropology and parts of the human geography. The demography of Ethiopia, which should be part of this chapter, is still missing. I promise to write something. I must have a better muse for this. I hope at least the bulk of the edits are to the liking of my fellow editors. Cheers, gidonb 04:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I must say the original reason I looked up this page was for demographics but was disappointed. Generally it is best to categorize people as generally as possible rather that become obsessed with detailed accounts of culture and custom(i.e. "tribes"), or otherwise to do this later in the statement if you wish. I'll give you some help with some categories african (black), european, indian, asian, - and you can add southern european (arab), southern asian, and mixed if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.220.181 (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Factbook

Yom, you say that these figures are not updated over time. Perhaps you meant over short span of time, but I compare 1990 and 2006: 1990: 40-45% Muslim, 35-40% Ethiopian Orthodox, 15-20% animist, 5% other 2006: Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8% Also the figure for 2006 seems to me the estimate for that year, even if it is not changed every year. The last Ethiopian census was held in 1994 and probably has serious issues of undercounts outside the highlands. I personally believe the CIA factbook figures are robuster, but I do not object to providing both to the reader. Supressing them seems not the correct way to go. gidonb 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you really think that the CIA data is worth including, then I won't object to it, but it simply doesn't seem accurate. The 1984 census, for instance, shows the exact same Christian:Muslim ratio as in the 1994 census (and similar numbers for ethnicity, though these have changed some due to the loss of Eritrea). I know that the internet 1997 version is exactly the same as the 2006 version, though. I'm not sure when between 1990 and 1997 the change took place, but it's interesting to note that they note an increase in Islam (and no change for Christianity) that the census doesn't record. The census is a nationwide one, though, so I'm not sure your fears of non-highlanders being counted are that salient... — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The movement the CIA Factbook records is from animist religions towards the Islam. This movement is common in Africa and also makes geographical sense (relative proximity of populations). The Muslims may have higher birthrates than Christians, but not beyond compensation for higher deathrates. The Christian population seems the most stable. Undercounts among certain populations is a problem for any census. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, but surveys often provide better results than complete enumerations, especially when working under serious budget constraints. gidonb 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently that data hasn't changed since a few years before the 1994 census, so it is obviously inaccurate. I will provide the evidence a little later and remove the info. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See The World Factbook. The data hasn't really changed over the years. Here's a link to the 1990 one. You can see that it says the following for ethnicity and population before the split of Eritrea:

Ethnic divisions: 40% Oromo, 32% Amhara and Tigrean, 9% Sidamo, 6%

Shankella, 6% Somali, 4% Afar, 2% Gurage, 1% other

Religion: 40-45% Muslim, 35-40% Ethiopian Orthodox, 15-20% animist, 5% other

In the 1993 version, the first one to have Eritrea, it has the following:

Ethnic divisions: Oromo 40%, Amhara and Tigrean 32%, Sidamo 9%, Shankella

6%, Somali 6%, Afar 4%, Gurage 2%, other 1%

Religions: Muslim 45-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35-40%, animist 12%, other 5%

The only change being that Animist goes from 15-20% to 12% (very odd, actually). For 1994 data (the year the Ethiopian census by the CSA came out), they have the same exact data. Assuming they didn't get it as soon as it came out, they still don't change their data at all by 1995, or by 1997, the year (or year after, actually, I think) that the delayed parts of the census for the Afar came out. Actually, to be accurate, they make "Other" for religions 3-8% for the first time in 1997. However, you can see that none of this data ever agreed with the 1994 census, nor changed in response to it. Moreover, the original data didn't agree with the 1984 census, which had an approximately 60-30 Christian: Muslim ratio (mainly orthodox) and about 29-30% Amhara and Oromo, while Tigray was around 9%, I believe. Moreover, their use of "Shankella" shows a lack of knowledge about the subject, as it is not an ethnic group but a pejorative Agew word for the dark Nilotic tribes living on the western borderland (also, 6% is higher than the numbers given for all those tribes put together in the 1994 census). I hope you can see why I don't like using the CIA Factbook as a source when there are reliable alternatives. This is why I removed the text a few days ago (and again yesterday). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

These stats are well inaccurate, that why i think both extreams need to be published. You only need to live in Ethiopia to know that the Christian dominated government will be biased on way and the "politically" biased cia would swing another way (another "Muslim" country). I personally dont see it being 60% Christian, just look at even the North Bahir Dar, it is full of Amhara Muslims---Halaqah 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As Halaqah suggests, it would be possible to quote both authoritative figures in an encyclopedia. It might even be possible to find some kind of explanation or commentary regarding the discrepency. It's also possible to link to Demographics of Ethiopia as the main article. But it's much more fun to engage in endless mindless reversions. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] League of Nations/UN

Apologies for getting things mixed up with regard to the UN and League of Nations. To me the 'founding members' were the countries represented in the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference. And then I got a bit confused with who joined the League of Nations when. Sorry! I certainly had no intention of maliciously reducing Ethiopia's place in history! garik 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

CS, I don't see why you reject the version without a discussion of origins. It doesn't simply cut out the Sabaean origin theory, it also cuts out the arguments for an indigenous origin. Note how it ignores the fact that Epigraphic South Arabian inscriptions in a Semitic Proto-Ge'ez language are just as old (or older, 9th c. BC) in Ethiopia as they are in Yemen, linguistic evidence of long-standing Semitic-speaking peoples there, etc. It doesn't give any impression on the origins of the kingdom, which can be addressed in the specific respective articles like D`mt, Kingdom of Aksum, and History of Ethiopia. Why does a specific dispute like that have to be presented on the main page of a country and take up so much space? If you really insist I will include a detailed dicussion of evidence for and against the origin at the beginning of the history page without a conclusion, but I really think it's unnecessary and tangential. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph to show both views, but I left out Megalommatis's very small view that all Semitic-speaking Ethiopians are Sabaeans (i.e. no indigenous blood, just transplants). Keeping it in there violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight, as it is a very small minority view. Putting it on the main page like that makes it seem as if it has credibility and a significant number of believers. Really, Megalommatis is the only one with this view and he's a crackpot (read his theory on how all the Nubians got up and left and moved 2000 km to southern Ethiopia where they became the Oromo). I have no problem referencing to this minority view in some more specific articles like Sabaeans, D`mt (maybe Kingdom of Aksum, but the timeline for the migration doesn't really fit for the article and Aksum is almost 100% agreed upon that it's indigenous, it's D`mt that's really debated in the academic world), History of Ethiopia, History of Eritrea, etc. Note that the view that's included right now (Sabaeans mixed with and transplanted their culture to indigenous East Africans) is not an extreme minority view, so it does merit inclusion. Is there even anyone aside from Megalommatis (preferably also not a crackpot) who believes the theory that all semitic-speaking Ethiopians are full-blooded Sabaeans? Please provide contemporary examples if there are. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well alright then, mention Megalomattis on the other articles, but can we please keep all the other changes, especially let us not make it seem as if Conti Rossini originated that theory, if he is to be mentioned at all, I really don't think he is the first one ever to suggest that Semites hybridized with Cushites to form the Habesha.. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it was Hiob Ludolf who first proposed it in the late 17th/early 18th century, but it was Conti Rossini who re-proposed it and proposed that Habashat was a Yemeni tribe (which it wasn't) and really popularized it. Why did you keep the part about Ethiopia being a cross-roads, though? That just doesn't make any sense to me. The only time when there were cultural influences like that was really during Aksumite times when it was well-integrated with other places in the world, but from ca. 630 until the 19th century, there was really no blending of cultures with North Africa, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa (other than sub-Saharan Ethiopian culture, that is). The only real influence would have been the Jesuits from ca. 1540-1640, but the influence was limited (until 1624-32 I guess), and not from any of the areas mentioned (unless you want to include "Portuguese" on that list). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


The world doesnt see things in Black and White. But where Africa is concerned it gets very Black and White. When you look at the Greek Section they play down African influence, when you come to Nubia and Ethiopia the "influence" is the big apology for Africa having "anything" civilized. I will now go to the Greek article and discuss the heavy African influence just as they have done here. Just a few years back it was stated as fact that Ethiopia came from Sabian States, Thank God it is being pushed further back this "influence". --Halaqah 20:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Intersection"

Yom, the part you want removed states

It has long been an intersection between the civilizations of North Africa, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Your above comments make it seem like you have never heard such an outlandish idea until now, when the reality is this view is so commonplace, it hardly needs citing. There are hardly any views about Ethiopia more commonplace than this, it's practically the first thing every single book about Ethiopia says. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And the reason, is not the Portuguese, but maybe because Arabia is just across the Red Sea and Israel is right up the Red Sea. I think you probably knew this already. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High taxes

Want to see why Ethopia is poor? Read this: [5] The government is a thief. 89% tax on agricultural profits! Economizer 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally support this statement, it is 100% abslutley true! The Ethiopian government is a theif! The people on board just take the money for themselves! What happened to the money the American government gave them?? The people just took it for themselves! It breaks my heart just seeing little kids having to sleep on the road, cold and hungry just because of the selfish government. People should really see Ethiopia at midnight, you can see little kids sleeping on the side of the road. The saddest part is that nobody can do anything about it. Is there hope for Ethiopia? (MM)

Please keep in mind that this talk page is for discussing improvements to Wikipedia's Ethiopia article, rather than discussing the subject itself. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Establishment date

Curious historical times chosen for establishment... most important would be to dispute that of Punt (the others are not as significant of a problem). Can it truly be argued that it is the predecessor of Ethiopia? For instance on the Italy page you do not see the establishment of the Roman Empire... just something to think about perhaps get some opinions on --Merhawie 14:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm also not very comfortable with this assertion. Claiming this ancestory is similar to the present United Kingdom claiming its establishment circa AD 500 when Cerdic landed in England & founded the kingdom of Wessex or modern France tracing its origins to Merovingian times. (Some partisans do make these claims, but they are a fringe, & mainstream historians while acknowledging the contributions of these ancient kingdoms place the creation of these states at a much more recent point.)
However, Ethiopia is something of problem, for there is no decisive point before the 19th century where one can say that things changed. Yekuno Amlak's overthrow of the Zagwe dynasty was more of an exchange of ruling families, rather than a complete reorganization of the Ethiopian state, & his argument for legitimacy was based on a continuity not only with Aksum -- but back to Solomon of Israel! In this regard, Ethiopia is similar to the situation with China: when is the Chinese state considered to have been founded? Under the first Emperor Qin Shi Huang? Under the semi-legendary Zhou Dynasty or earlier? Or at a more recent point with the Han dynasty, when much of the permanent shape of the Chinese Empire & culture acquired a permanent form?
Still, I think connections with D'mt & Punt are stretching it a bit. The Ethiopians were always aware of a connection with Aksum; I have not seen any evidence of a similar historical awareness with those two earlier cultures. -- llywrch 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
HIM Haile Selassie I stated numerous times that anyone by picking up a few books written about Ethiopian history in many languages could easily satisfy himself that Ethiopia's establishment goes back 3000 years. In other words, around 1000 BC. He knew what he was talking about, since I have not been able to find any different by researching, apart from the claims of revisionists who would move it up to as recent as possible. I don't think His Majesty's views qualify him as "fringe", but I have actually seen some websites by this revisionist "fringe" even pretending that Christianity was utterly unknown in "savage" Ethiopia until whites introduced it in the 1700s! (Unfortunately that is the type of jealousy-stricken lie that will always be present in this world.) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to use establishment dates at all, but the template has made them necessary and I am simply using what I had thought the standards were. Punt is a stretch, but Aksum was simply a successor kingdom to D'mt, so I believe it should be included. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
CS, 1000 BC is the approximate date scholars at the time believed the kingdom of David & Solomon existed; Ethiopia's connectio with that kingdom is well known. I think that Haile Selassie was referring to that, rather than Punt or D'mt. -- llywrch 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"scholars at the time" (ie., of Haile Selassie) ? It also just happens to be around the middle the same date range that scholars today still think Kings David and Solomon reigned... I'm not aware of any substantial or agreed upon reason for revision... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
CS, may I direct your attention to Amy Dockser Marcus' book, The View from Nebo? Although it is not the primary emphasis of her book, she shows that a number of mainstream, tenured scholars have formed conclusions about the events narrated in the Old Testament that shrply differ with what the general public may think. As a result, I'd rather say what I am certain about -- that the scholars of Haile Selassie's time were certain about that date -- rather than risk a mistake & assume that the consensus of scholars today also believe that.
We are quibbling over a minor point in what I wrote, which leads to my next statement. If I am reading your comments correctly, you are angry with me. I don't understand why; people disagree all of the time -- especially, it seems, on Wikipedia. Am I reading you correctly? -- llywrch 01:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The books His Majesty refers to were not just those written by "scholars of the time" but rather he mentions primary sources written in Greek, Arabic, Portuguese etc., which still remain the primary sources, as opposed to modernist Original Research which often seeks to negate primary sources, and with little substantial reason, other than to come up with "something new" to tell people to believe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, at this point in the conversation I might write something like "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree", because we obviously aren't making any headway in this conversation, However,t I'm not even sure we are sharing the same conversation. Have you read all of what I've been writing in response, Codex Sinaiticus? -- llywrch 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd be more interested if you have anything substantial or specific to point to as a reason for discarding the primary sources, than simply to be told that "scholars have formed opinions that differ sharply with what the general public may think" which isn't really saying anything that isn't already well known. I would go even further and say that it's common knowledge that these type of scholars have a downright condescending pov toward the general public's views on a variety of topics, but it's still, after all, just another pov, unless you actually have something concrete. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Punt? To say that the State of Ethiopia was establishmented in the 25th century BC as Punt is clearly a lie. I'm sure that noone will disagree with this point, I'm removing this. As for D'mt I don't think we should include it either because we know very little about this civiliztion, to claim it as "Ethiopian". Mesfin 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ethiopian" History

I think the only one contributor here who is at least slightly sensitive to objectivity, logic and factuality (TRUTH) is 'Yom' who having said that is far from free of major chauvinistic shortcomings. I am referring to the complete omission of the history of Abyssinia's EXPANSION and CONQUEST of lands and peoples in the region and the complete omission of THEIR history before they were associated to the Abyssinian realm.

The adoption of the name "Ethiopia" (as Yom so eloquently put it) is in itself an adoption of the perspective of EUROPEANS because the name itself is European (Greek) based on the ignorant supposition that all black people with kinky hair (or 'burnt faces' as Ethiopus means) south of Egypt, were all part of one nation stretching from Africa to Asia...Now this European made "history" you swear by as an absolute truth, as true as the Bible. The Bible whose version you use by the way, is based on the Greek translation, which mentions "Ethiopia" (a country that never existed in history) about 99 million times right? But when Europeans talk about Ethiopia's association to Arabia, they are all liars and racists. Why the hypocrisy? If Abyssinians want to claim their history as "Ethiopian history", I have no problem with that. The Abyssinians are the ones who adopted this European name based on European ignorance from the (Greek version of the) Bible...But why is not there one sentence describing how this history of northern empires and northern kingdoms expanded to form modern Ethiopia as we know it today, by conquering the "Galla", "Shankilla", "Teltal" and other slaved people and incorporating them into this realm of "Ethiopia"? What history did these slaved people (the majority of Ethiopia's population) have before they were associated with Abyssinia? Were they just half-monkeys without a history except their association with the civilized Habesha? You are denying your country's majority their history as if they were non-entities and you have the audacity to whine about the cultural chauvinism and racism of Europeans?

Here is an idea: how about an OBJECTIVE, FACTUAL, ACCURATE, LOGIC (TRUE) look at history? Instead of a politicized collection of garbage based on a false empty pride? Here you are touting proudly about something that supposedly happened in a past so long ago that we can't tell what is myth and what is reality, meanwhile even a 12 year old kid can tell you that you can't take that much credit for what your mother or father did, you have to have something to show for YOURSELF, let alone for some people from 5000 years ago...What did YOU do to be proud of?

Here is another idea: if you take an honest look at your background, you are more likely to understand your current problems and fix them and less likely to repeat the sins or mistakes of those before you.

Wow, thanks so much for contributing outrage and chest-thumping instead of actual work. Ford MF 09:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is rife racism in Ethiopia where people of non-semitic descent are denied their credit in Abyssinian civilization. However, it is ignorant and down right childish to say what matters is what you do yourself. The creators of the current lie we live in didn't think so. They believed in the past so much that they went back and changed history to remove the contribution of black faces with frizzled hair to the world we live in today. This has been the legacy of the Aryan Model of Ancient Civilization. We were taught in school Galileo was the first human to make the assertion that the earth is round around the middle ages. There has been ample evidence that ancient Ethiopians not only knew the earth's roundedness but also mapped the star systems and constellations several thousand years ago. As such, most of the star systems are named after Ethiopian kings, albeit with their Greek version. For example, Andromeda and Cepheus are Ethiopian monarchies. We dwell in the past because that is where most of our lives are housed. If we have the wrong footing on the past, our present and future are already off to a wrong start. That is the power of history and that is why some went as far as engaging in pure deceit to change the present and the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.195.252 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 May 2008

[edit] Oldest independent country is wrong

It states in the religion section that ET is the oldest African country, I think the wording is wrong. Because Ethiopia never was dependant to be independent. If you are never conquered then how can you be the oldest independent. Independent implies it was conquered or owned by someone and then achieved independence. So the phrase almost implies that somewhere in this history independence was "earned". Britain does say it is the oldest independent country in Europe. Nor does Greece or Rome. i think it needs to be reworded.--Halaqah 11:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Independent does not imply former dependance. It is just the opposite to dependant. Two definitions of independent relating to countries:

"1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker."

"# Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing."

To imply a country breaking free of dependance, there would have to be a verb in the wording of the text, something like:

"Ethiopia is the oldest African country to have achieved independence." --136.206.1.17 14:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

doesnt make sense, Ethiopia coulnt have achieved independence if it never lost it, you can gain what you always had, ur missing the point. the word independence is not relevant to Ethiopia, you can say it was never colonized. Et is the oldest continuous African nations/civilization an unbroken legacy blah blah. --Halaqah 23:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Umm... albeit 5 years it was still occupied... The early twentieth century was marked by the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie I, who undertook the rapid modernization of Ethiopia — interrupted only by the brief Italian occupation (1936–1941).[21]"

[edit] Where is the Quran image

where and why was the image of the old Quran removed, it was one of the oldest Qurans in Africa, something i thing Et should be proud of having, please put it back.--Halaqah 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

True, we don't simply need two Christian images. Check back very early in the history (like July or August) and it should be there. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

my point, i think we need to remember the legacy of Ethiopia in Islamic history, it is far from minor it is a major turning point in the development of this religion. Christian or Muslim should be proud of this. Because it showed tolerance of both faiths. I found the image and restored it--baka.--Halaqah 21:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression that the photo doesn't show a Quran. It dosen't look like a Quran because there are too many comments written on the edges of the pages. The words written in red ink could be the name(s) of the prophet and therefor the book could be a prayer or zikr book. But it is in any case an Arabic manuscript and shows the level of indigenous Islamic higher learning in Ethiopia.--Driss 18:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I took the photo with my brand new canon eos, and thats what it said "old Qu'ran", you can go to the museum in Addis and c for yourself. dont forget Qurans look different in different areas of the world. --Halaqah 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there is written "old Qur'an" dosen't necessarily mean that it is really a Qur'an. You wrote that you’d take the photo in the museum on Entoto. I assume that those who put the book there just couldn’t read Arabic nor were Muslims (just a guess). And often people who are not familiar with this kind of literature think that every handwritten Arabic book they see is a Qur’an. I actually have seen different copies of the Qur’an which had been written in Harar and in Wello. And I have also seen many other Arabic manuscripts written in Ethiopia. Based on that experience I would say the photo doesn’t show a Qur’an. But another photo where you could read the text would be helpful in that matter. But I also wanted to add that the photo serves it purpose quite well because it is a witness of the existence of an Ethiopian Islamic literature. And I think that was also the reason why it was put on the site. Driss 14:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


I always take a photo of the text so i will go right now and have a look.--Halaqah 01:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think u r correct it might not be a Quran, i can see the text and there r no surah markings or other things, but yes it is an ancient Islamic document.--Halaqah 01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

AGAIN someone has taken out the Islamic image in religion. This time i will watch it and report this person as a vandal.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clean up

too much text at least break it up into topics, that indep leak looks messy, needs better chapters, you can always create seperate pages to go into dept, you cant go into it here as the article becomes too long and unreadble. And need to talk about foreign realtions, ethiopia and eritrea etc ET and Kenya and Sudan--Halaqah 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Politic needs to be sum up and put seperately it is far too long, and the information is very focused on one or two events, critical to discuss is foreign realtions, ethiopia and eritrea etc ET and Kenya and Sudan and yes America (since ET allowed was "happy" about the war in Iraq)--Halaqah 14:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Move section

Ethiopian police massacre this needs to be moved to another place, it is long and specific, i could start adding all kinds of events in ET history and make this article v long. Have a summary and move it to a seperate page.--Halaqah 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism Bigtime!! Guys, look at the english version of The ethiopia article. Someone has seriously vandalized it!!! They put something REALLY obscene! Do something NOW!!! ---from a person who visits wiki often


I have moved the police thing, no one would have the discussion so i just moved it, doesnt the article feel and look better now?--Halaqah 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Politics

Needs some serious work, it almost raps on about what US and UK said about Ethiopia. The relationship on the whole terror thing should have been discussed, ET being a pawn of the US might be a POV. But this article is full of current events and they should be sumed, and the full stuff on ethiopian politics, The full dynamics of foreign relations should be in here as sums. please assist in making the article the best, by making it very easy to read.--Halaqah 10:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New environmental page for Ethiopia

I dont really like the title but we need a page just to discuss all the environmental problems in Ethiopia, has anyone seen an Ethiopian wolf of recent? Has anyone seen the Ethiopian lion? I actually went looking lake chamu where lions once roamed they are very very few.Environmental issues in Ethiopia--Halaqah 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ethiopia oldest Christian state

The reason i needed a refernces is because this information was newly added, most of us accept Ethiopia as the oldest Christian state, i think it is better to say "one of the oldest Christian states" i would have added the [[fact}} tag if this information was always here. But changes of this nature require the addition of a refernces, or we should leave them out. Notice i have not moved it but i still disagree, because it is a opinion open to debate, it is not a fact, it is a "some say" and more debate needs to be had, but now we have a refernce we can start a proper debate.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the second oldest official Christian state. The record's on Ethiopia's conversion are pretty secure (as are those on Armenia's, I believe, while San Marino's early history is mainly all legend). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yom, I was thinking it was Armenia as well. The World Factbook would seem to confirm this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be important to note that while Ethiopia is purportedly a Christian state, the largest percent of th e population is Muslim.

[edit] Link to Constitution

The current reference to the constitution is http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Hornet/Ethiopian_Constitution.html which notes that the content provided is an "English Translation of the Ethiopian Draft Constitution is an unofficial draft that has been released to enable members of the International community follow the discussions and forthcoming elections, pending publication of the official translation." The website http://mail.mu.edu.et/~ethiopialaws/index.html (purportedly) has the official translation of the final document among many other resources. I don't know, however, how to get WHOIS information on .et sites, nor how to verify the reliability of whomever might be listed as owner. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984 Famine

The famine in Ethiopia in 1984 was an event in Ethiopia that had the attention of Europe, the United States and other countries, and started the Band Aid / Live Aid / Live 8 movement of Western celebrities trying to campaign against poverty in both Ethiopia and Africa. I can't find a single reference to the famine anywhere in the article.

The immediate reaction in the West was to send food and resources, but afterwards there has been much talk that the famine was entirely due to local politics and conflict rather than an overall lack of food in the country. I have no idea which view is correct, and I came to this article to find out.

It may or may not be significant in the full history of Ethiopia, but I think it at least deserves some kind of mention as I know a lot of Westerners reading the article will have it uppermost in their mind when they think of Ethiopia, rightly or wrongly.

[edit] Ethiopia vs. Somalia

Could anyone explain the current conflict? Thanks --71.81.201.8 03:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The interim Somali government, wich was thrown out of most of the country some months ago, are backed by the Ethiopian government, which has launched an offensive in Somalia on the interim government's wish. It should be noted that Somali warfare often takes place between pick up trucks carrying troops, and that the bombing of the airports were nowhere near what e.g. Israel and the US would have done (in Mogadishu, reports say two bombs were dropped, and, according to the IHT, more in a "show of force" - Ethiopia itself confirms that the goal was to stop civilian flights into Somalia, carrying Jihad warriors from nearby Muslim states. Ethiopia and the West do not recognise the Islamic courts (UIC) as the Somali government. 62.249.183.54 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Yes please add this to the article it would be also good to mention Ethiopia allowed USA to launch an attack on Iraq in Iraq II , yes there is a connection, help us in our war or STARVE!!!--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest religion

What is the largest religion in Ethiopia today? Yesterday (2006-12-25), the article stated 61 % Christians according to the 1994 survey, today it says 61 % Muslims according to the 1994 survey. I think this is important to straighten out now; if Ethiopia is a predominatly Muslim country, why would it fight the Islamic courts?62.249.183.54 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It has always said 61% Christian except when changed by vandals. Even if it weren't predominantly Christian, the historical core and rulers have always been Christian, which is more important (see e.g. Eritrea, which is also secular and 50-50 Christian:Muslim, but is largely controlled by the Christian Tigrinyas). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia is also controlled by Christians, who are very very dominant. I dont think those stats are accurate, drive through the south of ET and count the mosque vs churchs, go to Bahir Dar and start counting. There has always been a bias in the stats in Ethiopia when it comes to her Muslim population. I think it is as the CIA fact sheet says, 40%--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I take exception to Yom's implied reference to me as a vandal. I added information to the otherwise inaccurate/disputed facts complete with citations. He or whomever contributed to the introduction calls Ethiopia a "Christian state", which it isn't. It is secular and hasn't had Christianity as the official religion since the 1974 Constitution change, which I notated and someone keeps deleting. Secondly, in the Religion part, he or whomever claims that Christians are 61% of the population. I thought it was 63% at one point and a three page source from some lone Phd was cited. I cited the CIA Worldfactbook as one source, which disputes this (ironically the Phd also cites the same source) by showing that the Muslims are 10% points higher (40-50% to 30-40%) than Christians. I could be wrong but I believe that neutral sources from Answers.com, About.com, BBC.com/countryprofiles and Arabicnews.com also show that Muslims outnumber Christians. The only sites that I have seen that say contrarty are usually anti-Islam or Christian based. Even that isn't necessarily true, as I have come across one Christian site that proposes more missionaries to overcome the larger Muslim population. --MPA 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick reply - I didn't mean to call you a vandal. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but I meant that those who change the 1994 reference from saying 61% are generally vandals. You simply cited another source, which is completely different. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name?

Does anyone know what Ethiopians (Amharic, Tigray, Oromo, Somali etc) call the country in their own language and what the literal translations are? Would be great if this could be added to the name section as currently it only shows the meaning of the names in European and Middle Eastern languages. 82.133.110.226 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already in there - "Ityop'ya," and for the people "Habesha" (the former an adaptation from Greek, the latter a native term); the later is mainly used by Semitic speakers, though. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Following your helpful direction i have done some more research on the topic. It seems the name of the country is hotly disputed - there are some who believe that the name Ethiopia is a concious attempt to hide the fact that the country is ruled by the Abyssinian provinces which make up only 25% of the land. Do you know when the word Ethiopia was first applied as the official country name in the Ge'ez script, and also internationally? I can see that Theodore II named himself the Emperor of Ethiopia in 1855 (when controlling only Gondor) but i do not know whether this is just an English mistranslation. Anyway, I have edited the section as far as I can, but feel it still does not explain the dispute in any real detail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.133.110.226 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
To be clear, the points I have added are as follows: 1. It is not certain how old the name Ethiopia is, but its earliest attested use in the region was as a Christianized name for the Kingdom of Aksum in the 4th century, in stone inscriptions of King Ezana[3]. (this point came indirectly from Yom); 2. Abyssinia strictly refers to just the North-Western provinces of Amhara and Tigray[4].; 3. The term Habesha strictly refers to only the Semitic-speaking peoples of Ethiopia (predominantly the Amhara and Tigray-Tigrinya people which combined make up about 36% of Ethiopia's population), who have historically dominated the country politically; 4. In contemporary Ethiopian politics the word Habesha is often used to describe all Ethiopans. I have spent a number of hours researching this and believe that all four points are beyond dispute (with the exeption of point 2 which should be refined). I also believe that all four points are crucial for outsiders to understand what "Ethiopia" means. If you disagree with any of these points please could you let me know?82.133.110.226 06:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that Habesha refer to semitic speaking people? I dont think Arabs use it like that, All Ethiopians are know as Habesha, in Turkey it is like this an in the entire Arab World. And Semitic speaking is still from the same family as Oromo, and Somali, the Afro-Asiatic family, so even Hausa is very similar to Amharic. and your pop stat is incorrect, Amharas almost equal oromo people so if you add Tigray-Tigrinya to that then you are talking about 60% + also Guarages are Semitic speakers and Wolo is full of them--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this has also been discussed at Talk:Habesha people. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hala. To answer your points in turn: 1. Has been answered by Gyrofrog; 2. The drafting currently states that Turkish and Arabic use Habesha to refer to Ethiopia (i.e. not just Abyssinia); 3. Please see this link http://community.livejournal.com/terra_linguarum/95880.html. Semitic diverged from Cushitic and Chadic languages more than 10,000 years ago; 4. I agree with you on this one. The population stats are highly disputable (e.g. earlier on this talk page) so it would be helpful to put a range (what range would you be happy with to take account of all sides of the arguement?). Also, I agree it is a simplification to refer to the Amhara and Tigray-Tigrinya as the only Semitic speakers and only Amhara, Tigray-Tigrinya and Western Eritrea regions as being Abyssinia. Would you be able to suggest a way of refining this without losing the concept that the Abyssinian people and region do not "necessarily" comprise the majority of the country?82.133.110.226 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong when you say that Habashas in the medieval sense meant all of Ethiopia from the Arab/Turkish prespective. Arabs are clear they mean the Christian civilization of Ethiopia which in the medieval period was the North (Amhara-Tigray). They most certainly did not mean the Oromos and Somalis and Afars. The term Habesaha is closely associated with Christianity. In modern times, turks and arabs assume all of Ethiopia is the old al-Habesha because they assumed that the abeshas of old are the same as the Ethiopians of today. How would they know that the southerns are not Amharas and Tigrays? Like everyone else in the world, they have been fooled by northern Ethiopian Abeshas. If modern historians like yourself are confused, why would a modern Turk or Arab not be as well? I think you really should clarify that the history of Ethiopia you have profiled is the history of Tigray-amharas.

[edit] References to the history of Southern Ethiopia

Having read this talk page fully I came across an unsigned rant entitled "Ethiopian" History which has been ignored for not following Wiki standard I guess. However, I'd like to take the opportunity to ask everyone for their views on the underlying statements which seem broadly justifiable. As I interpret it, the ranter was make two sensible points: 1. The article makes no mention of the conquest of the South. Ethiopia's expansion in the late 19th/early 20th century is crucial for outsiders to understand "what is Ethiopia", so the article should explain clearly how modern Ethiopia was built up from a tiny core in Gondor in 1855 and covering the key steps in its expansion; 2. Whilst the borders of Ethiopia have changed significantly over time, as I understand it Oromo and Ogaden (for example) are not part of Ethiopia proper (i.e. they are not a decendent state of the Kingdom of Aksum and the peoples of those regions have different languages, culture ,history and (to some extent) religion), so should we not discuss their history as well. Can anyone provide any of this info?82.133.110.226 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The introduction

It seems that almost one third of the introduction deals with other countries and their state/religion relationships. Perhaps this would go better somewhere else? Just a thought. 76.19.43.181 00:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stop DELETING Islamic image

2nd time it has been sneakly removed from this page. i will ask editors to monitor and see who is doing this, it is vandalism.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second-oldest official Christian nation in the world?

I thought Georgia was the second-oldest official Christian nation in the world because in their article it says they are the second-oldest official Christian nation in the world. So which articel is correct? ROOB323 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Ethiopia became Christian ca. 330 AD. We don't have an exact, date, however. It was definitely Christian before 356 AD, when Constantius II sent a letter to Ezana, trying to get him to depose Frumentius as Ethiopia's bishop because he was appointed by Athanasius (there was an ideological dispute at the time). Athanasius's appointment would have been done in his first reign (328-346). Ezana's first Christian coins are based on weights before the 324 Constantine reform (with the name "Ezanas" inscribed in Greek), later coins use the post-324 standards, also with the Christian cross on the reverse, and with the name "Ezana." Therefore, even if the old standard was used for a few years after the 324 base conversion, the adoption of Christianity was not long after 324 AD, and the appointment of Frumentius by Athanasius must have been early in his first tenure as Patriarch of Alexandria (328-346). See Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity by Stuart Munro-Hay for more details. There's an online version here, with the conversion detailed in pages 170-172 (doesn't fit exactly with book page numbers due to some images being missing). Anyway, the conversion was probably in 330, but was almost certainly before 337. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Georgia officially adopted Christianity as state religion in 327 A.D . The 337 was a typo. This is supported by numerous sources: Dowling, Lang, Allen, Sunny, etc. And in many scholarly works Georgia is officially considered as a country which adopted Christianity soon after Armenians did, making it a second country to do so. Ldingley 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Still, the Ethiopian adoption of Christianity was around 324, with the first bishop appointed around 330, so you cannot say that Georgia is the second official Christian nation. There are also many scholarly works that I have seen saying Ethiopia to be the second official Christian nation after Armenia (e.g. the Munro-Hay one above) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:34, January 10, 2007
Funny, I can't find any source that says 327 for Georgia, but I have found any number of sources that say 337. You say this is a typo. How could all these sources be making the same typo? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If Ethiopia was ruled by Italy, how can it have had "continuous sovereignty"?

My grandfather lived in Addis Abeba from 1935 untill his die in 1972. He was born in Florence and he considered himself Italo-Ethiopian. My Grandmother was from Dire Dawa. As you can check on this web site http://www.macalester.edu/courses/geog61/kshively/ital.html, italian colionalism was not only a bad period for this country. In almost 6 years roads , buildings, bridges and many other infrastructures that made Ethiopia one of the most modern country in Africa.

Many italians employed in public administration, like my father, keep on working in his office as requested from emperor. so the sentence "terrorized by the administration of mustard gas" is not correct for all the 5 years (and the subsenquent of italian prsence uander british adminsitratiom).

The first paragraph states that "Ethiopia is the only country in Africa with a continuous sovereignty and is one of the oldest nations in the world."

But how is this possible if Ethiopia was ruled by Italy for 5 years? In this very article it talks about when Ethiopia gained its independence, and there is more detail on the Second Italo-Abyssinian war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War). This doesn't add up for me. Could someone explain this, or change the misleading/incorrect text?

Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TPower (talk • contribs) 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

  • You could argue for "continuous sovereignty" if the interruption was viewed as a brief wartime interlude, although personally I would disagree as Italy established a permanent colonial administration and the League of Nations acquiesced, in peacetime, to the occupation. Then again, England considered its constitutional history as uninterrupted by 21 years as a republic. Peter Grey 04:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

occupation doesnt challenge a nations status of continuity, especially when Italy didnt control all of Ethiopia or made any dent in the self-determination of Ethiopia. Ethiopia didnt gain independence and that needs to be changed, When did Great Britian gain its independence or Germany, Or Italy, have these places never been occupied? this topic has already been discussed above i think.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restructured the sentence to circumvent the controversy. Nonetheless, I've got to object to the assertions that Italy ruled Ethiopia rather than briefly occupying it, that the League accepted Italian aggression without objection, and that sovereignty wasn't continuous at least until the Derg.
The purely political maneuver of announcing and attempting a "permanent colonial administration" does not coopt a sovereignty in exile; this was the popular opinion in France, in UK, in USA("US never recognized Italian sovereignty over Ethiopia), owing to the lionization of Selassie in the west, and the incredible sentimental support he had of the entire non-Italian, non-oil trading world. The League of Nations did formally condemn the attack, though it lacked a mechanism of enforcement; guerilla resistance in Ethiopia continued into at least 1937, the same year Italy withdrew from the L of N. Lastly, the scope of the word "sovereignty": it can mean royal line as well as autonomy, as in the totality of consecutive royals, plainly uninterrupted by Italian aggression.
Something very odd about hearing this compared to England. Ethiopia's 2,000 year old monarchy, in the relatively brief struggle it would ultimately win by political rather than military means, was not discontinuous in this period. It seems particularly unjust to suggest that Ethiopia was ruled by colonial administration, when it seems more precisely to have been terrorized by the administration of mustard gas.DBaba 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Did Selassie run a government-in-exile? Funny, I've look through some sources but can't find the situation spelled out clearly. Peter Grey 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Henry Kissinger notes that Great Britain and France recognized the "Abyssinian conquest" in 1938.[1] --Merhawie 01:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Bump...any further discussion? --Merhawie 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopia did have continuous sovereignty, since it was RULED by Italian King Vittorio Emanuele III di Savoia, who took the title of Emperor of Ethiopia. Andrea Virga 26 June 2007

Are you saying that Ethiopia was in personal union with Italy? -- Petri Krohn 16:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominal rule of Ethiopia under Vittorio doesn't represent actual rule. Capitalizing the word "ruled" doesn't change the fact either. In contrast, the Emperor of Ethiopia Haileselase had his people's allegiance therefore the Ethiopian sovereign was in control. Whether in exile or in Ethiopia the rule was not interrupted. I could take the title of Emperor of Italia FYI. If Vittorio ruled Ethiopia then I rule Italia according to your argument Andrea Virga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.17.217 (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberia vs Ethiopia

History of Liberia (after the arrival of Europeans) is unique in Africa as it started neither as a native state nor as a European colony, for this reason Liberia cannot be considered in the same light as Ethiopia. Liberia was not part of any African Kingdom, it was just a place that wasnt colonized, hence it isnt a continuous civilization.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopia christian nation?

Since there are more muslims than christians in ethiopia, it cannot be considered "a christian nation which upholds christianity", so i deleted the following passage:

Ethiopia is also the second oldest Christian nation,[2] having maintained its Christian character since the 4th century AD. (unsigned anon)

We all know where this propaganda is coming from. Consensus of editors is required before you go blanking any information like this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

over 60% of ethiopia IS christian according to a 2007 american study so your wrong buddy,

Funny answer! Driss 18:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis and the law

Do we have any information on whether cannabis was illeagal in Ethiopia during Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia reign? ie 1930-1974. According to Image:World-cannabis-laws.png it is illegal but often unenforced, and I think infoprmation would be relevant to the Selassie article, SqueakBox 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abyssinia

Shouldnt the former name of Abyssinia be mentioned a bit more prominently towards the top? --Ezeu 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation and population

Hey,

I note the reversion to the former edit and removal of my changes regarding the population statistics and Italian occupation.

For population, please see: [[6]] which states that Egypt has a slightly higher population that Ethiopia, making it the second most populated country in Africa. This is also found to be the case in other sources generally.

Regarding the Italian occupation, contributor Yom stated "rv - it was partially occupied, but this occupation was not recognized and there was a government in exile".

Firstly, an occupation does not require recognition of a third party to in fact be an occupation.

Secondly, the occupation was in fact recognized by states such as the United Kingdom.

Thirdly, the current page states "Ethiopia is one of the oldest nations in the world, and the only African nation to have enjoyed continuous sovereignty throughout and beyond the Scramble for Africa, excepting a brief occupation in World War II.[1]". This is patently false since the Italian invasion was in 1935, almost 4 years before the outbreak of World War II. The country was officially annexed on Nay 7th 1936, by which time Emperor Haile Selassie has fled.

As such, it is clearly incorrect and misleading to refer to "a brief occupation in World War II".

Moreover, it serves to reduce the importance of Ethiopia's contribution to the African liberation struggle. For, by having felt itself the pain of invasion and occupation BUT resisted and achieved liberation, Ethiopia became an even more potent symbol of African nationalism and the continent's aspirations for freedom. Furthermore, the Italian occupation and the Haile Selassie's exile cemented the Emperor and the country in the international consciousness, and the stuggle to liberate the country defined Ethiopia as a nation that would not bow to colonial oppression.

I feel that the incorrect current edit is not only inaccurate and misleading, but actually undermines Ethiopia's status vis a vis the African liberation struggle.

I look forward to ideas on how the current edit can be modified to reflect the actual events and timeline.

Thank you.

Louse 13:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should quote some sources describing vividly how ineffectual that occupation was. The fascists did not succeed in accomplishing much more beyond a physical occupation, they were unable to export any resources worth any substantial amount and could not have met with greater resistance from the native populace at every turn. There are numerous quotes that make that plain, in fact I have some good ones. So while we may be able to speak technically of a brief (exactly 5 years) occupation, we cannot speak of anything like 'colonization'. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Louse raises some valid points above. Could the person who reverted his entries please respond.203.97.144.44 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone has tampered with this page.

Please edit this page back to original content. Someone has replaced portions in the Aksum and D'mt section of the history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.233.170 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Redating of World War II.

(in Ethiopia, WWII starts in 1936. It starts at different times for different areas)

Is there general agreement with Yom's statement that World War II actually began in 1936? If so I will not revert it but it will make a serious article look rather strange.203.97.144.44 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any Amharic speakers here?

If so, how does one write "Empire of Ethiopia" in Ge'ez (or whatever the font is called)? Thanks! Josh 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no term for "Empire" in Ge'ez that I know of. The term "Mangiśt" (also transliterated "mangist," modern pronounciation "mengist") literally means "kingdom," but also has the meaning of "government," and is the only term I've ever seen used in native texts used to describe the country. The "Empire of Ethiopia" would therefore be "Mangiśta Ītyōṗṗyā." (or Mangista Ityop'ya/Ityop'p'ya, more simply). The spelling in Ge'ez (the native term being fidel/fīdel) is "መንግሥተ፡ኢትዮጵያ." The "colon" in between the two words is a word-spacer and is optional (it can be replaced by a simple space). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! :) Josh 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suri tribe

On [7] the Suri tribe is described. On Wikipedia there is nothing mentioned about them. Maybe someone would like to start an article on this subject? Wiki-uk 12:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We have one: Surma people. 70.16.251.230 13:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different emphasis of historical events and developments

Today I reverted the deletion of the drought of the early 1970ies. Some hours later it was again deleted. Some paragraphs below the 400 victims of police brutality are mentioned. Now I wonder why 200 000 victims of a drought in Wollo during Haile Selassieʼs time are not worth mentioned while some hundred victims of the present regime who died in the capital are.

I also think that the period beginning from the middle-ages until the reign of Haile Selassie is not represented adequately enough in comparison to the DERG period and the present regime. And, concerning way of presenting the historical developments, the focus on the contact with Europe is, in my view, too overemphasized. The last thoughts, I would like to propose as a kind of suggestions. Driss 18:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that the entire history section has been glossed over. Many of the events are alluded to rather than presented - that is to say, they pop out of nowhere without context. The article doesn't necessarily need a longer summary, but rather a more cohesive one. Can someone bring in some info from the full History of Ethiopia article? Phaethon 0130 06:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag turned into a cow picture

corrected today to Modern Ethiopian Flag 152.16.232.59 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality, accuracy

The two webpages linked to under the "Government" heading towards the end are so single mindedly pro-regime in every respect that they can be seen as being part of a larger government propaganda effort. For any rational balance, links to opposition webpages such as Ethiomedia.Com are necessary so a broader sample of opinion is presented. Alternatively, webpages with political content may be moved to the Wikipedia entry for Media in Ethiopia found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_in_Ethiopia

Overall the entry for Ethiopia is riven with error and unsubstantiated conjecture. For example, the entry on Haile Selassie makes several incorrect statements ranging from claims about money in Swiss accounts to equally incorrect statements about land ownership in Ethiopian history. There are numerous basic errors about geography, history, politics, demographics, and every other category. The whole article is in dire need of editing and fact checking to the point that it brings the very model of Wiki Web pages into disrepute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.184.103 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the list of government websites is supposed to list those run by the government - so I'd expect them to be fairly pro-regime. ;-) However I'm not sure why those two in particular are included. Actually, Walta makes sense but there should be some link to a government website, not a forum, whether the gov't runs it or not. As for the other inaccuracies, feel free to correct them, but make sure to cite reliable sources so as to improve upon the existing text. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is very confusing

Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized, since the Liberian state, though continuously independent, was founded by African-American colonists, and since a five-year military occupation of Ethiopia during WWII by fascist Italy (1936-1941) was a failure.[1]

Take out the ref to liberian state it is awkward, you can add a footnote which explains this, why mess up the content to explain away liberia which never existed until it was created. It has no history in antiquity to begin with.--RastaRule 09:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

A small detail: In the section "name reporting an hypothesis for the etymology of the name Ethiopia it is written ...to mean the land is amazingly beautiful and good, which is still true. Although I'm sure that everybody who visited this country would agree about the remark which is still true, I think that it would fit better in a travel guide rather than in an encyclopaedia. This is the reason why I erased it.

[edit] History/Edit

Ethiopia cannot claim to be oldest nation in the world because that would indicate that Axum/Damot and other Kingdoms are the same as the modern state of Ethiopia. I also object to the redirecting of the term "Abyssinia" to the Ethiopia article but the paragraph explaining in the Ethiopia article explaining Abyssinia's etymology explaining the issue partly. So I have not touched it, but I still think it needs to be clarified more how Abyssinia proper (sometimes referred to in royal titles as "Kingdom of Zion") or "historical Ethiopia", EXPANDED, exerted influence on and conquered surrounding nations to become modern Ethiopia today. It is also not the second oldest christian state, it is infact not a christian state at all, but secular. The part about Italian occupation is too argumentative and confusing. Better to say one thing in an encyclopedia article than explain all three of your motives why you did not say something else. I agree that occupation not colonization is the correct term, but failing to mention the huge impact of such a brief occupation both good and bad (construction of most of Ethiopia's modern infrastructure vs. mustard gas) on Ethiopia is intellectually dishonest. Ethiopians do not only say "chow" (ciao) but they also say mercato, mekina (macchina), piasa (piazza) etc and if it weren't for Mussolini's troops, there would be very few roads in Ethiopia. But there would also be generations of fortunate people who were not violated, massacred or severely injured by the brutality of foreign invaders. They would fare better getting the same or worse treatment from their own government instead indeed. Leaving such a gaping hole of history out of mention is professional revisionism. I have provided some information to correct that error.

This is not all that fails to be mentioned. I have added sourced information about the war-driven expansion of historical Ethiopia Abyssinia which would be absurd to omit seeing as how this was fundamental to the creation of the modern Ethiopian state, how Addis Ababa became it's capital and how Amharic, spoken by merely a third of Ethiopians, came to be the official language for a vast amount of people to whom it is a foreign/second language. Failing to explain these crucial facts leaves out a huge part of Ethiopian history and presents a gross distortion of history as a whole. I have provided some sourced information to correct that error. A sentence describes that Ethiopia only became landlocked as of Eritrea's recent independence, implying that Ethiopia had always occupied a seacoast, which is factually wrong and ignores not only only the long colonial period and centuries of Ottoman (Islamic) domination of the coastal areas, but is contradicted by a following sentence in the same article describing Ethiopia as an "isolated mountain empire". I omitted that sentence. Of course, the incorporation of Eritrea in the 1950s into an Ethiopian federation was unsurprisingly left out, as was Emperor Haile Selassie's decision to abbrogate even that and make the state a mere province sparking the greatest single impact on the Ethiopian economy and security to date: war with Eritrean seccesionists, later carried over to a border conflict with Eritrea. I have corrected that with sourced information. Similarly the involvement of ethnic Somali's in the Ogaden war and it's motives were carefully left out, which I have also corrected.

Finally in the section concerning the Derg era, a paragaph is incoherently added to a place where it doesn't belong implying that Mengistu was exiled in Zimbabwe during and before the Red Terror... This for once I think was an honest mistake and have corrected it as well.

Hopefully these edits will help make the Ethiopia read more like an encyclopedia article and less like a government sponsored, nationalist propoganda driven tourist broschure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeragito (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This was at the top of the page. I've moved it.-Chaser - T 06:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

---Axum was a precursor of Damot and modern day Ethiopia is the descendant of these civilizations. How? The force these dynasties(and others in between) exerted and the territories they controlled were all governed from what is today northern Ethiopia. The core remained the same over thousands of years but the periphery changed, much like the Roman Empire during different Eras. Not only did the Ethiopian core remain intact (excepted by the Era of the Princes), language and cultures were fluidly transferred from one dynasty to another. I think you are confusing dynasties with separate entities. Dynasties use the same people and culture as their support base in order to form a ruling core that governs the entire kingdom. Your definition of Axum, Damot and current day Ethiopia as separate entities disregards cultural, linguistic and religion facts and assumes that their support bases were separate.

Although not a Christian state currently, it is the oldest christian kingdom from the time it accepted the religion to the time the monarchy was abolished (and yes including the time of scramble for Africa). Labeling it secular is erasing 1700 years of history.

As for the Italian occupation, the impact might be noticeable but without it Ethiopia would still have achieved economically what it has now without delay. Italy was not the only economical "savior" of Ethiopia. As for the Italian lingo, whenever anything new is introduced into a culture, that new thing is given the name of its providers, machina, merkato etc. Without the Italians, we still would have had those things from the US and other nations and we probably would call them Car, market etc.

Regarding the Red Sea coast, the claim Ethiopia has over that stems from its own awareness as a nation with a rarely paralleled history as a single entity made up of multiple groups. All groups that sought to hold the Imperial power through out Ethiopia's history (regardless of their ethnicity) tried so not to secede but to govern the entire empire. The coast was under Ethiopia (Damot and Axumite past) before and its claim still exists due to this intact and long spanning historical awareness, which I can't say for most other nations. Therefore, you cannot apply the frame of mind derived from a colony/colonized mentality to the situation of Ethiopia (Damot, Axum, Zagwe, Abyssinia, modern day Ethiopia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.17.217 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized ...

I cant follow this huge sentence at all: "Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized, since the Liberian state, though continuously independent, was founded by African-American colonists, and since a five-year military occupation of Ethiopia during WWII by fascist Italy (1936-1941) was a failure." It is trying to say Ethiopia has never been colonized, but somehow it is saying that it was colonized before Liberia, or after Liberia. I havent a clue. I am going to change it and remove the reference to Liberia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that I am not the only one to not understand it. See above. The change was reverted and I have changed it back to my wording. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If I recall my high school history, Ethiopia (previously Abyssinia) was colonized several times. The Pharaohs of Egypt used it as a colony for a supply of slaves and mineral ores. Napoleon's France invaded it (along with Egypt). Italy occupied and rules it as a colony in the 1930s-1940s. Perhaps a correct statement might be something like "Ethiopia was not colonized by Europeans in the same way that most of Africa was colonized." Don't take my word for it though; that would be original research. Truthanado 15:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of this is too hard to understand?
"Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized, since the Liberian state, though continuously independent, was founded by African-American colonists, and since a five-year military occupation of Ethiopia during WWII by fascist Italy (1936-1941) was a failure."
These are all 100% factual statements. Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized. Fact. It then explains why it can claim to be the only one, since Liberia, another African country, was founded by American colonists. Also, the other user's claims that Ethiopia was a colony of Egyptian Pharoahs and / or Napoleon are pure uncited Original research / nonsense. Ethiopia is the only African country that has NEVER been colonized. Til Eulenspiegel 18:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As per the person before me, we don't understand what Liberia has to do with the colonization of Ethiopia. The huge sentence makes no sense to me, or the person who commented a few discussions above me. Your connecting the colonization of Ethiopia to Liberia in some way that has me and at least one other person confused. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have a reading comprehension difficulty, or else are trolling for insults. I'll say it again: ETHIOPIA HAS NEVER BEEN COLONIZED. Til Eulenspiegel 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Shouting doesn't make a run-on, incomprehensible sentence, any more comprehensible. I have reworded it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm baffled myself as to what the sentence means. If "Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized." is a statement that can be supported, leave it at that and cut out the extraneous statements. if the other statements need to be there, split them into separate sentences, each with sources. Until there are sources to back up the "Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized.", it's original research itself. It must be backed up with a reliable source. Shouting in ALL CAPS does not make it so. Alansohn 18:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If Ethiopia has never been a colony, can someone explain why a Google search of "ethiopia colony" gives 759,000 hits? Several of the Google referenced links make statements like "Italy lost its Ethiopia colony in Africa at 1896 Battle of Adua" which implies that Ethiopia was once a colony. Truthanado 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

--Liberia claims (for its own glory) that it is the only African nation never to have been colonized when in fact it was established as a colony and treaties were made by the higher powers to leave it alone afterwards. Ethiopia, as a civilized entity with longstanding history was able to negotiate on the same field with those same higher powers and avoided colonization. Adding to that, it proved its sovereignty when it humiliated Italy at the battle of Adwa. Eulenspiegel's point is that by setting these two countries in comparison, some light will be shed on Liberia's claims and Ethiopia's proven claims. --Truthanado, I checked the same search engine with the same key words. There were about 800,000 results but only one website mentioned "Italy lost its Ethiopia colony in Africa at 1896 Battle of Adua". That was wrong. First of all Ethiopia decisively defeated Italy at the Battle of Adua, 1896. After that, Italy was forced to sign the Treaty of Addis Ababa recognizing the absolute independence of Ethiopia. Sandiego.edu, the website has made a careless and crappy mistake. Ethiopia was not a colony. The Ethiopian colony your website mentions is the one after the invasion by mussolini. Still, 5 years of occupation of a few cities doesn't imply "colonization" when the war was not over and when Ethiopia still remained sovereign.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.17.217 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 November 2007


In the history of the world most contries are occupied. Somalia was occupied by Ethiopia. Parts of Korea are occupied by USA. 5 year occupation of a few cities hardly breaks the soverignity of a nation in the context.But 2 b honest we know why people want to TAKE AWAY from ET land the nobility and the honor, this is what is about, Oh we raped your precious Ethiopia. Sorry had to get that in.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags by User:zeragito

[edit] Intro

I am reapplying POV-tag to the intro because a) although the information there cites references and sources, it also omits with great detail and precision other information including citations, refences and sources, which put Ethiopia into a less radiantly positive light. The wording of certain sentences (as stated below) are also misleading. This is not the job of an encyclopedia article, but a tourist broschure or government propoganda, so therefore I am also reapplying the "advert" tag and "lack of info" tag. When the sourced information which was removed is reincorporated into the article or at least some form of motivation is offered for the blatant omission of highly relevant information of great importance, then the article would merit a better, less controversial status. I have not even mentioned the almost gaping omission of mention of famine in Ethiopia for which the country is known and aided for worldwide. Why do some versions of "truth" carry higher precedence over others on wikipedia? Isn't this against the spirit of the site itself? zeragito 23:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. As I can see, others have also noted the assertion of Ethiopia being one of the oldest nations in the world implies it was one continuous state since ancient times which is highly disputed, most specifically by those Ethiopians of today who do not share this "Biblical" history and were incorporated into modern Ethiopia in much more recent times. Perhaps it should be clarified with a sentence or two the vast difference between modern Ethiopia and historical ancient Ethiopia at least in geographical and cultural terms, explaining further in the following "History" sections just how this evolution progressed. The "Name" section attempts to clarify this issue a little but gets bogged down in etymology without explaining in clearer terms how the name "Ethiopia" was adopted by the Axumite State (presumably from the Bible) during its christian centuries and also fails to mention that other African, ancient christian Kingdoms (such as Nubia) did the same and were referred to by external sources as such, making due note that there could be a confusion (which actually helps honestly clarify the issue)..

I have added some modifications, all sourced which hopefully clear up the matter, because stating ancient Ethiopia is the same as modern Ethiopia is kinda like stating the Roman Empire is the same as Italy...

zeragito 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

These modifications, which included sourced information were removed without motivation. Why?

2. I would also like to note the sentence that Ethiopia became landlocked with the independence of Eritrea implies that it was a maritime nation for a long time before that. This is a little misleading because Ethiopia was only briefly in posession of a seacoast (due to its forcefull occupation of Eritrea) and prior to that was a landlocked state surrounded by colonial powers including the Ottomans for centuries. A sentence in the intro also asserts that Ethiopia historically was an "isolated mountain empire" making the sentence ("Eritrea's independence made Ethiopia landlocked") if not inaccurate at least a little contradicting...

The modification I added is hopefully not too controversial but for the most ardent nationalists...It does not contradict what was allready stated a few paragraphs below after all "relatively isolated mountain empire...".

zeragito 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

These modification including sources were removed without motivation, why?

3. Others have also mentioned, the assertion that Ethiopia is an officially christian nation (let alone the second oldest) would constitute a factual inaccuracy as the Ethiopian Constitution does not provide for that. A mention of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church being one of the oldest churches in the world would be less disputed, including its status as state religion up until the abolition of monarchy in 1974. Having said this, it would be also more balanced to also note the early introduction of Islam into Ethiopia (the fact that the Qur'an itself stipulates that some of the prophet's first followers fled to Abyssinia from persecution in Arabia during the very first days of the religion and were welcomed by the christian King, leading to verses in the Qur'an prohibiting muslims from violating Abyssinia's christians or something like that and the first prayer announcer being an Ethiopian slave named Bilal mentioned as an example in the Qur'an of how how all muslims should respect all muslims even if they were Ethiopian slaves etc.), as well as making note of the other indigenous religions of Ethiopia.

I hope the addition about islam helps create a little more balanced picture of Ethiopia and its total population. I added very little about indigenous religions, specifically about Waqaa which some Oromos practise (some synchretically with christianity or islam)

for lack of time. Hopefully someone can add that, but remember to be brief in the intro and specify more in the related sections below... zeragito 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, this information including sources was removed without any motivation, why?

zeragito 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early History

I think I allready specified what is missing regarding Ethiopia's (Axum's) loss of its prominence on the Red Sea to islamic powers, the migration of Beja's into the northern reaches of the Empire (Eritrea) as well as Axumite expansions into the hinterland. What is also missing is perhaps a more in-depth explanation of the Agew cushitic ethnic origin (non-Solomonid, non-Semitic) origins of the Zagwe dynasty and how this came to be the reason for the end of their rule in favor of an Amhara ("restoration of Solomonid" Semitic dynasty) ascendancy to the throne in 1270 under Yekuno-Amlak.

[edit] Restored contact with Europe

The title in itself is funny, because a) there is not much mention of contact with Europe in the preceding text and b) it implies as if this were pivotal to Ethiopia, coupled with almost no mention of contact with fellow African nation more closeby makes for a strange connotation. In other wikipedia articles however (as Gyrofrog noted), Abyssinia's expansion into the hinterland and the history/identity of these conquered/incorporated nations is better explained. The Oromo "Yejju" dynasty is mentioned out of the blue (a red link) without explaining where they came from and who they were, no mention of intermarriages with "other" royal houses and courts of "other" (previously non-Ethiopian...oops) states etc. There is some room for elaboration there, since these peoples now make up the majority of Ethiopia's population. This could be done perhaps at the expense of the details on every European personality who graced Ethiopia with their eminent presence. zeragito 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escaping the Scramble for Africa

As I have indicated, no mention is made of the immense expansion of Ethiopia in this time, with the foundation and renaming of Ethiopia's conquered capital from its original Finfinne/Shaggar to Addis Ababa ("New" Flower) as an emblematic detail. No mention of the colonial treaties struck between the two powers of Ethiopia and Britain among others of territorial posessions and aquisitions. Also, a major detail on the great industry and institution of slavery which entailed the Ethiopian expansion is left out, a detail which hindered Ethiopia's entrance into the League of Nations and was abolished only with outside pressures under the rule of Haile Selassie I, and then only formally. The ban was more strictly enforced (ironically) during the Italian fascist occupation and later during the communist regime. Another important factor left out is that modern Ethiopia's infrastructure at large (roads most importantly) was built by the fascist Italian occupation troops. zeragito 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selassie Years

I think the title says it all. It's quite a lot to leave out how Ethiopia for the first time gained access to the sea in the form of a federation wit Eritrea and campaigned hotly for it with fellow colonial powers, how this was abbrogated and led to the 30 year civil war with Eritrea. Somalia's irredentism over the largely ethnic Somali inhabted Ogaden region of Ethiopia (a result of Ethiopia's grand expansion under the previous monarch) began in the 1960s too and problems with both Eritrea and Somalia/Ogaden persist to this day among others. So leaving this out is a little 'strange'. zeragito 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communism

Again, the title says most of it. As for its incoherence, it appears in the text that Mengistu was in Zimbabwe during the communist years preceding and contemporary with the Red Terror. The placing of the paragraph should be after the Red Terror section...

[edit] Semtitic Speaking

The problem with refering to any of these specific groups as semetic speaking is that it ignores the fact that the semitic languages are all african in origin so it really provides us with no distinction. Ie. Both groups speak langauges in the same language family so it does no help to outline one over the other. Further I think it is misleading to write that the language is semetic because it makes the reader think of jews (which some are but not the ones we are talking about here)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Udom22 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your last objection is not sound according to academic conventions; these languages are virtually always referred to as the Semitic languages of Ethiopia, in most of the literature on the subject - regardless of what "the reader" may think. Perhaps you ought to look up some of the bibliography on the subject...? Til Eulenspiegel 05:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason why these languages are called Semitic languages is the fact that they are genetically related to the other Semitic languages in the Near East like Hebrew, Arabic, Akkadian etc., i.e. they have a common ancestor language. To avoid the use of Semitic one had to coin a new name for that language family. But afte almost two hundred years of research and production of scientific literature on Semitic languages that produce a lot of confusion. Driss 14:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small Scale Ethiopian Migration to United States and Europe (in the mid 1600s thru WWII )

Why was this small migration of peoples who voluntarily left Ethiopia as tradespeople, merchants, etc. not mentioned in the Ethiopia article? Perhaps it should have its own page. I mention this because I know of several Ethiopian families who moved to the USA and Europe in the 1700s. They can trace their Ethiopian heritage back to this movement and have taken DNA tests to prove their Ethiopian and HOA (Horn of Africa) heritage. You should also probably mentioned the "peaceful and missionary" Ethiopian interaction with the Native American peoples (in particular the people of the North Eastern and South Eastern area of the USA. Please include this in your article. If you need research, I would be more than happy to provide FACTS. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.54.82.70 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are able to cite reliable sources, then please feel free to add this information to Wikipedia yourself. I have heard the Abyssinian Baptist Church is part of this history, as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"Ethiopian" was a general term for "Black African" back then, the mentions are unrelated to the country. Take Ethiopian Serenaders, for example. 140.180.140.74 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier on I posted the peaceful interaction between Ethiopian and Native AMericans, when mentioning this, I actually meant ethnic Ethiopian (as in actually from Ethiopia, Christian Ethiopians with a rich Christian-Judaic based history !). I am trying to conduct a survey now, with people of Ethiopian ancestry (who have Ethiopian DNA tags). It may take longer than expected to find the very small handful of US citizens with actual Ethiopian-Native AMerican ancestry. But I have narrowed it down to 3 places where they settled. 1 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.38.121 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gratuitous Use of the Word 'ancient'

Though few countries can claim as old a documented history as Ethiopia, references to more recent events should not summarily fall into the category of 'ancient.' A sentence in section 13. Archaeology, reads:

"Recently, archeologists uncovered the ruins of the legendary ancient Islamic kingdom of Shoa, that included evidence of a large urban settlement as well as a large mosque."

Here the word 'ancient' is misused and consequently, misleading. Though many sites, events and personages predating Islam remain sacred in that religion, the city in the dig referred to in the above sentence is first referred to in an historical document that post-dates Muhammad by more than 300 years. The rise of Islam itself postdates the fall of the Roman Empire by more than half a millennium. The first historical reference to Shewa as a Muslim state, then, must postdate the rise of Islam as a religion, though the city itself might or might not predate the Islamic state in Ethiopia.

Therefore, whilst many archaeological finds in Ethiopia can be referred to as ancient, the use of the word together with the adjective "Islamic" is misleading. Islam itself is a modern, not an ancient religion, but the city at the dig site might very well predate the Roman Empire, the classical age and, in effect, modern times, and be fairly classified as 'ancient.' The more correct use of this adjective will render superfluous embellishments such as "very ancient" (in the Early History section) unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaky beaky (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Is there a specific problem with the "Recent" subsection in the "History" section? It has an "NPOV" tag but there is no mention of it here on the talk page (User:Zeragito left a lot of comments about the NPOV tags he left in other sections, but he doesn't mention this section, and I don't know if he's the one who tagged it). A quick glance at the article's edit history didn't give me any clues, either. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been two weeks and there have been no objections, so I've removed the tag from the sub-section. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't really see the POV in that subsection. --Strothra 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro POV

The statement, "Ethiopia was not colonized during the Scramble for Africa after defeating Italy at the Battle of Adwa. However it was occupied by Mussolini's Italy from 1935 to 1941. Having converted during the fourth century AD, it is also the second-oldest country to become officially Christian, after Armenia,[5] although it has been secular since 1974. [6]" is POV. It's emphasizes Ethiopian military victories without even addressing military losses, notably the loss of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, nor does it mention Italian East Africa which was an important part of World War II history and Ethiopia's role in that period. It seems there is an attempt to black out part of the country's history. The same POV is clear toward the end of the article where it states, "The independence of Ethiopia was interrupted only by the brief Italian occupation (1936–1941).[32] In those five years Ethiopia was the center of the "Africa Orientale Italiana", as were called the Italian East Africa colonial possessions in the Horn of Africa. Modern Ethiopia's infrastructure at large (roads most importantly) was built by the fascist Italian occupation troops (not by corvee) between 1937 and 1940." --Strothra 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is highly contentious and POV to assert that Ethiopia lost and became a colony, since the Ethiopian POV is that it did not and that attempts at colonization were unsuccessful. OTOH there is no POV dispute that Ethiopia won at Adwa. Therefore the consensus wording that has been worked out is the most neutral. The other articles are linked and do not belong in the intro. Til Eulenspiegel 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What is POV is that there is a focus on Ethiopian military victory but no mention of Ethiopian military failure. It's POV to construct an imbalanced intro when the Italo-Abyssinian War was a major event in 20th century Ethiopian history including the fact that Ethiopia was forced into Italian East Africa and the use of chemical weapons during the war. --Strothra 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again your own POV is perfectly obvious, but we have to be neutral. The Ethiopian view is that Italian attempts were a dismal failure, you also risk stirring up some very strong emotions unnecessarily by claiming as fact your POV that Ethiopia ever willingly submitted, so what is your game here? Til Eulenspiegel 16:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
er, my POV? You know nothing about me. I never stated that Ethiopia ever "willingly submitted" to anything. In fact, I stated, "Ethiopia was forced into Italian East Africa." Please do not put words in my mouth. What I have said, is that the Italo-Abyssinian War is an important part of Ethiopia's 20th century history yet it is almost completely ignored in the article. I do not, in any respect, consider the war to be a positive thing, however I do object to the white-washing of history that seems to be taking place in this article. It seems to actually be doing Mussolini a favor - Both Italy and Ethiopia seem to want to forget the war even occurred. --Strothra 16:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well maybe it's doing Italy and Ethiopia both a favor to forget Mussolini, but I don't see how that would be doing him a favor! At any rate, I think there is enough mention in the consensus lede to keep it a neutral summary, we don't need to link to every article on the subject in the first paragraph. Later in the article there are better places to get into detail, where we might also place contemporary accounts of how the economy of Italian East Africa's resources was brought to a complete standstill by the patriotic resistance. Til Eulenspiegel 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's doing Italy and Mussolini a favor by ignoring the atrocities committed by Italy in that war - including the use of chemical weapons (which were made illegal after the first world war) as well as the subjugation of Ethiopia into an Italian pseudo-empire, essentially ignoring the memory of the war's victims in the process. The lead doesn't include any mentioning of the war which, again, is a critical part of 20th century Ethiopian history which should be mentioned in the lead and then expanded upon later in the article. --Strothra 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you are revealing your own POV - first, you consider Mussolini's interests to be one with those of Italy? LOL How illuminating. Your view of who lost the war (which I see you have now erased) is a product of your POV, we cannot cater to your POV but have to keep our edits neutral, per WP:NPOV. That is exactly why the editors of this article have left a carefully worded comment about changes to the consensus introductory summary. Thank you for trying to upset the balance. Til Eulenspiegel 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
um, are you arguing the line of the Ethiopian government? Yes, they lost the war - that much was clear from scholarly accounts, but due to the use of chemical weapons by Italy. To downplay the war is ignoring the victims of the war and the atrocities committed by Italy. You clearly want tow an official, non-scholarly, line. You won't find scholars saying that Ethiopia won the war. I'm not saying that Ethiopia didn't resist even while under occupation - all occupied societies resist their occupiers. What I'm saying is that you can't cover up or downplay history without ignoring important events and actors - in this case, the Ethiopian people who were killed by mustard gas. Your point here seems to be to emphasize military victories and downplay any sign of military weakness. My point here seems to be more to reclaim the memory of the people with no regard to military interests. --Strothra 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I am arguing the line of NPOV. Everything you have said is your own POV, and stuff the authors who agree with your POV, don't claim your POV is NPOV, keep the lede neutral and keep the POVs out of it as per the hashed out consensus and the warning note, thank you. Til Eulenspiegel 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The lead is not neutral so long as it makes no mention of the war - it is a critical moment in Ethiopia's modern history and its role in the second world war. --Strothra 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am Ethiopian and I am very curious as to how you decided the second Italo-Abyssinian war to be a critical moment in Ethiopia's modern history that is worth detailing in the lead. Military victories and not human suffering are what define history (look anywhere in the world and you will see each country's history written that way)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.17.217 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 23 November 2007
The current consensus wording is: "However it was occupied by Mussolini's Italy from 1935 to 1941." That's about all that can be stated neutrally, taking all significant POVs into account. I have run into you before trying to exalt the supposed triumphs of fascist Italy over Ethiopia on other articles, haven't I? Your wording choice seems very calculated and sneaky to me. Rest assured, Ethiopians are proud of one thing, and that is the fact that they were never successfully colonized, including Il Duce's pathetic attempts!!! 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Til Eulenspiegel (talk • contribs)
Strotha, what exactly do you mean by the word "colonization"? If we compare the effect Italy had on Ethiopia to her effect on, say Eritrea and Somalia, Italy left a very light imprint on the first country. Admittedly, attempts to resettle expatriates in all three countries failed, especially in Ethiopia, so I don't think you mean that sense of the word. if you could explain what you mean by that word, we might come to some agreement here -- instead of both sides getting frustrated. -- llywrch 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure at all how that sentence is POV. You refer to it talking too much about Ethiopia's victories and too few of its defeats, but in that sentence, according to you, doesn't it talk about exactly one victory and one defeat? Both deserved to be mentioned, but certainly the victory at Adwa was the more important of the two, the stakes there being 60+ years of colonization, while the other event was 5 years of occupation. BTW, your characterization that no historian states that Ethiopia won the war is incorrect. Keep in mind, that in Ethiopia, WWII began in 1935 and ended in 1941, which was recognized by the Paris Conference.
In this situation the Paris Conference found no difficulty in accepting the Council of Ministers' provision that World War II had started, for Ethiopia, on 3 October 1935. Article 38 of the final treaty, adopted at the conference's closing session, on 15 October, thus stated:
"The date from which the provisions of the present Treaty shall become applicable as regards all measures and acts of any kind whatsoever entailing the responsibility of Italy or Italian nationals towards Ethiopia, shall be held to be October 3rd,1935.
(Richard Pankhurst, "Italian Fascist War Crimes in Ethiopia: A History of Their Discussion, from the League of Nations to the United Nations (1936-1949)" in Northeast African Studies 6.1-2 (1999). p. 116).
On that basis, some historians and many Ethiopians can say that Ethiopia eventually won the war, since Italian occupation was far from complete (the patriots controlled a lot of territories), and in the end, Ethiopia was the victor, similar to the Ethiopian-Adal War. Regardless, there can be little POV to be said in that sentence wrt the opening section. I agree, though, that there is not enough about the period in either the history section or the History of Ethiopia page. But there are plenty of other sections that have unwarranted focus or lack thereof, so instead of complaining, try to fix it. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV edit warring

Ethiopia has as much right call itself a democracy as any other "democracy" in the world. If there are POVs that dispute that it really is a democracy or whatever, then this has to be explained in a way that does not assume these POVs are correct and the Ethiopian gov't POV is wrong. In other words, it has to be explained neutrally between all the SIGNIFICANT POVs, and the Ethiopian government certainly has a significant POV that is quite relevant to this article. I would have no problem with a sentence in the appropriate section (probably "Politics") that explains exactly who holds what opinion, and why. For example, "[Source x, source y and source z] consider Ethiopia's democracy to be only nominal, because of [a, b, and c]". But, whenever someone "assumes" that a POV "just is" the "underlying truth", by taking advantage of things like categories and info-tables that aren't set up for explaining when there are diverse POVs, it creates a big problem. If you quote a POV source, it is still a POV so you have to be very careful to say "[XYZ] thinks so-and-so is such and such [1]" instead of writing "So-and-so is such and such [1]". Note that I myself am strictly neutral, and am neither pro- or anti- Ethiopian government, but I do know when someone is pushing a POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy

I have added an objective measure: "According to The Economist in their Democracy Index, Ethiopia is a "hybrid regime", with a dominant-party system led by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. It ranks 106 out of 167 countries, with the larger number being less democratic. Cambodia ranks as more democratic, and Burundi as less democratic than Ethiopia." Every country except Thailand and the Oil Emerites call themselves democracies, they are kingdoms. However you can rank a country based on how much democratic behavior is permitted, compared to other countries. Even the United States isn't in the top ten, since individuals get to vote directly on fewer issues that in Sweden and in Switzerland. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you wrote "According to..." correctly following the NPOV formula, so I won't rv, but I still think these kinds of POV would be better suited to the politics section, than the info table. I have no doubt there are also plenty of other POVs that these western "think tanks" that presume to pass condescending judgement on the rest of the world, are solid hog-wash. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears to me that you have the unsupported point of view that you are trying to put forth. Everyone has national pride, but all countries can be ranked, on dozens of criteria. If you can find evidence that The Economist is "hog-wash", add it to the article on the magazine, otherwise its just one more personal opinion. On their list, the United States is number 17, since individuals get to vote directly on fewer issues that in Sweden and in Switzerland. I think if it was western-biased, the US would rank higher. The US ranks very low on the Economist Peace Index also. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested enough to add anything to the Economist article. But presumably the aim of wikipedia wouldn't be to find "evidence that it is hogwash", but rather evidence of who might consider it hogwash. I haven't even said what my own POV is btw, I rarely ever do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Judiciary

"..the courts...are insufficiently independent..." (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=4738690264) --Merhawie (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence under "Exports" makes no sense

"With the private sector growing slowly, designer leather products like bags are becoming a big export business making them the first luxury designer label in the country. [54]"

Making "who(m)" or "what" the "first luxury designer label in the country"? This sentence manages to shift the object of the modifier "making" from "bags" to an unnamed design firm or label. I'm confused--are leather bags the first luxury item to be exported from Ethiopia, or is it a specific label (e.g., Louis Vuitton)? Anyone?Kinkyturnip (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable POV pushing

A new user has just gone to 3RR to insert the following addition to contradict the previous consensus battles that have been fought, using POV and blatantly anti-Ethiopian hate-mongering sources and having the gall to call them "neutral" and "academically accepted". I am disputing this until some sanuty can be restored to this article.

"Ethiopia was not colonized during the Scramble for Africa, because modern Ethiopia did not exist yet.[11] It was still forming and being, sometimes brutally, brought under Abyssinian hegemonic control.[12] Defeating Italy at the Battle of Adwa has popularly been seen as the reason Ethiopia was not colonized, especially by nationalist historians; however, there is much academic debate on the issue.[13] It was brutally occupied by Mussolini's Italy from 1935 to 1941."

Need I say more? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


The new addition appears to be properly cited. The author of the of one of those books appears to be Ethiopian himself, which makes it quite odd to call the source "anti-Ethiopian" and "hate-mongering". The agenda appears to be yours, not the newest editor. modestmelody (talk) 23 February 2008

No, the edit is accepting a non neutral POV source to endorse controversial claims, this is not adhering to NPOV. HIM Haile Selassie I in His Autobiography mentions all the scholars of Europe telling him that they knew his country was 3000 years old, and many references could be found to the Emperor of Ethiopia maintaining that Ethiopia has existed for 3000 years. Accepting these bullshit lies that Ethiopia did not exist during the Scramble for Africa is just plain offensive. There are most certainly other POVs that could be referenced just as well, so we are obviously going to have to has out a new compromise for the intro that is acceptable to all of the longstanding editors here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So academics are non-neutral but the Emperor of the country is neutral? I cited two books, and one is BY an Ethiopian scholar -- actually two working in tandem. These books are widely accepted in academic circles and have extensive research behind them. I study this at the University of Edinburgh. I agree with modestmelody, the agenda appears to be yours. However, I am glad to discuss this and work out a new intro that is acceptable to all and which takes into account this more modern, less nationalist historical approach. --Cigrainger (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Any academic who seriously pretends "Ethiopia did not exist during the scramble for Africa" is deluded, and a tiny minority that should not be given undue weight among the many serious scholars of Ethiopia who can certainly be quoted as saying otherwise. As His Majesty said, anyone who researches it even a little, can quite easily convince himself of Ethiopia's antiquity. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to read The Invention of Ethiopia by Holcomb and Ibssa, "State Transformation and Social Reconstruction in Ethiopia: The Allure of the South" by McClellan in IJAHS 17:4 (1984), The Southern Marches of Imperial Ethiopia: Essays in History and Social Anthropology edited by Donham and James, "Imperialism and Expansionism in Ethiopia from 1865 to 1900" by Marcus in Colonialism in Africa, Vol. 1, The Making of Modern Ethiopia by Tibebu, and Jalata's Oromia and Ethiopia: State Formation and Ethnonational Conflict. Those are just off the top of my head. Now which sources do you have except "His Majesty"? --Cigrainger (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed "critics" to "historians" (because that is what they are -- academically respected historians at that, and you seem to lack to academic credentials to say otherwise) and cleared up the views that they hold, which you portrayed inaccurately in order to push your own point of view. If you wish for others to discuss changes on here before making them, please do the same. --Cigrainger (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Separately, tell me if this is acceptable to you or if we should make a shorter, less decisive sentence in the top and move this historical debate to the history section of the article where it belongs?

While members of the various Ethiopian governments[3] [4] and numerous authors[5] have often traced modern Ethiopia's independence and sovereignty through over 3000 years (or at a minimum, 2500 years [6]) of unbroken continuity, to the establishment of the Empire of Aksum by Menelik I, some modern historians have charged that the state of modern Ethiopia did not exist until during the Scramble for Africa. This confusion and debate arises from the geographical makeup of the modern state following reunion and imperialism after the Zemene Mesafint. Much of Southern Ethiopia, especially the Oromo region, was largely Muslim and independent at the time. While the actions of Emperors Tewodros through Menelik II were seen as reuniting the ancient empire, much of the south did not fall into that category and several of the regions were captured and colonized in an attempt to bolster the economic output and geographical size of the empire.[7][8][9] Defeating Italy at the Battle of Adwa has popularly been seen as the reason Ethiopia was not colonized; however, there is much academic debate on the issue.[10][11] It was brutally occupied by Mussolini's Italy from 1935 to 1941. --Cigrainger (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs more NPOV work, since it displays a discernible POV in some of the wording, but what you have currently written in the article says "some modern historians have charged that the state of modern Ethiopia did not exist until during the Scramble for Africa, and that this makes it impossible for it to have been colonized." Even a child can see the illogic in that position. It could not have been colonised because it did not exist? This is the reason it escaped the Scramble for Africa? Just look at what the European colonists did everywhere else in Africa that they found a power vacuum, or a weak power structure. The reason Ethiopia alone escaped is precisely because it was the one place the greedy European powers could not extend their domination no matter how they tried. This is amply borne out by all the reliable sources and records; and these critical historians who even try to pretend Europeans only refrained from overrunning Ethiopia because there was nothing there to bother overrunning, are only repeating the exact same ridiculous sour-grapes line we have been hearing since 1895 from Italian and fascist propaganda sources; I still strongly feel taking these kind of sources (no matter where they originate) seriously is POV, offensive, and undue weight. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is largely inaccurate, but I agree the wording is clumsy and should be changed. Too much emphasis is placed on military power by nationalists. Part of the problem here is that you assume that the European policy was the same in all of Africa. It was not. Neither England nor France were willing to occupy Ethiopia, as evident in the immediate withdrawal of British forces after Tewodros II's suicide. It was, in fact, TOO geopolitically important to risk the war that would be triggered by an attempt from either one of them to assert control. This is why Italy was encouraged, mostly by the British, to seek colonization there. The British were seeking to protect the base of the Nile without overt conflict with France. Most modern historians recognize that Ethiopia's military prowess was not as great as is regularly touted. There are far more factors involved than a "powerful" indigenous empire and a simple characterization of greedy Europeans seeking to grab everything they could.
We have two points of contention here, which I think need some clarification.
One: I'm not trying to say Ethiopia isn't an ancient empire. It is. What I am saying is that it did not exist IN ITS MODERN FORM until the unification under Tewodros II and Menelik II. This is particularly true of the South, especially the Oromo and Somali areas, which were subjugated by the "Abyssinian" sprawl for economic and geographical gain along with Orthodox Christian hegemonic control. I'm not saying there was nothing there to bother overrunning. What I am saying is that much of what is considered modern Ethiopia today was not considered Ethiopia then, so it would be largely inaccurate to refer to the colonization of many parts of modern Ethiopia as colonizing Ethiopia then. I mean, would you say that the colonization of Somaliland was colonizing Ethiopia? No. But the Ethiopian emperors colonized Somali areas, which are included in the modern state and have led to modern conflict within Ethiopia.
Two: There is a far more complex group of factors keeping Ethiopia from being colonized during the Scramble for Africa. Its military might is just one, albeit an important one as evidenced at Adwa. It is a gross oversimplification to say that Adwa is THE reason that Ethiopia was not colonized, and is largely inaccurate.
Maybe my edits have been unclear in making those two points evident. I would like to believe you are not being childishly nationalistic to the detriment of factual accuracy. Hopefully we can work this out so that this Wikipedia article accurately represents the most up-to-date and modern explanations of Ethiopian history, regardless of nationalism. Its unique experience of the Scramble for Africa requires more than just a blurb, but obviously it must be simplified somehow. --Cigrainger (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


I'm happy with the latest edit. Thumbs up. --Cigrainger (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the "some modern historians part". I think we can all agree that Ethiopia did not exist in its current borders until expansion of the Empire around the time of the Scramble for Africa. Your clarification is enough without the "some modern historians" bit. --Cigrainger (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to write here that I was glad we had worked out a compromise we're both happy with; but that just totally tipped the balance again. Of course, since this is a disputed subject among the sources and there are multiple contradictory POVs in the sources, we have to attribute those sources wherever possible (per WP:NPOV), not endorse them without question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There are two diametrically opposed POVs. Either the Ethiopian state did exist, or it did not exist. We have no authority to try to artificially reconcile these viewpoints, and you have the article now endorsing the view that it did not, so I will have to restore the disputed tag for neutrality and factual accuracy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever then. You obviously have an agenda that you are going to push at all costs, and you obviously don't care if this article is factual or accurate. Trying to say modern Ethiopia existed prior to the reunion and expansion of the Empire is like saying modern Italy is the same as the Roman Empire or that modern Turkey is the same as the Ottoman Empire. Is modern Japan the same as the Tokugawa Shogunate? But do what you want. You obviously are trying to hide that the Oromo and Somali people were colonized and, in some cases, brutally suppressed by the expansionist Ethiopian Empire. I was just trying to help other people understand historical consensus on Ehtiopia's history. Your antics are why most academics scoff at Wikipedia. --Cigrainger (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this will help clarify matters or not, but check out this map excerpt (and/or its full version). Ostensibly, the map itself is from 1891, but the information therein would have to be a bit older than that - I'd guess roughly around the time of the Scramble for Africa. Note that Addis Ababa doesn't yet appear; its present location would be near "Gara Gorfu" in the lower center of the map. This would near the southern extreme of what the map calls "Abyssinia," but it is right in the center of modern Ethiopia. This says nothing about whether the pink- or green-shaded areas had been part of the Ethiopian state prior to the Scramble for Africa, but they did not appear to be at the time of this map. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Gyrofrog. That map illustrates my point quite well. --Cigrainger (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not dispute that Ethiopia expanded to roughly its present size during the Scramble for Africa. But declaring that the Ethiopian state did not exist, or was something else under different rulers, is unacceptable POV. Ethiopian records affirm that there was a long line of Emperors that had ruled continuously under the Fetha Negest as the "Supreme Law of the Land", without interruption, for centuries until it was replaced by a modernized Constitution in 1931. The empire was often called 'Aksum' in the early days, but this was only the name of its capital; carved inscriptions dating to the 300s AD show that Ethiopia was already the name they called their own country, and again, Ethiopian records state that the name Ethiopia is even older than this. Unfortunately, Ethiopia's own records are regularly scoffed at by the CIAgraingers of this world, possibly because they cannot read them, or brush them off as being produced by people of inferior intelligence to their own. Attempting to undermine and destabilise the unity of the Empire by trying everything to create disaffected groups and planting these kinds of lying sources to appeal to them, can be proved to be a longstanding tactic of foreign "agents" for over a century. We can describe this neutrally, but not engage in it neutrally. We had a version that we actually both agreed on, but when you removed the attributation of the POV (in violation of neutrality policy) and made it into a direct endorsement of your POV, your true agenda was revealed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you find any source that states "The Ethiopian State came into being on such-and-such a Calendar date" in the late 19th century??? Of course you cannot find any such calendar date, because it existed for centuries before then. But what really boggles the minds of the Cigraingers of this world is that an "inigenous" (ie non-European) Empire would dare to take part in the Scramble for Africa; and this comes out whenever they say the SPECK of Ethiopian actions were evil, but the BOARD of European actions during the Scramble were somehow benevolent. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You have some insecurity problems. The term indigenous was and is used to refer to an empire from within rather than from outside (ie European). It doesn't denote a POV, only differentiates the Ethiopian Empire from the European ones. This is essential in explaining Ethiopia's unique experience of the Scramble for Africa. Sure, it may have been called Ethiopia, but it existed only in the Abyssinian highlands. Why do you have such a hard time comprehending that what is the current state of Ethiopia was not traditionally within the Empire? Is it because you are choosing to ignore the violent imperialism of Ethiopian expansion? The state as it exists now did not exist then. There was not even a centralized capital until around the time of the Scramble for Africa (I am referring to Addis Ababa).
Also, how dare you claim to speak for me, and make the false claims you just did that insinuate racism or at the very least bigoted Eurocentrism? I never said anything about "evil" or "benevolent" actions. You clearly cannot even DISCUSS this without your nationalist non-neutral POV. I explained my use of the word indigenous already and it stands. Your ultranationalist approach is appalling, and you obviously do not have a neutral POV. You clearly have an agenda and don't care about the facts. You are not fit to have anything to do with this article because of your obvious emotional attachment. This is pointless and fruitless until you calm down and realize not everyone is out to get you. You obviously are not familiar with the academic literature on Ethiopian history. Nationalist histories are not enough. I'm sorry that you feel the need to continue to deny the violent subjugation of the Oromo and Somali people by the Abyssinian Orthodox hegemony. --Cigrainger (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, when you say "it existed only in the Abyssinian highlands", I agree with that and have no problem (except for the antiquated term "Abyssinian" that is like so old century) -- but to change that into "it never existed anywhere, at any time" is something else, clearly false and pushing it too far. In other words, if it existed in the "Abyssinian" highlands, then it existed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't what it became after the reunion and expansion though. It didn't have the same borders, governmental system, capital, et cetera. Again, this is like saying the Tokugawa Shogunate is the same as modern Japan. --Cigrainger (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure the borders and capital changed, the "governmental system" certainly did not, as it continued to be the Fetha Negest throughout this time until 1931. Just because a country changes its borders and capital does not make it a new country, and surely you can see how asserting it did not exist anywhere at all is POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No one said that. You made that up to try to discredit the things that I am saying in order to protect your nationalist nonsense. I said MODERN Ethiopia did not exist yet. And the governmental system did change. While sovereignty was still held in the person of the Emperor, there were different distributions of power in the form of minsters and the continuous centralization of power shifting from the princes to the Emperor. You should probably study political science before you try to make claims like that. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You really ought to read the Fetha Negest; then you might know what you are talking about. I have a copy in English and it is fantastic reading! It mentions all the functions of the state and the roles of various groups within it, king, nobles, bishops, subjects, courts, etc. detailing their respective rights and obligations, like any Supreme law should. This system was later MODERNISED by Haile Selassie I in the 20s and 30s, but continued intact until then. There are documents that show that Menelik tried to introduce the concept of Cabinet Ministers, but this hardly justifies your coming in here claiming this blatant POV nonsense that "modern Ethiopia could not be colonised, because it did not exist". If you ever went to Ethiopia and spewed that, youd better be prepared to get slapped. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between theory and practice. The Fetha Negest certainly held very little weight during the reunification and expansion periods. The ministerial system was actually created by Menelik II, but was expanded and given more power under Haile Selassie. You clearly have a poor grasp of the history. You have this idealized view of Ethiopian history that is just absolutely ridiculous and hypernationalist. I don't care if I'd "get slapped". I'm not here to appease nationalists. I'm here to try to provide accurate historical information. You clearly have an agenda. Please refrain from editing this article further due to your emotional attachment. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be a very new user here, but you are resorting to ad hominem arguments now that the facts have been shown not to support you. You have no right to ask me to leave this article, and attacking credentials of editors is seriously frowned upon by Wikipedia's founder who strongly believes that the same facts should be verifiable, regardless of who writes them, so it is usually not practised here. I don't know where Yom and other major longstanding authors of this article have been these past couple days (Yom seems to be offline lately), but I can guarantee that when they return, they will have more choice words for this view you are trying to foist. Will you ask them to leave too? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a blatant lie. The facts have been shown to support what I have said, not to mention that they represent the broad academic consensus. There is even a map posted above that supports what I said, and I have provided a LIST of respected academic sources that support what I have said. Your "longstanding" authorship does not make you an expert on Ethiopia or some kind of arbiter of knowledge. Time spent on Wikipedia cannot give you that. I'm sorry that you have a trumped up view of yourself due to time spent on a webpage. Go get a real education. Your claims are not justifiable and are clearly nationalist. Sorry if you perceive that as ad hominem. You just keep trying ANYTHING to push your idea. Now you're even lying to do so. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Gyrofrog can clarify, but I think he posted that map to back up my point that there was indeed an entity in the highlands as shown on that map, which you only acknowledged after he posted it. The name this entity called itself was certainly "Ethiopia" but like Thailand and Iran, it only requested the international community to switch to the native name in the 1930s. It did not suddenly change its name to "Modern Ethiopia" some time in the 1890s. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that you continually twist my words to try to discredit the historical reality and push your personal nationalist agenda, I repeat: Feel free to read The Invention of Ethiopia by Holcomb and Ibssa, "State Transformation and Social Reconstruction in Ethiopia: The Allure of the South" by McClellan in IJAHS 17:4 (1984), The Southern Marches of Imperial Ethiopia: Essays in History and Social Anthropology edited by Donham and James, "Imperialism and Expansionism in Ethiopia from 1865 to 1900" by Marcus in Colonialism in Africa, Vol. 1, The Making of Modern Ethiopia by Tibebu, and Jalata's Oromia and Ethiopia: State Formation and Ethnonational Conflict. Those are just off the top of my head. Now which sources do you have except "His Majesty"? --Cigrainger (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, actually, one of those sources as I added myself to the article, Teshale Tibebu, has a neat summary overview of the various opinions on p. xii, that is far more neutral than this article currently is. He notes that there are three timescales for Ethiopian history that are commonly encountered in literature: 1) Ethiopia's history is 3000 years old 2) It is 100 years old 3) (an even more extreme view) it is 40 years old. As he notes on the same page, and as Yom now has noted, "modern Ethiopian history" is conventionally taken by "some historians" as commencing with Tewodros in 1855, but the point you have been trying to make seems to be that there was some break or interruption allowing us to say "modern Ethiopia was not colonised in the Scramble because it didn't exist yet", which is indeed misleading. Is this not what you are arguing? Please correct me if you still feel I am misrepresenting your position. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am 100% happy with Yom's rewrite. He captures the points I was trying to make and hopefully his wording is to your liking as well. --Cigrainger (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, not 100% happy but I'll leave it up to one of you to edit it. It says it was occupied during WWII from 1936-41. World War II didn't start in Asia until 1937 with the second Sino-Japanese War and not until '39 in Europe with the German invasion of Poland. The wording in the intro could probably use some clarification or alteration. --Cigrainger (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you are happy with Yom's version because I am also. As for the claim of when WWII started for Ethiopia, at least he has cited this view and explained a little in the footnote, but that's really a much more minor issue. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely missed that and didn't know that little factoid. Good bit of information. Glad to hear you're happy with it as well. --Cigrainger (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size of Ethiopia through history

While it seems pretty clear from the records that Ethiopia did indeed expand to its present size during the 'Scramble', the history books in Amharic that I have read also state that the "Empire of Aksum" (native name: Ethiopia) was not always that small; that at various times c. 500 BC-500 AD, its dominions included not just the southern parts of Arabia, but everything east of the White Nile and as far south as Mozambique and even Madagascar. Western scholars may dismiss these claims out of hand, but if that is what history books in Amharic teach, it would be a significant view. I also remember seeing something in English that said Menelik II was of the understanding that his original eastern border before there ever was any Scramble was formed by the White Nile - but I will have to try to find a source for that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This fails NPOV, NOR, and it is clearly undue weight. You continue to try to force your ultranationalist viewpoint upon everyone else. You need to leave this article to the experts and non-nationalists who clearly have a more NPOV. --Cigrainger (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, so Ethiopians' own history books cannot be a significant POV and are thus all irrelevant. Seems to me we've been hearing this somewhere for a long while. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Here is one reliable source in English stating that Menelik in 1891 claimed his ancient border to extend to the White Nile; I have found plenty of others, including the Cambridge History of Ethiopia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Reliable source? LOL. Plus Menelik II is not unbiased and claims are not always accurate. At that time he was trying to assert geographical control with the Mehdi to his West anyway. No one is saying Ethiopians' own history is irrelevant. What I am saying is that if those claims were justifiable or commonly accepted not only would they be translated into English, but they would be included in every major work on early Ethiopian history. Or do you think modern Western scholars are anti-Ethiopian? Please. You keep quoting Emperors as if they are unbiased. Who do you think you are to claim NPOV infractions on anyone? Everything you put forward seems to be nationalistic to the point of propaganda. --Cigrainger (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You've got me wrong, I'm actually not saying one way or another that Ethiopia or Aksum ever really stretched from Yemen to the White Nile to Madagascar, at one time. I'm only pointing out that the POV is definitely there, and it is not OR, Undue weight, or POV to make mention of it, unless we declare that Amharic books are worthless, because English books are superior. I did find one expatriate Ethiopian author writing in English, who confirms that "in antiquity, Ethiopia's borders extended from Egypt to Madagascar"[8] is indeed what is taught back home, although he himself does not believe it, and argues against it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So because it is taught in some Ethiopian schools and is available in a few Amharic books, it warrants a mention as a legitimate point of view? If we mention every POV, the article will just turn into a ridiculous mess of competing POVs. You found ONE author. You obviously have no sense of academic credentials, peer review, legitimate research, or what the academic community broadly accepts. Again, your antics are the reason that academics scoff at Wikipedia. You can find a published opinion on ANYTHING. It's a matter of recognizing that many people are writing with an extreme agenda in mind, whether they realize it or not. You have to try to stick with the academic consensus or in the case of SERIOUS, LEGITIMATE debate, post one or two addition POVs. You're advocating posting your own personal point of view based on a few obscure books. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not. But you might want to re-read WP:NPOV. For you to insinuate that the books available in the Amharic language are not "legitimate" is pretty high-handed, but it's actually what we've come to expect after years of this. "Ethiopians couldn't possibly know anything about their own history, they have to accept the armchair verdicts of English books and European scholars and scribes" -- and pretty soon, next thing you know, Ethiopia's continuous 3000 year history will promptly vanish and be erased, and may not even be mentioned (damnatio memoriae), because lo and behold, it turns out we are being told that 'modern Ethiopia' never even existed until the 1890s! Yeah, right... What blatant POV pushing... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is pointless. You obviously have an agenda, because you think for some reason that people are attacking you. You even go so far as to make up attacks to defend yourself. Go ahead and keep up the martyr complex. I have read it several times. I never said they are not legitimate. Work on your reading comprehension. No one said Ethiopians are incapable of knowing their own history. What I AM saying is that you clearly have no academic experience in the subject and are pushing an extremely nationalist POV that skews reality to try to create a history that is inaccurate but supports your prejudices and feelings. I don't care if you're Ethiopian, American, Indian, Russian, Tajik, or Senegalese -- you are trying to rewrite history along nationalist lines and you're doing it without academic experience or credentials. YOU are the "armchair" expert. Stop pushing your hypernationalist, emotionally charged POV on everyone else. Modern Ethiopia did NOT exist until then. Ethiopia did. MODERN Ethiopia did not. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem with your version. It claims that "Modern Ethiopia" began in 1896, when the modern period of Ethiopia is almost always held to have begun in 1855 with the end of the Zemene Mesafint and the subsequent increase of relations with other countries. That you contrast claims of unbroken history/sovereignty with a separation between Ethiopia and "modern Ethiopia" paints a misleading portrait of Ethiopian history that implies that the two states are not a continuation of one another, even though such a claim is not made explicit. I have no problem with detailing the reunification processes of the Zemene Mesafint and subsequent expansions of the 19th century, but it is inaccurate to make it seem as if there's such a clean break between the past and the present. Moreover, I'm not sure we should speculate as to the other reasons, aside from Italy's defeat in the First Italo-Ethiopian War, as to why Ethiopia was not colonized. These would be better suited to sub-sections than to the introduction. I'm working on a rewrite now. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, so do any other editors here feel maybe it is just a little misleading to assert that the real reason it was never colonised, is simply because it "did not exist yet"? Cabinet ministers may have been introduced, but there is no interruption of continuity between the Imperial Ethiopian state before 1880 and after 1900 to justify calling them two different entities; however I am willing to properly attribute this opinion to those authors who do hold it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a gross oversimplification of what I have been saying, and you know it. You, again, are misrepresenting what I have said in an attempt to discredit historical reality so you can push your ultranationalist, emotionally charged version of events. --Cigrainger (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It is hard to talk about Ethiopian history and boundaries by ignoring ethnic mixture. To say that ethiopia is only amhara and tigre is an insult to the historically mixed people in ethiopia. (Not mention some of the Ethiopian emperor who are known to have a mixed ethnic background including oromo, somali and gurage) My ancestors for example come from the northern Amhara, southern Oromo and Welayta peoples. Though i can guess that i am around 50% Oromo, it would be an oversimplification since the ethnic mixture goes back to my great, great, great, great ...grand parents. The cushitic and omotic background in my ancestors can actually connect me to the small Oromo community that have lived in Kenya for millennia. The omotic and cushitic also might go down as far as Tanzania while the Semetic have axum and yemen origins. In general, since the ancient Ethiopia label is for a deeply loose group of clan and ethnic states in the Horn and eastern parts of Africa, it is unreasonable to think that the old Ethiopia label is only for abyssinians (amhara/tigre). Whether there were some attempts to centralize these loose regions, some period during the last many centuries, in order to justify Menelik II claiming "ancient Ethiopia" represents territories from Sudan to Madagascar is at best debatable and honestly unverifiable. Ethiopian text books claim much larger terrotories than even what we see today. In the end, to conclude only one account is true would be to ignore history or to conclude ethiopian history books inferior to other history books. --Gadaa (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point about ethnic mixture, and there is an excellent and famous quote that makes the point quite succinctly, that we should be able to use, if we could find it. As I recall reading it, it went something like this: after the Fascists had occupied Addis in WW2, one of their marshals, being -- well, er, a fascist -- was desirous that the native population be forcibly segregated along tribal lines, with Amharas, Oromos, Tigrayans, Gurages, etc. each in their own restricted areas. (This of course showed the typically fascist sheer total ignorance of where they actually were standing, because the majority of Ethiopians are of course of quite mixed ancestry of all these groups for hundreds of years -- and "by language spoken" is no good determinative either, since a majority of Ethiopians are bilingual and trilingual in several of these languages!) So, an Ethiopian elder chieftain to whom he was blathering, pointed at a large sack of mixed-grain with his staff and said something like "If you could separate out every one of the grains in that bag into separate piles, it would be far easier than what you propose". I have been trying to find out the details of this famous quote and where it occurs, so it can be used to illustrate the appropriate article(s). Does anyone else here know? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep Evolution Propaganda Out

Do not cite tenuous evidence for a supposed origin of mankind in Ethiopa and cite non-scientific sources such as the Washington Post on top of it. That is absurd. Stick to well verified science and not tenusou theories, theories pushing evolutionary theory which itself has zero evidence for it. Shaky speculative theories are not helpful to a knowledge about Ethiopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfire777 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that your removal lasted about ten minutes before someone else returned it, without even bothering to engage in meaningful discussion. This is typically what you can expect from the kind of people who populate wikipedia, who fancy themselves "authorities" over what you're "supposed" to be believing. They have a tendency to want to write something in a way that is not at all neutral, but rather deliberately offensive to 99% of the people concerned, whom they are trying to "educate" by telling them on the flimsiest of evidence "what they are supposed" to think and what they are "not supposed to " be believing in, just so they can go "nyah, nyah, nyah...". To them, that's exactly what an encyclopedia is: it's a propaganda tool that says "Your beliefs and your priests and your ancient church are all wrong, now here's what WE say you are supposed to believe". The encyclopedia thus sets itself up as a false authority competing with what the priests tell them, then the "authors" scratch their heads and wonder why so many people would continue to listen to their priests and not to the vastly different, contradictory "teaching" that they are anonymously offering through the computer screen. I have been striving for years in vain to make people see the other view of what an encyclopedia is: Something that doesn't attempt to teach or endorse disputed doctrines, but rather reports neutrally on what all the various views are that people actually believe, without endorsing any of them or steering them to abandon their religions and accept what these faceless "scientists" are telling them to swallow without question. But if it were like that, then the self-proclaimed authorities here wouldn't be able to go "Nyah nyah nyah - we have written something that is patently offensive to the vast majority, and you can't do a THING about it"...! If the encyclopedia were truly neutral, it would fail their central purpose, which is to effect changes in the balance of people's religious make-up, and to announce to readers what beliefs are to be accepted and what beliefs they consider "heretical". 141.152.54.105 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the place to rehash the Scopes trial. I think your beliefs are sacred and I wouldn't dare insult them. But Wikipedia has policies, and according to those policies this information does belong in the article. DBaba (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African Union question?

Regarding this statement in the article: "...the headquarters of the African Union (formerly the Organisation of African Unity), of which Ethiopia was the principal founder..."

Does someone know if Ethiopia was THE principal founder, or A principal founder? Renee (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes to both... More specifically, there never would have been an OAU without the genius of Haile Selassie I. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Renee (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inflating the number of references suggests POV

Recent studies claim that the vicinity of present-day Addis Ababa was the point from which human beings migrated around the world.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

That there are six references here makes it look like someone is trying to hammer home a point of view he/she favors. A very quick review suggests these six can and should be reduced to two: One is a broken link (the server says the article "expired"), another is a news account of the research but doesn't cite its sources; the others are news reports about research appearing in either Nature or Science. Instead of citing news reports about the articles from these two sources, why not cite those sources directly? This would reduce the number of citations from 6 to 2, 3, or 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlowJog (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't a POV violation. Most of us have a POV on some articles/issues or others. If we edit such articles, we have to use NPOV language. And this was done in this case. The issue I have with the quoted passage is the quality of the citations. By using third-hand sources, the author has used sources of lower quality (third-hand, in this case) which seems to inflate the number of studies. (There are six citations. A quick review suggests they are based on no more than two studies.) SlowJog (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed all but two of the original citations and added a citation for the actual Science study that the articles are talking about. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Progress is listed here. miranda 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)