Talk:Ethiopia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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:

• Central Statistics Agency: 75,067,000 (July 2006)
• UN Population Division: 77,431,000 (July 2005) / 79,289,000 (July 2006)
• Population Reference Bureau: 77,431,000 (July 2005) -- same as UN data
• CIA Factbook: 74,778,000 (July 2006)
• World Gazetteer: 72,238,000 (January 2006)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

High taxes

Want to see why Ethopia is poor? Read this: [1] 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)

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)

"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

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]"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per Georgia_(country)#cite_note-LOCge15-23 it would seem that Georgia officially adopted X-ity in 330. Unless we have a reliable source dating the official adoption of Christianity by Ethiopia, I think the statement that Ethiopia was the second country to officially adopt Christianity should be removed. For what it's worth, I've always heard that Georgia was the second country as well. --76.193.173.105 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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. --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)

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)

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, 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)

What 2007 American study? The US State Department updated 2008 has Muslims at 45% and Christians between 40-45%. MPA146.235.66.52 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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 it is illegal but often unenforced, and I think infoprmation would be relevant to the Selassie article, SqueakBox 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Abyssinia

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

self-aggrandizement

its strange that an entire people could nt use their own name to refer to themself in their long history. the name Ethiopia was only adopted recently by HAILE SELASSIE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.150.125 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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: [[2]] 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)

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).

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)

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)

Suri tribe

On [3] 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)

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)

Flag turned into a cow picture

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

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)

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)

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.

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)