Talk:Ethiopia/Archive 4

ethnicity In Ethiopia......

ehtiopia is a place where 80 different peoples live and about teh same amount of languages are spoken. these peoples lived in todays ethiopia for millenia. thus the term ethnicity doesnt make any sense in thius context, anthropologits try to categorize everything african, but in this case it doesnt make sense for example are amhara and tigraway both languages that ecolved from geez and the people arent ethnically different they only happen to speak different languages

ethnicity is defined in the wiki article as "...a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy."

and while all peoples in ethiopia definetly have their own cultural uniqueness the common history of over at least 2000 years makes it impossible to speak from ethinicitys as for example most of the so called different ethnicitys eat injera or to take another example the provinces throuhout ethiopuas history never went along any so called ethnic lines (wich woudl be imossible since many ethnicitys even live in the same regions)but among political lines of whatever type that might be.

many ethinicitys for example are ethnically meltingpots but are more deined justby teh language they speak and for example tigray wasnt even a province untill after the middle ages but was devided in smaller provinces (for example adwa, agame, enderta, tembien) and the people there never defined themeslfes as tigraway untill after the mnidle ages they userd to identify with the name of their provence, but it was never seen as an ethnic identity as we see the term in modern times(this compares to city states in greece or rome who were autonomus entitys but had a common cutural link). i would like to make the case that in respect of the shared millenia long hoistory of those 80 something peoples we shouldnt refer to them as seperate ethnicitys but as seperate peoples who have unique cultural customs and languages but also have far more that bounds them together in the form of similaritys. the geographical make up of ethiopia might have promoted the preservation of the unique custoims of every peoples but this doesnt mean that they are different ethinicity since there is deinitely a proven common heritage for the last couple 1000 years common cultutal siomilaritys like growing tef, preparation of injera, growing of coffe and its preperation, musical instruments which are shared beyond cultural lines, and teh religion in ethiopia has to be senn (excerpt from the non abrahamic relgions) as going beyond regional borders. for example amharic people are said to be a melting pot and i think this must be true for many peoples in ethiopia, if oyu take the long shared history into account...if this is not accepted then it begs the question why we dont apply the same minute diferenciation in states like greece where tehre where didfferent people like the ionian and doric people or in germany where there where different people like the friesic and bavars or franks and goths... Mnlk 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnlk (talk • contribs)

Religion In Ethiopia......

All the stats regarding the percentage of religious population in Ethiopia are conflicting... For Example in the Main Article for "Religion in Ethiopia" the stats are 62.1% Christians, 33.9% Muslims and less then 2.6% traditional.... These stats are based on 2007 consensus... but (according to one editor) it was conducted on only 37 Million People... Which is far less then the total Population of Ethipoia....

According US State Department, "An estimated 40 to 45 percent of the population belongs to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (EOC), which is predominant in the northern regions of Tigray and Amhara. Approximately 45 percent of the population is Sunni Muslim. Islam is most prevalent in the eastern Somali and Afar Regions, as well as in many parts of Oromiya. Christian evangelical and Pentecostal groups continue to be the fastest growing groups and constitute an estimated 10 percent of the population...."

Another editor brought this stat up which concludes that Christians make up 49.8% of the country's population (29.7% Ethiopian Orthodox, 0.1% other denominations), Muslims 47.4, practitioners of traditional faiths 2.6%, and other religions 0.6%... but it was without a reference...

I think we need to solve this problem since all these stats are conflicting and paint a totally different picture from one another... Adil your (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ithiop's edits to the lead

Hi, Ithiop. Thanks for your contributions. I think some of your changes are valuable, and some I would disagree with. To wit:

1.You added

Ethiopia is the site of the first Hijra in Islamic history and the oldest Muslim settlement in Africa at Negash. It is also the spiritual homeland of the Rastafarian religion.

You are absolutely correct; these are both significant points and worthy of inclusion in the lead.

2.You changed

When Africa was divided up by European powers at the Berlin Conference, Ethiopia was one of only two states that retained its independence

to

When Africa was divided up by European powers at the Berlin Conference, Ethiopia was the only African country that retained its independence.

with the explanation: Liberia was started as nation for slaves returnees from US, Well, yes, this is true; I learned it in history class decades ago. So? Regardless of how it was started, Liberia was (and is) an African country, and it did retain its independence after the Berlin Conference. What's your point? The previous version was correct, was it not?

3.You changed

In addition, there are altogether around 80 different ethnic groups in Ethiopia today. The largest of these populations are the [Oromo people|Oromo]] followed by the Amhara, both of which speak Afro-Asiatic languages.

to

In addition, there are altogether around 80 different ethnic groups in Ethiopia today, with the largest being the Oromo followed by the Amhara, both of which speak Afro-Asiatic languages.

Nice change; your way does read better.

4.You added

Historically, people in Ethiopia practiced some of the oldest democratic systems in the world, including the ancient Gada sic system.

I need to seem some more sources on this; while I am no expert on the topic of the Gadaa, my impression of it is that is a far cry from anything recognizable as democratic.

Your other points are all minor—why is it relevant how many charter members there were of the UN? What is important is that Ethiopia was one of them. And Kenya has had a lot more marathon champs than Ethiopia, has it not? I suppose the rock hewn churches are neet (though not necessarily lead worthy), as is the origin of the coffee bean (though your sentence on that was gramatically incorrect.)

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. Thanks for contributing! Unschool 03:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Unschool, Thanks for the comments. I also agree with most of your edits. You did a good job with the introduction. About Liberia, i agree with you if we are talking about a land not being colonized. But you said Liberia "retained its independence." If a country did not exist before the Europeans came, how can we use the word "retained"? Liberia was created recently by slave returnees. It was not created even by natives who established some form of governance (both community or country(nation-state)) earlier before the Europeans came. So i don't think we can say Liberia retained its independence (or was sovereign pre-during-post European colonization for a long period).

About Gada democracy, there is an overwhelming view among both East African and European scholars that the Gadaa system was the most democratic in the region. Like any other western democratic system, it might have its flaws. But in its time/era for centuries, it was as good (or perhaps better) than western forms of governing. Most modern westerners might not believe an African institution can be democratic but most of us in Africa do have some traditional systems we inherited from our forefathers.

About the number of "charter members" of the UN, i support your edit. About Ethiopian marathon champs, no Ethiopia has more Olympic gold medalists than Kenya. Even if Kenya has many, it is upto the Kenya wikipedia article editors to add the information. Anyway, Ethiopia has more quality than Kenya but Kenya has more quantity. So Historically, there were more gold medalists from Ethiopia while Kenya enjoyed a lot more medalists (silver, bronze, gold sum total). You should also know that Ethiopians were the first Olympic gold medalists in black African history (both men Abebe Bikila and women Derartu Tulu). This is African history and if you ask the average foreigners, they know Ethiopia for 2 things. The first being Ethiopia's poverty/famine and the second being Ethiopian Olympic champs in mid to long distance events. And "notability" is one of the purposes of the lead section.

Let me know if you agree or what you think before i edit the lead. Thanks

--Ithiop (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ge'ez/"Ethiopic"

"Ethiopia is the only African country with its own alphabet.[12]"

I find this to be misleading, because although Eritrea uses Arabic and English too, Tigrinya - which uses pretty much the same alphabet, or a variant if you will - is the biggest language. I suggest that you either remove that statement or that you mention Eritrea as well: "Ethiopia is the only African country (along with Eritrea, with which it has historical ties) with its own alphabet." No?

If the source does not support that statement then find another source. It is, after all, common knowledge that they both use Ge'ez. --Yared94 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Might I add that Geez Originated in Eritrea, infact in the Akele Guzay Region of Eritrea. Eritrea has more Geez inscripted tablets, monuments, and historical artifacts. Including the transition between Sabaen and Geez. If you go to the Dahlak Islands, you will find the evolutionary history of the Geez Alphabet and the Sabaen Alphabet. It is insulting that the Amhara/Tigrayan Ethnic groups in Ethiopia have dominated the nation of "Ethiopia" with a history that originates in Eritrea. Completely Insulting and that wikipedia permits this falisfication to continue. Civility and neutrality go out the window when the writings of Paid propaganda historians like Pankhurst are used to "solidify" illogical historical and linguistical accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puhleec (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

seriously... geez was the predecessor of amharic tigre and tigrinya just like latin was the predecessor of french itlaian and spanish and romanian ... eritrea was part of ethiopia for at least the last 2000 years of its history and has only split recently.... this just sounds so confused...geez is what teh ancestors of the people now termed amahara tigraway and tigre spoke...Mnlk 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The heading/introduction section is rather long and verbose. I'd shorten it considerably myself but I balked, wondering if I was in the minority opinion. Patricoo (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree- it's almost the length of a full article itself! Not to mention it's so laden with obscure facts that should be included in the main body of the article, not the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.185.28 (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

agre+LEAD=non-npov:hurah-styl+no probs?[eg civlwars,famin,poverty],non-democratic----pl.note:i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear[sven70=alias (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In the intro, it says, "It is the second-most populous nation in Africa, with over 85.2 million people," citing a 2007 AP article. However, according to Wikipedia's List of Countries By Population, it is ranked third, after Nigera (1) and Egypt (2), with 79,455,634 people, according to an unattributed linked PDF doc from the website csa.gov.et, the root of which is not live. It is unclear whether Ethiopia is the second or third most populous African nation. Reynard Loki (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been working hard to keep the introduction section brief while giving a good overview of Ethiopia. However people keep adding various specific facts about Ethiopia. Readers may find these facts interesting or amusing but these make the section verbose. The section also looks more of "Interesting facts about Ethiopia" instead of an introduction. Tesatafi (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you apply your judgement to remove from the intro that Ethiopia was "the first major empire in the world to officially adopt Christianity as a state religion in the 4th century." I disagree that this is a piece of trivia; it is one of the most significant facts of Ethiopia's unique history, and ought to be in the intro in some form. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. 1) What's your definition of "first major empire"? I thought Armenia was first. 2) My reasoning was that what's more significant is the country stayed Christian for most of its history and the church played a big role in politics. A statement about Ethiopia being the first/second Christian empire doesn't capture that. I still think the intro needs more work and perhaps a link to Tewahedo Church whose history is very significant in Ethiopian history. What do you think? Tesatafi (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at older versions the intro used to mention Armenia being Christian before Ethiopia. But the best I have been able to find out is that first nations to convert to Christianity at the official level were Osroena (by c. 200), the Ghassanids (c. 245), San Marino (301), Armenia (303), the Lakhmids (c. 310), Caucasian Albania (c. 315), the Aksumite Empire (c. 325), Georgia (c. 330), and finally the Roman Empire (Constantine baptised c. 340) So Aksum clearly was not the first, but possibly was the first 'Empire'. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"one of the most ancient countries in the world" - citation needed

I apologize for the drive-by tagging, but what I intended was not to dispute something that may be a well known fact. Rather, it would be nice to have a citation just to see more clearly the intended meaning of "most ancient country". Is it:

By longest time inhabited by humans? By most ancient name without being renamed? By most ancient ethnic group inhabiting the same place through history? Or something else perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obhave (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it means that it has stayed under its own rule, under the same government as the same nation for a long time unlike most other African countries which were invaded by Europe.--Joshua Issac (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That statement is false. For the simple fact that the "lineage" is dubious and highly suspect. The Ancient Eritrean Aksumite and Adulite rulers descendants are not the "modern-day Ethiopian/Abysinnian" rulers. The linguistic difference is obvious. No modern-day Amharan or Tigrayan can speak fluent Geez (language of the Ancient Aksumite Empire) nor Sabaen (Language of the Ancient Adulite and Sabaen) Empires. Both those Empires were a majority in modern-day Eritrea. Eritrea is not a part of modern-day "Ethiopia". The modern-day people in "Ethiopia" are majority of "Agew" descent which means they are not linked to the Semitic speaking Agazians (Aksumites and Adulites) and the Sabaens in (modern day Yemen). "Agew" is a Cushitic language and it doesn't have a written language. Geez alpabet was later adopted. The "modern-day Ethiopia" originates from the regions of Gondar and southern part of Tigray in "Ethiopia" which were never a part of the Aksumite, Adulite, and Sabaen Empires. So the lineage of "modern-day Ethiopia" starts with "Abysinnia" in Gondar which was never a part of the Aksumite/Adulite/Sabaen empires. The Gondar lineage under Yekuno Amlak (Gondar) started in the 1200s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekuno_Amlak). The so-called "Solomonic Dynasty" is based on an unsubstantiated "fairytale" of a relationship between "King Solomon" of Ancient Israel and Queen Sheba (supposedly Queen of Saba (Sabaens - modern-day Yemen). The connection between "Yekuno Amlak" and "Aksum" is very questionable and still not verified and only the current "Abysinnian (Amharan/SouthernTigrayan) Elitists" continue this line of "history". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puhleec (talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

the article is in a sad state. It reads like a giant heap of "highest, best, oldest" factoids. Much work will be needed to turn this into a coherent and balanced encyclopedia article.

The paleolithic cruft needs to be kept to a minimum. Australopithecines roamed all over Africa. Ethiopia is special because it is the likely origin of Homo sapiens, not of "hominids" in general. This fact can be stated in a single line of text. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) keeps reverting to the completely jumbled version, without giving any rationale. It is hard enough to clean this up without such disruption. This is a serious article about an important topic (a sovereign nation), and edit-warring over cranky views on etymology or ancient history are extremely damaging here. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything was peaceful here until you showed up today and started the disruption. The idea that Ethiopia comes from "Burnt face" was unheard of before 1843, and it is extremely unpopuular in Ethiopia. Perhaps you hold the POV that Ethiopians own views about themselves do not matter as much as your own. But that is no excuse to tell only your side of the story, as if there is only one theory about where the word Ethiopia comes from. A neutral encyclopedia is supposed to tell both sides (or all sides) of a story, not play favorites. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

what nonsense. aithiops meaning "burnt face" is obvious to anyone who knows Greek. It doesn't even need translation in Greek, it's simply what the name means.

If you have a reference that the name is unpopular in modern Ethiopia, you are very welcome to add it, but I don't see how this is going to change the meaning of the Greek word. What does this have to do with "Ethiopians own views about themselves"? I mean, at all? It's about the etymology of an exonym, nothing more and nothing less.

Also, if "everything was peaceful" on this page, it's high time that this has changed, as the article is in a terrible state and has been tagged for cleanup for ages. The lead section in particular is horrible, and is evidently the product of drive-by editors adding puffery. Articles that aren't watched by experienced or knowledgeable editors tend to just disintegrate over time. This is clearly what has been "peacefully" happening here. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ethiopia" as a "nation" is older than 100 years old, Prove this statement is claim is true with sourced evidenced from neutral sources

"Though most African nations are, in their modern form, less than a century old, Ethiopia has been an independent nation since ancient times, being one of the oldest countries in the world."

This statement to me doesn't have valid proof, otherwise it should be deleted or reworded, otherwise what it is saying is not VERIFIED or backed by credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puhleec (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Egypt is OLDER than "Ethiopia", infact, "Ethiopia" was the name given to "Nubia" by the Greeks and not the regions of "Shewa, Gondar, Gojjam, Tigrai" aka "Abysinnia" aka "modern Ethiopia" Puhleec (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopian names

I am currently working on the results of the recent Ethiopian elections, and am having some trouble with the transliteration of Ethiopian names. Many names, as given at the National Election Board website, start with the abbreviations Ha/, Wa/, Ge/ and Me/Di. Wa/ comes before names like Gyiogos and Mikael (Wa/Mikael) so I suspect it may be a word meaning "saint." I suspect Ha/ is for Haile and Ge/ is for Gebre, but I'd like to confirm this. Can anyone enlighten me? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The lede

The lede is too long and disjointed. Ethiopia is the only sovereign nation to resist colonialism and is one of the oldest continuous civilizations on Earth etc etc. It would be better to phrase it like that. If you need to mention the other nation, then mention it by name, but it was not really a sovereign nation to have independence in the first place so it cannot be compared to Ethiopia. i.e. Liberia.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Italian colonisation

You only mention Italian colonisation of Ethiopia, calling it a mere "occupation", a sort of short accident during Hailé Selassié reign.
I think that this description is biased by two myths.
Firstly, I see an Ethiopian, and maybe African, myth of Ethiopia as the only African nation never colonised by Europeans.
Secondly, there is a democratic myth of democracies never ceding to fascist claims.
Moreover, the article appear to express an American point of view, and really United States were among the five nations which didn't recognized the Italian annexation of Ethiopia.
The historical truth is quite different, as well explained in the articles "Second Italo-Abyssinian War" and "Italian East Africa".
In fact, Italy completely conquered Ethiopia in 1936 and that territory became the core of Italian East Africa, which capital city was Addis Ababa.
The Negus fled into exile in London. However, many Ethiopian troops and patriots kept a guerrilla war against Italians.
In 1938 the majority of world countries, except five, recognized the Italian colonisation of Ethiopia and the proclaimed Italian Empire.
Only following the Italian entry in World War Two, in 1941, British troops invaded the Italian East Africa and the Italian colonisation of Ethiopia came to an end.
I think that these facts should be explained in the section about Ethiopian history.
Italian colonisation of Ethiopia could be criticized and condemned, but not denied.
A democratic negationism would be a mistake, not so different from nazi negationism.
Moreover, Wikipedia shouldn't describe only the Ethiopian or the American point of view, but it should be neutral.
Lele giannoni (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed we should be neutral between opposing POVs. What is the source for your POV? A good source for the "Ethiopian POV" is Emperor Haile Selassie's Autobiography My Life and Ethiopia's Progress, Volumes I and II describe both the fascist invasion and their expulsion five years later from a front-and-center eye-witness point of view, as His Majesty participated in both campaigns. I strongly recommend anyone interested in the topic read it. The distinction is made from other African nations that willingly submitted to colonialist rule, which as this book leaves no uncertainty, never took place in most of Ethiopia, where the fascists were never able to subdue completely during those 5 years. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Hailé Selassié memoirs could be a sufficient source, for two reasons.

Firstly, he was involved in the war as a belligerant. And you too admit that these memoirs are a good source for the Ethiopian point of view, but not for a neutral one.

Secondly, I think that it's necessary to compare many sources.

I indicate my sources in the Wikipedia articles "Second Italo-Abyssinian War" and "Italian East Africa". I could also add the article "History of Ethiopia". All these quote many sources, also from Hailé Selassié. They also quote Italian sources.

I've also checked atlases of that period (Rand McNally 1939) and recent historical atlases (Times Atlas of World History and DTV-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte), as well as Wikipedia blank maps and "List of sovereign states per year" and all these consider that Ethiopia in the period 1936-1941 belonged to Italian East Africa.

I think that the best point of view is that of neutral countries: these condemned Italian invasion in 1935, but recognized Italian conquest as a matter of fact in the following years.

Another valid point of view is that of Italian democratics. They strongly criticize and condemn the cruelties perpetrated by Fascist government, but they don't deny that Italy colonized Ethiopia. In fact, Italians have elaborated and criticized their acts since then, and recognized their guilt. On the contrary, I think that Ethiopians, having no blame, still stay in their unrealistic dream of never having surrendered. However, Ethiopians too should elaborate what happened in these years, and accept their defeat and the interruption of their bimillenarian kingdom.

Your argument to deny the Italian conquest of Ethiopia is just that the Negus never surrendered and never signed a peace treaty. However, this represents a subjective point of view and this is the root of denial: Hailé Selassié fled into exile and lost control of his empire, but he didn't accept to capitulate. In the same time Victor Emanuel proclaimed himself Emperor of Ethiopia. Both are subjective behaviours of the belligerants. There were two emperors for one country. But the matter are not the formal surrenderings or proclamations. International law is based on diplomatic recognition: indipendent states are those recognized by the international community. And the international community, after having condemned Italian invasion to Ethiopia as illegittimate, recognized the Italian conquest as effective. Usually, who holds the capital city is regarded as the effective ruler.

So, I think that the section "history" in the article "Ethiopia" should explain these events in a specific subsection about the colonial period.

Lele giannoni (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how one defines the word "colonisation". Ethiopia was never successfully colonized in the same sense that other parts of Africa were colonized by colonists. But if you were to change the definition of "colonisation" to include what Mussolini did to the Ethiopian people, then yes, Ethiopia was colonized (by that circular argument). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt come down to word. Ethiopia was occupied, big difference. Colonialization is a systematic process of colonial imposition. Occupying a few cities is not colonial. French occupation under Nazi germany was called occupation. Always someone trying to take-away from African history.

i think this

ok Italians never had controll over anything more than the roads they built and their forts.... there was a constant war being waged by ethiopian population against the invaders

i have sources to back it up i think this is italian history revision... on a low scale :) Mnlk 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnlk (talk • contribs)

Long article

The article might be too long or even the longest among Wikipedia:Country. If you are think the same way, I will make it concise by splitting and reduce duplicate and old data in proper way. I need your support. Gsarwa (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely up there. Just found this article, found the same problem. Long random detail seems to be the problem in my opinion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing sentence.

"Historically, Ethiopia's feudal and communist economic structure has always kept it one rainless season away from devastating droughts."

What is this actually supposed to mean? All that I can make of it is that it is a jab at communism, to be perfectly honest. Xtremerandomness (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a poetic way of saying the capitalism is needed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable at best

I thank all those that diligently work to maintain the accuracy of this article.

It seems to me that there are some very questionable aspects of the article. Some argued historical notes have been skilfully inserted in very intellectually dishonest manner. Neither is there a note discussing the validity of the information, any citations, or alternate explanations included. A good example of this is the line bellow, which is found as the lead in the third paragraph of the article. I think we should all guard against unnecessarily advancing false or misleading information.

"Modern Ethiopia and its current borders are a result of significant territorial reduction in the north and expansion in the south toward its present borders, owing to several migrations and commercial integration as well as conquests, particularly by Emperor Menelik II and Ras Gobena." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.132.230.23 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Writing 'Ethiopia' in the Ge'ez alphabet

The Greek letters to write Ethiopia were not necessary. It seems the main writer of the article, I guess Yom, inserted it in order to boast about his knowledge of Greek. More over, he is overly enthusiastic to show pride in Ge'ez syllabic scripts, the legacy of Sabean colonization of northern Ethiopia. Otherwise, in English Wikipedia where the pronouncing of writing Ethiopia in Roman alphabets produces no difficulty, writing Ethiopia in either Greek or Ge'ez was not necessary. Dama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also urge everyone to use the term Abyssinia when referring to Ethiopia before WWII. World documents including Italian documents upto WWII have the present day Ethiopia by Abyssinia, which meant the Amara and Tigray regions. Dama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at our articles for other countries might expand your horizons a bit about what we do... On Greece we show the name in Greek script, Egypt in Arabic script, etc... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Or check out oud for a non-country article, and in which case the name is rendered in 9 languages other than English. I, for one, don't feel any worse for seeing these even if I don't understand the languages. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Here you go again, Gyrofrog! I do not post opinions to make anyone including myself "feel" good or bad. You always to try to read me wrong by attaching thoughtless ulterior motives for all corrections I suggest , acceptable or not.

Coming back to the points you two above remarked, I can understand Oud, the North African and middleastern guitar, being written in English and Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic because it exists in all these latter cultures.

I agree with Til Eulenspegel to disagree. In Egypt and Greece, there are no challenges of ligitimacy for use of Arabic and Greek scrpits. In Ethiopia though, there is a condemnation for imposing Geez, an Ethio semitic language scripts, on non-semitic language groups such cushitic, Omotic and Nilo-Saharan. Oromo, Somali, Sidama and other cushitic groups adopted Roman scrpits with which to write their languages. A Harari group based in Australia (harai is a semitic language, has also adopted Roman scripts. There is one published novel in Chaha in the 1960s by a Sebat Bet Gurague writer in Roman scripts. My point is that writing Ethiopia in Ge'ez script downplays oppostions to it and puts it at equal footing with Arabic script in egypt and Greek in Greece which have no legitimacy issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dama

As long as it's the official language of the state, there is no legitimacy issue that can be demonstrated by inference... First you should lobby the Ethiopian government to do away with its official working languages, they may be interested in your view that it is illegitimate. If that succeeds and you convince them that English only is 'legitimate' for state use, no doubt we will reflect the change here as well... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think opposion to Ge'ez scripts by such large group of Ethiopians, more than half of Ethiopia's 80 million people, is worth considering despite the condemned language policy of the semitic minority rule of TPLF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that there is any reliable source for anything like that level of opposition to the Ethiopic alphabet in Ethiopia, it would be worth considering somewhere, probably at the article for Ge'ez script. So far, you have not shown any reliable source at all; you have merely alleged or alluded to a Harari group in Australia that publishes in Roman script, and a Chaha novel published in the 1960s in Roman script (both tiny minority languages among the 80 languages of Ethiopia). Even if you had sources demonstrating that there is indeed today considerable 50% opposition to any use of Ethiopic script (note: any use, not just for writing in Cushitic languages) trying to use those sources to argue that wikipedia should specially NOT depict the name Ethiopia in the official working language, is poor logic. The most legitimate thing we could probably do with such sources, is mention the controversy (provided it can be substantiated that there really is one) on the Ge'ez script article. At any rate, last time I was in Ethiopia, it didn't look to me like the Ethiopic script was about to go anywhere soon, since it is literally everywhere one looks in most areas and society is totally immersed in it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't insult Gurague and Harari as "tiny minority". Such abusive behavior leads to alienation, discrimination and inequality, in which case they will have the right to start political movements that will solve these problems.

If you look for evidence of rejection to Ge'ez scrpits, just visit OLF, ONLF, SLF websites. They have long resolved the debate and decades have passed since they started using Roman scripts to write their languages. For Oromo language, visit the VOA East Africa news website at

http://voanews.com/oromoo/news

http://opdo.org.et

(the Oromo regional government of Ethiopia)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcZZsnDY5ow&feature=related

(End Slavery, Rise Up Oromia)

It's the same story with Somalis using Roman scrpits for print and broadcast. Sidama and other cushitic groups teach upto primary Six level in their languages using Roman scrpits.

This is to show the extent of reject of Ge'ez scrpit. I insist it's by more than 1/2 of Ethiopia's population. Ge'ez scrpit will retract to Amara and tigray regions.

Dama

Dama, you yourself referred to the "Semitic minority rule of TPLF" but when I, a mere wikipedia editor, call Chaha and Harari "minority languages" (which they factually are, as well as Semitic ones) you take an unintended insult, and are ready to form major "political movements" in opposition to me, a mere wikipedia editor. I think you need to spend more time on wikipedia, and observe how we operate. Yes, it appears the speakers of these Cushitic languages, who are a majority, have indeed rejected the Ethiopic script in favor of the Italian alphabet in recent years, for writing their own languages. This does not logically mean they have the right to reject Ethiopic script on behalf of the rest of Ethiopia's languages (or the Ethiopian government) who do use it. Your personal animosity to the Ethiopic script does not mean we all have to cater to you and eradicate it entirely from this article, when it is still used for the official language of the internationally recognized government of Ethiopia. This argument will get you nowhere; your chances of getting support for that idea here are about as remote as your chances are of changing the government of Ethiopia, or the government language policy of Ethiopia -- which you would have to do first, before we could acknowledge it here. We already note at Ge'ez script that it was formerly used for writing languages like Oromo, but that is no longer used for them, since they have switched to Latin letters. We can also certainly mention there, any greater "opposition" there may be to Ge'ez script, provided it is carefully sourced. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't make the above links clickable "hot" to open them. I don't know why. These are, i assume critical enough sources to prove the widespread opposition to Ge'ez and Amharic. You may copy and paste them on the internet address line.

These links are now "hot" clickable.

http://voanews.com/oromoo/news

http://opdo.org.et

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcZZsnDY5ow&feature=related

VOA and Ethiopian TV and Radio braodcast in Oromo language written in latin scrpits. BBC, VOA, Ethiopian Tv and Radio, and Somali regional government radio in Jigjiga braodcast in Somali language written in latin scrpits.

These two major oppositions to Amharic as a national language and Ge'ez scrpits obtained the right in the Ethiopian constitution to teach their primary children in their languages using Latin scrpits. Same with Sidama, Afer, Gudella, Wellamo, etc. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class= 76.67.75.19

section break

It sounds like you may have something sourceable we could use with regard to organized (but so far unsuccessful) opposition against the inclusion of Amharic as a national language of Ethiopia. I think I'll leave it to another editor to figure out how best to extract your sources and where best to include them, since it seems like a lot of legwork. As for this article, until such a movement is successful in eliminating all use of Geez script, I think we'd better leave it as the official country name - to embrace such attempts now before they are successful would be premature, pov pushing, and would have to rely on a Machievellian reasoning, which we eschew per wp:npov Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given good enough reasons why you should akcnowledge popular resentment to Ge'ez and Amharic for the peace of Ethiopia. I can't ask you to reason more.

According to what I can tell it's just a language spoken by at least 25 million, and millions more Tigrinya and other speakers who have the Geez alphabet. Resentment is not reason - at least not that I understand well: what exactly do you want these millions of people to do? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am appaled by your insensitivity to the sufferings of Ethiopians, to all that is happening, especially between Oromos and Amaras. Properties destroyed, homes torched, lives lost and continues for equal treatment. Before Amaras were converted to speaking semitic ge'ez, they were cushitic language speakers like the Agaws, Qimants, the bejas, the Bilens, the Affars, etc.

I have given the required sources of Oromo which do not use Ge'ez scrpits. Only Oromo language is spoken by more than 26 million people. The story is the same with 6 million Somalis ONLF, 2 million Sidamas SLF and the 1.5 million Afers.

I can't stress more for the necessity of making correction in these very errorful pages. I will have to stop wasting time and energy if I am not going to see editors bend from their previous positions due to given resonable and persuasive resources as proofs.

(By the way Afer is a Phoenician word for dirt/dust. Phoenicians first contact with people of the Red sea coast, which is full of dirt/dust, gave rise to naming the people as Afers, nowadays morphed to Affars, meaning "People of the dirtland"

Dama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You responded with wp:SOAP but did not help me understand the answer to what you expect the Habeshas to do now but I can infer that you expect all these millions of Semitic speakers to suddenly abandon their language of choice and restrict them from using any other than the Italian alphabet. We are required to maintain a neutral point of view but you are 'appalled' because you expect me to be more partial to your cause. I am reminded of what a certain someone once said, that it is easier to feel love for animals and children because they tend not to expect TOO much to control everyone else's choices the way some adults do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am completely neutral; having no reason to favor or disfavor any ethnic group. What I stress is recognition of truth on the ground when writing encyclopedia such as this. It should show Ge'ez scrpit is under a lot of pressure to yield to Latin scrpits by the cushitic speaking groups. And from me if the people choose so. You asked to provide sources. I provided news prints and broadcasts using Latin scripts. You did not honor your commitment. Are you an ethical editor without a vested interest?

I have looked at some of your dialogs with other contributors. It's not very pleasing.

If you need help on the definitions of occupation, colonialism, invasion, conquest, just look them up in the dictionary or I can help. And also on the use of superlatives in encyclopedia writing. because of all these misguided decisions, this article on Ethiopia looks like a child toying to feel happy.

Dama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I said in my opinion any pressure to do away with Geez script could be certainly be explained on Geez script as long as it is properly sourced. I specifically did not commit myself to doing all that work; on the contrary I stated above that someone else could do it. Don't expect too much from me, I am only a volunteer! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The name "ETHIOPIA"

---

A Gree merchant travels south from Alexandria to Nubia. On his return to Greece, he tells Herodotus that he saw dark-skinned people, "ethiopians" in his journey south of Alexandria which may include not only Nubians whose settlements were west of the Nile but also the Bejas, whose settlements lay east of the Nile. Herodotus recorded this travellor's account of the "Ethiopians" south of Alexandria specifically in the west and east banks of the Nile around Meroe, itself a Greek word, as the capital of the Ethiopians.

Dama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your source? According to Herodotus himself, he personally journeyed as far south as he could, Elephantine Island. And anyway what is your point? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is Ethiopia was the name given to specifc regions and peoples south of Alexandria, specifically, to Nubians and most probably Bejas included. It was not a name given by the Greeks to all lands inhabited by dark-skinned people who did not have knowledge of otherwise they stand to be ridiculous. Dama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Herodotus' own words, and all other Greek writers, show that Aethiopia included all of 'Libya' (Africa) south of the Sahara. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Herodotus has been found lying and or exaggering, I learned. Don't put all your eggs in his basket. Piecing together facts about my present country from foreign writers who had no organic knowedge about a distant people and probably about whom they harbored cultural misgivings, in CIA official Paul B.Henze case a political misgiving about Ethiopia, it is not difficult to say their version of history is open for correction. Limited Greeks knowing about present day Africans south of the Sahara or travelling South of the sahara? It's impossible. In the ancient times, Libya was populated by powerful black kingdoms frorm one of the ethnic group name Romans derived the name Africa for the continent. Rome colonized the north and northwest africa, called it Mauritania, from Tunisia to Mauritania. Romans subdued the Phoenicians in cartage and they do not show any legacy or presence of Greeks in Africa. Perhaps, all these Greek myth on Ethiopian history is academic conspiracy. Dama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Then again maybe the Greeks were simply pursuing their own traditions as handed down to them, provoking their fascination with tales of Amun, Phaeton, and many other mythological figures associated with what they knew as Aethiopia or Libya. Well we might speculate all day long but speculation that can be sourced is worth more. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources that add to the ongoing debate that Ethiopia for Greeks and Herodotus was not the present Ethiopia. The Afrcan origin of Ancient Greece by Dr.Mauro about Grreks fascination with African civilization:

http://tribes.tribe.net/2012the-end-times/thread/91289bf0-d7d2-468f-b6aa-c0540d4d5762

It may have been called Afran with its black African tribe during the Roman period from which they derived the name Africa, now the Arabs call it Yefren, a place in Western mountains of Libya devoid of its original Black Africans whose residents are now Berbers. Another powerful black African kingdom in the interior of Libya was the Garamantes with its capital at Germa, now in Arabic is called Ghadames and Jerma, respectively. Whereas it's well known these people were dark-skinned, the following website states that Garamantes were Berbers Herodtus wrote about whom as fighting against the Ethiopians, the eqaully dark-skinned Tebus.

http://temehu.com/Cities_sites/germa.htm

It's clear now that the Ethiopia in ancient Greek literature were the Nubians, Bejas, the Afrans, the Gramantes and the Tebus. They were not refering to the present Ethiopia. How then Ethiopia adopted this word as its name and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dama

I was able to make the oromo language links clickable. I just had to replace www with http://.

How Ethiopia adopted the name and when is uncertain and a great controversy. The earliest it can be shown that the Semitic kingdom referred to itself with this name is the 300s AD. There is at least one POV that it was used far earlier, I think some believe it was derived from an ancient king Ityopphis. This cannot be confirmed and remains just pov. Another pov is that they newly adopted the name from Greek at that time, in the 300s. There are plenty of Greek references to Adulis in "Ethiopia" who traded with all other lands, and plenty of references showing that they understood "Ethiopia" to extend all over the African continent south of the Sahara, including the little bit still known as Ethiopia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That reference 'Ethiopia' by the Greeks to the south of Alexandria was to Nubians and Tebu people in South Libya, believed to have lived in much northern part of Libya than now. In around 300 A.D, the Byzanium proxy Axum king, Ezana, who invaded Nubia by the direct order of Constantinople for causing difficulties in its southward expansion from Alexandria, did not adopt the name Ethiopia for his kngdom of Axum. He boasted about his victory and occupied it as "Noba", am not sure he ruled it. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/nubia1.html

Dama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.19 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dama - please register an account if you are going to write this much on the Talk Page - it's easy to do, and free. SECONDLY, your "opinions" matter not at all - the Talk Page is for improving the article, and should use Secondary Reliable Sources (in English for the English Wiki) citations at all times. Herodotus, for example, is a Primary Source, and should only be "used" in the context of the writings of expert mainstream historians' view/explanation of his work. This article is pretty much a mess as it now stands - let's not add to it with a lot of unsourced claims. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Required Edits in the Ethiopia article

I am suggesting that the following editions be carried out by editors whose editons stand. Of course, opposite views on my recommendations are welcome but most have been debate and resolved without action. Anyway, if further clarification is required, please air your concerns. I will open new sections for each major topic following the Ethiopia article.

Dama

'Ethiopia'

The name Ethiopia can be written in Ge'ez and Latin scrpits reflecting the writing systems in Ethiopia. It will also be the right thing to do to write it in Arabic because some media such as Walta, radio and Tv stations broadcast in Arabic. I don't think it's it should be written in Greek other than when its etymology is concerned.

It's pretty certain that the name Ethiopia Herodotus applied to was to Nubians(Bejas perhaps included), the Tebus, the Garamantes, etc., all lands west of Egypt, not south of Egypt. It was never to the Axum kingdom. Ezana simply ravaged Nubia and he was not aware Greeks called it Ethiopia because after his victory he referred to it as Noba. When Axum adopted the name Ethiopia is unclear. Axum and Adulis and their tributary regions were referred to Habash by South Arabia's Sabeans, Hadhramouts, Himyarites, Minaeans and Qatabans. The South Arabians called this North African region Habash as a whole but not only those who spoke Sabean and certainly not Ge'ez speakers who came into being much much later in the application of the term to this region of Northeast Africa..

Ethiopia is the third most populous country in Africa after Egypt, Nigeria being the most populous. But, it's just enough to say that Ethiopia's population is 76 million (c.2007 census).

Abyssinia was a kingdom (monarchy??)not an empire for most of its history rather than Ethiopia. The history of present day northern Ethiopia is not a shared history of present Ethiopians. Abyssinian kings did not have a dynasty. Any warlord who could depose a sitting king declared he was The king, chnaged his name and claimed to have descended from the legendary Minilik I, son of Queen of Himyar, Umm Bilqis, otherwise known as Queen of Sheba.

Ethiopia as the possible origin of not 'humanity' but homo sapiens. "humanity' has a sense of purposeful collectiveness, organization, and a comonness of values. It's rather a UN coined word for its objectives. it's more about the present organized mankind. But homo sapiens includes even those families of man who got extinct.

Will continue!

Dama

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.72.109 (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 

Homo sapiens refers to "modern man" - whether archaic or Cro-Magnon - and not all hominins that are now extinct, for example, Homo erectus or Homo neanderthalis.

That being said, the Talk Pages are not a Forum - they are only to be used for the improvement of the article by discussing the use of Secondary Sources that are considered Reliable. Please cease and desist adding text here without the use of qualified references to the betterment of the article. What is needed here is for an Administrator or two to step in and lay down the law. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

English as an official language

Both the CIA[1] and Ethnologue[2][3], which are generally treated as reliable sources on Wikipedia, claim that English is an official language of Ethiopia. I don't care if you dislike the CIA. Do not revert my edits unless you can find and cite some equally reliable sources that claim it is not. Then we can discuss it. And do not call me a vandal. Assume good faith, and I will do my best to treat you the same way. --Quintucket (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What about this source: Ethiopian Constitution[4]:

"Article 5

Languages

1. All Ethiopian languages shall enjoy equal state recognition.

2. Amharic shall be the working language of the Federal Government.

3. Members of the Federation may by law determine their respective working languages."

I think this means that Amharic is the only official language.

Aaker (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Restoring Ge'ez as Ethiopia's national language

I think it's important to mention the potential reality of Ge'ez being restored as Ethiopia's official national language.

References can be made to the general sentiment of the people (even amongst the Amhara) who wish to have a non-discriminative official language that unifies the people without giving a lingual advantage to a particular group (in today's case, the advantaged group is the Amhara)

Here is a link that illustrates the general sentiment of the people in Ethiopia wanting a non-discriminative national language but at the same time African/Ethiopian made using it's own indigenous script:

http://www.waltainfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21385&Itemid=82

References should also be made to prominent individuals & groups working to actually make it happen such as Dessie Keleb who reportedly has been creating whole communities of Ge'ez first tongue speakers in Ethiopia since the early 1990s & has published 2 books, here is a link to one of them:

http://www.mereb.com.et/rs/?prodet=true&pid=39484858&vid=19

With all this said, I believe it's time we recognize this growing movement both inside and outside Ethiopia to revive Ge'ez as the lingua franca of Ethiopia rather than Amharic, Oromo, English or even Tigrinya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pages416 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dervish State

I dont get the idea why you would remove it. As it remained its sovereignty after the Scramble for Africa. And it is significant to mention it. It was a fully functioning state not as other 'de facto' states. Wich were under the adminstration of Europian powers. As you know Wikipedia will never be completed, there is always a thing to add. So having no map in the article is not a strong argument that it was not significant pre-WWI. Runehelmet (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here you can see a collection of all the old maps we have been able to collect for that region so far. The dates actually refer to European dates. All the maps published between 1896 and 1920 show the border between British Somaliland and the Ethiopian Empire; none of them indicate the Dervish State. Even to this day in several countries there are large parts of Africa under the control of armed groups that could be called independent of any state, as there were then. But it would be undue wight to list them as sovereign nations on a par with Liberia and Ethiopia which were fully recognized. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You state that The dervish State was not fully recognized. But by whom? As 2 world powers already recognized it as a state, and perphas others but not mentioned there. Ethiopia was not accepted to be a state by Italy and its allies(wich one was a then-world power). As you state that the reason that it would not be mentioned is the recognition. Then I can easily proof you that it was recognized, but we know that Britain and Italy wont accept the fact that they were independent. It had a own working government, educational system, military and diplocy. This seperates its from 'armed groups' that call themselves independent but are only recognized by the rivals of the ruling government in a particular country. Runehelmet (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

note: I can't read the ge'ez script, and my translator does not support it.

Are there any sources discussing this? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some: I hope these are enough. Runehelmet (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Chimpmunk: Code 2000 previously offered a unicode font in three parts. One (Code 2000) was shareware and the other two (Code 2001 and Code 2002) were freeware. One of the latter two has Amharic. It won't help you understand Amharic though, unless you're a freakish sort of savant.

Runehelmet: The problem with your sources is that they might indicate that what you're saying is true and accepted in Somali studies circles (The web sources don't, but the books might, I'll have to take you word on that, knowing that it's hard to find good web sources), but they don't indicate that the Dervish state is generally accepted by historians as an internationally recognized sovereign state up through the end of WWII. As for recognition by Germany and Turkey, that doesn't prove anything in itself, which is why I'd like to see sources. (Since I can't find support for your points in the webs sources and can't access the books, perhaps you can provide quotes?)

Saying that the Dervish state was de-facto independent and recognized by two countries, and therefore survived the Scramble for Africa may well be true, but that doesn't matter unless you can indicate that that it's generally accepted by historians. I've never seen a source that indicates any African countries other than Ethiopia and Liberia were accepted by European powers during the Scramble for Africa. Even if you can provide one or two, it might still be providing undue weight. I'd say that if you can provide enough sources to indicate that a respected minority holds your position we should say something like "Ethiopia, along with Liberia (and arguably the Dervish State[1][2]) was unusual as an African country that survived the Scramble for Africa]]." If, and only if you can indicate that there's a modern scholarly consensus in favor of your position should we include it without qualification.

And Ethiopia was recognized by Italy in the Treaty of Addis Ababa, even if Mussolini later decided he was immune to history. --Quintucket (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some non-somali scholar that supports the fact that it was regarded as a sovereign state; I. M. Lewis, Camille Pecastaing, Nina J. Fitzgerald, Peter D. Little. The historians also state that the previous succeses of the Dervishes caused disarray among the British parlament and urged a full scale attack on the Somalis. They also regarded the Dervish State not as a rebellious state that was under control of European powers, but was a state of its own, that had to be conquered by the Europeans to show their strenght. Runehelmet (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't help us if you just name books without any sort of link or quote, as we can't see them ourselves. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote: ""In the years to follow, his aim was to create an autonomous space, beyond the reach of the colonial powers, and to develop an alternative politico-religious order with the contours of a strict Islamic theocracy. To this effect, the message was spread with intimidation and brute force. In the border area of Italian and British Somalia, the movement built settlements and fortresses for its fighters and followers""-John Abbink

"The repeated campaigns of the British and Italians could neither root out the movement nor prevent its dévastation of other Somali clan groups and their resources. Throughout the twenty-year insurgency, the majority of victims were other Somalis, not colonial troops and their supporters. Indeed, MAH's revolt, through its use of often callous and indiscriminate armed force against Somalis perceived to be 'against him' and his Ogaden clan, transformed existing patterns of clan coexistence and coopération, undermined the heer, led to internai disarray, and generated new antagonisms that proved to be a bürden in the future. Interestingly, the Dervish insurgence was denounced in a letter written in 1909 by Sheikh Mohammed bin Salih Rashid, the founder of the Salihiyya order of which MAH was a memberShahari, a former close adviser to MAH) went to visit thé Sheikh in Saudi Arabia to get such a condemnation, the letter nonetheless had a significant impact on many of MAH's followers. It was not a 'somewhat mild denunciation', as Lewis terms it, but as is évident from thé text, a quite outspoken and threatening condemnation that even questioned MAH's Islamic identity." "In view of this, the British changed their policy in late 1912 and founded the Somali Camel Constabulary as an expeditionary force to end the Dervish movement. It would still take seven years to do so, partly because from 1914 to 1918 the British were hindered by their commitments elsewhere during the First World War."- John Abbink These are the quotes you asked for. I only posses the book; 'Dervishes, moryaan and freedom fighters: Cycles of rébellion and the fragmentation of Somali society, 1900-2000' at this time. Runehelmet (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The first one seems to say that it was a religious movement with effective autonomy from the laws of the country it is nominally a part of, much like Jonestown, Sea Org, or the early Mormons in Utah. The second specifically refers to it as an insurgency. Both sources indicate that it maintained its independence, and I don't dispute that; but neither would seem to indicate that the British and Italians recognized it as an actual sovereign state, rather than a problematic area to be subdued. --Quintucket (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Somalia was not colonized before World War II. The Dervish State was a state formed to combat the colonialism, but it was not formed ""after"" Somalia was colonized, but during the Scramble for Africa. Only after 1920 Somalia was officialy colonized. It was a war between states not a state (e.g Britain) that had to recontrol it's area that was colonized. As we know it was colonized after the war. It was regarded as a Sovereign state that had to be occupied. And not a 'insurgency' that had to be subdued. But an organised state that had it owns ministries and diplomats. The Italians called the Ethiopians that fought them in the 2 wars; insurgencies. Not because rebelled against their regime but to scorn the Africans, wich they regarded as ignorant people without a culture. That is just one example of many. Runehelmet (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the quote you give which indicates that there was a Dervish state. Sure they could be left to run themselves, as many African tribes were, but they were still theoretically under the jurisdiction of some European state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have proven enough with all these sources and quotes. Show me a source that there was no Dervish State and it orginated from a colonial state. The Europeans (In this case the British, Italians and French) had no control in the Ogaden and puntland, that was under the adminstration of the Dervishes. And the quote indicates that there WAS a Dervish state. And about it's sovoureignity: It had to be recognized as it was in a state war with the British. And even though if it's not the case (But in reality it is), since when do we look at the legimity of a state through the European eye? This is not a eurocentric historic article. I have proven enough, and I dont know why you still deny the fact that they;existed, were sovereign and had a diplomatic relations at state level. Runehelmet (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't proven much at all. The only quote you've provided shows that the British and Italians could not fully suppress them. Your continued insistence to insert this singular fact on multiple pages without agreement here is something you should stop. Go through the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you wish. The WP:Burden lies on you to show that the Dervish formed a sovereign state, and you need a WP:Reliable source that says this. Your own WP:Original research and interpretation does not qualify. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave you all the sources and you don't want to read it. And the quotes don't indicate that they could not suppress them but defeat them. You just bend the words to your own will.You should read these books that stands in the references. I proved it, and you just dont acknowledge. You can't deny the fact that they were independent. I ask you were they independent? If not please read it again. Were they sovereign? If not, how can they run a state that provides education, diplomacy and order throughout its border?

And even through your own eye: If they could not suppress them? Then what happend? Perphas independency? They restarted the campaign after WWI, and the Scramble for Africa plays between the late 19th and the start of WWI. Runehelmet (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to read the books? You haven't been able to provide a quote from them that supports the point you are making. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the quotes. And the title of the books are mentioned in the reference section below.Runehelmet (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You've provided one quote, which calls the Dervish movement an insurgency. What is the point of book titles if you can't cite specific points in them? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all I provided TWO quotes. And I wont repeat everything. About the insurgency part; read my earlier comments. The point of book titles are that you can verify it by READING. To make it easy for you the pages are added too.Runehelmet (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

They were the same book and same author, and neither made the point. I can't read the books if I don't have them, and you've offered no evidence they have a supporting statement. What information in those books are you using? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not near a library, but in hopes of moving things along, I've tried to check some of these for myself. First of all: full citations would help (beyond a title and page number) for this discussion, and are necessary when citing a source in an article. I assume that Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia is the one by David Hamilton Shinn, Thomas P. Ofcansky, Chris Prouty (2004), ISBN 0-8108-4910-0. Page 405 doesn't mention anything about the Dervish state, much less its independence (link). According to Google Books, the only mention of the word "Dervish" is on p. 37, and this is in the context of the First Ethio-Italian War (link). Encyclopedia of African History, Volume 3, by Kevin Shillington (2005), ISBN 9781579584559, page 1406 mentions "...an uneasy peace, frequently interrupted by dervish raids, in northern Somalia". Google Books doesn't give much of a preview, so I can't (personally) verify whether it mentions international recognition (or even de facto independence) of a Dervish state. The index mentions it in the context of "Muhammad Abdile and dervish anti-colonial resistance, 1405-1407". (link) Looking through some other sources, Encyclopedia of twentieth-century African history by Paul Tiyambe Zeleza and Dickson Eyoh (2003), ISBN 9780415234795, does not contain the word "dervish", according to Google Books. (For what that's worth.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Media related to Old maps of Ethiopia at Wikimedia Commons. These include some of the same maps that Til Eulenspiegel mentioned, and you don't need to read the Ge'ez script. There is also a "Category:Old maps of Somalia" at Commons, but these maps either overlap with the Ethiopian category, or are not from the era in question. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Those quotes comes from an other book;'Dervishes, moryaan and freedom fighters: Cycles of rébellion and the fragmentation of Somali society, 1900-2000'. Here are others I used for the information; 'Jihad in the Arabian sea', ;The state and rural transformation in Northern Somalia, 1884-1986', 'Somali Empires'. And the link he gave me contained the ge'ez script. But i won't start a discussion about that :) Runehelmet (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but like I tried to say before, and TE said more succinctly: Since you're arguing that the Dervish State, like Ethiopia and Liberia, survived the Scramble for Africa, you need to provide sources that say exactly that. You need to provide sources on Ethiopia, Liberia, or general African history that say Ethiopia, Liberia, and the Dervish state are the three African states that survived the Scramble for Africa. If you can't find such sources, it's original synthesis. If you can provide one or two, then it might merit a qualified mention, in parentheses or a footnote, but casually mentioning it in the same breath would be undue weight. If you can demonstrate that the majority of recent sources take your position (scholarly consensus does change), then it would merit an unqualified mention. --Quintucket (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Dervish Army was to fight Britain, Ethiopia and Italy for two decades. A Dervish State, built around the expanding Sahiliyya order, would run parts of Somalia with rising and ebbing fortunes. It would endure until the end of World War I, when epidemics of the Royal Air Force decimated the its ranks and population centers. As for Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, the wanted man whom the British called the Mad Mullah, he would himself fall the victim of the great influenza epidemic of 1920." -Jihad in the Arabian sea. This explains that it survived the Scramble for Africa(1881-1914). The Dervish State collapsed after WW I, in the year of 1920. Runehelmet (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Runehelmet: Nobody here is denying that it was de-facto independent, the same as was, for example Tamil Eelam under the LTTE, or Wa State today. However the claim that it "survived" the Scramble for Africa is questionable. Ethiopia and Liberia were recognized by European powers and maps at the time; every history book I've seen that discusses it says that those are the only African countries that survived the Scramble. They may or may not have reasons for that, but TE is right that there are likely a good number of smallish entities which were not completely subdued. I can't name any, but then, I never heard of the Dervish State before this conversation; I doubt you would have either if not for your interest in Somalia. It doesn't really matter. Ethiopia's claim to fame is that it was widely recognized by contemporary European powers as de jure independent, as confirmed by pretty much every historian. You've shown no evidence that any African state except for Ethiopia and Liberia can claim that. Regards, Quintucket (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not convinced that they survived the Scramble for Africa? Read the quote above; 'It would endure until the end of World War I, when epidemics of the Royal Air Force decimated the its ranks and population centers'. That is hard evidence that it survived throughout the Sramble for Africa, as a independence state. Runehelmet (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't equate it with Liberia and Ethiopia. CMD (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we are going to include Dervish state on this basis, then I think we could do the same for Kingdom of Jimma, Kingdom of Janjero, Kingdom of Gumma, Kingdom of Gomma, and Kingdom of Garo. All of these survived the European Scramble for Africa until annexed by Ethiopia in the late 19th century, except Jimma, which wasn't annexed until the 1930s. In other words, I don't think the Dervish State is exceptional in this regard. If there are sources indicating that some other country recognized the Dervish state as a sovereign and independent country, that would be one thing. Same with contemporaneous maps showing the Dervish State distinct from Ethiopia, Italian Eritrea, French Somaliland, British Somaliland etc. Thus far, we've seen nothing along these lines. What I don't see, is consensus for this change in the meantime. It might be better to bring this to WP:RFC and solicit some outside opinions, from those not already involved with this discussion (or the subject matter). What I am seeing, though, are some back-and-forth edits that are approaching edit warring, and I would advise all parties to abstain. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You state that they survived the European scramble for Africa. But their timeline does not stretch over 1914. But here is a quote about it's recognition;He created a standing army, centralized the judiciary, and conducted international diplomacy. This institutionalization of power, however, made him more vulnerable. In 1920 British aerial bombardments of his forts destroyed the dervishes.- New encyclopedia of Africa. This state that they created international diplomacy. Runehelmet (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimma was annexed in 1932, but why the 1917 cutoff date? Anyway, I'm not sure how conducting international diplomacy equates to international recognition. And again, full citations would be useful (I can only assume you were quoting from this book). I think this discussion also has implications for the Scramble for Africa article (and, I think, Dervish State where the incomplete citations had already been used). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Runehelmet, I refer you back to my main point: This is an article about Ethiopia, and Ethiopia is exceptional because it was recognized by European states which decided to carve up Africa (and thus "survived" the Scramble for Africa). Every history book I've seen says Liberia is the only other state this is true of. If you can't find books that say explicitly, more or less what you're trying to say, if you can't find books that offhandedly mention the Dervish State in the same breath as they mention Liberia and Ethiopia, can you explain why you think that what you are trying to do is not original synthesis? --Quintucket (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not convinced that they were independent throughout the Scramble for Africa?:"A Dervish State, built around the expanding Sahiliyya order, would run parts of Somalia with rising and ebbing fortunes. It would endure until the end of World War I". Againd you state that they had no international diplomacy?;"He created a standing army, centralized the judiciary, and conducted international diplomacy". That were the two arguments for you to not add it to the list of sovereign independent states that survived the scramble for Africa. Yes this is an article about Ethiopia, but this is relevant for the article, wich stated before that they were the only independent nation that survived the Scramble for Africa.If it's not in every history book, does not mean it did not exist. for example there are books claiming that the holocaust never happend.That quote state that they survived it. And had international diplomacy, know are you just denying it, while I face you with these facts. Do you think it's a 'shame' for Ethiopia to share it's title with the Dervish State? Runehelmet (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Runehelmet: please calm down, and remember to assume good faith. Keep in mind that you have at least four people telling you the same things. Yes the article was incorrect, because Liberia also shares this distinction with Ethiopia thank you for fixing that. And yes, what you're saying is probably true, but:

1. Plenty of regions were de facto independent during the same period as the Dervish state, or even later. Ethiopia and Liberia are unique because they were recognized by Europeans. You are welcome to argue that it remains in a class apart of course, but
2. What you're saying amounts to original synthesis. Go to a library, take out any general history or African history textbook. Go to the section on the scramble for Africa. Every one will have a sentence in the introductory section noting that Ethiopia and and Liberia are the only African states that survived the Scramble for Africa. Try to find one that includes the Dervish state in that same sentence. It's possible that you will find one, and then I'm wrong about the synthesis.
3. Even if you do find one (it's possible, I don't claim to know everything). If you do, count those books you've pulled off the shelf, and tally up how many say Ethiopia and Liberia only, how many say Ethiopia, Liberia, and Dervish Somalia, and how many say Ethiopia, Liberia, and any other combination of states.

All of us, Chipmunkdavis, Gyrofrog, Til Eulenspiegel, and myself, have provided reasons why we think the Dervish State is a different case from Ethiopia, and by and large what we're saying is pretty similar. I hope, even if you think every single thing we've said is wrong, that this shows we're acting in good faith and not trying to get you on a technicality. The fact of the matter is, what you want to do is probably in violation WP:SYNTH. If it's not, it's in violation of WP:UNDUE. --Quintucket (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't know about you, but when I get stressed, I like to look at pretty pictures. Do you like parrots? :•) --Quintucket (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I will look at it in the future. And yes, I like parrots, but I prefer the lynx and eagles and other various birds of prey. Runehelmet (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

References

I don't deny that the Dervish state existed in some form, as a short-lived attempt to militarily carve out an independent state. My concern is that it may be undue weight and off topic to this article. I've seen any number of sources that specifically list Liberia and Ethiopia as the recognized independent states during the Scramble for Africa. If there is even one source listing Dervish state in the same sentence with Liberia and Ethiopia, it might merit a footnote to the effect that "some authors also list Dervish state along with Liberia and Ethiopia...". If there is not even one such source, then it looks a bit like Original Synthesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Africa

Link Africa in the lede please. 217.44.143.94 (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

HIjra

In the introduction, Hijra could do with being made Hijra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.95.202 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Article written with a eurocentric perspective

this article is written with a eurocentric perspective. just compare this article to the article about the uk wich is outstanding and i think the article for ethiopia should follow the same frame that articles about european countries follow. Mnlk (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Long intro- will cut down. Need feedback.

Title says it all. The intro is way too long, and full of POV. I would like to cut it down substantially (at most, 2 paragraphs as opposed to the 5 or so we have right now). I'll do that myself soon, unless you guys differ with me. I thought it would be thoughtful to consult with some of you who have spent more time on this article than I have. Cheers

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Leads can reach up to four paragraphs (WP:LEAD), so cutting it to two may be a bit much. However, cutting is indeed needed. CMD (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

new law bans communications

http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/14/ethiopia-skype-illegal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.122.94 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)