Talk:Ethiopia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

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

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

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

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

What part of this is too hard to understand?

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

These are all 100% factual statements. Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized. Fact. It then explains why it can claim to be the only one, since Liberia, another African country, was founded by American colonists. Also, the other user's claims that Ethiopia was a colony of Egyptian Pharoahs and / or Napoleon are pure uncited Original research / nonsense. Ethiopia is the only African country that has NEVER been colonized. Til Eulenspiegel 18:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• As per the person before me, we don't understand what Liberia has to do with the colonization of Ethiopia. The huge sentence makes no sense to me, or the person who commented a few discussions above me. Your connecting the colonization of Ethiopia to Liberia in some way that has me and at least one other person confused. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a reading comprehension difficulty, or else are trolling for insults. I'll say it again: ETHIOPIA HAS NEVER BEEN COLONIZED. Til Eulenspiegel 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Shouting doesn't make a run-on, incomprehensible sentence, any more comprehensible. I have reworded it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm baffled myself as to what the sentence means. If "Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized." is a statement that can be supported, leave it at that and cut out the extraneous statements. if the other statements need to be there, split them into separate sentences, each with sources. Until there are sources to back up the "Ethiopia is the only African country that has never been colonized.", it's original research itself. It must be backed up with a reliable source. Shouting in ALL CAPS does not make it so. Alansohn 18:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If Ethiopia has never been a colony, can someone explain why a Google search of "ethiopia colony" gives 759,000 hits? Several of the Google referenced links make statements like "Italy lost its Ethiopia colony in Africa at 1896 Battle of Adua" which implies that Ethiopia was once a colony. Truthanado 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Tags by User:zeragito

Intro

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

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

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

zeragito 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

zeragito 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

These modification including sources were removed without motivation, why?

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

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

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

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

zeragito 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Early History

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

Restored contact with Europe

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

Escaping the Scramble for Africa

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

Selassie Years

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

Communism

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

Semtitic Speaking

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

Your last objection is not sound according to academic conventions; these languages are virtually always referred to as the Semitic languages of Ethiopia, in most of the literature on the subject - regardless of what "the reader" may think. Perhaps you ought to look up some of the bibliography on the subject...? Til Eulenspiegel 05:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason why these languages are called Semitic languages is the fact that they are genetically related to the other Semitic languages in the Near East like Hebrew, Arabic, Akkadian etc., i.e. they have a common ancestor language. To avoid the use of Semitic one had to coin a new name for that language family. But afte almost two hundred years of research and production of scientific literature on Semitic languages that produce a lot of confusion. Driss 14:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If you are able to cite reliable sources, then please feel free to add this information to Wikipedia yourself. I have heard the Abyssinian Baptist Church is part of this history, as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ethiopian" was a general term for "Black African" back then, the mentions are unrelated to the country. Take Ethiopian Serenaders, for example. 140.180.140.74 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Gratuitous Use of the Word 'ancient'

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

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

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

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

NPOV tag

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

It's been two weeks and there have been no objections, so I've removed the tag from the sub-section. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't really see the POV in that subsection. --Strothra 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro POV

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

It is highly contentious and POV to assert that Ethiopia lost and became a colony, since the Ethiopian POV is that it did not and that attempts at colonization were unsuccessful. OTOH there is no POV dispute that Ethiopia won at Adwa. Therefore the consensus wording that has been worked out is the most neutral. The other articles are linked and do not belong in the intro. Til Eulenspiegel 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What is POV is that there is a focus on Ethiopian military victory but no mention of Ethiopian military failure. It's POV to construct an imbalanced intro when the Italo-Abyssinian War was a major event in 20th century Ethiopian history including the fact that Ethiopia was forced into Italian East Africa and the use of chemical weapons during the war. --Strothra 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again your own POV is perfectly obvious, but we have to be neutral. The Ethiopian view is that Italian attempts were a dismal failure, you also risk stirring up some very strong emotions unnecessarily by claiming as fact your POV that Ethiopia ever willingly submitted, so what is your game here? Til Eulenspiegel 16:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

er, my POV? You know nothing about me. I never stated that Ethiopia ever "willingly submitted" to anything. In fact, I stated, "Ethiopia was forced into Italian East Africa." Please do not put words in my mouth. What I have said, is that the Italo-Abyssinian War is an important part of Ethiopia's 20th century history yet it is almost completely ignored in the article. I do not, in any respect, consider the war to be a positive thing, however I do object to the white-washing of history that seems to be taking place in this article. It seems to actually be doing Mussolini a favor - Both Italy and Ethiopia seem to want to forget the war even occurred. --Strothra 16:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe it's doing Italy and Ethiopia both a favor to forget Mussolini, but I don't see how that would be doing him a favor! At any rate, I think there is enough mention in the consensus lede to keep it a neutral summary, we don't need to link to every article on the subject in the first paragraph. Later in the article there are better places to get into detail, where we might also place contemporary accounts of how the economy of Italian East Africa's resources was brought to a complete standstill by the patriotic resistance. Til Eulenspiegel 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's doing Italy and Mussolini a favor by ignoring the atrocities committed by Italy in that war - including the use of chemical weapons (which were made illegal after the first world war) as well as the subjugation of Ethiopia into an Italian pseudo-empire, essentially ignoring the memory of the war's victims in the process. The lead doesn't include any mentioning of the war which, again, is a critical part of 20th century Ethiopian history which should be mentioned in the lead and then expanded upon later in the article. --Strothra 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you are revealing your own POV - first, you consider Mussolini's interests to be one with those of Italy? LOL How illuminating. Your view of who lost the war (which I see you have now erased) is a product of your POV, we cannot cater to your POV but have to keep our edits neutral, per WP:NPOV. That is exactly why the editors of this article have left a carefully worded comment about changes to the consensus introductory summary. Thank you for trying to upset the balance. Til Eulenspiegel 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

um, are you arguing the line of the Ethiopian government? Yes, they lost the war - that much was clear from scholarly accounts, but due to the use of chemical weapons by Italy. To downplay the war is ignoring the victims of the war and the atrocities committed by Italy. You clearly want tow an official, non-scholarly, line. You won't find scholars saying that Ethiopia won the war. I'm not saying that Ethiopia didn't resist even while under occupation - all occupied societies resist their occupiers. What I'm saying is that you can't cover up or downplay history without ignoring important events and actors - in this case, the Ethiopian people who were killed by mustard gas. Your point here seems to be to emphasize military victories and downplay any sign of military weakness. My point here seems to be more to reclaim the memory of the people with no regard to military interests. --Strothra 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am arguing the line of NPOV. Everything you have said is your own POV, and stuff the authors who agree with your POV, don't claim your POV is NPOV, keep the lede neutral and keep the POVs out of it as per the hashed out consensus and the warning note, thank you. Til Eulenspiegel 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead is not neutral so long as it makes no mention of the war - it is a critical moment in Ethiopia's modern history and its role in the second world war. --Strothra 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am Ethiopian and I am very curious as to how you decided the second Italo-Abyssinian war to be a critical moment in Ethiopia's modern history that is worth detailing in the lead. Military victories and not human suffering are what define history (look anywhere in the world and you will see each country's history written that way)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.17.217 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 23 November 2007

The current consensus wording is: "However it was occupied by Mussolini's Italy from 1935 to 1941." That's about all that can be stated neutrally, taking all significant POVs into account. I have run into you before trying to exalt the supposed triumphs of fascist Italy over Ethiopia on other articles, haven't I? Your wording choice seems very calculated and sneaky to me. Rest assured, Ethiopians are proud of one thing, and that is the fact that they were never successfully colonized, including Il Duce's pathetic attempts!!! 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Til Eulenspiegel (talk • contribs)

Strotha, what exactly do you mean by the word "colonization"? If we compare the effect Italy had on Ethiopia to her effect on, say Eritrea and Somalia, Italy left a very light imprint on the first country. Admittedly, attempts to resettle expatriates in all three countries failed, especially in Ethiopia, so I don't think you mean that sense of the word. if you could explain what you mean by that word, we might come to some agreement here -- instead of both sides getting frustrated. -- llywrch 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure at all how that sentence is POV. You refer to it talking too much about Ethiopia's victories and too few of its defeats, but in that sentence, according to you, doesn't it talk about exactly one victory and one defeat? Both deserved to be mentioned, but certainly the victory at Adwa was the more important of the two, the stakes there being 60+ years of colonization, while the other event was 5 years of occupation. BTW, your characterization that no historian states that Ethiopia won the war is incorrect. Keep in mind, that in Ethiopia, WWII began in 1935 and ended in 1941, which was recognized by the Paris Conference.

In this situation the Paris Conference found no difficulty in accepting the Council of Ministers' provision that World War II had started, for Ethiopia, on 3 October 1935. Article 38 of the final treaty, adopted at the conference's closing session, on 15 October, thus stated:

"The date from which the provisions of the present Treaty shall become applicable as regards all measures and acts of any kind whatsoever entailing the responsibility of Italy or Italian nationals towards Ethiopia, shall be held to be October 3rd,1935.

(Richard Pankhurst, "Italian Fascist War Crimes in Ethiopia: A History of Their Discussion, from the League of Nations to the United Nations (1936-1949)" in Northeast African Studies 6.1-2 (1999). p. 116).

On that basis, some historians and many Ethiopians can say that Ethiopia eventually won the war, since Italian occupation was far from complete (the patriots controlled a lot of territories), and in the end, Ethiopia was the victor, similar to the Ethiopian-Adal War. Regardless, there can be little POV to be said in that sentence wrt the opening section. I agree, though, that there is not enough about the period in either the history section or the History of Ethiopia page. But there are plenty of other sections that have unwarranted focus or lack thereof, so instead of complaining, try to fix it. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV edit warring

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

Democracy

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

Well at least you wrote "According to..." correctly following the NPOV formula, so I won't rv, but I still think these kinds of POV would be better suited to the politics section, than the info table. I have no doubt there are also plenty of other POVs that these western "think tanks" that presume to pass condescending judgement on the rest of the world, are solid hog-wash. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• It appears to me that you have the unsupported point of view that you are trying to put forth. Everyone has national pride, but all countries can be ranked, on dozens of criteria. If you can find evidence that The Economist is "hog-wash", add it to the article on the magazine, otherwise its just one more personal opinion. On their list, the United States is number 17, since individuals get to vote directly on fewer issues that in Sweden and in Switzerland. I think if it was western-biased, the US would rank higher. The US ranks very low on the Economist Peace Index also. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested enough to add anything to the Economist article. But presumably the aim of wikipedia wouldn't be to find "evidence that it is hogwash", but rather evidence of who might consider it hogwash. I haven't even said what my own POV is btw, I rarely ever do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Independent Judiciary

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

Sentence under "Exports" makes no sense

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

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

Unacceptable POV pushing

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

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

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

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

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

So academics are non-neutral but the Emperor of the country is neutral? I cited two books, and one is BY an Ethiopian scholar -- actually two working in tandem. These books are widely accepted in academic circles and have extensive research behind them. I study this at the University of Edinburgh. I agree with modestmelody, the agenda appears to be yours. However, I am glad to discuss this and work out a new intro that is acceptable to all and which takes into account this more modern, less nationalist historical approach. --Cigrainger (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Any academic who seriously pretends "Ethiopia did not exist during the scramble for Africa" is deluded, and a tiny minority that should not be given undue weight among the many serious scholars of Ethiopia who can certainly be quoted as saying otherwise. As His Majesty said, anyone who researches it even a little, can quite easily convince himself of Ethiopia's antiquity. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It needs more NPOV work, since it displays a discernible POV in some of the wording, but what you have currently written in the article says "some modern historians have charged that the state of modern Ethiopia did not exist until during the Scramble for Africa, and that this makes it impossible for it to have been colonized." Even a child can see the illogic in that position. It could not have been colonised because it did not exist? This is the reason it escaped the Scramble for Africa? Just look at what the European colonists did everywhere else in Africa that they found a power vacuum, or a weak power structure. The reason Ethiopia alone escaped is precisely because it was the one place the greedy European powers could not extend their domination no matter how they tried. This is amply borne out by all the reliable sources and records; and these critical historians who even try to pretend Europeans only refrained from overrunning Ethiopia because there was nothing there to bother overrunning, are only repeating the exact same ridiculous sour-grapes line we have been hearing since 1895 from Italian and fascist propaganda sources; I still strongly feel taking these kind of sources (no matter where they originate) seriously is POV, offensive, and undue weight. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is largely inaccurate, but I agree the wording is clumsy and should be changed. Too much emphasis is placed on military power by nationalists. Part of the problem here is that you assume that the European policy was the same in all of Africa. It was not. Neither England nor France were willing to occupy Ethiopia, as evident in the immediate withdrawal of British forces after Tewodros II's suicide. It was, in fact, TOO geopolitically important to risk the war that would be triggered by an attempt from either one of them to assert control. This is why Italy was encouraged, mostly by the British, to seek colonization there. The British were seeking to protect the base of the Nile without overt conflict with France. Most modern historians recognize that Ethiopia's military prowess was not as great as is regularly touted. There are far more factors involved than a "powerful" indigenous empire and a simple characterization of greedy Europeans seeking to grab everything they could.

We have two points of contention here, which I think need some clarification.

One: I'm not trying to say Ethiopia isn't an ancient empire. It is. What I am saying is that it did not exist IN ITS MODERN FORM until the unification under Tewodros II and Menelik II. This is particularly true of the South, especially the Oromo and Somali areas, which were subjugated by the "Abyssinian" sprawl for economic and geographical gain along with Orthodox Christian hegemonic control. I'm not saying there was nothing there to bother overrunning. What I am saying is that much of what is considered modern Ethiopia today was not considered Ethiopia then, so it would be largely inaccurate to refer to the colonization of many parts of modern Ethiopia as colonizing Ethiopia then. I mean, would you say that the colonization of Somaliland was colonizing Ethiopia? No. But the Ethiopian emperors colonized Somali areas, which are included in the modern state and have led to modern conflict within Ethiopia.

Two: There is a far more complex group of factors keeping Ethiopia from being colonized during the Scramble for Africa. Its military might is just one, albeit an important one as evidenced at Adwa. It is a gross oversimplification to say that Adwa is THE reason that Ethiopia was not colonized, and is largely inaccurate.

Maybe my edits have been unclear in making those two points evident. I would like to believe you are not being childishly nationalistic to the detriment of factual accuracy. Hopefully we can work this out so that this Wikipedia article accurately represents the most up-to-date and modern explanations of Ethiopian history, regardless of nationalism. Its unique experience of the Scramble for Africa requires more than just a blurb, but obviously it must be simplified somehow. --Cigrainger (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I was just about to write here that I was glad we had worked out a compromise we're both happy with; but that just totally tipped the balance again. Of course, since this is a disputed subject among the sources and there are multiple contradictory POVs in the sources, we have to attribute those sources wherever possible (per WP:NPOV), not endorse them without question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two diametrically opposed POVs. Either the Ethiopian state did exist, or it did not exist. We have no authority to try to artificially reconcile these viewpoints, and you have the article now endorsing the view that it did not, so I will have to restore the disputed tag for neutrality and factual accuracy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure whether this will help clarify matters or not, but check out this map excerpt (and/or its full version). Ostensibly, the map itself is from 1891, but the information therein would have to be a bit older than that - I'd guess roughly around the time of the Scramble for Africa. Note that Addis Ababa doesn't yet appear; its present location would be near "Gara Gorfu" in the lower center of the map. This would near the southern extreme of what the map calls "Abyssinia," but it is right in the center of modern Ethiopia. This says nothing about whether the pink- or green-shaded areas had been part of the Ethiopian state prior to the Scramble for Africa, but they did not appear to be at the time of this map. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gyrofrog. That map illustrates my point quite well. --Cigrainger (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Ethiopia expanded to roughly its present size during the Scramble for Africa. But declaring that the Ethiopian state did not exist, or was something else under different rulers, is unacceptable POV. Ethiopian records affirm that there was a long line of Emperors that had ruled continuously under the Fetha Negest as the "Supreme Law of the Land", without interruption, for centuries until it was replaced by a modernized Constitution in 1931. The empire was often called 'Aksum' in the early days, but this was only the name of its capital; carved inscriptions dating to the 300s AD show that Ethiopia was already the name they called their own country, and again, Ethiopian records state that the name Ethiopia is even older than this. Unfortunately, Ethiopia's own records are regularly scoffed at by the CIAgraingers of this world, possibly because they cannot read them, or brush them off as being produced by people of inferior intelligence to their own. Attempting to undermine and destabilise the unity of the Empire by trying everything to create disaffected groups and planting these kinds of lying sources to appeal to them, can be proved to be a longstanding tactic of foreign "agents" for over a century. We can describe this neutrally, but not engage in it neutrally. We had a version that we actually both agreed on, but when you removed the attributation of the POV (in violation of neutrality policy) and made it into a direct endorsement of your POV, your true agenda was revealed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

You have some insecurity problems. The term indigenous was and is used to refer to an empire from within rather than from outside (ie European). It doesn't denote a POV, only differentiates the Ethiopian Empire from the European ones. This is essential in explaining Ethiopia's unique experience of the Scramble for Africa. Sure, it may have been called Ethiopia, but it existed only in the Abyssinian highlands. Why do you have such a hard time comprehending that what is the current state of Ethiopia was not traditionally within the Empire? Is it because you are choosing to ignore the violent imperialism of Ethiopian expansion? The state as it exists now did not exist then. There was not even a centralized capital until around the time of the Scramble for Africa (I am referring to Addis Ababa).

Also, how dare you claim to speak for me, and make the false claims you just did that insinuate racism or at the very least bigoted Eurocentrism? I never said anything about "evil" or "benevolent" actions. You clearly cannot even DISCUSS this without your nationalist non-neutral POV. I explained my use of the word indigenous already and it stands. Your ultranationalist approach is appalling, and you obviously do not have a neutral POV. You clearly have an agenda and don't care about the facts. You are not fit to have anything to do with this article because of your obvious emotional attachment. This is pointless and fruitless until you calm down and realize not everyone is out to get you. You obviously are not familiar with the academic literature on Ethiopian history. Nationalist histories are not enough. I'm sorry that you feel the need to continue to deny the violent subjugation of the Oromo and Somali people by the Abyssinian Orthodox hegemony. --Cigrainger (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, when you say "it existed only in the Abyssinian highlands", I agree with that and have no problem (except for the antiquated term "Abyssinian" that is like so old century) -- but to change that into "it never existed anywhere, at any time" is something else, clearly false and pushing it too far. In other words, if it existed in the "Abyssinian" highlands, then it existed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't what it became after the reunion and expansion though. It didn't have the same borders, governmental system, capital, et cetera. Again, this is like saying the Tokugawa Shogunate is the same as modern Japan. --Cigrainger (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure the borders and capital changed, the "governmental system" certainly did not, as it continued to be the Fetha Negest throughout this time until 1931. Just because a country changes its borders and capital does not make it a new country, and surely you can see how asserting it did not exist anywhere at all is POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No one said that. You made that up to try to discredit the things that I am saying in order to protect your nationalist nonsense. I said MODERN Ethiopia did not exist yet. And the governmental system did change. While sovereignty was still held in the person of the Emperor, there were different distributions of power in the form of minsters and the continuous centralization of power shifting from the princes to the Emperor. You should probably study political science before you try to make claims like that. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You really ought to read the Fetha Negest; then you might know what you are talking about. I have a copy in English and it is fantastic reading! It mentions all the functions of the state and the roles of various groups within it, king, nobles, bishops, subjects, courts, etc. detailing their respective rights and obligations, like any Supreme law should. This system was later MODERNISED by Haile Selassie I in the 20s and 30s, but continued intact until then. There are documents that show that Menelik tried to introduce the concept of Cabinet Ministers, but this hardly justifies your coming in here claiming this blatant POV nonsense that "modern Ethiopia could not be colonised, because it did not exist". If you ever went to Ethiopia and spewed that, youd better be prepared to get slapped. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between theory and practice. The Fetha Negest certainly held very little weight during the reunification and expansion periods. The ministerial system was actually created by Menelik II, but was expanded and given more power under Haile Selassie. You clearly have a poor grasp of the history. You have this idealized view of Ethiopian history that is just absolutely ridiculous and hypernationalist. I don't care if I'd "get slapped". I'm not here to appease nationalists. I'm here to try to provide accurate historical information. You clearly have an agenda. Please refrain from editing this article further due to your emotional attachment. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be a very new user here, but you are resorting to ad hominem arguments now that the facts have been shown not to support you. You have no right to ask me to leave this article, and attacking credentials of editors is seriously frowned upon by Wikipedia's founder who strongly believes that the same facts should be verifiable, regardless of who writes them, so it is usually not practised here. I don't know where Yom and other major longstanding authors of this article have been these past couple days (Yom seems to be offline lately), but I can guarantee that when they return, they will have more choice words for this view you are trying to foist. Will you ask them to leave too? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie. The facts have been shown to support what I have said, not to mention that they represent the broad academic consensus. There is even a map posted above that supports what I said, and I have provided a LIST of respected academic sources that support what I have said. Your "longstanding" authorship does not make you an expert on Ethiopia or some kind of arbiter of knowledge. Time spent on Wikipedia cannot give you that. I'm sorry that you have a trumped up view of yourself due to time spent on a webpage. Go get a real education. Your claims are not justifiable and are clearly nationalist. Sorry if you perceive that as ad hominem. You just keep trying ANYTHING to push your idea. Now you're even lying to do so. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Gyrofrog can clarify, but I think he posted that map to back up my point that there was indeed an entity in the highlands as shown on that map, which you only acknowledged after he posted it. The name this entity called itself was certainly "Ethiopia" but like Thailand and Iran, it only requested the international community to switch to the native name in the 1930s. It did not suddenly change its name to "Modern Ethiopia" some time in the 1890s. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that you continually twist my words to try to discredit the historical reality and push your personal nationalist agenda, I repeat: Feel free to read The Invention of Ethiopia by Holcomb and Ibssa, "State Transformation and Social Reconstruction in Ethiopia: The Allure of the South" by McClellan in IJAHS 17:4 (1984), The Southern Marches of Imperial Ethiopia: Essays in History and Social Anthropology edited by Donham and James, "Imperialism and Expansionism in Ethiopia from 1865 to 1900" by Marcus in Colonialism in Africa, Vol. 1, The Making of Modern Ethiopia by Tibebu, and Jalata's Oromia and Ethiopia: State Formation and Ethnonational Conflict. Those are just off the top of my head. Now which sources do you have except "His Majesty"? --Cigrainger (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, one of those sources as I added myself to the article, Teshale Tibebu, has a neat summary overview of the various opinions on p. xii, that is far more neutral than this article currently is. He notes that there are three timescales for Ethiopian history that are commonly encountered in literature: 1) Ethiopia's history is 3000 years old 2) It is 100 years old 3) (an even more extreme view) it is 40 years old. As he notes on the same page, and as Yom now has noted, "modern Ethiopian history" is conventionally taken by "some historians" as commencing with Tewodros in 1855, but the point you have been trying to make seems to be that there was some break or interruption allowing us to say "modern Ethiopia was not colonised in the Scramble because it didn't exist yet", which is indeed misleading. Is this not what you are arguing? Please correct me if you still feel I am misrepresenting your position. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I am glad you are happy with Yom's version because I am also. As for the claim of when WWII started for Ethiopia, at least he has cited this view and explained a little in the footnote, but that's really a much more minor issue. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely missed that and didn't know that little factoid. Good bit of information. Glad to hear you're happy with it as well. --Cigrainger (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Size of Ethiopia through history

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

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

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

Here is one reliable source in English stating that Menelik in 1891 claimed his ancient border to extend to the White Nile; I have found plenty of others, including the Cambridge History of Ethiopia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source? LOL. Plus Menelik II is not unbiased and claims are not always accurate. At that time he was trying to assert geographical control with the Mehdi to his West anyway. No one is saying Ethiopians' own history is irrelevant. What I am saying is that if those claims were justifiable or commonly accepted not only would they be translated into English, but they would be included in every major work on early Ethiopian history. Or do you think modern Western scholars are anti-Ethiopian? Please. You keep quoting Emperors as if they are unbiased. Who do you think you are to claim NPOV infractions on anyone? Everything you put forward seems to be nationalistic to the point of propaganda. --Cigrainger (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You've got me wrong, I'm actually not saying one way or another that Ethiopia or Aksum ever really stretched from Yemen to the White Nile to Madagascar, at one time. I'm only pointing out that the POV is definitely there, and it is not OR, Undue weight, or POV to make mention of it, unless we declare that Amharic books are worthless, because English books are superior. I did find one expatriate Ethiopian author writing in English, who confirms that "in antiquity, Ethiopia's borders extended from Egypt to Madagascar"[1] is indeed what is taught back home, although he himself does not believe it, and argues against it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So because it is taught in some Ethiopian schools and is available in a few Amharic books, it warrants a mention as a legitimate point of view? If we mention every POV, the article will just turn into a ridiculous mess of competing POVs. You found ONE author. You obviously have no sense of academic credentials, peer review, legitimate research, or what the academic community broadly accepts. Again, your antics are the reason that academics scoff at Wikipedia. You can find a published opinion on ANYTHING. It's a matter of recognizing that many people are writing with an extreme agenda in mind, whether they realize it or not. You have to try to stick with the academic consensus or in the case of SERIOUS, LEGITIMATE debate, post one or two addition POVs. You're advocating posting your own personal point of view based on a few obscure books. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. But you might want to re-read WP:NPOV. For you to insinuate that the books available in the Amharic language are not "legitimate" is pretty high-handed, but it's actually what we've come to expect after years of this. "Ethiopians couldn't possibly know anything about their own history, they have to accept the armchair verdicts of English books and European scholars and scribes" -- and pretty soon, next thing you know, Ethiopia's continuous 3000 year history will promptly vanish and be erased, and may not even be mentioned (damnatio memoriae), because lo and behold, it turns out we are being told that 'modern Ethiopia' never even existed until the 1890s! Yeah, right... What blatant POV pushing... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is pointless. You obviously have an agenda, because you think for some reason that people are attacking you. You even go so far as to make up attacks to defend yourself. Go ahead and keep up the martyr complex. I have read it several times. I never said they are not legitimate. Work on your reading comprehension. No one said Ethiopians are incapable of knowing their own history. What I AM saying is that you clearly have no academic experience in the subject and are pushing an extremely nationalist POV that skews reality to try to create a history that is inaccurate but supports your prejudices and feelings. I don't care if you're Ethiopian, American, Indian, Russian, Tajik, or Senegalese -- you are trying to rewrite history along nationalist lines and you're doing it without academic experience or credentials. YOU are the "armchair" expert. Stop pushing your hypernationalist, emotionally charged POV on everyone else. Modern Ethiopia did NOT exist until then. Ethiopia did. MODERN Ethiopia did not. --Cigrainger (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem with your version. It claims that "Modern Ethiopia" began in 1896, when the modern period of Ethiopia is almost always held to have begun in 1855 with the end of the Zemene Mesafint and the subsequent increase of relations with other countries. That you contrast claims of unbroken history/sovereignty with a separation between Ethiopia and "modern Ethiopia" paints a misleading portrait of Ethiopian history that implies that the two states are not a continuation of one another, even though such a claim is not made explicit. I have no problem with detailing the reunification processes of the Zemene Mesafint and subsequent expansions of the 19th century, but it is inaccurate to make it seem as if there's such a clean break between the past and the present. Moreover, I'm not sure we should speculate as to the other reasons, aside from Italy's defeat in the First Italo-Ethiopian War, as to why Ethiopia was not colonized. These would be better suited to sub-sections than to the introduction. I'm working on a rewrite now. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so do any other editors here feel maybe it is just a little misleading to assert that the real reason it was never colonised, is simply because it "did not exist yet"? Cabinet ministers may have been introduced, but there is no interruption of continuity between the Imperial Ethiopian state before 1880 and after 1900 to justify calling them two different entities; however I am willing to properly attribute this opinion to those authors who do hold it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a gross oversimplification of what I have been saying, and you know it. You, again, are misrepresenting what I have said in an attempt to discredit historical reality so you can push your ultranationalist, emotionally charged version of events. --Cigrainger (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to talk about Ethiopian history and boundaries by ignoring ethnic mixture. To say that ethiopia is only amhara and tigre is an insult to the historically mixed people in ethiopia. (Not mention some of the Ethiopian emperor who are known to have a mixed ethnic background including oromo, somali and gurage) My ancestors for example come from the northern Amhara, southern Oromo and Welayta peoples. Though i can guess that i am around 50% Oromo, it would be an oversimplification since the ethnic mixture goes back to my great, great, great, great ...grand parents. The cushitic and omotic background in my ancestors can actually connect me to the small Oromo community that have lived in Kenya for millennia. The omotic and cushitic also might go down as far as Tanzania while the Semetic have axum and yemen origins. In general, since the ancient Ethiopia label is for a deeply loose group of clan and ethnic states in the Horn and eastern parts of Africa, it is unreasonable to think that the old Ethiopia label is only for abyssinians (amhara/tigre). Whether there were some attempts to centralize these loose regions, some period during the last many centuries, in order to justify Menelik II claiming "ancient Ethiopia" represents territories from Sudan to Madagascar is at best debatable and honestly unverifiable. Ethiopian text books claim much larger terrotories than even what we see today. In the end, to conclude only one account is true would be to ignore history or to conclude ethiopian history books inferior to other history books. --Gadaa (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about ethnic mixture, and there is an excellent and famous quote that makes the point quite succinctly, that we should be able to use, if we could find it. As I recall reading it, it went something like this: after the Fascists had occupied Addis in WW2, one of their marshals, being -- well, er, a fascist -- was desirous that the native population be forcibly segregated along tribal lines, with Amharas, Oromos, Tigrayans, Gurages, etc. each in their own restricted areas. (This of course showed the typically fascist sheer total ignorance of where they actually were standing, because the majority of Ethiopians are of course of quite mixed ancestry of all these groups for hundreds of years -- and "by language spoken" is no good determinative either, since a majority of Ethiopians are bilingual and trilingual in several of these languages!) So, an Ethiopian elder chieftain to whom he was blathering, pointed at a large sack of mixed-grain with his staff and said something like "If you could separate out every one of the grains in that bag into separate piles, it would be far easier than what you propose". I have been trying to find out the details of this famous quote and where it occurs, so it can be used to illustrate the appropriate article(s). Does anyone else here know? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Evolution Propaganda Out

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

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

This isn't the place to rehash the Scopes trial. I think your beliefs are sacred and I wouldn't dare insult them. But Wikipedia has policies, and according to those policies this information does belong in the article. DBaba (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

African Union question?

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

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

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

Thanks for the quick reply. Renee (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Inflating the number of references suggests POV

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

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

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

I removed all but two of the original citations and added a citation for the actual Science study that the articles are talking about. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Colonialism or occupation?

Many history books define the The Second Italo-Abyssinian War (1935)the last colonial wars (that is, intended to colonize a foreign country, opposed to wars of national liberation), occupying Ethiopia for 5-6 years. It's not correct to compare this occupation with for example, the occupation of France and Austra from Germany. In Ethiopia the italian governament merged this last with Eritrea and Somalia in one entity, with a modern banking system, postal service, land(roads, bridge and railways), air and naval transportation for the whole Horn of Africa.

The lira of Italian Oriental Africa, shortened in £ AOI, it was the official coin (law n. 260 of 11/01/1937) of the area between 1936 and 1941, and it was equivalent to the Italian lira and it circulated together you with the same change. The first banknotes were printed in 1938. In Ethiopia, the lira of Italian Oriental Africa replaced the birr and in Eritrea the local Thaler, and also shortly the shilling in British Somalia (between 1940 and 1941.

Italian Oriental Africa had been divided in five governments with a regal decree June 1 st 1936, to whose vertex there was however the capital Addis Abeba, center of the Viceroy and the central governorship (then also become it I govern with the regal decree of November 11 th 1938, with the name of Scioa). Reciprocally the capitals of the Italian governments were to Asmara for the Eritrea, to Gondar for the Amhara, to Gimma for her Gall-Sidama, to Harar Jugol for the Harar, to Mogadiscio for Somalia. The territories of Bitter, Gall-Sidama and Harars formed to the epoch the empire of Ethiopia.

Near the oriental colonies you/they had also been founded a service of the National Autonomous firm of the Road (r.d. n. 1804 of 24/07/1936) and the Italian judicial organs.

We can blame fascist Italians how they obtain the sovereignty over Ethiopia, but we cannot say they did not manage exactly the same England and France in their colonies or the same Italy in Libya, Albania or Dodecanese. --62.240.63.83 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Colonialism or occupation?

I agree with you that's why the relationship between the two countries are so good and Italy is Ethiopian's first commercial partner. The two Italian schools, one in Addis Abeba and one in Gondar, are among the best in horn of Africa

Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Italian Somalia were united into Italian East Africa and reorganized as a federation of six provinces: Eritrea (formed by the merger of the former colony of Eritrea and the Ethiopian region of Tigre), Somalia (formed by the merger of the former colony of Somalia and the Ethiopian region of Ogaden), Addis Ababa capital region of Ethiopia), Amhara, Harar, and Galla-Sidama (parts of Ethiopia).

All the italian colonies were not administrated to export so many resources and worth any substantial amount. I most of case it was only a way to redirect italians, whose populations was rapidly increasing, that at the time were moving to North and SOuth America or Australia.

This is real colonialism like americas and Oceania for Britain and South America for Spain and Portugal. But if you insist to say the Ethiopia was not colonized we can also state that Congo was never colonized by Beligium. --62.240.63.83 (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits on Ethiopiean Empire, 19th century views

My removal of the Baldwin and Bunsen stuff was hardly 'POV pushing' -- NPOV pushing would be more accurate. That section was and still is a mess. Having Baldwin, Bunsen (who may have been out of context as I gather he is often misunderstood, there was certainly no proper citation and the whole paragraph is not in fact from Bunsen but again taken from another website [2], a book by the Afrocentrist Drusilla Dunjee Houston but not acknowledged), Rawlinson's stuff about the Babylonians being Ethiopian by blood, etc with no other views, now that is POV and WP:Undue. The modern research stuff was ripped out of context from a travel Wiki[3], again with no acknowledgement and with no references although at first glance it looked rereferenced with reference/footnote numbers which have no content. Til, if you really want the article to be NPOV, don't just revert edits without looking at what you are restoring and the whole context. Doug Weller (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The section header has been changed to 19th century discoveries. Are there actually any discoveries mentioned in that section, or is it just the views of certain 19th century writers/scholars? 98.145.6.72 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To Doug Weller. The article was given the author, title and page number of Bunsen's writing on Ethiopia. You removed it because you personally don't like what it says. Drusilla Dungee Houston has every right to quote him as long as she cites the author, title and page number of the book she quotes from. You are discrediting Bunsen through her even though he was born a century before she was. To call her an afro-centric is to call Bunsen and even Rawlinson an afrocentric. She did not invent what they wrote, she only cited it. So the paragraph is in fact from Bunsen and only cited by Houston. That qualifies for WP. You obviously have the power to remove the article from WP, but you do not have the power to say something is not cited, or not from Bunsen, when in fact it is. There is also no crime in an afro-centrist reporting on the history of ancient Africa. You are actually trying to take away an afrocentric's ability to report on Ethiopia. You not only discredit afro centrics from writing about things that are perhaps of black african origin, you want to discredit afrocentrics from writing about thing that are definitely black african in origin. You seek to discredit all early Ethiopian history that leads to their former glory. Your desire for this is so strong that you are willing to discredit Bunsen, Rawlinson and Herodotus to accomplish it. You sir are not a scholar or a true historian. Have your fun in WP, but you will never be able to erase the monumania that they left or the things that they wrote. If you don't study Ethiopian archeaology or the writings of Bunsen, Petrie, Rawlinson or Herodotus, then your children will study it. True history will out live us all. It has already outlived many who have tried to squelch its existence. So have your fun here in this bubble called Wikipedia. The truth of ancient Ethiopia can never be erased. You will never erase Taharqa and Ethiopias dominance of Egypts 25th Dynasty. You will never remove The Nubian Pharonic evidence that predates Egypts Dynastic period. You will never remove Gen 2:13, Amos9:7, Isaiah 37:9 or 2Kings 19:9 from the King James Bible. History will always rise up to discredit those who are insincere in their account of it. You will never be able to remove from the earth that which really happened. You only get to play with it here in WP. Tom 08/21/08

The inhabitants of the present area of Ethiopia have done some great things over the past few thousand years. I am well aware, for instance, of the 25th Dynasty (although to be frank, I don't understand how there could have been Nubian Pharaohs before there were Egyptian Pharaohs, let alone ones contemporary to the Egyptian preDynastic period). Bad history doesn't enhance Nubia's or Ethiopia's greatness, it only detracts from it. Doug Weller (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the Archaeological report from "The University of Chicago Press" citing Nubias Pharoanic period that predates Egypts dynastic period. //wysinger.homestead.com/menes2.pdf The present day inhabitants of Ethiopia are a shadow of ancient Ethiopia like Rome is a shadow of the ancient Roman Empire. To be frank, if you're a true scholar, you'll find it educational and enlightening. I agree with you that bad history detracts from history. Which is why you shouldn't have removed great history from the main page of this article. It was even a discredit to call it "19th century views". That was an attempt to somehow minimize or indicate its findings are outdated without having to disprove them ligitimately. In your deepest heart, how could you possibly feel that you've been fair. Tom 08/23/08

link to abyssinia

Can someone throw up a page so when people search wikipedia for "Abysinia", having read it from some older English text or work, it links to the Ethiopia page, under "name" section? I don't know how to link things. THanks!

I really don't think that's a good idea because people might not be looking for Ethiopia at all when they search for Abysinia. There is a disambiguation page at Abyssinia and it has links to several articles besides this one. I'll put up a redirect for Abbyssinia from Abysinia but that's it.Sjö (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

oldest country in the world?

If ethiopia isnt the oldest country in the world, what is? Should we mention it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured article?

This article looks great, it should be nominated. If there are any reasons as to why it shouldnt, list em. Is it even at good article status? RoyalMate1 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Fix references: merge duplicates and use the {{Cite}} templates. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Twenty-fifth dynasty of Egypt

"The Twenty-fifth dynasty of Egypt (roughly 743-656 BC) was actually an Ethiopian dynasty..............This was "Ethiopian" as in SUDANESE and not Abyssinian. This was a Meroitic Sudanese Dynasty. I am surprised this information is actually here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.92.99 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

GDP per capita?

According to other sites they write the total GDP per capita is over 1300 US$ for 2008. I have also watched other wikipedia like the Norwegian, Dansih and the Finnish Wikipedia and says it 1370 US$ for 2008. I don t think the GDP is so extreme low today because other sites have proved the GDP is over 1300 US$ today. I don t believe your site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.68.170 (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can prove it, then provide a reliable source that backs up your assertion. Changing information and not replacing the references will get you reverted everytime. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the GDP changes by the IP. The International Monetary Fund says the GDP (nominal per capita) was $251 (2007), his Ethiopian blog says it is $1,185 (2008), basing the information on The Economist. Some of his other changes maybe usefull put were unsourced. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

HDI?

I don t understand why just your side shows Ethiopia in the 169th place. I dont think it is so. According to other siies i have looked they write the HDI in Ethiopia is in the 155th for 2008. I am sorry but i have to tell your text about HDI and GDP per capita is wrong. If you don t change the information, i will do it.

Recent deleted edits

Sorry, clicked wrong button. I meant to say that they were unsourced or badly sourced, eg non-working links, sources too vague to verify, etc. and the same editor is removing Ethiopia from the list of Least Developed Countries which so far as I can tell is incorrect. This link [4] should help with the statistics and is up to date. dougweller (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lacks a "military" section

Despite the fact that every other country has one on their wikipedia page, and the fact that the Ethiopian military is extremely active both domestically and in neighboring countries. I think this is a major and glaring omission. ʄ!•¿talk? 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

The following text was copied verbatim from the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. While it is a public domain source, I do not think it is useful to include century-old text as written. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Previous to the conversion of the country to Christianity, the worship of the serpent was perhaps the religion of a portion of Ethiopia, i.e., of the aboriginal Cushite tribes. From inscriptions at Axum and Adulis it would seem that the Semites, on the other hand, had a religion similar to that of Chaldea and Syria. Among the gods mentioned we find Astar, Beher, and Medr -- perhaps representing the triad of sky, sea, and land. After the evangelization by St. Frumentius, and in spite of the resulting general conversion of the people, Paganism always retained some adherents in Ethiopia, and has its representatives there even to this day. Moreover at the time of the Mussulman wars Islam succeeded in securing a foothold here and there. Nevertheless Christianity has always been the really national religion, always practiced and defended by the rulers of the nation. For nearly three centuries at this time Ethiopia had to wage wars without respite for liberty and faith, and it alone, of all the African kingdoms, was able to maintain both [sic]

Although converted to Christianity by missionaries of the Catholic Church, Ethiopia today professes Monophysitism. But subject to the influence of Egypt, it has adopted in the course of time the theory of the Egyptian Church regarding the human nature of Christ. Our lack of information about the country prior to the thirteenth century hinders us from following the history of its separation from Rome, or even fixing the date of that event.

Good, it has no place in the article. 'Ethiopia today'? 'was perhaps the religion'? dougweller (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Return Prostitutes?

In the section regarding Ethiopia's renewed contact with Europe at the beginning of the 15th century, the article states that Alphonse V of Aragon responded to Ethiopia's overture by sending prostitutes that never arrived in Ethiopia. Is that true? To me, it seems like vandalism, but maybe, it's not. Other articles with in Wikipedia mention Alphonse V responding to Ethiopia's overture by sending artisans (and not prostitutes) that never arrived in Ethiopia. I tried to see if I have access to the source cited within the Ethiopia article regarding prostitutes, but unfortunately, I don't. Can someone else see if it is true (according to the source cited, currently no. 48 in the article) that Alphonse V responded by sending prostitutes? 190.245.141.29 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism from March 12. Probably the same person, but from three different IP addresses, only one of which was reverted. I've taken care of it, thanks for brining it up. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)