Talk:Ethiopia

Name

Arabic Habasha is not "modern Arabic" as it is the Classical Arabic name for Ethiopia. It is now not used diplomaticaly or journalisticaly after a systematic campaign by the Ethiopian government in the 1070's to erase all cognates of that word in various languages when refering to the country. I have heard various reasons for this, but the most rational argument is that it refers to the Semitic speakers only. Habashat was the name of a South Arabian tribe. Support for this argument may be found in Encyclopaedia of Islam II. Unfortunately, I do not have a reference supporting my contention, deriving from memory of the event in a newspaper, that there was such a campaign by the Ethiopian government.

Ybgursey (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean 1970's? — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The name Habesha is Amharic (and Tigrinya), and is not offensive. It refers collectively to Ethiopian Semitic speakers. Should be no confusion or uncertainty there now about what it refers to, right? Until 1930 most other countries in their languages had called Ethiopia by cognates of Habesha, such as Abyssinia in English. From the 1930s, Emperor Haile Selassie I argued that what was already the native official name for the country since at least ca. 300, Ethiopia, would also be more appropriate for international usage than the cognates of Habesha, because the name Ethiopia is inclusive of non-Habesha Ethiopians. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to know what the 'indigenous' people(s) called their country. All the names given in the article have been attached from outside. Ancient Egypt, for example, had several different names, but the only name that those who lived in the country gave themselves seems to have been 'people' (rmt). Pamour (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

'Useful' to what purpose? What exactly would this information be 'useful' to you for? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Updating population statistics

The article uses several sources that offer quite different and confusing population statistics, some of which are very hard to verify. Others seem to be estimates and projections. The English-language rolling summary on the Ethiopian Govt's own website, for example, seems to give a total figure from 2007. Overall, such variations are likely to confuse readers. No point in claiming source consistency if there's none, but it's a major article and in this respect at least, could do with a thorough clean-up. I'd offer, but I'm somewhat disadvantaged by my complete ignorance of the Ethiopian script and language... Amharic, I guess... my ignorance is boundless, alas. Haploidavey (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Leprosy camp near Mota

In a Hungarian book, there's a report from the year 2000 about a leprosy camp called LC2 (Leprosy Camp 2) "near the lake Tana, above Mota". By that time, it was attempted to be kept secret, guarded by the military. It consisted of three sections, where the patients were sorted according to the progress of their disease. The second section, with more advanced cases was somewhat apart, and the third, with the "faceless people" (final stages), approx. 6-8Km (3,7-4,9Mi) apart from the first, in a depression on a mountain, accessible through a very narrow passage. In the 1990 there were about 2800 patients, in 2000 about 7000. That's all info to be found. Does anyone know about it, or have spotted it on satellite images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.68.122 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "known to scientists" in the lead

There's a discussion about the phrase "known to scientists" going on Wikipedia:NPOVN#Attribution_issue_at_Ethiopia_-_do_we_need_to_say_.22known_to_scientists.22.3F. Comments are welcome –Jérôme (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

An incredible argument, indeed. "Known" is surely the stronger term, as "known to scientists" may carry an implication that some non-scientists know something different. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. I don't know why Til decided to pick this to edit war about, maybe it was simply because it was me reverting him, which I did simply because it was so obviously wrong (and pov, although he seems to think he was the one following NPOV). Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Was Ethiopia previously landlocked?

I don't know all that much about Eritrea, but I know it was considered part of Ethiopia for a while. Now that Eritrea is independent, we know that Ethiopia is definitely a landlocked country, but was it landlocked BEFORE Eritrea became part of Ethiopia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In general, yes. The Red Sea coastal regions, right down to Somalia, were part of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century onwards (to at least the mid-19th century I think). Not sure exactly when that ended, but at any rate Ethiopia certainly didn't have any kind of effective control over any area near the coast in the late 19th/early 20th century. 83.254.159.43 (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—168.187.28.120 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't explained what you think is erroneous, but I've tweaked the coordinates in the infobox slightly. If you still think that the coordinates need to be corrected, please post a clear explantion of the problem below, including the {{geodata-check}} template, and someone will be along to address your concerns. Deor (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Dictatorship, one-party state or an authoritarian democracy

Is Ethiopia a dictatorship, a de facto one-party state or an authoritarian democracy (in the mold of Russia)? --TIAYN (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Rastafarianism

Rastafarianism is not a religion of Ethiopia, nor are Rastafarians one of Ethiopia's recognized populations. They are therefore WP:OFFTOPIC in the lede. See the Israel wikipage for the similar Hebrew Israelites, who by contrast do have a notable presence in that country. Middayexpress (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, there is a significant Rastafari presence in Ethiopia, do not try to sound like an authority on things you are clearly not Binghi Dad (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a tourist presence too. Neither is sizable or one of the Ethiopian government's recognized local populations. Also, kindly refrain from using anonymous ips. Middayexpress (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have issues. However wikipedia does not care what your issues are or if you consider Rastafarians (not -ism) something like a tourist movement in your esteemed opinion. Ethiopia is significant as a spiritual homeland to the Rastafari movement and this fact should not be unilaterally and repeatedly censored from the lede by you. Binghi Dad (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware that Rastafarians claim Ethiopia as their spiritual homeland, just as the Hebrew Israelites claim Jerusalem as their spiritual homeland. That doesn't change the fact that Rastafarians similarly are not one of Ethiopia's officially recognized populations nor is Rastafarianism one of Ethiopia's major religions. Neither have roots in the country, so mentioning them in the lede when not even Ethiopia's own actual populations are is undue. Ironically, you also simultaneously removed historical material on the Kingdom of Aksum (an actual Ethiopian entity) from the Book of Aksum. Middayexpress (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Nonsense, there is a significant Rastafari presence in Ethiopia", you must be joking. If this community was "significant" as you claim why did you not provide a source? Seeing how "significant" they are it would have been quite easy for you to find one. I would also like to point out how you removed sourced content without a legitimate reason. There is absolutely no reason for such act on Wikipedia. AcidSnow (talk)

You must be joking, it is absurdly easy to verify that the Rastafari presence in Ethiopia is significant - and even includes non-immigrants, are you saying you did not know this without a source? That is only why I disputed the edit, nothing to do with Aksum. Binghi Dad (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point if this discussion. You might want to see WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. As for this, "That is only why I disputed the edit, nothing to do with Aksum", there is no reason to take a dispute out on Wikipedia. That is a complete violation of Wikipedias policies. AcidSnow (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is not on us to disprove the allegedly "significant" presence of Rastafarians in Ethiopia, but rather for you to prove it. Regardless of whether or not it was a mistake on your part, you also removed the historical testimony on the Kingdom of Aksum's first capital and builder. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a case of "article ownership". User Middayexpress feels that he OWNS this article Ethiopia. He looks at it, says, "We're not going to have any mention of Rastafari in MY article." and fights like hell to get it out, including running first and only to his collaborating partner who always backs him up regardless. The important thing you are forgetting though is, even if you do not care for Rastafari in Ethiopia, this still isn't just YOUR article. Binghi Dad (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility like the above are both against policy and counterproductive, "Binghi Dad". It's also peculiar that you keep alluding to website policy when you just registered this account a little over a month ago (per WP:NEWBIE, "it is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing[...] even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time"). At any rate, the WP:BURDEN is still very much on you to disprove the allegedly "significant" presence of Rastafarians in Ethiopia. More than that, you must also prove that "Ethiopia is also the spiritual homeland of the Rastafari movement" since that's what the wikitext actually indicated. That's a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice, not of personal belief attributed to Rastafarians. It is also undue for the lede, where not even Ethiopia's own actual populations are mentioned. Similarly, asserting that "Israel is also the spiritual homeland of the Hebrew Israelites movement" would be undue for the Israel wikipage's lede (although the Hebrew Israelites do, by contrast, have a sizable presence in that country). Unfortunately, the late User:Til Eulenspiegel (who coincidentally specializes in this area) is no longer with us to provide clarification. Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The above is a living example of your repeated attempts to deflect from the basic simple question at hand, (i.e. Could the Rastafari connection to Ethiopia and Haile Selassie I be noteworthy to readers of this article even though it is not noteworthy to you?) and deflect attention onto me as your opponent. Even if you could make me "go away" by using some technicality or another do you seriously believe to yourself that you are making the "problem" go away? It won't go away, it will come back to bite you and expose you before the whole world in so doing. Binghi Dad (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC

You might want to stop with the accusations like I recommended earlier. Nowhere does Midday state ""We're not going to have any mention of Rastafari in MY article.". You might want to read WP:NPA and WP:CIV and the others that you previously ignored. AcidSnow (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You're now arguing something different. You wrote above that "Ethiopia is significant as a spiritual homeland to the Rastafari movement and this fact should not be unilaterally and repeatedly censored from the lede by you". Now you are suggesting that the matter is actually whether "could the Rastafari connection to Ethiopia and Haile Selassie I be noteworthy to readers of this article". I actually agree that the latter is probably notable, just not in the lede or on Haile Selassie's image. It would also need qualification since, for one thing, Haile Selassie did not regard himself as a living God and is on record as having expressed confusion over the Rastafarians' worship of him. He was also lambasted by the Rastafarian founder Marcus Garvey, after Haile Selassie had rejected an invitation to attend one of the Garvey organization's functions abroad. Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It is your assertion that "Haile Selassie did not regard himself as a living God and is on record as having expressed confusion". I believe this has been explained patiently to you before, but this is only your assertion, since there is no such record of him expressing any confusion, so you must be careful not to prevaricate. Western governments are on record as repeatedly begging him to issue such a clarifying statement but he pointedly refused on several occasions to their considerable disappointment. Not content with that, the Wetsern media such as the BBC and Time Magazine sought to put these words into his mouth following the end of his reign. However all of his public statements regarding the Rastafari movement and directly to the Rastafari movement are on record. We had hoped that you were ready to drop this stick but if you want to take it up again now let us know. Binghi Dad (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Who exactly is "we"? lol The discussion above is between myself, you and AcidSnow, and your account was just registered. It's also amusing that you should try and project Haile Selassie's own assertions onto me and the vague "Western media". But alas, it's indeed Haile Selassie himself who asserted this [1]: "Selassie said, "I am a man; I am mortal. I will be replaced by the oncoming generation. They should never make the mistake of assuming or pretending that a human being is emanated from a deity."" Middayexpress (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A very interesting statement for a man that has "no such record of him expressing any confusion". AcidSnow (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Where did Haile Selassie I ever state "I am confused about this" ??? Where did he ever state any words suggesting to you that he was confused? He was not the least confused and never said he was; thus if you say he admitted to being confused you are "prevaricating" about his words.

Where did he say he did not regard himself as living God? Once again you are falsely putting the very words into his mouth that he was repeatedly requested by Whitehall (on record) to utter, but refused even once to do so during his lifetime. He said he was a man and he was mortal, sure. In case anyone out there is still ignorant about his subtle answer, according to Ethiopian Christianity Jesus Christ is a man and was mortal,in addition to being God. Haile Selassie was asked directly the question if he was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. He did not say yes or no, however he wisely gave two points of similarity between himself and Jesus Christ, ie his being a man and mortal, that answer does not rule out their being the same nor does it rule out if he thought he was God (which is not what he was asked). I am quite aware that this very question was the matter of a previously settled arb-com case, which is why I wonder why you have chosen this moment to begin again militating against inclusion of information on Rastafari views, and I strongly question your wisdom in doing so as well. Binghi Dad (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is quite confusing. you keep asking "where?" when we have always already shown you. What is even more confusing is how you have yet to provided us with anything other than your own original research. It would be nice if you could do something other than that. Anyways, read this: "He wanted to be absolutely clear that he was not a saint or a messiah or whatever. He was just an Emperor of Ethiopia". AcidSnow (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The man indeed could not have been clearer. He was actually an observant Ethiopian Orthodox Christian throughout his lifetime. Middayexpress (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot show a single quote from him expressly denying being either Jesus or God, although he was on record repeatedly refusing to. He told the Prime Minister of Jamaica in 1966 expressly that he would agree to no such statement, saying "Who am I to tell them what to believe?" It was a similar story with the British government as far as the 1950s. At no point did he once say nor imply he was "confused"; that is a bald faced prevarication. This has all payed out before in arb-com as no doubt you were aware, or should have been. You have only provided materials attacking the Rastafari faith and your opinions about their faith should not be reason for you to censor mention of them fro this article. Binghi Dad (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)