This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A lot of the sources are re-used throughout the article and I am unable to find some of the statistics in the original article. For example "Rural Vs. Urban Life Migration to urban areas is usually motivated by the hope of better living conditions. In peasant associations daily life is a struggle to survive. Only 45% of rural households in Ethiopia consume the World Health Organization’s minimum standard of food per day, (2,200 kilocalories), with 42% of children under 5 years old being underweight.[93]"

I looked at 93 and no where could I find these statistics. This should be corrected.

Sepul^ ( talk) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______

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

According to Josephus, in ancient times, Ethiopia designated the whole of Africa and part of Asia including Indians. The name Ethiopia meant Black and was never applied to Ethiopia until the modern times. Contemporary Ethiopia was created, in its current borders, as we all know, by the treaty with Italian colonialist in the 1890s. The history of Ethiopia in this article is partly based on the legend of king Salomon and the queen of Sheba (She probably was from Yemen)and a wrong translation of the bible where every time the word Cush appears in the bible, it was translated as meaning Ethiopia. Historically, this doesn’t even make sense. Axum started to rise as a world power after defeating Meroe around the second or first century AD (king Ezana). King Salomon and the queen of Sheba were like 900 years before Axum, there is some kind of gap here. According to the bible Cush was the son of Ham son of Noah, strangely enough, Abyssinians consider themselves as Semitic people and not Cushitic. Only the Afar, Somali and Oromo who are considered to have come from Asia through the Detroit of Bab-El-Mandeb are considered Cushitic and hence non Semitic. The most probable history of that area is that Axum was built by the descendants of the Nilotic people who used to live in the area and two Yemenite tribes (the Agazean and the Habashat). The apogee of Axum is around the third century AD, when they expanded deep in the south of Africa and dominated the southern part of Arabia, including Yemen. Axum gradually declined and by the 7th century was totally destroyed to never come back from its ash. Although Axum was destroyed, the culture and the religion was inherited by the current Abyssinians and several chieftains and war lords dominated the area until very recently with the coming of Tewodros who tried to establish a centralized kingdom. It is only under Yohannes IV of Tigray and then Menelik of Shoa that a modern centralized state was formed in Abyssinia. Although the name of Ethiopia was used at that time, Menelik used to sign documents as the king of the Abyssinians, not Ethiopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abebab ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"As we all know" ??? Don't say "as we all know", because the POV you have just laid out is a very contentious and highly disputed one. If it was something that "we all know" there would be no dispute, but you can't pretend that everyone agrees with you. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 23:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a fact that Ethiopia along with Eritrea was created by an international treaty between Menelik and Italy? Ethiopia as an independent sovereign country with defined borders and Eritrea as Italian colony? Wasn't that freely accepted by the then Ethiopian king? After the defeat of Italy and dismantlement of its army, the Ethiopian king Menelik was free the cross the border and butt out Italy form Eritrea, but he didn't recognizing by this act that Eritrea is not part of his kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abebab ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a POV (point-of-view) question. According to one POV, the one that you apparently hold, Ethiopia was "created" at that time you mention by the permission from a European power, Italy. The other POV recognizes the fact that there was a long succession of legitimate, sovereign and Christian monarchs over the same, uninterrupted polity, both long before and after this treaty; and this POV does NOT recognize as legitimate, the authority of Italy to grant "permission" for Ethiopia to exist or not exist. This second POV is not too hard to reference, and is in fact the mainstream and overwhelmingly dominant POV today. The first POV, which you hold, basically stating that Italian permission or recognition is necessary for Ethiopia to exist, besides being inherently racist, is hardly a significant one, relatively speaking, and may be called a " fringe POV", since no government on Earth has maintained such a POV since World War Two, and only very few individuals, such as yourself. As such, it is not necessary to give undue considerations or weight to this kind of fringe POV, and the uninterrupted sovereign polity that referred to itself as "Ethiopia" both before and after this treaty should be and is recognized as such. However, if you find sufficient reliable references to any groups today that actually do deny Ethiopia's existence before this treaty, it may be reasonable to give them some brief mention in the proper place. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 16:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your opinion about Ethiopia Concerning

Economy,
peace,
Politics, and
development of Democracy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) I wish people would remove politics from history and stop pumping themselves up with false empty pride from something that if it was not mythical, happened so long ago that it has no bearing or reflection on what you are and what you did today on your own. History should be an objective rendering of facts which maight give insight and background to present day realities, but let alone ancient history you cannot even honestly take credit for what your own mother and father did!

2) The hypocrisy! There is no reason for "Ethiopians" of today, to usurp the history of peoples in Sudan (Meroe and Napata) and even as far away as the Indian Ocean and call it theirs based on the rantings of some ignorant ferenji who could not distinguish between the nations of black people with kinky hair. The whole name "Ethiopia" is ferenji to begin with and ignorantly generalizes all black people south of Egypt as one nation. So unless you are writing "History of Subsaharan Africa (South Arabia and South Asia), you don't need to repeat the Europeans ignorance and take pride from forgery, ignorance and false information when it suits you, then accuse them of racism or cultural imperialism or whatever when it doesn't suit you.

2) You want to find racism and cultural imperialism? Know yourself. What do you call describing Damot, Saba, Axum etc as if it was the only and unified chronological history of the same one country and same nation over three millenia until modern Ethiopia? I guess it is ok to use "Ethiopia" to describe the history of the Abyssinian kingdoms because they are the ones who adopted this European name based on the European ignorance of thinking there was just one nation with people of burnt faces south of Egypt (from Greek version of the) Bible. But what about the history of the peoples who were CONQUERED when this Abyssinian Empire EXPANDED. Where is the mention of that? Don't these people have their own history? Or were they just barbarc half-animals with no history until they became associated with the civilized northerners from the Abyssinia? Ring a bell? Who is the racist now? Who is the cultural imperialist now?

If you have an accurate and honest portrayal of Ethiopia's geopolitical history (using correct terminology), it could actually shed some light on the CURRENT problems facing the country (regarding seccesionism, ethnic conflicts etc) instead of denying and hiding from the highly uncomfortable truth. Other than not being racist or ethnically/culturally chauvinistic towards the majority of Ethiopians (the "Galla", "Shankilla", "Taltal" and many other slaved peoples) you would also be doing yourselves a favor by facing up to your problems and dealing with them instead of continuing the sins of your fathers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.251.132 ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You say the name Ethiopia is "ferenji"??? Tell that to Haile Selassie I, he is the one who argued considerably and at length that it is the most appropriate name for the nation to be known by internationally, instead of Abyssinia! This is a page for discussing specific changes for the article and what sources back them up, not soapboxing our opinions. It seem like you are vaguely lecturing those who wrote this article, which is a very good article. So what specific changes would you like to see, and what sources back them up? We already have listed both opinions about the name, both the traditional view that it is indigenous, and the more recent ferenji view where they try to take credit for it for the Greeks by folk-etymology. NPOV means all significant views are going to be represented, along with their sources, are you suggesting that only one view be represented? ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous contributor might be interested to see other Wikipedia articles such as Kingdom of Kaffa, Welayta people, or Kingdom of Jimma just to cite a few examples. But again, this talk page is for improving the article, not for debating the subject (nor is it for personal attacks). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not anonymous I am zeragito, I just hadn't logged in sorry. Thank you for that link now this is what I'm talking about! I am also talking about the Oromo migrations, the Gada system, the Harar sultanate and all these things which should not be "separate" articles unless you are trying to say they belong less on the Ethiopia page because they are not really Ethiopians. Why do I have to find a separate article on them? Why are they not on the Ethiopia page? ARen't they Ethiopians?

Zeragito, I think your concerns are completely valid but there is no need (nor place) for the combative tone. "Sins of your fathers," "ignorant farenji" and "pot-smoking Ras-Tafari" do not advance the discussion at all. I think the information in the articles I mentioned could be better incorporated into the article, though not in too much detail — that's why they have separate articles. (Otherwise the main Ethiopia article could become unmanageably long.) I haven't looked at the separate History of Ethiopia article lately so I don't know if or how well it represents this same information. Though it might be a better place to go into a bit more depth than the Ethiopia article itself. P.S. You can sign and timestamp your comments using four tilde characters: ~~~~ -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be many opinions but there is only one truth and that is 'Ethiopia' is a ferenji name and it is a reference to an area which never existed as one unified vast Empire. There is no basis to state that or describe history as such. But you are right, all opinions should be represnted and the facts backing them, it will be clear for all to see then which is more than likely to be the true one, let the people judge for themselves. As far asking Haile Selassie I questions about the truth in this or that, well he is dead by the way and I don't know why I should take the ramblings of a man who usurped the throne from his brother in law, maintained a medeival feodal nation and stashed billions of dollars worth of a famine prone countries meager wealth in swiss bank accounts (being recuperated as we speak), as some kind of authority on the truth of anything. I am not a pot-smoking Ras-Tafari either so I don't recognize him as immortal god (he died after all). As far as changes, I don't mind reading about Damot, Axum and the many "Kings" or "Emperors" and the era's in which they ruled "Ethiopia". My point was not that this was false information. My point was that this is only PART of the picture and does not describe or represent ALL of Ethiopia's many peoples and their history. Emperor Amda Seyon or Gabremskal or whoever from back in 1426 or 1527 or whatever was not emperor of ALL Ethiopia as we know it today in 2006. They were ruling of an area which may have called itself "Ethiopia" at that time but it only corresponds with a small part of what is known as "Ethiopia" today in 2006 catch my drift? In fact their history does not even represent the majority of the Ethiopian people today, who had other things going on at 1427 or 1527 and were not "Ethiopians" then. What about THEIR history? What about the history of when "Ethiopia" took them over and slaved them? No mention of that? So basically Ethiopian history is only about the "Habesha", everybody else (Majority of Ethiopians) is just irrelevant until they are put into the context of being part of the "Habesha" Empire? You see what is wrong with this picture?

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

No, with Arabs

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

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

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

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

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

I'm confused by this statement:

Ethiopia is the oldest secular state in the world.

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

Christianity was officially adopted...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who cares what they are mixed with? Are you American? Most Americans are always obsessed with race and color. If you must know, the further south you get in Africa the darker the skin. Everyone in the Middle East and South East Asia are mixed with African, Caucasian and probably some Asian (eg Chinese, Vietnamese etc), due to ancient immigration/emigration, trade and slavery. If you look over in Central and South American you will see the same type of mixtures from Europeans (Spanish/Portugese) and African Slaves. Okay? Can we try to live in the new millenium now?MPA 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)MPA —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA ( talk • contribs)

The Ethiopians that don't look like the rest of Africans are of semitic descent either by facial structure (straight nose, dark large eyes) and skin tone . The reason you can clearly tell East Africans apart in general is due to their historical relationship with the middle east. Think of ancient Egyptians and you will see that they have the same facial structure and skin tone as the Ethiopians you are referring to. India has nothing to do with the way Ethiopians look. Ethiopians are Ethiopians and can not be considered a mix since they have stayed racially consistent for such a long time. Due to the hegemonic role it played in the Red sea region, Axum (Ethiopia) has ended up with various peoples who are diverse in appearance. But the semitic Ethiopians had been at the center of Ethiopia's history. NegasiChristos ( talk) 22:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this must have been disconnected from some previous discussion. But I don't think it has anything to do with this section, "Clean up", nor does it have anything to do with improving the article, which is the purpose of this talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

• I am almost positive that it's a prank (and I feel like a chump for qualifying that with "almost"). I'm nominating Anuzutica for deletion. - Gyrofrog 20:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for following up. I'll take a look at the vfd listing. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is a troll and "Anuzutica" is a hoax. This person has also repeatedly vandalized Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Community Portal.

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

And speaking of the date of independence, should the relevant sentences be moved from the introductory paragraph down to the "History" section? Maybe just mention something like "except for the Italian invasion" in the first paragraph, and move the specific info to "History." IMHO it seems a little weird to have a citation in the first paragraph (and I do think we should keep the citation). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of nationalistic pride mixed with a plausible claim here -- it all depends on how you interpret the Italian interlude: should one see it as a period of colonialism, admittedly delayed 50 years from the height of the colonial movement; or should it be seen as one more occupied country in the way several European countries were occupied by Axis Powers during World War II? There is evidence to support either view.

Ethiopia could be said to have fallen into the same catagory as, say Sudan or Morocco, where a European power absorbed an internationally-recognized polity by placing a thin layer of foreign beauracrats & military over a local elite who were self-identified with that polity, & in many ways continued to run things. For both of those countries, European control was an interlude which merely suspended, but did not change, the dynamics within that country prior to annexation. If this is the case, then one could say that Ethiopia did have a "date of independence", & it needs to be defined.

On the other hand, a number of countries were effectively occupied or absorbed in the manner Ethiopia was, & re-emerged after WW II. Examples would be Czechoslovakia, Austria, & I believe Thailand (by the Japanese). As Thailand would show, not all Occupied Countries were in Europe. In this case, then the question of a "date of independence" is moot. Is there a "date of independence" for, say, the United Kingdom?

As I understand it, Ethiopians are very jealous -- & rightly so -- over the possession of the longest recorded continuous history for any country in Africa -- excepting, of course, Egypt. But to support this claim, some contrary details get overlooked; for example, there is a lengthy Dark Age between the end of the Axumite Kingdom (circa AD 700) & the beginning of the Zagwe dynasty (either AD 950 or 1150). This jealousy does not allow a dispationate consideration of the question whether Ethiopia actually ended in 1936, & therefore whether there was a "date of independence". -- llywrch 21:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, I didn't want to have the date there, as it only pertained to 8 years or so out of several centuries. But when the original 1941 vs. 1944 dispute came up, the case for the latter seemed pretty clear. I suppose one option (perhaps the most neutral of all?) is simply to omit the Date of Independence from the infobox entirely. This has been done with both the France and Japan articles, for example (though I'm not sure of the specific reason for the omissions where those 2 are concerned). That way, let the reader see the details for him or herself while reading the actual article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another approach would be to put the date in with a footnote explaining the controversy, perhaps with a reference to the place in the article where it is addressed. That way, the date is included, but the reader is made aware that there are other views. Ground Zero 22:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is incorrect to put that Ethiopia received it's independence from Italy, as it was already a sovereign country before Italy occupied it. Also after Italy left Ethiopia retained the same languages, culture, laws, borders, government structure, and regime (including the return of the previous monarch in exile); these are some things that many other European countries didn't have after World War II, but France is not listed to have gained it's independence from Germany.

In short to portray Italy's five year control of Ethiopia was anything more then a brief occupaion by Italian Fascists, would be misleading. Mesfin 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

having a 5 year partial occupation isnt a violation of a nations soverignity.-- HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 09:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i find it most strange that any form of arabic doesn't have any relevant presence at all in the whole country. Mostly considering that a third of its population is reputed to be muslim and seen the fact that it's almost entirely surrounded by political units which grant arabic at least an oficial status. Can anyone provide any reliable information on this subject? antónio-- 91.117.77.73 ( talk) 01:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you! Revolución 23:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Amharic is a stupidly difficult font to find; I got a few of them from around the net, by Googling for Amharic truetype unicode font, and eventually one worked. Try Gyrofrog's first. :) -- Golbez 20:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Technically it's Ge'ez or Ethiopic, as other languages (Tigrigna & Tigre, to name only a couple) use the same writing system (analagous to our use of the Roman alphabet). Finding the font is not as hard as getting it to work. I gave up trying on my older Powerbook (still running Mac OS 9). Typing the language is another story - I remember seeing an Ethiopic typewriter - and I assume there is some way to map a regular computer keyboard to the font. Kind of a moot point as I can barely read it anyway! ;-) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm using WinXP and in IE at least, ጌኤዝ fonts show up just fine. Tomer ^TALK 00:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is spelled ግዕዝ...! I have been an admin at http://am.wikipedia.org since August, and the site has improved a lot in the last couple of months, but we still need more contributors who can write Amharic! If anyone reading this writes Amharic, or knows someone who does, let them come and contribute! If you can't see the font, look for a link on the main page there that says "Can't see the font?"...

And while I'm at it, some other wikipedias in Ethiopian languages that haven't really got off the ground yet include:

• Tigrinya (ti.wikipedia.org)
• Oromifaa (oo.wikipedia.org)
• Afar (aa.wikipedia.org)

So if you happen to know anyone with any ability in those languages, do pass the word along! አመሰግናለሁ Codex Sinaiticus 15:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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

see font section on the amharic wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yom 01:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

CIA

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

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

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

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

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

Archer7 22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, that's not a copyvio... It was written two weeks ago and borrowed from here; our article history will reveal it was added in stages by numerous people ages ago... ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Archer7 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, the reporter cobbled together text from several Wikipedia articles. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're all exactly the same? I was not aware of that. I was just thinking that the Bible that Codex would be thinking about, as one of the contributors to Amharic Wikipedia, might be the Ge'ez version of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church or something similar, so there would be bound to be wording issues. In any case, it's good to see that an agreeable version was worked out. (Codex, I finally downloaded the fonts so I can finally see your username.  :) ) - Banyan Tree 03:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Systemic bias is your comment and your pov that non-Ethiopians know all about Ethiopian history better than Ethiopians do. You obviously think any traditions Ethiopians have about their own origins are automatically to be brushed aside because you think Ethiopians are unreliable - either lying or stupid - while outside "experts" have all the answers for them. That's the kind of attitude that makes me sick, but I know it's out there and I will have to deal with it. Why are you citing Herodotus and Homer? Do either one of them say that "Ethiopia" comes from a Greek word meaning "burnt faces"??? No, Herodotus says on the contrary that it comes from the "sons of Ethiops". Making this name into a Greek word for "burnt faces" is the amateurish folk etymology, found in neither Herodotus nor Homer. That's not what it means at all, that lie is just another systematic way of insulting or poking fun at Ethiopia. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with poking fun at Ethiopia, any more than we "poke fun" at the Romans. Using language like "lies" is wholly inappropriate and in any case is mere assertion. Ethiopian traditions are not "automatically" to be brushed aside, they are to be treated with the same skepicism, on the same grounds, as any other traditions. It is not "amateurish folk etymology" at all, though I accept that there is some dispute about it. It is a reasaonable view, far more reasonable than the notion that Homer would use a word derived from a mysterious son of Cush. You still hgave procided no evidence of "older" Ethiopian chronicles. I'm sure we can reach a reasonable solution here, but the version you are defending is unsupported. Paul B 01:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't it "reasonable" that Homer would use a name derived from Cush? Oh yeah, because the name is in the Bible, and even the tinyest scrap of information in the Bible must be minimalized if not discarded, I almost forgot... ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's very unlikely that Homer would be aware of the Torah. And the name "Ethiopia" is not in the Bible anyway. Please stop being so indignant and consider the actual evidence. Paul B 01:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Homer wouldn't have to be aware of the Torah to have heard of the name Ethiopia, and of course I know that name is not in the Torah anyway. But as for actual evidence, I just did a search for the spelling Ityopis, and the oldest copy of the Book of Aksum, the Ethiopian history that tells about this, is dated to the 1600's. A reference or cite to this can be worked into the article. I don't know when the "burnt faces" folk etymology was first proposed, but if you feel it is earlier than the 1600's, that will also need a cite. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 01:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I think it's reasonable to wonder why the Bible - which is a lot nearer than Greece to the land we call Ethiopia - never uses this word if it was indigenous, and why this son of Cush is not in Genesis? However, the Greeks do use this word, and the first time it is used, in Homer, it does not appear to refer the land we now call Ethiopia. As far as I am aware the "burnt faces" etymology is a lot earlier than 1600. It's an ancient Greek interpretation of their own word. Paul B 01:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is it then? Cite please... I'm really curious to know where the "burnt faces" bit first appears... As I said, it's not in Homer or Herodotus, and all Herodotus says is that they are the "sons of Ethiops"... BTW The "land we now call Ethiopia" called itself by that name long before the 1600's... Hard to prove how long, but it does definitely appear on 4th century Aksumite inscriptions, as one of the names they were calling themselves... ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 02:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well 4th century isn't surprising - there's considerable Hellenisation at that date. I'm not aware of a "sons of Ethiop" passage in Herodotus, and as I say, he also uses the word to refer to the peoples of what appears to be India (though he may have believed that the south of Africa and India were geographically linked). Paul B 02:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is even a site in the city of Aksum that is said to be Ityopis' tomb, but of course that would also be difficult to prove for a skeptic of Ethiopian traditions...! Glad we worked out a npov, anyway, sorry if I got a bit wiki-stressed, you know how it adds up after a while... ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 02:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which dispute was that, the spelling? Doesn't seem like a PoV dispute, nor does it seem sufficient for tagging a section that way (especially the introduction). I'd say go ahead and remove it and I will leave a note for the editor, if no one e3lse has. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's the spelling. I'm guessing he's talking about the row over "Ityopp'is," but that has been settled. I'm removing it now. Yom 20:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality tag was added by a vandal only a few minutes before you queried it. It had nothing to do with any debates. Paul B 20:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dear friend

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

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

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

Kassios

Well thank you for your opinion, but IMHO that is a folk etymology that you can't find anyone suggesting until much, much later. The earliest attestation may well be Homer and Herodotus, but neither of them says it comes from "aethes" "ops" or any other Greek words. On the contrary, all Herodotus actually says is that they are the "children of Aethiops", whom I would guess is the same person said to have founded Aksum according to longstanding native Ethiopian tradition, and whose tomb may still be seen nearby. As it stands, both theories are mentioned in the article, so I'm really not sure why you have to rock this boat any further, if you don't actually have anything new to add. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 21:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest it is far more likely that personal names such as "Kam" (Egyptian KEMET=Black), "Kush" (Hebrew Kush=Black) and "Ityopis" (Greek aethes=burnt) all started out as personal names, and only came to mean "black" in these other languages later on, since their descendants named for them were black. In other words, the Greek word "aethes" may well come from the name Ityopis by way of folk etymology interpreting the last part as "ops"... That makes just as much, if not more, sense as assuming the other way around. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As for "epithets of Zeus and Apollo", did you know that, according to the very earliest Germanic sagas, the Germanic race is descended from Thor, the first blonde / blue-eyed person, who was said to be the son of Memnon, who was king of - guess where - that's right, Ethiopia...! Hmmm, I guess that "proves" that the ancestry of the Germanic race originated in Ethiopia, huh...? ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

αιθαλέος , aeth-aleos - "smoked"

αιθάλη , aeth-ale - "smoke"

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

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

αίθω , aeth-o – "to burn, to ignite"

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

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

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

To conclude:

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

With respect to the science of etymology

Kassios

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

Dear friend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friendly

Kassios

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

Misinterpretation is often the mother of confusion. A close read of Pliny and Herodotus suggests that the terms AETHIOPS, AETHIOPIAE and LEUCOAETHIOPS are geological/geographical rather than ethnographical. The terms refer specifically to soil erosion and subsequent deposition, the process that produced the black soil of lower AEGYPT (the "land of black soil"). The "face" that is referred to in the word AETHIOPS is not a human face but rather the "face" of the land (i.e., the soil). The "East" and "West" AETHIOPS Pliny refers to were likely originally references to the Nile, which originates from the merger of the Blue and White Nile. Note also that there are two great rivers in Africa, the Nile and the Niger. The similarity seen in the names of those rivers is because both names refer to darkness (in the case of the Nile, the darkness of the soil; in the case of the Niger, the darkness of the river and/or forest). This appears to partially explain why the 1571 map by Portuguese cartographer Fernao Vaz Dourdo featured as the 2008-09-27 Picture of the Day indicates AETIOPIAE INTERIOR over the Niger river region. The works of Herodotus and Pliny were based on ancient documents and word of mouth accounts. The merging of ethnographic with geologic/geographic information (as well as cultural biases) is partly to blame for the misinterpretation. Finally, Pliny based his account partly on Homer, who refers to HYPERION, and it appears likely that HYPERION is a term that describes the "division" of the Nile headwaters and that the term was clearly used as or evolved into the name of a mythological character, much as the name of the "person" or deity known as Aethiops or Ityopis evolved from the geological/geographical term. 146.142.69.212 ( talk) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You certainly seem to have some new interpretations and theories, but unfortunately we cannot accept any of them into Wikipedia article pages, unless they have already been published somewhere in a reliable source (see WP:OR). Regards, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 13:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yom 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yom 01:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done a side-by-side compararison, but it looks like Languages of Ethiopia may have the complete list. I actually did a quick count of 91, though we say there are 84 languages. - Banyan Tree 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I get 78 ignoring extinct languages and counting all Gurage languages (including Silt'e - since that's what my above list does) as one. Nevermind, though. I didn't know such a list existed. Yom 01:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Yom 04:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

i find it most strange that any form of arabic doesn't have any relevant presence at all in the whole country. Mostly considering that a third of its population is reputed to be muslim and seen the fact that it's almost entirely surrounded by political units which grant arabic at least an oficial status. Can anyone provide any reliable information on this subject? antónio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.77.73 ( talk) 01:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)