Talk:Menelik II/Archive 2
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Salem-news Article "Professor Feqadu Lemessa" appears to be a Sockpuppet
EthiopianHabesha I googled "Professor Feqadu Lemesa/Lemassa/Lemessa]] and the results show he is a Fictitious Person(Does not Exist). See [1] We couldn’t match the infamous internet professor to a real life person–breathing, talking or perhaps writing history. The only close match we found was the Academic Vice President of Dire Dawa University, Dr. Fekadu Lemessa. Pay attention here. The internet historian’s name is spelled “Feqadu,” and he is a former Adama University professor and writer. You would think you would know someone like professor Feqadu Lemessa. Right? He writes about stuff (I have no idea what it is about but it could be history.). I also found a LinkedIn [2] of a "Fekadu Lemessa" who claims to be an PH'd in Agricultural Process engineer therefore not a Ph'd in History or Social Sciences or Political Science. I think from these searches, "Professor Feqadu/Fekadu Lemessa" is a Sockpuppet used as a source. To make matters worst in the Salem article [3] you referenced, dated July 28, 2013 it calls him Former Professor while the LinkedIn Profile says Fekadu Lemessa Associate Professor Adama Science and Technology University 2014 – Present (2 years). Your Salem-news Professor "Feqadu Lemessa" is an unverified/unreliable source therefore will be deleted if used to add anything.Otakrem (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, the issue is the above quoatation you extracted is from a blog called awrambatimes.com, a type of source that is not reliable and not allowed in Wikipedia and could be regarded also as self-published. You know anyone can easily open website/blogs and add content and then use it as a reference. To make that claim another equal news organisation like salem.com is required that states "Feqadu Lemesa is fictious and non existent person" then probably the issue could be taken seriously. We know how the regions politics work and when someone writes an article that damages political and nationalism interest then obviously the person's name will be defamed. Instead of engaging with dialogue just like how the rest of the civilized world solve issues in our region defamation is a shortcut to assert ones POV. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha "Professor Feqadu Lemessa" does not appear to be a real person therefore the Salem-news article is an Unreliable Source.Otakrem (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Issues with the sources used to estimate death toll
There is no source provided which listed several death estimates extracted from multiple high quality sources in the following format: "in a place called.......on date....... people numbering........were killed by.......method for.........reason". None of the sources came up with total death estimate by providing data in the above way like death estimates made in other parts of the world with similar exceptional claim of over 2 million deaths by an army. Not providing these kind of reliable sources that somehow adds up to 2+ million and using millions dead is against the rule here WP:EXCEPTIONAL. However, all the sources used to support their POV of millions were killed were based only on one persons comment, an ambiguous comment made by Bulatovich's which he said "half died during the conquest" and if we assume he said 'half died due to the conquest' then in his entire book he did not dedicate not even a single paragraph to explain what method was used to kill that many people and why that many people were killed. Moreover, he did not even gave one example story where he personally observed killings of 100s or 1000s or 100,000s being killed by Menelik's army at a specific battle/place/date and explain why/when/where/how that precisely stated number of people were killed, and using only this kind of source is also against WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:QS. Secondary sources using only one persons ambiguous comment for estimating millions of deaths is against WP:QS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL . Wikipedia editors coming up with exceptional claim of ‘millions killed by conquest’, something not precisely stated in the primary source is Original research and is not allowed. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- See Talk Section About death toll, Eight other sources were provided demonstrating the numbers per Abyssinian raid on Oromo/Kaffa/Shuro villages, Bulatovich gave his final estimation. Your refusal to read the Sources provided does not take away from Bulatovich being backed by other Primary as well as Secondary sources. Your refusal to acknowledge the other sources provided does not demonstrate good faith discussion and editing. As for Bermudes, you are giving Undue Weight to his 16th century account on a 19th Century article, this is a case of False balance, See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for articles on Undue Weight and False balance. A 19th century account or a secondary verifiable and credible source could add balance. The analogy of WWI and WWII does not really apply in the Bermudes to Bulatovich account. Also your Bermudes addition as a counter to Bulatovich is your own Original research as you have demonstrated in the discussion above. You still didn't answer my question on Professor Fekadu Lemassa, since he was one of your Counter sources to Kumsa/Bulatovich, what college is he a Professor at? Otakrem (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, as for Bulatovich's account and secondary sources estimating based on his account let it wait as we will request for comment from other Wikipedians and administrators on weather it is againest wikipedia rule of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:QS or not. For now let's compile other sources which estimated deaths by using other primary sources other than Bulatovich. Since now we are concluding our discussion could you just briefly list death numbers only and the source's writer, title of the reliable source and page number/section for only those sources who did not use Bulatovich for their estimate. This is a very exceptional claim so please avoid a secondary source which did not show clearly the primary source he used for his estimate or show clearly the methodology he used for his death calculation. Please let's not bring all the details described above and here in this section let's focus only on death numbers. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha I already listed the 8 Sources including Bulatovich, see all of the discussion above. The claim is not exceptional as there are sources that confirm it. You refuse to acknowledge those sources and then you present Two "sources": Bermudes(16th century) and Lemassa(Original research Source) as your counter. All of your "requirements" for a reliable source are extremely extravagant for the 8(Bulatovich included) Primary/Secondary Sources that I provided, yet you have a double standard in permitting your sources(16th century Bermudes and Original Research Lemassa) a pass to be used in the Menelik article. Also, on the one hand you want every detail from my sources to come up with that "number", yet then you say Please let's not bring all the details described above and here in this section let's focus only on death numbers., Which is it? Do you want Details or do you just want a Number, because the 8 Sources(including Bulatovich) give details and numbers. Either way, I have provided above with the sources the Details and Numbers. Otakrem (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, we are requesting administrators opinion on the death estimate and what they need to know is death numbers and sources. As for your continued claim: "8 sources are under wikipedia guidelines and are not against WP:QS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL" "2+ million killed is not exeptional/controversial" and "8 sources have death numbers" we will leave that for others to make their judgment and listing your sources in the following simple way: "X writer precisely said Y number of people died as being found in his book titled X and on page number Y" will be very helpful to support or oppose your POV by evaluating/confirming the sources easily. Since you claimed that you have full access to the 8 sources then it would not be much of a problem to just list the death numbers. As I said we will open a new topic/section in this talk page as for Bulatovich and secondary sources using his comment for estimating. But for now in advance it will be very helpful if you could list the sources estimating with other primary sources other than Bulatovich. Secondary sources should clearly indicate their references for their estimate based on wikipedias rule saying exceptional/controversial claim requires exceptional high quality sources — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha The links to the 8 Sources are provided in the Above Discussion. Click the link and read the Sources. I am not going to regurgitate everything in the sources provided, you are more than Free and Able to read the Sources. You wanted sources and they have been provided to you and wikipedia. Read them! EthiopianHabesha, everything that you have been stating throughout all of these Discussion Sections have been your own Original Research and Personal Analysis. To continue this discussion on this menelik article, I think the "death toll" remains since it has been sourced properly per Wikipedia guidelines. As for your own opinion on the sources, or numbers, please see that you are not following Wikipedia guidelines [4] Regarding, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, All of your request to do "Analysis" of numbers based on sources etc is your own Original Research. I do not think this discussion can continue unless you desist from doing "original research" in this discussion page.Otakrem (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, I thought it would have been best if you could provide the precise numbers from your 8 sources. Anyways, no problem I will go through all of them and will list the estimates with writer and page number briefly together with the link so that it can be easily confirmed then you may evaluate each of them and then probably give your approval and rejections. Will finish listing them in a day or two. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha I already provided direct quotations from those 8 sources in the above Section discussions. You requested not to get into details such as actually explaining what happened to the victims of Meneliks' war machine(Army). It has been provided but those are not the only Sources, they are only 8, there are more I am certain and in due time as other editors look into this, will find them. So far the 8 sources provided are reliable sources therefore support the statement in the Menelik article.Otakrem (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, Why don't you say Menelik and his Oromo army generals (Ras Gobana Dache, Ras Mekonen...Gudisa and War minister & prime minister Habtegyorgis Dinagde Botera as well as Ras/Nigus Mikael Ali Aba Bula)? Who also were given war machines/modern weapons whom then gave it to their loyal soldiers mobilized from their Oromo clan. And after Menelik's death these Oromo generals fought to be emperor of Ethiopia. Can you name one Amhara or Tigre general who equally participated like these Oromo generals and what is their positions under Menelik's central government?? If there is anyone you know then it would have been easy to back it with one of the 100s of books written for Menelik. As for your 8 sources I need more time to go through them, but it will be listed briefly with 1 line for every scholar estimate. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha Because this article is about Menelik's reign as an Emperor and not his Generals. He was the Emperor, he gave the orders or overall goal which was subjugation and conquest of the Southern people (a big majority of them being Oromos). It doesn't matter that he employed Oromos to do so, the result is the same which is Oromo people conquered in a violent way. That is a fact that is undeniable by the current status of Oromo people and their historical status within the Gabbar system in the Abyssinian-controlled/dominated Ethiopian Empire. They were all Abyssiniazed hence their being "Oromo" by "DNA" does not take away from their actions and deeds as Abyssiniazed "Oromos".Otakrem (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, you may have your own Identity formula but for me blood/ancestory/DNA is an identity. As I have no control over my grandfathers preferred language/culture/religion/values and wife choice I will also have no control over my childrens and grand childerens who may prefer to speak European language/culture/religion/values and no control over their wife choices who also change their names from African name to European names or Arab names (like Mohamed, Jemal....) because of globalization and integration. Even in the strict Communist China business men wear the European suits and no one wear the traditional chinese clothing everyday and they even give European names (James/Adam....) when doing business with the outside world. Before feudalism (Gabar system) raiding neighbouring people is the main form of resource collecting system. Therfore, all clan lords (including Oromo) raided between themselves as well as other neighbouring people (Amhara,Tigre,Gurage,Wolayta,Kaffa,Afar,Shuro,Gambela & Somali.....) contineously uncontrolled and freely. Same story for world history and raiding system (lawlesness) is followed by feudalism/Gabar System (33-50% tax payed to fiefdom holders & state) then comes capiatalism (33-50% tax payed directly to the state) and in this transformations the above mentioned key Oromo generals played great role by stabilizing the Central government. This is also a fact in our history. Still you didnot name a key Amhara or Tigre person and their positions in Menelik's centeral government, therefore there are none. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha The end result is Amhara ethnic domination since Menelik's reign as an Emperor until the overthrow of Mengistu Hailemariam, now Ethiopia is ruled by the Tigrayans in the form of the "Tigrayan Liberation People's Front". I've been reading the news and the history, "Non-Abyssinian footsoldiers(including Generals)" following the leadership of Abyssinian political leaders all since the creation of the Modern State of Ethiopia, prior to that, Oromo, Afar, Somali had their Frreedom from the Abyssinian rule which is quite apparent today. This isn't my defintion by the way, this is from allt he sources I've read and provided here.Otakrem (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, you may have your own Identity formula but for me blood/ancestory/DNA is an identity. As I have no control over my grandfathers preferred language/culture/religion/values and wife choice I will also have no control over my childrens and grand childerens who may prefer to speak European language/culture/religion/values and no control over their wife choices who also change their names from African name to European names or Arab names (like Mohamed, Jemal....) because of globalization and integration. Even in the strict Communist China business men wear the European suits and no one wear the traditional chinese clothing everyday and they even give European names (James/Adam....) when doing business with the outside world. Before feudalism (Gabar system) raiding neighbouring people is the main form of resource collecting system. Therfore, all clan lords (including Oromo) raided between themselves as well as other neighbouring people (Amhara,Tigre,Gurage,Wolayta,Kaffa,Afar,Shuro,Gambela & Somali.....) contineously uncontrolled and freely. Same story for world history and raiding system (lawlesness) is followed by feudalism/Gabar System (33-50% tax payed to fiefdom holders & state) then comes capiatalism (33-50% tax payed directly to the state) and in this transformations the above mentioned key Oromo generals played great role by stabilizing the Central government. This is also a fact in our history. Still you didnot name a key Amhara or Tigre person and their positions in Menelik's centeral government, therefore there are none. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha Because this article is about Menelik's reign as an Emperor and not his Generals. He was the Emperor, he gave the orders or overall goal which was subjugation and conquest of the Southern people (a big majority of them being Oromos). It doesn't matter that he employed Oromos to do so, the result is the same which is Oromo people conquered in a violent way. That is a fact that is undeniable by the current status of Oromo people and their historical status within the Gabbar system in the Abyssinian-controlled/dominated Ethiopian Empire. They were all Abyssiniazed hence their being "Oromo" by "DNA" does not take away from their actions and deeds as Abyssiniazed "Oromos".Otakrem (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, Why don't you say Menelik and his Oromo army generals (Ras Gobana Dache, Ras Mekonen...Gudisa and War minister & prime minister Habtegyorgis Dinagde Botera as well as Ras/Nigus Mikael Ali Aba Bula)? Who also were given war machines/modern weapons whom then gave it to their loyal soldiers mobilized from their Oromo clan. And after Menelik's death these Oromo generals fought to be emperor of Ethiopia. Can you name one Amhara or Tigre general who equally participated like these Oromo generals and what is their positions under Menelik's central government?? If there is anyone you know then it would have been easy to back it with one of the 100s of books written for Menelik. As for your 8 sources I need more time to go through them, but it will be listed briefly with 1 line for every scholar estimate. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha I already provided direct quotations from those 8 sources in the above Section discussions. You requested not to get into details such as actually explaining what happened to the victims of Meneliks' war machine(Army). It has been provided but those are not the only Sources, they are only 8, there are more I am certain and in due time as other editors look into this, will find them. So far the 8 sources provided are reliable sources therefore support the statement in the Menelik article.Otakrem (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, I thought it would have been best if you could provide the precise numbers from your 8 sources. Anyways, no problem I will go through all of them and will list the estimates with writer and page number briefly together with the link so that it can be easily confirmed then you may evaluate each of them and then probably give your approval and rejections. Will finish listing them in a day or two. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha The links to the 8 Sources are provided in the Above Discussion. Click the link and read the Sources. I am not going to regurgitate everything in the sources provided, you are more than Free and Able to read the Sources. You wanted sources and they have been provided to you and wikipedia. Read them! EthiopianHabesha, everything that you have been stating throughout all of these Discussion Sections have been your own Original Research and Personal Analysis. To continue this discussion on this menelik article, I think the "death toll" remains since it has been sourced properly per Wikipedia guidelines. As for your own opinion on the sources, or numbers, please see that you are not following Wikipedia guidelines [4] Regarding, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, All of your request to do "Analysis" of numbers based on sources etc is your own Original Research. I do not think this discussion can continue unless you desist from doing "original research" in this discussion page.Otakrem (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, we are requesting administrators opinion on the death estimate and what they need to know is death numbers and sources. As for your continued claim: "8 sources are under wikipedia guidelines and are not against WP:QS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL" "2+ million killed is not exeptional/controversial" and "8 sources have death numbers" we will leave that for others to make their judgment and listing your sources in the following simple way: "X writer precisely said Y number of people died as being found in his book titled X and on page number Y" will be very helpful to support or oppose your POV by evaluating/confirming the sources easily. Since you claimed that you have full access to the 8 sources then it would not be much of a problem to just list the death numbers. As I said we will open a new topic/section in this talk page as for Bulatovich and secondary sources using his comment for estimating. But for now in advance it will be very helpful if you could list the sources estimating with other primary sources other than Bulatovich. Secondary sources should clearly indicate their references for their estimate based on wikipedias rule saying exceptional/controversial claim requires exceptional high quality sources — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha I already listed the 8 Sources including Bulatovich, see all of the discussion above. The claim is not exceptional as there are sources that confirm it. You refuse to acknowledge those sources and then you present Two "sources": Bermudes(16th century) and Lemassa(Original research Source) as your counter. All of your "requirements" for a reliable source are extremely extravagant for the 8(Bulatovich included) Primary/Secondary Sources that I provided, yet you have a double standard in permitting your sources(16th century Bermudes and Original Research Lemassa) a pass to be used in the Menelik article. Also, on the one hand you want every detail from my sources to come up with that "number", yet then you say Please let's not bring all the details described above and here in this section let's focus only on death numbers., Which is it? Do you want Details or do you just want a Number, because the 8 Sources(including Bulatovich) give details and numbers. Either way, I have provided above with the sources the Details and Numbers. Otakrem (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, as for Bulatovich's account and secondary sources estimating based on his account let it wait as we will request for comment from other Wikipedians and administrators on weather it is againest wikipedia rule of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:QS or not. For now let's compile other sources which estimated deaths by using other primary sources other than Bulatovich. Since now we are concluding our discussion could you just briefly list death numbers only and the source's writer, title of the reliable source and page number/section for only those sources who did not use Bulatovich for their estimate. This is a very exceptional claim so please avoid a secondary source which did not show clearly the primary source he used for his estimate or show clearly the methodology he used for his death calculation. Please let's not bring all the details described above and here in this section let's focus only on death numbers. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- See Talk Section About death toll, Eight other sources were provided demonstrating the numbers per Abyssinian raid on Oromo/Kaffa/Shuro villages, Bulatovich gave his final estimation. Your refusal to read the Sources provided does not take away from Bulatovich being backed by other Primary as well as Secondary sources. Your refusal to acknowledge the other sources provided does not demonstrate good faith discussion and editing. As for Bermudes, you are giving Undue Weight to his 16th century account on a 19th Century article, this is a case of False balance, See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for articles on Undue Weight and False balance. A 19th century account or a secondary verifiable and credible source could add balance. The analogy of WWI and WWII does not really apply in the Bermudes to Bulatovich account. Also your Bermudes addition as a counter to Bulatovich is your own Original research as you have demonstrated in the discussion above. You still didn't answer my question on Professor Fekadu Lemassa, since he was one of your Counter sources to Kumsa/Bulatovich, what college is he a Professor at? Otakrem (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, the sources you read have agendas of establishing a united ethnic federations with equality or may be for separation and lead for creation of over 80 republics in Horn of Africa. Because if a 20,000 ethnic nation Harari can become a republic then I see no reason why ethnic Welayta and Gamos (both speaking Omotic languages) with over a million members to be separate republics. If Isaaq clan nation dominated Somaliland requests for republic, then I see no reason for Issas, Degodia and Issaq clans requesting separation from Ogaden dominated Somali region as well as other Amhara and Oromo clans requesting for republic because they assume there is domination of Wellegas/Mechas or Gojames domination. Anyways, everyone might have his agenda and interests and for that reason they write and censor other materials damaging their interest. In here Wikipedia readers need to know what exactly has been going on the region. If top key military generals of Menelik are Oromos (Oromo domination) who fought each other after Menelik's death to be emperor of Ethiopia and even continued to rule upto 1974, and if before Menelik the primary system of collecting resources is 'raiding system' then I see no reason why they should not be known in a way we learn our history in neutral/unbiased tone but not by using extreme tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha As far as the sources state, those "Oromo Generals" were no longer culturally nor linguistically Oromo. They became Abyssinianized (Christian, Spoke Amharic, Married Amhara women vice versa). Like Stumink and I have stated, what Oromos in the 16th Century did should have its own article. This article is about Menelik and his Reign in the 19th century. You can add that history to the Oromo article. As for everyone having their own agenda, well Amhara/Abyssinians have their own agenda which is domination(historically it's been shown), therefore only reading the History of the Region through the Perspective of the Amhara will not give a Neutral POV for this article or any other Article of on Wikipedia in relation to the Horn of Africa region. The Ethnic Amhara/Abyssinian bias has littered Ethiopian Studies for so long that it is due for a revision. That is why there are scholars like Kumsa, Hajji, etc who are doing their part to Bring the History from the Oromo Perspective in the Journal of Oromo Studies (University-validated Research). Otakrem (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, still today in Ethiopia the primary identity formula is determined by "who is your father? grandfather? your ancestors?" and no one identify himself with the language and culture he follows, even if he does not speak his forfathers languages. We are talking about 19th centuary where the question of "Who are your ancestors?" is the most and very important identity formula with more than 10x importance compared to today. Those Oromo military generals as well as Menelik and Haileselase are bilinguals, based on reliable sources, and speak both Amharic and Oromo fluently and their families are intermarried by dynastic marriages. Note that even lower class societies mix with other people that are the victims of the 'raiding system' that existed for thousands of years between clan warlords in the Horn of Africa. In the future we need to prepare for more European/American/African American languages and cultures influence because of globalization just like experienced in the multi ethnic African republics and in the more cultured Asians like capitalist South Korea and communist China. You may have your POV but my POV is that all Languages/History/Culture of Horn of Africa belongs to everyone of us. As for agenda I also said above that Amharas/Oromos/Somalis/Tigreans have agendas and that is why I said it is better to use writers from outside the region and for that reason I try not to use writers from this region as much as possible. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha By your own Bias towards Horn Africans, then you must disqualify the Unverified Fictitious "Professor Feqadu Lemessa". However, Kumsa, et al can remain because they are verified Real Persons that have written books within their respective Western/European Universities. Otakrem (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, still today in Ethiopia the primary identity formula is determined by "who is your father? grandfather? your ancestors?" and no one identify himself with the language and culture he follows, even if he does not speak his forfathers languages. We are talking about 19th centuary where the question of "Who are your ancestors?" is the most and very important identity formula with more than 10x importance compared to today. Those Oromo military generals as well as Menelik and Haileselase are bilinguals, based on reliable sources, and speak both Amharic and Oromo fluently and their families are intermarried by dynastic marriages. Note that even lower class societies mix with other people that are the victims of the 'raiding system' that existed for thousands of years between clan warlords in the Horn of Africa. In the future we need to prepare for more European/American/African American languages and cultures influence because of globalization just like experienced in the multi ethnic African republics and in the more cultured Asians like capitalist South Korea and communist China. You may have your POV but my POV is that all Languages/History/Culture of Horn of Africa belongs to everyone of us. As for agenda I also said above that Amharas/Oromos/Somalis/Tigreans have agendas and that is why I said it is better to use writers from outside the region and for that reason I try not to use writers from this region as much as possible. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha As far as the sources state, those "Oromo Generals" were no longer culturally nor linguistically Oromo. They became Abyssinianized (Christian, Spoke Amharic, Married Amhara women vice versa). Like Stumink and I have stated, what Oromos in the 16th Century did should have its own article. This article is about Menelik and his Reign in the 19th century. You can add that history to the Oromo article. As for everyone having their own agenda, well Amhara/Abyssinians have their own agenda which is domination(historically it's been shown), therefore only reading the History of the Region through the Perspective of the Amhara will not give a Neutral POV for this article or any other Article of on Wikipedia in relation to the Horn of Africa region. The Ethnic Amhara/Abyssinian bias has littered Ethiopian Studies for so long that it is due for a revision. That is why there are scholars like Kumsa, Hajji, etc who are doing their part to Bring the History from the Oromo Perspective in the Journal of Oromo Studies (University-validated Research). Otakrem (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, the sources you read have agendas of establishing a united ethnic federations with equality or may be for separation and lead for creation of over 80 republics in Horn of Africa. Because if a 20,000 ethnic nation Harari can become a republic then I see no reason why ethnic Welayta and Gamos (both speaking Omotic languages) with over a million members to be separate republics. If Isaaq clan nation dominated Somaliland requests for republic, then I see no reason for Issas, Degodia and Issaq clans requesting separation from Ogaden dominated Somali region as well as other Amhara and Oromo clans requesting for republic because they assume there is domination of Wellegas/Mechas or Gojames domination. Anyways, everyone might have his agenda and interests and for that reason they write and censor other materials damaging their interest. In here Wikipedia readers need to know what exactly has been going on the region. If top key military generals of Menelik are Oromos (Oromo domination) who fought each other after Menelik's death to be emperor of Ethiopia and even continued to rule upto 1974, and if before Menelik the primary system of collecting resources is 'raiding system' then I see no reason why they should not be known in a way we learn our history in neutral/unbiased tone but not by using extreme tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Offtopic Items
There seems to be alot of "Offtopic" mentions and notations in "His Reign as Emperor" as well as throughout the article.
Namely the account of 16th Century Bermudes is offtopic since the article is about 19th century Menelik's reign as an Emperor. Prior discussions in this Talkpage attempted to make "equivalency" arguments between a source by the name of Bulatovich(Primary Witness in Menelik's Army) and 16th Century Portoguese Bermudes accounts. This False Equivalency used to incorrectly reach an NPOV has been used to keep this Offtopic material with regards to 16th century Bermudes. This is a candidate for removal from this article. Any arguments for removing Bulatovich are highly contested and should be confronted since Bulatovich was deeply embedded in 19th Century Menelik II's Army and there is a separate article on him. Bulatovich's mention in this Article is to help understand Menelik II in many facets. 16th Century Bermudes adds nothing in terms of Neutrality to this Article rather it is an offtopic rant within this article. 16th Century Bermudes does not deserve 3 Sentences let alone 1 sentence in this article due to the reasonings and Wikipedia guidelines mentioned.
Action Item: Removal of 16th century Bermudes account from "His Reign as Emperor" as it is Offtopic, adds Bloat to the article, and infact belongs in its own article. Otakrem (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, before I revert your last edit under Menelik (addition of atrocity section) after 24 hours I want to discuss. The question that I did not get an answer from you is "Why do we need to include millions+mass killings+large scale slavery?". If your answer is for human right reason then I believe people murdered/enslaved 100 years, 500 years or even 1000 years ago should not make a difference for a person who is very much concerned about human right! The reason why 16th century Bermudes included is discussed in your talk page in detail here [5] and in a nutshell it is included because using ‘millions’+’mass killings’+’large scale slavery’ is obviously to indicate worst & unique in the regions as well as in African history (which the secondary sources Bulcha, Kumsa & Gelete claimed in their writings). Based on Wikipedias rule which states articles should use impartial and neutral tone and should not be used for advocating (political, nationalism, creating resentment/hate followed by revenge attack between peoples, to tell the world we are good people but our neighbors are bad people.....so and so personal & group agendas/advocation) this claim needs to be balanced & compared with worst war in the region before it (16th century) just like World war 1 story mentioned multiple times in world war 2nd article. By the way I am still against the use of extreme tones in Menelik article and if the sentence written by Bermudes reference is removed then that sentence written by Bulcha, Kumsa & Gelete should be deleted as well. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha You have been warned on your behavior on wikipedia articles and talkpages, please go read the warnings provided to you on your personal Talkpages, you are violating Wikipedia Talkpage guidelines here as well.Otakrem (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, before I revert your last edit under Menelik (addition of atrocity section) after 24 hours I want to discuss. The question that I did not get an answer from you is "Why do we need to include millions+mass killings+large scale slavery?". If your answer is for human right reason then I believe people murdered/enslaved 100 years, 500 years or even 1000 years ago should not make a difference for a person who is very much concerned about human right! The reason why 16th century Bermudes included is discussed in your talk page in detail here [5] and in a nutshell it is included because using ‘millions’+’mass killings’+’large scale slavery’ is obviously to indicate worst & unique in the regions as well as in African history (which the secondary sources Bulcha, Kumsa & Gelete claimed in their writings). Based on Wikipedias rule which states articles should use impartial and neutral tone and should not be used for advocating (political, nationalism, creating resentment/hate followed by revenge attack between peoples, to tell the world we are good people but our neighbors are bad people.....so and so personal & group agendas/advocation) this claim needs to be balanced & compared with worst war in the region before it (16th century) just like World war 1 story mentioned multiple times in world war 2nd article. By the way I am still against the use of extreme tones in Menelik article and if the sentence written by Bermudes reference is removed then that sentence written by Bulcha, Kumsa & Gelete should be deleted as well. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC on Menelik's "Reign as Emperor" split out
Menelik's Reign as Emperor needs to be split up based on the focus, examples: Wars, Atrocities, Developments, Private Life, etc? Please read the Menelik II "Reign as Emperor" and provide comments on how to improve this article section and article.Otakrem (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose– The section titled "Reign as Emperor" is short enough; no need for a separate article until and unless it gets vastly expanded. However, glancing at the walls of text on this talk page, you guys could probably write a few books.
— JFG talk 01:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, as for the wall of text, I'm glad it happened because it forced us to research for verifiable sources. I feel his "Reign as Emperor" should be split up into a few sections within the main article to capture all the happenings during his reign, which was alot if you read any biography on Menelik II. Otakrem (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, I thought you wanted to create a new article about his reign. Within this page, sure it could be split into subsections, I'll change my !vote.
- Thanks for your input, as for the wall of text, I'm glad it happened because it forced us to research for verifiable sources. I feel his "Reign as Emperor" should be split up into a few sections within the main article to capture all the happenings during his reign, which was alot if you read any biography on Menelik II. Otakrem (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support – OP suggests to split the "Reign as Emperor" section into subsections, not forking it out to a new page as I interpreted earlier. Also, it is not necessary to keep everything under a "Biography" section: the whole article is the subject's biography. I would suggest renaming the first section "Early life" and continuing from there at the same section level. Then, "Reign as Emperor" could have subsections as suggested. — JFG talk 05:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. So maybe reorganize his Biography as "Early Life", "Rise to Power", "Reign as Emperor - Subsections: Diplomacy, Wars, Atrocities, Developments, and so on. As it currently reads, it jumps from place to place and is packed with sidenote information(ie name dropping of generals,who they are related to whom by what reason..etc.) I just don't get an understanding of Menelik's Reign as Emperor from the way the article is written.Otakrem (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – All paragraphs under 'Reign us emperor' are interconnected and splitting them into various sections is not a good idea. Besides, most paragraphs are also very important & each also need new sections as well. For instance 1) Battle of Adwa 2)End of clan wars & end of raiding neighbours for resources 3) Abolition of Slavery 4) Ethnic make up Menelik's government 5)The great famine that killed 1/3 of people caused by Italians 6) The region before centralization. Instead of splitting reign as emperor into several related (all of them about politics) sections we can discuss and remove some repeated statements and shorten it i.e. if Otakrem creates an environment where we can work with an impartial tone, not taking any sides and carefully reviewing all opposing sources instead of him just bringing only that criminalizes Menelik. People need to get all kind of information from various sources and so far all the sources he is bringing is only that criminalizes Menelik, which by the way are questionable sources in my opinion and may not be used for exceptional claims, and I believe they need to be reviewed by administrators. Rule in Wikipedia says editors need to be impartial and need not to use articles for advocation (political and nationalism). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support as per OP, brought here by bot BlueSalix (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input BlueSalix Would appreciate more editor(s) support in improving this article. I can start some of the New sections and copying over some of the section/subsection breakdowns.Otakrem (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, adding sections & subsections requires a long discussion & consensus between various editors who have contributed in the article for the past 13 years. So far there are 62 editors watching the article [6]. This kind of major change requires extensive discussion and not simply edited by one editor alone without presenting his proposal for review and discussion. It also requires impartiality and carefully reviewing sources from all sides. Most importantly discussing and trying to get consensus before adding any new section or subsection is required. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha Not necessarily, any Editors are permitted to add new sections especially if they have received Support from other Editors as has been done here. This is RfC has been sent out to all Editors, therefore just as the following Editors have provided their support. Also there is no Ownership of an Article by let alone 1 Editor or 62 Editors See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. This RfC is a discussion between uninvolved Editors, you and I have been too involved in this article, therefore I requested an RfC.Otakrem (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, they may support adding sections but regarding to what sections should be added will be decided after discussion & consensus. If we can not reach consensus then we will request other editors/administrators intervention. Many administrators recommend to other editors "discuss first then edit". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha What do you think this RfC is for? It is being discussed here? If you are here to Discuss the Topic fine, if you are here tell me or anyone else how we are supposed to use Wikipedia Talkpage guidelines here, please kindly stop.Otakrem (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, they may support adding sections but regarding to what sections should be added will be decided after discussion & consensus. If we can not reach consensus then we will request other editors/administrators intervention. Many administrators recommend to other editors "discuss first then edit". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- EthiopianHabesha Not necessarily, any Editors are permitted to add new sections especially if they have received Support from other Editors as has been done here. This is RfC has been sent out to all Editors, therefore just as the following Editors have provided their support. Also there is no Ownership of an Article by let alone 1 Editor or 62 Editors See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. This RfC is a discussion between uninvolved Editors, you and I have been too involved in this article, therefore I requested an RfC.Otakrem (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, adding sections & subsections requires a long discussion & consensus between various editors who have contributed in the article for the past 13 years. So far there are 62 editors watching the article [6]. This kind of major change requires extensive discussion and not simply edited by one editor alone without presenting his proposal for review and discussion. It also requires impartiality and carefully reviewing sources from all sides. Most importantly discussing and trying to get consensus before adding any new section or subsection is required. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input BlueSalix Would appreciate more editor(s) support in improving this article. I can start some of the New sections and copying over some of the section/subsection breakdowns.Otakrem (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Private life has already been spun off and that seems enough. I don't see the chronological distinction between the proposed sections reflected in the text as it is now. Adding an "atrocities" subsection when there is much more than that in the section would be a WP:NPOV-issue and be unbalanced when there are many things with equal importance highlighted in the section.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- He was a Public figure and head of a government in which atrocities were committed. Well that's the problem is that his current Reign as Emperor has too many topics some jumping back and forth. It would read better if it was broken into subsections, timelines, etc. If there is a developments in his reign section, there should be a counter to that which would be "atrocities" which has been properly sourced with first hand accounts by people like Bulatovich, Donaldson, etc. As the article sits right now, its trying to reach WK:NPOV but in a cluttered way. As for the atrocities it isn't unbalanced nor is it insignificant as a major portion of his life was in war, slavery, etc. Only highlighting the positives of his biography and not showing the negatives makes the article Not NPOV but POV biased.Otakrem (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would support sub-sectioning out by chronology, but not by topic. The flow could probably be improved, but it would be hindered by moving different parts to atemporal locations based on topic. Wikipedia articles are meant to be summaries of the topic area, and the best way to do that for historical topics is usually chronological. It is in fact unbalanced to single out atrocities as a top-level subtopic when the entire section deals with topics like famine, the suppression of slavery, and the Treaty of Wuchale, etc. at similar or greater length than atrocities. Unless you can show that reliable sources on Menelik II consistently single out atrocities as one of the most important aspects of his reign, I won't support having a subsection on it per WP:UNDUE. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend you read Bulatovich's account on Menelik's army [7] [8] Actually if you scroll up in this talkpage there have been several links to atrocities committed under the reign of Menelik which was tied to other parts of his reign. Slavery was not suppressed in his reign other. Menelik personally owned tens of thousands of slaves. If you are going to have a section talking about Menelik's victories in his wars against Southern(Ethiopian) people, then it is quite relevant to talk about the atrocities and slavery associated with it without any apologetics or tokenism as the current article tries to do.Otakrem (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- As for slavery, even George Washington owned slaves and in his article it is not written as there was large scale slavery because of him/his policy as it is now written under Menelik. Slavery was system that was widely practised in all parts of Africa and was hard for many African states to abolish even by 1960s because of many uncontrolled/ungoverned areas and also fearing clan warlords whom if pushed harder to abolish this age-old practice carried out for 1000s of years could be a threat to centralisation, just like Southern states of America (slave owners) declared independence after northern slave free states pushed southerners to end slavery. There are sources written by neutral scholars as to how Menelik (whom his mother was also a servant/slave) prohibited slavery after mid 1890s by destroying notorious slave markets and issuing a harsh law to amputate slavers (as USA still continues to punish criminals by death while most Europeans now see that as inhuman). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting, but ultimately primary sources. The weight that Wikipedia gives to content should roughly match what secondary sources do. Even in the primary source, Bulatovich devotes a lot more space to non-atrocity events of Menelik's reign than to atrocities, so even if this was representative of the body of historical literature on Menelik, it still wouldn't justify having an entire subsection split off from the rest of the article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend you read Bulatovich's account on Menelik's army [7] [8] Actually if you scroll up in this talkpage there have been several links to atrocities committed under the reign of Menelik which was tied to other parts of his reign. Slavery was not suppressed in his reign other. Menelik personally owned tens of thousands of slaves. If you are going to have a section talking about Menelik's victories in his wars against Southern(Ethiopian) people, then it is quite relevant to talk about the atrocities and slavery associated with it without any apologetics or tokenism as the current article tries to do.Otakrem (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would support sub-sectioning out by chronology, but not by topic. The flow could probably be improved, but it would be hindered by moving different parts to atemporal locations based on topic. Wikipedia articles are meant to be summaries of the topic area, and the best way to do that for historical topics is usually chronological. It is in fact unbalanced to single out atrocities as a top-level subtopic when the entire section deals with topics like famine, the suppression of slavery, and the Treaty of Wuchale, etc. at similar or greater length than atrocities. Unless you can show that reliable sources on Menelik II consistently single out atrocities as one of the most important aspects of his reign, I won't support having a subsection on it per WP:UNDUE. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- He was a Public figure and head of a government in which atrocities were committed. Well that's the problem is that his current Reign as Emperor has too many topics some jumping back and forth. It would read better if it was broken into subsections, timelines, etc. If there is a developments in his reign section, there should be a counter to that which would be "atrocities" which has been properly sourced with first hand accounts by people like Bulatovich, Donaldson, etc. As the article sits right now, its trying to reach WK:NPOV but in a cluttered way. As for the atrocities it isn't unbalanced nor is it insignificant as a major portion of his life was in war, slavery, etc. Only highlighting the positives of his biography and not showing the negatives makes the article Not NPOV but POV biased.Otakrem (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Well by that same token, nor should there be a "Developments in his Reign" separate section either. As Development wasn't the biggest portion of his Biography either. And I recommended breaking his Reign as Emperor into subsections of which it would cover: diplomacy, atrocities/wars, development, alliances, etc. Bulatovich is but one source, I provided more than 8 sources which talk about the atrocities committed during his reign as emperor. If this article is just going to about Pro-Amhara(Abyssinian)biased version, then this article is POV.Otakrem (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's prima facie absurd to assert that social, economic, technological, and civil developments during Menelik's reign are not a major part of the historical literature surrounding him. Unless there's something bizarrely lacking in Menelik historiography, those areas of development are consistently covered at length in biographies of any major ruler. Quickly going through the walls of text above this RFC by searching for "atrocities", it looks like your assertions that "atrocities" should get its own section derive from primary source accounts from Menelik II's contemporaries (which would constitute WP:OR) and a book from 1907 (which isn't a reliable source). You're going to have to do better than that. An example of what to aim for is the sub-section on "Wollo famine" in the Haile Selassie page, which devotes attention to a specific, unflattering element of Selassie's reign, but has a multitude of sources that justify it having its own subsection. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- You agreeing to completely Disregard and Censor the reliably sourced fact that more than 5 million People being Killed during his(Menelik II) Conquest of the Southern parts of modern Ethiopia are insignificant. I guess Black African Lives DO NOT MATTER to you or Wikipedia. By the way, EthiopianHabesha has been using Primary Sources to make his claims and litter this article and other Article with his Pro-Amhara(abyssinian) Bias all through out Wikipedia articles. If you are saying Primary Sources are completely unreliable then we will have to Delete Every Entry that EthiopianHabesha added based on primary sources Tigrayans, Abyssinian people, Tigrinyas, Menelik II, etc.Otakrem (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Secondary Source From Page 35 of Nomads in the Shadows of Empires: Contests, Conflicts and Legacies on the ..by By Gufu Oba [9]
- These Abyssinian Atrocities committed under Menelik's reign shall be presented in Wikipedia, unless you are trying to Censor this information?Otakrem (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem, first of all I do not have any Amhara ethnic group ancestry but I am a citizen of Ethiopia born from one of the 78 language speakers who is so much concerned about peace in my home country Ethiopia & I don't want the nation to go into stateless Somalia or like Rwanda Hutu tribe & Tutsi tribe hostility. That is if you must know my personal detail which should have not been the topic of our discussion. If we must mention ethnicgroups in this topic as you said 'Amhara' or 'Abyssinian' then it should also be noted that all the secondary sources you brought are written by Oromos (not that it matters but since you are mentioning ethnic groups either to blame people/tribes in general for ethnic nationalism purpose or for reason only known to you) who did not provide material evidences for what they claim but only came up with that figure based on 1 person Bulatovich comment whom included many factors as to why people died. I beleive your use of 5 million is regarding Oromo people (as widely circulated among ethnic Oromo nationalist), and I think editors need to know that Menelik only gave the top military leadership in the centeral government only to army commanders with full Oromo ethnic group blood (Gobana, Gebeyehu, Mekonene, Habtegyorgis) while no single Amhara or Tigre took this most important position in the centeral government while they served as regional generals commanded by these central army commanders; of these four top army commanders only 1 of them, Mekonene, has Amhara blood on his mother side while full Oromo blood in his father side. Menelik (himself half non-Amhara) even married his daughters mainly to Oromo generals knowing the descendants (with Half an Oromo ancestry) will takeover the nation he built after him based on how Kingdoms create union like United Kingdom & United Arab Emirates. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Your outright Bias against Oromo sources(especially if they are Experts in Anthropology or History) is your own personal Bias. Your name is "Ethiopian"HABESHA which means you identify as Habesha(Abyssinian) which throughout your edits, you have a clear Pro_Amhara(Abyssinian) Bias. Your POV edits have attempted to minimize or outright deflect the historical reality that Menelik and his armies committed atrocities not only on Oromos, but also other Southern ethnic groups. So your entire argument is, well they were Oromos...well so were the 5 million who were killed by Menelik and his armies.Otakrem (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Otakrem what ever source says 100 or 1,000 killed he must provide dates when people killed, list of specific places they were killed and why they were killed and how they were killed in which I didnot get an answer to these questions either from our long discussions above in this talkpage or from all the sources you provided so far. Using a source who states million (that much exceptional claim) got killed by telling us but I don't know "how that much people died", "why that much people died", "I don't know on which specific dates (list of dates associated with number of deaths) they died" and "which specific villages/wars that much people died", and also a source that says I got no material evidences (mass graves) as well as no official written documents (copy of letter or Verbal exchange between military personnel) can be used to claim that exceptional claim or not (qualify WP:QS or WP:EXCEPTIONAL) we may ask other editors opinion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I already provided more than 8 Sources (Primary and Secondary). Your extra requirements are your own personal opinionated requirements. Your willful attempt at completely Ignoring the Sources I provided in the Above discussion is getting quite old. I only add what the Primary and Secondary Sources stated in Wikipedia. You are requesting for Original research to be done, well get off Wikipedia and do your own Original Research. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the Primary and Secondary Sources (more than 8) provide the verifiable and reliable information to input into a topic called Atrocities. And I completely Reject your Assertion that "No Atrocities happened during Menelik's reign as Emperor". That defies logic, you can't Conquer and Subjugate a People if you don't Kill them especially with the weaponry that Menelik's army had and mission to Conquer the land regardless of what people lived there. And it is very important that this topic is covered in his Article because the span of time is 1880s - 1913 (in terms of atrocities, slavery).Otakrem (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- (from wp:FRC) support the general ideia, as explained by User:JFG early on. That is, there is no need for a "biography" section, as the article is the biography. So every sub-section in there should be promoted one level. The "Reign as Emperor" section is quite large - naturally - so it would be better split in a few main sections. Looking only at the top-level I would try something along the lines of: Early Life (the current intro of Biography); King of Shewa; Emperor of Ethiopia (with the current "succession" section); most of the sections from "Centralisation" to "Developments" with possibly a reorganisation; Private Life (could be next to Early Life too); Death and Succecion. I have only skimed through the article, nut one issue that may result in some subjects coming up on more than one section may be that the organization sometimes looks to be by topic, sometimes chronological, using one and the main organisation guide could help. As a quick comparisom, I like the structure on Hitler, mostly chronological, with a few section on the end about transversal personal traits. I like less Barak Obama's, which as almost the same problem as this one, with one overwhelming section (presidency) that coulld be split. Good luck. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Adjusted sections based on your opinion — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Menelik II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003141829/http://www.linkethiopia.org/guide/pankhurst/medicine/medicine_6.html to http://www.linkethiopia.org/guide/pankhurst/medicine/medicine_6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Menelik II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160601015943/http://www.snem.tk/documents/wuchale.pdf to http://www.snem.tk/documents/wuchale.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)