Talk:Menelik II/Archive 1

Cleanup!
This article really needs to be cleaned up -- ie. get rid of the (????), split it up into a few sections, etc. --68.68.234.19 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

Needs an infobox, but otherwise a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

religion
some one know what was his religion?

thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.44.131 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

He was Ethiopian Orthodox. 165.2.186.10 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Legacy!
Somebody wrote about pan-africanism and claiming Rameses II might be black here in the Menelik II article - this article is about Menelik II not Rameses II .... deleted. Please keep this section clean - and think before you write !!! Understandable Science18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed
Though I remain skeptical, I did find a source for the claim about Menelik and the electric chair. The Book of Lists, in a section titled "The People's Almanac's 15 Favorite Oddities of All Time". Number 3 is "The Abyssinian Electric Chair" (though it makes no mention about one of the chairs going to Lique Mequas Abate). I'll add a citation to the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have to say I'd hoped for something a tad more scholarly when I placed the original "citation needed" notice - guess we'll just have to keep looking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikedash (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Just to add, I believe I heard this story on QI as well. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, here it is (Last bullet point in Elephant in the Room 1) Ryan4314 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * None of which really addresses the question of whether the story is a reliable one. It isn't, or at least cannot be traced back before some dubious 1930s reporting. See here. Mikedash (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead
--Benjo76 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC) The lead section of the article is not in accordance with Wikipedia: Featured article criteria. Summary regarding important events in the life of the king, for instance; Battle of Adwa, has to be presented.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.17.67 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Did he eat the Book of Kings?
So this is a weird question, but there's a song by the Bastard Fairies that contains the following lyrics:

There once was a man

Who thought that if he ate

All the pages of the Bible

He could kill most anything.

In 1913, he died of a stroke

When he tried to eat

The Book of Kings. 

The video says this is true and happened in Ethiopia in 1913. Subsequent searches on the Web say it was Menelik II who did this. But if true it seems fairly notable and I'd expect to see it on the main page. So...anyone know if this is a true story? --Replysixty (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course not. He had the first stroke in 1906 and another in 1907 and his health continued to decline until his death in 1913. He didn't die from eating paper. Besides, if it were true, it would have been made of parchment, which isn't exactly toxic. &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, that URL you found is a post in someone's blog, which provides no source for this statement. While it is possible that someone close to Menelik was feeding him pages from a Bible because she/he thought it would keep him alive, there is no mention of this unusual practice in either of the two important works that cover Menelik's life -- Harold Marcus' The Life and Times of Menelik II or Chris Prouty's Empress Taytu and Menelik II. In fact, Marcus describes Menelik as being an intelligent and curious man, which leads me to conclude that he would have engaged in such superstition only if compelled to by a confidant or other close acquaintance. Then again, from about 1907 on, Menelik was in a vegetative state, brought on by years of bad living & the effects of circa-1900 medical practices, so whatever he thought at that point is unknowable. -- llywrch (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are earlier references to this that are not bloggish, including The Idiot's Guide to the Bible and The Emperor Who Ate the Bible. However, I couldn't find any scholarly references to this story being true. I too would be interested in knowing whether there are any. Ironwolf (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry for the blog link- it was the last of the URLs I found while searching, so I just copy/pasted that one. My interest was whether or not this was an apocryphal story, and if so- I wonder the origin and why it's so widely held... -Replysixty (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting disconnect going on here, as all the modern secondary sources cited - virtually all of them unreferenced collections of oddities and anecdotes - assume that the "Book of Kings" must be the Old Testament book and so connect the story to the idea of obtaining a cure by eating the Bible. I'd say it was much more likely that the original (whatever it was) suggested Menelik ate the Kebra Nagast, or Ethiopian Book of the Glory of Kings, the country's 14th century national epic. Like Llywrch, though, I'm guessing the tale is apocryphal. It doesn't sound like the historical Menelik at all. Mikedash (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ..Interesting story - but I deem it an urban legend. It was mentioned in Abraham Verghese´s novel : "cutting stone" a few years ago, and I believe the reason, it is so widespread, is that the story figured as a trivia fact in Weekly World News, in the 31. August 1993 issue : Here is a photo of the article : http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8443/menelikeatingbibles.jpg However I have never found a contemporary source stating it, and Menelik in his later years was so weak and paralyzed after his strokes, that he could only sit up with support, not being able to speak - and had to be fed by others ( mainly with champagne and raw eggs !! ) - so there is no chance that he could actively have taken a bible and eat it - he was paralyzed ............ Funny story - but definitely unconfirmed !!!!!!

Understandable science (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be honestly surprised if that was the vector for this apocryphal tale. Weekly World News is a parody of the tabloid genre with its fictitious stories, which are intended more to entertain by their outlandishness than to be believed as truth. Its audience are either hip to its this, or so stupid &/or uneducated as to have a negligible impact on the rest of society. -- llywrch (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The oldest reference through Google Books is from 1981. The book is The People's Almanac Presents the Book of Lists #2, Issue 2. I cannot tell if this incident is referenced as I do not own this book and thus it is only accessible to me without much effort via Google Books. Here's the passage in question: 1. EMPEROR MENELIK II
 * He was one of the greatest rulers in African history and the creator of modern Ethiopia. Born in 1844, he was captured during an enemy raid and held prisoner for 10 years. Escaping, Menelik declared himself head of the province of Shewa. He began conquering neighboring kingdoms and developed them into modern Ethiopia with himself as emperor. When Italy tried to take over Ethiopia, Menelik's army met and crushed the Italians at the Battle of Aduwa. This victory, as well as well as his efforts to modernize Ethiopia (schools, telephones, railroads), made Menelik world-famous. The emperor had one little-known eccentricity. Whenever he was feeling ill, he would eat a few pages of the Bible, insisting that this always restored his health. One day in December, 1913, recovering from a stroke and feeling extremely ill he had the entire Book of Kings torn from an Egyptian edition of the Bible, ate every page of it — and died. Too much of the Good Book had proved a bad thing.

So much rubbish in this section. Nevertheless there is one tradition among othodox chritians even now: if someone is sick you place a bible or other holy text under the pillow of the bed. Maybe from this custom the bible eating nonsense started. --Altaye (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Name
The name was decided to be "Menelek" in May 2005 and moved to that page, but "Menelik" is much more common (~568,000 google hits vs. ~30,700). I propose that we move it back to "Menelik II of Ethiopia" as this is the more common name. Yom 02:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sanity is not a matter of statistics (George Orwell). How about using a scientifically/linguistically supported name instead of some traditional popular rubbish? --BjKa (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Whichever name you want to call him by, it would be nice to have a consistent spelling throughout the article. I currently found "Menelik", "Menelek" and "Menilek". And more importantly: The introduction needs a listing which alternate spellings are/were in use, so we know what is a typo and what is not. --BjKa (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Now the correct name of the Emperor of Ethiopia is a matter to be determined "scientifically"? This is why they say people who crow "scientifically" about everything are getting too big for their britches nowadays, like they are drunk.  The term "science" should be reserved strictly for matters where the scientific method has been employed. Anything else is a misapplication.  "Scientifically" isn't just a big word to impress people with that makes you sound like you are right.  There is no controversy about how his name is written or pronounced in Amharic.  There's only one way to pronounce it in Amharic.  And friend, that is not "traditional popular rubbish."  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversial Sources?
The following has been deleted twice, now. What is the controversy about the sources? Are they all not authoritative, or is someone just disliking the content?

During the conquet of the Oromo, the Ethiopian Army carried mass atrocities against the Oromo population including mass mutilation, mass killings and large scale slavery.(referenced as Conquest, Tyranny, and Ethnocide against the Oromo: A Historical Assessment of Human Rights Conditions in Ethiopia, ca. 1880s–2002 by Mohammed Hassen, Northeast African Studies Volume 9, Number 3, 2002 (New Series))(referenced as Genocidal violence in the making of nation and state in Ethiopia by Mekuria Bulcha, African Sociological Review)(referenced as Conquest, Tyranny, and Ethnocide against the Oromo: A Historical Assessment of Human Rights Conditions in Ethiopia, ca. 1880s–2002 by Mohammed Hassen, Northeast African Studies Volume 9, Number 3, 2002 (New Series)) Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest go into the millions.(referenced as A. K. Bulatovich Ethiopia Through Russian Eyes: Country in Transition, 1896-1898, translated by Richard Seltzer, 2000)(referenced as Conquest, Tyranny, and Ethnocide against the Oromo: A Historical Assessment of Human Rights Conditions in Ethiopia, ca. 1880s–2002 by Mohammed Hassen, Northeast African Studies Volume 9, Number 3, 2002 (New Series))(referenced as Power and Powerlessness in Contemporary Ethiopia by Alemayehu Kumsa, Charles University in Prague) Large scale atrocities were also committed against the Dizi people and the people of the Kaficho kingdom.(referenced as Power and Powerlessness in Contemporary Ethiopia by Alemayehu Kumsa, Charles University in Prague)(referenced as Haberland, "Amharic Manuscript", pp. 241f)

LTC (Ret.) David J. Cormier (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Name Eritrea
There is a movement by some Eritreans (a country formed 25 years ago) to rewrite history and this article looks to have fallen victim of that effort. It has carried lots of inaccuracies in it. For instance: . Menelik never refered to the area by its modern name Eritrea. Italians later named the area Eritrea, after the name of the sea, the Eritrean (red) sea. Menelik also never refered to the people as "foreigners". There is lots of inaccuracies in the article. It has to be rewritten by someone else with a good knowledge of the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldad8 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The name has existed since Ancient times. But I guess you have never read The Periplues of the Erythraen Sea(spell check the words)...Eritrean Sea(ie Red Sea)... In addition, the People of Eritrea have existed for 6,000 years when you actually look at the Ethnic groups of Eritrea: Hedareb(Bejas), Kunama, Tigrinya, Tigre, Saho, Bilen, Afar(Avalites)(Adulis) etc... 2001:558:600A:4B:797E:C49F:4F3A:DC93 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong reference
hi how are you, then the quote is written that said that menelik "The territories north of the Merab Melash (modern Eritrea) do not belong to nor are under my rule. I am the Emperor of Abyssinia. The lands Referred to as Eritrea is not peopled by Abyssinians, they are Adals, Bejas, and Tigres. Abyssinia will defend her territories but it will not fight for foreign lands of Eritrea Which is to my knowledge. "

the reference must be verifiable and authoritative the reference in question is Geschichte Afrikas Vol. 6 (1905), p.455-500 Institut für Weltgeschichte Presse which does not mention at all what is on wikipedia is a wrong--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * hi Puhleec
 * Wait a reply--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * hi Puhleec
 * The source mentions that this book is false and not authoritative.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

International Business Publications
This publishers books are NOT reliable sources. Every book of theirs that I have examined has turned out to be a print of various articles from Wikipedia, often the very article they were then cited in. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. For more information (and a list of similar non-sources), please see WP:IBP. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection
I have temporarily locked the page for one day to stop the edit warring and to encourage the two parties to come here and discuss their differences, calmly and politely, and possibly reach some kind of understanding or compromise. I notice that in the past the parties have been yelling at each other and insulting each other on a user talk page. That kind of thing must stop. Wikipedia requires civility and does not allow personal attacks. Make your case here, provide your evidence, and try to reach consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, thanks for Protecting the article. I understand that you are diplomatic here, however, I never insulted EthiopianHabesha nor HistoryofEthiopia but they did insult me. I am convinced they (HistoryofEthiopia=EthiopianHabesha are the same person since they both edited at the same time). I hope Wikipedia is checking people's IP addresses even if they have Usernames. As you can see I have not concealed my IP address nor care to. After being called insults such as "racist pig" or "racist" or accused of being a certain ggroup or this or that....I do not think a discussion can be had with people like HistoryofEthiopia(who I think is EthiopianHabesha). I call on real History Experts to determine a consensus.  So Do not expect me to have a "discussion" with HistoryofEthiopia/EthiopianHabesha, I won't waste my time.  But please do call on Real History Expert that have More than just One Source ie "Treaty of Wuchale(Uccialli)". FYI, they (both of them (or same persoN)) were using the Treaty of Wuchale as their "main source"(one source) to make changes and add and Delete whatever they disagreed with. If Wikipedia permits One Source to ADD and DELETE as it Wishes then what is the point of having a Wikipedia!.  My main issue was let the Source be verified, they (EthiopianHabesha/HistoryofEthiopia) decided to be Judge Jury and Executioner of Data with their one Source (Treaty of Wuchale, pdf, which could've been edited by anyone including himself).   So MelanieN, I recommend you bring other Editors and EXPERTS and Not EthiopianHabesha/HistoryofEthiopia, I am taking myself out of this. 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

My proposal for now
The dispute here is about whether to include a supposed quote from Menelik, in which he not only renounces any claim to Eritrea (which the treaty actually more or less does), but describes Eritrea as a "foreign land to my knowledge". On the side of keeping it: a source is given, and it has been in the article for many years. On the side of deleting it: we are not able to see or verify the source supplied for it. Also on the side of deleting it: history shows that the wording of the Treaty was disputed, at least in some parts, with different translations saying different things. That suggests we should not cite any specific wording unless we have a clear source for it.

The question has been discussed at great length, without agreement, at the talk page User talk:2001:558:600a:83:6038:edc9:c7aa:db8c. In my opinion we should leave out the quote for now, while we look for additional input from people familiar with African history. I am asking everyone not to resume the edit warring but to leave the article as it now is, without the quote, unless and until we get better sourcing or more expert opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I agree with you, as long us the quotation is supported with a better source then I have no problem if it stays. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, I am reverting back and removing the Quote. However every single Weasel Word, Original Research that has Been Tagged must remain because what EthiopianHabesha and HistoryofEthiopia have added based on the "Treaty of Wuchale" pdf source has significant amount of weasel words, original research in it. Infact this entire article needs to go through a major re-evaluation for weasel words and original research.2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Regardless of documentation, any assertion may be removed if it lacks consensus to be retained: The quote has been removed pending better sourcing (I concur in that consensus) but the alleged "weasel words" and "original research" may also be removed if there is no consensus among us to keep them in. What must remain are the tags, unless and until the issues cited for the labels have been addressed or until the edits to which they reply are removed. FactStraight (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

About a quotation with claim it was stated by Menelik
To Puhleec To Gyrofrog To MelanieN

This guy with the username 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C keep on insisting the following statement should be returned back. I will put it below so that everyone can review it and give us their judgment

'''Upon the treaty with Italy, Emperor Menelik II in 1889 stated: ""The territories north of the Merab Melash (modern Eritrea) do not belong to nor are under my rule. I am the Emperor of Abyssinia. The lands referred to as Eritrea is not peopled by Abyssinians, they are Adals, Bejas, and Tigres. Abyssinia will defend her territories but it will not fight for foreign lands of which Eritrea is to my knowledge."" '''

By the way this statement is not added by him but was added by Puhleec on "19:49, 4 May 2013‎"

Me on the other hand keep on insisting it should be deleted because it is against Wikipedia rule here: WP:NONENG which demands non English Sources should be accompanied with the non English quotation itself as well as a translation done by non Wikipedians (the translator is also another source that should be included). Now as can be seen clearly the source of the quotation is obviously non English, probably German, and it is hard for us to confirm the source. As non English source then it should fulfill the criteria before the statement is added back again.

As can be seen above the issue is very simple which can be solved in a civilized manner. However, this guy is very angry and demanding the inclusion of the quotation with force, threat and revenge. After reviewing his comments he is threatening to keep on vandalizing unless the statement which he supports be included under Menelik's biography. My issue is not about the meaning of the quotation, but about it's inappropriate sourcing which I believe should be sourced properly in a way that convinces readers as a true statement or otherwise should be deleted. How is it possible for me to accept because some one keep on insisting Menelik did stated those without even providing not even a single alternative source or may be even fulfilling Wikipedia's criteria on the source already provided, while I have provided three varied and alternative sources that supports my claim? Here are the 3 sources I provided 1) Treaty of Wuchale 1889 Ethio-Italian, 2) Official Wuchale treaty, 3) [ http://america.pink/treaty-wuchale_4515146.html Copy of the Original Wuchale Treaty with Seal and Signature]. The above quotation cannont be found on non of these three alternative sources but this guy claims it was stated by Menelik without sourcing according to Wikipedia's rule or by providing alternative sources to support his claim.

Solution 1) The solution is to revert it back to as it is before the beginning of edit war i.e. John of Reading edit on "07:17, 19 May 2016‎‎" Solution 2) And on another edit I will delete this quotation for the above reasons I've explained i.e. until the source provided meets this rule: WP:NONENG and since user Puhleec provided it in the first place please try to fulfill this criteria.

To 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C, please donot add back the statement. No matter what I'll keep on deleting it and it will be my first job everyday in the morning until it fulfills wikipedia's rule here WP:NONENG which so far you have not commented about. Keep on ignoring it but I will mention WP:NONENG every time I deleted those statements. No amount of threat will stop me to pursue on what I believe! Besides I have more free times and spending 2-3 hours on Wikipedia and sharing knowledge is one my most joyful moments in my day to day activities; infact, these days it has been one of my favorite hobbies! Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

To MelanieN, I did NOT Threaten EthiopianHabesha, this FALSE Accusation by EthiopianHabesha is very disgusting. MelanieN or any "Admin" on here, what is yhour take on this False accusation by EthiopianHabesha? I was personally told by MelanieN that accusing "EthiopianHabesha" of being the same person as HistoryofEthiopia is Softpuppetry even though I thought they were the same person, now MelanieN, what do you say to EthiopianHabesha saying "However, this guy is very angry and demanding the inclusion of the quotation with force, threat and revenge"...Seriously? Seriously? Is EthiopianHabesha or Historyof Ethiopia permitted to do and accuse me as they please? Where is Wikipedia when it comes to this form of bullying. Also by the way Puhleec was Not the first Entry for this Quote...it goes back to sometime in the 2008s atleast as far as I can see in the History of this Page. 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the statement objected to for the cause given (alleged NONENG) is legitimate, initially, for as long as the tagged information remains inadequately translated: Once translated without evidence of error or bias, a non-English source is permissable, if otherwise reliable. There is no guideline or policy which prevents the translation from being done by a Wikipedian editor, and the fact that it is difficult to verify is not, ipso facto a violation of NONENG. It may, however, still be appropriate to challenge inclusion of the quote simply on the grounds that the source and translation provided do not improve the quality of the article -- even if there is no violation of NONENG. If other editors here support that objection sufficiently to represent a consensus, the quote must be omitted. But a declaration of intent to repeatedly delete a reliable source, even after it has been accurately translated and is supported by a consensus of the article's active editors, is not justified by WP:NONENG, and is a threat (not necessarily a threat directed against EthiopianHabesha or MelanieN, but against English Wikipedia). Therefore such deletions would be disruptive, pointy and uncivil -- engagement in any one of which behaviors is likely to elicit a block. Actually carrying through on that threat would violate BRD and be edit warring; therefore it would also constitute grounds for being blocked. Please refrain from potentially disruptive behavior and attempt to resolve disagreements collaboratively. FactStraight (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To FactStraight To MelanieN, Actually my last statement is for that user and to push him into solving issues by consensus! I have repeatedly told him to give comment on this rule NONENG but still so far he didn't give me anything at all. Evidence for his use of force and threat to vandalise the article unless the quotation is added is his deletion of the whole article on "02:32, 23 May 2016" and blame it on me and HistoryofEthiopia as if Wikipedians can be cheated that easily. Please see the changes made by him on this date and time (UTC time) which I use as my evidence for his threat & revenge attack, also see our long dialogue with him under his talk page. Obviously, I will not engage in disruptive behaviour so long us the issue is solved with consensus. In fact, if this user tries to convince me with varied, better sources i.e. under Wikipedia's rule I myself would have restored the quotation. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

About alleged weasel words and original research
All of them are alleged only by one user: 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C after the beginning of the edit war i.e. after the last edit by John of Reading on 07:17, 19 May 2016‎ (UTC time). I have carefully reviewed each and everyone of them and as long as he is committed to solve them with polite discussions, consensus and under the rule of Wikipedia then I believe they are very easy to solve. But if he is in this article just to disrupt then I want let know everyone that it will not be solved unless there is intervention by higher level administrators. We've made a great length of dialogue under his talk page for a simple issue that is against the rule NONENG. Now imagine how many pages we will be making dialogue for those many issues! Instead of allowing those "weasel words" and "original research" to stay my opinion is to let it return to pre edit war and for all the issues he may have he should point it out here in talk page then we discuss about it. Most wikipedia pages have problems with sourcing and if everyone just posts "weasel words" and "original research" for every single words and sentences they have issues then no body will read those bad looking articles. The person who is alleging should be studied as he might just be alleging without further research. When I reviewed for each of his alleges he has never given alternative sources for all of his claims. For one person to reject a statment there should be another research paper supporting his reject otherwise how is it fair for anyone to just reject because it is something against of what he already knows? Instead of those big boxes in between sentences may be they should be marked with "citation needed". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: Regardless of documentation, any assertion may be removed if it lacks consensus to be retained: The quote has been removed pending better sourcing (I concur in that consensus) but the alleged "weasel words" and "original research" may also be removed if there is no consensus among us to keep them in. What must remain are the tags, unless and until the issues cited for the labels have been addressed or until the edits to which they reply are removed. FactStraight (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Votes to keep the tags: 3 (FactStraight, myself, and User: 2001:558:600A): Votes against Tags: 1 (EthiopianHabesha)

I am adding my vote to keep the "weasel words", "original research", and "citation needed" tags on because each of those statements made do sound "weasel worded" and "original research", also your only citation is "The Treaty of Wuchale" which would not be worded the way the statements are made in the section of "His Reign as Emperor". I am reverting back so that everyone has a chance to view where the weasel words and "original research" are. REVERTING BACK to Last Edit by User: 2001:558:600A.etc Puhleec (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"In April 1889, while claiming the throne against Mengesha Yohannes, Menelik reached at Wuchale (Uccialli in Italian) in Wollo province a treaty with Italy, ceding the northern province of Eritrea to Italy.[citation needed] Most of the highland area of this province was part of Abyssinian kingdoms for hundreds of years under the title of Medri-Bahri (Land of the Sea), consisting of the districts of Hamasien, Akele-Guzay, and Seraye.[citation needed] It was also referred to as Merab Melash, meaning the "Land Beyond the River". The river was the boundary that separated the two Abyssinian Provinces; Medri-Bahri and Tigrai.[citation needed] Located in the highlands these provinces were part of the empire up to 1889, while two of the ancient coastal cities of Abyssinia i.e. Zeila and Metsewa as well as all the lowland red sea coast areas were taken by Turkey and became part of Habesh Eyalet province (named after "Habeshstan", which the Turks use to call the land) since 1554, following the conquest of Ahmed Gragn which made the empire to retreat to the northern highlands up to the mid 19th century.[13][14]
 * To ethiopianhabesha:

Menelik signed the Treaty of Wuchale with the Italians on May 2, 1889. Controversy soon emerged on the interpretation of article 17 of the treaty. While the Amharic text reads that Menelik could, if he wished, call upon the services of the Italian authorities in his communications with other powers, the Italian version made this obligatory, thereby making Ethiopia in effect a protectorate of Italy."

How can "Merab Melash" or "Medri Bahri" = "Italian Eritrea 1889" be the same territory size when maps show the boundaries of "Medri-Bahri" which primarily the Highlands of modern Eritrea. Also, how can "Abysinnia cede a territory the size of modern Eritrea(Italian Eritrea 1889) when the Treaty itself does not mention anything about Abysinnia (Menelik) ceding territory rather that he recognizes the border between "Abysinnia = Ethiopia" and "Italian Eritrea 1889"?

In addition the Medri Bahri describes a distinct polity between "Abysinnia" and "Medri Bahri" in the 1770s which tells a critical thinker that "Medri Bahri" and most of Eritrea was not apart of "Abysinnia" for hundreds of years. In addition, the Port of Assab was bought by an Italian company from the Afar Sultanate not Menelik nor Atsi Yohannis. These holes in the "theory of modern Eritrean territory somehow being "Abysinnian" territories for hundreds of years" makes one unable to accept the "weasel worded" statements like "ceding the northern province of Eritrea to Italy".

I have sources that say that Menelik requested that the Italians occupy Asmara so that Ras Mangesha would not be able to have the support of the Eritrean Tigrinyas who as the quote in Medri Bahri wiki article by James Bruce 1770s says "The Scottish traveler James Bruce reported in 1770 that Medri Bahri was a distinct political entity from Abyssinia, noting that the two territories were frequently in conflict. The Bahre-Nagassi ("Kings of the Sea") alternately fought with or against the Abyssinians and the neighbouring Muslim Adal Sultanate depending on the geopolitical circumstances." I know you added the Henry Salt view point but looking at the current as well as the Past of Eritrean Tigrinya and Ethiopians(Abysinnians), it has been one of "Abysinnians" trying to control "Eritrean Tigrinyas" and other Ethnicities in Eritrea but there would always be some form of pitched battles and wars. The sheer resistances of Eritreans in modern times and historically says more about Eritrean's independence from Abysinnia(Ethiopia) rather than being "owned" by "Abysinnians". I add My Vote to Keep the Tags and in some places Outright delete the Original Research/Weasel Words Otakrem (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

1. For example, your document says "Art. 4. The monastery of Debra Bizen with all his p ossessions remain the property of the Ethiopian Government, but will never use it for military purposes." But your wikipedia entry says "The treaty also guaranteed that Ethiopia will continue to provide protection and have complete control over Orthodox churches and Monasteries in Eritrea, such as the Monastery of Debre Bizen (see Article IV of the Treaty)"
 * To ethiopianhabesha, the statements put in this section do not match your "Treaty of Wuchale".pdf document.

2. Your source says "Art. 3. To remove any ambiguity about the limits of the territories over which the two Contracting Parties shall exercise the rights of sovereignty, a special committee composed of two Italian delegates and two Ethiopians will trace on the ground with appropriate signs a permanent boundary line whose benchmarks are established as follows: a)  The line of the plateau will mark the Italian-Ethiopian border;  b)  Starting from the region Arafali, Halai, Saganeiti and Asmara are villages in the Italian border;" While your wiki entry says "Italy was limited to specific areas within Eritrea, for example, Italy was allowed to conduct unrestricted business in the regions of Arafali, Halai, Saganeiti and Asmara. Italy considered these regions as "villages in the Italian border." Your usage of the word "limited" does not match with the words "shall exercise the rights of sovereignty" and this Art.3 is more so about "removing" any ambiguity about the limits of the territories between Abysinnia and Italy.

3.Your wiki entry says this: "Menelik agreed, in principal, to the Treaty of Wuchale with the Italians on May 2, 1889. The treaty was to be signed at a later date, after the document is thoroughly reviewed." However, your Source says "n witness whereof the Count Pietro Antonelli, in the name of His Majesty the King of Italy, and   His Majesty the King of King Menelik of Ethiopia, in its own name, signed and affixed their seal to this Treaty made in the camp of Uccialli 25 Miazia   1881 - corrosponding to May 2, 1889.   Imperial Seal of Ethiopia"  The Imperial Seal of Ethiopia being a Signature by Menelik so that tells me he Signed the Treaty on May 2, 1889. Your wiki entry is original research and weasel worded. This entry will need to be changed to agree with your source.

4. Your wiki entry says " There were two versions of the treaty to be signed, one in Italian and another in Amharic. Unbeknownst to Menelik the Italian version was altered by the Italian translators to give Italy more power than the two had agreed to. The Italians believed they had "tricked" Menelik into giving allegiance to Italy." However, your Treaty of Wuchale pdf source does not mention anything that was written in this wiki entry. Either provide a different source or this is just weasel words and the part about "altered by the Italian translators" is definitely not in the pdf source.

5. Your wiki entry says " The Italians attempted to bribe him with two millions of ammunition but he refused. Then the Italians approached Ras Mengesha of Tigray in an attempt to create civil war, however, Ras Mengesha understanding what was at stake, Ethiopia's independence, he refused to be a puppet for the Italians" Treaty of Wuchale source pdf mentions none of this, place another citation that has "Italians attempted to bribe him with two millions of ammunition but he refused." and the rest of the sentences do not have a citation.

6. Your wiki entry says "Before Italy could launch the invasion, Eritreans rebelled in an attempt to push Italy out of Eritrea and stop It from invading Ethiopia." This sentence needs further clarification and verifiable source, this seems like "Original research".

7. "In signing the treaty, Menelik II again proved his adeptness at politics as he promised each nation something for what they gave and made sure each would benefit his country and not another nation." No citation, reads like original research and weasel words. Provide verifiable source.

8. "Subsequently, The Treaty of Addis Ababa was reached between the two nations. Italy was forced to recognize the absolute independence of Ethiopia. (See Article III of the Treaty of Addis Ababa)" No citation, where the Treaty of Addis Ababa source?

9. "Under his reign, beginning in the 1880s, Menelik set off from the central province of Shoa, to reunify 'the lands and people of the South, East and West into an empire'." This sounds weasel wordy,"reunify ' the lands and people of the South, East and West into an empire", There are many sources that show this was Menelik's expansion of the boundaries of the "Abysinnian empire" to the South, East and West, many Oromo, Konso, Gambella, Ogadeni,etc have argued and provided evidences of never being "Abysinnian", so exactly how as Empire-maker like Menelik, reunifying people and lands that were never part of the ancient Aksum empire (if that is the origin of Abysinnia)?

10."Under his reign, beginning in the 1880s, Menelik set off from the central province of Shoa, to reunify 'the lands and people of the South, East and West into an empire'." Your source is "www.ethiomedia.com", this is not a legitimate source because it is the original research and opinion essay of the author of the article on ethiomedia. Deletion candidate.

11. "As for the claim he committed genocide and mutilation so far there is no available documents with varied sources that includes material and written evidences, and that is researched with international standard like done in other parts of the world with similar claims. Moreover, the sources used to claim these atrocities were not researched by a team of experts specialized in various fields which also comprised of various ethnic-groups and foreigners.Most of the sources used against Menelik's army regarding mutilation and genocide were not known to Ethiopian or foreign independent historians until the rise of ethnic nationalism in the 1970s. The details and discussions of this particular period in Ethiopian history are heavily politicized, and the views of the facts vary depending on the ethno-political agenda of the sides" No citation and this is an opinion/original research/Soapbox. This needs to be Deleted. Otakrem (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I will try to analyse all the explanantions and give my opinion for each of them but in advance I want us to be here just for sharing knowledge! If we are here for nationalistic/political agenda then we will not have a civilized discussions! I may have wrong informations but if someone tries to convince me that I am wrong by providing unbiased reliable source then there is no way I will accept my mistakes. I was expecting to be provided with many sources for each of the alleges but unfortunately there are very few provided.


 * 1) I agree with the comment stated as "Medri Bahri is not equal to Eritrean nation established in 1889". The name Eritrea (as in Erythraean Sea) is a Greek word and has been used for over a thousand year and was used to refer "Red Sea", therfore a nation or people called Eritreans did not exist until the establishment of Eritrea in 1889. Same is for Ethiopia, which is a Greek word (as in Aethiopia) used to identify the people with sun burned faces (Colored, non white black people), this name was used to refer the people south of Egypt including Sudan, presentday Ethiopia, presentday Eritrea etc etc. When Axumites converted to Christianity they found "Ethiopia" described many times in the bible then they took it and made it as the official name of their nation since 4th century. Though, the rest of the world didnot approve of it because they still use the word Ethiopia to identify subsaharan Africans even by 19th centuary. In 1950s Haileselase pressured the united nation to stop referring their nation as Abyssinia. So for this reason I disagree with the use of "Menelik ceded Eritrea" and support it should be replaced with Menelik cede Medri Bahari or Baharenegash.


 * 2) Some of you are claiming Medri Bahri was not part of Abysinia. To claim this James Bruce was quoted under the book written by Okbazghi Yohannes. Another traveler by the name Henry Salt from Britain in his own book stated that infact Baharnegash was not only part of Abysinia but also one of the provinces of Tigré Kingdom, which he tells in his own diary that Ras Wolde Selassie was governor of this Kingdom. According to Henry the Tigré state was 1 of the 3 divisions of Abyssinia, the other two being Amhara and Shoa. Both of these contradicting sources are found under the page Medri Bahri. Until James Bruce's own diary/Book is found supporting that claim then Henry Salt's own diary/book can be considered as a better source under Wikipedia's rule.


 * 3) About the claim Eritreans being owned by Abysinians? We are talking about empire building not a democratic nation building! As far as I know there is no democracy in Eritrea, also in Ethiopia we havent seen a change of leaders by voting. This "owning people by force" is still implemented in 21st century meaning Tigre (muslims), Afar, Bilen, Amhara, Agaw, Oromo etc etc people are still owned by force. Independence is when people/individuals are free from being owned and elect their own servants.


 * 4) comments made by Otakrem between number 1 to 7 of your points are not added by me but are added very recently by HistoryofEthiopia and 97.116.164.244 (this user provided the pdf source). May be they should come and have their say in regards to their statment. As for your points between 8 to 11 some are added by others and some are mine so for these ones then I can make discussions. For point number 8 I'll come back some other time after doing my research.


 * 5) Reply for point number 9 and 10: The Axum empire that collapsed in 10th centuary didnot have direct control south of Gondar since there were no states established for Axum to conquer. Even-though there were no states to check/block Axumites from going southward they are prevented from going into the lowlands where they are not resistant to humid diseases like malaria and it can be said they have freely moved around the highlands of presentday Ethiopia unchecked. Since it is hard to find sources proving how much Axumites do have control south of Gondar I don't want to argue on this issue. But between 11th-16th centuary many states emerged in the south paving the way for conquest/direct control south of Gondar. There are many sources showing that the restored Solomonic dynasty did infact expanded southward upto presentaday Bale province as can be seen here: Bali is the largest of Ethiopia's Muslim provinces, westward upto Damot (presentday Wellega province) as can be seen here: Damot like Gafat is reported to have come under Zagwe rule and extending eastward upto Ifat and it's capital Zeila port as can be seen here: Ifat and Zeila part of Abysinia in 1402. Based on these sources then it is safe to say Ethiopian Empire did have direct control southward upto Bale before the rise of Gragn Mohamed. Since these provinces located south of Shewa were part of the empire then claiming "Menelik reunified" is justified since we cant say just "unified" which would contradict with these sources. If you have other reliable unbiased sources that supports your claim i.e. the empire has never had any control south of Shewa until 19th century please let us know.


 * 6) Reply for point number 11: That whole point you put under quotation is added in response to the sentence provided in the beginning of the same paragraph. The claims can be regarded as biased. And the one you quoted are opinions just used to make it balanced. Personaly, I consider Horn of African scholars as somehow biased and try as much as possible to avoid them and look for some foreign scholars who are unbiased. But as you can see yourself the scholars claiming genocide and mutilation are from this region and named Mekuria Bulcha and Mohamed Hassen (whom you see usually on OLF meetings as can be seen here, the neutrality of these scholars is in question. I searched everywhere to find a non Horn of African scholar who claimed such thing happened in Ethiopia and I couldn't be able to find an international standard research done on Ethiopia as in done in other parts of the world with similar claims, and I tried to inform readers about this. Since the source is based on persons who cannot be considered neutral then it invites other sources who may or maynot be neutral and to make it even then I used this articles , also written by Horn Of Africans, as a source where I did summarize it and include it. And the other source I used was by John Zahoric who said "the 1970s and 1980s were the period of enormous growth of the Oromo studies so that many authors began to use the rhetoric of. “invented” Oromo history and identity".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthiopianHabesha (talk • contribs) 02:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To ethiopianhabesha, I would like first to understand that your main points are that 1."Eritrea=MedriBahri=Bahrnegash=Tigrinyas" People and Land 2. Oromo people and lands  3.Gambella/Ogadeni etc People and Land   all Belonged to an "Abysinnian Empire" since 1270? since Aksum (which geographically only covered Northern Ethiopia(Tigray) and Eritrea (but not Assab) ? If that is where you are coming from then I respectfully disagree with you and your statement about coming here without "Nationalistic/Political agenda", please take your own advice if you want to discuss.  Nonetheless, I put my explanations to show that you and others(HistoryofEthiopia) used the "Treaty of Wuchale (Ucciali) to write your entries as you did. I called in to question your source (Treaty of Wuchale) with your entries. I think I correctly called your entries into question to the point that you agree with me. Here is my response to your responses and why the Tags will remain until the Weasel Words /Original research are removed or modified.


 * 1. "So for this reason I disagree with the use of "Menelik ceded Eritrea" and support it should be replaced with Menelik cede Medri Bahari or Baharenegash." Menelik was King of Shoa(Shewa) when he signed the Treaty of Wuchale after the death of Atsi Yohanis. Menelik had no control nor domain over Medri Bahri or Bahrenegash, by the time he became "Emperor of Abysinnia", Eritrea was already occupied by the Italians infact the Treaty of Wuchale was a Treaty of Friendship between Shoa(Shewa) and Italy. Your version of the Treaty (pdf) is first off not the exact Treaty itself. Also Menelik had no issue with Article 3 with regards to where the Boundary between "Italian Eritrea" and "Abysinnia", as the first part of this His Reign as Emperor mentions, there was a Competition between Ras Mangasha and King Menelik of Shoa (Shewa) for the throne. Both leaders were seeking the military armanent assistances from Italy to become Emperor of Abysinnia.  As for your statement about "ceding Medri Bahri" that is not the case, Menelik couldn't "cede territories he had no ownership over nor any soveriegn rights to". The Territories of Medri Bahri belonged to the People of Medri Bahri that is where the James Bruce 1770s quote mentions a "distinct political/polity". So I will side with Eritreans and James Bruce versus Henry Salt.  I will use logic and show that Menelik can not "cede" territories he did not own nor even controlled.


 * 2. You stated " Some of you are claiming Medri Bahri was not part of Abysinia. To claim this James Bruce was quoted under the book written by Okbazghi Yohannes. " Dr. Okbazghi Yohannes is a University Professor in Political Science at University of Louisville and highly recommended by his students. So your issue with Dr.Yohannes is that he is Eritrean or African? If so then you clearly have a bias that does not justify your argument against his book nor his quotation of James Bruce.  Again, I will take the words of Eritreans + James Bruce + Dr.Yohannes  versus Henry Salt. By consensus of Eritreans, they were not a part of Abysinnia that is enough for me. If you are going to use your logic of "they were colonized or occupied by Abysinnians then they are Abysinnians forever", can the same be said for "Abysinnians/Ethiopians" who were "occupied/colonized" by the Fascist Italians?  Both Eritreans and "Ethiopians" resisted their "colonizers/occupiers" which to Eritreans would be Egyptians, Turks, Italians, British, and "Abysinnians(Ras Alula, Haile Selassie, Mengistu Hailemariam, Meles Zenawi, and your current Dictator in office".


 * 3. My claim is about your assertion/theme that "Eritrea and its people belonged to Abysinnia", are Eritreans Not owners of their own land? If an Eritrean said "Shoa/Shewa belonged to Eritreans and not Shewan Amharas" would you agree with that statement? I doubt you would, infact you would go to war over statements, isn't that what Menelik went to war with the Italians ie Article 17 of the Treaty of Wuchale which made him a protectorate king and not an Independent Emperor.


 * 4. Since you do not have a Source for the Treaty of Addis Ababa, then it is fair to delete it since it has no source. Just as the "Quote" with the German source was deleted, I think it is fair to delete your sentence until you provide a verifiable source. As for the additions by HistoryofEthiopia and the IP address if they lack verifiable sources and are weasel words/original research then all entries as such by them and you are Deletion Candidates.


 * 5. If there is no source for the claim of ownership or conquest of territories south of Gondar, then the claim of "reunify" is still incorrect. As for the "restored Solomonic Dynasty" that is highly debatable and not a historical fact. The tie between Ancient Aksum and Yekuno Amlak of the "Solomonic Dynasty" is not verified but based on legend. Every historian agrees for the most part, it was an attempt to gain the favoring of "Emperorship" from the Clergy of Axum Church. Again colonizing the Southern peoples and then they rebel whether it is Ahmad Gragn or someone else still does not mean "reunify", it is a "unify" by force. If he (Menelik) used Force, then he unified those people and kingdoms by Force of arms. "reunify" is a weasel word.


 * 6. Whether it is a reactionary entry does not change the fact it is original research, weasel worded, and a Soapbox. I was being kind enough not to outright delete. But this paragraph is a Deletion candidate immediately.
 * I would like to add that the entries put into Wikipedia must come from verifiable sources. I do not think Wikipedia will permit unverified statements to remain in an article so most of the entries that have been tagged as original research and/or weasel words should and will be deleted. You and other editors can reinstate them when they have verifiable sources cited for them.


 * Let me end with what FactStraight said "Clarification: Regardless of documentation, any assertion may be removed if it lacks consensus to be retained: The quote has been removed pending better sourcing (I concur in that consensus) but the alleged "weasel words" and "original research" may also be removed if there is no consensus among us to keep them in. What must remain are the tags, unless and until the issues cited for the labels have been addressed or until the edits to which they reply are removed. FactStraight (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)"     This Otakrem speaking here "At this point like FactStraight said since "there is no consensus among us to keep" the alleged weasel words/original research/soapbox tagged statements in this article, ie we do not agree to keep them in therefore they can be removed. Otakrem (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To Otakrem Please donot misquote me. I didn't say Axum empire did have direct control south of Gondar. I didn't say "Abysinians owns others" as far as I know they ruled with confederation style of administration where the emperors (King of kings) allow other chiefs to have a title of "Negus" or "Sultan" whom administer their own people as they wish and their obligation to the king of kings is to pay annual tribute and provide soldiers/resources when the overall empire is under attack by foreigners; example is Sultan Abba Jifar II and Negus Mikael Ali. Most importantly the emperor marry his own children politically to most important chiefs even to other religion followers example: the Chrstian Molah Asfah is uncle of the 14th centuary Muslim Sultan Haqq ad-Din II and Menelik married his daughter to his top Oromo generals Ras Mikael Ali (formerly called Mohamed Ali) and Ras Gobana Dache. And this tribal mixing means the heir of the empire is mixed and most likely treat all his people fairly and gives you the idea that the top statepower is shared. In some cases those mixed emperors might prefer their Oromo cousins to conquer the Amharas and Tigrayan/Tigrinyas just like what happened in Yejju Oromo dynasity.
 * 1) Response to point 1 your claim Menelik didnot cede Midri Bahri: When Menelik or anyone else becomes emperor then he is expected to takeover all the territories administered by his predecessors including emperor Yohanis. By the time the treaty was signed Menelik was the emperor not Ras Mengesha. If there is a beleif that Medri Bahri is not part of Abyssina and then not claimed by it's emperor then those place names wouldn't be put under Wuchale treaty. Regarding Medri-Bahri Italians would have signed treaty with the lord of this province if there is any independent Ras/Negus at that time, which so far nobody even Okbazghi Yohannes, haven't given as the person's name. If there is centralized state then there is dynasity/person name responsible for his people. When British took Sudan and Kenya they didn't deal with Menelik but rather other local chiefs whom they recorded in history.
 * 2) For point 2: It's not about Dr. Yohanes nationality it's about being a secondary source. To make it even and balanced it invites other equivalent secondary sources written by other Horn of African (Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalians) doctors/professors with claim opposite to Yohannes. So what I am saying is to make a primary source invalid it should be matched with another primary source according to Wikipedia rule. Since I am just here for sharing knowledge then your easy conclusion regarding to defination of colonization will lead to conclude that Amharas were colonized by Oromos as Henry Salt stated it here: Amhara has been in possesion of Oromos for long time also say Gragn Mohamed colonised Abysinia? Oromos colonised Abyssinian territories? In other words those are the things you are telling us to accept. If you see Alexander the Great's wikipedia page you don't see the word "colonization" while it is a fact that he conquered from Greek all the way upto India.
 * 3) For point 3: We are talking about empire form of government. Even the democratic nation USA acquired Alaska in 1867 from Russia without asking the opinion of Alaskan people. Again the nation established with democratic principles annexed the large California and Texas territores from Mexico without asking the opinion of those settled white Mexican citizens.
 * 4) For point 4: that one we may agree to delete until they themselves response to some of your questions which some of them I agree.
 * 5) For point 5: I will add in the sources which I used to draw my conclusion (remember wekipedia says that we have to put citations/sources into our own words)
 * 6) For point 6: Consensus meant we have to make discussions and reach an agreement no matter the vote is 1 to 10. Just because 9 people voted 1+1=3 then it will just be added into Wikipedia doesn't mean consensus. We all have to forward our points and higher level wikipedians might intervine even if it is voted by majority. Consensus is about convincing between ourselves as well as administrators. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw some of your edits, and you deleted things without waiting for Consensus. It is fair then to delete things that have been put in here without consensus. Otakrem (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Medri Bahri or Bahrnegash was occupied KEY WORD here "Occupied" by the Italians and Ras Alula occupied Asmara. Before Ras Alula it was Ras Woldemichael, there Bahti Hagos of Akkele Guzay, so your argument that there was no leadership in Eritrea born of Eritreans prior to Ras Alula and Italians is Insulting to Eritreans. It is also insulting how you try to minimize the NON-Abysinnians kingdoms and try to lump them into this "Abysinnian empire" when what really was, a collection of warring Kingdoms who at certain periods had a common enemy. The mere fact that Menelik was signing a Treaty of FRIENDSHIP with Italy in order to defeat Atsi Yohanis and then Ras Mangaasha says alot more about the so-called "Abysinnian Empire" as a "unified political social economic" "empire", when it is the opposite but a disorganized colletion of Periphery States/Kingdoms (such as MedriBahri/BahriNegash, Oromo kingdoms, Harrar, etc) that were Raided by your Abysinnian Empire (Amhara/Ethiopian Tigray).
 * 2. Well you don't accept any source that isn't a White man, many of the sources provided in this Article and Many other Ethiopian articles are White men and women who are Secondary Sources ie Richard Pankhurst and his daughter. Your issue is you have a Bias against Horn of Africa writers who are Not Abyssinian(Habesha specifically Amhara). Don't weasel your way out of this one. Again, the Treaty of Wuchale does not mention anything about Menelik ceding MedriBahri. You agree with Henry Salt because he matches with your Bias, I say James Bruce + Eritreans + Dr.Yohanes + 30 year war + many other things trumps your viewpoint.
 * 3. Ok I'll make it simple for you, the Roman Empire existed correct? The Roman Empire conquered or gained tribute or raided other kingdoms in its area correct? England was once occupied by Romans. Because England was once occupied and made part of the Roman Empire, does that make the English people: Romans todayA?   the Answer is NO. Now replace England with Eritrea, and replace Romans  with     Abysinnians.  Eritreans in the past didn't see themselves as Abysinnians, Eritreans in the Present Do not see themselves as Abysinnians nor Ethiopians.
 * 4. I'm DELETING, let them reinstate it and argue it.
 * 5. But if your own words do not have a Citation behind it then we can DELETE it until you do so.
 * 6. The Consensus to Keep uncited entries, so far there is no Consensus to keep Uncited original reasearched entries. They will be DELETED. Otakrem (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Btw Aircorn undid Puhleec's Tags which I find interesting. If the tags can't remain then DELETION is the next phase. Otakrem (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, The whole point I explained above is to show you that Abyssinia is not a property of any tribe, just like the nation of united states not being a property of any ethnicity. The difference is in USA you take the state power by peaceful election but as for Abyssinia anyone with military power can own the nation. If the Yejju Oromos owned Abyssinia then obviously Baharenegash would have owned Abyssinia had they be able to win a battle with other Abyssinians. I don't remember Ashanti tribe of Ghana owning the British nation or Eritreans owning the Italian nation or Black South Africans owning their own nation under Apartheid system while the Eritrean Aman Andom did own the Ethiopian nation and the Oromo Ras Gugsa Mursa also owning Abyssinian nation. Please know that this statement is for your previous claims that "Abysinian's owns others" (if that is the hidden reason for all our arguments) and what I was trying to convince you is that Abyssinia can be and has been owned by any other tribes and also owns any other tribes just like the USA can be owned by any president of ethnic origin and also owns it's citizens. Even women were not allowed to vote or be voted in USA in 19th century (half of it's citizens were not allowed to own the democratic nation). So no nation is created giving perfect equality but in 21st centuary is there any sign of heading to perfect equality i.e. owning the nation of Ethiopia and Eritrea equally by all tribes? That being said I don't want to argue on this issue. Now under "Reign as emperor" section there are 8 alleged weasel words and original research lets discuss about each of these alleges:
 * 1) for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th allege: now every one knows that the reason for Adwa is article 17 which in Amharic has different version than the Italians. And I hope this source will solve all these issues: The Treaty of Wuchale and aftermath. What is written under the green box is the whole history between Wuchale and Addis Ababa treaty summarised.
 * 2) for the 4th and 5th allege: still researching about it
 * 3) for the 8th allege: the one for should we use "reunify" of "unified"? I have provided various sources above and sofar I havn't got any opposition or further discussions based on the explanations I gave above so for that reason I did delete the alleges. There is already a source provided and if required I could add the sources I mentioned above.
 * 4) Sources are added for the ones you deleted. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To ethiopianhabesha, since you are Stating "Abysinnia is not a property of any tribe" "Abyssinia anyone with military power can own the nation", Ok, then it is fair to say that "Abyssinia was owned by the Italians in the 1930s", therefore by your logic you are really ItalianHabesha and not "EthiopianHabesha"..is that a Fair conclusion to make using your logic? From now on I shall refer to you as ItalianHabesha since Ethiopia(Absyinnia) was owned by the Italians at one point.
 * You saw the edits I made to remove anything that would bring back edit wars firstly. I made sure your edits using the Treaty of Wuchale matched your Treaty of Wuchale source. Your edits should show link up to what you are trying to describe as "reunify", the previous statements were "reunify since the fall of the Aksum empire" which was incorrect. Provide evidence that Oromos (or as Menelik referred to as GALLAs as do so many Abysinnians today in private conversations) were a part of Abysinnia. As far as I know Oromo, Ogadenis, Afars, Shankalla, Sidamo, Agew are not considered Abesha/Habesha by Abesha/Habeshas, therefore by logic their Lands do Not belong to Abyssinians (Not legally, not socially, not traditionally, not politically, not PHYSICALLY). Abyssinians are mountaindwellers and could not handle living hot desert or thick tropical jungles...so to make a claim of "reunify" lands that Abysinnians didn't actually live in shows a Imperialistic colonial mindset that worked in Meneliks favor when it came to His Scramble for African territories to colonize just as the Italians, British, French did.  Menelik himself said it he is not a spectator in the scramble for africa that he will also colonize lands, which he did.  He made Treaties with the Italians to get weapons. He taxed the slave trade to buy weapons. He exchanged territories which did not belong to Shewa nor Abysinnia to the Italians, French, and British.  Your attempt to paint him as this "Anti-colonial" hero is not the true picture of Menelik. This article should show both facets of his character and history.Otakrem (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The following book says Menelik conquered these territories and were not a part of Abyssinia. And then he not only got tribute but setup a "gabar system" with his Military Colonies. His soldiers owned gabars (basically slaves) and those who resisted were sold into slavery. I don't see a difference between this and what European colonizers did. I will add this reference to the Article. Otakrem (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * * Otakrem, Well the thing is Italian has a definition and it is a language/ethnicty name which doesn't describe me but Ethiopia as i said means "black people nation" according to the Greek definition. So definitely I would be Ethiopian after the Italians left and also use Habesha to identify my unique brown color of that is part of a black race.
 * * First there is one fact you or anyone else cannot deny i.e. nobody cannot be able to identify surely who is Amhara, Oromo, Tigre, Gurage, Agaw etc etc. I have been leaving outside Ethiopia and trust me with over 85% accuracy I could be able to identify Ethiopians/Eritreans but if you ask me to guess their tribe let say if they all speak English then I could identify their tribes with less than 5% accuracy. Almost all subsaharan African countries do have at least 10 tribes and in countries like Nigeria you have over 200 languages/tribes and are you saying we need to have 1000 countries in Africa? And about 80 countries from Ethiopia and 9 countries from Eritrea (since Eritrea also has 9 tribes some of them even look like Sudanese, they speak Arabic and dress like Sudanese, I bet some of them want to be part of Arab League just like west Ukrain want to be under European Union while east don't and probably Tigrinyas became landlocked) which makes about 100 countries only in the Horn of Africa? In 19th centuary there were over 80 tribes, not including over 200 clans or subgroup of tribes who may speak one language but still fight each other same way as they fight with other language speakers (tribes) just like what we saw in Somalia clan warlords in the 1990s. Now I ask you what would be the solution? Should we have over 200 countries in the Horn of Africa (more than the number of world countries) or may be 80 countries (more than the 54 African countries)??
 * * Second fact is since the Yejju Oromo dynasity rulled Amharas (as you can see in Henry Salt's book) there was contentious political marriage between Oromo and Amhara rulling classes up until 1974. For the mixed rulling classes both Amharas and Oromos are their cousins and now we are leaving by the decisions this mixed rulling classes have made. For list of notable Oromos in Ethiopian empire please see: Oromo people
 * * As for your last statement please see: Slavery in Ethiopia. I dont want to add all the paragraphs and sentences I added in that article in here also. I tried to tell the history of slavery and Gabbbar system in that article and tried to tell the true picture of slavery in Ethiopia by referencing many unbiased sources. Just read it and you will get balanced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthiopianHabesha (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To ethiopian or italianhabesha, I used your logic to define your identity. I have evidence to show that Italians owned Abysinnia therefore you became Italian via ownership just like you are saying the same with Eritreans, Oromo, Afar, Konso, Kunama etc....i think its fair to call you Italianhabesha since you think its quite alright to call Eritreans as Abysinnians or Oromo or Ogadeni etc as Abysinnians when they weren't and aren't. If "Ethiopia" means "black people nation" then shouldn't every Black African have a Right to own the land of the current State of Ethiopia? Since it belongs to Nigerians more so than Abyssinnians?  But your definition of Abyssinian is based on conquest and then the langauge of Amharic and the Orthodox Christian religion, the criteria for being Abyssinian = Amharic speaking, Orthodox Christian....Oromos speak Oromiffa, Ogadenis speak Somali, Afar speak Afar...Agew speak Agew, Eritreans speaks 9 Different languages of which none of them are Amharic. The OAU/AU colonial boundaries is what has been followed until Ethiopia (under Haile Selassie) annexed Eritrea, a former colony which leads to this downward spiral towards Ethnic states.  Your current Ethiopia has Ethnic nations within it and are Divided as such, there is no more "Abyssinia" and will not be in the future. The past only shows that this 150 years since the "Era of Princes" = "Era of Warlords", Princes don't wage wars, Warlords do and the successions of each "Emperor" was through War, Tewdros (War), Yohanis (War), Menelik (War), Selassie (War/Assassination of Lij Eyasu), Mengistu (War), MelesZenawi (War), and this current PM (Assassination of Meles Zenawi)...it will continue this way but that is the political system of a Non-Empire.  The only cohesion seems to be the people are too oppressed to actually make a change or even unify, it is a Unity based on Oppression and Not a True Unity that you try to portray here. If the French and Germans can have separate nations so should the Oromos and Ogadenis have their separate nations. And if the Oromo, Amhara, Ogadeni, Tigrai, Afar, etc nations want to form a Union based mutual interests that is perfectly fine. But don't try to pretend or portray that this modern State of Ethiopia is somehow this Unified social/political/economical State that has existed for 3000 years. Theren't empires with the same people let alone a vast different types of people that last like that.Otakrem (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't tell the difference between an Ethiopian and Ugandan either, does that mean that Ethiopia needs to be a province of Uganda because of similar appearances? The "same look" argument doesn't past the "nationality" definition. Eritrea is a Nation with its own History separate from Ethiopia. The Oromos had their separate History from the Abyssinnians for thousands of years prior to Menelik's colonization of them.  Your mentioning of "Amharas" colonized by Oromos, well the Amharas were on Oromo lands or the Oromos conquered the lands therefore made them Oromo. If Abyssinians can conquer other peoples land and then claim those people as Abyssinians and their land as such for ever and ever.....even after those people Freed themselves and their land from Abyssinians...then Oromos can do the same.  And the Italians can claim Ethiopia for ever and ever as well.


 * As for slavery in Ethiopia, do you know the word "baria" origin is? I will tell you "Baria" is an Ethnic group in Eritrea who have a small population do to Abyssinian (Tigrayans like Ras Alula)'s raids on there people to sell them off into slavery. I see its an Eritrean website but I will take their story here since they have cited their sources within the Article of which one of them is Pankhurst.

Here is an Abyssinian Raids on Non-Abysinnian people, you Abyssinians are not the Angels you try to portray in your articles, you were slave traders, raiders of unarmed Africans, you were no different than the European colonialists infact your African victims sought the help of Europeans upto being Colonized. This is a fact. : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otakrem (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To Otakrem since we are talking about facts: before Menelik there were not 9 nations, there were over 200 nations in presentday Ethiopia alone. Not every Amharic speaking people were under 1 nation as there is Gojam nation, Begemider nation, Semien nation, Lasta nation, Wolqait nation, Dembia nation, Shewa nation etc whom each of them fight eachother as they fight non Amharic speakers like Wag nation, Agawmider nation, Qwara nation, Wollo nation, Raya-Azabo nation, Yejju nation etc. And down south is way much more division like Isaa nation, Qereyu nation, Chebo nation, Abichu nation, Mecha nation, Tulama nation, Afran qallo nation etc etc who also fight eachother like enemy the same way as they fight other language speakers. When you add up these nations it is more than 200, now tell me what should have been the solution?
 * These nations also raid eachother continuously meaning if in one year Arsi nation raided their neighbours like Shewa or Afran Qallo and collect resources like livestock and children then the next year they should expect a response from them. This may be our bad history but it resulted in us being mixed people where it's ridicules to say I am pure this tribe/clan/race while the others are not pure i.e. of-course if we know our true history. Once, this is not only African history but also world history. For much long time in human history raiding is the main form of collecting resources, then comes institutionalized Gabar system (Feudalism) then finally came salary paid labour and modern taxation system where employees would pay upto 1/3 of their income and commercial businesses pay more than 50% to the state in capitalism economy. When you see modern tax rate it is some how similar to feudalism but the difference is how it is collected whom Haileselase in 1960s abolsished the Gultegnas (fiefdom holders or Balabates) and directed the tax to be paid directly to the state as we pay now. While Mengistu (with socialism ideology) distributed land/property/wealth fairly and equally. Mengistu also abolished some form of caste system which existed in all ethnicgroups who classified their members by family background. Those with family history of artisans were the lowest of the lowest class and were regarded as “Buddah” while with slave and war of prisoner background were regarded as low class and the peasants (Gabbars) were middle class. While Mengisu abolished this class division in short period of time Caste system still exists in India.
 * Your last comment makes me ask questions about your nationality. Because if I am Eritrean and want it's unity I wouldnt support ethnic federalsim in Ethiopia because it means other ethnicgroups in Eritrea might see the Ethiopian system as role model and push for it's implementation just like what happened in neighboring Somalia where clan federalsim is the system of government. Same system in Eritrea means this map: Ethnic Map of Eritrea. As for Ethiopia even with ethnic federalism I think we can still keep the unity of the country because it's exclusively under the African civilization. Geopolitics is one of the reason countries breakup. The problem in Ukrain is that half the people want to be part of European civilization while the other half want Eurussian civilization, same is also for UK while Scots want to be full member of EU while Britain not. Considering Eritrea being in between two civilizations i.e. the African and Arabian it's gone have a tough time to keep the unity if ethnic federalism is requested and implemented. Besides the Arabs may want and do anything to keep the Red sea just for themselves!
 * Language is a communication means not an identity! For instance I want my children to be fluent in Chinese because that the language that will give them a better life and will they be Chinese automatically after that? I also speak English does it mean now I'm an English man? If tomorrow Eritrea becomes rich like Singapore then obviously I'll teach them Tigrinya so that they will be better businessmen in Eritrea! One person can learn more than 3 languages and the more we know the better.
 * I beleive there are more than 100 thousand Italian citizens with Eri/Ethio origin who are treated equally unlike colonization time where they were not in anyways allowed to own not only Italian nation but even their own nation. I've told you that Abyssinia has been owned by Agaws (Zagwe dynasity), by Oromos (Yejju dynasity), by Tigres, by Amharas and even by 1 Eritrean man called Aman Andom who all of them are recorded in History. And in the future when perfect equality comes then any qualified/educated/experienced Gambela, Welayta, Sidama or anyother minorities will own Ethiopia as well. Italians may own us for 5 years but since I havn't seen a black Horn of African owning Italian nation then why do you think I would be Italian? A nation that comes and says you can't own my nation but I can own yours and infact segregate you in your own land, cannot marry white person or integrate with white people at all then that is a colonizer. But how can one be a colonizer when one comes and extensively integrate with you by marriage, dine with you, go to same church with you, transported in same bus with you and gave you equal ownership of the statepower? —EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To ethiopianhabesha(Italianabysinnian), you are finally admitting to the fact that prior to Menelik, it was Feuding Kingdoms and NOT a Centralized "Abysinnian Empire" or "Abysinnian State".

1. 1889 "Ethiopia" formed from the Colonization of all the Kingdoms you listed in your "Prior to Menelik, there were ...". Prior to Menelik there was No such thing as a Unified Abysinnian "State" or "Empire", there was only feuding Kingdoms....explain to me how the Zagwe Kingdom started in 900 AD is Not a Part of this so-called "Abysinnian Empire", "Abysinnian (Ethiopian) Empire" started in 1270 AD. The years of your empire do not add up to the notion of "reunification" of southern peoples whose lands and Peoples were NEVER a Part of Axum, and the Zagwe Kingdom was after the fall of Axum. Yekuno Amlak was a liar as are all of his descendants. Anyhow, you talk bad about your current Warlords, ie TPLF yet 100 years from now you will talk about TPLF as if they were Divinely of the SOlomonic Dynasty etc etc.

2. "Your last comment makes me ask questions about your nationality." What is with you and someone's "nationality" or "race" or if they are White or a Horn of Africa african? Your appeal to Racial Bias has made it clear that you have a "political/nationalistic agenda", namely your "Pro-Amhara/Abysinnian" agenda at the cost of the truth. Language is more than just communications and you use Puffery to illustrate your non-point. I doubt you speak any other Languages within Ethiopia except Amharic. By your logic, if someone speaks Amharic does that make them an Abyssinian? Oromos speak Amharic but they are Still GALLA in your and Menelik's point of view.

3. You simply refused to acknowledge the Illogical conclustions that you have drawn from your own twisted logic. Your logic is simply this < 1.Since Ethiopia occupied Eritrea for 30 years, then Eritreans are Ethiopians...wait they are Abyssinians for ever and ever. I provided a counter example and stated that you could be Italian for ever and ever, completely erasing your Abysinnian identity by that same logic of "Occupation" leads to "Identification". As for the rest of your comments, its obvious you are trying to protect your "nationalistic/political agenda" over the truth, which you seem to try censor and outright ignore. Otakrem (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Weasel words" and "Original Research" tags inserted inappropriately against the rule
The rule for "Original Research" tags stated in here Template:Original research section says: Put this template at the top of a section that contains original research. Don't forget to start a discussion on the talk page that explains your concerns. If you don't start a discussion, then any editor that doesn't see obvious violations of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy may remove this tag.

And the rule for "Weasel words" tags stated in here Template:Weasel inline says: This tag is an inline alternative to the tag placed at the top of an article.

Since the type of weasel word tag used in Menelik's page is while not using weasel inline then there should be only one tag of this type:   on top of the article instead of the many placed everywhere in the article.

I have made adjustments based on these rules — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Soapbox Rant Added with Questionable Sources
Ethiopianhabesha agreed to remove this since initially it had no citation and it was a soapbox. Now Ethiopianhabesha reinstated this with sources that are dubious and only used to permit the reinstatement of this rant: I disagree in adding this to this Article and have deleted so, Ethiopianhabesha agreed originally. I do not undesrtand why he chose to reinstate this.

This is an Apologetic Rant on the previous sentences which have sourced their claims. Disclaimers like this make wikipedia unencyclopedic. "As for the claim he committed genocide and mutilation so far there is no available documents with varied sources that includes material and written evidences, and that is researched with international standard like done in other parts of the world with similar claims.[43][44][45][46] Moreover, the sources used to claim these atrocities were not researched by a team of experts specialized in various fields which also comprised of various ethnic-groups and foreigners.[43][44][45][46] Most of the sources used against Menelik's army regarding mutilation and genocide were not known to Ethiopian or foreign independent historians until the rise of ethnic nationalism in the 1970s.[43][44][45][46] The details and discussions of this particular period in Ethiopian history are heavily politicized, and the views of the facts vary depending on the ethno-political agenda of the sides.[43][44][45][46]" Otakrem (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To Otakrem
 * 1) Both Menelik and Haileselase are bilinguals and they speak Oromo and Amharic 100% fluently. Haileselase speak oromo because he is 3/4 Oromo as can be evidenced here: Haileselase is Oromo and Menelik speaks Oromo because he was born and raised in an oromo area as can be evidenced here: Menelik born and raised in Oromo area, had much in common with Oromos than Amharas. In modern civilized world were citizenship is acquired by place of birth then Menelik would have been considered an Oromo citizen. Now since they have grown up in a multiethnic society for them both Amharas and Oromos are their cousins. Me knowing or speaking English, Chinese, Tigrinya, Amharic or Oromo will not change my DNA/race/ethnicty/blackeness because 1st and formost that is my identity. Currently I'm in the USA and overtime through integration I have acquired new cultural identities which I think also doesnot change my DNA/race/ethnicty/blackness. That is the fact I know! Chinese, 2nd superpower of the world, through globalization integrated by having two names one Chinese and another western (Christian name). And the other fact I know is that when I was in Ethiopia "Amhara" tribe is not listed in my identity card, the tribe I put is another tribe, which I dont want to disclose it here. There are 80 tribes in Ethiopia and your chance of knowing my tribe is 1/80.
 * 2) Definition of colonization: Segregation is one characteristics of Colonization but since when Britain colonised United States there were no segregation imposed on the white US citizens then using "segregation" as the main definition of colonization is completely wrong. The main definition of colonization as got to do with the state power sharing. Colonizers say we completely own your nation i.e. USA and it's citizens but in anyways you cannot own our nation i.e. the colonizer's country, Britain in this case. Simply that is how colonization is defined! Britain's relation with Scotland is considered a union (as can be seen in Acts of Union 1707). When the royal families created union by political marriage then it is considered state power sharing and regarded as a union while USA leaders are not given share of power in Britain which make it a colonization. Let's assume Abyssinia is the 13 original states who founded USA in 1776 and analyse the expansion done by both of them.
 * 3) Expansion as unification: Now the 13 original states founded United states by decision made on state leaders (while there was no referendum i.e. while the people were not asked for their opinion on weather to establish USA or not). Then these 13 states expanded westward by annexing other territories settled by non English speaking whites (Spanish, French, Russian) as can be seen in this map: US territorial expansion. Alaska settled by Russians was aquired in 1867 from Russia. The relation between the annexed territories and USA is that we all can own eachother meaning Texans, Californians and Virginians can own each other equally which is different from their relation with Britain (the colonizer). Even by 19th centuary there was no perfect equality and women were not allowed to vote (not owning the nation equally) in USA, the nation that was established by democratic principles. When it comes to the history of Abyssinia the cushite Agaws did own Abyssinia by Zagwe dynasity, the cushite Oromos did own Abyssinia by Yejju daynsity, so do Tigres and Amharas and also one Eritrean man by the name Aman Andom did own Ethiopia. After Menelik the key people of Ethiopian empire i.e primeminister & war minister Habtegiorgis Dinagde Botera is an Oromo, Lij Iyasu Mikael Ali Aba Bula is an Oromo, Haileselase Mekonen W/mkael Gudisa is an Oromo, his wife Menen Asfaw is an Oromo. In feudalism all land belongs to the emperor and the emperor is 3/4 Oromo and when his descendants from his wife are considered then they are 7/8 Oromos. Therefore, if there is anyone keep on insisting it's colonization then one should note that it may be the other way round i.e. Oromos colonizing others based on reliable unbiased sources. The Scholar Richard Green states that "The Italians seems not to understood that rulling families are Oromo as Amhara while J Markakis states that: "Tigrean reference to Amharas as “half-Oromo." In 19th centuary there were no perfect equality in USA so do in Ethiopia. Therfore if we can use unify for USA then I don't see the reason why we cannot use it on Ethiopia? So for this reason I will add back the word "Unify" and I will make it reunify based on the following sources proving that before 16th centuary it expanded upto Bale: Bali is the largest of Ethiopia's Muslim provinces, westward upto Damot (presentday Wellega province) as can be seen here: Damot like Gafat is reported to have come under Zagwe rule and extending eastward upto Ifat and it's capital Zeila port as can be seen here: Ifat and Zeila part of Abysinia in 1402. Based on these sources then it is safe to say Ethiopian Empire did expanded South of Shewa before the rise of Gragn Mohamed.
 * 4) The one you deleted was properly sourced and I have restored it back based on Wikipedia's rule which states that any biased statements can be made balanced. And I have never agreed for it's deletion, pls go back and review my comments again. Readers need to know that there are other people disagreeing with the claims and their point of view also needs to be heard.
 * 5) We haven't finalized our discussions regarding your issues between Wuchale treaty upto Addis Ababa treaty. We discussed it above and may be you give me more of your comments before we may do something about the alleges. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia NotSoapbox rules: "2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles." You are more than welcome to include your Opinion in the Wikinews to communicate your Commentary on the Menelik Article.Otakrem (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To ethiopianhabesha, your Entry Violates NOTSOAPBOX. What you added is an opinion and not Wikipedia-material. You can not put in the article. I will have to delete again. Also your sources are Soapboxes themselves ie Opinion pieces. What you added is a Commentary on the Menelik's Reign as Emperor article. There is No Consensus to Keep your Soapbox rant in the Article and it will be deleted. If you continue to reinstate it, you are Edit Warring. And I will keep deleting it.
 * To Otakrem, Seems like your main problem is about that section which you want to keep deleting. I beleive wikipedia is open for everyone and all are welcome to edit any pages. I will rewrite it (by the way which whatsoever has got nothing to do with Eritrean interest) based on the conclusions I got from reading the four sources. I will provide more quotation extracted from these sources and put the same point with other words. And may be I will add more historical facts that may damage ethnic nationalist propaganda i.e. the facts I put above some of which is that "Menelik's mother tongue is Oromo" and the fact that key people of Ethiopian empire after his death were Oromos like Haileselase 1/4th Oromo and his descendants 7/8 Oromos. As I said I am just here for knowledge sharing and balancing informations.


 * In the mean time, give more comments regarding to the points I provided for the rest of the alleges, let's engage more discussions on them if not then the alleges will be deleted on the grounds that convincing points are not provided for higher level wikipedians to make their judgement. But since we don't want to tell the world that Horn of Africans are not civilised by 21st century and connot solve their issues by convincing each other and by complying by the rule themselves without no one telling them! They might assume we are still in stone age where people just disrespect each other and law/rule is unknown. And donot put statements as if it is made by Wikipedia! It's is not allowed in here and they might suspend you just like the other user who in the first place made those alleges.— EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What you entered into Meneliks' "His Reign as Emperor" reads like a Soapbox. If you want to talk about his Reign as Emperor do so in a Talk page not the article itself. I've added tags because your sources are Soapbox articles themselves and original research. They are not credible sources to what you actually wrote in the section. Eventually, your entry will be deleted.Otakrem (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To Otakrem, the two sources which might be a soapbox like blog (ethiopianreview and 6kilo are no more there). But salem.com is a reliable USA news organisation which is impossible to claim it as a personal blog.
 * The rule here: WP:NEWSORG allows articles with opinion pieces from news organisations and it says:
 * "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author"
 * Otherwise, each and every sentences is properly sourced from reliable books and even citations can be accessed through google books and any one can be able to easily confirm them with out searching the books in libraries. If you have problems for any of the sentences let's discuss about it. In here issues are solved by discussions, convincing one another, the more points you provide the easier for us and administrators to make their judgment otherwise if anyone keep on insisting 1+1=3 and gathering more votes for it doesn't work here! By the way still no more response from you for the other alleges, do you agree with my explanations above? If not then give reasons or comments or provide other sources with contradicting point of view — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * to EthiopianHabesha, like the WP:NEWSORG says about Opinion pieces "are rarely reliable for statements of fact.". Salem News is an opinion piece by the opinionated author. Also the whole entry on "his reign as emperor" regarding "Oromo" reads like an Argument and Not a Wikipedia Article. There should only be statement of facts and not Opinions of which your Salem Article and the entire "Soapbox" entry does. For example, something written as "Menelik ordered the hands and feets of captured Oromo men to be chopped off" and cited with a reliable source is Wikipedia entry. What your Salem news author wrote is "those who who say Menelik ordered the hands and feets of captured Oromo men to be chopped are Pseudo-historians and dubious politicians, blah blah" is a Soapbox rant. Talking about "Oromo historians" with your opinion is a Soapbox entry. The Soapbox tag will still be added until you edit the Soapbox rant out of your entry. Also mentioning that "Menelik" is Oromo in his Reign as Emperor just makes the section unreadable. His Reign as Emperor should show what he did, what he ordered and what happened in his reign, if Abyssinians chopped the hands and feets of Oromos in his Reign then that should be added. If he waged war against Oromos and Tigrayans, then that should be added.  But what you added is a Soapbox rant about cited entries. EthiopianHabesha your entry still reads like a Soapbox. You removed the Tag without solving the Issue. It's up for deletion. Otakrem (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

To Other Wikipedia Editors, this Reads like a Soapbox
To other Wikipedia editors, the following current "His Reign as Emperor" entry, I would like other reviewers to review, it reads to me like an Apologetic Soapbox rant about how "More Oromo Menelik was then the Oromos he was accused of chopping hands and feets in the previous portion of his reign as emperor", the FOLLOWING is EthiopianHabesha's Entry:

"Some disagree with the claims made by Bulcha and Hassan on the ground that there were many Oromos holding key positions in the empire.[39][43] Menelik, since he became King of Shewa, gave the top leadership of the military to Oromos like Ras Gobana Dacche, Ras Mekonen and finally to war minister HabteGyorgis whom all of them are Oromos.[44] Menelik himself is said to have much in common with Oromos as he was born and raised until he was 12 years in an Oromo area.[45] Right after Menelik's death the most dominant person in the empire was the Oromo Habtegyorgis whom Kebede in his book call him the "King maker" and Negus Mikael, also an Oromo, before the Battle of Segale is believed to say: "If Habte-Girogis is with us and Teferi is very young ("a child of yesterday"), with whom are we going to fight? Who can defeat us".[46][47] Mikael's remark and his imprisonment in Habtegyorgis's native land, Chebo, after his defeat at the battle shows that who was effectively running the empire after Menelik's death.[48] With Habtegyorgis, the war minister & primeminister, domination Shewans did overhtrow Mikael's son Lij Iyasu and replaced him With Zewditu Menelik as Queen while assigning the young Teferi Mekonen as heir and regent, another Oromo who later became emperor Haile Selassie.[49][50][51][52] In response to Italian’s propaganda with leaflets dropped stating “Amhara tyranny”, Richard Greenfield in his book states that “Italians apear not to have understood that the leading families are Oromo”.[53] According to Jan Zahorik the 1970s and 1980s were the period of enormous growth of the Oromo studies so that many authors began to use the rhetoric of “invented” Oromo history and identity".[54] Another scholar by the name professor Mengistu Paulos states that most fictional history are provided by former politicians turned Pseudo-historians who are renowned for abuse of paraphrasing, often with out-of-context citations.[39] Profesor Fekadu Lemesa also states that: “Throughout those decades, the truth is more Oromos were killed by other Oromos than by non-Oromos because competing Oromo Clans often traded for weapons to have an upper hand against their local competitors, who were often their fellow Oromo and Sidama neighbors.” Otakrem (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) To Otakrem,
 * 1) One thing everyone can see is that the article on Salem.com is not used to state facts and the rule says: "are rarely reliable for statements of fact." it means some may be rarely allowed (It doesnt say it is absolutely not allowed at all). One example of factual statement is: "Coffee is good for your heart" and this kind of facts are rarely allowed to be sourced by articles from News organisation but it is preferable to source it from scientific research journals or books. I used the article on salem.com for indicating that not all people agree with claims made by Hasan and Bulcha and some of those people are Lemesa, Zahoric and paulos and also use the article to extract quotations but not to state "facts".


 * 2) Regarding to your statement: "reads like an Argument and Not a Wikipedia Article. There should only be statement of facts and not Opinions"
 * Infact the rule says it is allowed to add opinions but the only thing that is not allowed is presenting opinions as facts based on what WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says:
 * "For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited."
 * Now you may review the paragraph again and you can't find any sentence equivalent to "John Doe is the best baseball player" which is considered opinion presented as fact which is not allowed. Most of the sentence begin "some people disagree......" "a person by the name says.........." which is equivalent with the second example that reads "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." which makes it acceptable to use in this article. Another rule WP:MNA states that "When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic." The first sentence is used to make assumptions and achieve NPOV (Neutral point of view).
 * 3) Regarding to your statement which says "Talking about "Oromo historians" with your opinion is a Soapbox entry": As you can clearly see that is not my opinion and in the article it is indicated as it is the opinion of Jan Zahorik and professor Mengistu Paulos and cited appropriately. May be explain more to what your issues with this statment
 * 4) Regarding to your suggestion were ethnicty of the person should not be included and that only "what he did" should be included in Wikipedia: This is a biography of people so it is acceptable to add their personal history like their ethnicty, were they grow up, what shapes their behaviors and personality, what culture they grow up, their legacy, impacts after their death, their language etc etc as you can see in biography of people in Wikipedia pages. We cant just say Albert Einstein invented this or that as we may also say based on his inventions so and so scientist in 21centuary could be able to invent this or that as it is also his legacy and should be included under his personal biography.
 * 5) By the way your negative remarks on Menelik also reminds me why similar claims are not stated under Isayas Afewoke and Meles Zenawi's page while such claims are stated under Menelik?? Infact Amnesty international is a reliable neutral primary source which regularly make publication by researching properly, while Bulcha and Hassan hasn't yet provided material evidences like photographs and videos of mass graves or other materials supporting their claims for 19th centuary. There were so many graphic details claimed by Amnesty for 20th and 21st century crimes pointing to these leaders, some of them with hard to deny material and written evidences like videos, photographs and interviews with eyewitness. In one source I think I saw they bury people alive. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha I understand how Wikipedia's editing rules work. No need to go ad naseum about it. Your sources have an issue with Non-Amhara historians who are Oromos or other Ethnic groups from Ethiopia. The sources provided about the "statement of facts" such as "Menelik had the hands and feets chopped off of Oromo men" were published sources. Your sources are Opinion pieces with clear Anti-Oromo biases. As for "similar claims are not stated under Isayas and Meles's pages", well they aren't Menelik so the claims against them would not be similar. However, their wiki pages Meles Zenawi has a "Criticism and scandals" which talks about "Annuak genocide, post election violence, Ogaden genocide". The Isaias Afwerki page, it has a "Criticism", therefore you are being Dishonest with your attempt to Stifle Criticism of Menelik II. If those two pages can have a criticism, so can Menelik's article.Otakrem (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This article needs a neutrality check by the way. Otakrem (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To Otakrem: saying "Oromos holds key positions in Ethiopian empire", "they, Yejju Oromos did conquered Amhara", "Menelik is born and grow up in an Oromo area where his personal identity and behavior is shaped", "He only gave top leadership of the military to Oromos", "After his death he left the empire to be handled by Oromo generals like Habtegyorgis", "marrying his own childrens for Oromo generals", "Much oromo anccestery on the next powerful man in the empire i.e. Haileselse" etc etc Now if historians stated all these then with what kind of justification that they could be accused as "anti Oromo"? Seriously anyone who is in wikipedia only for sharing knowledge can give their judgements fairly! Most foreigner scholars are more independent and neutral because they don't have nationalist or political agenda on Ethiopia and most write just for the knowledge not for asserting their agenda.
 * The criticism under Isayas Afeworke is summerised as "Amnesty also claims that torture — for punishment, interrogation and coercion", now by going inside the research one can write graphic details under his biography while citing reliable sources! Since such thing is stated under Menelik I don't see the reason why we shouldnt put similar graphic details under the biography of all the party leaders of EPLF, TPLF and OLF who used to follow Communism ideology and their role models like Mao and Stalin are believed to kill more than 60 million people which is supported by international standard research. Many researchers (comprised of many neutral independent scholars from many countries) support their claim by photographs of mass graves and with many written and material evidences that is hard to deny. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Menelik's Crimes Against Humanity Section
We need to have a Separate Section that accounts for the Crimes Against Humanity or Wrongs that Menelik II committed personally as well as a Leader against the Various people's He interacted with.2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree since EthiopianHabesha directed us to the Meles Zenawi page which has a Criticism and Scandal page describing the Genocides and Human rights violations of Meles Zenawi and his government, it is fair to add something along the lines for Menelik II. Otakrem (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of Menelik II article is lacking
There is POV, original research, soapboxes, weasel words and the Setup of the Article is discontinuous. It jumps around and the sources used in some sentences are unreliable or outright not Wikipedia approved sources. Otakrem (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To Otakrem: you deleted the statement used to achieve neutral point of view. Many communists have killed millions with a total of 100 million people as can be seen here: Mass killings under Communist regimes. For these deaths there is international standard research where thousands of documents with hard to deny evidences like material evidence with photographs of mass graves and other materials related to genocide found in museums. There should also be evidences implicating the leader like policy papers, constitution, laws, decree, verbal accounts and letters exchanged between military personels to carryout executions may be needed to connect the atrocities with the leader and prove that it was not carried out by some out of state control generals. Those researches also included records of 1000s of eyewitnesses from all sides i.e. 50% from the victims side and another 50% from those who carried out the order of the leaders or others who are not affiliated to both of them (neutrals and independents). Team of researchers also should comprise from various fields of expertise coming from different ethnicty, citizenship with varied political views. Suggesting the opinions used to achieve NPOV cannot be added and that those claims shouldn't be balanced, while there is no research equivalent to this standard is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy and those claims made by Hassan and Bulcha should be removed, otherwise it will be a one side story.


 * Menelik's army is comprised of multi ethnic elites and soldiers armed with modern weapons and the fact that the head of empire's military are only Oromos like Gobana, Mekonen and Habtegyorgis makes it not hard to find eyewitneses from those who carried out, if such claims did happened. Westerners (neutrals) might have documented it while in their stay in Ethiopia during Menelik time or after his reign. Even if there is rumours and gossips circulating in the society of Ethiopia before the 1970s then they would have written it in their diaries by sayinng "I've heard such and such people saying Menelik did that & these" after they left Ethiopia. The sources used in here are written after the 1970s where there emerges ethnic nationalism led by communism ideology. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether the source was written in the 1970s or the 1600s, or if it was written by a Westerner or an Oromo/Amhara/Kenyan/etc, if it was researched and backed by other sources then it should remain. This is not acceptable reasoning to delete an entry that has a verifiable source that meets Wikipedia's criteria. What I deleted from your additions was based on its' violation of NPOV, Offtopic, soapbox, and weasel words all in those two - three sentences.Otakrem (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What you deleted was backed by a verifiable source which cites other sources within it. I was reading some of those sources that you deleted and I find them sources to understanding of the atrocities that did happen during the conquest of the South Ethiopia. What I read about the Dizi people was troubling. Otakrem (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

From the sources you deleted, Alexander Bulatovich was a Russian(Westerner/Foreigner/Non-Oromo) and working for Menelik said this: "Although he was appar ently disgusted by what he termed the barbarity of the Abyssinian soldiers against the indig enous peoples (see ibid: 300ff.), he continued his service in the expedition, often partic i pating in battles. Back in his tent after a very tiresome campaign against the Maji (Dizi) people, he noted in his diary on 23 April, 1898, [H]ow many victims had the conquest of this land cost? It seemed to me brim-full of violence and injus tice. Of course, a new phase in the history of peoples is always paid for with sacri fices. But world justice and indi vidual justice are quite different from one another. Murder always remains murder for us what ever goal it may accom plish and it is espe cially immoral in rela tion to these peaceful, indus trious people who never did harm to us, whose land we now take away by force, using the supe ri ority of our weapons (Bulatovich, ([1898], 2000: 370)" Otakrem (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"The Italian diplomat and arms dealer, Pietro Antonelli, followed the king on some of his expedi tions against the Arsi Oromo and wrote that Menelik’s army foughtagainst tribes ‘who have no other weapons but a lance, a knife and a shield, while the Amharas, infinitely superior in numbers, always have in their army several thousand rifles, pistols, and often a couple of cannon’ (Antonelli, 1882, cited in Marcus, 1975: 64). Describing the havoc they caused when in action, he noted: one sees thirty or forty thou sand men running in one direc tion... soldiers no longer think about their generals, nor... of the king... [who] in these moments is a simple soldier. It is a flood of men following a giddy course. After eight or ten hours of assault the soldiers return to camp with herds of cattle and groups of women and chil dren; captive able-bodied males and elderly were killed. The severity of the zamacha was aimed at the erad i ca tion of all resis tance... Wher ever the army surged forward, there was the utmost destruc tion; houses were burned, crops destroyed and people executed (ibid: 67)" Otakrem (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"of Walaita also lost a large proportion of its inhab itants. An Abyssinian expedition in 1894 slaugh tered about 119,000 men, women and children (Prouty, 1986:115) in less than two weeks. The Frenchman, Gaston Vanderheym, who accom panied Menelik on that expedition, described the offensive against the Walaita as ‘some kind of infernal hunting where human beings rather than animals served as game’. Not only were the surren dering Walaita killed and mutilated, but the invaders made no distinction between fighters and civilians. ‘It was a terrible butchery of living or dead flesh... by soldiers drunk from blood... [O]ur mules turned aside contin u ously from recently killed corpses which encum bered the country. The wounded, terribly mutilated, were trampled by the cavalry men’ (Vanderheym, 1896: 181; Marcus, 1969: 449-450). Chris Prouty wrote that captive women and children were forced to carry the severed parts of their dead husbands and fathers, and that ‘Menelik’s Christianizing-colonizing objective was achieved but at a terrible cost’. He added that ‘Despite the fact that Menelik, “in his mercy”, gave the Welamo back some of their herds, the cattle he took to Addis Ababa still numbered 36,000’ (Prouty, 1986: 116). The conquest was followed by confis cation of land and property on an extensive scale (Markakis, 1987: 39)" Otakrem (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

" Writing about the Maji/Dizi, the German anthro pol ogist Eike Haberland (1984: 47) notes that Before the arrival of the Amhara troops in the 1890s and the subse quent forced incor po ra - tion of the Dizi into the Ethi o pian empire, the Dizi prob ably numbered between 50,000 and 100,000. The conquest had profound conse quences in the decades that followed: subjec tion to... economic exploi ta tion and oppres sion; the abduc tion... of innu mer able peoples as slaves, servants or carriers, only a few of whom were ever able to return; famine, disease and a growing sense of hope less ness and resig na tion, engen dered by a total absence of justice. These things not only caused the number of the Dizi to shrink (in 1974 there were prob ably scarcely more than 20,000) but shook their whole culture to its roots"

You did not have a valid reason to delete the source associated with these quotes. I think more details of Menelik's conquest and commands and actions and Actions of his Soldiers during his Reign as Emperor are very Appropriate for the Section in his Wiki Article.Otakrem (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To Otakrem, When telling the history of a war many can come up with many graphic details. But the biggest problem is when not describing all battles without bias. Wikipedia states that bias is no way acceptable when writing encyclopaedia. When one describes the graphic details of a war between Menelik and Welayta then he is definitely required to describe the graphic details of the war Menelik did with all his rival northerner Chrtians like the Amhara Gojames at the Battle of Embabo; and describe Nigus Teklehaimanot was captured at the battle by some oromo soldier named Sembato of Gobana Dache's army and the Negus mistakenly regarded as ordinary soldier was enslaved until someone noticed him and bought for 10 Maria Teresa from Sembato and after that Menelik treated the Nigus with high respect (even went to Adwa battle with him) while Sembato was awarded with "Fitwarari" title for capturing the leader of the enemy. In modern world war of prisoners are kept in prison so that they don't fight you back again, in communism ideology anyone considered a threat for fighting back/resisting is exterminated in mass but in the old tradition those who will fight back will be enslaved, this is the normal practice between the over 100 tribes of Horn of Africa for thousands of years. Until system of paid soldiers introduced in 20th centuary this practice is a way of compensating for their service, sacrifices and is used for motivation to mobilise a large number of soldiers between over 200 clans in Horn region. By mid 1890s Menelik himself outlawed slavery, destroyed notorious slave markets and punished slavers by amputation but still you can't change age-old practices in one year! After 7 years of bloody war with Welayta Kawo Tona and his descendants were given back their territory to administer upto 1970s until DERG removed all historical clan aristocrats all over the country. To be fair one needs to describe the graphic details of the war between the liberation fronts and Mengistu whom all of them are Communist and many researchers show that all of them did what other Communists did in other parts of the world & their biggest role models are Stalin and Mao who killed 60 million people. While the rest of Africa is busy testing western systems like democracy, capitalism & free market our politicians were busy copying communism terms like red terror, White terror, bourgeoisie, Imperialists, self determination, revolution, atheism etc etc. Not to be biased an editor needs to describe the bloody battles engaged by the 16 century expansionist Oromo clans in a graphic detail by describing their ritually prescribed killings, and the fact that many States (Muslim, Traditional and Christian religion based states) recorded in history disappearing from history as a result of their expansion. Claiming Menelik's Oromo army generals as being Amharas, claiming their multiethnic Soldiers as Amharas and denying Oromo generals being the dominant key people in the empire after Menelik's death is a historical distortion and it needs to be addressed and that's the reason why some of the statement you deleted were serving. Finally an editor needs to describe the 1990s Ethio-Eritrea war that some estimates over 80,000 dead (while at Battle of Adwa 12,000 dead, Segale 12,000 dead and Embabo 12,000 dead) in a graphic details and also describe it's importance in the lives of the 90+6 million Ethio-Eritreans! Not to be considered bias one needs to see all battles fairly and write with unbiased tones. Equivalent of what is written in Menelik should also be written in all the other battles, expansions and biographies without bias. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your argument does not justify you deleting sourced data about human rights crimes committed against civilians and prisoners of war under the reign of Menelik. Also it does not matter that there were some Oromo generals or soldiers within Menelik's army, the crimes were committed under Menelik's reign as emperor. You are just trying to justify his crimes by referring other crimes which were duly noted in those other articles. However, you do not even permit the addition of those crimes within the Article by your deletion of such.  Also your entry was violating Wiki article rules which I stated when I deleted it.  It didn't add to the neutrality of the article, it made it worst, therefore it was deleted.  If you were the only person editting this Article, I doubt the Article would say a single word about Menelik committing even a lie hence why the Counter to your Bias is sourced information as I stated above in this discussion of crimes committed under Menelik's reign. Otakrem (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Menelik II
People here tend to add too much information of other peoples into this section, If you want to write about the life of Lij Iyasu or Emperor Tewodros , THEN PLEASE DO IT IN THEIR OWN WIKI SECTIONS and NOT here !! Please keep this section clean !! Understandable Science 20:03 7 August 2010

June 2016
Stumink, need more clarification regarding to the reasons given for your last 4 reverts.

1) 1st revert saying "this is not contrary to the claims that slavery was carried out": pls make it more clear
 * "Contorary" is used to inform that there is indeed an opposing view on the claim "large scale slavery" and it is used as in "contrary to the claims where large scale slavery were promoted, Chris Prouty on the other hand states that ..........". The reason why "According to Mekuria Bulcha and Mohammed Hasan" is added on top of the paragraph is to indicate that other scholars have different and opposing views and show within the paragraph that this and this writers claim this while this and that writers oppose this views. Remember not all scholars agree with Bulcha and Hassan and it needs to be addressed accordingly.

2) 2nd revert saying "First source is unreliable. Rest is original research. This info doesn't need to be here and can be added on a more relevant page":
 * a) First sources is unreliable? guess what you are saying is the article from salem.com, I don't know based on which wikipedia rule is that this source cannot be reliable but salem.com is an American news organisation wich mainly report news for Oregon state people. This rule here WP:NEWSORG allows articles with opinion pieces from news organisations and it says:
 * "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author"
 * b) Rest is original research? The one you deleted for this reason was written based on the article written on salem.com as well as the other 6 citations used as refernce for the two sentences you deleted in this revert. Six of them are reliable published books that can be accessed from google book and when you click the link you will see that the citations are highlighted in yellow, you may review them and if required I can bring them here for discussion.
 * C) Not relevant to this article? this one i guess is for the last sentence. It is used to support the sentence before it. It shows that other opposing scholars did state that indeed in present-day Ethiopia, before the establishment of a central government (before the rise of Menelik), there were many warring clans/nations who fight each other while no government imposing rule of law, just like what we have seen in Somalia between 1991-2006, where one language speaking and one religion following various Somali clans fighting continuously because there is not central government in 20-21st century. Now when you go back to 19th century we expect to observe much more ugly clan wars to occur in the land of presnt-day Ethiopia before the rise of Menelik and as part of his legacy, for stooping those bloody clan wars, it is of-course relevant to this page.

3) 3rd revert saying "Re-added death toll estimates from reliable source. Chris Prouty information has been removed because it is redundant as abolition of slavery is mentioned lower"
 * a) Chris Prouty statement deleted and is redundant? Chris Prouty's statement is added to achieve neutral point of view (NPOV) to that paragraph, remember there are also people who have opinions contrary to Bulcha and Hassan and as their point of view has the right to be heard the other opposing peoples do also has the same right. Wikipedia says that when writing an encyclopedia biased points needs to be balanced by providing other opposing point of views by providing reliable sources. True about slavery abolition has been described below but the use of both of them is different and the one inserted at the top is with the objective of achieving NPOV to that specific paragraph while the other one is used for another topic and note that the same wording is not repeated below and they both are different wordings from different sources.
 * b) Re-added death toll estimates from reliable source? Actually this is a very serious accusations towards him and needs to be discussed extensively before re-added.
 * * Unanswered questions: This statement needs to have answers to the following questions: 1) Millions (over 2 millions)? what is the maximum because it leads to assume unlimited number like 3, 10, 100 .....million? 2) What kind of material evidences were provided to estimate this much deaths? Material evidences like photographs, pictures and videos of mass graves and other materials related to genocide found in museums? 3) What kind of historically written documents were used to claim this much people died? Written documents that indicate genocide like copy of a law, decree, constitution, policy papers, verbal account, letters used to give orders to other military personals, eyewitness records 50% from the soldiers who carried out as well as 50% from the victims side as being done in other well researched genocide claims in other parts of the world. 4)If indeed there is some evidence then there should also be similar evidences to connect it with the leader but not by out of state control generals 5) Inorder to avoid biased research, who are the people involved in the research? Doest it inlcude from both opposing sides? what are their tribe, nationality etc etc also matters. If you personally checked the source you claim are reliable, please make it clear to those 5 questions.
 * * Issues with the source provided: there are two books provided as a source and none of them have page numbers where the citation for that claim is based upon. Please indicate the page numbers, if possible please bring the exact quotation extracted from the book here for discussion, otherwise it is not fair to leave it for other wikipedians to confirm it by going through all these 100s of pages to find a citation supporting this specific claim.
 * * Personaly, I have searched many books and I couldn't be able to find a reliable source implicating Menelik with equivalent story like this diary of Bermudes a primary source, an eye witness of Oromo expansion and also secondary sources like Mohamed Hassan and Richard Pankhurst stating it in their books as can be seen here 1 2 which clearly indicate genocide, also showing how it is done, and based on this eywitness account many can come up with death toll similar or more than the claim you re-added for Menelik. However, I don't think it is appropriate to write such graphic quotations under Wikipedia's article for Oromo expansion or under Oromo history neither under Menelik's biography even if those sources are reliable.

Issues similar to your points raised have been discussed above extensively and you may review them — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I agree with Stumink when it comes to your unreliable sources which are original research synthesized from previous sources. I've deleted them as Stumink did prior but you reverted. I have previously added the sources associated with Menelik and his armies atrocities on the Dizi people, the Arsi Oromo in the article itself. I have cited sources(verified) of accounts of Bulatovich and Antonelli (both Men who were at Menelik's Court and Army), therefore it is verifiable and account of such atrocities per Wikipedia guidelines on verifiable sources. However,your sources are opinion pieces and synthesis based on sources, hence it is original research on your sources part and yours. Deleted for those reasons.Otakrem (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, from your above statement you have come up with following claims/accusations for your deletion of the statement
 * 1) Unreliable sources? please indicate clearly by saying X and Y source is unreliable
 * 2) Original research? indicate clearly saying the sentence that begins as ............. is not sourced therefore is an original research.
 * 3) Synthesized? indicate clearly by saying the sentence that begins as .............cannot be concluded based on the source used for reference.
 * 4) Your sources are opinion pieces? Indicate to which source this applies to and please indicate any Wikipedia rule that it violates, a rule that states that sources with opinion pieces cannot be used as a source.


 * Unless your reasoning for your last revert gives answers to the above 4 questions, then anyother editor can revert your edit based on "convincing reason were not suppplied to justify your deletion."


 * In your edit summary you claimed the sentence that begins with "some argue"? as a weasel word and asked the question "Some refers to who? the answer is Feqadu Lemesa and the other people quoted under his article. Since those people are known and that since the statement is supported with a reliable source then it cannot be considered as a weasel word. Speaking of weasel word the death toll added by stumnik starts by saying "Some estimates......." If I may, let me ask you the same question you asked me "Some refers to who? unless the name of those people who made the estimate is known then it will be considered as weasel word, and will be deleted based on the same rule you used. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "of Walaita also lost a large proportion of its inhab itants. An Abyssinian expedition in 1894 slaugh tered about 119,000 men, women and children (Prouty, 1986:115) in less than two weeks.", This information alone from Chris Prouty stating "Abysinnians" in 1894 (During the Reign of Menelik, under his leadership) "slaughtered about 119,000 men, women and children in less than two weeks" tells me and anyone capable of reading that an estimate of a million or even more getting killed during the Reign of Menelik is more likely than far fetched as you seem to try to stand in the Denial Camp. Mass murder is mass murder no matter how you try to spin it. Feqadu Lemesa was providing his Massmurder Apologist opinion in his salem article Synthesizing from sources that agree with his pre-determined opinion. There are more examples giving above about the Dizi People, Arsi Oromo. These accounts are coming from Primary Witnesses of Menelik's army and orders of which Menelik gave obviously.Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"The Abyssinians were delighted with the natives. "What kind of Shankala (Negroes) are these?" they asked. "Even though they are naked, this is a civilized people. They respect their king, and their houses are well built, and they were able to submit to us. Real Shankala would run away like animals and would perish to the last man, not realizing that it would be better to submit voluntarily. But why did they give us a dog? Either they are scoundrels and think that we eat dogs or, perhaps, they themselves eat them." This circumstance surprised me as well. Maybe there was some symbolic significance in the gift of a dog, or maybe they really do use them as food. I didn't succeed in finding out. "  This is a side note however, if this account by this Primary Witness to Menelik's armies conquest is legitimate, then it says alot about those Abysinnian soldiers maurading and pillaging, raping and enslaving the civilians in the non-Abysinnian people and territories. In this account, the Abysinnians hunt the Shuro people shooting them out of trees, burning homes down. With this type of attitude and actions by Abysinnian soldiers, "some estimates go into the millions" is not farfetched and based on the numbers by the accounts of these Primary witnesses.Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"What was remarkable here is that mutilation did not stop with Abyssinian victory at the battle of Azule in 1886 that cost the lives over 12,000 Oromo fighters (Haji, 1995; Zewde, 1991: 63). Weeks after the Arsi were defeated at battle of Azule, the commander of the conquering forces, Ras Darge Sahle Selassie, ordered thousands of Oromos to gather at a place called Anole. Thousands came obeying the order and were killed or mutilated – the men of their hands and the women of their breasts (Haji, 1995: 15-16)." Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"It was reported that in 1912, about 40,000 of the Gimira were rounded up and taken to the north, and that half of them died on the way while the rest were sold as slaves and scattered within and outside the Ethiopian empire (Pankhurst, 1968: 107)." Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

De Salviac, de Martial, 1901, Une peuple antique au pays Menelik: les Galla grand nation africaine, Paris. Translate by Dr. Ayalew Kanno Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Haji, Abbas, 1995, ‘Arsi Oromo Political and Military Resistance against the Shoan Conquest, (1881-86)’, Journal of Oromo Studies, Vol. II, Nos. 1 and 2 Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"Dejizmatch Wolde Gabriel mutilated the right wrist of 400 Oromos in one day" which references "De Salviac page 278 Otakrem (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

According to Atsma Giyorgis, young Teen Shoans went on hunting expeditions of Galla (Oromo) in Temquet. This was happening during the reign of Emperor menelik, therefore some estimates of millions of people getting killed is not farfetched when there was a culture of killing humans for sport and practice. Atsma Giyorgis and His works p.533, Bairu TaflaOtakrem (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Summary of your response above
 * 1) All of it is in support of the sentence that begins "some estimate.........." should remain. For these see detailed response below
 * 2) The sentence that begins as "some argue........." written based on Fekadu Lemesa's point of view: as for this one well it should be known that there are opposing views and they also deserves their point to be heard. If you have any other specific reasons indicate.
 * 3) I have raised 4 questions above and still they need clarification for each of your claim/accusation by indicating so and so sentence is original reserch/unreliable/syntehsised/opinion pieces just to make our discussion more clear, simple and summarized.


 * Now to your 1st point in support of the sentence which has 'millions'. The issue is the sources used for this sentence is Mohamed, Bultovich and Alemayehu, so that means in one of these sources we need to find exactly the number 'millions' otherwise it is considered original research. You and I cannot simply estimate the number of people killed. In my argument with you above the number of people killed by communists is very well researched and estimated by by various professionals from all sides. So If you can be able to provide the page number where 'millions' can be found in these sources then we are one step a head in deciding weather that particular sentence should be there or not.


 * That being said now we can scrutinize the sources you used above.
 * About 119,000 wolaita deaths: I amnot going to argue by saying people did not die but people did die from both sides. In American Civil War close to 1 million people are dead and the reason for the war is just "we can't have free and slave states". And what if one said that all clans were continuously fighting with no one stooping them, for instance see this source it says: Kaffa state expanded after 1,800 skirmishes you can imagine the number of people suffering in those 1,800 wars/raids in both sides. Note that every tribe and clan raid each other unstopable and everyone is in fear of their neighbours even if their neighbour speaks and looks like them. The Wolayta war is one of the last wars to happen in that region. Also note that after 120 years the Wolayta people still exists and infact they are the second most people in SNNPR state after the Sidamo people. Besides descendants of Kawo Tona continued to administer their own people up until 1974.


 * By the way since we are talking about the Wolayta war it is also important to mention the military generals who participated and their soldier's background. You will be surprised to find out that majority of the generals are Oromos. See here History of the Wolayta war. Here are the generals who participated: Ras Mikael Ali (Oromo), Sultan Aba Jifar (Oromo), Ras Mekonen (Oromo), Fit Gebeyehu (Oromo), Hayla Mariam Wale (mixed, his grandfather Ras Gugsa Mursa is a Yeju Oromo who ruled north Ethiopia) finally Ras Walda-Gyorgis (the only Amhara general) but still he came with Oromo Auxileries and his wife is from Yejju rulling class (Oromo). This shows that Menelik's armies backbone is the Oromo generals and their Soldiers they mobilize from their clan. Now same army generals also did went to Anole and other wars to whatever battles Menelik goes to. And what ever is looted and raided those generals will get their share as modern soldier gets paid. Also Menelike did marry his daughters to Ras Mikael and Ras Gobenas son (Also sharing the state power). Ras Mikael's soldier captured king Tona, and Tona later became administrator of Wolayta even after many died.


 * About what you said happen in Anole, all of it is quoted from "Abbas Gnamo". He hasnot been in 19th century therefore he is a secondary source and you don't expect me to beleive a secondary source who has not quoted a primary source like Bermudes and Bultovich who are neutrals. This foreigners when they go back to their country they can write whatever they observed in their own eyes and usually write both sides crimes, because they just write for sharing knowledge but not for imposing anyone's agenda. About what you said happened in Anole I have not seen it in Bultovich's own diary and if such thing indeed happen then there is no reason that prevented him from writing after he went to his country. Even if he did not go to Anole battle personally he most definetly mate and interviewed many of Menelik's soldiers who went to the battle. Since Menelik's army is multiethinc then it would have been very easy for him to find many Oromo soldiers who participated in the battle, if not there would definitely be gossips in the society for him to pick up if indeed such thing happen. Those foreigners even if gossip they will write it no matter what, for instance Italians feared the Oromo cavalary at the battle of Adwa more than any other armies of Menelik because of what they do to the soldiers they captured weather alive or dead. Based on this knowledge they had in advance many Italians through themselves into cliffs, committing suicide, rather than being captured by Oromo cavalry. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * EthiopianHabesha, I think you are missing the point here. This article is about the "Reign of Menelik" as an Emperor. His generals or soldiers being Oromo does not Remove the Atrocities which were Committed under His Reign as Emperor. You keep using Conquered Leaders as the backbone of your Argument for Non-inclusion of "atrocities committed under the Reign of Menelik II". Your argument against Inclusion based on "Secondary Sources" would disqualify also the "Secondary Sources" which Paint "Menelik II" as a "Angelic Hero of Ethiopian History". Again Oromos killing other Oromos does not remove the Fact that Menelik and Shewans(Amhara) engaged in and ordered the Slaughter of many thousands which led up into an estimate in the "Millions".  I provided Primary Witness accounts of Menelik's Army, actual FOREIGN (Russian and Italian) soldiers involved in Menelik's War against the Non-Amhara(Shewan) people.  Terms today used such as Galla, Shankalla, Shuro, Barya, etc are a Testament to the Racist nature of those Abysinnians (namely Amhara/Tigrayans) who went on Slave raids and conquering other people that are Non-Abysinnians.  So your use of Token Oromos ( See Tokenism ) to so-called bring Balance and a "NPOV" is logically Fallacious to say the least.  To use the argument of "Whatever happens in War is a result of War" does not Take away from the Barbarity of the soldiers and commanders and ultimately of Menelik in not only Allowing it to happen but in some cases employing such tactics as Mutilation, killings, and selling captured Soldiers/women/children/elderly men into Slavery.
 * If we were to include every single Atrocity committed under the Reign of Emperor Menelik, this Article would be longer than what it is right now. So using "Some estimates that millions were killed", I do not think is specifically about the Oromos only, it includes "Shuros, Shankallas, Gallas, Wolyatas, etc" who were ultimately killed by Soldiers Representing Emperor Menelik II. There is no going around that, no matter how many Conquered or Complicit "Oromos" or "non-Amharas" that you present as being under the Command of Menelik. The Sources I called out are much more credible and closer to Menelik(as they were There when the Atrocities were Committed) than Lemassa's "Oromos killed more Oromos than Menelik did", that is his Original research. The number for Non-Abysinnians killed by the Menelik War Machine can be counted as there Witnesses such Blutavich and Antonelli, as well the Non-Abysinnian Ethiopian tribes in their oral history.Otakrem (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * *Otakrem, We have to follow Wikipedias rule and unsuported attribution is not allowed, it is not me who is saying this. So if you please name the people who estimated as 'millions' then we will be under the rule of Wikipedia. Since I can be able to access any kind of books and articles, then if you can help me by giving me the person's name, title of the book and page number then you are helping in confirming the number 'miilions'. Based on my personal research I could not be able to get this estimate from anyother reliable sources.
 * *Still I didnot get convincing clarification for your deletion of statements based on the above 4 basic questions. The statment you deleted is not original researc because it is referenced with reliable source. Be specific on why you said original research?
 * *The issue is if you search the internet almost all blogs indicate atrocities mainly to Oromos as if they have no involvment in Menelik's administration. The reason why I showed you there are indeed many Oromo generals participated in the campaign to the south is that for people to know the truth and stop distorting historical facts in broad day light. For whatever you claim bad happens in military campaign please know that Oromo generals and their own soldiers under only their command take more than half of it's share, this is historical fact. If we must blame people for any proven or fabricated bad history then we could say 40% Oromo (or more), 40% Amhara and 10% Tigre and 10% others and trying to draw a picture as if the 40% as innocent people is definitely historical distortion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * *EthiopianHabesha First off, the sentence is "Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest go into the millions." This sentence doesn't say "number of Oromo people", it says "number of people", which means it is More than just Oromo people. You are arguing from a false premise, a Strawman argument.  The sentence has three citations, you can go verify those three sources but what you can not do is Delete because you do not agree with it. I was specific why it is Original research because Lemassa made a Statistical determination of "More Oromos killed other oromos". Hey I've read from the accounts of Primary witnesses in Menelik's Army. The citations are available for you to go look up. You are able to see the Citations attributed to the sentence "Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest go into the millions", therefore you should have no issue Looking that up. Otakrem (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * *Otakrem, if you go back and review my argument it's not because I don't agree with you but only because it is unsupported attribution. Estimating death toll is not something you and I seat in the computers and provide any numbers we feel like because that is simply an original research. By the way it says 'millions' therefore you are saying minimum of 2 million died and maximum is unlimited. I do have electronic access to all three of the sources and searched 'millions' and I could not be able to find it in all three of them. When you support it's inclusion I am assuming that you personally have seen it in your own eyes so I was asking which one of the three did have the word 'millions'. That is my main reason for opposition of that statement to be included, that is all.
 * * One concern you raised is Feqadu Lemesa's quote saying "other Oromos killing by other Oromos" that one will be corrected and name of tribe will not be mentioned and I think it's better I replace it as "Inter clan as well as inter tribal fighting for resource competition ....... this way it will combine Feqadu Lemesa's opinion with Keffa states expansion by 1800 skirmishs. Addition of this statement is needed again to balance what has been said at the beginning of the paragraph. You are trying to tell us you are so much concerned with human right but if you realy are concerned about Human right then for you there should not be a difference for people dying as result of 1800 wars of Kaffa state and also the many people dying as a result of other Oromo clans fighting with themselves as well as with all their neighbors for resource competition as Feqadu Stated as well as people dying in Menelik's expansion war. If indeed your concern is human right it should not matter for you people dying on whichever battles and with over whom. However, saying I only want what Menelik did should be known but the many people who died as result of clan/tribal fightings should be deleted/hidden by all means possible is to be biased and also imposing agenda. So if in Menelik article there is a word like "mass killings" "large scale slavery" (by the way previously I didnot delete them) is included then to balance it by saying like "Kaffa state also made 1,800 wars, also did large scale slavery", something with similar story is I think justifiable than just deleting those words just because they are biased. Remember mass killings weather done by Menelik or 16th centuary Oromos is mass killing and if you are concerned about human right then they both should be told with equivalent tone otherwise saying let's just use "mass killings" for Menelik but lets try as much as possible to hide it from being used to tarnish Oromo history and let's just draw a picture of Oromos as angels, innocent people who never harmed their neighboring people is what we call biased. Therefore, the paragraph at it's current state is so much biased and definitely requires to be balanced or otherwise should be removed entirely. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If you think information about Oromo mass killings in the 16th century is important then please add it to a more relevant page describing the history of the Oromos for example. We do not need to balance claims about Menelik's mass killings with information that is irrelevant to Menelik. Stumink (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * *Stumink, Thank you for stating what I've been trying to make EthiopianHabesha understand. I used the citations (which I did not Add) but only viewed online and researched, and there happens to be witness testimonies by people that were with Menelik's armies namely Blutavoich(Russian) and Antonelli (Italian). EthiopianHabesha has been adding irrelevant information such as "Menelik's Generals were Oromos" which is Appealing to Tokenism to justify (not balance) the mass killings that were committed by soldiers obeying Menelik's emperorship. It seems quite obvious that EthiopianHabesha does not want Menelik's mass killings told as a matter of fact. I think I have exhausted myself trying to show him the thousands that got killed which lead to the sentence "Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest go into the millions.", He/She denies even calling it a conquest but a "Re-unification". FYI, everything I listed above was from this article with the citations which were not added by me. Some I researched online using the citations and if probably a better way to capture this information on Menelik's mass killings is a new article "Massacres in the Ethiopian Empire"? Otakrem (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well I think there should definitely be ageneral page describing Menelik's conquests of this period not just the atrocities. There really needs to be a separate page detailing the conquests in detail given how significant these events are.Stumink (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Otakrem, If you go back and review my statements I did not justify anything by saying Menelik's generals are Oromos. I brought this topic in response to your repeated usage of 'Amharas' and 'Abyssinians' did that & this. May be you have not notice it but it has been used repeatedly, by doing that you are trying to make a point. And the tribes of these key generals is mentioned to counter the point you are trying to make. As I said above if we must blame people then you should know that historcal documents doesn't back your accusations. The thing is there is no Tigre/Gojame/Gondare general who was close to being key person in the empire than the Oromo Habtegyorgis and Gobana so I don't see the reason why they are included in your accusation in the first place? Infact what we should be saying is Shewan Amharas and Western/Centeral/northern Oromos union government (reason for this claim is Menelik's and Haileselase being mixed themselves as well as their children politically dynastically married to Ras mikael Ali, Ras Gobana and Morada Bekere families who were powerful warlords of the western, central and northern Oromos). These above mentioned Oromo generals including Habtegyorrgis are the powrebase of the central government and these general's own people from their own clan takes the highest share in the military that campaigned to the south. And I have given you the evidence of who participated in Welayta war and the generals were 4 Oromos/1 mixed/1 Amhara not even a single Tigre general. Now if anyone is in wikipedia to share knowledge, and after looking at those generals, then how is it acceptable to say Amhara and Tigre when we suposed to be saying Oromo and Amhara? The soldiers will only lesson to their own generals who brought them in the first place, so if you think Menelik is unfair leader to Oromos or any other tribe these battle would have been their chance to collaborate their 4 armies and attack Menelik together with the Welayta army in Welayta land. Considering Tona was captured by Ras Mikael's soldier/army that means they had fit soldiers to win the battle easily and capture Menelik. But they didn't because simply he is not a leader like you are trying to tell the world. So don't try to give excuse by saying they are conquered generals, not using these opportunity if the leader is unfair will not make them innocent if indeed what you claim did happen. Teodros is cruel and unfair and indeed everyone revolted and in his final battle with the British the historian believed that it was actually difficult for Teodros to arrive at the battlefield than the British who were welcomed peacefully by all revolting clan lords who were unhappy by cruel treatment of Teodros. Of these revolting lords the Yejju Oromos take the lead, partly because they lost their power because of him and because all people including the church opposes his cruel leadership. So the point is if these ancient people were untreated well indeed they will revolt. In summary if we must blame people then as I said Oromos will take the largest share under Menelik's administration and hiding their mistake by saying "Amharas" and "Abyssinians" is indeed historical distortion. That is why I said majority generals are Oromo, not to justify any thing but to recommend the use of "Oromo and Amhara" instead of "Amhara and Tigre" because that is what the history book is clearly telling us.— EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Stumink, You have added page numbers and will be reviewing it. But as said above no wikipedia editor have the capacity to estimate death tolls, so that 'millions' should be in one of these page numbers, otherwise cannot be included in Wikipedia based on their rule. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Stumink, in regards to your suggestion saying "If you think information about Oromo mass killings in the 16th century is important then please add it to a more relevant page describing the history of the Oromos for example. We do not need to balance claims about Menelik's mass killings with information that is irrelevant to Menelik" I have never said such kind of informations are important, you may review my statements again. On the other hand you suggest such kind of information are important and needs to be included under Menelik's biography? And you continued to say it is not relevant to this page and suggested "add it to a more relevant page describing the history of the Oromos for example", since you support this kind of informations to be included why don't you add it yourself to the relevant page? If I may ask, why do you suggest such informations to be included under Menelik but you don't want to add what happened in 16th centuary to the relevant page yourself? If you strongly believe such informations are important then you should have added it right after adding something similar under Menelik? You shouldn't be directing that job to me since I personaly don't support for such kind of informations to be added in wikipedia. Regarding to the mass killing in the 16th centuary, I have given you a source clearly indicating genocide, as being said by the neutral Portuguese man Bermudes in his own diary, who documented from his own observation, and also I gave you secondary sources from the neutral Britsh Richard Pankhurst as well as an Oromo historian Mohamed Hassan. If required I could also give you sources indicating the many number of peoples and states historically recorded by neutral Europeans, Arabs and Portuguese but later who disappeared from history after 16th century. If you are claiming the reason for strongly supporting the inclusion of such kind of information is because you have very strong concern for human right then for you what happened in 16th century people and 19th century people should not be different! And if the reason why you don't want to add it is because of problems with the sources or limited sources please let me know and I can help you and then you will personally add it yourself to the most relevant page you think is appropriate. Wikipedia says achieve Neutral point of view and suggests wikipedia editors needs to be balanced and not biased when writing an encyclopedia. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Stumink, need more clarification regarding to the reasons given for your last 4 reverts.

1) 1st revert saying "this is not contrary to the claims that slavery was carried out": pls make it more clear
 * "Contorary" is used to inform that there is indeed an opposing view on the claim "large scale slavery" and it is used as in "contrary to the claims where large scale slavery were promoted, Chris Prouty on the other hand states that ..........". The reason why "According to Mekuria Bulcha and Mohammed Hasan" is added on top of the paragraph is to indicate that other scholars have different and opposing views and show within the paragraph that this and this writers claim this while this and that writers oppose this views. Remember not all scholars agree with Bulcha and Hassan and it needs to be addressed accordingly.

2) 2nd revert saying "First source is unreliable. Rest is original research. This info doesn't need to be here and can be added on a more relevant page":
 * a) First sources is unreliable? guess what you are saying is the article from salem.com, I don't know based on which wikipedia rule is that this source cannot be reliable but salem.com is an American news organisation wich mainly report news for Oregon state people. This rule here WP:NEWSORG allows articles with opinion pieces from news organisations and it says:
 * "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author"
 * b) Rest is original research? The one you deleted for this reason was written based on the article written on salem.com as well as the other 6 citations used as refernce for the two sentences you deleted in this revert. Six of them are reliable published books that can be accessed from google book and when you click the link you will see that the citations are highlighted in yellow, you may review them and if required I can bring them here for discussion.
 * C) Not relevant to this article? this one i guess is for the last sentence. It is used to support the sentence before it. It shows that other opposing scholars did state that indeed in present-day Ethiopia, before the establishment of a central government (before the rise of Menelik), there were many warring clans/nations who fight each other while no government imposing rule of law, just like what we have seen in Somalia between 1991-2006, where one language speaking and one religion following various Somali clans fighting continuously because there is not central government in 20-21st century. Now when you go back to 19th century we expect to observe much more ugly clan wars to occur in the land of presnt-day Ethiopia before the rise of Menelik and as part of his legacy, for stooping those bloody clan wars, it is of-course relevant to this page.

3) 3rd revert saying "Re-added death toll estimates from reliable source. Chris Prouty information has been removed because it is redundant as abolition of slavery is mentioned lower"
 * a) Chris Prouty statement deleted and is redundant? Chris Prouty's statement is added to achieve neutral point of view (NPOV) to that paragraph, remember there are also people who have opinions contrary to Bulcha and Hassan and as their point of view has the right to be heard the other opposing peoples do also has the same right. Wikipedia says that when writing an encyclopedia biased points needs to be balanced by providing other opposing point of views by providing reliable sources. True about slavery abolition has been described below but the use of both of them is different and the one inserted at the top is with the objective of achieving NPOV to that specific paragraph while the other one is used for another topic and note that the same wording is not repeated below and they both are different wordings from different sources.
 * b) Re-added death toll estimates from reliable source? Actually this is a very serious accusations towards him and needs to be discussed extensively before re-added.
 * * Unanswered questions: This statement needs to have answers to the following questions: 1) Millions (over 2 millions)? what is the maximum because it leads to assume unlimited number like 3, 10, 100 .....million? 2) What kind of material evidences were provided to estimate this much deaths? Material evidences like photographs, pictures and videos of mass graves and other materials related to genocide found in museums? 3) What kind of historically written documents were used to claim this much people died? Written documents that indicate genocide like copy of a law, decree, constitution, policy papers, verbal account, letters used to give orders to other military personals, eyewitness records 50% from the soldiers who carried out as well as 50% from the victims side as being done in other well researched genocide claims in other parts of the world. 4)If indeed there is some evidence then there should also be similar evidences to connect it with the leader but not by out of state control generals 5) Inorder to avoid biased research, who are the people involved in the research? Doest it inlcude from both opposing sides? what are their tribe, nationality etc etc also matters. If you personally checked the source you claim are reliable, please make it clear to those 5 questions.
 * * Issues with the source provided: there are two books provided as a source and none of them have page numbers where the citation for that claim is based upon. Please indicate the page numbers, if possible please bring the exact quotation extracted from the book here for discussion, otherwise it is not fair to leave it for other wikipedians to confirm it by going through all these 100s of pages to find a citation supporting this specific claim.
 * * Personaly, I have searched many books and I couldn't be able to find a reliable source implicating Menelik with equivalent story like this diary of Bermudes a primary source, an eye witness of Oromo expansion and also secondary sources like Mohamed Hassan and Richard Pankhurst stating it in their books as can be seen here 1 2 which clearly indicate genocide, also showing how it is done, and based on this eywitness account many can come up with death toll similar or more than the claim you re-added for Menelik. However, I don't think it is appropriate to write such graphic quotations under Wikipedia's article for Oromo expansion or under Oromo history neither under Menelik's biography even if those sources are reliable.

Issues similar to your points raised have been discussed above extensively and you may review them — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I agree with Stumink when it comes to your unreliable sources which are original research synthesized from previous sources. I've deleted them as Stumink did prior but you reverted. I have previously added the sources associated with Menelik and his armies atrocities on the Dizi people, the Arsi Oromo in the article itself. I have cited sources(verified) of accounts of Bulatovich and Antonelli (both Men who were at Menelik's Court and Army), therefore it is verifiable and account of such atrocities per Wikipedia guidelines on verifiable sources. However,your sources are opinion pieces and synthesis based on sources, hence it is original research on your sources part and yours. Deleted for those reasons.Otakrem (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, from your above statement you have come up with following claims/accusations for your deletion of the statement
 * 1) Unreliable sources? please indicate clearly by saying X and Y source is unreliable
 * 2) Original research? indicate clearly saying the sentence that begins as ............. is not sourced therefore is an original research.
 * 3) Synthesized? indicate clearly by saying the sentence that begins as .............cannot be concluded based on the source used for reference.
 * 4) Your sources are opinion pieces? Indicate to which source this applies to and please indicate any Wikipedia rule that it violates, a rule that states that sources with opinion pieces cannot be used as a source.


 * Unless your reasoning for your last revert gives answers to the above 4 questions, then anyother editor can revert your edit based on "convincing reason were not suppplied to justify your deletion."


 * In your edit summary you claimed the sentence that begins with "some argue"? as a weasel word and asked the question "Some refers to who? the answer is Feqadu Lemesa and the other people quoted under his article. Since those people are known and that since the statement is supported with a reliable source then it cannot be considered as a weasel word. Speaking of weasel word the death toll added by stumnik starts by saying "Some estimates......." If I may, let me ask you the same question you asked me "Some refers to who? unless the name of those people who made the estimate is known then it will be considered as weasel word, and will be deleted based on the same rule you used. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "of Walaita also lost a large proportion of its inhab itants. An Abyssinian expedition in 1894 slaugh tered about 119,000 men, women and children (Prouty, 1986:115) in less than two weeks.", This information alone from Chris Prouty stating "Abysinnians" in 1894 (During the Reign of Menelik, under his leadership) "slaughtered about 119,000 men, women and children in less than two weeks" tells me and anyone capable of reading that an estimate of a million or even more getting killed during the Reign of Menelik is more likely than far fetched as you seem to try to stand in the Denial Camp. Mass murder is mass murder no matter how you try to spin it. Feqadu Lemesa was providing his Massmurder Apologist opinion in his salem article Synthesizing from sources that agree with his pre-determined opinion. There are more examples giving above about the Dizi People, Arsi Oromo. These accounts are coming from Primary Witnesses of Menelik's army and orders of which Menelik gave obviously.Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"The Abyssinians were delighted with the natives. "What kind of Shankala (Negroes) are these?" they asked. "Even though they are naked, this is a civilized people. They respect their king, and their houses are well built, and they were able to submit to us. Real Shankala would run away like animals and would perish to the last man, not realizing that it would be better to submit voluntarily. But why did they give us a dog? Either they are scoundrels and think that we eat dogs or, perhaps, they themselves eat them." This circumstance surprised me as well. Maybe there was some symbolic significance in the gift of a dog, or maybe they really do use them as food. I didn't succeed in finding out. "  This is a side note however, if this account by this Primary Witness to Menelik's armies conquest is legitimate, then it says alot about those Abysinnian soldiers maurading and pillaging, raping and enslaving the civilians in the non-Abysinnian people and territories. In this account, the Abysinnians hunt the Shuro people shooting them out of trees, burning homes down. With this type of attitude and actions by Abysinnian soldiers, "some estimates go into the millions" is not farfetched and based on the numbers by the accounts of these Primary witnesses.Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"What was remarkable here is that mutilation did not stop with Abyssinian victory at the battle of Azule in 1886 that cost the lives over 12,000 Oromo fighters (Haji, 1995; Zewde, 1991: 63). Weeks after the Arsi were defeated at battle of Azule, the commander of the conquering forces, Ras Darge Sahle Selassie, ordered thousands of Oromos to gather at a place called Anole. Thousands came obeying the order and were killed or mutilated – the men of their hands and the women of their breasts (Haji, 1995: 15-16)." Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"It was reported that in 1912, about 40,000 of the Gimira were rounded up and taken to the north, and that half of them died on the way while the rest were sold as slaves and scattered within and outside the Ethiopian empire (Pankhurst, 1968: 107)." Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

De Salviac, de Martial, 1901, Une peuple antique au pays Menelik: les Galla grand nation africaine, Paris. Translate by Dr. Ayalew Kanno Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Haji, Abbas, 1995, ‘Arsi Oromo Political and Military Resistance against the Shoan Conquest, (1881-86)’, Journal of Oromo Studies, Vol. II, Nos. 1 and 2 Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"Dejizmatch Wolde Gabriel mutilated the right wrist of 400 Oromos in one day" which references "De Salviac page 278 Otakrem (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

According to Atsma Giyorgis, young Teen Shoans went on hunting expeditions of Galla (Oromo) in Temquet. This was happening during the reign of Emperor menelik, therefore some estimates of millions of people getting killed is not farfetched when there was a culture of killing humans for sport and practice. Atsma Giyorgis and His works p.533, Bairu TaflaOtakrem (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Summary of your response above
 * 1) All of it is in support of the sentence that begins "some estimate.........." should remain. For these see detailed response below
 * 2) The sentence that begins as "some argue........." written based on Fekadu Lemesa's point of view: as for this one well it should be known that there are opposing views and they also deserves their point to be heard. If you have any other specific reasons indicate.
 * 3) I have raised 4 questions above and still they need clarification for each of your claim/accusation by indicating so and so sentence is original reserch/unreliable/syntehsised/opinion pieces just to make our discussion more clear, simple and summarized.


 * Now to your 1st point in support of the sentence which has 'millions'. The issue is the sources used for this sentence is Mohamed, Bultovich and Alemayehu, so that means in one of these sources we need to find exactly the number 'millions' otherwise it is considered original research. You and I cannot simply estimate the number of people killed. In my argument with you above the number of people killed by communists is very well researched and estimated by by various professionals from all sides. So If you can be able to provide the page number where 'millions' can be found in these sources then we are one step a head in deciding weather that particular sentence should be there or not.


 * That being said now we can scrutinize the sources you used above.
 * About 119,000 wolaita deaths: I amnot going to argue by saying people did not die but people did die from both sides. In American Civil War close to 1 million people are dead and the reason for the war is just "we can't have free and slave states". And what if one said that all clans were continuously fighting with no one stooping them, for instance see this source it says: Kaffa state expanded after 1,800 skirmishes you can imagine the number of people suffering in those 1,800 wars/raids in both sides. Note that every tribe and clan raid each other unstopable and everyone is in fear of their neighbours even if their neighbour speaks and looks like them. The Wolayta war is one of the last wars to happen in that region. Also note that after 120 years the Wolayta people still exists and infact they are the second most people in SNNPR state after the Sidamo people. Besides descendants of Kawo Tona continued to administer their own people up until 1974.


 * By the way since we are talking about the Wolayta war it is also important to mention the military generals who participated and their soldier's background. You will be surprised to find out that majority of the generals are Oromos. See here History of the Wolayta war. Here are the generals who participated: Ras Mikael Ali (Oromo), Sultan Aba Jifar (Oromo), Ras Mekonen (Oromo), Fit Gebeyehu (Oromo), Hayla Mariam Wale (mixed, his grandfather Ras Gugsa Mursa is a Yeju Oromo who ruled north Ethiopia) finally Ras Walda-Gyorgis (the only Amhara general) but still he came with Oromo Auxileries and his wife is from Yejju rulling class (Oromo). This shows that Menelik's armies backbone is the Oromo generals and their Soldiers they mobilize from their clan. Now same army generals also did went to Anole and other wars to whatever battles Menelik goes to. And what ever is looted and raided those generals will get their share as modern soldier gets paid. Also Menelike did marry his daughters to Ras Mikael and Ras Gobenas son (Also sharing the state power). Ras Mikael's soldier captured king Tona, and Tona later became administrator of Wolayta even after many died.


 * About what you said happen in Anole, all of it is quoted from "Abbas Gnamo". He hasnot been in 19th century therefore he is a secondary source and you don't expect me to beleive a secondary source who has not quoted a primary source like Bermudes and Bultovich who are neutrals. This foreigners when they go back to their country they can write whatever they observed in their own eyes and usually write both sides crimes, because they just write for sharing knowledge but not for imposing anyone's agenda. About what you said happened in Anole I have not seen it in Bultovich's own diary and if such thing indeed happen then there is no reason that prevented him from writing after he went to his country. Even if he did not go to Anole battle personally he most definetly mate and interviewed many of Menelik's soldiers who went to the battle. Since Menelik's army is multiethinc then it would have been very easy for him to find many Oromo soldiers who participated in the battle, if not there would definitely be gossips in the society for him to pick up if indeed such thing happen. Those foreigners even if gossip they will write it no matter what, for instance Italians feared the Oromo cavalary at the battle of Adwa more than any other armies of Menelik because of what they do to the soldiers they captured weather alive or dead. Based on this knowledge they had in advance many Italians through themselves into cliffs, committing suicide, rather than being captured by Oromo cavalry. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * EthiopianHabesha, I think you are missing the point here. This article is about the "Reign of Menelik" as an Emperor. His generals or soldiers being Oromo does not Remove the Atrocities which were Committed under His Reign as Emperor. You keep using Conquered Leaders as the backbone of your Argument for Non-inclusion of "atrocities committed under the Reign of Menelik II". Your argument against Inclusion based on "Secondary Sources" would disqualify also the "Secondary Sources" which Paint "Menelik II" as a "Angelic Hero of Ethiopian History". Again Oromos killing other Oromos does not remove the Fact that Menelik and Shewans(Amhara) engaged in and ordered the Slaughter of many thousands which led up into an estimate in the "Millions".  I provided Primary Witness accounts of Menelik's Army, actual FOREIGN (Russian and Italian) soldiers involved in Menelik's War against the Non-Amhara(Shewan) people.  Terms today used such as Galla, Shankalla, Shuro, Barya, etc are a Testament to the Racist nature of those Abysinnians (namely Amhara/Tigrayans) who went on Slave raids and conquering other people that are Non-Abysinnians.  So your use of Token Oromos ( See Tokenism ) to so-called bring Balance and a "NPOV" is logically Fallacious to say the least.  To use the argument of "Whatever happens in War is a result of War" does not Take away from the Barbarity of the soldiers and commanders and ultimately of Menelik in not only Allowing it to happen but in some cases employing such tactics as Mutilation, killings, and selling captured Soldiers/women/children/elderly men into Slavery.
 * If we were to include every single Atrocity committed under the Reign of Emperor Menelik, this Article would be longer than what it is right now. So using "Some estimates that millions were killed", I do not think is specifically about the Oromos only, it includes "Shuros, Shankallas, Gallas, Wolyatas, etc" who were ultimately killed by Soldiers Representing Emperor Menelik II. There is no going around that, no matter how many Conquered or Complicit "Oromos" or "non-Amharas" that you present as being under the Command of Menelik. The Sources I called out are much more credible and closer to Menelik(as they were There when the Atrocities were Committed) than Lemassa's "Oromos killed more Oromos than Menelik did", that is his Original research. The number for Non-Abysinnians killed by the Menelik War Machine can be counted as there Witnesses such Blutavich and Antonelli, as well the Non-Abysinnian Ethiopian tribes in their oral history.Otakrem (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * *Otakrem, We have to follow Wikipedias rule and unsuported attribution is not allowed, it is not me who is saying this. So if you please name the people who estimated as 'millions' then we will be under the rule of Wikipedia. Since I can be able to access any kind of books and articles, then if you can help me by giving me the person's name, title of the book and page number then you are helping in confirming the number 'miilions'. Based on my personal research I could not be able to get this estimate from anyother reliable sources.
 * *Still I didnot get convincing clarification for your deletion of statements based on the above 4 basic questions. The statment you deleted is not original researc because it is referenced with reliable source. Be specific on why you said original research?
 * *The issue is if you search the internet almost all blogs indicate atrocities mainly to Oromos as if they have no involvment in Menelik's administration. The reason why I showed you there are indeed many Oromo generals participated in the campaign to the south is that for people to know the truth and stop distorting historical facts in broad day light. For whatever you claim bad happens in military campaign please know that Oromo generals and their own soldiers under only their command take more than half of it's share, this is historical fact. If we must blame people for any proven or fabricated bad history then we could say 40% Oromo (or more), 40% Amhara and 10% Tigre and 10% others and trying to draw a picture as if the 40% as innocent people is definitely historical distortion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * *EthiopianHabesha First off, the sentence is "Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest go into the millions." This sentence doesn't say "number of Oromo people", it says "number of people", which means it is More than just Oromo people. You are arguing from a false premise, a Strawman argument.  The sentence has three citations, you can go verify those three sources but what you can not do is Delete because you do not agree with it. I was specific why it is Original research because Lemassa made a Statistical determination of "More Oromos killed other oromos". Hey I've read from the accounts of Primary witnesses in Menelik's Army. The citations are available for you to go look up. You are able to see the Citations attributed to the sentence "Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest go into the millions", therefore you should have no issue Looking that up. Otakrem (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * *Otakrem, if you go back and review my argument it's not because I don't agree with you but only because it is unsupported attribution. Estimating death toll is not something you and I seat in the computers and provide any numbers we feel like because that is simply an original research. By the way it says 'millions' therefore you are saying minimum of 2 million died and maximum is unlimited. I do have electronic access to all three of the sources and searched 'millions' and I could not be able to find it in all three of them. When you support it's inclusion I am assuming that you personally have seen it in your own eyes so I was asking which one of the three did have the word 'millions'. That is my main reason for opposition of that statement to be included, that is all.
 * * One concern you raised is Feqadu Lemesa's quote saying "other Oromos killing by other Oromos" that one will be corrected and name of tribe will not be mentioned and I think it's better I replace it as "Inter clan as well as inter tribal fighting for resource competition ....... this way it will combine Feqadu Lemesa's opinion with Keffa states expansion by 1800 skirmishs. Addition of this statement is needed again to balance what has been said at the beginning of the paragraph. You are trying to tell us you are so much concerned with human right but if you realy are concerned about Human right then for you there should not be a difference for people dying as result of 1800 wars of Kaffa state and also the many people dying as a result of other Oromo clans fighting with themselves as well as with all their neighbors for resource competition as Feqadu Stated as well as people dying in Menelik's expansion war. If indeed your concern is human right it should not matter for you people dying on whichever battles and with over whom. However, saying I only want what Menelik did should be known but the many people who died as result of clan/tribal fightings should be deleted/hidden by all means possible is to be biased and also imposing agenda. So if in Menelik article there is a word like "mass killings" "large scale slavery" (by the way previously I didnot delete them) is included then to balance it by saying like "Kaffa state also made 1,800 wars, also did large scale slavery", something with similar story is I think justifiable than just deleting those words just because they are biased. Remember mass killings weather done by Menelik or 16th centuary Oromos is mass killing and if you are concerned about human right then they both should be told with equivalent tone otherwise saying let's just use "mass killings" for Menelik but lets try as much as possible to hide it from being used to tarnish Oromo history and let's just draw a picture of Oromos as angels, innocent people who never harmed their neighboring people is what we call biased. Therefore, the paragraph at it's current state is so much biased and definitely requires to be balanced or otherwise should be removed entirely. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If you think information about Oromo mass killings in the 16th century is important then please add it to a more relevant page describing the history of the Oromos for example. We do not need to balance claims about Menelik's mass killings with information that is irrelevant to Menelik. Stumink (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * *Stumink, Thank you for stating what I've been trying to make EthiopianHabesha understand. I used the citations (which I did not Add) but only viewed online and researched, and there happens to be witness testimonies by people that were with Menelik's armies namely Blutavoich(Russian) and Antonelli (Italian). EthiopianHabesha has been adding irrelevant information such as "Menelik's Generals were Oromos" which is Appealing to Tokenism to justify (not balance) the mass killings that were committed by soldiers obeying Menelik's emperorship. It seems quite obvious that EthiopianHabesha does not want Menelik's mass killings told as a matter of fact. I think I have exhausted myself trying to show him the thousands that got killed which lead to the sentence "Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest go into the millions.", He/She denies even calling it a conquest but a "Re-unification". FYI, everything I listed above was from this article with the citations which were not added by me. Some I researched online using the citations and if probably a better way to capture this information on Menelik's mass killings is a new article "Massacres in the Ethiopian Empire"? Otakrem (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well I think there should definitely be ageneral page describing Menelik's conquests of this period not just the atrocities. There really needs to be a separate page detailing the conquests in detail given how significant these events are.Stumink (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Otakrem, If you go back and review my statements I did not justify anything by saying Menelik's generals are Oromos. I brought this topic in response to your repeated usage of 'Amharas' and 'Abyssinians' did that & this. May be you have not notice it but it has been used repeatedly, by doing that you are trying to make a point. And the tribes of these key generals is mentioned to counter the point you are trying to make. As I said above if we must blame people then you should know that historcal documents doesn't back your accusations. The thing is there is no Tigre/Gojame/Gondare general who was close to being key person in the empire than the Oromo Habtegyorgis and Gobana so I don't see the reason why they are included in your accusation in the first place? Infact what we should be saying is Shewan Amharas and Western/Centeral/northern Oromos union government (reason for this claim is Menelik's and Haileselase being mixed themselves as well as their children politically dynastically married to Ras mikael Ali, Ras Gobana and Morada Bekere families who were powerful warlords of the western, central and northern Oromos). These above mentioned Oromo generals including Habtegyorrgis are the powrebase of the central government and these general's own people from their own clan takes the highest share in the military that campaigned to the south. And I have given you the evidence of who participated in Welayta war and the generals were 4 Oromos/1 mixed/1 Amhara not even a single Tigre general. Now if anyone is in wikipedia to share knowledge, and after looking at those generals, then how is it acceptable to say Amhara and Tigre when we suposed to be saying Oromo and Amhara? The soldiers will only lesson to their own generals who brought them in the first place, so if you think Menelik is unfair leader to Oromos or any other tribe these battle would have been their chance to collaborate their 4 armies and attack Menelik together with the Welayta army in Welayta land. Considering Tona was captured by Ras Mikael's soldier/army that means they had fit soldiers to win the battle easily and capture Menelik. But they didn't because simply he is not a leader like you are trying to tell the world. So don't try to give excuse by saying they are conquered generals, not using these opportunity if the leader is unfair will not make them innocent if indeed what you claim did happen. Teodros is cruel and unfair and indeed everyone revolted and in his final battle with the British the historian believed that it was actually difficult for Teodros to arrive at the battlefield than the British who were welcomed peacefully by all revolting clan lords who were unhappy by cruel treatment of Teodros. Of these revolting lords the Yejju Oromos take the lead, partly because they lost their power because of him and because all people including the church opposes his cruel leadership. So the point is if these ancient people were untreated well indeed they will revolt. In summary if we must blame people then as I said Oromos will take the largest share under Menelik's administration and hiding their mistake by saying "Amharas" and "Abyssinians" is indeed historical distortion. That is why I said majority generals are Oromo, not to justify any thing but to recommend the use of "Oromo and Amhara" instead of "Amhara and Tigre" because that is what the history book is clearly telling us.— EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Stumink, You have added page numbers and will be reviewing it. But as said above no wikipedia editor have the capacity to estimate death tolls, so that 'millions' should be in one of these page numbers, otherwise cannot be included in Wikipedia based on their rule. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Stumink, in regards to your suggestion saying "If you think information about Oromo mass killings in the 16th century is important then please add it to a more relevant page describing the history of the Oromos for example. We do not need to balance claims about Menelik's mass killings with information that is irrelevant to Menelik" I have never said such kind of informations are important, you may review my statements again. On the other hand you suggest such kind of information are important and needs to be included under Menelik's biography? And you continued to say it is not relevant to this page and suggested "add it to a more relevant page describing the history of the Oromos for example", since you support this kind of informations to be included why don't you add it yourself to the relevant page? If I may ask, why do you suggest such informations to be included under Menelik but you don't want to add what happened in 16th centuary to the relevant page yourself? If you strongly believe such informations are important then you should have added it right after adding something similar under Menelik? You shouldn't be directing that job to me since I personaly don't support for such kind of informations to be added in wikipedia. Regarding to the mass killing in the 16th centuary, I have given you a source clearly indicating genocide, as being said by the neutral Portuguese man Bermudes in his own diary, who documented from his own observation, and also I gave you secondary sources from the neutral Britsh Richard Pankhurst as well as an Oromo historian Mohamed Hassan. If required I could also give you sources indicating the many number of peoples and states historically recorded by neutral Europeans, Arabs and Portuguese but later who disappeared from history after 16th century. If you are claiming the reason for strongly supporting the inclusion of such kind of information is because you have very strong concern for human right then for you what happened in 16th century people and 19th century people should not be different! And if the reason why you don't want to add it is because of problems with the sources or limited sources please let me know and I can help you and then you will personally add it yourself to the most relevant page you think is appropriate. Wikipedia says achieve Neutral point of view and suggests wikipedia editors needs to be balanced and not biased when writing an encyclopedia. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

About death toll

 * The issue in summary: Stumink want to add "Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest from war, famine and atrocities go into the millions" into the article based on sources written by Alemayehu Kumsa and Aleksandr Bulatovich.

 Reason for oposition to it's inclusion The source used for claiming millions of deaths (2+ million) is only Alemayehu's publication, while Bulatovich did not say 'millions of people died' and when searching 'millions' and 'million' under his book in Google books I found the following results.. Also based on the reference, the estimate is not found on page 68.

Based on the reference, Alemayehu's publication Page number 1122, the citation used is as follows: "This conquest war reduced the population of Oromo nation from 10 million to 5 million people as eye witnessed by Bulatovich: The dreadful annihilation of more than half the population during the conquest ...........". The writer, Alemayehu, came with this estimate by saying "as eye witnessed by Bulatovich's eye account" but this estimate is not found under Bulatovich's book.

I reviewed both books and found that what has been said in Bultovich's book is distorted by Alemayehu. After reading Bultovich's own book below is what I got for his use of "half population died", I summerised it as follows:


 * "as a result of the famine, which is caused by cattle disease, and the conquest many have died, even half the population in one area he observed and in that particular area he found a farmstead where half of the population dead as a result of fever."

That is what I got after reading several paragraphs before it and after it's usage of "half population died". He is talking about a particular area called 'Didesa' valley and he is not talking about an ethnicgroup, a tribe or not even a clan. He stated that the valley of the 'Didesa' is one of the most fever-ridden place. On another topic he stated that in those incorporated territories the assigned rulers do not violate the people and their religious beliefs and they also treat them lawfully and justly.

Eventhough Bulatovich described many factors for the deaths like famine caused by cattle disease, the place being fever ridden and even found a farmstead with half of it's population dead by fever in only 1 year, Alemayehu did not mention all of those important factors in his publication and just used only 'conquest' as the only reason for his claimed deaths. Moreover, he wrote as if Bulatovich is talking about half of an ethnic-group died while he was infact talking about a particular area called Didesa. His publication show that he is completely distorting the source where his estimate is based upon.

Besides when searching for Alemyaehu's publication in Google Books, Google search engine and Amazon.com this was the result: . Considering how serious the topic is it should have been supported by a well notable scholar where his book is available for sell in Amazon and Google Books.

Based on all of these findings I disagree with the use of this source for a very serious topic with claim of millions (over 2 million deaths). In other parts of the world similar number of deaths have minimum and maximum death estimates, and estimated deaths are divided into like Y# from soldiers on A-side & X# from soldiers on B-side as well as W# from war related deaths. But Alemayehu didnot divide those deaths this way. Also most international researches are supported with material evidences like photographs, pictures and videos as well as verbal account and written documents such as letters used to communicate between military personals, eye accounts from both sides, the victim side and from those who carried out etc etc. Besides these kind of estimates are done with team of experts specialized in various fields. The source used to make estimate in this case is not researched by international standard but by one writer, a research that is not notable and a researcher who distorted an eye account and not mentioned all factors observed by Bulatovich and who didnot estimated deaths from all sides.

Proposed solution: only use Bulatovich's statement taken from his own book and not use the other sources who used him as their evidence by distorting his statement.

Stumink, if possible let's discuss and solve it, if not let's list our issues and ask for administrative intervention. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above findings it does not fulfill the following Wikipedia criteria
 * WP:QS saying "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."
 * WP:EXCEPTIONAL saying "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
 * challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
 * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
 * WP:CHALLENGE saying "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." and saying "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." and also saying "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)". Since the claim is controversial the editor needs to provide inline citation, with page number supporting the estimate claimed.


 * Based on all the above mentioned reasons the claimed death toll should not be included. It's been already one day since reasons for opposition to it's inclusion is posted here with no response so far and within the next day if no convincing opposition is provided then I think it should be deleted. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * EthiopianHabesha and Stumink Here is a part of the Entire Bulatovich Account as translated by Richard Seltzer

"The Original Form of Galla Government The original form of government of the Galla and the beginnings of their legal procedure and of criminal law were entirely changed with the conquest of the area by the Abyssinians.

Originally, they were separated into a mass of separate clans, and each clan was a completely independent unit. A large part of them, namely all the western clans, had a monarchic form of government. But some southern clans had a republican form of government.

The republics of Goma and Gera chose several rulers, whom they drove away quickly whenever they had the slightest cause for dissatisfaction. In all the other clans, the eldest in the clan, descended by the eldest line from the founder of the clan, was the head of state. But his rights were completely fictitious.

He did not have the use of any revenues from his subjects, because he did not have the right to collect taxes. His revenues consisted of rare voluntary gifts, portions of military plunder and revenues from his own properties, cattle, and land. This was because, in the primogeniture system of inheritance he, descended by the eldest line from the founder of the clan, was the richest landowner in his tribe. In case of war, he was at the head of his clan, but he could neither begin nor end war, nor undertake anything at all independently without having consulted with the elders. He presided in the lube, but all the business was decided there without his knowledge.

The lube is a very unique institution. Each head of a family in the state has the right each 40 years to become a member of the lube for five years. If the head of a family turns out to be a young boy, this does not prevent him from taking part. This assembly of the leaders of the families of the state perform all the functions of court and of state government.

The court, whether civil or criminal court, is conducted in the following manner. The plaintiff and the respondent, or the accuser and the accused, each entrust their business to one of the members of the lube. Those entrusted explain the essence of the matter to the council, wrangle with one another; then when the matter has been made sufficiently clear, the lube decides on the verdict. For the duration of the trial, neither the respondent nor the plaintiff have the right interfere. They are not asked about anything. There are two criminal punishments -- fine and exile. And, in some western regions there is still sale into slavery.

There is no capital punishment for ordinary criminal acts.

Premeditated murder is punished the most severely. The property of the killer is confiscated for the use of the family of the victim, and he himself is expelled from the borders of the country. But if after some time he arrives at an agreement with the family of the victim on the extent of compensation, then he can return again. Theft is punished by large fines and, in some border regions, by sale into slavery. Adultery is punished by fines, if the deceived husband did not already deal with the insulter in some way.

Since the right of property in land in the majority of regions up to now has been identified with actual possession, law suits on this question could only arise in the thickly populated regions of Leka, Wollaga, and Jimma, where already there exist not only property in land but also servitude.

Aside from the administration of justice, it was likewise the duty of the lube to reconcile quarreling clans.66

Such was the form of government of Galla states up until their conquest by the Abyssinians. But from that time the peaceful, free way of life, which could have become the ideal for philosophers and writers of the eighteenth century, if they hadknown of it, was completely changed. Their peaceful way of life is broken; freedom is lost; and the independent, freedom-loving Gallas find themselves under the severe authority of the Abyssinian conquerors.

The Abyssinians pursue two goals in the governing of the region: fiscal and political -- security of the region and prevention of an uprising. All families are assessed a tax.

This is very small, not more than a unit of salt a year per family. In addition, families are attached to the land. Part of the population is obliged to cultivate land for the main ruler of the country, and part is divided among the soldiers and military leaders. The whole region is divided among separate military leaders who live off their district and feed their soldiers.

The dreadful annihilation of more than half the population during the conquest took away from the Galla all possibility of thinking about any sort of uprising. And the freedom-loving Galla who didn't recognize any authority other than the speed of his horse, the strength of his hand, and the accuracy of his spear, now goes through the hard school of obedience.

The lube no longer exists. The Abyssinians govern through clan leaders aba-koro and aba-langa (the aba-koro's assistant).

The aba-koro is the head of the clan, who gathers the Gallas for work, gathers coffee for the leader of the region, levies taxes for them, and, when it is necessary, collects durgo. The Abyssinian leaders only supervise the correctness of the actions of the aba-koro. The court of the first instance is the aba-koro, but important matters go straight to the leader of the region who punishes in accord with Abyssinian laws, and, in the case of political crimes, robbery, attempted murder or murder of an Abyssinian, uses capital punishment.

'''That's the way things are done in the conquered regions. But aside from these there are three states -- Jimma, Leka, Wollaga -- which voluntarily submitted to Abyssinia and pay it tribute.'''

In those places, the former order has been preserved, although the lube no longer exists. The Abyssinians obtain taxes from them and do not interfere in their self-government. Aside from payment of taxes, they also feed the troops stationed there.

'''After all that has been said above, the question automatically arises -- what are the relations of the conquered to the conquerors? Without a doubt, the Galla, with their at least five million population,''' occupying the best land, all speaking one language, could represent a tremendous force if they united. But the separatist character of the people did not permit such a union. Now subjugated by the Abyssinians, who possess a higher culture, they little by little adopt this culture from the Abyssinians, and accept their faith. Since there is no national idea, in all probability, they will with time blend with the Abyssinians, all the more because the Abyssinians skillfully and tactfully manage them, not violating their customers and religious beliefs and treating them lawfully and justly.

Only those states that pay tribute and preserve their independence represent a danger. Among these, hate for the Abyssinians is apparent in the ruling class, although they have adopted all the customs and even the household etiquette of the Abyssinians. In case of internal disorders, these states will certainly try to use such opportunity to their advantage. But Emperor Menelik doesn't disturb these states for the time being, in view of the fact that they are the most profitable regions of his empire. "


 * Two Quotes Stick out to me

1. "The dreadful annihilation of more than half the population during the conquest took away from the Galla all possibility of thinking about any sort of uprising. And the freedom-loving Galla who didn't recognize any authority other than the speed of his horse, the strength of his hand, and the accuracy of his spear, now goes through the hard school of obedience." 2. " Without a doubt, the Galla, with their at least five million population, occupying the best land, all speaking one language, could represent a tremendous force if they united. But the separatist character of the people did not permit such a union. Now subjugated by the Abyssinians, who possess a higher culture, they little by little adopt this culture from the Abyssinians, and accept their faith."See References Otakrem

Taking Bulatovich's OWN WORDS here, he says "half of the population(Galla) annihilated during the conquest(Menelik's Abysinnian soldiers raiding, killing). Then Bulatovich mentions that the Conquered Galla(Oromo) are atleast 5 MILLION. If the Abysinnian conquest of the Galla(Oromo) annihilated half of the Galla(Oromo) population and the Post-Conquered(Subjugated) Bulatovichs population estimate was atleast 5 million Galla (Oromo).   5 Million is Half of 10 million. Alemayehu is not Incorrect in using Bulatovichs account of the number of Galla(Oromos) annihilated, killed during the conquest. I found Alemayehu's book  At this point, the statement as Stumink added shall remain and is backed up by the Source (Bulatovich) that you agree with.See References  Otakrem (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Otakrem, but still that estimated deaths is not estimated by Bulatovich himself. If he can be able to estimate the size of an ethnic-group then I don't see the reason why he cannot himself calculate the deaths. He even used 'half the population' died in fever in Didesa valley and again said another half dead by famine caused by cattle disease and conquest in Didesa Valley so even by his calculation 0 number of people would have been found in Didesa Valley area.
 * - Since Bulatovich is the eye witness then he is the only one with the right to come up with death estimates by providing proper calculation, but still in his whole book there is no mention of x million deaths.
 * - If Alemayehu came up with that number based on a source that didnot say clearly "they killed x number of people" then imagine what other pseudo historians might come up based on the portugese Bermudez's eye account which he said to the 16th century expanding Oromos:

"on all, only to destroy and depopulate their countries. In the places they conquer they slay all the men, ………….., kill the old women, and keep the young for their own use and service”
 * - Based on the same logic used by Alemayehu Kumsa and based on these similar account (also reported by neutral European) and based on other many historians reporting many recorded people disappearing from history after 16th centuary then one can say "all the people in 16th centuary died with no people left" or "millions were mass killed in 16th centuary" etc etc
 * - Earlier in Bulatovich's book he indicated "half population died because o fever" and also included famine and conquest but Bermudez didnot provide anyother factors.


 * - I still don't support using Bulatovich or Bermudez account to use them and claim millions of deaths while both of them did not clearly said millions died. I still believe those people who come up with such estimate are required to find mass graves, and surely they will not find any. In the old time people don't kill other people in mass like witnessed in communist system. Just think of it like this "a land without people is worthless" and if you have large land then you need a lot of people to make it economical and then they will cultivate it and make it useful. Infact because of diseases and ancient low life expectancy clan warlords may not even have enough people to cultivate their land so what do they do? They raid neighboring people and bring as many people as possible, the more people they have the more the land become useful. Therfore everyone raid eachother i.e Oromos will raid Gurage or even go as far as the Amhara Gondar to raid and bring as many people as they can and then they integrate them. The same applies for every clans, tribes and ethnicgroups of Africa. Therfore it is absolutely impossible for people to just go into places and kill all the people because that is no way possible. It's like you fight to death to get gold and then after that you through it into the ocean, which nobody will do. The Oromos integrated the conquered people and also the Amhara and Oromo rulling classes of Menelik also integrated them. The difference is Oromos require full assimilation, and for that many people recorded in history didnot disappear but just switched identity. On the Contorary Abyssinians donot require assimilation, remember during Menelik's reign there were two Sultans namely Aba Jifar and Sheh Khojele who administer their people with islamic laws and their own language and tradition while no interfering from the central government except their duty of paying annual tax and providing soldiers when the empire needs for defending the overall territory and also for expansion into other territories. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha I completely Disagree with your assertion about "He did not estimate". He infact did estimate without saying "Millions died". You are clearly using "Semantics" to make your point and not using the information provided. Bulatovich is a Primary Witness to military and non-military actions of Menelik's armies during the Conquest of Oromos, Dizi, Maji, etc other Non-Abysinnian ethnicities. I will repeat again that Bulatovich made an estimation which agrees with the statement "Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest from war, famine and atrocities go into the millions". I will repeat again Bulatovich's own Quotes from his Book: 1. "The dreadful annihilation of more than half the population during the conquest took away from the Galla all possibility of thinking about any sort of uprising. And the freedom-loving Galla who didn't recognize any authority other than the speed of his horse, the strength of his hand, and the accuracy of his spear, now goes through the hard school of obedience." 2. " Without a doubt, the Galla, with their at least five million population, occupying the best land, all speaking one language, could represent a tremendous force if they united. But the separatist character of the people did not permit such a union. Now subjugated by the Abyssinians, who possess a higher culture, they little by little adopt this culture from the Abyssinians, and accept their faith."See References You can clearly read that Bulatovich says the "the Galla, with their at least five million population", he is speaking in present tense at that moment. You can clearly read that Bulatovich estimated "the dreadful annihilation of more than half the population during the conquest took away from the Galla". The "population" is "Galla". He doesn't have to say 5 million Gallas were annihilated (killed) during the conquest, his sentence says it all. So the Statement that Stumink put should actually read as "After the conquest of the Galla which resulted in the annihilation of more than half of their population, their population became 5 million." Your use of semantics does not change that half of the Galla(Oromo) population at that time was annihilated due to the conquest. I will wait for Stumink's input on this. On a side note, I see that at first you didn't like Alemayuh's citation and you wanted to ONLY use Bulatovich. Now that I have shown you that Bulatovich said that "more than half of the population(Galla)" were "annihilated during the conquest" is the First hand account of His Witnessing these atrocities and wars waged. You state to Not Use Bulatovich or Bermudes because it doesn't agree with your predetermined conclusion. The statement at this time stays as is or can be updated to match what Bulatovich stated in the Quotes I provided.Otakrem (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Estimation Done Per Wikipedia Standards Otakrem (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Bulatovich is a Primary Source per WK:PRIMARY

Alemayehu Kumsa is a Secondary Source who use Bulatovich's work and published in ECAS 2013 5th European Conference on African Studies African Dynamics in a Multipolar World ©2014 Centro de Estudos Internacionais do Instituto Universitário deLisboa (ISCTE-IUL) ISBN: 978-989-732-364-5 THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ETHIOPIAN STATE AND THE OROMO PEOPLE

Alemayehu Kumsa Charles University in Prague alemayehu.kumsa@ff.cuni.cz

Per Wikipedia's use of Sources "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources"

Per Wikipedias Routine Calculation "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. See also Category:Conversion templates."

So does the statement "Some estimates of the number of people killed as a result of the conquest goes into the millions" meets Wikipedia rules?

1. Bulatovich (Primary Source) gave an estimation "annihilation(killed/died) of more than half of the population...Galla"

2. Bulatovich (Primary Source) estimated the "Gallas were atleast 5 million" Post-Conquest. Written source states this Post-Conquest.

3. Kumsa (Secondary Source) estimated from Bulatovich's estimations of 5 million Post-Conquest and Bulatovichs estimation of "more than half" "annihilated" as a result of Conquest. Kumsa estimated that Gallas were 10 million prior to Conquest and were reduced by half(per Bulatovich) to 5 million, therefore 5 million Gallas(Oromo) were "annihilated(killed/died)" as a result of the Conquest. 10 Million Gallas(Oromo) prior to Conquest. 5 million Gallas(Oromo) after conquest. 10 million divided by 2 = 5 million. Or the inverse, 5 million (present) divided by the "1/2" "annihilated due to conquest" = 10 million. 5/0.5 = 10 (Kumsa's calculation). I agree with this after Reading Bulatovich's estimation. This meets Wikipedia's routine calculations policy.

So the Wikipedia entry meets Wikipedia standards therefore shall remain. Infact, I think it should explicitly state per the Wikipedia Routine Calculations the actual number if we add the deaths of the Dizi, Maji, Wolyata, and Oromo, the estimates would be about 5.5 million if they meet the Wikipedia standards for Routine Calculations. Your attempt to use "strictly" primary sources and actual International standards for numbers of annihilated people does not Meet Wikipedia Standards. Otakrem (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

M Vanderheym Primary Witness of Menelik Military conquest More sources for Menelik's military campaigns and atrocities Africa. v.4. Australia; New Zealand; South Pacific Islands. v.5. South America by Ascott Robert Hope Moncrieff 1907 Page 52. This book speaks of Massacring 100,000 Gallas by the Accounts of M. Vanderheym who went with Menelik on a military campaign in a Rich Galla country with the use of Deadly modern Arms(weapons) against the Gallas spears, shields of a disunited tribe(Galla). Otakrem (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Population of Ethiopia in 1896-1898 According to Bulatovich "which for a population of 15 to 17 million" See page 117 Going from 15 million to 17 millions(1896) Bulatovich enters Ethiopia and supports Menelik's wars against the Italians and the Southern Tribes. By 1900, See Population of Ethiopia 1900, the other source states the Population of Ethiopia is 11,754,300. Bulatovich states that after the conquest of the Gallas(Oromo), there population was 5 million (1899) after a "dreadful annihilation of more than half of the population...Gallas", which means 5 million Oromos(Gallas) died as result of the Abyssinian conquest. Starting off with 15 million - 5 million = 10 million by 1899 which births happened by 1900, the population of Ethiopia(Abyssinia + Galla/Southern Tribes) = 11,754,300.Otakrem (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Population of Ethiopia in 1900 1900 11,754.3(thousands) = 11,754,300. Menelik was crowned in 1889,he went on military campaigns until he faced off the Italians in 1896. Of those 5 million were Galla(Oromo). Prior to this Abyssinia's(Shoa, Tigray, Gondar, Amhara) population was 6,000,000 estimate.See The class and home-lesson book of geography 1870 Page 45 which states Population of Abyssinia(Amhara, Tigre, Shoa, and Samara) 250,000 sq miles, Population of 5,000,000. With the subjugation of the Oromo and other non-Abysinnian tribes by 1900 you end up with 11,754,300. Page 7 Table 1.1 Population Size and Growth Rate1900 -1984 and 1994-2035 See Source: CSA, 1988 and OPHCC, 1999. Otakrem (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, Wikipedia repeatedly warns editors need to be neutral and discuss issues by taking all opposing sides. Let's not make this talk page into a wrestling match. Unless you and Stumnik are not interested to be neutral then it will be hard to make wikipedia a place for sharing knowledge and it will become a place for Politcal and nationalist agenda. In my previous post I asked both of you to give me a reason why you beleive it is important information and that why one of you didnot find what happens in 16th centuary as important and why both of you are not willing to add that content to the place which one of you think is relevant page. Still didnot got an answer to that question?
 * EthiopianHabesha, I am only using the Sources provided and additional sources I have searched online. I think I am being neutral here by giving an audience to all of your arguments for the exclusion of the statement.I have stayed with my position because the sources I keep finding lead towards keeping the statement in this article. I do not have to agree with your position to be neutral. I have provided population data of the 1900(during Menelik's reign) SEE Population of Ethiopia in 1900. I provided how 5 million killed during Menelik's conquest of Gallas was estimated SEE Estimation Done Per Wikipedia Standards. As for a response to all of your questions SEE the Response below Key words are..Otakrem (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Now to your points raised above: let's bring the quote and here is what he said "The dreadful annihilation of more than half the population during the conquest took away from the Galla............." in here see carefully the most important word "during" that connect with the word "conquest". While he would have said clearly "by the conquest" or "as result of the conquest" or "only by the conquest" why did he choose to use "during"? Besides before this paragraph he used 'half the population died' twice. In his 1st usage he clearly said only by fever and in his second usage of 'half population' he clearly said by famine caused by cattle disease and conquest. So for this paragraph these two usage are his evidences for his conclusion. In a very disciplined scientific research a researcher before conclusion explains his methodology, then in the next chapter presents his raw data or sampling then based on the methodology he analysis the data and finally comes to the conclusion. Therfore for Bulatovich's use of "annihilation of more than half" is tied to his two previous usage of 'half the population died'. And to support your preferred view i.e. "Half died by conquest" then during should have not been used and that he should have gave examples (raw data or sampling) supporting your view like for example saying "I have seen in X or Y battle on this W date Z number of people dead from soldiers and civilians" as well by saying "A person by the name X told me he has seen Y number of people mass killed and were buried in mass in W location". Some very small example for us to conclude indeed half people died only by conquest, but unfortunately no such example is provided other than his clear examples with a combination of several factors that occur during the conquest. Since he didnot divide those factors properly then we cannnot be able to know how many died by fever, famine, loss of livestock estimated to go upto 90% by the disease and the conquest.
 * Besides he begun the paragraph as ""The dreadful annihilation of more than half the population during....." so what he is saying is during (at the time of the conquest) a dreadfull anhilation of more than half the population occurred (reason is described in his earlier usage of 'half population died'). If his use of 'annihilation' (by the reasons he mentioned above) only applies to Oromo then he could have started the paragraph by saying "The dreadful annihilation of more than half of the Oromo" but he chose not to begin that way and begun first as if it applies to all people in Ethiopia which hapenned during (at the time of the conquest) the conquest time and then begun to apply it to Oromo (Going from general to specific). I believe these people give care in the use of their every single words and it's application.
 * No mention of famine and fever in Alemayehu's publication as well as no reason provided for killing that much people raises the question of his neutrality and the quality of his research and will not qualify him as a reliable source based on this rule here WP:QS. The Great famine of 1888-1892 which is the worst in the region in history is also part of Oromo history and if he is writing for sharing knowledge then there should at least be a one line comment that have killed over 1/3 (millions) of the region's inhabitants including Oromos, Amharas and all other human beings. This famine has killed over 90% of the cattles and 1/3 of the peoples according to Michael H. Glantz and Peter Gill even believes cattle disease was introduced by Italians to wipe out Eritreans and settle in their land as can be seen here Since Italians have two countries, the indigenous people of Horn of Africa did not have a place to run away from the famine caused by the cattle disease.
 * Proposed Solution let's replace the statment that say 'millions' by the following statement:

While Bulatovich reported depopulation in 19th centuary, another Portuguese by the name Bermudez also reported depopulation in 16th centuary and Donald Levine concludes that before 20th centaury virtually all the peoples in the region have been in hostile contact. According to Donald the reasons for warfare is to acquire cattle, slaves, to gain territories or control over trade routes, to carry out ritual requirements or secure trophies to prove masculinity.


 * Then in inline citation we present the three neutral sources statement and let the readers make their own conclusion, their own estimate, no need for Alemayehu Kumsa's or Prof. Mesfin Woldemariam's analysis. This way we get a balanced statement and we will make Wikipedia a place for fair knowledge sharing but not an ideology tool. There are already a lot of blogs available for ideology propaganda. In the inline citation we include the paragraph of Bulatovich's account that begins with "The dreadful annihilation of..........." as it is and also Bermudez's paragraph that begins "they are a fierce and cruel.............." also as it is as well as Donald's paragraph "one hardly needs to describe the importance of warfare................." and also as it is..Let's include all 3 of them in the inline citation (not in the article but under reference) — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Key words are "The dreadful annihilation", "relations of the conquered to the conquerors", "Now subjugated by the Abyssinians"Otakrem (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Your argument about during being the keyword is irrelevant. The focus of topic is what Happened During the Conquest?

1. Bulatovich states " The dreadful annihilation of more than half of the population during the conquest took away from the Galla all possibility of thinking about any sort of uprising."

2. Definition of annihilation is complete destruction so that the person does not exist (killed). Definition of dreadful is causing or involving great suffering. When combined together it speaks of intentionally caused complete destruction of Gallas (who were his subject topic).

3. Context Further in Bulatovich's witness statements, he states "After all that has been said above, the question automatically arises -- what are the relations of the conquered to the conquerors? Without a doubt, the Galla, with their at least five million population,......Now subjugated by the Abyssinians"  Key words here After all that has been said above" ie "dreadful annihilation", "relations of the conquered to the conquerors?", "the Galla, with their at least five million population"..."Now subjugated by the Abyssinians".  The Gallas(Oromo) were subjugated by the Abyssinians(Amhara) during the Abyssinian conquest of the Galla which resulted in the dreadful annihilation of more than half of the population (Galla). Your use of "semantics" such as "during" when there are none to use but the statement being as readable as what Bulatovich states is clear to me. The context of his entry here is very clear and I read this a couple times. His mention of famines in the Didessa valley does not take away from what he stated in quoted and the implications of his statements are clear as well.

4. Bermudes was 16th century which means Bermudes is Not a Primary source on Menelik who is 19th century. Bulatovich was a contemporary of Menelik's and was embedded in Menelik's army. Bulatovich is a Relevant Primary Source and thus qualifies to be used in Wikipedia per the Standards I mentioned above. Kumsa is a Secondary source who used Bulatovich and Other sources (Link is provided to his Document) with more than 15 sources cited in his book. So far, Bulatovich, Kumsa are Relevant sources to this Menelik article. While Bermudes is Not Relevant Source therefore will not add a neutral point of view.

5. Kumsa's argument is about the colonization of the Galla(Oromo) by the Abyssinians(Amhara). Bulatovich describes what is by definition colonization ie Subjugation, Assimilation into a second class or serf class, forcing religion and language on the Galla. He states it. He describes the Gallas political structure and how the "Lube" was not allowed under Abyssinian subjugation of the Galla.

6. Therefore I disagree with adding your Proposed Statement and would rather keep the current statement as Stumink has put it. Otakrem (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * what does "dreadful annihilation" means? if you search 'dreadful' in in his book he used it as "dreadful fevers" and "oppressive heat becomes dreadful" so if heat and fever disease is considered dreadful then obviously famine can also be considered very dreadful. So it is also possible to say "The dreadful annihilation by famine or by conquest". The question is why did he prefer to use "during" and not "by" if their is no doubt they all died by conquest then why not simply use "by"?
 * See Response 2 above. Definitions provided. Cherrypicking "during" and not reading the entire source, and deliberately arguing without the entire context is what your argument is based on.Otakrem (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No example provided other than his example in Didesa Valley. He did not say how he came up with that figure? You know his book is not a bible, as if we are not allowed to question on what is stated under his book. Every scientific research, even by Albert Einstein is questioned, and if not provided with convincing explanation and examples then it can be droped. He should have dedicated a one page to present his evidences to support his figure like detailed interviews, copy of letters, detailed eye observation in a particular battlefield or any other detailed story or detailed calculation that supports his claim. If a research paper by statisticians, scientists can be questioned I don't see the reason why we can not question a document presented by a military officer.
 * Have you read the entire book? Also this is Historical analysis, not "Scientific research". Two different fields of study. Historical analysis requires Primary sources such as Bulatovich. His witness statements is actually more credible than the Bible. Atleast, it can be checked with other sources. You have not provided 19 century Primary source to counter Bulatovich. You brought a 16th century Bermudes who was considered Not Credible by his Portoguese contemporaries. Otakrem (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * About Colonization: we discussed about it above. Ashanti tribe of Ghana/citizens of colony of USA has no state power share in their colonizer's nation, England. Menelik married his daughters to his top Oromo generals Ras Mikael Ali Aba Bula and Ras Gobana Dache. While Gobana's grandSon eliminated from succession due to his dwarfism, Mikael's Son Lij Iyasu elected heir by Menelik only to be overthrown by Habtegyorgis and Teferi also Oromos. Again I am recommending the use of Oromo and Amhara rulling classes. Bulatovich's book is not a bible so we don't have to accept whatever he said, and we have the right to question his statement.
 * Again you are appealing to Tokenism. First it was Menelik Oromo generals, now its Menelik marries off his daughter to Oromo generals. 10 Oromo generals are still less than 5 million Annihilated Oromo (women, children, and men). Bulatovich in conjunction with Kumsa and the other sources I provided are a good starting point and meet Wikipedia standards.Otakrem (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * About Bermudes: When one talks about world war 2nd there might be times the history of world war 1st should be mentioned. Somehow there might be things that connects them, and saying this is only about WW2 but not WW1 and not a relevant place is not justifiable. The topic is somehow similar and if you beleive such type of information are important and suggest it should be included under Menelik then I see no reason why we shouldn't include what happened in 16th century in this article as well considering all sources are similar, European scholars and neutrals. Horn of Africans (Oromo, Amhara and Tigre) are usually biased, and best thing is to avoid them. Alemayehu Kumsa did not say anything about The Great famine of 1888-1892 that killed 90% of the cattle and 1/3 of the region's inhabitants, Why? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See Response above about 16th century Bermudes as an Irrelevant Source to 19th Century Bulatovich about 19th Century Menelik II. Your comment about "Horn of Africans(Oromo, Amhara and Tigre) are usually biased, and best thing is to avoid them." I take it you belong to either Amhara or Tigre so should I best avoid discussing with you about this? Bulatovich is a "European neutral" according to you, his word is the "Bible"?Otakrem (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * EthiopianHabesha, I've provided everything that I can provide at this time. You have unfortunately gone around in circles, changed your mind several times on using Bulatovich. Did not provide a convincing argument on removing Bulatovich and Kumsa sources. Also you have thrown many things which just did not merit a response within the scope of this Discussion. Unless, you can provide a source that is 19th century Primary Source and credible Secondary Sources, if possible Tertiary sources to add to this discussion. I do not think you have made a convincing case for Removal of Stumink's statement, and I have provided more than 3 Sources (Primary and Secondary Sources) to keep Stumink's statement. On a sidenote,I would like to mention, that you are trying to prove a Negative here in logical argumentation which is the "Non-occurrence of the annihilation of 5 million Oromos perishing as result of the Abyssinian Conquest", the mere fact of Bulatovich's witnessing and writing about what transpired in his time while he served as an advisor within Menelik's army does not permit you a room to weasel word out, which has been the attempts made within your argumentation in this discussion. Unless you have anything more relevant and or significant to this discussion, I will wait for Stumink or anyone else to chime in and give their two cents.Otakrem (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Otakrem, There are not just 3 tribes in Ethiopia. The other tribes excluding Oromo, Amhara and Tigre are more than 1/3 (over 30 million) so always remeber these collection of minorities also have a say on that region's politics, history and economy. Your chance of knowing my tribe is not 1/2 or 1/3 but 1/80.
 * Well you are the one that has an issue with ethnic Horn of African historians. My question was rhetorical basically explaining to you that Wikipedia does not discriminate based on an author's ethnic background but you definitely are by attacking Kumsa for being a ethnic Horn of Africa African of Oromo tribe.Otakrem (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I was Alemayehu Kumsa and I am writing a book for just sharing a knowledge then there is no way I would come up with that number after seeing the word during that connects with the the word 'conquest'. But then again even if that "during" is "by" I will still not come up with that figure without seeing detailed calculations by Bulatovich. Even if he gave detailed calculations I will still question his methodology and the quality of his data and sampling and confirm them with atleast other 3 reliable books with eye or verbal account and if all three matches then probably I might take it seriously by 50/50 probability, because I also need material evidences (like photos of mass graves) and then may be I could be certain with over 90%.
 *  You are doing Original Research by questioning the Primary source. Bulatovich meets Wikipedia's Primary Sources(See WK:PRIMARY), Kumsa is a Secondary. Please read this Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.Otakrem (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 witness requirement: You do know that in court you have to provide 3 witnesses to make one person guilty. Imagine what will happen if one day we decide to make the requirement of eye witnesses as one person to reach guilty verdict? Trust me 100s of millions of people would have been guilty and in jail by now because 3 liers cannot come up with 100% identical stories, somehow one of them will distort the story even if told to lie. Therefore what you simply are telling us is that we must accept Alemayehu's calculation simply by one person witness with a very ambiguous statement? None of the other evidences you brought above upto Wolayta war do not say half of that particular ethnic group and even if we add them they no more than add up 140,000. Based on how international laws/courts work you need to provide atleast two more primary sources (witnesses) to support your claim of half died to the ethnic group you are talikng about, even the one provided is still ambiguous and doesnot clearly support your claim. In other military court hundreds/thousands of eye witneses are required but considering it has been over 120 years provide at least two more primary source (witnesses) and prove the claim you made above i.e Bulatovich account is more credible than bible because it can be confirmed with other primary sources.
 *  You are doing Original Research by questioning the Primary source and coming to your own conclusions. Bulatovich meets Wikipedia's Primary Sources(See WK:PRIMARY), Kumsa is a Secondary. Please read this Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.Otakrem (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * About what happen in 16th centuary: it is not used to deny the claim you support, but to show how the region was before 20th century. It is important to show how everyone was in hostile environment and how everyone is a victim. You try to deny what is reported by Bermudes (not ambiguous and clearly stated How people died and Why people died) but will not accept the statment made by Bulatovich (Ambiguous and not describing how people died, not describing why people died but just said during the time of the conquest dreadful annihilation occurred, by what?) yet they both are neutrals and Europeans. Both sources are equal and there is no reason to say this is better and the other one is bad? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * EthiopianHabesha The sentence you are trying to argue for removal meets Wikipedia guidelines as I have demonstrated through this lengthy discussion. Per WK:PRIMARY, Bulatovich is a verified, Primary source. Kumsa is a verified, Secondary Source. I add this Source as well Frontiers of Violence in North-East Africa: Genealogies of Conflict Since C.1800 By Richard J. Reid as a "Secondary Source" which quotes Bulatovich. So it isn't only Kumsa. Your addition of "Bermudes" as a source to Menelik is neither here nor there when it comes to what actually Happened in the 19th Century Abyssinian conquest of the Galla(Oromos). 16th Century Bermudes is NOT a Primary source for 19th Century Menelik II. Do you have another 19th Century Primary Source? If not, then your arguing over and over about Bermudes will not get a response from me. Your misreading of Bulatovich's Primary account of Menelik's army is not going to get me or anyone who reads this discussion to agree with you.Otakrem (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

To summarize for you on the sources for that sentence:

Bulatovich (Primary Source)-See Above The Original Form of the Galla Government

M Vanderheym (Primary Source)-(see above in discussion)

De Salviac, 1901:349-354 (Primary Source)

Dr. Donaldson Smith(Primary Source) (see above in M Vanderheym linked source)

Kumsa (Secondary Source)-based on Bulatovich

Richard J.Reid (Secondary Source)- based on Bulatovich Otakrem (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Edinburgh Review: Or Critical Journal, Volume 195 (Primary/Tertiary Source) Page 346 "Menelik seeked to subjugate the Galla", Page 351 "The Abyssinians are not truthful, and they are arrogant-or, at least, they have none of the Oriental's submissiveness. Their OPPRESSION of the Gallas and their barbarous cruelty to the other tribes alienates all sympathy" Otakrem (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"The Negus(Menelik) had just returned, it is true, from a successful raid on a Galla tribe of Wollamo, 150 kilometres S. of Addis Abeba, wherein his men had shown the true barbarian groundwork shining through the veneer of civilization, by massacring thousands of unresisting men, women and children." from The Campaign of Adowa and the Rise of Menelik By George Fitz-Hardinge Berkeley Page 88 Otakrem (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"When Donaldson-Smith crossed the Shebeyli in 1894 he found the southern bank deserted. The previous occupants, the Arusi Gallas, had just been routed by the Abyssinians. Their men had been mutilated and killed, their women and youths carried off as slaves and their crops destroyed." Page 30 from White mans's country "out eastwards and southwards, raiding, murdering, mutilating and enslaving the Gallas and other tribes, capturing their women and their stock, and leaving behind a trail of razed villages, Galla skeletons, and a few small but strongly fortified military post to collect tribute from the chiefs.Page 38 from White man's country White man's country: Lord Delamere and the making of Kenya, Volume 1 Otakrem (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)Otakrem, Let's solve one issue at a time: You are making the discussion much more complex. We are talking about death toll, so clarification is needed how the claimed millions are killed. We need to know exactly how millions can die in conquest? We need to explain by evidences like on this date and on this place 300,000 died, and on another day and in another particular place 500,000 died by military personels, by these mechanism for this and that reasons etc etc, just like how death tolls are estimated in other parts of the world. Somehow we need to add up and reach over 2 million deaths. This is the topic of discussion. Unless we reach by these way to over 2 millions and convince wikipedia administrators then that number needs not to be there based on the rules of WP:EXCEPTIONAL which says Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Over 2 million deaths is indeed exceptional claim and requires exceptional source which clearly says "on ........ and ..........day .......... number of people died on a place called ..... with order given by generals named ........... and these number of people were killed by ............. mechanism for a reason of ............"
 * 2) Using Alemayehu as a source for death toll estimate does not fulfil the requirement stated under:
 * WP:QS which says "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.”
 * WP:EXCEPTIONAL which says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.”
 * 3) Alemayehu should not be used for the estimate for the following reasons:
 * a) For not providing data in the above way: Alemayehu came up with his total deaths by not using the above way of data collection and calculation. Against WP:EXCEPTIONAL
 * b) For using only one ambiguous statement for his estimate: For his estimate he simply used an ambigues statement made by Bulatovich which says “dreadful annihilation of half the population during the conquest”. Bulatovich’s usage of during is ambiguous and can be regarded as during the time of the conquest a dreadful annihilation occurred, most probably by famine which most scholars believed the worst in the regions history. Against WP:QS
 * c) For not mentioning the famine that killed 1/3 of the regions inhabitants, and 90% of the cattle by disease that was believed to be introduced by Italians. This famine is mentioned in Bulatovich’s account while Alemayehu did not mention it. Againest WP:QS


 * d) Population estimate before conquest? For not providing additional 1 more primary source for his estimate of the people before the conquest. Against WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:QS
 * e) Other primary source with half died not supplied: For not providing atleast 1 more primary source supporting his claim of half of that particular ethnic-group died. WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:QS
 * f) How? For not showing how his claimed 5 million people were killed. Not mentioning at least one mechanism to kill all these people. In Libya we have seen unarmed people revolting and deposing a very well organised centralised government system armed with 21st century modern weapon. He should have explained how these much people were killed because nobody just gets killed without making an effort to defend himself. Against WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:QS
 * g) No material evidence provided like pictures and photos of mass graves supporting the claim of millions killed. Against WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:QS
 * h) No written documents provided like copy of letter or verbal accounts used to order execution of people in 100s of thousands something supporting the claim of millions killed. Against WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:QS
 * i) Individual work: estimating death tolls require experts specialised in different fields.
 * j) Work not widely available? His work is not found in Google books and Amazon as can be seen here . Considering how serious the topic is it should have been supported by a well notable scholar where his book is available for sell in Amazon and Google Books where it has been widely scrutinised by the media. Against WP:EXCEPTIONAL
 * k) No disciplined research: Usually researches with estimating population and deaths are required to show dedicated chapters which explain and show their methodology, data and sampling presentation, analysis, conclusion and recommendations.


 * 4) Conclusion:Therefore, for these reasons it should not be used as a reference to support an exceptional claim of over 2 million deaths. A wikipedia editor who estimates by himself based on a primary source is 'Original research' and is also against the rule.


 * Otakrem, do not provide your responses under the above statment, it is against the rule. If you want to respond for each of the points above you may refer the numbers. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * EthiopianHabesha I have responded to all of these questions that you have Asked in the previous Posts above. You keep ignoring my responses to all of your questions and then restarting your questions all over again. You have a Bias against Dr. Alemayehu Kumsa on the basis of his ethnic and racial background(Oromo and Black African). You stated that "Horn of Africans (Oromo, Amhara and Tigre) are usually biased, and best thing is to avoid them."  His work is based on Bulatovich's. Here he is as a Professor of Charles University in Prague presenting his work . I've googled him and found his works. In addition, I supplied you with more sources above in To summarize for you on the sources for that sentence: But you refuse acknowledge these sources and seem hellbent on removing Kumsa's source which if you want to argue against, maybe you should contact Dr. Kumsa at . But as far as being a Secondary source to primary sources such as Bulatovich, Donaldson, Vanderheym, De Salvac, etc, Kumsa meets the Wikipedia guidelines. What you are doing is Original Research. I have even shown you how just taking Bulatovich's own estimations, I concluded with a number of 5 million Gallas(Oromos) died as result of the conquest. But you refuse to read Bulatovich's work in its entirety and you cherrypicked the word "during" and "Diddessa". I am not going to get involved in Original Research as you are trying to do here. As far as Kumsa and the other sources, I provided back up sources for keeping the Sentence that Stumink has written into the Menelik's Reign as Emperor section. Now since you have not been able to give a Primary/Secondary source that states "No Oromos were killed during Menelik's conquest" <==Impossibility from a Logical Definitions of "Conquest" and "Population Deaths", you have resorted to trying to remove Kumsa. Kumsa is relevant and Wiki verifiable/secondary source.Otakrem (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, I usually avoid to attack Wikipedia editors and focus only on the sources they use and the content they provide. The topic of this section is about death toll estimate. Recommended estimates should be based on various and quality sources reporting deaths in 100s, 300s of thousands so that we reach your claim of at least 2 million. But what you are doing is providing sources with graphic details and try to play with emotions so that we believe your claim. I am opposing the use of millions died based on wikipedia rule which says exceptional sources for exceptional claims and sources that are not questionable. The reason why I say scholars from outside Horn of Africa is preferable is because I have seen works of many professor and doctor scholars, some even well known, particularly from Amhara, Oromo, Tigre and Somalis twisting primary sources for their political and nationalist agenda. Most scholars outside from this region usually write with neutral tone, and since most have no political and nationalist interest in the region they write for sharing knowledge and usually make sure everyone's point of view is heard. I cannot believe Alemayehu Kumsa, whom you said has a PHD wrote a publication about what happened in 19th century and could not be able to mention the word 'famine' and 'fever' in his work! I searched those words and he did not even mention them ones! A famine that even Bulatovich wrote in his book, a fever that he also claimed to have killed half the population in Diddesa, a famine that killed 1/3 and over 90% of cattle is not important for him but deaths by other means are important and dedicated almost whole of his publication. Among others that is one of the reasons why I don't take his publication seriously but not because of his ethnicity. About the estimate you show me based on Bulatovich's account, well you clearly know that it's original research. You can not make estimate on your own. What you can do is provide reliable sources with clear estimate and then we will scrutinize the source and make sure it fulfills these criteria: WP:QS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha See the EIGHT sources in To summarize for you on the sources for that sentence: Above for Primary and Secondary Sources listed with the Links provided below with Page numbers. Direct quotes from those sources have also been provided see Above in this discussion. You invited me to discuss with you on the sentence "Some estimates for the number of people killed as a result of the conquest from war, famine and atrocities go into the millions." I think I have provided you with all of those sources Primary and Secondary a total of eight. Also your issue with Dr.Kumsa is not valid because your argument is "Bias in Kumsa source" is your own POV SeeNeutral point of view "Bias in Source". As for Bulatovich and Kumsa's estimation, I showed you how Kumsa came to that estimation by doing Wikipedia Acceptable Routine Calculation based on Bulatovich's estimations (Not My Original Research). Again you are doing Original Research by trying to find a "direct quote" from one or two primary sources, Bulatovich says more than 5 million Gallas died as a result of the Conquest by his own Words. You refuse to read the entry within its context. Kumsa comes to that conclusion as well as a secondary source. The other sources give the breakdowns that you are asking for such as 100s or thousands perished etc. The "emotional" play that you speak of is probably from reading exactly the same thing that I have read from those Books I listed above. The more I read about these conquests, the more it shows how destructive Empire Building is as Menelik did as he Reigned as an Emperor.Otakrem (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, NO he did not say millions died, not even 100s of thousands died by conquest. Do not paraphrase out of context. But if he beleives millions have died by the conquest then I see no reason why he cannot say clearly "Yes indeed millions have died by/as a result of the conquest" and state exactly the estimate made by you and Alemayehu, I beleive he is capable of making that simple calculation without any assistance. Instead of that he used "during" and made his statement ambiguous? Even if he said millions have died by the conquest then he is definitely required to show his estimation methodology and the examples/datas/interviews he used for his analysis and his conclusion and explain mechanisms used to kill 100s or 300s of thousands of people. Even Albert Einestine's work goes through review and is questioned as well as tested to prove his theory. Therfore there is no reason why we cannot question an estimation done by Bulatovich, who was just a military officer. Your statment above which says "Again you are doing Original Research by trying to find a "direct quote" from one or two primary sources" the answer for this issue of yours is found under WP:EXCEPTIONAL which says Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. As the rule says many high-quality sources are required for your claim of millions killed by conquest and I think we have extensively discussed about Bulatovich and no need to discuss about him further. You may bring other primary sources and show just their estimated death numbers, no need for graphic details. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha It seems you are intentionally Misreading Bulatovich's quote of ""The dreadful annihilation of more than half the population during the conquest took away from the Galla all possibility of thinking about any sort of uprising. And the freedom-loving Galla who didn't recognize any authority other than the speed of his horse, the strength of his hand, and the accuracy of his spear, now goes through the hard school of obedience."  2. " Without a doubt, the Galla, with their at least five million population, occupying the best land, all speaking one language, could represent a tremendous force if they united. But the separatist character of the people did not permit such a union. Now subjugated by the Abyssinians,"  I do not think that you are correct here. Ask for a 3rd Opinion. I completely Disagree with your conclusion on Bulatovich's quote as well as your use of "WP Exceptional here. You are not even Acknowledging the other Sources provided. There is no longer a need to continue this discussion with your narrow view on only one word and Not the entire Context of the source. Otakrem (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it is not just that one word why I oppose your supported claim. I have given over 13 reasons and briefly described them above on my post dated on 5th July. Therefore, my opposition is based on those multiple reasons, but not just 1 word. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have your perspective and I am basing my understanding of Menelik's Reign as Emperor through the 8 Sources and many more that I keep finding in Primary and Secondary sources. Your request for removing the Sentence "Some estimates of deaths due to the conquest go into the millions" has so far not been based on reliable sources but only your 13 reasons. "Reasons" alone are but an aspect of Original Research. In wikipedia, sources are used but not necessarily directly quoted and based on the sources, the implication and content is placed in the collective words of the editors of wikipedia. I agree so far with Stumink's latest edit of the sentence since it is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. It meets wikipedia guidelines, therefore it will remain for the time being.Otakrem (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to your statement "Your request for removing the Sentence...... has so far not been based on reliable sources but only your 13 reasons. "Reasons" alone are but an aspect of Original Research. What kind of reliable sources do you want me to provide to oppose your supported claim of millions killed by conquest? Firstly, I did provide one reliable source supporting my opposition here and if you think this source is not reliable you may provide your reasons briefly or indicate any wikipedia rule shortcut which it violates. Secondly and most importantly I have listed 11 reasons why it violates wikipedias rules here WP:QS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you think it does not violate these two rules then you may provide reasons for your opposistion for each of those 11 reasons one by one and briefly. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First there are multiple sources to back the sentence (Primary and Secondary), I provided 8 of them. The sources do not violate WP:QS nor WP:EXCEPTIONAL. They were published and have been cited in other sources. They are verifiable. Secondly, the claim of "millions" or "thousands" perishing as a result of Abyssinian conquest has been documented in many publications and by many historians and primary witnesses including De Salviac, Pankhurst, Prouty, Bulatovich, Kumsa, Bulcha, M Vandeym, Donaldson Smith etc. Your one source(Lemassa) that disagrees with this and wrote his Opinion piece based on his own Personal Analysis(Original Research). As far as the sentence by Stumink, it covers all causes of death(killings, atrocities, famines, disease) due to the Conquest of the Southern people of Ethiopia by Menelik. Also, many sources(readily available online) state that Menelik's army had Modern weapons like 82,000 rifles and 28 cannons which was far superior and Deadly to the Oromo, Wolyataas, spear and shield, also woman and children were not spared as all the sources I've provided above in this discussion have stated. Otakrem (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The 11 reasons listed above for violating those two rules applies only to Alemayehu Kumsa and Aleksander Bulatovich's books which are provided by Stumnik. None of the sources you provided says millions were killed by conquest. Since we are talking about death estimates could you show each sources with the number they estimated. Because in our discussion above you used most of them for what happened at the battlefield but not death numbers.
 * As for your claim with 82,000 rifles and 28 cannons, the thing is Rifled musket are backward weapons, and only shoots 4 in 60 seconds see here which is no match to the Oromo cavalary. After 8 minutes one soldier probably shoots 32 times (considering there are no regular and trained soldiers the chance of missing a target could be over 50%) but within 4 minutes a cavalry army, armed with spear and shield will destroy him. Menelik's strength is not having modern weapons because even Teowdros had modern weapon and in his final battle he managed to bring only 4,000 soldiers because many have already abonden him for his less diplomatic skills and his crulity. See here  under Tewdros section and you will see that it was actually difficult for Tewodros to arrive to the battlefield than the British because every lord and peoples be it Oromo, Amhara or Agaws were revolting and no well know general stood by him. After his defeat he even had a chance to escape but was prevented by rebellious Oromos surrounding the battlefield. The point here is that if people are not treated fairly they just don't seat and wait to be killed. If in one place 40,000 got killed unfairly then everyone will know about it through gossips then everyone will organise an army to defend themselves and revolt and if they don't have modern weapons they will collaborate with Europeans surrounding Ethiopia who were waiting for any opportunity to expand into the fertile highland. While many Tigrayan, Oromo, Agaw and Amhara lords collaborated with British against Teowdros unfortunately there was no well known lord siding with Italians or any other European powers during Menelik's reign. Unlike Tewdros's 4,000 Menelik went to Adwa with over 100,000 soldiers see the over 100,000 peoples/armies and the top mutiethnic generals, mainly Oromos,  who stood by him here . As you can see in the book to take an army of that much diverity the only thing you need is diplomatic skill, fair leadership but not weapons and crulity which didn't work for Tewodros. As I showed you above King  Tekle Haimanot of Gojam was captured by Oromo army of Ras Gobana and Kawo Tona of Welayta was also captured by Ras Mikael's Oromo army as can be seen here History of Wolayta War and after the battle both Tona and Tekle-haimanot were released and given back their territory. Therefore, the modern Weapons you talked about was also given to Oromo lords and their soldiers who might point their guns at any time on the opposite side had they been treated unfairly, just like they did it to Tewodros. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This again Original Research on your part. Menelik's Armies(specifically Shoans) had Machine guns and they had foreign advisors as well. I won't get into an argument with you on "Oromo cavalary" since MEnelik's Army had Abyssiniazed oromos fighting in his army for his emperorship. Nonetheless, your 11 reasons have not shown that Kumsa and Bulatovich have violated anything, they are merely Sources within Multiple sources which supports the statement "Some estimates of deaths due to the conquest..go into the millions". Are you sure you want to go into the Details of how Abyssinian military units were going into Villages in Oromo, Wolyata, Shuro(racial insult), Sidamo, Kaffa, etc?  As I spoke with Stumink a few discussions ago, we are Planning to start a Separate Article on Menelik's conquests of the Southern People in Further details.Otakrem (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, are you saying those Oromos, under the leadership of the Oromo women Workitu and Mestawit, who surrounded Emperor Tewodros after his defeat with British and did not allow him and his remaining 2,000 soldiers to escape are not Abysinianised and that is why they revolted against Tewodros? The question is who was much Abyssinianised, is it Mestawit & Workitu or Gobana Dache & Sulatan Aba jifar? Still today one's genealogies (you are the son of who, who is your grandfather, who are your ancestors) is the primary identity formula. Me speaking English or Chinese or following Scientology religion will not change my genealogy and ancestry. In the old time genealogy is much much important than it is today. Therofore, if Menelik is unfair and cruel like Tewodros there is no convincing reason for him not to be abandoned and remain only with 2,000 soldiers at the time of his death. In your last statment you said Abysinian military did this and that, wherever you do that I will make sure that infact the military of Menelik is dominated by Oromo generals and their soldiers from their clan based on reliable sources (like I showed you in Wolayta battle with 4Oromo/1mixed/1Amhara generals ) and if necesary I will bring in details and stories that happened before Menelik and even go upto 16th centuary and also state why/how people just get killed, just to balance it based on reliable neutral sources based on Wikipedia NPOV policy. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha, regardless if they are "Oromo" or "Tigre" or "100% Amhara(Abyssinian)", if they willfully or for their own purposes served Menelik and in his army, then they are Abyssiniazed Oromos which means that any atrocities they committed was done for the Benefit of Abyssinia and Menelik. Your point about what happened in the 16th century will not take away from the Atrocities committed by Menelik's army and Menelik himself. The Sources based on 19th century accounts mentions this. If you add "16th century Bermudes" account, it will be neither here or there when it comes to what Menelik's army did against the Southern people(Oromos, Wolyatas, Arsi, Bale, Sidamo, Shuro, Shankalla, Kaffa..etc). The article is about the Reign of Menelik(19th century) not 16th century Bermudes(Primary source), by the way, you need to provide a Secondary source for your claims that use 16th Century Bermudes otherwise it will fail to meet the WP:PRIMARY guidelines on sourcing and thus be your own Original Research.Otakrem (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, Every war the Oromo generals and their soldiers fought is for their own interest, not for anybody's interest. Ras Gobana Dache, Ras Mikael Ali and Ras Mekonen all three Oromo generals fought for their own interest. Ras Gobana for his grandson to be emperor of Ethiopia, Ras Mikael Ali for his son Lij Eyasu to be emperor and Ras Mekonen for his son Haileselase to be emperor. All of them want to be on top of every one and fought for their own interest. As for their soldiers they fight hard because they beleive that if they fight hard they will be rewarded with military titles and will be given fiefdom, district, province or even top positions in the central government like the Oromo Habtegyorgis who was a nobody captive, captured by Ras Gobana army who later took the position of prime minister& War minister and became king maker after Menelik's death. The Oromo Balcha Aba Nefso, similarly a nobody captive captured by Ras Gobana, the lord of Falle, was given Harar and Sidamo province to administer. Many unknown Oromo soldiers were also given Fiefdoms and higer positions. So everyone fights for his interest. Someone who is in USA works hard 16 hours, not for the interest of the whites, or for the interest of Obama but for himself, and he teaches his child in the best school so that one day his son becomes the president of USA and be on top of the world. The rule doesn't say we are not allowed to use primary sources, it just says extra care must be given. Let me ask you, if you think what you claim for 19th century is important then why is it not important for you to what happened in 16th century? Aren't they humans too? I did not respond to your graphic details above but trust me I have so many graphic details to what hapened in 16th centuary with detailed story of why/how people gets killed. If requested I can list for you many sources. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha I know what was happening in the 16th century as well, I've read many sources. If you put 16th century information in the Reign of 19th Century Menelik, it will be very confusing. You are more than welcome to create a separate article on what transpired in the 16th century within a History Article. I understand you are trying to explain "why Menelik did what he did " but that is too many centuries apart that it is not the real reason why he had an Army that was pillaging and destroying villages and selling the women and children into slavery. Menelik himself stated that "I will not be a spectator" in the "European" scramble for Africa. Menelik basically played the role of a "Black" "european colonialist" and trying to seize as much land as he could no matter how much suffering was inflicted on the native populations of those lands. The Article about Menelik should be about Menelik and his Reign as an Emperor or Prior to that, things he did, things he had ownership over such as his army. I provided sources. Like I said, you can put that 16th century source but eventually someone else (Not me) will most likely remove it because it will not make sense in the article about 19th century Menelik.Otakrem (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all there is no convincing reason for me to beleive what you claim did happen and for that I have given you many reasons above but to go throgh with it briefly 1) No body just seat and wait to be killed: gave example of Tewodros's crulity and the fact that northern Oromos, Agaws, Tigrayans and Amaharas defended themselves even by collaborating with Europeans while even the church was opposing his cruel administration. 2) No body works with with cruel leader who has no diplomatic skill: also gave example of Tewdors fighting the British with only 4,000 soldiers, even the Oromos prevented him to escape with his remaining 2,000 soldiers after his defeat and also showed no well known general stood by him in his last battle. On the contrary, Menelik fought with Italians with over 100,000 soldiers (in spite of the famine many came to support him) and by his side many well known generals stood by him like Ras Mikael Ali, Sultan Aba jifar, Moroda Bekere, Jote Tullu, Ras Mekonen, Fit Gebeyehu, Ras Wale all Oromos and non Oromos follows: Ras Mengesha, Ras Teklehaimanot and Sultan Sheh Khojele and it was also a battle where ordinary soldiers like the Oromo Habtegyorgis and Oromo Balcha showed their military skill and later took top positions in the central government. 3) Centeral government is shared between Amharas and Oromos: I have showed you that Menelik married his daughter to Gobana's son and  Mikael with the hope that their descendants will be emperor 4) For no source available supporting your claim that meets the 11 reasons I listed above: even all the 11 points apply to the source you provided, by Eshetu Gemeda, except "j". That being said, colonisation is defined above and that Zulu, Masai, Ashanti tribal leaders and the leaders of the 13 colonies (USA) had no share in England, their common coloniser, while England's relation with Scotland is not considered colonisation but a Union (Acts of Union 1707). Please let's not repeat our dialogue again and again, just because statements are said repeatedly it does not become true. Let's make wikipedia a place where knowledge is shared and let's not make it a tool for corrupted ideology. Secondly, I didnot say Menelik killed your claimed death numbers because of what happened in 16th century but I said it is important to balance your intention of drawing a picture by saying "we are innocent people who have never harmed any of our neighbours and we respected our borders and are the most victimised in the region (with over 85% deaths) but other people are very bad people and should be demonised while we should not be". You may correct me if I am wrong but that is what I am getting from our dialogue. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about Menelik not Tewodros. "corrupted ideology"? Your viewpoint is your own POV. I've countered all of your points in prior discussion(See Tokenism). I am only trying to show what happened during Menelik's Reign as Emperor especially what was within his control. Things that happened prior may have played a role in setting a background but they are not the Focus of the article. If you are feeling offended because there are plenty of Primary and Secondary sources stating what Menelik and his army/empire did in Ethiopia, then that is your own Bias. To me and other observers, Menelik became an emperor, he formed an Abyssinian-dominated Empire, by conquering Southern people through war and bribery(such as the Oromo on his side that you mention). Mentioning 16th century things in an article about a 19th century Person(Menelik) does nothing to lead the article to NPOV. Like I've stated above, Menelik's main focus was becoming an Emperor and grabbing as much territory as he could in competition with the Europeans, hence he used barbaric methods like raids, burning villages, mutilating men, selling off women and children into slavery(All of this is documented in Primary and Secondary Sources). Those things are Atrocities and never Justified. Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right.Otakrem (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tewdros is in to show no amount of bribery will make an adult wise person follow a cruel leader who has no diplomatic skill. Tewodros is in because I can't use Gadafi to show my point on what happened in 19th centuary. Timewise Tewdros is the best example and he was dealing with the same people that Menelik was dealing with i.e. Oromos, Agaws, Tigrayans and Amharas whom all revolted to a cruel leader and even collaborated with the British. Indeed, those ancient people will not allow a leader who is cruel, unfair and undiplomatic to rule them and just kill them how ever he feel like and those Oromos in the north have shown that they will defend themselves by abondening Tewodros and if necessary by aiding the British, an option that was widely available for all Oromos. They could have collaborated with the British in Sudan and Kenya and Frenches in Djibouti and Italians in Eritrea and Somalia. They didnot betray Menelik (none of his lords aided with Europeans) simply because he is fair and was not like Tewodros (all northern lords revolted & some even aided the British).
 * Could you show me any Wikipedia rule that says articles should not bring related story from the past to support a particular topic within the article? For instance when I talk about a famine that occurred during his reign I might need to compare it with other past famines that devastated the region by telling briefly how/why/where/when the famines of let say 18th, 16th, 12th and 6th century affected the people and governments. Remember the topic is still about famine and historical events are used to compare how the famine at his time is compared to the past and show it is the worst, average or minimal and this comparison is used to support the particular factor that affected his government i.e. famine. Since you and Stumnik said it is important to show death toll, then estimated death tolls in 16th centuary is a relevant topic and is required to show how wars in the region have been devastating untill his reign but not to justify any thing as you said. Not informing how battles of that era look like leads people to think other clans war is not devastating while Menelik's is which is not allowed by the NPOV policy which says any sentence which looks like biased should be balanced. By showing what Bulatovich has written (as it is without modification) and Bermudes has written (as it is without modification) people will make their own conclusion. That is how it should be until death estimates are made for 19th or 16th century by scholars (a team that comprised black Africans, Europeans and scholars from all Horn of Africa) and provide us a document properly researched based on international standard methodology for estimating death tolls. Exceptional claim like this with millions of death by conquest in other parts of the world is not estimated just by one persons comment, if there is any one you or Stumnik knows let us know. Many multiple high quality primary sources and many 100s of material and written evidences are required for one to make an estimate. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Bermudes 16th century accounts do not meet Relevance, Out of scope, and Article size. As for your mention of every Person involved in Menelik's army has resulted in a BLoated article with out of scope content. However, the famine mentioned for the years 1882 - 1892 belongs only because his reign began in 1889. Bulatovich's accounts(Primary Witness) is from 1896-1898. Bulatovich's estimate is based on his account the battles and raids that he went on with Menelik's armies from 1896-1898. The mention of the famine in 1882-1892 is not witnessed by Bulatovich's accounts of 1896-1898. I saw you added the Famine of 1882-1892, again it doesn't take away from Bulatovich's account and the other 8 sources provided above which give their accounts and examination of primary sources. However, the 16th century account of Bermudes(one Primary source) which was found questionable by his Portoguese contemporaries due to what Bermudes himself was stating (Exceptional Claims) does not belong in Menelik's article.Bulatovich didn't make an exceptional claim, Kumsa citing Bulatovich didn't make an exceptional claim, Reid quoting Bulatovich did not make an Exceptional claim. Bermudes being of 16th century is out of scope and just adds to the Bloatness of this article. The focus of his Reign as Emperor should be about events, happening, significant persons, achievements, atrocities, wars from 1889-1913. The sections should probably differentiated by the years in addition to the Titles they currently have. Currently this article on Menelik as written with some of your additions has added to the Bloatness focusing on insignificant and irrelevant topics. Otakrem (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am saying Bulatovich and Bermudes account should be inline in the reference and it will not be visible in the article. And what is going to be in the article is the proposal I made on my post dated on 3 July above. What is to be added about Bermudes in the article is only 12 words i.e. "another Portuguese by the name Bermudes also reported depopulation in 16th century". It's addition is required to compare and contrast devastating wars in the region and it's like adding only 14 words in Wikipedias article for WW2 which says: "in ww1 over 38 million people died while in WW2 73 million people died" and this is still talking about WW2 and used show how much it is devastating by comparing it to other past wars and it will not be against the rule you mentioned above i.e. relevance, out of scope and article size. You may see the article for World War II and stories related to World War I have been mentioned multiple times (I counted 9 times) and based on your justification then all of these mentions should have been removed. The thing is you know yourself it is possible to add it and that it is you who don't want it's inclusions for your own personal reason. And I oppose a sentence used to make one tribe angel and demonise another one, and this is the only reason why I insist for Bermudes's inclusion not to justify anything or to indicate a background for the war. Insisting Bermudes should not be included while it can is to tell the world we are angels while others are devils which is biased and againest the rule of wikipedia. I also have over 8 primary sources describing what hapened in 16th centuary and I have told you above I can provide them if requested and since there is no request from you I did not list them, which shows you don't have interest to prove Bermudes statement. If death toll should be included, then Bermudes should also be in. Wikipedia is not a place to demonize any other people and incite violence/hate/revenge/distabilisation in the Horn of Africa. Note that in your previous posts you have repeatedly used 'Amharas' and 'Abysinians' did this & did that while you should have used the most appropriate term like 'Menelik and his Oromo and Amhara rulling classes'. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Bulatovich is relevant, in scope, and does not bloat the article. However, 16th century Bermudes is not relevant, out of scope, and adds to the bloatness of the article. As for your example of World War II and World War I being mentioned in that article, is properly connected since they happened within the same century and World War I directly led to World War II see Adolf Hitler. However, what you are trying to add happened in the 16th century, which is 4 Centuries apart and Out of Scope when the article is about Menelik's 19th century Reign as Emperor. If you want to write a 16th century Article about Abyssinia and Galla(Oromo) etc, go ahead start a new article. Adding that to Menelik's article Bloats the article and confuses readers.  As for your comment "Wikipedia is not a place to demonize any other people and incite violence/hate/revenge/distabilisation int he Horn of Africa.", I edit in good faith and for the purpose of telling the history as the Sources provide them. As for my use of Amhara/Abyssinians did this or that, well that is what the sources say, that is what Menelik was an Abyssinian, he was the Emperor of Abyssinia and then he expanded his empire on the Southern people (Oromos, Arsi, Shankalla,Afar, Konso, basically Non-Amhara). I won't use the term "Ethiopian" because "Abysinnia + Oromo and other Non-Amhara" became "Ethiopia", so Menelik was in the process of forming the modern-state of Ethiopia. I will not bloat the article nor the discussion with the term you recommended "Menelik and his Oromo and Amhara ruling classes". For your information, the Oromo ruling class did not like being under Amhara-domination either, sources are avaliable for that too. So if you add 16th century Bermudes account in 19th century Menelik article, someone will most likely remove it for violating WK relevance,outofscope, and article size.Otakrem (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have seen the article for World War I and World War II, you have seen that deaths from both sides are estimated based on multiple high quality sources. One thing you cannot deny is that all of the sources provided so far do not estimate deaths from both sides precisely. In both world wars whoever provoked the war the estimate did not prejudice and still estimated from all sides. If we must blame for any negative history it is only the world leaders and their generals to be blamed and those millions of soldiers from all sides are just following their masters order. Simply that is what I am requesting i.e. until a team of professionals from all sides seat together and estimate deaths from all sides properly then death toll should not be mentioned. An Oromo fighting by the order of Gobana Dache might be fighting believing he will no more be terrorized by all his neighboring slaver terrorizing clan warlords, another Oromo might be fighting Gobana's army may be because he does not trust Gobana or Menelik. Whatever their reasons is deaths from both sides should be estimated because both of them are just following the order of their clan warlords. However, still if their is continued insist death tolls made by just one person comment are important then Bermudes should be in. For ww2 article to include ww1 story is not just because they are in the same century but also before WW2 WW1 is the most devastating war. As for 19th century war the most devastating war before it was of the 16th century wars and since I am just adding 12 words visible in the article for only compare and contrast purpose it is relevant within the scope and does not make the article bloat. In ww2 see the paragraph that starts by "Land warfare changed from the static....." it's comparing and contrasting how warfares look like between the two wars and I am also comparing warfare between the two most devastating wars of 19th and 16th centuary. It is possible to add Bermudes and it is just you who does not want it in for a reason only known to you. You mentioned "Amhara domination" can you name the Amhara persons who dominated the central government and what their positions was? All the multi ethnic elites/lords/rulling classes are united by a common interest and I believe they all know the danger of distablisation which obviously follows by scramble of the country by Surrounding Europeans who are just waiting for any opportunity. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I gave the Wikipedia guidelines with regard to Bermudes(one Primary source), not my personal view. Just as Stumink told you, Oromo killings should be addressed in Oromo related article, so should Bermudes accounts go there. Your mention of "Scramble of the country by Surrounding Europeans" is your own Personal Analysis(Original research). And You are using the Nazi German soldiers excuse during the Nuremburg Trial which is called the Superior orders (Nuremburg defense). Which if that is the case then Menelik is wholly responsible for all atrocities committed. However sources do state that Menelik also ordered his military men not to do things like mutilations on occasion or until he was troubled. At the end of the day, whatever motivations each and every soldier had, they decided to do the atrocity(mutilation, murder, torture, rape, selling people into slavery). If you are going to use modern legal defenses for past atrocities, then you will have to deal with modern laws dealing with soldiers committing atrocities. However, the Death Toll belongs in the Menelik Article because it happened then and has been properly sourced per Wikipedia guidelines. Menelik(Sahle Maryam) was Amhara even if his mother was Oromo, he was of Solomonic Dynasty which is an Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayan dynasty. See the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Otakrem (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless: (a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question; (b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and (c) The order was not manifestly unlawful. 2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful. Mutilating someones hands, feet, breasts etc is a disgusting display of barbarity no matter what century you are from. The soldier doing that most likely in that time wanted to do it and not just simply following orders. Either way, it is indefensible and I don't understand why you are so passionate trying to defend war crimes committed in the 19th century? It happened and it was documented then and reviewed by modern scholars as well as on here in Wikipedia.Otakrem (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, Even Bulatovich did not say anything about breast and feet. As a military officer he had observation/interviews with many multi ethnic soldiers of Meneleik and even if he heard a gossip circulating in the society then he could have written it, but he did not because it did not happen. I showed you above by comparing with Tewodros that those ancient people will abandon/revolt to a cruel leader and if such thing happen Menelik like Tewodros would have fought Italians with 4,000 soldiers. I avoid any books written by Horn of Africans in general (because most write for nationalism & political agenda), if you think that they are very reliable then that is your choice but I will not believe any books written by writers from this region without confirming their references. If you have any scholar from outside this region for those claims you may inform me to my user talk page. If requested and if you show me your interest I can also send you sources to very similar disgusting atrocities committed in 16th century to your talk page, and trust me I have many sources. Since our topic is about estimating death numbers I don't want to list them here. You are using the emotion card to convince your supported claim of ‘millions killed by conquest’. Anyways, all humans are equal weather dead in 16th or 19th century for whatever reason (unjustifiable or justifiable) and I believe that is why the civilised world estimated deaths from all sides as you see in WW1 and WW2 article. If Germans and French (Key nations in EU who fought in both WW2 & WW1) can be civilised I see no reason why Horn of Africans cannot become civilised and seat in one table and estimate their deaths from all sides precisely based on multiple high quality sources for 19th century as well as 16th century. Humans dead whenever and for whatever reason are also humans. If the reason why you insist the inclusion of deaths in 19th century is for human right reason then actually you would have been the one to insist the inclusion of what happened in 16th century as well. What you are saying equals Germans saying we only want our peoples death to be known and we don't care about the French's death or the British's death and it should not be known, while British & French people also insisting the same way. This kind of attitude does not work in a civilised world. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha That is the point you are missing here. Bulatovich isn't the only witness. He is but one witness in many who are saying similar things in regards to mass murders, mutilations, Abyssinian machine guns vs unarmed or weakly armed people, enslavement of women and children after the raids, etc. I am using the sources available including Bulatovich, Kumsa, Prouty, Vanderhym, Bulcha, Hajji, Pankhurst, Marcus, etc! I've already explained why 16th century should have it's own article. You can go create a new Article on the 16th century. Your example of WWI and WWII does not apply for 19th century Menelik army conquest of Non-Abyssinians. There is not a Direct Causal link between 16th Century Bermudes account and 19th Century Menelik Conquest of Non-Abyssinian people. Per Wikipedia standards, I mentioned above, your addition of 16th Century account by Bermudes(even your other 8 sources) will Bloat the article, will be out of scope(Focus is 19th Century Menelik Conquest), and will be irrelevant as the people in 19th century are Not the same as the people in 16th century.  For example, what you are doing is like bringing up Roman colonization of Germanic Tribes and then Hitler in WWII invades countries in the area, the Roman colonization of Germany did not Cause Hitler to Mass murder Jews. Hitler mass murder Jews because of his own agenda and goals. Menelik had his own agenda and goals which were not a direct result of 16th century Bermudes accounts. As for your comment, If Germans and French (Key nations in EU who fought in both WW2 & WW1) can be civilised I see no reason why Horn of Africans cannot become civilised and seat in one table and estimate their deaths from all sides precisely based on multiple high quality sources for 19th century as well as 16th century., that is pretty sad you feel that way about Africans, clearly your own Bias. French, Germans, and British have actually very Uncivilised, quite Barbaric wars with each other, I recommend you read the History of Europe.  Remember, Africans and Europeans are humans too hence do Inhumane things as well. Therefore, presenting Menelik only as an Angel as you are trying to do by covering up(Censoring) what is clearly Sourced is an Injustice to those Humans that suffered. This story is more than just Menelik's legacy which It seems you are trying to protect or defend here. I defend the statement of "millions were killed as a result ....due to the conquest" because it is backed by Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources, in addition, there are many Oromo groups who are very passionate about this, therefore it must have some truth. People do not just cry about being victims, if there wasn't any truth to it. The NPOV for Menelik's article is that he was "good at these things" but he was "bad to these people", he simply couldn't have been a "conqueror" if he didn't use "violence" and "destruction", no Physical impossible way. Otakrem (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, primarily my issue is how the death estimate is calculated. And I have proposed that if based only on one persons comment i.e. Bulatovich's ambiguous and contradicting statement one can estimate millions died by conquest then obviously Wikipedians need to know that with Bermudes's clear, not ambiguous and explaining clearly why and how many got killed (to show how and how many he used words like 'all men killed' and 'all old women killed' and 'all boys muti...' to show the reason for killings he used words like 'only to destroy' and 'depopulate') one may also say millions were killed in 16th centuary. Therefore, if an estimate calculated based on Bulatovich ambiguous comment should be in then the proposal is to just state what both eye witnesses have said and let wikipedia readers make their own conclusion. This is based on your suggestions. Personaly what I want is just to wait our scholars seat in one table, like the civilised world, and give us precise estimate after going through 100s of documents and by providing material and other evidences. In Menelik's article there is already words used like 'mass killings' and 'large scale slavery' which eye wittneses like Bulatovich and other neutral scholars from outside this region, within their 100s of pages of their books, did not state clearly saying 'mass killed/murdered', 'large scale' or even 'all killed' like Bermudes clearly stated it, but still that one may stay however death number should not be mentioned until it is estimated properly with unbiased tone and with multiple high quality sources. As I said 12 words about Bermudes with inline citation of his and Bulatovich's account will not be irrelevant and is used to compare and contrast it with the last devastating war fought in the region before 19th century. As you have seen yourself there is already a paragraph dedicated to compare the warfare system of WW2 with the last devastating war fought before it i.e. WW1. If you you disagree with this proposal then the other option is not to mention death estimate for both 19th and 16th century. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha Bulatovich is a relevant and credible(reliable) source when it comes to Menelik's armies actions from 1896-1898. Read Bulatovich on how he calculated the population of "Abyssinia + the conquered territories" and how he calculated how many Gallas existed after the conquest (5 million). You are able to read the book, he did state that half of the Gallas(Oromos) were "dreadfully annihilated" due to the conquest. He clearly expanded on so many things about the Oromo, the Amhara/Abyssinians, he mentioned alot of things that you simply refuse to acknowledge. As for Bermudes, he wasn't a Primary source for Menelik and his only relation to Menelik 19th century is that he went to  16th Century Abyssinia. Your addition of Bermudes accounts will not add anything to Menelik article as there is not a Direct Link between 16th Century Abyssinia and 19th Century Menelik. Bring something that was happening in 19th Century prior to Menelik becoming an Emperor, that would something worthwile to the article. As for your desire to do Original Research by examining all the Primary Sources to come up with a number, well that is outside of purpose of Wikipedia. The estimate remains because it is sourced by Primary and Secondary Sources.Otakrem (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, I have given profesor Feqadu Lemesas analysis on Bulatovich which he went to deny such thing happened. I have given an example that the same people and lords/rulling classes (Oromo, Tigrayans, Agaws & Amharas) that Menelik used to rule were all of them revolting to unfair/cruel leader called Tewodros and this shows that those ancient people don't just seat and wait to be killed unfairly/cruely and even will go as far as aiding Europeans or abonden the leader until he remains with just 4,000 soldiers or like the women Workitu & Mestawit who were chifes of the Oromo people (whom their children were killed unfairly by Tewodros) might surround him and prevent him from escaping with his remaining 2,000 soldiers after his defeat with the British. Tewodros's wife being an Oromo called Empress Tewabech Ali, didnot make the  Oromo Workitu & Mestawit to give mercy to Tewodros and allow him to escape. Tewodros was still ruling north Ethiopia while Menelik was just King of Shewa. With all these examples if you still insist an estimate made by just Bulatovich's ambiguous comment is appropriate then it is better to put his words and Bermudes's word as it is with inline citation and let people make their own conclusion. Above you changed the word 'during the conquest' to 'due to the conquest' and made it from ambiguous to precise, but still it is a one person comment and if we take it as if he is what you are saying then he did not answer the question of how and why like Bermudes precisely stated it. Eventhough Bermudes precisely said how many died by using 'all' still it is only one persons comment and that there has to be multiple supporting evidences for one to make an estimate. The best solution is for a team of scholars and experts specialized in various field comprising different ethnic groups from Horn of Africa and others from outside this region to analyse multiple high quality evidences carefully and estimate deaths from both wars and give us their estimates as well answering the question of How/Why/Where/When/ clearly with unbiased tone in a way people learn from it but not written in a way 'we are innocent while others are bad' and not in a way to provoke and incite violence/hate/revenge/extremism. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha With all the sources available including Bulatovich, it obviously happened due to the conquest. I read the his Book obviously you have not since you ask questions which are answered in the book. Already Experts have examined this data and have come up with the numbers. You have a Bias against them. Also, you are fighting tooth and nail to remove one statement which is backed by Primary sources and Secondary Sources. I will not be a party to you Doing Original Research here. You can collect all the "experts" and write a Book that gets published by a credible, reliable Publisher of History. I think this discussion is over since you are regurgitating your points ad naseum. The conclusion of this discussion is the statement stays as it is. Your addition of Bermudes will most likely get removed for being off topic, bloating the article, and irrelevancy.Otakrem (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha What University is "Professor Feqadu Lemesas"/"Feqadu Lemessa", a Professor at and what department is he a Professor of?Otakrem (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, about Professor Feqadu Lemesa, he teaches in Adama university and his opinion is published in website that writes news for US residents (not blog and self published). Whoever he is not that much important because even journalists without much university education do write opinion pieces. The most important thing is the content presented which should be confirmed with multiple high quality primary sources. I have also seen the work of Horn of Africans (Amharas, Oromos, Tigres and Somalis) who have Phd and some even teaches in respected universities in USA and Europe who manipulate and paraphrase out of context just for nationalism and political agenda. For your requesting me to provide credible document for 19th century to oppose/balance your supported millions killed, I did give example of Tewdros on how those ancient people don't just get killed that easily and unfairly and that the central government is a multi ethnic government (rulling classes with equally Oromo and Amhara blood/ancestry and much more Oromo blood on military generals) which is not a good environment for killing Oromos and Amharas unfairly but probably good environment for killing non Oromos and Amharas. Actually I have given a source above that ancient Tigre rulling classes refer Amharas as half Galla and half Amhara. After seeing the biography of all key people in the empire between 1774-1974 (200 years) one can notice why the Tigres call Amharas as half Oromo and half Amhara. Within this 200 years simply there was no key person in the empire who has no Oromo blood or not married himself or his descendants to an Oromo and if there is any you know let us know. What kind of other document do you want me to provide for why I don't believe your supported POV? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)