Talk:Yekuno Amlak

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 08:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
This may be useful. Whig 09:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing "restorer of" in the first sentance to "founder of." This brings the article better in line with the article on the Solomonic Dynasty and is rather misleading since the idea of Solomonic descent was possibly not a conventional one until the writing of the Kebra Negast which became widely dissemenated after Yekuno Amlak's reign. The claim, though it could potentialy have existed among previous kings, was used by the Solomonic kings to justify their overthrow of the Zagwe kings and their inherent right to rule. Furthermore, the origins of Aksumite kingship and its mode of descent is still debated by archaeologists and there is as yet little proof that direct lineal descent from the earliest periods of Aksum actualy existed or not. Sidesneck 03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reversed the change made by another user. I have replaced founder by restorer. Yekuno Amlak didn't found any dynasty but rather claimed to be a member of one that already exited. As already mentioned in the references I cited, it is probably dubious that his claim was true. But a large number of people at the time believed it to be true enough and supported his rise to power so it had already been a convention before the Kebra Negast was written. Whether the Solomoinc kings used this claim to overthrow the Zagwe rulers is not a valid reason to change wording the article as suggested by the other user. It isn't professional to pass of our assumptions as real facts. There is a major difference between the meaning of the words "Restore" and "Found". "Found" can only be used to describe something that never existed before the time in discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.156.102.4 (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's well established in the WP:RS that the "restoration" myth was a much later construction written to support the dynasty. See, , , , . DeCausa (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yekuno Amlak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219061142/http://130.238.24.99/library/resources/dossiers/local_history_of_ethiopia/A/ORTAST.pdf to http://130.238.24.99/library/resources/dossiers/local_history_of_ethiopia/A/ORTAST.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

source Tamrat
page 72: Consolidation of the dynasty in the north

The immediate result of these early conflicts was to weaken the power of the new dynasty within the Christian kingdom itself. At this stage of the history of the dynasty the most important parts of Christian Ethiopia conisted of Tigre, Lasta and Amhara, As a result of Yikkuno-Amlak's succesful revolt, Lasta had not only lost its primacy in the kingdom but also much of its leadership. This left Tigre and Amhara as the two outstanding parties in the Christian power structure. The claims by Yikkuno-Amlak and his Amhara troops of Tigre(Semitic) ancestry had been central in their movement against the Zagwe Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

page 68: Quote one: With these and his Amhara troops Yikkuno-Amlak attacked the Zagwe king, killed him, and declared himself King of Ethiopia.

Quote two: Yikkuno-Amlak founded a new Christian dynasty in the kingdom. Common resentment of Lasta domination probably brought him much support in Tigre, where the Amhara tradition of Tigre origin strengthened his position a against the Zagwe.

discussion
His Amhara troops of Tigre(Semitic) ancestry, doesn not say Yekuno's claims Tigray origin, that is you misleading about his origin.

And in the context of his Amhara troops of Tigre(Semitic) ancestry, Tamrat means Semitic ancestry from the north, in earlier pages he discussed about his theory about downward migration of Aksumites to Amhara Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Page 68 makes it obvious that the claimed Tigre origin(term used by Tamrat) of a Amhara tradition is refering to Aksumite (geographically Tigre) not ethnic one, refering to a tradition not ancestry. From both pages in respect to Yekuno, it means tradition originating geographically north of Amhara, and Semitic ancestry(geographically) of his troops, not Tigrayan ethnic identity, which is not mentioned in the sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dawit S Gondaria didn't see you opened a discussion.

1. Nevertheless, it says that the claim was not solely by his troops, but by he himself as well.

2. You said it yourself: migration from north to the south, therefore he claimed origins from there, which was important for gaining support. 3. I see the point of yours mostly but this information doesn't mean to say that he was born or raised there, just he claimed origin from there Zaikaidu (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No where does it say that Yekuno claims Tigre ancestry? The sentence is very clear. The claims by Yikkuno-Amlak AND his Amhara troops of Tigre(Semitic) ancestry. 1. This sentence doesn't say Yekuno Amlak claims Tigre ancestry only referring to Semitic ancestry of his troops, 2. We could mull over what Tigre means according to Tamrat, geographically, ethnic or reference to Aksumites. 3. If you maintain Yekuno claims Tigray Origin as in geographically from there, then provide a reliable sources that says just that. if you're claim is Yekuno is claiming Tigrayan origin/ethnic descent, come with a reliable that say just that. I also added page 68 for further deliberations of what Tigre means according to Tamrat. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dawit S Gondaria Doesn't it say that he claimed ancestry from there? Does his claim change when his troops have the same claim? Claiming origin from there means he claimed origin from this place and this place was connected with semitic roots. Zaikaidu (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dawit S Gondaria therefore it means Tigray geographically Zaikaidu (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting repititive, 1. the soure doesn't say Yekuno Amlak claims Tigre origin, reference is towards the troops of Semitic origin/ancestry, feel free to ask for a third opinion if you think otherwise. 2. I also said if you want to substiante the claim, provide other reliable sources that say just that. 3. Context matters, Tamrat uses the term Tigre in his book, with varying meanings, nonetheless source doesn't say Yekuno is of Tigray origin. 4. The question that should arise from this sentence: ‘‘The claims by Yikkuno-Amlak and his Amhara troops of Tigre(Semitic) ancestry should be, what are the claims? not some misleading claim that Yekuno is of Tigray origin which the source doesn't say. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dawit S Gondaria know it is getting a little bit repititive xD

But I just don't get why you say that he didn't claim it. His claim doesn't change whether it is a tradition, whether his troops had the same claim: He claimed (not necessarily is) that he had ancestry from Tigre, therefore semitic (Aksumite), it is not that complicated. At this point, I think we shouldjust stop just because I don't really get what you are trying to say ,still thanks for this discussion Zaikaidu (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again if you're that adamant about what the source say feel free to explore one the content dispute resolutions(third opinion is best suited since it's between two editors), or support it with several reliable sources. The source is very clear and doesn't say Yekuno is of Tigray origin, that is just spinning and/or misinterpretation on your part. It clearly refers to the troops, but more importantly raised the question, what are the claims. I added page 68 to highlight that the term Tigre used by Tamrat has varying meanings, nonetheless nothing in the Tamrat's book say Yekuno is of Tigray origin, of Tigrayan ethnic descent. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dawit S Gondaria Claiming Tigray Origin is not the same as being from Tigray ethnic descent. Tigray origin simply means that one's ancestors came from there. Zaikaidu (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that, but since Tamrat uses the term for variaty of meanings, and nothing in his book says Yekuno is of Tigre origin(remember reference to troops not to Yekuno) that's why i said you should provide other reliable sources or use the content dispute resolution, if you are adamant that the source says Yekuno is of Tigray origin. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dawit S Gondaria He used it only as a reference to the province of Tigre. Same goes for Lasta and Amhara, also known as Bet Amhara. Zaikaidu (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dawit S Gondaria All of these are geographical terms which was historically speaking more correct Zaikaidu (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again the sentence doesn't say he his from Tigray origin, reference to troops, so this is all mute, whether Tamrat uses the term Amhara, Tigre solely a geographical (which i doubt) and you claim, is a side issue and irrevelant, because the sentence on p.72 does not say Yekuno is of Tigray origin. I'm done going in circles, if you want to pursue content dispute resolution please do so, if there are other reliable sources that clearly says Yekuno is of Tigre origin please show the sources. Good day Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems you back at it again presenting deliberate factual error in this article. YonasJH (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Geneta Mariam alt angle.jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Geneta Maryam HQ.jpg
 * Genneta Maryam frescos.jpg

what was the cause to the success of yekuno amlak are the yitbarek
bini 196.191.228.25 (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Solomonic Claim
As the reliable sources indicate, there is no evidence that Yekuno Amlak made the claim himself - the claim came later. See Kaplan p.111. The sources in your revert here don't support your edit. Lewis can't be used as it is a WP:SELFPUB source and is not relaible. It's published by Lulu.com - see WP:LULU. The other citation is to Henze but he doesn't say Yekuno Amlak made the claim. Per WP:BRD, the existing text should remain until there is consensus to change it. Please don't revert again until it is resolved here. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * this actually made me laugh. Yekuno Amlak literally founded the Dynasty of Solomon and claimed Solomonic Descent and Descent from Dil Na'od himself LMAO. Read these sources. The Solomon Dynasty: Exploring its Origins and Key Figures - Aemero Media, Solomonic Dynasty (ethiopianhistory.com), Yekuno Amlak | Encyclopedia.com. KallebTigray (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Try reading some proper scholarship on the subject. DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * its literally even in his own biography that he claimed direct descent from solomon.... KallebTigray (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * According to richard pankhurst it says ""More significant than Yekuno Amlak's actual percentage was his claim to descent, through Delna'od, to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba" Page 54 of The Ethiopians: A History by Richard Pankhurst, he did claim solomonic descent Rakeey23 (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They [the Zagwe dynasty] were overthrown around 1270 by Yekuno Amlak. Later Ethiopian royal historiography, which depended on the rulers of the Solomonic dynasty, depicts Yekuno Amlak as a descendant of the last Axumite ruler. DeCausa (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * have you even read our own sources??? KallebTigray (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The Encyclopedia.com article doesn't say he made the claim. In fact, it says "The official royal chronicles were begun about this time, but until the next century these chronicles record little more than lists of names and tell us little about Yekuno Amlak's life. Much of what has been written about the restoration of the Solomonic dynasty was in fact written several centuries later and is largely apocryphal." So it makes the opposite point you want to make. The other "source" doesn't qualify as a WP:RS and can't be used. Please don't refer to WP:SELFPUB that you found on the internet that isn't peer reviewed scholarship. DeCausa (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * i gave you literally 3 sources, and look at the source rakeey sent. Richard Pankhurst is by far one of the most reliable sources you can use about ethiopia, considering he literally spent his LIFE on studying ethiopia. KallebTigray (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean ethiopianhistory.com? The way you put it in brackets I didn't think you were serious - which would be right as it's an anonymous blog. Do you understand how we select sources on Wikipedia? I suggest you review WP:RS. Unlike you, Rakey23 actually produced a proper source that supported your point. However, Pankhurst's book is a broad survey where that sentence is a passing line without an analysis of the primary sources unlike Kaplan (which I referenced) or encyclopedia.com (which you referenced - I recommend actually reading the sources you reference) both of whom make it clear that the claim was retrospectively made by the dynasty after Yekuno Amlak. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies. This shouldn't be hard to understand or surprising - all the primary sources are dated no earlier than the 14th century i.e. later than Yekuno Amlak. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)