Talk:Menelik II

RfC on Menelik's "Reign as Emperor" split out

Menelik's Reign as Emperor needs to be split up based on the focus, examples: Wars, Atrocities, Developments, Private Life, etc? Please read the Menelik II "Reign as Emperor" and provide comments on how to improve this article section and article.Otakrem (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – The section titled "Reign as Emperor" is short enough; no need for a separate article until and unless it gets vastly expanded. However, glancing at the walls of text on this talk page, you guys could probably write a few books. — JFG ^talk 01:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input, as for the wall of text, I'm glad it happened because it forced us to research for verifiable sources. I feel his "Reign as Emperor" should be split up into a few sections within the main article to capture all the happenings during his reign, which was alot if you read any biography on Menelik II. Otakrem (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  Oh sorry, I thought you wanted to create a new article about his reign. Within this page, sure it could be split into subsections, I'll change my !vote.

• Support – OP suggests to split the "Reign as Emperor" section into subsections, not forking it out to a new page as I interpreted earlier. Also, it is not necessary to keep everything under a "Biography" section: the whole article is the subject's biography. I would suggest renaming the first section "Early life" and continuing from there at the same section level. Then, "Reign as Emperor" could have subsections as suggested. — JFG ^talk 05:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support. So maybe reorganize his Biography as "Early Life", "Rise to Power", "Reign as Emperor - Subsections: Diplomacy, Wars, Atrocities, Developments, and so on. As it currently reads, it jumps from place to place and is packed with sidenote information(ie name dropping of generals,who they are related to whom by what reason..etc.) I just don't get an understanding of Menelik's Reign as Emperor from the way the article is written.Otakrem (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – All paragraphs under 'Reign us emperor' are interconnected and splitting them into various sections is not a good idea. Besides, most paragraphs are also very important & each also need new sections as well. For instance 1) Battle of Adwa 2)End of clan wars & end of raiding neighbours for resources 3) Abolition of Slavery 4) Ethnic make up Menelik's government 5)The great famine that killed 1/3 of people caused by Italians 6) The region before centralization. Instead of splitting reign as emperor into several related (all of them about politics) sections we can discuss and remove some repeated statements and shorten it i.e. if Otakrem creates an environment where we can work with an impartial tone, not taking any sides and carefully reviewing all opposing sources instead of him just bringing only that criminalizes Menelik. People need to get all kind of information from various sources and so far all the sources he is bringing is only that criminalizes Menelik, which by the way are questionable sources in my opinion and may not be used for exceptional claims, and I believe they need to be reviewed by administrators. Rule in Wikipedia says editors need to be impartial and need not to use articles for advocation (political and nationalism). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per OP, brought here by bot BlueSalix (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input BlueSalix Would appreciate more editor(s) support in improving this article. I can start some of the New sections and copying over some of the section/subsection breakdowns.Otakrem (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, adding sections & subsections requires a long discussion & consensus between various editors who have contributed in the article for the past 13 years. So far there are 62 editors watching the article [1]. This kind of major change requires extensive discussion and not simply edited by one editor alone without presenting his proposal for review and discussion. It also requires impartiality and carefully reviewing sources from all sides. Most importantly discussing and trying to get consensus before adding any new section or subsection is required. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Not necessarily, any Editors are permitted to add new sections especially if they have received Support from other Editors as has been done here. This is RfC has been sent out to all Editors, therefore just as the following Editors have provided their support. Also there is no Ownership of an Article by let alone 1 Editor or 62 Editors See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. This RfC is a discussion between uninvolved Editors, you and I have been too involved in this article, therefore I requested an RfC.Otakrem (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, they may support adding sections but regarding to what sections should be added will be decided after discussion & consensus. If we can not reach consensus then we will request other editors/administrators intervention. Many administrators recommend to other editors "discuss first then edit". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha What do you think this RfC is for? It is being discussed here? If you are here to Discuss the Topic fine, if you are here tell me or anyone else how we are supposed to use Wikipedia Talkpage guidelines here, please kindly stop.Otakrem (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Private life has already been spun off and that seems enough. I don't see the chronological distinction between the proposed sections reflected in the text as it is now. Adding an "atrocities" subsection when there is much more than that in the section would be a WP:NPOV-issue and be unbalanced when there are many things with equal importance highlighted in the section.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

He was a Public figure and head of a government in which atrocities were committed. Well that's the problem is that his current Reign as Emperor has too many topics some jumping back and forth. It would read better if it was broken into subsections, timelines, etc. If there is a developments in his reign section, there should be a counter to that which would be "atrocities" which has been properly sourced with first hand accounts by people like Bulatovich, Donaldson, etc. As the article sits right now, its trying to reach WK:NPOV but in a cluttered way. As for the atrocities it isn't unbalanced nor is it insignificant as a major portion of his life was in war, slavery, etc. Only highlighting the positives of his biography and not showing the negatives makes the article Not NPOV but POV biased.Otakrem (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support sub-sectioning out by chronology, but not by topic. The flow could probably be improved, but it would be hindered by moving different parts to atemporal locations based on topic. Wikipedia articles are meant to be summaries of the topic area, and the best way to do that for historical topics is usually chronological. It is in fact unbalanced to single out atrocities as a top-level subtopic when the entire section deals with topics like famine, the suppression of slavery, and the Treaty of Wuchale, etc. at similar or greater length than atrocities. Unless you can show that reliable sources on Menelik II consistently single out atrocities as one of the most important aspects of his reign, I won't support having a subsection on it per WP:UNDUE. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I recommend you read Bulatovich's account on Menelik's army [2] [3] Actually if you scroll up in this talkpage there have been several links to atrocities committed under the reign of Menelik which was tied to other parts of his reign. Slavery was not suppressed in his reign other. Menelik personally owned tens of thousands of slaves. If you are going to have a section talking about Menelik's victories in his wars against Southern(Ethiopian) people, then it is quite relevant to talk about the atrocities and slavery associated with it without any apologetics or tokenism as the current article tries to do.Otakrem (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As for slavery, even George Washington owned slaves and in his article it is not written as there was large scale slavery because of him/his policy as it is now written under Menelik. Slavery was system that was widely practised in all parts of Africa and was hard for many African states to abolish even by 1960s because of many uncontrolled/ungoverned areas and also fearing clan warlords whom if pushed harder to abolish this age-old practice carried out for 1000s of years could be a threat to centralisation, just like Southern states of America (slave owners) declared independence after northern slave free states pushed southerners to end slavery. There are sources written by neutral scholars as to how Menelik (whom his mother was also a servant/slave) prohibited slavery after mid 1890s by destroying notorious slave markets and issuing a harsh law to amputate slavers (as USA still continues to punish criminals by death while most Europeans now see that as inhuman). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, but ultimately primary sources. The weight that Wikipedia gives to content should roughly match what secondary sources do. Even in the primary source, Bulatovich devotes a lot more space to non-atrocity events of Menelik's reign than to atrocities, so even if this was representative of the body of historical literature on Menelik, it still wouldn't justify having an entire subsection split off from the rest of the article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well by that same token, nor should there be a "Developments in his Reign" separate section either. As Development wasn't the biggest portion of his Biography either. And I recommended breaking his Reign as Emperor into subsections of which it would cover: diplomacy, atrocities/wars, development, alliances, etc. Bulatovich is but one source, I provided more than 8 sources which talk about the atrocities committed during his reign as emperor. If this article is just going to about Pro-Amhara(Abyssinian)biased version, then this article is POV.Otakrem (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's prima facie absurd to assert that social, economic, technological, and civil developments during Menelik's reign are not a major part of the historical literature surrounding him. Unless there's something bizarrely lacking in Menelik historiography, those areas of development are consistently covered at length in biographies of any major ruler. Quickly going through the walls of text above this RFC by searching for "atrocities", it looks like your assertions that "atrocities" should get its own section derive from primary source accounts from Menelik II's contemporaries (which would constitute WP:OR) and a book from 1907 (which isn't a reliable source). You're going to have to do better than that. An example of what to aim for is the sub-section on "Wollo famine" in the Haile Selassie page, which devotes attention to a specific, unflattering element of Selassie's reign, but has a multitude of sources that justify it having its own subsection. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You agreeing to completely Disregard and Censor the reliably sourced fact that more than 5 million People being Killed during his(Menelik II) Conquest of the Southern parts of modern Ethiopia are insignificant. I guess Black African Lives DO NOT MATTER to you or Wikipedia. By the way, EthiopianHabesha has been using Primary Sources to make his claims and litter this article and other Article with his Pro-Amhara(abyssinian) Bias all through out Wikipedia articles. If you are saying Primary Sources are completely unreliable then we will have to Delete Every Entry that EthiopianHabesha added based on primary sources Tigrayans, Abyssinian people, Tigrinyas, Menelik II, etc.Otakrem (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Source From Page 35 of Nomads in the Shadows of Empires: Contests, Conflicts and Legacies on the ..by By Gufu Oba [4]

These Abyssinian Atrocities committed under Menelik's reign shall be presented in Wikipedia, unless you are trying to Censor this information?Otakrem (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, first of all I do not have any Amhara ethnic group ancestry but I am a citizen of Ethiopia born from one of the 78 language speakers who is so much concerned about peace in my home country Ethiopia & I don't want the nation to go into stateless Somalia or like Rwanda Hutu tribe & Tutsi tribe hostility. That is if you must know my personal detail which should have not been the topic of our discussion. If we must mention ethnicgroups in this topic as you said 'Amhara' or 'Abyssinian' then it should also be noted that all the secondary sources you brought are written by Oromos (not that it matters but since you are mentioning ethnic groups either to blame people/tribes in general for ethnic nationalism purpose or for reason only known to you) who did not provide material evidences for what they claim but only came up with that figure based on 1 person Bulatovich comment whom included many factors as to why people died. I beleive your use of 5 million is regarding Oromo people (as widely circulated among ethnic Oromo nationalist), and I think editors need to know that Menelik only gave the top military leadership in the centeral government only to army commanders with full Oromo ethnic group blood (Gobana, Gebeyehu, Mekonene, Habtegyorgis) while no single Amhara or Tigre took this most important position in the centeral government while they served as regional generals commanded by these central army commanders; of these four top army commanders only 1 of them, Mekonene, has Amhara blood on his mother side while full Oromo blood in his father side. Menelik (himself half non-Amhara) even married his daughters mainly to Oromo generals knowing the descendants (with Half an Oromo ancestry) will takeover the nation he built after him based on how Kingdoms create union like United Kingdom & United Arab Emirates. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Your outright Bias against Oromo sources(especially if they are Experts in Anthropology or History) is your own personal Bias. Your name is "Ethiopian"HABESHA which means you identify as Habesha(Abyssinian) which throughout your edits, you have a clear Pro_Amhara(Abyssinian) Bias. Your POV edits have attempted to minimize or outright deflect the historical reality that Menelik and his armies committed atrocities not only on Oromos, but also other Southern ethnic groups. So your entire argument is, well they were Oromos...well so were the 5 million who were killed by Menelik and his armies.Otakrem (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem what ever source says 100 or 1,000 killed he must provide dates when people killed, list of specific places they were killed and why they were killed and how they were killed in which I didnot get an answer to these questions either from our long discussions above in this talkpage or from all the sources you provided so far. Using a source who states million (that much exceptional claim) got killed by telling us but I don't know "how that much people died", "why that much people died", "I don't know on which specific dates (list of dates associated with number of deaths) they died" and "which specific villages/wars that much people died", and also a source that says I got no material evidences (mass graves) as well as no official written documents (copy of letter or Verbal exchange between military personnel) can be used to claim that exceptional claim or not (qualify WP:QS or WP:EXCEPTIONAL) we may ask other editors opinion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I already provided more than 8 Sources (Primary and Secondary). Your extra requirements are your own personal opinionated requirements. Your willful attempt at completely Ignoring the Sources I provided in the Above discussion is getting quite old. I only add what the Primary and Secondary Sources stated in Wikipedia. You are requesting for Original research to be done, well get off Wikipedia and do your own Original Research. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the Primary and Secondary Sources (more than 8) provide the verifiable and reliable information to input into a topic called Atrocities. And I completely Reject your Assertion that "No Atrocities happened during Menelik's reign as Emperor". That defies logic, you can't Conquer and Subjugate a People if you don't Kill them especially with the weaponry that Menelik's army had and mission to Conquer the land regardless of what people lived there. And it is very important that this topic is covered in his Article because the span of time is 1880s - 1913 (in terms of atrocities, slavery).Otakrem (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• (from wp:FRC) support the general ideia, as explained by User:JFG early on. That is, there is no need for a "biography" section, as the article is the biography. So every sub-section in there should be promoted one level. The "Reign as Emperor" section is quite large - naturally - so it would be better split in a few main sections. Looking only at the top-level I would try something along the lines of: Early Life (the current intro of Biography); King of Shewa; Emperor of Ethiopia (with the current "succession" section); most of the sections from "Centralisation" to "Developments" with possibly a reorganisation; Private Life (could be next to Early Life too); Death and Succecion. I have only skimed through the article, nut one issue that may result in some subjects coming up on more than one section may be that the organization sometimes looks to be by topic, sometimes chronological, using one and the main organisation guide could help. As a quick comparisom, I like the structure on Hitler, mostly chronological, with a few section on the end about transversal personal traits. I like less Barak Obama's, which as almost the same problem as this one, with one overwhelming section (presidency) that coulld be split. Good luck. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Adjusted sections based on your opinion — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)