Talk:Mereb Melash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright violation

The text in the lead para from "Situated in present-day Eritrea..." to "became a Republic appearing on European maps as 'The Republic of Hamasien'" is almost word-for-word from the text at [1], which had been tagged by CorenBot but the tag was removed by the article creator without removing the copyvio text. The final sentence in the lead para is also a direct lift from the same source.--CharlieDelta (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:

• http://www.deqebat.com/SEITE5.HTM
• Denison, Edward; Edward Paice (1 October 2007). Eritrea. Bradt Travel Guides. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-84162-171-5.

Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Tigre and Medri Bahri are distinct

@Resourcer1, dont add unrelated polities. Tigray region which was part of the Ethiopian Empire, did not encompass modern day Eritrea or Medri Bahri as it use to be called. You also removed the source explaining Medri being a vassal state. Please familiar yourself with censorship. The James Bruce citation also makes no mention of Medri being apart of Tigray province. Its not supported by the citation. Duqsene (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As for Henry salt see the above section Henry Salt's description of Baharanegash/Medri Bahri. As for James Bruce see Hadawi, the seat of Baharnegash, Naybe of Turks control Massawa and Tegre including Bahrnegash between Tekeze and Red Sea. All talk about Baharnegash and why you say they do not? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Henry Salt nor James Bruce go into the details of Medri Bahri. Henry salt does not talk about MedriBahri... As a reader, I don't see anything about MedriBahri mentioned. There is an inference going on about "Bahrnagash" being "MedriBahri" which has not been sourced here. Until that happens, sources which only speak of Bahrnagash do not belong here on "MedriBahri". Fair enough?TrumpClinton (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopian-Bias in Article

There have been edits to this article leading to the POV that Medri Bahri is solely succeeded by a less than 10 year highly contested Occupation of "Medri Bahri" territory. Some edits show that the false logic of "Medri Bahri" = "Bahr Negash", 1. Medri Bahr = Land of the Sea 2. Bahr Negash = King of the Sea, the falsity in this logic is that without a Bahr Negash, then Medri Bahr does not exist. Does a Country cease to exist, a Country being the Population, Culture, Land, and Villages, towns because the King is no longer the king? Users like LeGabrie are using this logic to steer the article to a "Ethiopian-owned" narrative which is highly contested by Eritreans of today and Eritreans of the times of Medri Bahr. The POV tag will stay in place until this article is a neutral state. Currently, LeGabrie's edits have slanted this article to a Ethiopian-Biased Narrative!Authorityofwiki (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Background: Edit war between User:Authorityofwiki and User:LeGabrie leading to a discussion on User talk:Uknowofwiki and an ANI discussion, where it was suggested to ask for a WP:3O. First, a remark on conduct: I would've preferred if this discussion took place on this talk page, rather than on edit summaries, user talk pages and noticeboards (this discussion should certainly have not taken place on a noticeboard - you should've come there with an unresolved discussion, not with no discussion at all). I would also have preferred if the WP:3O request[2] had followed the accepted format for such requests - a simple, concise one-liner - as specified on that page. Please take note for future occasions. As for the question of how long did the kingdom last: Among the pages this discussion has spread on I've seen no compelling arguments either way, thus my provisional opinion is as follows: A kingdom, by definition, is a legal entity, not a national entity: It suggests first and foremost a form of government, with few related cultural aspects. Based solely on this semantic fact, one can conclude the kingdom in question did indeed cease to exist the moment it was conquered and the monarch expelled. If the kingdom was re-established after the Ethiopian occupation we could've suggested that it had continued to exist in some transitional form, pending relevant sources on the state of the state throughout the occupation (eg. the state's bureaucracy and legal system), but it didn't, and so there's no reason to claim otherwise. However, it is not up to us to determine such things by semantics alone; rather, we're to rely on more qualified sources to provide that analysis... I would therefore ask for each of you to attach their relevant sources below, so we can see which has the support of subject matter experts. François Robere (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoint by LeGabrie

Thanks for providing your opinion. First I will quote Connel&Killion's "Historical Dictionary of Eritrea", like I already did in the discussion:

1) "Bahre Negashi (Lord of the Sea). Title of the governor of the central Eritrean area from the coast around Massawa and Zula to the Mareb River, being the district often refered to as Mareb Mellash. The title appears first in the late 1440's (...) The last Bahre Negashi was Ras Wolde-Mikael Solomun, who died in exile in Ethiopia." -p. 111-2

2) "In August 1879, Emperor Yohannes appointed Ras Alula military governor of Mareb Mellash, which he ruled for a decade with a garrison of Tigrayan troops. His first act was to appease and then arrest Ras Wolde-Mika'el, after which he consolidated his administrative control over the highlands from his base at Ade Tekle, Hamasien. In 1884, Ras Alula moved his capital to the village of Asmara. (...) In 1889, he took most of his soldiers to fight with Yohannes at Metemma, and the Italians took advantage of his absence to occupy the highlands. -p. 66

Furthermore, here quotes from Belula Tecle-Misghina's "Asmara - an urban history":

3) "One of these (remark: smaller nations) was Medri Bahri (land of the sea) that, following the arrival of the Turks (remark: 1557), was reduced to a much smaller region, situated in the interior and landlocked: Mareb Mellash, beyond the Mareb, the river". -p. 14

4) "The year 1875 marked the beginning of a conflict that ended only in 1879, signalling the end of the region of Medri Bahri. The area of Asmara was thus subjugated to Ethiopia under the rule of Ras Alula (...) The domain of Ras Alula ended in 1889 with the Italian occupation of Asmara." -p. 29

Conclusion: Woldemichael Solomon was the last Bahr Negash of what was left of Medri Bahri. He was immprisoned in 1879, and Ras Alula, a governor of the Ethiopian Empire, seized control until he had to give up the Eritrean highlands in 1889, which were subsequently annexed by Italy and declared as part of their Italian Eritrea colony. Thus the lifespan of the Medri Bahri kingdom, i.e. the domain of the Bahr Negash, should be given from the 15th century to 1879. The direct successors of the polity were the Ottomans, who seized the coastal regions in 1557 and the Ethiopian Empire, that occupied the Eritrean highlands until 1889. Italian Eritrea should be removed from the Infobox as "successor", since its foundation postdates the disempowerment of the last Bahr Negash by 10/11 years.
User:Uknowofwiki must now provide a source that confirms the survival of the Medri Bahri kingdom and the title Bahr Negash beyond the imprisonment of Woldemichael. LeGabrie (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Uknowofwiki:

QUESTION Why is the premise based on LeGabrie's logic therefore making this exercise preloaded with a question and intent to claim there will be a third opinion? The Third Opinion User Francouis Robere has already agreed with LeGabrie. Because to say with one statement that the Ottomans are successors yet were pushed back by Eritreans(MedriBahrian people) and then give undue Weight to Ras Alula's less than 10 years occupation (which was resisted by the MedriBahrians), however on the flip side completely Disregard the Italian Eritrea as a successor? The Standards used are Not the Same for the Ottomans, for the Abyssinians(Ras alula), and the Italian Eritrea. This is completely Biased and Incorrectly presented premise by the TH\hird Opinion. You Third Opinion have already Rigged (Fixed) the Argument by Making the "Standards" in a way to solely agree with LeGabrie's illogical conclusion of: "Ottomans and Abyssinians" as successors yet "Italian Eritrea" as Not, solely one year, if 1557 makes the Ottomans the successors, then Medri Bahri ended in 1557 and using the Bahrnagash as sole identifor of Medri Bahri which ws originally prior to Abyssinian Emperor, was called Maikele Bahre "In Between the Sea and the Land". The Office of the "Bahrnagash" was externally given title yet Ras Woldemichael Defeated the Abyssinian imposed Bahrnagash in war. The inconstitencies and changing the standards and definitions is the problem with Abyssinian-Ethiopian agenda driven Arguments here. Uknowofwiki (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Am I to understand you essentially agree with LeGabrie's sources' summary of the facts, and that in your view it's just a matter of interpreting them? François Robere (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No I disagree with LeGabrie's view. I have stated that you phrased the question based on LeGabrie's logic which is what I contest. I stated that using the "Bahrnagash" title of a person as identifying the "Medri Bahri", a country of people is incorrect. And then, denying Italian Eritrea as a successor state to Medri Bahri when it is more relevant to "Medri Bahri" versus claiming Ras Alula(Abyssinia)'s occupation(not colonization) as a succesor state is illogical, especially when ras alula's occupation was overthrown by Eritrean and Italian forces in 1888. My issue is that LeGabrie has given Undue Weight to Ras Alula's (less than 10 year occupation) and trying to outry Deny that Italian Eritrea DID succeed "Medri Bahri". Treaty of Wuchale which was signed by Abyssinian Emperor Menelik and the Italians clearly shows a succession from "Medri Bahri" or "Merab Mellash" to Italian Eritrea. The official end of "Medri Bahri"/"Merab Mellash" in name and successful governance is Italian Eritrea. Ras Alula's occupation is being given Undue Weight in this article. Uknowofwiki (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

In addition, Ras Woldemikael and his family members were still actively resisting Ras Alula, Emperor Yohanes, and the Abyssinian. It seems Ras Alula did not govern Medri Bahri only that he was raiding and destroying hence why the Eritrean(MedriBahri) elite and people were rebelling against his occupation and sided with the Italians. Page 68 and on [3].Uknowofwiki (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

[4] Page 429, states "from early 1300s to 1889, the kingdom of Medri Bahri incorporated much of Eritrea", then proceeds to say "From 1889 to 1941 Italian colonial forces occupied Eritrea." Treaty of Wuchale is an official document. Italian Eritrea is the successor of the Medri Bahri. Uknowofwiki (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your source only states that Woldemichael's son in law "joined Italian ranks", without giving any specifications. No word of any continuity of Bahr Negash as a title or Medri Bahri as a political entity. Insufficient. LeGabrie (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

My other source says Medri Bahri ended when Italians and Eritreans took over. Ras Alula is Undue weighted Person in the history of Medri Bahri and Eritrea. You are the one that is using a source to deny what Italian Eritrea, Treaty of Wuchale, Eritrea etc have already shown that Medri Bahri was succeed by Italian Eritrea. Uknowofwiki (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like lazy research or a typo to me. Medri Bahri certainly didn't "incorporated much of Eritrea" until 1889. LeGabrie (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nor did Ras Alula have complete control of Medri Bahri since apparently there was open rebellion against him. I provided a source and your unwillingness to read the sources does not take away from the two sources I provided. Italian Eritrea is the official Successor to Medri Bahri. Again what was Ras Alula's "domain" over "Medri Bahri" called? Right, it was still Medri Bahri, the name of the COUNTRY! Show a map that gives a name for Ras Alula's "domain" of "Medri Bahri", was it called "Ras Alula's domain?" Was there an official document that you have as a source? I can attack your sources too, apparently you refuse to read my sources and actually comment, Flip the page to the page after 68 like I stated, 68 and on, you will read about the different rebels against Ras Alula...including Bahta Hagos in addition to Ras Woldemikael's rebellion against Alula. Uknowofwiki (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it wasn't called "Ras Alula's domain". According to your own source ("The Battle of Adwa", p. 42), it was called "Baher-Mellash". LeGabrie (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I asked you to provide a source that calls something else other than "Medri Bahri" or "Merab Mellash" or "Baher-Mellash"..provide a source that calls it something other than that? Ras Alula was kicked out of Medri Bahri territory by Eritrean rebels(including Ras Woldemikaels kin), Bahta Hagos, Italians, Beni Amir as my source stated...so Answer the question, since According to LeGabrie Ras Alula is the successor state to Medri Bahri, what did he call it? His short-Brief,(insignificant) undue weighted occupation was not a successor STATE but a transient point until the true successor state Italian Eritrea which was forming during his occupation by the Eritrean rebels and the Italians. Uknowofwiki (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion by François Robere

I've went through the sources, and what they seem to suggest is this: The kingdom of Medri Bahri was at the center of several wars and attempts of conquest, and for much of its history was subject to one of its more powerful neighbours or to Euro/Asian invading powers. After one such conquest it was limited to the geographic region of Mareb Mellash, which was eventually invaded by Ethiopian forces. All of the sources agree that after this invasion the rule of the Bahre Negashi ceased to exist. The governor on behalf of the invading forces, Ras Alula, established a permanent base within the conquered territory; there is nothing to suggest the territory maintained any sort of autonomous rule beyond that of the Ethiopian-installed governor. It seems to have had no "successor" - it simply ceased to exist. However, insofar as we must state who succeeded the administrative responsibilities of the kingdom after its fall, the answer is clear: the governorate headed by Ras Alula, as part of the Ethiopian empire.

Several claims have been raised that I wish to address:

• A "kingdom", as I said earlier, is first and foremost a legal or political entity (as is a state in general). While kingdoms are usually associated with some geographic area, their exact domain tends to change throughout their existence, sometimes to vast extents. The kingdom is not the realm; the two may be interchangeable, and one often takes the name of the other, but they are not the same. The historical region of Medri Bahri (insofar as no other name for the area took hold) is not the same as the kingdom that once ruled it, and the collapse of the latter does not negate the existence of the former.
• Claiming that the Ethiopian occupation did not end the kingdom because "it was less than ten years" is forgetful of the fact that the occupation follows the conquest. The question isn't whether the occupation was ten or a hundred years long, but whether the conquest effectively ended self-rule. It has.
• There is nothing in the sources to suggest the governor faced any significant local resistance, or had anything less than complete control of the entire territory for the full duration of the occupation. The only suggestions of serious resistance seems to come from alliances between members of the former ruling family and foreign forces, using presumably foreign troops, and resulting in the land being annexed by the foreign force.
• The Treaty of Wuchale is further evidence that the kingdom no longer existed - it was signed not by an envoy of the deposed Bahre Negashi, but by the emperor of Ethiopia.
• One source that was cited has no mention of the Ethiopian conquest, which was claimed as proof the governorate did not succeed the kingdom. This is a misreading of the text: that portion of the text is taken from the second paragraph of a three-paragraphs-long introduction to the history of Eritrea, which attempts to compress some 600 years of history into less than twenty lines (the first par. discusses antiquity, the third the second half of the 20th c.). Of course there will be omissions - indeed, the introduction says nothing about what happened in the land in the 700 years between the arrival of Muslims and the rise of the kingdom of Medri Bahri.

To summarise: The immediate successor of the Kingdom of Medri Bahri was not an Italian, but an Ethiopian governorate; several sources refer to it as the governorate of Mareb Mellash, one of Hamasen (or rather, they refer to Alula as "the governor of..."). I suggest using the first.

Best regards,

François Robere (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disagree If the Ottoman Empire can be listed as a Successor in the middle of Medri Bahri's independence then so can the Italian Eritrea which is the True Successor. Ras Alula governate had nothing to do with the Treaty of Wuchale. Italian Eritrea is a Successor "STATE". The use of "Ras Alula Governate" which was less than 10 years is pure OR. by this logic Francois, then the Ethiopian Empire was succeeded by Italian East Africa which means Ethiopia was COlonized? If you can do Original Research on this Medri Bahri Article then it can be done on the Ethiopian Empire article. Consistency in logic or this is just a KANGAROO Court of a Third Opinion. p.s. I Rejected your Premise on a "kingdom" in this entire argument therefore your third opinion is just an Opinion. If Italian Eritrea is removed, I will seek further assistance from the appropriate Authorities on Wikipedia. Uknowofwiki (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be listed there, but it does raise interesting questions on the use of the term "succession" which are worth clarifying with WP:HISTORY. Either way it doesn't affect this discussion - we're still talking about immediate successors rather than eventual successors, as in the case of the Italians.

The Ethiopian case is different, as there's ample evidence of continuing resistance and an exile government that eventually reclaimed power. Granted this isn't a black-and-white question, but insofar as we can tell that there was a continuation of government on the one side and an acceptance of governance on the other, the difference between "temporary hold" and "succession" can be resolved. François Robere (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I will be unprotecting the article tomorrow to give time to François Robere to respond if they wish to. I do not expect edit warring to occur after protection is lifted. Uknowofwiki, I'm looking specifically at you. You can pursue further dispute resolution options but do so without edit warring and civilly. More comments like the "kangaroo court" one may convince the community that you are not interested in achieving consensus, but rather only in seeing your preferred version of the article put in place no matter what. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree and that is my right whether on wikipedia or outside. As for acting civilly, i recommend you look at the language LeGabrie used in talking with me[5] Where LeGabrie wrote "Is that so fucking hard to comprehend for your brain? The entry is about Medri Bahri as a KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM. No fucking shit did the Eritreans survived the imprisonment of the last Bahr Negash and continued their fighting, but that is absolutely irrelevant."[6] If i said what LeGabrie, I'm certain you would block me indefinitly? Are you going to do anything about LeGabrie's behavior not in only in how he edits in successive bunches and then expects others to just simply accept his edits, but also how he verbally attacked me? It is clear to me that Francois came into the third opinion with a Bias, so yes the result is Biased. There was no neutrality on the part of Francois so I can't accept nor will i accept the his opinion. Am I supposed to accept the opinion of LeGabrie as fact? Then what is the point of being an editor on Wikipedia if I'm going to get threatened with being Blocked when I disagree? I won't edit Medri bahri. LeGabrie can biasely Edit all of these articles. I don't care anymore.Uknowofwiki (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, now, when all hope is lost, we are just assuming the victim role? Don't you want to loose a word about how before I typed your quoted text you accused me of racism, assumed my nationality, accused me of intentionally ignoring your "sources", called me a liar and showed absoulte no sign of willingness to consider my sources and opinion (just as is the case with Francois' opinion)? Go cry me a river you hypocrite :) LeGabrie (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Note on Ottoman conquest

I don't believe the Ottoman empire should be listed as a successor to Medri Bahri - the supposed succession in this case was an exchange of land and resulting substitution of power at a local level, wherein "succession" suggests a complete replacement by, or evolution of one political entity into another. If the article was about the local government of the area in question then we could list the local Ottoman administration as succeeding the local Medri Bahri one, but as the article is about the kingdom at large I don't think it's applicable. François Robere (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

So you would prefer Habesh Eyalet then? I could live with that. LeGabrie (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should be listed at all in the infobox. When we talk about succession we mean to say that one entity was completely replaced by another; in this case it's only the local administration that was replaced - the national entities at large (the Medri Bahri Kingdom and the Ottoman Empire) continued to exist side by side. If both continued to exist simultaneously, then by definition no succession had occurred at the state level, and we cannot say so here. François Robere (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I see where you are coming from. I checked a couple of other history entries and they all follow your logic. For example, you wont see the Umayyads listed as successors of the Byzantine Empire. Ottomans will be gone from "successors". LeGabrie (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

MerabMillash(MedriBahri) 1870s-1890 (More Notables and Events then 1879)

[7] Pages 140-144, 150, 173, 432 Just searched for "Walda-mikael" = "Woldemichael", I find that the story is more than just he(walda-mikael) was "arrested by Ras alula and thats the end of Medri Bahri". There were many Medri Bahri (MarabMellash)-excuse the spelling there are many variations of its spelling but it basically is referring to "Medri Bahri", Notable individuals and groups fighting to control Medri Bahri. To present in this article as if Ras Alula was the sole power in Medri Bahri is an oversimplification based on a simplified source written by Dan Connell. In fact, the title of Bahrnegash meant nothing at this point in Medri Bahri's history. Read the source provided. Emperor Yohannes appointed Ras Alula as governor but that governorship was contested violently by the Local chieftains(notables) and that Walda-mikael and his family continued their influence in Medri Bahri even during his arrest. Again, equating "Medri Bahri" as strictly a kingdom is incorrect as a Kingdom does not really describe "Medri Bahri", in some other sources(including this one), parts of Medri Bahri were more like federal republic and had shimagle (council of elders) and not a "king". Also logically speaking, if the title of Bahrnagash is giving by an "Ethiopian emperor" yet that title was no longer in use or even relevant after Bahr negus Yeshaq, then tying the title of Bahrnagash with the existence or nonexistence of "Medri Bahri" is incorrect. Apparently from the source, "governor of Hamasien" is limited to a district of Medri Bahri and not the entirety. If ras alula was not fully in control of the entire Medri Bahri, then it reasons that Medri Bahri as a entity did not end with the arrest of Woldemichale(walda-mikael). Uknowofwiki (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been asked to give my opinion on this as well on my talk page.

First a procedural note: Regardless of the fact I have no acquaintance with either of you beyond this discussion, we're essentially out of WP:3O already so recusal is unnecessary even if I did.

At the core of the issue is the question whether Medri Bahri existed as a geographic region beyond its existence as a kingdom. We know from some of the other sources that, as the OP notes, the title of Bahr Negash was did not necessarily pass by inheritance, and was influenced by power struggles of rivaling clans. Both this source as well as some of the previous once equate the political structure of the Empire to feudalism, which fits in this respect as well (the term "fief" used on p. 144 is specific to feudalism). Feudal states are prone to frequent border shifts that came from changes in membership of the ruling families', from conquests and from treaties. This new source elaborates on all the intrigue in detail.

pp. 140-144 solidify the impression that the Kingdom was subject to the Empire; p. 144 suggests (as before) that the resistance that was encountered was by family members affiliated with foreign powers, rather than locals. One cannot say with certainty without a clear map of the area, but the impression is of what we might call today "guerilla warfare" rather than a permanent hold.

p. 150 refers to a rebellion taking place in 1889, after the emperor's death and just before the Italian conquest.

I'm not seeing anything in the other pages that supports your case. The source in general avoids the term "Medri Bahri", opting to refer to the different districts (eg. Hamasien), as well as the the geographic region (Mareb Mellash). In keeping with feudal "traditions", this preference suggests that rather than Medri Bahri existing apart from its ruler, it did not exist at all as a coherent entity, at least at that stage. François Robere (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is conclusion of yours is equivalent to the Zemene Mesafint of the Ethiopian Empire, which occurred during Yohannes IV, Menelik II reign which includes Ras Alula again, using your own logic here, the Ethiopian Empire did not exist as a COHERENT ENTITY during this phase of the Regions history. If the logic used to remove existence of Medri Bahri is used by you in this case, then it should be used in the Ethiopian Empire case as well. 1879 was incorrectly chosen as the end date by LeGabrie based on a simplified source of Dan Connell. My source provides the details not only of Merab Mellash(Medri Bahri) which you can research every else on the internet to find the two terms are describing the region that included the SEMI-Unified districts of Hamasien, Seraye, and Akele Guzai into this Political Entity referred to as Merab(Marab) Mellash by Ethiopians and Medri Bahri by Eritreans. Using your logic, Francois, the Ethiopian Empire "did not exist at all as a coherent entity" since it was made of warring factions of the Tigray, and Shewa, Amhara...if what you are stating results in the deletion of Medri Bahri, let it be known that same logic means Ethiopian Empire article would have to be deleted as well. Therefore, a CIVIL WAR in a Country does not mean the country No Longer Exists, just the political factions are at war with each other. Did the United States of America cease to exist during the Civil War? Yes there was a division of territory by warring factions however the conclusion of the war determined the Successor State, for example, we did not refer to its a Succeeded by the Confederate States and the Union, yes they both existed. However in this case, Medri Bahri(Merab Mellash) was not referred to as Abyssinia nor Ethiopian Empire but however the term of Italian Eritrea did OFFICIALLY and on record Succeed the region called MedriBahri(MerabMellash).Uknowofwiki (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My Recommendation Read the [8] "The Loss of Marab-Mellash" section from the this Book title "Between the Jaws of Hyenas: A Diplomatic History of Ethiopia (1876-1896)" it really gives more details on the districts that made up "Medri Bahri"(in Tigrinya language it means "Land of the Sea") while its Ethiopian version of 'Marab Mellash' (in Amharic language it means "Beyond the Marab river"). This region was named as such by both sides to define the region. The Title of "Bahrnagash" did not give nor necessarily take away from the entity which existed in the region of "Medri Bahri". I just dont understand why there are so many Double standards when it comes to Eritrean history and Ethiopian History gets so many Copouts! There is clearly a DOUBLE Standard on Wikipedia when it comes to Eritrean history. This is a continous behavior of Wikipedia editors who want to slant every Eritrean article with some form of "ethiopian dominance", yes I will use the term "dominance"...as in trying to dominate an Article with the bias of it's oppressor. Is Wikipedia editors choosing a side and deciding that the Ethiopian narrative dominates Eritrea even after all the FACTS provided? Uknowofwiki (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: Not to mention that his very own source confirms, black on white, that the Eritrean highlands became a de facto province of the Ethiopian empire after Woldemichael was imprisoned. "For a time all of Mareb Mellash was put under Alula" (p. 143). Medri Bahri as a seperate political entity was succeeded by a province of the Ethiopian Empire. LeGabrie (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

How can the Ethiopian Empire be a successor state when the Emperor of Ethiopia appointed the Governour of Medri Bahri? My source clearly states that Marab Mellash was going through a civil war between competing factions specifically the TWO Clans of Hamasien: Hazzega(Ras Woldemichael) and Tsaezzaga? The logic of succession doesn't make sense by making the existence of Medri Bahri as a political entity strictly on Woldemichael Alone that is where you LeGabrie and Francois are wrong. My source demonstrates the complexity of the political structure. And for your quote "For a time all of Mareb Mellash was put under Alula" DOES NOT mean that Alula governed or controlled All of Mareb Mellash in reality, the existence of Masfen Woldemichael (son of Ras Woldemichael) and Kaffal Goffar (son-inlaw of the Ras) working with the Italians AND SUCCESSFULLY Took Over the Medri Bahri Territory, namely Keren, Asmara makes it so that the Occupation of Ras Alula was short and therefore NOT a Successor State. This is quite similar to Haile Selassie's Ethiopia Not Considered Colonised because Haile Selassie BEGGED the British for help. Francois and you LeGabrie have used a Double Standard for your definition of Succession. I provided a source and recommend you keep reading it to understand the history of the region. Uknowofwiki (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Disclosure: I'm not sure what the issue is about, but Uknowofwiki tried to explain it to me and asked me to comment [9]. Uknowofwiki, LeGabrie and François Robere, could you each explain what you believe the kingdom's boundaries are, when it was established, and when it was deestablished? Soupforone (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

[10][11] François Robere (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There was a civil war going in 1879-1888 between "Medri Bahri" notables(Tigrinyas or Tigrayans: 1. Woldemichael Solomon 2. Ras Alula(tigrayan) 3. Degiat Hailu(Haylu) 4. Kaffal Goffar 5. Bahta Hagos 6. Ras Dabbab(tigrayan). The sides were between Ras Alula versus (1.,3.,4.,5.,6). From the existence of the "Bahrenagash" title, it was appointed by the Abyssinian emperor, however at times warlords would take the Title by military force alone. At times, the Bahrenagash could be an Abyssinian(usually a Tigrayan) but majority of times was a Medri Bahri(Tigrinya). The logic used by (LeGabrie/Francois) assumed that the Bahrenagash being "Medri Bahri (Tigrinya)" = Existence of Medri Bahri, but if Bahrenagash = non-"Medri Bahri (Tigrinya)", then Non-existence of Medri Bahri. The contradiction to this logic is that Medri Bahri existed (recognised as Medri Bahri) regardless of the ethnicity(nationality) of the Bahrenagash. Conclusion, Ras Alula being the Governour of Medri Bahri in 1879-1888 was no different then "Dori, the Abyssinian Emperor's Uncle (non-Medri Bahri Tigrinya) being appointed as Bahrenagash. Therefore, the claim by LeGabrie of 1879 = end of Medri Bahri as a geo-political entity is logically incorrect if the other cases are represented a continuation of the entity Medri Bahri. My logic says, the end of Medri Bahri is Italian Eritrea because that logically is the end of the existence of a "Medri Bahri" geo-political entity as it was consumed up into the Italian Eritrea. Uknowofwiki (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

Seems like some disruptive editing might be going on here despite protection. Here I came across an edit removing referenced material as "not referenced". 151.177.58.208 (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've reverted the edit now. Ue3lman (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Explain blanking

User:ZemenfesKidus, you're the one that is changing content hence its you who needs to explain your changes, thats how BRD works. See WP:CYCLE. We dont remove content, we dont agree with if its sourced. Magherbin (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The content wasn't "sourced," fool. Check the sources to see where it mentions any of the stuff present in the article. Numerous sourced additions have also been removed by the reverts. Now thanks for ceasing your disruptive editing. 2601:280:CB02:3067:894:1CAF:9CAE:D928 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)