Talk:Oromo people - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

Template:The Africa Destubathon banner

I happened across the "Oromo people" page ... and noticed that what seems to be the same term seems to have two spellings: "Gadda" five times and "Gadaa" seven times.

Should there be only one spelling? If so, perhaps it should be corrected and consolidated into one spelling? (Or indicate that both spellings are equivalent and acceptable.)

If the different spellings indicate some difference in meaning, I did not see it. If so, perhaps that difference should be made clear.

Almadenmike (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oromo people. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Oromo people. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are many full citations that are complete duplicates, even ones to the same page(s). I started unifying these duplicates, starting with Sorenson2001p41 or Sorenson2001p39. After an hour or so I had found that other sources were similarly duplicate-cited. I'm stopping now to get to sleep, but I will return to the task tomorrow and finish it. --Thnidu (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@94.46.179.65: With this edit, you allege in your edit summary that the cited sources do not discuss "red" and "black" slaves. They do. Please see lines 20-32 of page 73, along with the context on pages 72-74 of the cited The Cambridge World History of Slavery, as one example. If you have concerns, please discuss them here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

That "the slaves were classified into two groups by the Amhara people, one "red" who were Cushitic-speaking and lighter pigmented, and another "black" also called Bareya or Shanqalla who were Bantu-speaking and darker pigmented" [1] is not indicated in the linked urls [2] [3] [4]. The Cambridge url does touch on "red" and "black" slaves on page 73, but it doesn't assert that all of the "red" slaves were Oromo, Sidama and other Cushitic speakers from southern and southwestern Ethiopia. It instead states that they comprised the bulk of the "red" slaves [5]. The Cambridge url also doesn't claim that the "black" slaves were Bantu. The original Lipsky text indicates that these slaves were actually captured along the Sudanese-Ethiopian border [6]. 94.46.179.65 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, I changed the redundant and longer page title heading "Enslavement of Oromos and Oromos as slave-owners" to the non-redundant and shorter "Slave-ownership and enslavement" according to MOS:HEAD. It states that "a heading should not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." 94.46.179.65 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Most Oromos follow either Islam (>60%) or Christianity (>30%). Fewer than 3% adhere to a traditional religion [7]. 94.46.179.65 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply