Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2016/December

Self-Identification is Paramount(Top Priority) per WP:TRIBE therefore Criticism of Abyssinian Identity is Valid

Indeed, per WP:TRIBE, the title must respect the ethnic group's autonym. Biher-Tigrinya would therefore perhaps work better. Soupforone (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to place Ethnic groups which have rejected or do not identify themselves as "Abyssinian", then per WP:TRIBE they should either be removed from this article or this article should contain the Criticism of the Abyssinian Identity because this is a Legitimate grievance between groups who identify themselves as "Abyssinians"(mainly Amhara and Tigrayans) and groups which have rejected it not only in words but in Violent Revolutions see Eritrean War for Independence(for background). The Oromo people and other Cushitic speaking people have also rejected being identified as "Abyssinians". This article mainly focuses on People and Histories that are Directly tied to the Amhara people and Tigrayans by simple observation of the Content of this article. So how can people not even remotely represented in the Beef of the Article are identified as "Abyssinian", periphery subjugation where Tribute was paid does not turn a non-Abyssinian into an Abyssinian. Just as the Spaniards, Germans, English are not referred to as Romans today, neither should periphery ethnic groups/nationalities who at one time or another were subjugated by the Amhara/Tigrayan-dominated Abyssinian "panethnicity".Otakrem (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

In addition, from WP:TRIBE, the following is the Wikipedia guideline, ==Self-identification== How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided. Therefore, Self-identification TRUMPS(SUPERSEDES) designations by non-members. Also an ethnic group is termed by Ethnic group Wikipedia guidelines as:

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences.

All of these have to be accounted for before Forcefully identifying and labeling a people as if they are inanimate objects, how they self-identify, and their ancestral, social,cultural , or national experiences. Based on all of these requirements, it is fair to say based on the reliable sources, Eritrean Tigrinyas and Tigre people can not possibly be identified as "Abyssinian" when their national experience has been that of being subjugated by the Abyssinians, their cultures differ in that Tigrinyas and Tigre people have not conquered other peoples or expanded their territories, or forced their languages on non-members, ancestral(the mythological stories of these Ethnic groups are vastly different from the "Abyssinian ethnic groups (Amhara and Tigrayans)". The social structure of these ethnic groups is not based on Feudalism nor are the Tigre people agriculturalists. The religion of the Tigre is Islam and the Tigre use Arabic script and completely Reject the Geez Fidel script. These being the identifiers of these two Ethnic groups, how this forced Abyssiniazation by certain editors goes unchallenged for this long is questionable on Wikipedia's part. As it stands, Wikipedia guidelines are not being followed here when there is Forced Identification of ethnic groups into a quasi-ethnic group which is completely dominated by the Amhara/Tigrayan ethnic groups historically and even in its present form.Otakrem (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I'm not sure what the contention is over. However, an ethnic group's autonym is indeed paramount per WP:TRIBE. Soupforone (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

See this [1] EthiopianHabesha keeps deleting what I added and also what he added to "counterbalance". However, his main aim is to delete the section I added which is valid and backed by reliable sources ie "Criticism of the Abyssinian Identity" because this identity is criticised by Ethiopians and Eritreans who have rejected this identity. As the article is currently written, it reads like a Repeat of the Ethiopian Empire and Ethiopia article, every topic in this article is about Amhara people and Tigrayans yet the lead stuffs it with Ethiosemitic speaking ethnic groups who are periphery or minor ethnic groups within what was the Ethiopian Empire called "Abyssinia" prior to Haile Selassie's reign see Treaty of Wuchale. The only reason I did not delete the section he add Habesha Identity on Mixed and Black People in General is because I assumed he added that in good faith and not just add it and then delete what I added. I argued against the inclusion of the Tigrinyas and Tigre people in that the Abyssinian identity is specific to Amhara people and Tigrayans as Abyssinia = Ethiopian Empire specifically the Solomonic dynasty, therefore Tigrinyas and Tigre people were on the periphery of this and not members of the Abyssinian (Amhara/Tigrayan) polity, subjugation or tribute payments does not turn a Slave into his Owner.Otakrem (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Stop Edit Warring/Deleting and Discuss HERE The past few Deletions done by you are not helping to improve this article. [2] [3] Discuss and Don't Delete. This article is based on an assumption which is "Abyssinian" = "All Ethiosemitic speakers", However the reliable sources say the opposite. They specify "Abyssinian" = "Geographical/Ethnic Amhara and Tigrayans". Therefore, if you are going to add Non-Amhara/Tigrayan ethnicities(such as the Eritrean Tigrinyas and Tigre people) into this article, then the Criticism of the Abyssinian Identity is a Valid Counter to this Originally Researched assumption. Even in the [4] Discussion, your assumption/claim which is referring to "Geez(Ethiopic)" = "Abyssinian language" is contested by the prior discussions in that. User:Pete_unseth contested your claim with the following statement: "This discussion of "Abyssinian" has gone on long enough. "Abyssinian" is a geographically based term, "Semitic" is a linguistic term. Ethiosemitic (or Ethio-Semitic) refers to a linguistically related languages found within a geographic area. I know of no author in the past who actually used the term "Abbysinian" to refer to a specific set of linguistically related languages in "Abyssinia", not Leslau, not Ullendorf, not d'Abbadie, not Cerulli, not Hetzron. Pete unseth (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)"

Abyssinian is a subgroup of the Ethiosemitic language, and the language of the Abyssinians is Amharic as the sources state. Otakrem (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The last comment by Otakrem illustrates the problem. Different editors use different definitions of "Abyssinian". It is not correct to speak of an Abyssinian subgroup of Ethiosemitic, no language scholar says that. And if a person follows the line of the edit by Otakrem, does this mean that only Amharic speakers are "Abyssinians"? And there were no "Abyssinians" until Amharic emerged as a distinct language? As I have written before, this article will always produce disagreement because there are no solid criteria for labeling one group of people as distinctly "Abyssinian", distinguishing them from the other people of the Horn of Africa. I suggest that the article be retired. Pete unseth (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Judaism

Most Abyssinians are not Jews, but rather primarily followers of the Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The Falasha/Beta Israel (not the Christian Amhara) are the actual Jewish adherents. As to the ancestral Axumites, they weren't Jews either. They were instead pagans until the reign of the emperor Ezana, who adopted Christianity in the 4th century. Soupforone (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There's Jew and Judaism. One is a religion the other is an ethnicity. The Abyssinians claim Jewish origin, yet they are now Christians, this is possible. Duqsene (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The question of Ethiopian links with Jews and Judaism is a complex issue, often viewed with more emotion than thought. This article, which is based on the non-unanimous assumption of a common core of "Abyssinians", will only have more POV and other divisive issues if editors try to expand on the possibility of such links. Pete unseth (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. It should also be born in mind that the King Solomon descent tradition was only inaugurated in the 13th century, with the establishment of the Solomonid dynasty. Prior to that, the pagan/Christian Axumites had no such tradition. Soupforone (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being divisive, I am following citations available. Present references stating all Ethiopians are Abyssinian. The article was full of false statements, such as including all semitic speaking tribes as the core of Abyssinia, while excluding the most populated groups such as Oromo. I had initally believed, Abyssinian to include all Ethiopians or people of ethiopia but couldn't find any sources. Duqsene (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. The ancient Ethiopian Empire (Abyssinia) actually long predates the contemporary Ethiopia nation-state. It was an older and smaller polity centered in the northern Eritrean/Ethiopian highlands, and was governed by the Christian Solomonic dynasty. Other areas were ruled by separate polities, such as the Muslim Shewa Sultanate. Soupforone (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually the Jews are the cushitic Agaws. Falashas speak the Qwara and Qimant dialects of Agaw language and are not Amharas. The cushite Agawas even had a Jewish kingdom that were always revolting against the traditional religion followers (previously refered as Pagans) Axumites. Their Jewish Kingdom, known as kingdom of Semien, survived until the solomonic dynasity converted all the Jewish-Agawas by 15th centuary. Moreover, some scholars say Zagwe dynasity rulers descended from the leader of the Jewish Agaw confederation (Yodit). As for Axumites their is no proof showing them being Jewish and these Solomon connection, as Soupforone stated, only emerged in 13th centuary and it is a legend as no scholar lists all the rulers upto Solomon. I think the Axum oblisk itself shows that the rulling classes were into the Nubian/Pharonic culture because building large tombs for the dead royal families is not a culture of Jews. Archiology finding also shows that Daamat-Axumite religion is related to ancient South Arabian religions. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, it's been days since I responded to your concern above in regards to who are Jews and who are not yet no response. Instead of pushing for your undiscussed version you need to engage in discussions and arguments so that consensus is achieved. Note that Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise and the encyclopedia is improved by consensus. Let me know if you have questions or issues with the above presented history. As siad there is no Jew-Amhara connection, and the Falashas are Agaw People may be you could mention that connection in Agaw people article. What the scholar Richard Pankhurst is saying is that Amhara clans such as Menz, Merhabete, Shenkora, Ifat, Gedem or all the Shewan Amhara people who are now Christians were muslims in the past. See the book here [5]. Based on that story and also by linguists estimation of language separation of Ethio-semitic languages we could say the founders of Shewa Sultanate are the Amhara-Argoabba (most likely were one language by that time) and also that may also include Harari-Zay-Walani (also same language by that time). [6][7] — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The founders of the Shewa Sultanate were indeed probably ancestral to the autochthones of the Shewa region. They were certainly Muslims since the polity was Islamic, unlike the Orthodox Christian Solomonid dynasty. Soupforone (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine the Jewish theory wont be included. Abyssinia was and is a political entity not a ethno-linguistic identity as you claim. I would like you to post links to Argobba or any other ethnic groups that were in the article, labelled as Abyssinian people. Sort of like this here Book published by the universtity of chicago says the following: The central features of this image are that (1) the Amhara-Tigreasn people are identified as the true Ethiopians or the Abyssinians proper and (2) the core elements of Amhara-Tigrean culture are viewed as deriving from the early Semitic influences. From this period on wards, the Christian religion and the Ge'ez language -the language of the church became the vehicles through which Abyssinian culture was spread to conquered peoples towards the southern region. The society that emerged was commonly known as Abyssinian says this source thus to imply the Sultanate of shewa was part of the "abyssinian" identity previously would be inaccurate. If the sultanate of shewa had a semitic variation prior to the Abyssinian invasions, its likely due to Arab contact if not Axum. Duqsene (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

All these issues you have raised have been discussed above. Incase the argument is about nationalism: there is no Amhara-Tigre political entity but their is a Christian kingdom (and within that kingdom those two happens to be the majority) that was initially a traditional religion following state which later incoporated Shewa state which intially was a muslim state. Note that it is only by 19th centuary we have Amharic & Tigrinya bible. Agaws, Oromos born from muslim or traditional follower families have ruled that kingdom with their own tribal identities because linguistic-group is not important at that time. Before 19th centuary there is no united Tigre, Amhara, Oromo & Somali idenity since all tribes have their own myth & legends and do not even see each other as one people. Note that all people borrow culture, language from every neighbours and you have Oromo, Agaw, Nubian-pharonic, Arabic cultures within Amhara society and also you have Amhara, Arabic cultures within Oromo and other tribes. All these infos are supported by mainly neutral writers and if you want link for those ones you disagree with I can provide it.

In regards to this article, intially the scope of the article was for all the Ethiopian semitic language speakers while named as 'Habesha people', but after discussion & consensus that title was changed to 'Abyssinian people' based on sources that refers 'Ethiopian semitic languages' as 'Abyssinian languages'. The title was changed because Habesha has different meanings as it was also used to refer mixed people. Now if you want to change the scope of the article then you have to open section and explain all your concerns clearly so that all the editors who have build and maintained this article for many many years have their say. Incase of disagreement then use all the dispute resolution venues such as 3rd opinion and RFC. I don't think it is apropriate to bring a source that supports your own personal opinion and change the scope of the article by yourself without consensus. I beleive what you want to tell is 'Abyssinians are Jews' — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you wont provide references that means there's no citations that agree with your point of view. The Linguistic term "Abyssinian languages is no longer in use see Ethiopian Semitic Languages page, its called Ethiopian Semitic because of the geographical location of the speakers. Title might of been changed but it still says also known as Habesha and begins to define it in the etymology. [www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJHC/article-full-text-pdf/FA927F051106 Jimma University] defines habesha very clearly. Ethio-semitic is already included in the article as general classification however the main abyssinian identity according to most reliable sources was not included until now. Its for this reason better to follow the sources instead of giving a personal opinion on the matter. Duqsene (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, I did not create this article and it is not me who decides as to what the article should be and should not be. As explained to me above by another senior editor, Soupforone, the article is about the ethiosemitic ethno-linguistic group of people, and based on that scope people who speaks languages categorised under that language family were included in the article for many years (see the edit history). We brought various sources and discussed about them before adding or removing contents and If you want to change the scope then you do that by consensus i.e. if you are here to build an encyclopedia and not to disrupt. To begin with I still don't know what your issue is, is it about the scope of the article? then what do you think it should be about, ethno-linguistic or political entity? Is it about contents in the article? If so which specific ones. Before we deal with all the other issues I think it is important to know your suggestion in regards to scope of the article. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene is correct about the Shewa Sultanate being distinct from the Abyssinia kingdom. The leaders, state religion and political seat were all different, though the language was similar. At the time, around the 12th century, Abyssinia was primarily centered in the northern highlands. With that established, EthiopianHabesha is right about the spread of the Abyssinian languages. These linguistic substrates would therefore go under language. Soupforone (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Shewa has it's own history and as you said todays inhabitants, the Shewan Amharas, are indigeneous people to that state, it's just only they used to be muslims but now they are chrstians. Note that by the end of the 19th centuary it's the Shewan state that expanded and also note that the Axum kingdom also incorporated the Ethiopian empire (Nubia also called Kush). Anyways, wether any people intially were pagans, muslims, chrstians, cushitic speakers or semitic speakers it's their own history and they should know about it. When telling Axum state history or Shewan state history we don't begin after the religion change since the topic is not about "Islam in HA" or "Chrtianity in HA" but because article is about people's history or states that mobilized the people. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, in regards to the term 'Abyssinian' or 'Habesha' there has been extensive discussion above. After reviewing various mainly neutral sources we have concluded that the name has different definitions and previously 'Abyssinian', 'Habesha', 'Habeshi' and other related derivatives have been used to refer Sidi Bantu peoples, Nubians, Axumites, Habesh Eyalet (predominantly inhabited & ruled by the muslim cushite Beja people), Arab-Black mixed people, modern Ethiopia, Ethiopian semitic languages, Horn of Africa, sub Saharan Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia (because Turk's Habesh eyalet province, centered in Sawakin Sudan, was also rulling Saudi coastlines). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, in regards to the scope of this article I think you are suggesting that it should be about a political entity. I'm still waiting for your confirmation as to what you want the article to be about. Should it be about political entity or ethno-linguistic article? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I understand. It's just confusing because the Amharic language is first attested around the 13th century, which is after the Shewa Sultanate ended. Soupforone (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, true Amharic is attested by 13th centuary but linguistic analysis closely relate the language to largely muslim populations such as Argoba & Harari and besides you have Menz & Yifat clan names among Christian Shewan Amharas which intially were recorded as muslim people according to Richard Pankhurst. Even after conversion to Christianity the people somehow knew (by oral or recorded history) that they had a state called Shewa that expands upto Red Sea. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Abyssinia's historical connotation includes the Agaw despite speaking Cushitic thus its historical definition appears first. The wider label, example all Semitic groups or all ethiopian people comes later, if academic citations are available. The articles lead previously blurred the lines between political Habesha and what Ethiopian-Americans have termed Habesha in recent years. Duqsene (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, We could include Agawas and Wallo-Yejju Oromos (who also ruled/owned north Ethiopia through Zagwe dynasity and Yejju dynasity) when defining Abyssinia by geography to mean as in "north Ethiopia". When applying the political cannotations Abyssinia also includes all it's historical provinces starting from Ethiopian empire (Nubia), Bali, Adal, Kaffa, Damot, Ifat, Shewa etc. By the way when I use 'Habesha' I meant I look mixed, eventhough historically it's used with diferent definitions with one contradicting with the other. Anyways, in regards to this article what do you think the scope of the article should be? If you disagree with it being an ethno-linguistic article. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

EthipianHabesha, I understand. That would mean that some of the early Muslims of the Shewa kingdom were ancestral to the modern Christians in the region. Soupforone (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what I beleive based on Pankhurst book and also based on Shewan Amhara clan names such as Yifat (used as in "he is Yifate") which relates to Ifat Sultanate that was once the easternmost province of Shewa Sultanate. Though, I don't think Amharic language existed at that time but probably proto Amhara-Argoba or may be Argoba separated from old Amhara or even possibly Amhara separated from old Argoba. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, I want to inform you in advance that after two days I will roll it to last edit of 20 Nov, to the version that has been before the edit warring begun based on the rule WP:CYCLE which recommends "first discuss then edit". In the mean time we can discuss your suggestions as to what you want the article to be about. So far not sure if you want the article to be about:

• 1) people who leave in a particular geographic area or
• 2) about a political entity and all the dynasties and tribes who ruled (owned) that entity or
• 3) about all the people who were once part of that political entity or
• 4) want the article to discuss about just the name Habashat, Abyssinia, Habesha, Habshi, Ahbash, Habesh and all other related derivatives and their definitions?

So far the article has been about the Ethiosemitic ethno-linguistic group of people, even before I joined wikipedia, and in my opinion I think this article is useful as a reference for people who asks the question "who were the inhabitants & rulers of Aksum & Daamat kingdoms?" when their is no proof of Amhara or Tigre language & ethnicity existence before 13th centuary. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I read the Amhara myth section on the Amhara peoples page, the people dont exist according to some but there's academic literature to disprove that. Minimizing the impact of Amharic/Amhara or Tigray in upholding Abyssinian identity is blurring the lines. Rolling back to the old version will do just that. Academic opinion is what matters. Duqsene (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, the article was created to discuss about ethno-linguistic group but not with the objective you said: "to Minimizing the impact of Amharic/Amhara or Tigray in upholding Abyssinian identity....". In this article no one is claiming "Amhara or Tigre people do not exist". However, based on reliable sources, discussed above, there is no proof of Amharic or Tigrinya language and ethnicity existence before 13th century. If you have source contradicting with this claim could you bring them here for discussion. It will help in achieving consensus if we have clear idea as to which one of the four topics, found in my last comment, you want this article to cover i.e. if there is opposition it being an ethno-linguistic one. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The article represents Amhara/Tigray culture and history including photos of tigrai/amhara leaders. [www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJHC/article-full-text-pdf/FA927F051106 Jimma University:](page82) "Commonly known definition of Habasha is: that girl or fellow with a middle-eastern look, pointed nose, long black hair, brown eyes and fair skin; speaks Amharic or Tigrigna or has a mixed background. Those have been the qualities that have defined "true Habasha"; and they still remain authentic requirements. Others who lacked those qualities were rarely considered Habasha. They either had to conceal their background to be accepted or had to completely reject that identity". Suppressing this fact is censorship. Duqsene (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, if the issue is with the article not representing the other semitic groups fairly then it's likely because the two are the majority within that ethno-linguist but if you go down and see there has been a mosque picture that has been there for many years. If there are few pictures representing Argoba, Harari, Gurage and the other semetic speakers then we can add more pictures and sections to balance it like the Romance peoples article where you have sections for Italian, Spanish & Portuguese people. If you want to include information on how the name is used then name section is required. I tried to open a section to discuss the name & all definitions including how it historically was used to also refer the Bantu Siddi people, Sub Saharan Africans and other peoples including Yemenis & Saudis by bringing reliable sources. However, user Soupforone opposed and if this article's scope is for name discussion then all the other definitions supported by reliable sources must be included because you cannot choose your favorite source and push for inclusion of it because that would be considered WP:Advocacy. Do you want the scope of the article to be about how the name and it's variants were used historically and presently? If so please confirm this. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure all the definitions can be included but it must be clear what most reliable sources consider abyssinian. I'm still waiting for sources that agree with your point of view. Duqsene (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, for that one consensus is needed to create a name (nomenclature) section. Once created then we need to include all definitions since it's for a name discussion. As for the sources used to claim the term has different meanings see the sections found above. What you mean by "I'm still waiting for sources that agree with your point of view"? Note that my point of view is to correct a ridiculous article that does not make sense, that does not decide weather it's an ethnolinguistic one, or for people within properly defined geographic area, or for all people who owned a political entity. Right now the article equals with saying "Africans are black people only" because the term 'African' is associated with the majority people when there are also Arabs & white Africans also. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abyssinian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131180721/http://www.gonomad.com/features/0211/ethiopiafood.html to http://www.gonomad.com/features/0211/ethiopiafood.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)