Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2017/April

Should this article be deleted? This is a serious question
The article title is not precise since different scholars use different definitions of "Abyssinian people". It is not surprising that different editors have been working with different definitions, which leads to conflicts in editing. I believe that all of the editors are trying to improve the article, but the ambiguous title makes it difficult. So I suggest that we choose from a small set of options:
 * (1) We delete the article and let editors create new articles with clearer titles
 * (2) We agree on a clear definition of what the title should include, and then edit this article to match that clearer title
 * (3) We agree on a new title that is less ambiguous, and then edit this article to match that clearer title

The current situation should not continue, with editors spending most of their time disagreeing on the Talk page. Since the title is unclear, we cannot solve the problem by leaving the article and its broad title. How can we make peace and progress? Pete unseth (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Pete unseth, I think it's important to keep this article because there has to be a refernce in regards to the people of Kingdom of Aksum and Dʿmt. Those kingdoms are part of Ethiopian & Eritrean history and keeping this article as it has been for many years is important since there are many who asks the question "who were the people behind those kingdoms and who are there present day descendants?". It does not make sense to say "it is Tigrinya & Amarinya speaking people" when there is no evidence of these languages before 13th centuary and saying that is like saying it is the Spanish & Italain people who ruled Roman empire when such languages did not exist at that time. Most scholars refer the inhabitants of Aksum & Daamat as Abyssinians and even most suggesting they are 'Habashat tribe' who came from South Arabia. Therfore, the title of the article is I think appropriate and this article have 84 watchers and 24 of them are active whom so far did not complain about it . There was peace in this article for several months until Duqsene (account created 2 december) started to disrupt. For this user so far I have no clear idea on what he wants this article to be about even though I repeatedly requested for him to clarify on that. Since he have similar cause with Otakrem (who also had several accounts used to disrupt Ethiopia related articles but after users block there have been peace in those articles) I did file a sock puppet investigation here. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree to deleting this article and moving some content to the Ethiopian empire or people of ethiopia page. Duqsene (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Duqsene, so you think the Abyssinian Empire was originally a Ge'ez-speaking kingdom, like the Axum Empire? Soupforone (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Duqsene, there are also contents that should go to Eritrean pages. Instead it's better we have a central article, like this one, to deal with the ethnolinguistic group of people instead of politics in which the articles you recommended are for. I think your problem is with the contents that are sourced with RS then discussed and included after consensus was achieved which you keep on deleting them saying they are fabricated (probably because those infos are against ones political objective), and moving these contents to Ethiopian semitic languages or Ethiopian empire will only take this dialogue to those articles which have been peacful. Instead it's better those contents you have issues with are brought here and discussed clearly and in case of disagreement we will take it to RFC for other editors to give their opinion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no clear idea in regards to what Duqsene wants this article to be about. Therfore, I want to roll it to the pre edit-war version (last edit of 20 NOV) until user makes decision, also until discussion is finalized in regards to what to do with this article. I think peace will be restored here if there is agreement on the rule WP:BRD (first discuss then edit) just like how we have been editing. Pete unseth, Soupforone, Duqsene what do you think about this proposal? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, the uncertainty seems to be over the highland seat and language of the Abyssinian Empire. That is, since languages that are now primarily spoken in the lowlands were linguistic substrates to the ancient Ge'ez language, the kingdom's realm, although initially centered in the highlands, may have eventually jutted into the lowlands. Soupforone (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, they are related but not originally Axum. EthiopianHabesha, inserting development of local languages is better off on the Ethiopian-Semitic languages page. I said fabricated because Ge'ez speaking people was not found in the source you indicated. This is a badly written article, the lead begins with Abyssinian identity to mean outside dominant Amhara/Tigray culture by including other groups but then after scrolling down, most of the content is about those two groups. Exclusion of Oromos with the addition of minority ethnic groups makes it quite clear its an Ethiopian-American view not academic. Amharic may be "new" however its the official language of ethiopia for almost 200 years. Duqsene (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Duqsene, above you said "Amharic is the official language of ethiopia for almost 200 years" while sources say the first Amharic bible was published in 1840 and I doubt even if those bibles went into everyone even by the beginning of the 20th century. Therfore, by 19th centuary the rulling classes themselves did not read bible by Tigrinya, Amarinya or even Oromo language as the entire Amharic speaking Christian people did not even have access to bible on their own language meaning leaders did not promote any of the widely spoken Ethiopian languages. Again you said "Ge'ez speaking people was not found in the source you indicated", indeed it is found in the sources and if you think it is not found we could have discussed about them. Note that wikipedia is a collaborative eneterprise in which articles are developed by consensus. To respond to your statment "they are related but not originally Axum" see . You said "outside dominant Amhara/Tigray culture" and this one you mentioned repeatdly, and if this is the issue we can discuss about that, I mean how can you be sure what we call Amhara/Tigray culture is not adopted from the culture of the Agaw & the other cushitic people or the civilized Nilotic Nubians (after all Abyssinians took their name after incorporating their territory) or even why not adopted from Puntland people (who established contact with civilised Egyptians before the creation of proto semitic languages) because such culture is not found in Arabia? If your problem is as to why Amharic should be the official language of Ethiopia then ask also for Oromo language inclusion (or any other political objective) in a way that does not endanger the over 5 million non Oromos born & raised in Oromo dominated territories who also speak the Oromo language fluently even before the communist student movement. As said my point of view is not to deal with all these political stuff but just to develop an article that makes sense. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggested that this article be deleted. EthiopianHabehsa responded "I think it's important to keep this article because there has to be a refernce in regards to the people of Kingdom of Aksum and Dʿmt. Those kingdoms are part of Ethiopian & Eritrean history and keeping this article as it has been for many years is important since there are many who asks the question "who were the people behind those kingdoms and who are there present day descendants?" " The editor is right that there should be a reference to the people of Aksum and D'mt. Yes, but it should have a lable that is clear, specific, and less controversial.


 * Let me illustrate a similar situation from English. The word "Yankee" can mean any American, especially when used by people who are not Americans. In the southeasterm quadrant of the USA, it means people from the northern part of thee USA. In the northern part of the USA it refers to New England (the northeast corner of the USA). Within New England, it can mean people whose families have lived there for many generations. Therefore, the Wikipedia article Yankee covers various uses of the term, not just one. Since this present article has proved to be so contentious, with most editors not realizing the possibility of multiple legitimates of the term "Abyssinian", I suggest it be deleted. Pete unseth (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Pete unseth, I understand there is confusion with peoples names. To respond to your comment "...there should be a reference to the people of Aksum and D'mt. Yes, but it should have a lable that is clear, specific, and less controversial." The previous version started with a paragraph stating that the article is for descendants of Axum & Daamat kingdom inhabitants in which most scholars suggest those people came from South Arabia (Habashat tribe). Previously (for over 10 years) it was titled as 'Habesha people' and this term is very controversial because on the ground it is simply and primarily used to refer people with mixed look as opposed to ferengi (white person) and some people also say it's for people who behaves the same (regardless of their look being nilotic or mixed) other than that it's not in my knowledge if that person needs to speak Omotic, Cushitic or Semitic languages . Using 'Abyssinians' in the title and through out the article to refer the ethnolinguistic group of people is I think is ok, we added "also known as Habesha" because majority sources relate 'Habesha' with 'Habashat South Arabians'. I don't know if Soupforone agrees or not but in regards to the name issue the solution I think is to to open a name section and explain all the different definitions (used on Subsaharan Africans also on Yemeni-Saudis as well as how the term is used in Ethiopia & Eritrea) after we discuss and consensus is achieved. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Pete, the difference between Yankee and Abyssinian people is that the appellation Yankee (like the root Habesh) is not unambiguously population specific, whereas the latter is. As such, the only etymology that is relevant here is that on the actual Abyssinian people. Duqsene, what minority ethnic groups are you alluding to? Argobba? Because they are actually closely related to the Amhara; they are numerical rather than ethnic minorities. They also speak Ethiopian Semitic/Abyssinian languages. Soupforone (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, I dont think you understand the fact that excluding the largest group in Ethiopia is politicizing the term. According to the article, Oromos are not Ethiopian but everyone else is. Pete unseth brought the interesting fact that most Oromos have swallowed up the semitic groups hence they are related by blood. The article instead looks at linguistic ties alone which is not whats defined by citations as the core abyssinian identity. argobba do not fit the narrative I have added the deletion tag as reliable sources are not being used on the article. EthiopianHabesha, you dont seem to be interested in referencing your statements and when you do its unrelated to the subject. Duqsene (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Proposed Deletion tag from this article. It is cited and referenced throughout. If you have an issue with specific details, the issue should be discussed here on this talk page & a consensus reached. If you are unable to reach a consensus, start a Request for Comment discussion to attract input from other editors. You can't propose an article for deletion just because you're having a dispute about certain parts of it. Please note that as the Proposed Deletion tag has been removed from the article by an uninvolved editor, you should not replace it. Settle your dispute without trying to get the whole article deleted - Wikipedia is not your own private battleground.  Exemplo347 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The latest disputes about the content of the article highlight the reason that this article is unlikely to ever be stable: the title of the article is inherently ambiguous, as I pointed out 18 December. Different scholars (and different Ethiopians) have not agreed on who is included in "Abyssinian people". Proponents of differing views can confidently cite scholars that agree with their point of view. But there will not be agreement among the editors. Editor Exemplo347 reminded us all "Wikipedia is not your own private battleground". I agree. But this article will continue to be a battleground as long as the topic is ambiguous, even if some editors think that it is unambiguous. I see only two possible solutions. First, the article could be deleted, so that nobody wins. Secondly, the article could be changed in many important ways that reflect the differing meanings of "Abyssinian people". This second solution would require some cooperation and compromise, two activities that have been in short supply among editors of this article. Seeking peace. Pete unseth (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Pete unseth, I understand your concern but please see the contribution history of Duqsene and he is not just having issues in this article and even if this article is deleted it is most likely user will continue, in other articles, to oppose any contents that tells about people of Horn of Africa being integrated. Some of users contributions include: In Oromo article user added contents stating Amharas are oppressors as if no Oromo born muslim, like King Mikael Ali was king of North Ethiopia (ruler of Amharas and Tigrayans), user somehow supports only the inclusion of the negative definition of the term Galla and said it is used by Amharas as if no other people also used it, user beleives Amharic and Ge'ez are not related evethough linguists have categorized both in Ethiopian Semitic language, above user stated his issues with the dominant Amhara Tigray culture and complained about Amharic being the official language for over 200 years , below user opened a section titled "Abyssinian people are the Amhara mainly" and now in this article user added "Abyssinian also known as Amhara". Please see our argument in Shewa Sultanate article talkpage and user is keep on refusing to include a sourced content saying the inhabitants of Ifat (which was the district of Shewa sultanate) probably spoke Amharic. All these shows users issues with Amhara. Based on these evidences I assume the reason why user wants this article to be deleted is not because user is concerned with the widely used Habesha being narrowed to Ethiosemitc but because issue with people knowing they are integrated by ethnicity and language. Earlier you stated you are concerned about peace in Horn of Africa and if this kind of articles telling that we are integrated is deleted people begin to see each other as different people who have no common ethnicity, language and history then peace in Horn of Africa will be history. I agree with Exemplo347 proposed solution i.e. to discuss and reach consensus in this talk page. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)