Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/September

September 2020
I've just reverted several edits by and referred to the previous discussion(s) here where we had reached consensus. in particular concerned me as it inserts additional text in front of an existing citation (Hadecker 2012). I'm unable to verify that the source corroborates the addition; ostensibly I have access to that publisher via WP:LIBRARY but it won't give me access to the journal. , I think maybe you previously had access to the Hadecker source? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do have it, but I just checked & she's also uploaded it to her Academia.edu page. Happy to take a look & see if those edits correspond to the content of her article, but probably not until tomorrow morning. Pathawi (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, let me put this here so we can see which edits are being questioned. I will explain later, I would like to have the information in question in front of me (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Habesha_peoples&type=revision&diff=979138348&oldid=979128509):

So, what are the points of contetion?


 * Ethiosemitic language-speaking vs. Semitic language-speaking?
 * "Christian peoples of" vs. "Historically most are Eastern Christians of the Oriental Orthodox variety with origins in the state Orthodox Tewahedo Church of the Ethiopian Empire, the predecessor body of what would later become the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo churches, but the population also has a number of adherents of other denominations of Christianity like those among the Ethiopian-Eritrean Evangelical churches, as well as a few Muslim and Jewish (Beta Israel) minorities. ?

Because the first mentioned phrase mischaracterizes Habesha peoples as an ethno-religious group, while the later states what the most common religion among these people groups is (cf. Swedish Americans in that Swedish Americans aren't characterized as a 'Nordic Christian peoples' but are described as "Most were Lutheran Christians with origins in the state Church of Sweden who were affiliated with predecessor bodies of what are now the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) from the mergers of 1988 or the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (1847), or the recent North American Lutheran Church (NALC) of 2010; some were Methodists following Wesleyan doctrine.[2]").


 * Is the phrase or positioning of the phrase "but the term in other cases has also been applied to other ethnic groups and all people of Eritrean and Ethiopian origin namely gaining popularity among those in diaspora communities brought about through an outgrowth of good non-state communal relations between Eritreans and Ethiopians in the diaspora. " the issue of contention? Because this is also how the term is used and should be in the same sentence. On another note, also realize that the term Habesha is used more often in the diaspora than in modern day Ethiopia or Eritrea.


 * If there are any other peices of contention, please tell me so all of us editors here on this page can work it out ?

HistoryEtCulture (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, . This is actually a somewhat difficult format to engage because it's so much text at once & because it throws a bibliography into the middle of a conversation. Let me respond to this in two parts:
 * First, your edits occurred within a context. Some individual or individuals—I strongly suspect with good intentions, but with a poor understanding of Wikipedia—has been repeatedly editing the page to favour the diasporic, unifying sense of the term 'Habesha'. This person (or these people) have taken objections to their non-neutral descriptions, citation of sources that do not support their arguments, & use of unreliable sources to be politically motivated, & have responded thru a relentless pattern of edit-warring & the use of sockpuppets. Repeatedly, they have created new accounts with the sole purpose of editing the article, & have refused to engage any of the arguments on the Talk page in a serious way. You made edits on the same topic from an account that was brand new. This made you look an awful lot like this person. Because the matter has been so contentious & because there's been so much bad editing, we've taken to discussing the matter on the Talk page before making edits. That's not normal for most pages, but it's good practice for addressing contentions.
 * Second, with regard to your edits themselves: I can't speak for beyond what Gyrofrog's already said for Gyrofrogself, & I'm not the one who reversed your edits, but looking at your edits, this is what I see:
 * The Abdussamad Ahmad article attests the existence of highland Muslims quite some time back, but doesn't actually address the term Habesha, which is what's actually at question here.
 * The Daily Bruin article really isn't a reliable source for this sort of argument, & furthermore doesn't actually support the claim you draw from it, namely that the intercommunal unifying use of the term Habesha 'gain[ed] popularity among those in diaspora communities brought about through an outgrowth of good non-state communal relations between Eritreans and Ethiopians in the diaspora.' All it really is is an example of this use of the term.
 * The clause added to the last sentence of the Usage section implies that what you're saying is drawn from the Habecker article. I can't find support for this statement in the Habecker article.
 * For all of this, my objection is not to the factual content of what you've added, but to the support for these assertions—either because the claim isn't in the source (all three) or because the source isn't a reliable one (Daily Bruin).
 * With regard to what you've raised above:
 * I'd be surprised if anyone cares about Semitic versus Ethiosemitic in the wording (tho I do think the link should point to Ethiopian Semitic languages: This change was reversed as part of the whole.
 * I don't think that the comparison to Swedish Americans is very apt, as religion is one of the things at question here. That is, if some Muslims take exception to being referred to as Habesha (& apparently some Jeberti people do), then religion is clearly relevant. Swedish people may be majority Lutheran, but that's not at issue as a defining factor in the same way. I'm not committed in opposition to your wording (again: I didn't reverse it, & I'd like to think about it before committing myself), but I don't think this is the same issue.
 * For me, these points are far less important than that of reliable sourcing & accurate citation. The fact that you know something to be correct doesn't mean you can add it to Wikipedia: We've got to employ reliable sources WP:RS, and the information we add actually has to appear in that source.
 * Hope that clarifies things. Gyrofrog probably has other things to say. Pathawi (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I have written this simultaneously, so there might some repetitive points.
 * I picked one statement with a source, viz. the final sentence (how it orignally was added and referenced in this version) and Habecker (2012), and tried to match what is written here and there:
 * Text by : On the other hand, certain people groups that were subjugated in Ethiopia or Eritrea sometimes find the term offensive, while others oppose the term "Habesha" as well as terms like "Ethiopian", and "Eritrean" on ethnic separatist grounds preferring to use specific ethnic identities over multi-ethnic inclusive national-citizenship, national origin, and pan-ethnic identities. (+ reference to Habecker 2012).
 * Matching content in Habecker (2012): Indeed, many subjugated groups within Ethiopia and Eritrea would take offence at being called Habasha. Only those from ethnic groups that ruled Ethiopia and Eritrea (that is, the Amharas and Tigrinyans, as well as Oromos who assimilated into these groups) view themselves as Habasha.
 * While the opening part can be well matched to Habecker's text (but note the toning down from "many" to "certain...sometimes"), while the rest of the statement—which contains tendentious wording ("on ethnic separatist grounds")—cannot be attributed to anything in Habecker's paper.
 * Non-neutral wording is also found in the lede "through an outgrowth of good non-state communal relations between Eritreans and Ethiopians in the diaspora", sourced to a campus bulletin article (btw a pretty weak source for this topic) which does not say anything deep of this kind, but simply tells the story of Ethiopian and Eritrean meeting up in a common association. This is an own interpretation and falls under WP:original research (OR), which is not allowed in Wikipedia
 * I haven't looked into the rest yet, I'll leave this to and, but this small sample of falsely attributed text, tendentiously changed content beyond simple paraphrasing, and own interpretations of campus newspaper articles already leaves a not too promising impression, given this page's history of disruption characterized by OR, false attributions, not correctly reflecting the sources, use of tampered/plagiarized sources, and many other issues. –Austronesier (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Briefly: this looked to me as the same m.o. as the previous series of edits that Pathawi described. However, the idea(s) conveyed therein seemed (partly) different this time around. The insertion of additional text in front of the Habecker reference is what caught my eye, and and  confirmed my suspicions. Pathawi dug even deeper than that. Suffice it to say I'm inclined to stick with the version which previously gained consensus. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've just restored the Goitom 2017 reference from an earlier version -- citation #31 was broken and had ref label = ":3". I am pretty sure the citation was for Goitom 2017, which is discussed on this page but was not otherwise cited in the article.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think the citation to pp. 186-188 refers to the pages in Goitom 2017. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I would argue that the previous consensus is fundamentally flawed. The assertion that Habesha people are an Christian ethno-religious has a rare occurrence in Habesha society.

I understand your issue of contention when it comes to the Habesha peoples vs. Jeberti people distinction, but this distinction is an outlier generally only found among some (rural) Muslim Tigre people and Eritrean Tigrayans. In most cases Muslim Tigrayans still simultaneously use the term Habesha along with their ethnic group's name. The opposition by some Muslim Tigrayans to not identity as Habesha is found in only a small number of people mostly in rural Eritrea, they are only an exception, not the rule (as in the people in these ethnic group that make up the Habesha peoples don't loose their Habesha identity or are called non-Habeshas if they happened not be Christian. The only people that make this clame are sectarian supremacists, which would further claim that unless a person is a member of the Ethiopian or Eritrean Orthodox Thewado Church, they cannot be considered Habesha, in other words they will even try to narrow it down to a specific denomination of Christianity even further and will use evidence that shows that Orthodox Thewado was the state church of the Ethiopian Empire to stregnhten that claim). When it comes to Muslim Amharas there is no such distinction between Habesha peoples and Jeberti people, a Muslim Amhara is still an Amhara and still has an unquestionable claim to Habesha identity (unquestionable as in people can't realy question the Habeshaness of a(n) (Muslim) Amhara to the same extent some people would question the Habeshaness of an Oromo as is seen in the usage section of the Habesha peoples article). And not all Habesha Muslims are Jebarti. Also, If you look at book (link: https://books.google.com/books?id=wnxeCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT39&lpg=PT39&dq=are+there+%22Habesha%22+people+that+are%22+muslim%22&source=bl&ots=EL9z8fseV2&sig=ACfU3U1FkocZ479ESJiZ6bo1FgAU-Wbr1Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4p8vR8PfrAhUwoHIEHY0tACo4HhDoATAJegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=are%20there%20%22Habesha%22%20people%20that%20are%22%20muslim%22&f=false) it shows that Muslim Habeshas exist, in which it states that they are "the minorities who compose the Habesha social fabric". From what the author has seen, they allude to the idea that Jebaris may even be a subset of Habesha peoples.

I may add more to this conversation later, but there is clear evidence for existence of Habeshas of non-Christian religions. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to reiterate that the core problem is sourcing & citation—not the facts of the matter. Please, please, please read WP:RS. With regard to the source that you've shared, the section on the term Habesha begins on page 17:

"The English term "Abyssinian", like its close cognates in other European languages, derives from the term "Habesha" which in Ethiopia describes the cultural characteristics shared by the predominantly Christian highlanders who reside between Asmara (in central Eritrea) and Addis Ababa (in central Ethiopia). Most of these highlanders speak Tigrinya or Amharic, both of which belong to the Ethio-Semitic language family. However, the ethnic category Habesha is slightly vague: it encompasses groups with common linguistic roots and ancient historical ties, and therefore may also include the Gurage people, although to a "lesser degree" since their lifestyle differs slightly from that of a typical Habesha and they reside further south than other Habesha groups."


 * I can see using this source to modify the wording of the intro ¶ a little, but I don't think it eliminates the pertinence of religion to the description. I'm curious what the various editors in this conversation think of the following:
 * 'Habesha peoples… is a term most frequently employed to refer to Semitic language-speaking peoples of highland Ethiopia and Eritrea who are predominantly Christian. The term is sometimes used in an expanded sense to include Muslim communities who speak Amharic, Tigrinya, and Argobba. Recently, the term has been applied by some within diasporic communities to refer to all people of Eritrean or Ethiopian origin.' Pathawi (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, HistoryEtCulture, I want to be clear that the core question of concern for the editors here isn't 'What's correct?' but rather 'What do reliable sources say?' That comes from the nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopædia, rather than a source of independent research. The previous consensus didn't determine 'Habesha means X.' Rather, it held: 'This set of sources is reliable. These sources say Y about the term Habesha.' We're not a peer-reviewed journal that can evaluate original claims. Note that the most recent edit (I've already undone it) to this page wrote that the unifying sense of the term Habesha was employed by "culturally b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-e-d- diaspora communities." If we're not sticklers about process, if we're not depending on reliable sources (again, please read the page I directed you to), what grounds do we have to prefer your reasonable approach to this other editor's bigotry? Pathawi (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing we can do right now is just say "Habesha peoples, is a vague pan-ethnic term used among peoples of Eritrean and Ethiopian origin. The individual ethnic groups that make the community is contested. ... blah blah blah..." in the lead, then put the various contested definitions in the usage section. We need to keep the lead as generic as possible to prevent future vandalisim as you has noticed and gives fair space for the multiple competing definitions.
 * Or if this doesn't work out make a specific section stating the other competing defintions and having a diaspora section to give the diaspora more in depth coverage on how they have used it (as is seen in some of the sources) and lets not denigrate Diaspora Habesha as 'cultureless bastards' as a previous editor did, as I saw earlier today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryEtCulture (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You say we should "give fair space for the multiple competing definitions", yet you give space to none with your proposed wording "Habesha peoples, is a vague pan-ethnic term used among peoples of Eritrean and Ethiopian origin"? Pathawi's proposal works fine IMO, and for giving more weight to the incipient alternative use of the term in the diaspora community, we still need more good sources like Goitom's or Habecker's papers, and of course cite them properly without interpretation/manipulation. –Austronesier (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * What I’m trying to say is the lead should say “Habesha is a vague term of multiple meanings and usages in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ethiopian, Eritrean and Diaspora Ethiopian and Eritrean culture.” ... and then in the usage section, it should go over the various definitions and usages. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like this doesn't say enough for a lead ¶ (see MOS:LEAD): If a person knows nothing about the term & reads only 'vague term with multiple meanings', they actually won't know much more than they did when they started. How about:
 * Habesha peoples… is an ethnic (or pan-ethnic) identifier frequently employed to refer to Semitic language-speaking peoples of highland Ethiopia and Eritrea. Historically, the term was applied to predominantly Christian groups, and this usage remains common today. The term is currently sometimes employed in a restrictive sense to only refer to speakers of Tigrinya, and sometimes in an expanded sense to include not Muslim communities as well as Christians. Recently, some within diasporic communities have adopted the term to refer to all people of Eritrean or Ethiopian origin. Pathawi (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Here, I found more information on how the term Habesha is used when it includes other non-highlander Ethiopian and Eritrean ethnic groups. It's from the Australian state public broadcasting project known as Cultural Atlas, that defines and explains cultural identities and norms. Its a great resources because it is up to date unlike the other sources and other pieces of literature that's being used right now. Pay particular attention to the "Habesha Culture and Identity", "Ethnicity and Language", and "Ethnic Relations" subsections of the "Core Concepts" section. Here is the link: https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/ethiopian-culture/ethiopian-culture-core-concepts#ethiopian-culture-core-concepts . HistoryEtCulture (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is advocating omitting this perspective. Everyone is agreed that it needs to be included. Have you read the pages I provided links for on reliable sources? Pathawi (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the Australian source, which was written by Nina Evason, an ESL teacher. The reference list includes "Ethnipedia Wiki. (2013). Habesha people." (http://ethnipedia.wikia.com/wiki/Habesha_people), which is a user-generated site, just like Wikipedia. Surprise, surprise, the current version reflects the text that was pushed here by the blocked edit-warrior. I have no idea what version Evason accessed to (none of the web citations have access dates), but by making use of user-generated sources that page is essentially discredited as a WP:reliable source. –Austronesier (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you mean but here is an FYI that I really want you guys to also know about, that a lot of the types of sources you're looking for, pretty much all sound like this https://twitter.com/jeffpropulsion/status/1293753526041153536. A lot of academic sources on Habesha (Ethiopian and Eritrean) history and culture has not caught up with the times (most or even almost all are still stuck in the Era of Scientific Racism). I think the Wikipedia community should just cut its losses, and just use more 'non-traditional' sources, because these so-called academic sources are far rse, are far more inaccurate, and far more unreliable than the modern 'non-traditionally used' sources on this same subject. When we use only sources like these that I have called into question, without using other sources on the same subject from the other perspective and source type, we run into the issue of possibly pushing a Scientific Racism agenda. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * HEY.
 * Please read my message on your talk page.
 * Of course there's racist scholarship. We also see racist crap in Eritrean community forums. This isn't an argument.
 * Have you read the pages I asked you to read? This is actually vital to being a good contributor and editor in Wikipedia.
 * Everyone agrees about including the unifying sense of Habesha in this article. You've proposed citations that others have said are unreliable sources, but these don't put forth any factual content that anyone objects to. Reliable sources include the unifying usage, include that Muslims might be considered Habesha, etc. If you're now saying that more restricted sense of the term Habesha don't belong her, then we do have a substantive disagreement. But the open question as best I can see it so far has been framing.
 * You have not addressed these points directly. I don't think I'm interested in engaging any further conversation until you have. Pathawi (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I never said don't include the exclusive definition, what I said is include both the exclusive and inclusive definitions at the same level of each other, but at the moment right now it seems like its giving preferential treatment to the exclusive definition. I'm new at Wikipedia stuff, and I've been doing research on this topic to fix this article but, its hard and will defiantly need more help with editing this topic. In the end, I rather have a vandal call the Habesha diaspora "culturally bastardized" like what happened earlier this week or last week, than have a a biased Wikipedia article misinform unsuspecting people into believing that there is only one correct definition for Habesha and the other is an illegitimate definition as this Wikipedia article may make people perceive. HistoryEtCulture (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read the page on reliable sources? Pathawi (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is very telling that resorts to WP:casting aspersions about us "pushing a scientific racism agenda", misinforming and presenting an "illegitimate definition", only because they fail to support their position with reliable sources. If reliable sources are discreted in such a way in favor of "modern 'non-traditionally used' sources", this really raises the question if they are actually WP:here to build an encyclopedia. We have seen this rhetoric before. –Austronesier (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I want Wikipedia to be welcoming to new editors, but it's really a two-way street: I think we've hit a limit here. Pathawi (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I was assuming good faith that there was concern here about the content, on the part of a new editor who was heretofore uninvolved. But bringing up "pushing a scientific racism agenda" while making no acknowledgment of WP:V is beginning to sound depressingly familiar. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Incense-Gatherers, or: Scratch & Sniff
I've been a little perplexed by this repeated claim that 'Habesha' means 'incense-gatherers' in Mehri. I haven't been able to find anything to justify this in sources on Mehri itself. Digging thru the Websites that make the claim, it seems to originate in someone's reading of Eduard Glaser's Die Abessinier in Arabien und Afrika: Auf Grund neuentdeckter Inschriften from 1895. This seems to me to be a faulty reading: Glaser has a fairly indirect means of working out a meaning for the term: He notes the equivalence of Egyptian ḫbst/Semitic Ḥabašat with Greek Αἰθιοψ, & tries to bring the etymologies to equivalence. He believes that Αἰθιοψ comes from a Semitic root cognate to Arabic طيب ṭīb 'incense', thru a probable ṭayyāb, pl ṭiyāb meaning 'incense-worker'. Glaser follows Max Müller in understanding ḫbs to mean aufkratzen 'scratch', in the sense of „die Erde aufreissen, pflügen‟ 'to tear up, plough, the earth'. Since we're dealing with incense, 'collect' (sammeln) is a better translation. So Ḫbsti probably means „Gewürz-, Gummi- oder Weihrauchsammler‟ "spice-, gum-, or incense-gatherer". The reasoning is actually rather circular, & I'm simplifying it here. In any case, Glaser doesn't seem to ever attribute any of this to Mehri: The closest I can find is that he holds that the term Ḫbs/Ḥabašat applies to not just the East African coast, but also to the Mahrah & Hadramaut areas of the southern Arabian peninsula.

I have not read the entirety of Glaser's book, so it's possible I missed something, but I think I've worked this out. I have begun removing the claim, as it comes from sources that I think are not reliable. I would normally want to try to replace bad sources with good, but… I'm not going to. Anyone who can reproduce this etymology in good conscience is welcome to read pages 9–27 of Glaser's book. Pathawi (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sabaic vs Pseudo-Sabaic
A previous version of the etymology identified ḤBS²T as pseudo-Sabaic. In the sources listed, this form is identified as "pseudo-Sabaic" in the context of the Monumentum Adulitanum. The term later appears in South Arabian sources, apparently borrowed from Aksum. This is stated explicitly in Breyer. Leaving this note here as a record of reasoning. Pathawi (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)