Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2024/January

Gerard Prunier source and restrictive use
Have you read Gerard Prunier source?

This sentence is incorrect and doesn't reflect what is said in the Gerard Prunier source that is used: Athough English usage, almost always includes Amharas and all other highland Semitic-speaking peoples, one very restrictive use of the term by Tigrayans refers exclusively to speakers of Tigrinya.

Please revert to what is actually in the source.

Sugestion to improve the article:

How about dividing the term between the most usages in the lead, and all the expanded/restrictive terms in the usage section, it makes more sense that way. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it does reflect the Prunier source. Here's Prunier at the bottom of the page in question:
 * "Tigray groups define the Habesha identity more narrowly, claiming that it is applicable only to them as an ethnonym, because their territory overlaps with that of the ancient Kingdom of Aksum and the Tigrinya language is directly linked with the ancient Geez language."
 * How do you feel that the language in this article misrepresents Prunier? Pathawi (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it stops short on context, one it doesn't mention that it's contemporary usage by Tigrayan groups not all Tigrayans, and out of context, Tigray oral traditions includes Amharas. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. Okay. At present the sentence reads: 'At the extremes, the term is currently sometimes employed in a restrictive sense to only refer to speakers of Tigrinya, while recently, some within diasporic communities have adopted the term to refer to all people of Eritrean or Ethiopian origin.' Would your concern be addressed if it said: 'At the extremes, the term is currently sometimes employed in a restrictive sense by some Tigrayans to only refer to speakers of Tigrinya, while recently, some within diasporic communities have adopted the term to refer to all people of Eritrean or Ethiopian origin.' That edit would definitely be supported by the Prunier source. Pathawi (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Lead: That would be an improvement but no, even better would be, that the most common usage is in the lead, and all the expanded/restrictive terms in the usage section. I can provide sources for the most common usage if that helps? ●In the usage section; Gerard Prunier says nothing about English usage, Amharas and all other highland Semitic-speaking peoples so the first part of this sentence is incorrect, hence why i removed it in my edit, created space and mentioned the author. Your reversion is what doesn't reflect the source, or do you see it on a another page for the first part of the sentence, if so which, because it's not page 19. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sentence in question in the Usage section could be better written. I probably unfairly jumped to conclusions because this page is so frequently targeted for vandalism in the lead paragraph. That said, I don't think it's quite true that Prunier says nothing about Amharas or other highland Semitic-speaking peoples. The section on the restrictive Tigrayan usage comes in a larger section on "Habesha" peoples generally, which begins on p 17. There, he outlines the vague boundaries of the term "Habesha": predominantly Christian highlanders; predominantly speakers of Ethiosemitic languages; mostly Amhara & Tigrayans, but maybe also speakers of Gurage & Agaw languages. You are right that he doesn't use any phrase that corresponds to "in English usage", but I don't think that as it stands it's a significant misrepresentation. I'm sure that for this section we can work out a reasonable consensus version. I doubt there's an actual difference of opinion.
 * As for the lead paragraph, I think that where we're at is that the two of us agree that the addition of the three words 'by some Tigrayans' would be an improvement. You would like what you think of as fringe definitions omitted from that paragraph. I am hesitant: I think that most recent sources say something similar to Prunier—there's a range of usage. I think briefly outlining how broad that range is is useful. The Tigrinya-speakers-only version is the most restrictive; the all-Ethiopians-&-Eritreans version is the most expansive. I'm curious what other editors think. Pathawi (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The sentence is frankly misleading even reading page 17 and is certainly not an improvement over mine edit which actually is mentioned in the source. Hence i insist it be reverted or edited.


 * Lead: yes some sources say there's a range of usages for the term, but most of those same sources them including Prunier also clearly mentions that it mostly refers to Amharas and Tigrayans(most common usage), the rest of expanded, ambigious and restrictive terms are just that. You can simply change the lead and say there are other usages for the term without delving into the details, readers then can read other usages in the usage section. It will also make the lead less contentious. Other editors input are welcome Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Other editors' input is definitely needed on the lead ¶. It was contentious, however, in a previous version that did not mention broader & more restrictive definitions. Returning won't change that. Perhaps someone else will propose a third path that isn't simply 'keep' or 'cut'. I'm heading to bed. Take care. Pathawi (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also: I said that I jumped to conclusions in reverting the Usage section edit because of the history of vandalism on this page. I should also have said: Sorry.


 * I don't think the Prunier sentence is misleading at all, but I also do not think that your edit was misleading. I think it leads to something that will need to be rewritten, as it will shift the emphasis onto the less typical usage, but rewriting & rewriting & rewriting is typical for Wikipedia. I don't think you need to get consensus to shift back my reversion. I think you're wrong above, but I now think I was also wrong to revert.


 * Still disagree on the lead ¶, I think, & curious to see what other editors think. Pathawi (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Prunier sentence as in half of it was from Prunier and the rest made up, so yes it was misleading. ●Lead: If other editors remain absent, we can also opt for one of the content dispute mechanism, the lead is contentious(doesn't have to be) and contributes to the history of vandalism you were talking about, this article definitely needs more input from others (and more eyes to verify sources in the rest of article) Sleep well. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As Dawit mentioned, according to Tigrayan oral tradition the Amhara are descended from the group historically referred to as the "Ḥäbäśät" (ge'ez script: ሐበሠተ.) Widespread usage of the term is either to refer to all Ethiopians and Eritreans, or more restrictively to refer to only Semitic-speaking highlanders. I do not believe the intro should include the fringe (and likely politically motivated) view that "Habesha" only includes Tigrinya-speakers. This view is not accepted in widespread usage among all ethnic groups, including Tigrayans, while the view that it includes all Ethiopians and Eritreans has become quite mainstream, and presenting both as "extremes" is a false equivalence. Additionally, ethnic nationalist groups such as the TPLF (likely the "Tigray groups" Prunier was referring to) have a vendetta against the Amhara people and have been fueling ethnic division in the country for decades. One common technique of the TPLF is to fabricate or exaggerate historical narratives in order to sow division between Ethiopian ethnic groups and to scapegoat and denigrate the Amhara. Efekadu (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You should probably resort to one of the content dispute mechanism if the discussion is actually stuck. As User:Pathawi says, there doesn't appear to be an unbridgeable gap here. Maybe we should bring up and discuss further sources here first in order to establish due weight within the range of definitions for the lede and the specialized section. This talk page has seen lots of POV-pushing before by a sockmaster who went as far as manipulating existing sources and even creating hoax sources. So your rigorous approach for best-sourced content is a welcome addition in this talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and to that effect i will be bringing sources forward by Friday. Your input and others would be appreciated. Exactly, and i also don't think the lede should be a repeat of what is already in the usage section, especially extremes usages of the term. One can clearly see that the lede contributes to the article being controversial/contentious just by delving into the article edit history. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

●Godfrey Mugoti: The term Habesha strictly refers to only the semitic speaking peoples of Ethiopia(predominately the Amharas and Tigray-Tigrinya peoples. However in contemporary Ethiopian politics the word Habesha is often used to describe all Ethiopians. Abyssinia can just refer to the Northwestern Ethiopian provinces of Amhara and Tigray as well as central and Eritrea while it was historically used as another name for Ethiopia.

●Lahra Smith: In particular scholars note that Abyssinian identity was fragmented into regional identities associated with local elites, and that it was only in relation to the permanent periphery of Shankila slaves and muslim Afar that Abyssinians saw themselves as members of more inclusive category: Habesha (both Tigrinya and Amharic speaking peoples). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

●Gerard Prunier & Eloi Ficquet: The English term Abyssinian, like it's close cognates in other European languages, derives from the term ‘‘Habasha’’ which in Ethiopia describes the cultural characteristics shared by the predominately Christian highlanders who reside between Asmara(in central Eritrea) and Addis Abeba(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. The peoples who refer themselves as ‘‘Habesha’’ in the terms most extensive meaning make up about 36.7% of Ethiopia's population (c. 19.9 million Amhara, 4.5 million Tigray, 1.9 million Gurage and 0.9 million Agew).

●Andebrhan Welde Giorgis: At the time when the ‘Amhara kingdom of Abyssinia’ emerged in todays northcentral Ethiopia in 1270 ‘‘six and a half centuries after the downfall of Axum, ‘‘the whole of Eritrea was still under the Beja confederacy.’’ note 25: The first mention of Habesha appears in ‘‘a Sabean South Arabian inscription ca. 200 AD’’ referring to the people and territory of the Kingdom of Axum. Abyssinian or Habesha, in the local vernacular, is a generic term used to self-identify or to refer to the Semitic speaking peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Broadly it includes the Tigre and Tigrinya in Eritrea and the Amhara, Gurage, Harari and Tigrayan in Ethiopia. Abyssinia also refer to Ethiopia prior to the nineteenth century or parts of Eritrea and Ethiopia or, narrowly, to the people and territory of the Eritrean and Ethiopian plateux today.

●Donald Levine: In both Amharic and Tigrinya, Habesha is a general term for a native Ethiopian. Although modern-educated Ethiopians tend to object to use of the English counterpart of this term, Abyssinian, they commonly use the term Habesha among themselves in the traditional meaning as referring, in its more limited sense, to all Amhara and Tigreans or else, in its more extended sense, to all who are subjects of the Ethiopian monarchy.

Discussion

Let me start the discussion: Sources are consistent on it's most traditional common usage, referring to Amharic and Tigrayan-Tigrinya speakers, predominately Orthodox Christians, Amharas has the largest Orthodox Christian community in Ethiopia and in the whole of Africa.

The fringe extreme by some Tigray groups to appropriate the term today is a just that a fringe, and frankly a joke. The Tigrayans do not speak Geez, the Aksumites did, Geez is now an extinct language and is used as liturgical language in Church by the Amharas, Tigrayans and Tigrinyas from Eritrea. Also important to mention is that much of Aksum history itself is largely ahistorical and many of it's lore is written many centuries later, during the Solomonic Dynasty led by the Amhara Emperors.

Also a distinction the word Abyssinia came to be used during the Solomonic Dynasty by the Europeans when they were in contact with Amhara sovereigns. There was only one Tigrayan anomaly in the Solomonic Dynasty and that was Yohannes IV, some say he was an usurper who colluded with the British in betraying the Amhara emperor Tewodros II.

The lead is contentious for good reason, which is why i again make the proposal to make the article neutral by having the extended, extremes and fringe usages in the usage section and the most traditional and common usage according to the sources in the lead. Do editors agree/disagree? Share your take Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree Efekadu (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving the lede, good day!. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for chiming in late: your sources provide a strong point for focusing on the semantic "center of gravity" in the lede, and relegating less commonly employed ranges of meaning of the term (such as factionalist usage or recent idiosyncratic usage in certain diaspora communities) to the section "Usage". –Austronesier (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, good day! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)