Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Gerard Prunier source and restrictive use[edit]

@Pathawi: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Pathawi: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Pathawi: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[1]Efekadu (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawit S Gondaria: 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)[reply]
@Austronesier: Agreed, and to that effect i will be bringing sources forward by Friday. Your input and others would be appreciated. @Efekadu: 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)[reply]

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.[2]

●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). [3] Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

●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).[4]

●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. [5]

●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.[6]

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[7][8] 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)[reply]

Agree Efekadu (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Efekadu: Thanks for improving the lede, good day!. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawit S Gondaria: 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)[reply]
@Austronesier: Thank you for your input, good day! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ethnic Cleansing in Ethiopia on JSTOR". Https:. Retrieved January 5, 2022.((cite web)): CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  2. ^ Mugoti, Godfrey (2009). Africa (a-z). p. 206. ISBN 9781435728905.
  3. ^ Smith, Lahra (2013). Making Citizens in Africa: Ethnicity, Gender, and National Identity in Ethiopia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 54. ISBN 9781107035317.
  4. ^ Prunier, Gerard; Ficquet, Eloi (2015). Understanding Contemporary Ethiopia: Monarchy, Revolution and the Legacy of Meles Zenawi. London: Hurst & Company. p. 17. ISBN 9781849046176.
  5. ^ Welde Giorgis, Andebrhan (2014). Eritrea at a Crossroads: A Narrative of Triumph, Betrayal and Hope. Houston: Strategic Book Publishing. p. 24. ISBN 9781628573312. ~~~~
  6. ^ Levine, Donald (2000). Greater Ethiopia : the evolution of a multiethnic society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 118. ISBN 9780226475615.
  7. ^ https://books.google.nl/books?id=LHpHAQAAMAAJ&q=yohannes+iv+usurper+amhara&dq=yohannes+iv+usurper+amhara&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjg4uWn5aX1AhUA8rsIHRGBD_M4ChDoAXoECAUQAg
  8. ^ https://books.google.nl/books?id=jRMWPSfPBysC&pg=PA358&dq=yohannes+iv+usurper+amhara&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVvqOU5aX1AhVL8rsIHYAyCeMQ6AF6BAgKEAI#v=onepage&q=yohannes%20iv%20usurper%20amhara&f=false

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022[edit]

Change Hegira to Hijrah اخسجہ (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation[edit]

በኢትዮጵያ ቴሌኮሙኒኬሽን ኮርፖሬሽን ትዕዛዝ የኢትዮ ቴሌኮም ደንበኞችን ይዘት መሰረዝ ይቁም:: ኢንተርኔት ለሁሉም የአለም አቀፍ እና የኢትዮጵያ ህዝቦች ደንበኞቻችን ግሎባል ደቡብ የኢንተርኔት አገልግሎት አቅራቢዎችን (አይኤስፒዎችን) የሚዘጋ የኢንተርኔት በር ጠባቂ በምዕራቡ አለም አይዘጋቸውም። / By Order of the Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation: Stop deleting content of Ethio Telecom Customers. The Internet is for all to use World Wide and the Ethiopian people, our customers will not be silenced by Western gatekeeper of the internet who block Global South Internet Service Providers (ISPs). // 196.191.61.46 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that you are making have been discussed at length for multiple years. No one is censoring Ethio Telecom customers. You've got to build consensus on the Talk page. You have thus far not been able to do that. Pathawi (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really the ISP, that's nonsensical. El_C 19:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, almost certainly not. The idea that it would matter if it were is a little amusing. But to the sham Ethio Telecom: This stuff is going to get fairly quickly reverted every single time if you don't go thru the collective process of Wikipedia in good faith. It's just not going to stick for more than a few minutes. It may be the case that Wikipedia just isn't the kind of project that you want it to be: If you want it to advocate a particular position, it's not a very good tool for that. Take care. Pathawi (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as this page is concerned, at least, they can't because I just set its protection not to expire as a logged WP:HORN WP:ACDS action (diff). And I have no qualms in increasing it further to WP:ECP, if need be.
I, however, don't quite understand what you mean when you write The idea that it would matter if it was is a little amusing. If there was actual evidence to suggest that this was so, it'd be grounds for an immediate WP:INDEFBLOCK and WP:SITEBAN, and likely also a global ban, too (i.e. across all Wikimedia Foundation projects). And it would be noteworthy and maybe even newsworthy. I'd be obliged to report it to WP:T&S and/or the Arbitration Committee, and so on.
Of course it isn't that. It's just a poorly-executed intimidation tactic. But it would matter if it were so, is my point. I don't even know if we'll need further sanctions. Unless the IP/s spam this talk page incessantly or go on to disrupt other pages, there's really nothing else to do. HTH. El_C 01:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what I meant was that other editors wouldn't simply step aside & allow unsourced edits & fabricated sources if the message really had been from Ethio Telecom. If we had believed the claim, it wouldn't have led to the desired result: The intimidation wouldn't be intimidating. (I don't mean that as a jibe against Ethio Telecom: It would be the same for AT&T or China Mobile.) Edit: & thank you, El_C, for the increased protection: This disruptive editing issue has been going on for quite a while. Pathawi (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Of course, no concessions to intimidation. What I'm saying is that there's no way this would be the official position of a major Ethiopian state-owned company. Doesn't matter if the user in question is some random employee of theirs (unlikely) misrepresenting their own company's official stance. It's just a person that doesn't fully grasp how the internet works and how major organizations operate in the real world, and I'm really not trying to belittle them for that, even if it was an underhanded tactic. Just trying to explain.

So, for example, I'm obliged to report edits from IPs belonging to parts of the United States Capitol Complex to the Foundation, which I have done. I believe the latest was from the House of Reps, specifically. But it obviously would be absurd to suggest that whomever intern made that edit (or even in the in the unlikely event it was a higher up, even the Rep themselves somehow) would be the stance of some official organ of the US gov't wrt Wikipedia (i.e. making demands for their edits to stand for whatever reason, etc.). That would be absurd.

And while we've had some more extreme or extreme-leaning 'news' organizations of sizable circulation directly agitate on Wikipedia (not by directly editing from their offices so much as sending their followers to do their bidding), which I've also dealt with in the past — this mostly concerned themselves, their own image, or whatever raison d'etre socio-political topic happened to occupy them at that time. But an Ethiopian state-owned enterprise advocating for some random user, here, on this page? It's a total non sequitur, obviously.

Anyway, I ramble, but just some context about Wikipedia and claims, real or imagined, of edits by organizations of scope. Cheers! El_C 02:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap (at the risk of picking at an old wound): I believe Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/June describes the basic issue surrounding this article for more than two years. Hoaeter et al have never answered the questions I posed there (15 March 2020), and there really was no way forward without doing so. (They've long since had bigger hurdles to clear.) Everything that's happened since then is "lather, rinse and repeat," at least until December 2021 when the editor's focus evidently shifted to Ethiopian Protestantism and Evangelicalism. Hence El_C's semi-protection of four other articles, related to that area, earlier this week (thanks!). After those articles' semi-protection was in place, this article became a target again. See also: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hoaeter.
P.S. I've just removed a large talk page section that one of the sockpuppets placed here. It's part of their m.o. to place the source code of their preferred version here on this talk page (and I've also seen this occur off-wiki) and, given that they're WP:3X, it doesn't serve any useful purpose (instead, it clutters up this page, and the already-messed-up archives when it gets moved there). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habesha definition doesn't match actual usage[edit]

Why does this specify habesha is only between Asmara and Addis Abeba? I don't see a source for that. And it's not part of the oral tradition of the word.

And why does this exclude other Ethio-semetic langauge speakers? For example, Gurage, Hariri are habesha people and self-identify as such. 2601:645:C180:3770:AC4A:E8A:33E4:A9BF (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the specific mention of Asmara and Addis Ababa. That seems strange. The change was made in late January by Dawit S Gondaria. From the above conversation it would appear to be derived from an areal description in Gérard Prunier & Éloi Ficquet's Understanding Contemporary Ethiopia. My read of the original source is that this is meant to be a general characterisation of the highlands area, rather than a limiting boundary. I think it might be unhelpful here, but I doubt it's meant to be understood the way you've read it.
I think a key issue is that there is no singular thing that can be characterised as 'actual usage': There are multiple competing definitions, which is why so many editors committed to particular points of view are repeatedly obsessing over modifying that lead paragraph to match their preferred usage. Were there one actual usage, this wouldn't be an issue. The characterisation as given here says that one particular usage remains common today, then notes that various other uses vary in inclusivity & exclusivity. If you have specific questions about the justification for the present wording, then a good next step would be to read prior discussions on this Talk page. One recent conversation is above at Talk:Habesha_peoples#Gerard_Prunier_source_and_restrictive_use. Pathawi (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IP as @Pathawi: suggested, read the prior discussion, and if you are disagreement, present sources and engage with editors. The lead itself is fine, area between Addis and Asmara (i.e central and northern highlands of Ethiopia, and highlands of Eritrea) is where most Habesha's (Habesha according to the definition of most sources are Amharas, Tigray and Tigrinya) live, and it's culture is the strongest (Orthodox Christianity, food, clothes, music and other customs). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Orthodox Christian peoples”[edit]

The line should properly read “Oriental Orthodox” or “Miaphysite”, as “Orthodox Christian” actually means Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox. GabrielAugustine86 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could mean either, but you're right that in this context, it does not mean both.  Done I have changed the verbiage. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories