Misplaced Pages

Talk:Habesha peoples

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HistoryEtCulture (talk | contribs) at 17:05, 19 September 2020 (→September 2020). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:05, 19 September 2020 by HistoryEtCulture (talk | contribs) (→September 2020)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Vital article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Habesha peoples article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAfrica: Eritrea / Ethiopia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eritrea (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ethiopia (assessed as High-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Synthesis, POV

I believe this article, as currently written, has WP:NOR (more specifically, WP:SYNTH) and/or WP:NPOV issues. This article makes the assertion that various interpretations of "Habesha" are "ultra-neo-conservative," and/or held by ultranationalists, scientific racists etc. but the cited sources, so far as I can tell, do not make these assertions nor do they mention these terms. The article by Yäafrika, for example, does not mention the words "conservative," "race," "racism," "nationalist" nor "nationalism." Edward Ullendorff's "Abyssinians proper," as mentioned in the Levine source, does seem like it would be attractive to nationalists, and I don't doubt that they hold a point-of-view like this. But that's not for us to say, and Levine (for example) doesn't say this, either. I'll put it another way, I'm certain that there are nationalist or ultranationalist movements in Ethiopia that adhere to this strict definition of Habesha, but the cited sources don't say this (or at the very least, they don't describe them as "ultra-neo-conservative") and it's not up to Misplaced Pages to do so. I think the last sentence in the lede paragraph, based on the cited sources (particularly Levine), could possibly be rewritten thusly: "Some scholars, such as Edward Ullendorff, assert that the Tigrayans and the Amhara comprise 'Abyssinians proper' and a 'Semitic outpost,' while Levine points out that this 'neglects the crucial role of non-Semitic elements in Ethiopian culture.'" Furthermore I don't think "ultra-neo-conservative" makes sense in the context of this article, in any case, as neoconservatism describes an American political movement. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Something else I've noticed, although unrelated to Synthesis or POV, but regarding a source supporting this version of the article: I can't find the Yäafrika article in International Journal of Ethiopian Studies. The inline reference only mentions "Summer/Fall 2018" but doesn't specify a volume number, which might make it easier to find the issue containing this article. I don't have immediate access to a library that carries this journal. However, judging from the publisher's website, there were apparently two issues from 2018, comprising volume XI (Issue 1, Issue 2). Neither one mentions the cited article, "What do you mean by Habesha? — A look at the Habesha Identity (p.s./t: It's very Vague, Confusing, & Misunderstood)". I'd already flagged the source with {{volume needed}} but this really needs to be verified. To be frank, that article doesn't read like an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal (for example, using inline citations, presenting the author's credentials), and while it's written more thoroughly than a typical blog post it has, indeed, essentially been published as such. On its own (without the ostensible inclusion in the journal), it would've raised WP:SPS issues. I'm also skeptical that it ran for 16 pages in the journal (at least, as cited). Maybe I'm wrong and it did appear in that journal, but I for one am unable to verify this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Google Scholar shows the article being cited on Misplaced Pages and its mirrors, but not elsewhere. I've contacted the IJES publisher and asked for clarification. Meanwhile this citation also appears at Eritrea–Ethiopia relations and Amhara people. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but it's interesting.. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I saw that, and I had removed it from the infobox (). It doesn't seem to have any currency outside of that article, and (previously) this Misplaced Pages article (or copies thereof). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It certainly looks more like a non-academic piece written to put forward some sort of political argument, perhaps for the Habesha Union. I don't see it as a reliable source, although that's not a general comment on him. Doug Weller talk 21:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking the same thing, but I'm not encouraged by someone citing this as though it came from an academic journal, if it did not. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I say keep it. Others sources cited in the Misplaced Pages Article back up similar points made by the journal article in question. HoAHabesha (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
As the person who added the reference, would you please address the preceding concerns regarding its provenance? And I'd also suggest reviewing WP:RS. Also, as the editor who added the content in question, can you address my original concerns about WP:SYNTH? Again, none of the sources make the assertions you've included with your edits. Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Although the OR and POV issues still remain, I've removed the Yäafrika source. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at re-writing the content in question, and (as the person who placed it) I've removed the maintenance banner from the top. I found an additional citation of the Yäafrika source and other duplicate citations (there may be others). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This whole page is so wrong and is full of misinformation

The Amhara and Tigray are not the only people who are Habesha. All Ethiopians and Eritreans are Habesha. This is full of misinformation and is offensive to all Ethiopians and Eritreans.

From my many times reading this page, over the years, the information went from outdated racist terminology and sources to a well written accurate understanding of the Habesha peoples, and now has gone bad and is no starting to sound like something written by people completely misinformed only paying attention the outdated old historical clames only and dismissing modern sociological sources show re-ethnogenesis of Habesha culture and identity within the Habesha community. Habesha is a pan-ethic group that includes all Ethiopian-Eritrean ethnic groups the same exact way that there are many ethnic and national groups that are part of the Habesha pan-ethnicity. AntiRacist Watch (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I got drawn to this article because of a dispute on a page in which I'm actively engaged, & fairly well informed: Beja people. A sockpuppet of Hoaeter added it to the category Habesha peoples, & the Gyrofrog undid the edit. When speaking Arabic, all the Beja people I know who've discussed the issue distinguish themselves from Ḥabašīs. I was curious about this issue, but have no particular investment in how the term 'habesha' is used in English when talking about Eritrea & Ethiopia. What I have found on this page is poorly written & poorly sourced. I understand that you dispute the perspective which uses the term just to describe one subset of Ethiopians & Eritreans. The problem with the counter claims is that in most locations, here, they are either completely unsourced or they have referred to sources which do not actually back those claims. Less frequently they've drawn on sources which aren't reliable sources (WP:RS). This isn't a matter of differing opinion: This is a matter of quality. As things stand, a large portion of this page should really be re-written. I think that there's a productive way that this could incorporate multiple perspectives. But that really can't be achieved through mis-citation or un-cited assertion. Pathawi (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I've never read that all inhabitants of Eritrea and Ethiopia identify as Habesha. Most anthropological works would agree on this. Most work denote Habesha as Amhara, Tigrayan and Gurage. The largest group in Ethiopia, the Oromo do not identify as Hebesha and most scholarly sources would agree. I would fair for the page if both meanings of the term Habesha are outlined on the page. --AlaskaLava (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pathawi: You put it more succinctly than I guess I've done, but what you wrote is pretty much all that I've been trying to say all along (except the part about Beja people, with which I've otherwise had little or no involvement). Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What I am saying is that this page leaves out modern sociological research (which have been sourced in this page in the past, the 9 sources that support this have been re-added) on how these communities identify themselves today. When it comes to cultural groups, its historical use should be mentioned like how this page is written right now, but there are huge holes on information about how the Habesha Community defines itself today. In order to fairly describe this cultural group, both definitions must be included. The infromation on this page is stuck in the past and hasn't taken much consideration for how the Habesha Community defines itself today. AntiRacist Watch (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So, doing a little digging of my own, I want to offer this sort of casual synthesis from reading a few sociological & anthropological papers: Many Ethiopian & Eritrean immigrants & second generation children of such immigrants in North America use the term 'Habesha' as a broader designation as a supra-ethnic (I think one editor of this page uses the term 'pan-ethnic') identifier for all people of Eritrean or Ethiopian descent. However, within that same community this broader usage is contested: Some accept it, some find it politically charged & possibly racist. It looks to me like there's good scholarship to support this account, some of which has been cited by advocates here of the all-Eritreans-&-Ethiopians-are-Habesha viewpoint (the Goitom article in particular). I think that a couple of things need to happen to integrate this better:
  1. There needs to be a bit of sorting of wheat from chaff. As examples, Mary Goitom's article "'Unconventional Canadians': Second-Generation 'Habesha' Youth and Belonging in Toronto, Canada" from Global Social Welfare is a reliable source & deals with this issue directly. Sarah Oliphant's dissertation is a reliable source, but really doesn't deal with this issue, & has been cited inappropriately (she uses the term once & glosses it very casually). Self-published articles are not reliable sources. We actually have to go into the sources & deal with them seriously. I propose that the following sources are pretty good starting points:
    • Goitom, Mary. "'Unconventional Canadians': Second-Generation 'Habesha' Youth and Belonging in Toronto, Canada.' Global Social Welfare, 4 (2017): 179–190.
    • Habecker, Shelly. "Not black, but Habasha: Ethiopian and Eritrean immigrants in American society." Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35 (2012), no. 7: 1200–1219.
    • Mohammed, Mohammed Hamid. "Imagining and Performing Habasha Identity: The Ethiopian Diaspora in the Area of Washington, D.C." Phd diss. (Northwestern, 2006). (Really primarily useful for demonstration of how the term is contested.)
    • Ameyu, Godesso Roro. "The postponed discourse in Habasha identity: Real or performance?" African Journal of History and Culture, 73 (2015), no. 3: 79–84.
    I'm sure there are other useful reliable sources. This is just a starting point for anyone who wants to check out the account that I've given above.
  2. We're talking about a contested point of view. We can do that in Misplaced Pages! But we have to address that sociologically/anthropologically—not as advocates. That means saying: 'These two conflicting views exist within this portion of a community that some (both within & outside the community) identify as Habesha.' Rather than saying: 'This view is archaic. This view is modern.'
I'm willing to do some work, here, reading & incorporating research that addresses a broader diasporic notion of Habesha-ness. I have two questions: For advocates of the all-Eritreans-&-Ethiopians-are-Habesha viewpoint: Does the account I just gave accord with your understanding? For everyone: Is this a path that we can move forward on? Pathawi (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Pathawi, thanks for putting in this effort. I wouldn't object to citing a dissertation in the context of (as you proposed) basically demonstrating the contested usage (or, if one prefers, varied usage). I'd say this is a good way forward. Outside of the Hoaeter-affiliated accounts, I can't discern anyone else currently advocating for the all-Eritreans-&-Ethiopians-are-Habesha viewpoint. But I think there's already a consensus that we should include this usage, if reliable sources could attest to it, and I think you've just demonstrated that they do (I think Goitom is one of the sources I was trying to remember in the previous section). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I've struck through two more socks. I admire anyone with the fortitude to deal with all of this, Pathawi. I had taken this article off my watchlist but I've put it back on, particularly after one of the socks decided to have a go at me. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ge'ez?

Our lead paragraph implies that the term comes from Ge'ez. That seems contrary to actual etymological accounts. No cognate appears in Wolf Leslau's Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez or in the glossary of Thomas Lambdin's Introduction to Classical Ethiopic—which is larger than necessary for the textbook alone as it's meant to address a student's needs early on. I know that there's a significant Amharic Ge'ez lexicographical tradition—that what's available is not the be all & end all of the Ge'ez vocabulary. But given that the etymology of this term is (probably) from outside Ge'ez, it seems relevant to ask: Do we actually have a source for the four Ge'ez forms given at the head of this article? Can anyone provide a citation? Pathawi (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure about the Ge'ez etymology, but I had brought it up 14 years ago where someone replied, as you mentioned, that it isn't (and, they claim, probably wouldn't be) in the Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (see Talk:Habesha peoples/Archive 1#Habesha etymology). As for the various spellings, I had tried to address this in a previous edit (20:59, 1 April 2020‎‎) which was rather quickly reverted (16:42, 2 April 2020‎). I am told that any of these "look" correct (and the Amharic Misplaced Pages article uses both "ሀበሻ" and "ሃበሻ"), but for what it's worth, the Habesha Brewery and a local business called Habesha Market both use the "ሐበሻ" spelling. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. The Habesha and Ethiopian, etymological connection section was presented as a quotation, implying that it was directly quoted from the George Hatke source, but this exact text does not appear there. Instead, it was apparently copy-pasted from Ethiopia#Etymology and, for some reason, formatted as a quotation (see diff). (And then, I'm compelled to point out, this edit made it seem as though the cited source makes mention of "the Habesha community" when, in fact, it does not.) I've made an edit to clarify (and make it compliant with) Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages and removed the direct quote. The cited source (at least how I read it) says that Ḥbšt and Ḥbśt are Ge'ez renderings (transliterations?) of the Greek "Aἰθιόποι". -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate information on Habesha peoples

Hello Misplaced Pages, can you fix some of the issues on this Misplaced Pages page, the information stated in this article is inaccurate, it doesn’t adequately describe how Habesha peoples identify in real life. The resources bellow explain how Habesha identity works in real life.

  • Goitom, Mary (2017). “‘Unconventional Canadians’: Second-generation ‘Habesha’ youth and belonging in Toronto, Canada”. Global Social Welfare. Springer. 4 (4): 179–190. doi:10.1007/s40609–017–0098–0. . .
  • Goitom, M. (2012). Becoming habesha: The journey of second-generation ethiopian and eritrean youth in canada (Order No. NR91110). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1252883321). .
  • Oliphant, S. M. (2015). The impact of social networks on the immigration experience of ethiopian women (Order №3705725). Available from Ethnic NewsWatch; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1691345929). . .
  • Diversity makes a differences. (2012, Feb). Northwest Asian Weekly. Available from ProQuest .

Afeworki, N. G. (2018). Eritrean nationalism and the digital diaspora: Expanding diasporic networks via twitter (Order №10745022). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2015164934).

WhatsUpAfrica (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • We can't "fix" things like that. What you can do is make edits, with secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: note that the OP of this section has been blocked for block evasion by sock. Their unblock request has already been turned down, but feel free to revise it. Otherwise I'd hat this section (and other contributions by this editor on this page, in order not to lose further time on it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Francis Schonken, you and I edit-conflicted with reverting the rant by the other sock, whom I just blocked--and confirmed as a sock of WhatsUpAfrica. I saw WhatsUpAfrica a few days ago and was hoping it wouldn't be another one, but unfortunately it was. The problem I have here is that this sourcing may well be helpful; that it was supplied by an utter jerk doesn't make it less valuable. So I'll leave that up to you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm used to you being a bit more discriminate about sources usable for mainspace content: if you can find anything in them that should be transferred to the article, please go ahead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Ha, I'm not about to write this content. I wouldn't accept the dissertations, but there's stuff from The Atlantic, and a journal article. The sock we're dealing with is obviously not an FA writer. What I mean is, if you want to hat this, I will not object--if you indicate in the title that there's some possible sourcing in here. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The thing is, Pathawi had already graciously offered to improve the article, incorporating at least some of the sockpuppets' requested sources. But rather than reply to Pathawi's posts, they (generally) just keep adding new talk page sections. But anyway, an effort to incorporate these sources was/is already under way. And in spite of what these account(s) say, I've said all along (this is at least the fourth or fifth time, on this page or elsewhere) that this information could and should be included, if it can be cited properly, and Pathawi has already demonstrated a way to do so. (Might as well point out that I had advocated for this position and added the information myself back in 2007, but it was later removed as an unreliable source. Which it probably was.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • My intention at this point is to proceed with that, but I'm trying to clean sections up a little before I add to them. I've been moving slowly because I'm verifying cited sources one by one. (I don't normally do this, but poor citation practice are clearly such a problem on this page.) I'm definitely not trying to call dibs on this project if anyone else is itching to read the sources & write the content. Pathawi (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oliphant is almost completely irrelevant—her dissertation was just tossed in as citational padding. She's mentioned twice in the Usage section together with Goitom; I'm going to read thru Goitom this morning then rewrite that section. Sorry: Moving slowly. Pathawi (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If I read it correctly, the observed generational shift of paradigm about the usage of the term is mainly/exclusively a diaspora thing, right? In that case, it should be made explicit both in the lede and the section "Usage". An ongoing discourse in the diaspora community should not outweigh common usage in the part of the world where most of the people concerned actually live.

Btw, I can't avoid the impression that the divergent usage actually means we're dealing with two distincts topics, which might deserve separate coverage. –Austronesier (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that's the case, but I also suspect that the article reads that way because the studies about the term's usage happen to have been made abroad. I'm not sure that we can say it's a diaspora usage. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have Springer access to check what Goitom writes about it, and I don't trust the plagiarized and tampered version by the bogus Academia.edu account. I'll just wait and see what Pathawi makes of it, an editor whom I know from their awesome work in Beja-related topics. –Austronesier (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I just realized/remembered that I (and, presumably, other Misplaced Pages editors?) have access to JSTOR, ProQuest etc. via the WP:LIBRARY. The 2017 Goitom article is on ProQuest. (The link is here, but I'm not sure whether it will work; there are some steps for getting one's account set up.) Let me know if you can't access it that way. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gyrofrog: Great, thanks, it works! I've had Jstor, Muse, Oxford access for some time, and recently got notified about the single sign-on access to WP:LIBRARY, but haven't tried it until this one. –Austronesier (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier: with everything else that has happened here since March, my initial, gut reaction to "2 topics might deserve separate coverage" was, um, uncharitable — but I think I see your point. Although, I'm not sure it's the same point that you were trying to make. (←That probably didn't make sense.) Anyway: "Abyssinia" and "Abyssinians" are derived from "Habesha"; I don't imagine there's any dispute over this. Presumably "Habesha", in the context of the place named "Habesha or Abyssinia" in this map from the 1880s, is different from the context in which the term was used in the 20th century, and/or from the context in which many Habesha use it today. I don't think that's disputed, either. So — in that sense — I can see how we're covering (at least?) two different "Habesha" topics. Now, I'm not sure if you were suggesting splitting this coverage into two+ articles — I think in the past we've seen dueling POV-forks (at one point there was a Geez People article), although that's not a reason not to try it. But I think, at the moment, if this article doesn't completely account for the various interpretations/uses of "Habesha", then it's on the right track to do so, thanks to Pathawi's efforts. (I had something longer than this written out that probably made even less sense than this; it's been a long couple of days...) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gyrofrog: Yes I can imagine your gut reaction, especially after looking at the history of sick POV-pushing in the past ("sick" is for the manner of pushing). And no, I don't go as far as to say that two(+) articles are a good idea, because of the vagueness of the whole gamut of usages, which applies to both the "traditional/historical/local" usage(s) and the "reclaimed" usage(s) by younger members of the diaspora community (I had the idea of "reclaimed" in my mind yesterday, but couldn't find the exact word, so I was happy eventually to find the word in Goitom's paper). However, I think we should keep the different gamuts explicitly apart, because if we vaguely flip-flop around between different usages of the term, we invite both indiscriminate WP:coatracking/WP:synthing (cf. the constant misuse of genetic studies in ethnic articles) and endless WP:POV-pushing (to "fix" a perceived "bias"). To exemplify the problem: the lede uses the term "pan-ethnic" and "meta-ethnic" quite indiscriminately in one breath, even though "pan-ethnic" exactly describes the phenomenon described by Goitom (Panethnicity is predominantly used in the current academic and wider discourse for diaspora communities), whereas "meta-ethnic" better fits with the "traditional" usage of the term.
Given the fact that the phenomenon of using "Habesha" as an affirmative community token is relatively new and still somewhat fluid (which is visible in some comments in the archived sections), the "traditional" usage is IMO better kept as the primary topic of the article (with all necessary caveats), and the discussion about the "reclaimed" pan-ethnic usage should receive a short section of its own (and a sentence of its own in the lede). –Austronesier (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Austronesier, I agree the pan-ethnic usage should be in the lede. The other thing I think should be mentioned up front is "Abyssinia/Abyssinians" since Abyssinian people redirects to this article. Something as simple as "Habesha people..., or Abyssinians, ..." or something to the effect of "historically called Abyssinians", "the historical exonym Abyssinians" etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that the broader sense of the term merits a mention in the lede & a paragraph under Usage. I don't think there's actually reason at this point for it to receive more than that—either on this page or as a page of its own. This may change, but I don't see that there's substantive material to support more at this point. Pathawi (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Habesha peoples (Template:Lang-gez; Template:Lang-am; etymologically related via Latin to English "Abyssinia") is a term most frequently employed to refer to Semitic language-speaking Christian peoples of highland Ethiopia and Eritrea. Recently, the term has been applied by some within diasporic communities to refer to all people of Eritrean or Ethiopian origin.

Thanks! Minor point, but since it's a redirect target, shouldn't "Abyssinia" be in bold? The only thing I'd suggest about the wording is perhaps change "most frequently employed to refer to" to "that traditionally refers to". Although either is more neutral than "a term that refers to", which I momentarily considered as seeming more straightforward. I'm still not sure about the different renderings in Ge'ez/Amharic (like I mentioned in #Ge'ez?; guess we can try and figure that out later). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
For example: Habesha peoples (Template:Lang-gez; Template:Lang-am; etymologically related via Latin to English "Abyssinia" and "Abyssinians") is a term that historically refers to Semitic language-speaking Christian peoples of highland Ethiopia and Eritrea. Recently, the term has been applied by some within diasporic communities to refer to all people of Eritrean or Ethiopian origin.
...but I'm not honestly sure it "looks" better. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I prefer Pathawi's proposal. "Historically" followed by "recently" might give the impression that the first use is obsolescent, while "most frequently" followed by "recently" shows that both meanings exist and the second meaning still is an emergent phenomenon. Bold is for common alternative names, but not obligatory because of an existing redirect. –Austronesier (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I think I know what's going on with Ge'ez & Amharic. RIE 185—the ʕEzana inscription—is transcribed by Alexander Sima as having Ge'ez ḥbśt where Sabaic has ḥbštm ('Die „sabäische" Version von König ʿĒzānās Trilingue RIE 185 und RIE 185bis' in Archiv für Orientforschung vol. 50). Rainer Voigt gives the Ethiopic spelling for the same as ሐበሠተ, which would be *ḥäbäśätä, but the inscription is unvocalised: Voigt interprets this as ḥäbäśät, but I'm not clear on what evidence supports that vocalisation ('Language, Script And Society In The Axumite Kingdom' in Ityop̣is, 2016 extra issue II). Francis Breyer gives RIE 189 (also of ʕEzana) as having the same form, but vocalises it ḥabäśät ('The Ancient Egyptian Etymology of Ḥabašāt "Abessinia"' in the same issue of Ityop̣is). Breyer doesn't say this, but it looks like he bases his vocalisation on Tigrinya ሓበሻ ḥabäša.
Unfortunately, I can't currently get access to the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica which has an article by Walter W. Müller on the term Ḥabašat in South Arabian sources. In Kane's Amharic dictionary, two terms are given that are clear cognates: ሐበሻ (ḥäbäša) & አበሻ ('äbäša). Kane states that he employs etymological spellings, rather than those that reflect only the distinctions of modern Amharic pronunciation. Kane gives (usually spelled ሀ) instead of for the pronunciation of the first of these, which makes sense: Amharic doesn't have /ḥ/. This appears, then, to be an etymological spelling which reflects the same spoken term as the version we have on the page right now as ሀበሻ: Ge'ez /ḥ/ → Amharic /h/. (The ሀበሻ spelling comes from Amharic Misplaced Pages: They appear to have opted for a spelling that reflects current pronunciation rather than etymology.) One note to clarify this spelling: Ge'ez doesn't have ሸ /šä/; Amharic doesn't have ሠ /śä/. Amharic words stemming from Ge'ez ሠ realise that consonant as /sä/ (rather than /śä/), so the spelling ሐበሣ in Ge'ez would be in Amharic. Given that the Amharic word is , the spelling ሐበሻ is as etymologically close to Ge'ez ሐበሣ as Kane can get without the spelling becoming misleading.
I see adequate evidence, then, for saying that the Amharic term is ሐበሻ (häbäša) or አበሻ ('äbäša) , that the Tigrinya term is ሓበሻ (ḥabäša), & that the Ge'ez term appears in unvocalised inscriptions as ሐበሠተ, which might be either ḥäbäśät or ḥabäśät.
I would feel happier seeing some source that actually gave a vocalised form of ḥbśt for Ge'ez. Pathawi (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Habesha people are not an ethno-religious group

We’re not an ethno-religious group, we’re a pan-ethnicity made up of various ethnic groups in Eritrea and Ethiopia, this has nothing to do with a religious group. Around 45% of Habeshas are Muslim, 1% are Jewish, approximately 2% are animist, and ~ 52% are Christian, not all Habeshas are Christian. Stop conflating pan-ethnicity or ethnicity with religious, we’re not an ethno-religious group like the Copts which are an ethno-religions group.

It seems obvious at this point that there are multiple usages of this term & that there's not consensus on the usage you prefer. If multiple usages appear in reliable sources, then the article should reflect multiple sources. Perhaps you feel—like some people (possibly you) have voiced on this Talk page—that the other usage reflected in the article is outdated. It makes sense that scholarly work is going to lag behind community usage by a little bit. But the nature of Misplaced Pages is that we have to employ reliable resources; there will necessarily be a little bit of lag. We've been around & around on this. Take a look at the conversation above. Maybe you have something new to contribute on the discussion of the sources, or maybe you'll come to an understanding of why the page currently looks the way it does. Pathawi (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
As an example, see what happens if you Google a question like "Are Jeberti people Habeshas?" It's very clearly contentious, with people from Eritrea arguing for both affirmative & negative answers to that question. Misplaced Pages shouldn't take one side. Pathawi (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pathawi: This is off-topic, but curious as I am, I looked at the page Jeberti people, and made a good catch... :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that's interesting! I'm going to be living with a Jeberti family for the next year sort of by accident (long story—really did not intend for this to happen). The naming by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ sounds like some classic folk history. I'd love to know what ḥadīṯ people draw on as evidence of that! Maybe it's something well-known within the community. Pathawi (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pathawi: Well, my edsum was actually quite insensitive. It just bugged me that it was stated here as fact. If you get a chance to write a citeable paper about it, that would be cool. –Austronesier (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I probably won't. My research is really focused on Beja. I'm glad I saw it! I'm also glad you removed it. Pathawi (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

I've just reverted several edits by @HistoryEtCulture 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. @Pathawi, 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/search/?title=Habesha_peoples&type=revision&diff=979138348&oldid=979128509):

Habesha peoples (Template:Lang-gez; Template:Lang-am; Template:Lang-ti; etymologically related to English "Abyssinia" and "Abyssinians" by way of Latin via Arabic) is a term that has most frequently been employed to refer to serval Ethiosemitic language-speaking peoples of highland Ethiopia and Eritrea but the term 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. Historically most are Oriental Orthodox Christians 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 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.

Historically, the term "Habesha" represented northern Ethiopian Highlands Orthodox Christians, while the Oromos and the ethnic groups that were referred to as "Shanqella", as well as Muslims, were considered outside the periphery. Predominately Muslim ethnic groups in the Eritrean Highlands such as the Tigre have historically opposed the name Habesha; most Muslim Tigrinya-speakers (especially in Eritrea) are usually referred to as Jeberti people. At the turn of the 20th century, certian elites of the Solomonic dynasty employed the conversion of various ethnic groups to Orthodox Tewahedo Christianity and the imposition of the Amharic and Tigrinya languages to spread a common highland Habesha national identity.

Even though the term is rarely used in modern day Ethiopia and Eritrea, because of the previously mentioned connotation it holds, within Ethiopian and Eritrean diasporic populations in North America and Europe, especially among second generation immigrants and for others (influenced by Habesha diaspora social media spaces) who employ the term, "Habesha" has taken on a broader supra-national ethnic identifier inclusive of all Eritreans and Ethiopians. Under this broader sense, it serves as a useful counter to more exclusionary identities, as well as a way to strengthen collaboration and ties between the Eritrean and Ethiopian communities in areas with limited numbers of both populations outside their native homelands. However, this usage is not uncontested especially in the Ethiopian and Eritrean homelands: On the one hand, those who grew up in Ethiopia or Eritrea may object to the obscuring of national specificity. 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.

  1. "Habesha students strengthen cultural ties through community organization". Daily Bruin. Retrieved 2020-09-18.
  2. Ahmad, Abdussamad (2000). "Muslims of Gondar 1864-1941". Annales d'Éthiopie. 16 (1): 161–172. doi:10.3406/ethio.2000.971.
  3. Makki, Fouad (2006). Eritrea between empires: Nationalism and the anti-colonial imagination, 1890–1991 (PhD). SUNY Binghamton. pp. 342–345.
  4. Epple, Susanne. Creating and Crossing Boundaries in Ethiopia: Dynamics of Social Categorization and Differentiation. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 194.
  5. Historical Dictionary of Eritrea. Scarecrow Press. p. 279.
  6. Making Citizens in Africa: Ethnicity, Gender, and National Identity in Ethiopia. Cambridge University Press. p. 54.
  7. Jalata, Asafa. Cultural Capital and Prospects for Democracy in Botswana and Ethiopia. Routledge.
  8. Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. Habecker, Shelly (2012). "Not black, but Habasha: Ethiopian and Eritrean immigrants in American society". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 35 (7): 1200–1219.
Categories:
Talk:Habesha peoples Add topic