Jump to content

Talk:Habesha peoples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Habesha people)
icon
Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

“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]

oldest inscriptions

[edit]

Where is evidence that oldest inscriptions are on Yemen, no proof of such they are dated to the same time as those found in horn. 149.90.75.126 (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The right question for Wikipedia isn't 'where is the evidence' but rather 'what is the source'. You're right, tho: For a long time the assumption was that Epigraphic South Arabian appeared in Yemen long before the it was used in Africa. More recent research suggests that the appearances were very close together in time. Pathawi (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eritreans are NOT Habesha/Abyssinian

[edit]

Adding this reliable source from a published source: "Abyssinia and Abyssinians of To-Day: Discussion" Gerald Campbell The Geographical Journal, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep., 1922), pp. 192-194 clearly defines which kingdoms were Abyssinian and Eritrea is separate from Abyssinia, therefore the Eritrean Tigrinya and any Eritrean ethnicity was never an Abyssinian/Habesha.

"3.5 million are Abyssinians. Broadly speaking, these are the inhabitants of the provinces-lately kingdoms-of Tigrai, Amhara, Gojam, and Shoa (in part) which cover an area of rather over one-third of the whole country." Menhelicks (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting Eritreans into this "Habesha/Abyssinian" identity. Eritreans are nine ethnicities which are Not Habesha/Abyssinians. Habesha/Abesha/Abysinnia is a name for the Amhara and Tigrayans, Eritreans are neither Amhara nor Tigrayan. No NATIVE Ethnic group in Eritrea considers themselves as Habesha/Abyssinians. This is the equivalent of a French person being called a German by a German simply because Germany occupied France in WWII. Ethiopians are Germans, Eritreans are NOT EThiopians/Abyssinians/Habeshas! Stop putting Eritreans in this article!... The name Habesha/Abesha/Abyssinian is label used by the Ethiopian government/society to claim lands which don't belong to them. Eritrea doesn't belong to Ethiopia. It is similar to a White Supremacist type of label which is simply attached to a group which doesn't agree with their agenda. Habesha/Abyssinians/Abeshas are racist to other African ethnicities especially all Ethnicities of the Eritrean nation. They call Eritreans "Barya" a racist slur against the Eritrean ethnic groups Nara and Kunama. This article needs to remove all Eritrean mentions, seriously! Menhelicks (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of "Habesha" to include Eritreans is explained (and sourced) in the "Usage" section. Also see previous discussions on this talk page & in its archives (example). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This term Habesha is a loaded Pro-Ethiopian/Abyssinian supremacist term used to Habesha-wash the Horn of Africa.
Barya is used as a racial insult by Habeshas(Abyssinians, Amharas, Tigrayans) against Eritrean ethnic groups like Nara, Kunama...Eritreans were never Habesha, nor Abyssinians...
Wikipedia's Pro-Ethiopian/Abyssinian bias is really disingenuous.
Calling an Eritrean, a Habesha, while calling them a Barya at the same time is the worst form of ethno-supremacist gaslighting.
Its equivalent to calling Black Americans, the N-word while presenting the Black American achievements as White American...this is White-washing, Habesha-washing Menhelicks (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently mentions: "On the other hand, groups that were subjugated in Ethiopia or Eritrea sometimes find the term offensive." It cites a source for this. If you think we should expand on this, the best thing to do is make a case for that here on the talk page (pointing to reliable sources). I am not sure who (or if) you are referring to here, accusing them of "ethno-supremacist gaslighting." Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am speaking about the Ethiopian Abyssinian-nationalists (who are referred to as Neftegna, a Neftegna is a coloniser from the Amhara and Tigrayan ethnic group and Not the Eritrean Tigrinya ethnic group). Calling an Eritrean Tigrinya, a Habesha is the same as calling them a Neftegna, when Eritrean Tigrinya were brutalised by the Tigrayans and Amhara (Abyssinian/Habeshas). If Wikipedia is siding with Neftegna/Abyssinian supremacist propaganda and forcing Eritrean Tigrinyas to be labeled Abyssinian when the historical records show the Eritrean Tigrinya were distinct from the Abyssinians(Habeshas):
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NGiDTqf5YYAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Bruce+Abyssinia+Medri+Bahri&ots=QNbtXNms2T&sig=B_9TsUU-Rx1fksVIky7cuid-o08#v=onepage&q=abyssinia&f=false
Eritrean Tigrinyas can be related to Abyssinians but that doesn't make Eritrean Tigrinyas Abyssinian though, it is equivalent to as I described Whitewashing White-Washing Race an ethnicity with a name that is used by their former oppressors. Disingenuous of Wikipedia to permit this. Menhelicks (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into much of a back-&-forth. I just want to give you a little bit of a heads up as to how Wikipedia works: Wikipedia is edited by the general public, according to guidelines for which there is something like consensus. Thus, Wikipedia does not side with anyone—tho it's not uncommon for individual Wikipedia editors to do so. In this case, I do not think that most editors who deal with this article are Eritrean or Ethiopian, or have a bias in favour of one or the other country: This article has been very contentious because of disputes among Ethiopians & Eritreans, & serious editing issues have drawn the attention of other uninvolved editors.
All material that appears in articles is meant to come from reliable sources (WP:RS for the policy). If material is added which does not come from a reliable source, it can be challenged, & potentially ultimately removed. If the removal would be contentious, we discuss it on the Talk page first. There are reasons other than reliable sourcing to remove information—it may be that it's not relevant, or that its relevant is not proportionate to the size of the article—but sourcing really is the main standard. Thus, if reliable sources describe Eritreans as Habashis, it's very hard to justify removing that information. What one should do is read the WP:RS policy to understand what counts as a reliable source, then find reliable sources that say that Eritreans are not Habashis. The result of this would likely be something to the effect of: 'Some sources employ the term to describe [X group of people that includes some portion of Eritreans]; others, however, hold that the term only applies to Ethiopians.' with the whole thing linked to citations.
There really is nothing that can be achieved on the Talk page from arguments based on personal experience. Note that it is not enough to show that Eritrean Tigrinya-speakers & Ethiopian Tigrayans are distinct groups: that's not being disputed. The question is the documented use of the term ḥäbäši in reliable sources—not what the use of the term should be. Pathawi (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a disclaimer note at the start of the article with a properly Verifiable source.
"According to James Bruce, a Scottish traveler in 1770 noted that Abyssinia has been named Habesh, "the assembled nations." The names of these nations are, Amhara, Agow of Damat, Agow of Tehera, and Gafat." Additionaly he noted the distinction of the ancestors to Tigrinya and Eritreans as distinct from Habesh also referred to as Abyssinia. Therefore, Eritreans and Tigrinya are not Habesha."
This whole article is a just a regurtation of the Ethiopia article while trying to force Eritreans, Eritrea, and Tigrinya into this "Habesha" identity which is clearly tied to Abyssinian/Ethiopian nationalism. Menhelicks (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee you that someone is going to undo those changes (not me). Did you read WP:RS? Please note that I said that it was hard to remove sourced information. I gave a model for what was likely to be the result of drawing on two conflicting reliable sources: That both would appear & the conflict would be addressed—not an erasure as you've done. Note that Bruce is arguably not a quality reliable source (as potentially a primary rather than a secondary source, & as an explorer's journal rather than a peer-reviewed scholarly publication), & that he's certainly not a higher quality source than those the article draws on for making an opposing claim. Pathawi (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you supply mulitple sources? Relying on a single highly unreliable source (James Bruce) from the 1700s is not satisfactory. While I comprehend several of the arguments you are presenting, which demonstrate that Abyssinia, now referred to as Ethiopia, is separate from Eritrea today. Magherbin (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source data for adding the Eritrean Tigrinya? Can you provide it? There is no reliable source that added the Eritrean Tigrinya into this extension of the Ethiopian people article. This is an Ethiopian article forcing Eritrean people to be a part of it without any reliable citation.Menhelicks (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article does cite at least one source to that effect. I alluded to it in my previous comment, but I was not more specific than that. Here it is: Habecker, Shelly (2012). "Not black, but Habasha: Ethiopian and Eritrean immigrants in American society". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 35 (7): 1200–1219. doi:10.1080/01419870.2011.598232. S2CID 144464670. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Pathawi this is the unreliable source...please respect my good faith edit and attachment of the unreliable source. I Boldly challenge you about this unreliable source. Menhelicks (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is talking about Eritrean and Ethiopian immigrants who want to differentiate from other Black and African people. This source is a singular article written with a bias. It is not a reliable source because it is being contested.
This article should not extend the "Habesha/Abyssinian" label to Eritreans in Eritrea just because some community members in Washington DC are calling themselves "Habesha" just to not be called "Black". Menhelicks (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation really should be at the bottom of the page: Discussions should appear in sequential order of first post. Does anyone object to my moving it down to the bottom? Pathawi (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've moved this to the bottom, as requested. New conversations typically start at the bottom of a given talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the most recent edits, Menhelicks applied an {{unreliable}} template to the end of the lead ¶. The edit comment was 'citation adding the Eritrean Tigrinyas, the Massawa Mosque as an Abyssinian/Habesha is an unreliable source'. I have removed this for a few reasons: The first & most important of these is that this is clearly still an on-going issue on the Talk page. Beyond this, this use of {{unreliable}} is unclear. It would probably be better to address specific citations, as there are 89 citations in the article as a whole. It looks like one of the contested citations is the Habecker citation that Gyrofrog adduced above. Note that disagreeing with the content of a citation does not make it unreliable: Reliable sources can be wrong. The other bit about the Massawa Mosque I was unable to work out. The article contains a photograph of the Mosque of the Companions in Massawa, but there's no citation that I can find for which unreliable would be a good characterisation.

I've said in a couple places that I think this needs to be handled on the Talk page. Let me be a little more explicit about how that could play out: Menehlicks' objection seems to be principally with the lead ¶, & specifically with the wording 'and Eritrea' in the first sentence. One way forward would be to propose in Talk a rewording that reflected both Menehlicks' concerns & the content of the article. (Note that lead paragraphs should just reflect a summary of what's in the rest of the article: They shouldn't have new information not supported below, & they thus aren't typically citation-heavy.) Other editors who have engaged this conversation could then agree, or make suggestions for how that proposal could be modified. A discussion like that would often take a couple days, though it's not uncommon for them to take a week or two. If editors reached consensus, then it would be an appropriate time to change that lead paragraph. If consensus was unachievable, then it would be a good time to reach out for a third opinion or dispute resolution assistance. Pathawi (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been deleting anything I do on this article of which my actions would be considered fair action, including bold editing, tagging as applicable, and attaching tags to have discussion. The sources provided being unreliable is logical and should be acceptable according to the "unreliable source". If consensus building can't be done with the sources provided, then discussion is the key. But you want to remove the Attention to the issue with this article. Why are you deleting the attention the issue? Massawa picture has no source provided to show it was built by Christian Abyssinians/Habeshas, when it is a Mosque in Massawa! This article has major issues and editors like yourself are strongly committed to keeping this article from being questioned. Menhelicks (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My read of the situation is that you're editing with a clear content goal: You want this article to say that the term Habesha does not apply to Eritrean people (or not to say that it does apply to Eritrean people). I've tried to suggest above a way to work productively toward that end. In any case, you should at least note that you've employed the template that you want incorrectly. Please look at its page. I do not think that the template will remain, however. If specific sources are unreliable, those should generally be targeted.
With regard to specific sources: We don't normally add citations for pictures (especially when there's sourcing info in the Wikimedia Commons file—note what is written on this on WP:WHYCITE), but beyond that, the page doesn't say that the mosque was built by Christians. In fact, it says it was built by the Companions of the Prophet Muḥammad. I just don't think there's any sourcing issue here.
I also think that this conversation is really hitting an impasse, & that it might be a good idea to seek dispute resolution. Pathawi (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I simply asked to prove the postive point of you and those that have this Pro-Ethiopia bias, that "Eritreans" and specifically "Eritrea" is Abyssinian/Habesha?
30 Years of Armed Violent rebellion is not enough proof for Wikipedia, you still wanted to use White European opinions as long as they agreed with your bias which is "Eritreans are Abyssinians/Habesha" based on White European sources from the 1900s and you called them scholarly. Then when presented with a White European James Bruce 1770 and further on, you rejected them as Primary sources.
So what is your argument about primary vs secondary sources...If the primary disagrees with your point of view, then it is unreliable.
But if the primary source which is the Habesha/Abyssinians opinions written by the authorship of Pankhurst (paid by Haile Selassie, White British historian) then it is a reliable source.
This article is an Ethiopian article and that is fine. But Adding Eritreans and Eritrea with dubious and unreliable secondary sources based on Pankhurst and other paid European mercenary historians, then yes there is a content dispute! Menhelicks (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today I'm not going to revert your edits as I don't think that will be productive, but I really strongly encourage you to read the documentation for the {{unreliable}} template (Template:Unreliable sources). At present you are misusing it. Pathawi (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Today I'm not going to revert your edits as I don't think that will be productive, but I really strongly encourage you to read the documentation for the {{unreliable}} template. At present you are misusing it. Pathawi (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)"[reply]
How so? I've already tagged another source which is unreliable. You have a vested interest in keeping this article the way it is. I understand. But if wikipedia allows me the same as you, then I will atleast tag what I think is unreliable. And you are talking from a point of authority, why? If you want to revert then boldly do so! Menhelicks (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please just read the documentation. It's short. Because you are applying the template incorrectly, I do not think that you're doing what you intend to be doing. If you are (& I don't think you are!), it's definitely disruptive editing. It will take you less time to read the documentation than to have an angry & sarcastic back-&-forth with me. Pathawi (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue with the source which I believe are unreliable. I am not being sarcastic. This article is like an article forcing an identity on a people who do no identify and have fought to maintain their identity. Calling them Abyssinian/Habesha is a downright insult. No matter what European article that agrees with your argument that "Eritreans are Abyssinians/Habesha" will just be a case of WhiteWashing via the "Habesha" identity. This article is a Ethiopian article Habesha-Ethiopian-washing Eritreans. Show your sources and it won't change anythign on the ground. Why is Wikipedia hellbent on this forced Habesha-washing? Menhelicks (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that the reliable sources works both ways. Right now, we only have your assertion that (all?) Eritreans are not Habesha and that the term should not be applied to (any?) Eritreans. We can't update the article on that basis. If I told you that I've met Eritreans in the United States who call themselves Habesha, you don't have to take my word for it, nor should you. I think everyone else here is already aware that at least some Eritreans do not consider themselves Habesha, just like not all Ethiopians do. And, we are already citing a source to that effect. If the writer only surveyed 100 subjects instead of 1000 or more, well that's how studies work, she's only one researcher. Like you, I don't care for how the subjects either presented themselves, or (perhaps?) were represented, as wanting to "differentiate from other Black and African people" (the researcher may have very well simply reported what she was told). But, like it or not, this did appear in a peer-reviewed journal and, as such, it meets the criteria of a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If there is a better source than this (i.e. not a travelogue from the 1700s), then by all means, cite it (or better yet, discuss it here first). I will be very surprised if there is a reliable source that says no Eritrean should ever be referred to as Habesha. But I am sure there are others that say many Eritreans do not identify as Habesha – and if you wish to make that clearer in the article, that is certainly worthy of discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source is not reliable as a census taking study. A real census would show if Eritrean Tigrinyas, the only ethnic group which is has been added based on this unrelated source about an immigrant community in Washington DC that numbers only 100 is not a credible study or a final source to back this assertion and claim that you and many Ethiopian-biased editors keep doing on this article and every article where Eritrea is. If you can't recognise that and only are pointing at me for pointing that out, then there is a bigger problem on Wikipedia. There is a clear agenda to keep putting Eritrea and Eritreans into anything Ethiopia or Ethiopian related. But that is ok, Eritrea and Eritreans will continue to fight this Whitewashing of the Eritrean identity by trying to conflate it with "Habesha/Abyssinian" (a political state citizenship). Eritreans aren't Abyssinians because Eritreans are Medri Bahri and Not Abyssinians. Menhelicks (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't what reliable means in the context of Wikipedia's reliable source guideline, which you should really, really read, as it's central to the conflict here & will come up for every Wikipedia article you edit. The fact that you can dispute the method of a study does not make it unreliable. The fact that you can debate the reasoning of a study does not make it unreliable. A recent academic study published in a peer-reviewed journal that has not been retracted will almost always be reliable. This paper is certainly reliable. Reliable sources may be wrong or misleading. Different reliable source can conflict. We depend on reliable sources because then we don't have to worry about your understanding of Habesha versus Azeb Madebo's understanding of the term. When a topic is controversial or there are multiple perspectives, there will often be multiple peer-reviewed papers or academic monographs that present differing viewpoints. Our task as Wikipedians then is to attempt to adopt a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) & to show that there's a difference of understanding in different reliable sources. ('Some scholars say X, but other scholars say Y.' 'A claimed that P, but several scholars have critiqued this study.') Much of your editing over the past two days has been attacking sources that are reliable—published sociology & archæology papers. My impression from your comments is that you have not understood how the RS policy actually works. These are prototypically reliable sources.
I am reverting your changes from yesterday for three reasons:
  1. The banners are applied incorrectly. You really should read the template documentation. I provided a link yesterday.
  2. The specific sources you have mentioned are in fact reliable. However, if their reliability were under question, other templates that target the specific source rather than the entire page would be a better selection. (I don't recommend one in particular, as this is not the way I like to deal with unreliable sources. I also don't want to encourage you to do something that will prove to be pointless: Tagging peer-reviewed scholarly source as unreliable just won't stand.)
  3. In some cases you have instead mentioned the lack of a source. In both of these cases, I have said that a source is not necessary, but if it were, {{unreliable}} would not be the right template. {{Citation needed}} would be the right call here (but again: images don't need citations within the body of an article, & material in the lead ¶s don't generally need a citation—all material in the lead should reflect sourced material in the body of the article).
Yesterday, Gyrofrog asked you what happened when you read WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CON. I don't know if they meant to imply this, but if you were to read these policies you might begin to see that your difficulty in interacting with three other editors on this page comes not from their pro-Ethiopia bias, but rather from these sourcing & process policies.
I suggested a path forward yesterday, & I want to suggest that again: Just propose here the wording changes that you would like to see. Bear in mind that the lead ¶s should reflect the content of the article, & that most of the relevant material is in the Usage section. Then, editors can have a discussion & hopefully work out a consensus.
Pathawi (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pathawi has explained all this, very well, & more than once. I don't think I could add anything else, right now, that I haven't already said. I probably don't express myself as well as I should, & not as well as Pathawi, but you seem completely unwilling or unable to abide by (or even consider) anything that they've said (again, more than once) - but that's an issue for the ANI discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heretofore I've mentioned the Habecker source only because it was the first one that jumped out at me when I was reviewing the article for this discussion. I didn't dig any more deeply than that, until now, because I am not made out of time (like the rest of you, I'm sure). So, upon further review, Habecker is not the only source that's relevant here. I just had another look at the first sentence in the "Usage" section, which has six citations. (For now, I have not dug any deeper than that.) Here are my notes regarding those citations:

  • At this writing I don't have access to the Makki source, Eritrea Between Empires (but see below, after this list).
  • The Epple source describes Habesha within the Ethiopian context, wherein she alternately describes it as hegemonic (p. 191; p. 195), or how "Habesha identity in itself has come to be seen as a weapon to free Ethiopian populations oppressed by the imperialist and unitarian governments of the Ancient Regime and the Derg" (p. 199). Anyway this citation seems more relevant to the previous discussions, from a few years ago. (I don't have direct access to the work; these are from the relevant portions as shown by Google Books.)
  • Historical Dictionary of Eritrea specifically applies "Habesha" to Tigrinyas in Eritrea (p. 279). (Again: I don't have direct access to the work; the citation link is to the relevant portion via Google Books.)
  • Making Citizens in Africa (again, via Google Books), as cited, is about the Ethiopian context (and where the source, p. 54, specifies "Christian highlander," but doesn't actually mention "Habesha"). More relevant, particularly to this discussion, is the footnote on p. 47 (link; I'm too lazy to type all of that, & even if I did, I think it would make this talk page more unwieldy than it already is.)
  • The Belcher source (Google Books), as cited (p. 37), is more about the Zagwe dynasty's relationship with the Habesha. Much more relevant to both this article in general, & this discussion in particular, is p. 23: "Most Habesha (the name of a particular group of peoples of the Ethiopian and Eritrean highlands)..."
  • The Jalata source (Google Books) doesn't allow for much in its previews, but appears generally to (strongly) delineate between Habeshas & Oromos. More relevant, perhaps, is a passage on p. 154, "...call one another Habashas to indicate that they are the mixture of the so-called Semitic group and Africans. According to Jalata (1993, p. 31), 'The Arab elements immigrated to this part of Africa [currently called Eritrea and northern Ethiopia]...'" but it's incomplete (in the Google Books preview) & further inferrence on our part might or might not run afoul of WP:SYNTH. (If I said that this source otherwise has a clear bias, I'd also say that's really neither here nor there, as far as being a WP:RS in this context.)

All of this demonstrates that some Eritreans identify as, &/or could be called, "Habesha" which means that this article is not wrong in saying so. I'm also going to assert that, given this sourcing, Makherbin Menhelicks (sorry) is not going to convince the other three of us otherwise (but you're certainly welcome to take it up at WP:3O or WP:DRN). Having said that, clearly not all Eritreans (nor Ethiopians) identify as Habesh, & I'd suggest that's where the article could use more work (along with reliable sources to corroborate). Some more notes:

  • As I alluded to above, searching for the Makki book (online) led me instead to an article by Makki, "Culture and agency in a colonial public sphere: religion and the anti-colonial imagination in 1940s Eritrea" (https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/03071022.2011.610632). Here Makki describes a Unionist Party, i.e. a post-WW2 party in Eritrea that sought unification with Ethiopia: "Key to this was a shared sense of Habesha (Abyssinian) or Orthodox Christian identity that transcended ethno-linguistic differences between the politically dominant Amhara in Ethiopia and the Tigriña speakers in Tigray and Eritrea..." (it's the only time the word "Habesha" appears in the work). Along the lines of what Makherbin Menhelicks has been saying, Makki actually calls this "Unionist hegemony." But at the same time, Makki makes clear that some Eritreans did indeed identify as Habesha. As such, I'd suggest this source is useful to all involved in this discussion.
  • As a side note, the citations for the 3rd & 4th of those sources are incomplete, & should (but don't) include authors' names. I'll put that on my own to-do list, unless someone else wants to beat me to it.
  • Finally, the state of this article, & the citations therein, are largely the result of previous discussions (I will go so far as to say clean-ups) where another editor (now banned from English Wikipedia) insisted that their definition of "Habesha" was the correct one (i.e. that all Eritreans & Ethiopians are Habesha).

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to several of these sources thru my university.
  • The Makki source is a dissertation, available on ProQuest. I've only just skimmed this: Makki tracks some historical variation in the use of the term "Habesha": its use by Arab & Persian geographers to describe the highland & periphery of the Horn of Africa (26), the formation of Habesha as a highland Christian identity (82ff, 343–44), then the fracturing of Habesha identity under Amhara domination in the modern era (277, 392, 402). This might benefit from a closer reading, but it looks like Makki's account is that Christian Habesha identity (contrasting with local Muslims) was common across highland Ethiopia & Eritrea, & the unity of that identity was broken by the contemporary Ethiopian state.
  • The Historical Dictionary of Eritrea entry for Habesha:

    A self-descriptive cultural definition today applied to members of the TIGRINYA ethno-linguistic group, as well as Tigrinya and AMHARIC-speaking Christians in ETHIOPIA. Habesha defines the culture that was produced by the fusion of Semitic and Cushitic elements in the Eritrean-Tigrean highlands and which flowered as an original civilization during the AKSUMITE period. The derivation of the word is disputed, but it was clearly used in ancient SOUTH ARABIA to describe the people of the Eritrean-Tigrean region. It is not the name of any known South Arabian tribal group, CONTI ROSSINI notwithstanding, nor of any known group that existed on the African side of the Red Sea. The name occurs in Sabean inscriptions describing people from the Eritrea-Tigrai region as early as the first century A.D., and South Arabian sources refer to the Aksumite empire as the "Kingdom of the Habeshat," a usage that continues into medieval ARABIC texts describing the Eritrean-Ethiopian region, form which the English appellation "Abyssinia" derives.

This is consistent with what Gyrofrog draws from the other sources. I think:
  1. We're mostly fine.
  2. If there are reliable sources that describe Eritreans who feel that the term Habesha is employed as a tool of Ethiopian domination in the manner that Menhelicks describes, the page would benefit by the addition of such sources. I suspect that this is one feeling among Eritreans, but our current sources do not describe this.
  3. The Usage section seems to be fine in relation to the sources we're drawing from. I think a minor wording change is called for in the second sentence of the lead ¶. It currently reads: 'The term is also used in varying degrees of inclusion and exclusion of other groups.' I actually think that we might want instead to say something like: 'The term has been used in various more exclusive and more expansive senses.' This is reminding me that I had previously written (in an earlier round of cleaning) a version of the lead ¶ that tried to give the most exclusive & most inclusive definitions of Habesha that appeared in our sources. That stood for some time, but someone objected to it & the consensus was to remove it. I can't remember what the problem was, but it might be worth looking at that older version & the conversation around it.
Pathawi (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing (I thought I'd already mentioned; guess not) – Menhelicks had suggested (on this page) using a census, or some official identification (at ANI) as sources. I doubt very much that Ethiopia or Eritrea (or any other country) uses "Habesha" as a classification in their respective censuses. (Also, when was the last time that Ethiopia or Eritrea conducted a census?) And I'm not sure that the UN (for example) tracks "Habesha," either (though it would certainly be useful in any case). Typically a census (or UN survey etc.) would ask about language &/or ethnicity, which are not necessarily the same thing, but also brings us right back to which ones of those are Habesh or not (& furthermore might require us to infer from the results, which again brings up WP:SYNTH). Hence our reliance on the types of sources that we currently have. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Eritrea has not had a census since independence. Ethiopia's 2007 census has ethnic group counts, but does not employ the term Habesha. Pathawi (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Habesha is not an ethnicity or a "pan-ethnicity", this article is a Synthesis WP:SYNTH that used many sources to generate this group that does not exist. And yet you can't find a Census from Ethiopia where they even identify any ethnicity in Ethiopia as Habesha.
The two Ethiopian ethnicities which are from Proper Abyssinia are the Amhara and Tigrayans. Eritrea has no ethnicity or pan-ethnicity named "Habesha/Abyssinian". You called out many sources to synthesis a non-existant "ethnic group or pan-ethnicity" called "Habesha". None of your sources are reliable if they call "Habesha" as an "ethnicity" or a "pan-ethnicity". Menhelicks (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:SYNTH, or is this just appearing because Gyrofrog mentioned it in their last comment? This ain't that. Every single one of those sources explicitly mentions Habesha people. The criterion that you're creating—appearance in a census—isn't a Wikipedia criterion. The Wikipedia criterion for the existence of an article is notability (WP:N), & the primary (but not exclusive) criterion for inclusion of material within an article are reliable sourcing (WP:RS). There's no census criterion for demonyms. Pathawi (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) Yes, this Habesha article is original research. It combined multiple sources that never Explicitly say "Habesha people" are an "ethnicity" in Eritrea and/or Ethiopia. This is not a Ethnicity and Pan-Ethnicity is not accepted worldwide. This article is misrepresenting the sources to come to this conclusion. Menhelicks (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating this again, but here is a reliable source: Adding this reliable source from a published source:
Abyssinia and Abyssinians of To-Day: Discussion
Gerald Campbell The Geographical Journal, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep., 1922), pp. 192-194 clearly defines which kingdoms were Abyssinian and Eritrea is separate from Abyssinia, therefore the Eritrean Tigrinya and any Eritrean ethnicity was never an Abyssinian/Habesha.
"3.5 million are Abyssinians. Broadly speaking, these are the inhabitants of the provinces-lately kingdoms-of Tigrai, Amhara, Gojam, and Shoa (in part) which cover an area of rather over one-third of the whole country."
Habesha/Abyssinian is a political nation-state identity (AD 1270-1930) and not an ethnicity within Ethiopia nor Eritrea. Abyssinia changed names to Ethiopia. Menhelicks (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a published source. I'm not sure it's reliable: It's not peer-reviewed, & remember that in the reliable source policy WP:AGE MATTERS. This is over a century old. All of the sources that you're pitting it against are from the past 25 years. Nor does this really add anything. Look at the first sentence of the Usage section: Historically, the term "Habesha" represented northern Ethiopian Highlands Semitic-speaking Orthodox Christians, while the Cushitic-speaking peoples such as Oromo and Agaw, as well as Semitic-speaking Muslims/Ethiopian Jews, were considered the periphery. This is one, restrictive historical use of the term Habesha, & it accords with your article. But the other reliable sources demonstrate that there have been other uses. The job of Wikipedia is not to decree a correct usage, but to document actual usages that appear significantly in reliable sources. Adducing additional examples of one usage won't eliminate the evidence of other usages. Nor can you determine that a source is unreliable based on its content. We're kind of going in circles here. Have you read the policies? Pathawi (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:AGE MATTERS, it does not exclude older sources especially if it has not been superseded. None of the sources, nor the countries Eritrea or Ethiopia have ever identified Habesha as an ethnicity, Habesha is an old name and nothing new has been discovered about it. The only thing is this article is a Synthesis to draw the incorrect conclusion that "Habesha are an ethnicity or panethnicity" and No Census or Country UNICEF Data, even the countries articles have referred to "Habesha/Abyssinian" as an ethnicity. Keep reading the sources and pretending this article is notable. Menhelicks (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple of these sources do in fact refer to Habesha as an ethnicity. I'm not sure which source the term 'pan-ethnic' comes from, but it appears in, inter alia, 'My race is Habesha' by Amanuel Isak Tewolde (Ethnicities, vol. 21 no. 1 83–97) & 'Conceptualizations, Causal Beliefs, and Coping Mechanisms for Mental Health Conditions Among Ethiopian Youth in Atlanta' by Tsedenia Tewodros, Liyu Berhanu, Samson Alemu Argaw, et al. (Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, published 15 July this year). I have no particular investment in the term pan-ethnic, which I had not encountered before this article. But it's not the result of synthesis. Pathawi (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "My race is Habesha" how does that translate to Habesha being an "ethnic group"? This article is a synthesis finding sources saying things like this
"their race as Habesha in the face of their experiences with racial classification. I argue
that by defining their race as Habesha, participants re-defined race as a pan-ethnic identity". The article is definitely a synthesis where the sources have been picked out looking for specific terms at the same time rejecting other sources with the claims you used.
You seem to not seeing the conclusion is a synthesis and incorrect but it is being maintained for this conclusion. Menhelicks (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what this means. We're not making progress. I suggest dispute resolution. Pathawi (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Habesha, an ethnic group in Eritrea, Ethiopia?

[edit]

If this article is concluding with "Habesha, an ethnic group in Eritrea and Ethiopia", then how come Habesha is not listed in

Ethnic groups in Ethiopia

Ethnic groups in Eritrea

If it was an ethnic group in Eritrea or Ethiopia, wouldn't you have reliable sources and census data from Ethiopia, Eritrea, United Nation. Additionally, Ethiopia has Regions of Ethiopia as a federal system of government with each major ethnic group forming into an ethnic-state. If Habesha is an ethnicity, then being a combination of Amhara and Tigrayans, they would have a Federal recognised ethnic state called Habesha. Here is an ethnic regional map of Ethiopia, show me where Habesha is listed? You see Amhara and Tigray (Tigrayan) but no Habesha [[1]] ? But that doesn't exist in any reliable source about Eritrea and Ethiopia 's ethnic demographics, because the conclusion of "Habesha being an ethnicity" is a synthesis and false. Menhelicks (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this is in a new section. Was this meant as some sort of dispute resolution? If not: the previous section had not run its course, & we don't need to maintain this discussion in two sections. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other discussion is different from this one. This is asking whether the Habesha, is actually an ethnic group? I thought I made it very clear in this section. If you want to provide a response to this question, then do so. If not, I'll expect others who can provide reliable sources that actually show the "Habesha" are an actual ethnic group in Ethiopia and Eritrea.Menhelicks (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Pathawi said the discussion is going nowhere in the "Eritreans are not Abyssinian/Habesha" and he is unwilling to entertain a different point of view. He is adamant that "Habesha is an ethnic group in Ethiopia and Eritrea". If so, then provide reliable sources that could be used to add "Habesha" as an "ethnic group" in the Ethnic groups in Ethiopia and Ethnic groups in Eritrea. If his sources can't do that, then the Lead sentence and the claim that there is an ethnic group called "Habesha" in Ethiopia and Eritrea is synthesis of various sources and Original research. I would like to explore this question but the non-neutrality of Pathawi and his overuse of Wikipedia rules to stifle discussion and flooding the discussion with accusations and the use of the ANI to stop me from not only editing but getting blocked. Sorry, if you want to have a discussion on this question, I'm open. But to me that section would be better served by firstly answering this question. I know you can come back using the Immigrant studies as a "reliable source", but if it was such a "reliable source", then it would be in scholarly sources that can identify and Governments and Nations would have already stated that "Habesha" is an ethnic group in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Menhelicks (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my second to most recent comment under the previous header. Several of the sources cited in the article employ the term ethnicity. I don't think there's anything more to say. Pathawi (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If those sources are so reliable then they would be used to add the "Habesha" as an ethnicity in the Ethiopia and Eritrea but it doesn't because those are a collection of sources that were compiled to synthesis an ethnic group that doesn't actually exist nor recognised in Ethiopia or Eritrea, nor in the US, EU, UN, and so forth. No official UN data, no governmental sources identify an "ethnic group called Habesha" as being in Ethiopia or Eritrea. This article is a synthesis to lead to a conclusion that is not factual, thus this is original research WP:OR Menhelicks (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not dependent on the content of other Wikipedia articles. You are not understanding what synthesis means in the context of Wikipedia or how the WP:OR policy works. These sources say—verbatim—that Habesha denotes an ethnicity. You individually may disagree with that, but this is just normal sourcing. Synthesis is the merger of information from two sources to say something that doesn't appear as such in either. That's not the case here: The sources actually explicitly say this. Original research is material that comes from editors' independent efforts rather than from reliable sources. Again, since these sources explicitly say that the Habesha are an ethnicity, this is not original research. Pathawi (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: I don't think that what's going on right now is useful. I don't think we're making any progress toward consensus, or even toward having a focused conversation. I think that dispute resolution is appropriate. Since there are already more than two editors involved, I don't think a third opinion is the right option. Perhaps we could post a Request for Comment (WP:RFC). For an RfC to work, it would help for you to give a clear, concise description of the change you'd like to see—ideally in one sentence. What do you say? Pathawi (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question but just disregarded. And you have been disregarded anything I say, post, or even edit and then you sent an ANI on me. I don't think you have been Neutral as you clearly have a Bias. I'm expecting anybody else to add to this discussion. And to simply answer the question and the sources you provided deviate from what official sources say. If Wikipedia is only using studies from Immigrant communities and then concluded that the Immigrant community identity translates into an "ethnic group" in Eritrea and Ethiopia when no other sources corrobrate that conclusion. You know even if you disregard every source use every Wikipedia manuever available to keep this article with this conclusion, then it is pointless at least for a discussion between you and me. Menhelicks (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic evidence?

[edit]

There should be more discussion of the genetic element instead of a single source referenced. As that is heavily contested. Some sources point to the dna being levantine in origin rather than southern arabian. ~2025-32599-37 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Habesha_peoples&oldid=1322566031"