Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/December

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you feel—like some people (possibly you) have voiced on this Talk page—that the other usage reflected in the article is outdated.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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)

Most habeshas are Christian what is your definition of habesha? (I hope your not an Amhara Ethiopianis) SonOfAxum (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Knock it off. Pathawi (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Tigrayan Stuff

Thought I'd bring this here since it edged on an edit war: I have edited the end of the lead ¶ to read:

The term is used in varying degrees of exclusion and inclusivity: At one extreme, the term is currently sometimes employed in a restrictive sense to only refer to speakers of Tigrinya; it usually includes all highland Semitic language-speaking Christians; sometimes it is employed in an expanded sense to include Muslim communities as well as Christians. Recently, some within diasporic communities have adopted the term to refer to all people of Eritrean or Ethiopian origin.

I do not think that the previous stable version implied that only Tigrayans were legitimately Habeshas; I believe that it explicitly said that some people used the term in this way, while other usages—including the pan-Ethiopian/Eritrean inclusive usage—existed. Nonetheless, to try to avoid misunderstanding, I have attempted to make this more explicit.

The point of including this in the lead paragraph is to recognize the breadth of variation in the use of the term Habesha. I believe that the Tigrinya-speaker-only usage is the most restrictive definition we have dealt with. That is its significance. I hope that that's clear. Pathawi (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I knew what the previous wording meant, but I'm not sure how common that usage actually is. Either way your new wording is helpful. Thx! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pathawi: From a cognitive viewpoint, first mention creates prominence even if accompanied by conjunctions and adverbs which tell the careful reader that this isn't so. Your "spectral" approach makes perfect sense, but the most common usage becomes sandwiched inbetween less notable "definitions". This will be a stumbling stone for readers who develop their attitude (with adrenalin and all) towards a statement after reading/hearing the first seven words ;) What do you think about this "primary meaning first" version:

• The term is used in varying degrees of exclusion and inclusivity: Most commonly, it includes all highland Semitic language-speaking Christians; sometimes it is employed in an expanded sense to include Muslim communities as well as Christians. 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.

–Austronesier (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier:: I like this. Pathawi (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pathawi: Say this once more (on a different occasion), and I will feel eventually confident enough to put "en-4" on my user page. –Austronesier (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe it might be better to not use the word "extreme", which in a technical, spectral sense is accurate, but carries the connotation of (for example) "extreme views" which implies unpopular, unpalatable etc. To me, the inclusive view does not seem "extreme", at least not in the same way that the exclusive view does. Regardless of my own feelings about inclusiveness/exclusiveness, though, "extreme" seems like a word to avoid, at least in this context. Instead, for example, maybe use "The term is sometimes employed in its most restrictive sense to only refer to speakers of Tigrinya, while recently, some within diasporic communities have adopted the term to refer more inclusively to all people of Eritrean or Ethiopian origin." But here I wonder if "more inclusively" makes it too wordy. (Also, "is sometimes employed" reads a bit better, to me, than "is currently sometimes employed".) My $0.02; it's early in the morning where I'm writing and this might not make as much sense as I'd like -- but thanks in any case for trying to head off an edit battle.- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The ethnic groups need to be mentioned in the summary

The summary doesn't match the content of the page at all. I mentioned the ethnic groups who identify as Habesha, but was removed by some users. They summary only mention Tigrinya speaker, which is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.46.70 (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

One reason that the summary doesn't match the content of the page is that the content of the page is of pretty low quality. I've done some work to try to improve the first couple sections, but no one has touched the rest in a very long time. Meanwhile, some idiot with an ax to grind keeps trying to edit the summary thru sock puppets in some sort of misguided keyboard activism. Occasionally, one of the edits has half a nugget of merit, so we edit the summary to try to produce a better version. The summary has been workshopped to fucking death. If the amount of time that has been wasted on the summary were invested in improving the rest, this would be a top-notch article.

Make a solid argument why ethnic groups should be included in the summary. OR, better, make the article better & worry about the summary when the article itself is actually of better quality. Pathawi (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Oromo Habesha

Yates, Brian J. “From Hated to Häbäsha: Oromo Identity Shifts in Wällo and Shäwa during the Late Nineteenth Century.” African Identities, vol. 14, no. 3, Aug. 2016, pp. 194–208. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/14725843.2015.1121462. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbiyAbiy (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting article. Do you have a specific proposal for its inclusion in the Habesha peoples article? Pathawi (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)