Talk:Amhara people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021 Remove The Ethiopian Flag At The Bottom of Page and the Caption that Falsely Claims That That Flag Is The Amhara Ethnic Flag When It Most Definitely Is Not.

Remove The Ethiopian Flag At The Bottom of Page and the Caption that Falsely Claims That That Flag Is The Amhara Ethnic Flag When It Most Definitely Is Not. The flag at the bottom of the page that has been falsely claimed as an Amhara or Amhara nationalist flag is incorrect and gives of a impression. The flag at the bottom is an older traditional flag of Ethiopia and is used by the people to convey a multi-ethnic Ethiopian national identity. This article makes or implies a false and outlandish claim that Ethiopian national identity is the same as Amhara ethnic identity which is not true. Please make the caption clear stating that the flag bellow is the traditional flag of Ethiopia and is used by many Ethiopians regardless of ethnicity, as this article makes it seem like only Amharas are Ethiopian; and/or remove the Ethiopian flag from the bottom page and replace it with the actual Amhara ethnic flag you can find at the Amhara Region article, which is more accurate. 2601:14D:8500:2200:14AA:D4E0:151A:D2E1 (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done – not be me – by User:Landroving Linguist, in this edit; I am merely closing the request, so it does not continue to draw people here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Please add more information about the Amhara Region coup d'état attempt in the Amhara people#Nature of Amhara ethnicity section showing the conflict between Amharas that support pan-ethnic Ethiopian civic nationalism vs. Amharas who support the novel Amhara ethnic nationalism and self-determination movement. The article is lacking in information on this topic. 2601:14D:8581:2C70:59ED:7613:DA7A:E88 (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The existence of Amhara before 1991

When this ethnic group has only existed for 30 years now, how are there some parts of this article stating people who lived before 1991 as "Amharas"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatsnotclear (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that the group only existed for 30 years. It quotes sources that claim that the Amharic ethnic consciousness is a relatively new development, not the Amharic people as such. Landroving Linguist (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Improvements to notable Amharas

Well, a lot of the persons listed as notable Amharas don't have specific links that includes sources from scholars. They're rather blogs or not even sourced whatsoever. A lot of persons mentioned in this source might not even be "amhara" as an ethnic group just because there we no such things as other ethnic groups back then. What do you think? How can we fix this? We can split those into the former provinces: this would be more correct historically — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myl1ttleswetts (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we convert the notable "Amharas" to the provinces Shewa, Gojjam, Wollo, Begmender? As I said, this would be more correct, I feel like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myl1ttleswetts (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic belonging does count here, so I would stick with the way it is, unless you can prove in individual cases that someone on this list is/was definitely not Amhara. I would count someone as Amhara who speaks/spoke Amharic as mother tongue and does not identify with another Ethiopian ethnic group. There is a list of famous ethnic Germans on Wikipedia, even listing people that lived when politically there was no Germany (basically any time before 1871). Still it was deemed fitting to put them on that list. Landroving Linguist (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think language is always tied to ethnicity. People from Austria also speak German, People from the U.S. also speak English and they don't identify as "Germans" or English" (at least in most cases). They (Amhara, before 1991) saw themselves as Ethiopian rather than a modern ethnic group, I would say.

Correct, language cannot be the one and only criterion for ethnic identity. But as you say, in the old days Amhara identity was inhibited by cultural identification with something larger, the Ethiopian culture. The carriers of that culture didn't think of themselves as Amharas (although there were exceptions to that, as that letter to Hiob Ludolf shows), but in comparison with other ethnic groups in Ethiopia, Amharas they were, and it is not wrong to identify these people in retrospect as Amharas. Landroving Linguist (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the letter refers to the historical province called "Amhara" (also known as Bete Amhara), this would make sense considering that the writer himself came from there. Furthermore, I want to ask what are the so-called comparasion points? What makes a person before 1991 an Amhara? It is wrong to identify them as "Amharas", this is like saying that the Romans were Italians or saying the Native American in the 15th century for instance were notable Americans, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:D82:4900:B477:A408:3335:8D8E (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a really bad idea. There are many people in Ethiopia that are not actually Amhara or are of mixed ethnicity that speak Amharic as their native or dominant language of use that have been wrongfully labeled as "Amhara" by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front Government for political and discriminatory reasons that has disenfranchised ethnically mixed people forcing them to either pick one ethnicity or pushed to identify as "Amhara" if they are a native Amharic speaker regardless of what their actual ethnicity is. This mostly affects/affected people who grew up, lived, or have family from largely multi-ethnic urban areas who mostly speak Amharic. Its like calling all native English speaking people (regardless of ethnicity or race) English people. Its like calling Anglophone Irish people English people. Good Read: Pausewang, Siegfried (2005). "The two-faced Amhara identity". Scrinium. 1 (1): 273-286. doi:10.1163/18177565-90000138. HOA101 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

"Also known as Abyssinians" is inaccurate.

The page inaccurately says "Amhara people, also known as Abyssinians". However, Abyssinians mean Ethiopians, it doesn't only mean the Amhara ethnic people of Ethiopia. The name "Abyssinians" definitely includes Tigrayan ethnic people of Ethiopia, and it probably also includes other ethnic groups in Ethiopia. It might also include some ethnic groups in the current day Eritrea (which is a country that just became an independent country after secession from Ethiopia in 1991). It seems to be a statement added to falsely claim and give full ownership of Ethiopia to only the Amhara ethnic people (as in the current day news situation), though Ethiopia was found around 3000 years ago by Kingdome of Dʿmt and Kingdom of Aksum, whom the Tigrayans and perhaps also the Amhara people have descended from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoAHabesha (talk • contribs)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

I would like to edit the population of the amhara people because the number presented on this page is incorrect. Madgotscar (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If you provide us with an updated figure and a reliable source, I can consider updating the article, Madgotscar. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: I presume that by incorrect, you mean outdated, because all of the figures in the article seem to be sourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Please also provide reliable sources to support your changes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Issue with @Rogeman123: over Solomon and the bible, and the literal translation of Bete Amhara.

User has problem with the literal translation of Bete Amhara, which is House of Amhara numerous times removed the bold from the translation on another article Bete Amhara and removed the english translation on this page. To be clear, this is not a deviation, it's the literal translation and backed by a reliable source. Removing sourced description may also be vandalism. User can't seems to explain why he has trouble with the english translation House of Amhara and he often doesn't put anything in the summary when editing.

User also seems to have a problem with Solomon and the reference to the bible, he argues that he mentioned in other religious books, which is true, but he doesn't contextualize it to the subject at hand, which is the Solomonic Dynasty of Ethiopia, who's rulers were Christians, adhered to the Christian faith. By contextualizing it's to this article, it's not inconsiderate to make reference to the bible, in fact it is accurate. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Response to @Rogeman123: who openend another section regarding same issue. My arguments are very clear, to which book did the Solomonic Dynasty adhere to? You already answered this question. I put in that context, which is fitting and not inconsiderate as you claim. As for the Bete Amhara, i already explained my points and that it is sourced. I will repeat again. I don't understand why user is trying to conceal/make less visible the English translation of Bete Amhara on the Bete Amhara, and remove the English translation from on Amhara people page. He seems to have issue with House of Amhara even though it is sourced, and the actual translation. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Issue with @Dawit S Gondaria: over Solomon and the bible, and the literal translation of Bete Amhara.

This user seems to have a problem with contextualizing his argument as well. He claims Solomon as only a Biblical figure when mentioning the phrase “King Solomon of the bible.” And I have told the user numerous times this and does not understand. I was trying to fix his grammar mistake, not vandalize. I was also trying to correct his mistake on the Bete Amhara, the translation is given in the Bete Amhara page. The user is not willing to accept that the term “Bete Amhara” is the name of the region, and it would be correct to call it by that name. This user has a problem with “Bete Amhara” and does not properly explain his reasoning. I have used the summary box but this user does comprehend.

I do not have a problem with the bible, I am correcting his mistake. Yes, the Solomonic dynasty is a Christian family and they do claim descent to King Solomon; however, when mentioning “King Solomon of the Bible”, this means King Solomon is only mentioned in the Bible, and not the other two Abrahamic faiths. This user has a problem with both Islam and Judaism. Rogeman123 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I already openend a section regarding this issue @Rogeman123:, you opened a unnecessary new section, kindly respond there. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose a compromise: Rogeman is quite right when he insists that the Bible should not be mentioned here - neither is it helpful, as it might indeed alienate non-Christian readers who also revere this king, nor is it necessary, as a link is given right there that will direct any reader to the page for Salomon, if there is any doubt as to which Salomon is meant here. But then Dawit has a point that Bete Amhara should be translated - but since it is also a name, that name should be given first in the original. So it could be "Bete Amhara (lit: House of Amhara]" or something like that. Some advice to both of you: don't be so quick to fling accusations about. "Vandalism" is a pretty strong accusation, which assumes very bad faith. The way I see it, both of you want to contribute responsibly, even if you disagree. Take the heat out of the discussion, and things will become easier. LandLing 14:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing Why would anyone of other faiths be offended by putting it in the factual context? It's simply the facts, why would the simple truth alienate non-Christian readers? I think it's very helpful, people read it without clicking on Solomon, they know instantly that this is a Christian oriented dynasty. From a totally factual point of view, isn't the Solomonic Dynasty a Christian kingdom with Christian rulers? Why should anyone be offended by referencing the bible? I do however agree with the Bete Amhara proposal. I appreciate your proposal, though i don't agree with the bible part, it should stay, in my opinion. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the Solomonic Dynasty, King Solomon and the reference to the bible

There's a dispute whether it should say King Solomon of the bible in connection with the Solomonic Dynasty. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments: One side has argued that King Solomon of the bible is inapproperiate citing that it alienates non-Christian readers. Other side argues that it's in the right context because the Solomonic Dynasty(1270-1974 AD) was a Christian Dynasty, and is a improvement over Solomon, because it right away informs clarify to readers that it's about a Christian Dynasty, without having to click on Solomon page, which has very extensive information most that is out of context for the Solomonic Dynasty in Ethiopia,'and which only has a small section under relationship with Queen of Sheba section. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

– for disambiguation, "King Solomon of the bible" is not necessary – it's like saying "Jesus of the New Testament" – the blue link to King Solomon provides all the disambiguation necessary – Epinoia (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: I forget to add, that it's the Biblical narrative that describes the meeting between Queen Sheba and Solomon. Not the other two Abrahmic religions, it's the Old Testament that serves as basis for the Kebra Negast of the Solomonic Dynasty in Ethiopia Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: – "King Solomon of the bible" is still not necessary for disambiguation – keep it simple and use blue links for disambiguation – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: Can you explain what blue links are, or refer to a wikipedia site that explains it? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: – reading over the Talk page I can see no compelling argument for retaining "King Solomon of the bible" any more than "Moses of the bible" or "Abraham of the bible" - blue links are connections to other relevant articles as in King Solomon – see WP:MOSLINK and H:WIKILINK – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: question is it possible to make it so that when you click on Solomon, that it goes directly to the section Relationship with Queen of Sheba the information relevant to the Solomonic Dynasty in Ethiopia. Dawit S Gondaria -talk) 22:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: yes: [[Solomon#Relationship with Queen of Sheba]] - you can pipe the link to [[Solomon#Relationship with Queen of Sheba|Solomon's relationship with the Queen of Sheba]] which will display as Solomon's relationship with the Queen of Sheba - clicking on it will redirect to the section of the article -cheers, Epinoia (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: thank you, that is a good middle way. This Rfc can be closed. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MfactDr, engage on talk page WP:BRD

The source you added doesn't say Manz Amhara being drawn on for slavery.

I can find extensive material about the Oromos, should i elaborate and expand on that? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria Assuming good faith, read the source it mention as "Menze amhara" I Could not find "Manz" you talk about MfactDr (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

MfactDr Are you talking about the Abir source? Where does it say Manze Amhara being drawn upon for slavery? The Jstor article say Manze Amhara in other contexts not related to slavery. The intial source is Abir Mordechai page 57-60 and it doesn't say Manze Amhara. I assumed good faith, you can't claim otherwise, now start answering questions. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Cordless Larry about layout?

We are here Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I presume this is your attempt to respond to my comment at AN/I about WP:BRD. I suggest we revert back to the consensus version of the article, pending further discussion. You've added "Claims made that Amharas don't exist" in bold text, which is non-standard formatting, and no one is claiming that Amharas don't exist in any case. You've also changed "According to Takkele Taddese" to "During a conference in 1994 Takkele Taddese made these statements", when the source cited is a written paper from the conference, not a transcript of his presentation. "Citing Takkele Tadesse and Tegegne Teka views, Gideon P. E. Cohen, wrote in 2000" is ungrammatical. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Here adminning: which is the previous consensus version? —valereee (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be this, Valereee (note that one additional edit has been made by a different editor, not relating to this dispute). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous consensus revision as an admin action, adding back the additional edit. —valereee (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about reverting, and claiming that's through consensus is weak for the following reasons, edits have been added recently, so suddenly when i edit, then it's back to what you deem consensus? ●I concede on 1 point, is the Takkele Tadesse, you can put back to According to. ●Issue with Bold; The Bolded texts have been there longer probably even before i had a Wikipedia(if i remember correctly searching previous diffs), but suddenly you take issue with bold because i highlight the one with view that Amharas don't exist? Well Takkele Tadesse and Tegegne Teka are saying Amharas don't exist right? ●As for Gideon P.E Cohen, i reiterate that Gideon citing Takkele & Tegegne views is important not to create a false perception of broader support of the view Amharas don't exist. Suggestion we could do it like this. Gideon P. E. Cohen, wrote in 2000 that there is some debate "whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group, [...] given their distribution throughout Ethiopia, and the incorporative capacity of the group that has led to the inclusion of individuals from a wide range of ethnic or linguistic backgrounds.(Gideon citing Takkele Tadesse view and Tegegne Teka) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for joining —valereee Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, DSG, I'm only here as an admin, I won't be chiming in on anything content-related. —valereee (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Cordless LarryI disagree with removing Bolded text, because one they are part of the consensus, have been there much longer: ●it differentiate the different view points. You took issue with it only after i bolded Claims made Amharas don't exist and i don't know why? In fact i was thinking about adding another viewpoint ●Ethiopianist viewpoints in that category. As for Gideon P.E Cohen i mentioned above, he's not citing anyone right now, and it looks right now like it's his own viewpoint. Sugesstion to make it like the source, with has also been raised and at the end (Takkele, Tegegne) just like in the source. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The idea at the moment is that the Cohen quote introduces the fact that there's some debate about the issue, and then the views of individual contributors to that debate are set out in detail. No position in the debate is attributed to Cohen. I think that's the best approach, personally. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry i totally disagree with you regarding Cohen, and i thinks it's important to gauge the support of the controversial view Amhara don exist by including who they are citing, because it looks right now that it's Cohen view, and it gives the impression there's a broader support for this view.

What is your view on categorized the section between different viewpoints with, to make it easier for readers, and uninvolved user to understand different viewpoints. It also makes it easier for uninvolved users to gauge the support for each view. The sections i want to add along with the ones already present is who are ●Pan-Ethiopian views ●Historical regionalism ●Amharas don't exist(reinstate) with all of them properly citing where they base their quote on. I think this is a improvement over what we have now. Do you agree? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What's the basis of that categorisation of viewpoints? Is it made in a secondary source? If not, it sounds a bit like original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry I already explained above Larry twice, read it again. Gideon P.E Cohen is a secondary and i'm not arguing for his removal, am i? Just to make sure that the primary sources he bases upon are also cited, just like in the source. And we already have categories in the section btw(Amhara conscience in the past/Amhara 21st century). It helps readers/users to see the different viewpoints. If you disagree say it. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You've not explained the source of the categorisation, so I don't know whether I can support it. At present, the section headings are just descriptive, rather than representing categories of viewpoint. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I explained it several times. What do you think the source of the categorisation is, outside of what i said several times already? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, Dawit S Gondaria, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. You haven't been able to explain which source(s) say that the debate can be divided into those three viewpoints. Please stop hassling me by making the same unsupported points repeatedly. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Please stop being so vague in your answers then, you can have just said which source(s) can be divided into those three viewpoints couldn't you? I'm not fond of having any discussion with you either Larry! But it's highly you will revert when i do want to improve the section, and then we will be back here discussing this again. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what I asked above: "What's the basis of that categorisation of viewpoints? Is it made in a secondary source?". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Coup attempt

@ Also inaccurate is this addition: In 2019, there was an attempted coup d'état in the regional capital Bahir Dar - this coup happened as a consequence of the formation of ethnic Amhara militias, a manifestation of rising Amhara nationalism. Why? ●No mention of Amhara nationalism ●There were attempts made by a former general by recruit ethnic militia's, no where in the article does it say he succeeded in forming ethnic militia's and nor does it say the coup happend because ethnic militia's were formed. ◆Basically this is misleading, do you know who added this? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The first mention was added by a now-banned editor here. I agree that it's problematic as it stands, but note that Tazebew writes "If the rising influence and popularity of nationalist narratives and the power they unleash have not already made obvious the power of Amhara nationalism, the 'coup d'état' against the Amhara regional government on 22 June 2019 certainly should", so that addresses the nationalism point. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay it can stay in. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry & Dawit S Gondaria The event has nothing to do with the formation of ethnic militia's, it's about an high ranking officer gone rogue. 82.173.7.242 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

CHANGE "There's a generally agreed consensus that the genesis of the Amharas were group(s), who spoke an old form(s) of Agaw,[24][25] or Proto-Agaw[26] that gradually semiticized through interaction with various Semitic-speaking peoples.[27] However to varying degrees the morphology of modern day Agaw languages has also been influenced by Amharic,[28] and the difference between the varieties of Agaw tongues is greater than the diversity of the Romance languages, in contrast the differentiation between Amharic speakers is negligible.[29]"

TO "Amharic is believed to have descended from Ge'ez, an ancient Semitic language of the Kingdom of Axum. Following the breakup of the Axumite kingdom, and the ascension of the Agaw-led Zagwe kingdom, Ge'ez speakers had their language heavily influenced by Agaw and other Cushitic languages. This is believed to be how Amharic, and other Ethio-semitic languages, were born. Amharic rulers considered themselves to be direct descendants of the Solomonic Dynasty which ruled Axum; this dynasty lasted until 1974, when it was ended by the overthrow of Haile Selassie.

Cite: http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/tigretigrinyageez.html Bulebet123 (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We're not going to remove a paragraph cited to five sources and replace it with a paragraph cited to a single self published source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Semitic Component Amhara

@محرر البوق: First of all, page 26 of Tadesse Tamrat says nothing about migration to Bete Amhara, where Amharas first emerged according to sources. WP:OR and misleading by tying Cosmas notes on Kaleb expeditions into Begemder and Lasta to migration without context that Bete Amhara didn't include those areas discussed on page 26. Nor did you include that Tadesse Tamrat and Ullendorf theories are based on non contemporary 14 century (Gadl) hagiographies.

I will be adding other theories (for example Marcel Cohen, Hetzron) later, i have to work. WP:BRD. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Well what other Semitic speaking peoples did the Proto-Amharas interact with aside from the Aksumites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by محرر البوق (talk • contribs) 17:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@محرر البوق: Have some patience, i'm on it. Efekadu has been so constructive to provide one already. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Haste makes waste, will expand further this weekend. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Meyer (2011) in the Weininger volume also mention Bender's creole hypothesis. Do you think it is some worth mentioning (even if it's not accepted by the mainstream), or would it run against due weight? I think it probably would depend on the depth of coverage here in this article. –Austronesier (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: There are many theories, which one/should they all be in the ethnogenesis section, or Amharic section? I just don't know.

Then again it's too simple to claim Aksumites expanded southward mixed the Proto-Agaws in the modern Amhara homeland, and thus conclude early Semitic migration were Aksumites (which wasn't in Tadesse Tamrat btw provided by محرر البوق), rather (if we go by mainstream/broadly accepted theory) the Semitic migrants that Amharic descended from were speakers of a South Ethio-Semitic language (Transversal branch), dates are an issue, but an estimate (Cambridge source) claims the split with North Ethio-Semitic was before 300 BC. However Aksumite influence and later Zagwe were very important for the Christianization of Amhara, Geez played an important role as the language of the Church, and (written) Amharic has expanded it's lexicon using Geez (see new quote Aron M Butts). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve compiled a few statements from the below sources that I gather would not be seen as controversial. Depending on how much/if we decide to expand here, we could include minority views as long as we highlight that they aren’t widely accepted, or perhaps we could save those for the main Amharic article.

• BC divergence of North and South Ethiopic or Ethiosemitic
• Gradual “absorption” of a Semitic population by an Agew population (or gradual “semiticization” of an Agew population)
• Cushitic substratum and Semitic superstratum in Amharic
• High prevalence of Ge’ez sourced lexicon in Amharic
• Amhara or Proto-Amhara kings in the Kingdom of Axum by 8th century AD
• Amharic-Argobba divergence some time after the 9th century AD due to religious differences

Efekadu (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: @Austronesier: I'm planning on adding the below to the Ethnogenesis section here and the Linguistic Development Theory section in the Amharic article. Please feel free to make edits or provide feedback as you see fit:

Amharic is a South Ethio-Semitic language, along with Gurage, Harari, and others. Some time before the 1st century AD, the North and South branches of Ethio-Semitic diverged. Due to the social stratification of the time, the Cushitic Agaw adopted the South Ethio-Semitic language and eventually absorbed the Semitic population. Amharic thus developed with a Cushitic substratum and a Semitic superstratum. Integration with the Kingdom of Aksum by the 8th century AD or earlier and Christianization of the Amhara or proto-Amhara has resulted in a high prevalence of Ge’ez (of the North Ethio-Semitic branch) sourced lexicon in Amharic.Some time after the 9th century AD, Amharic diverged from its closest relative, Argobba, probably due to religious differences as the Argobba adopted Islam and founded the Ifat Sultanate. The morphology of modern day Agaw languages has also been influenced by Amharic to varying degrees. The difference between the varieties of Agaw tongues is greater than the diversity of the Romance languages, while the differentiation between Amharic speakers is negligible.

@Efekadu: Great, i'll throw in some sugesstions later today as well (sorry for the delayed response). Though i don't think the Argobba part should necessarily be included in the ethnogenesis section, maybe in the language section? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

In 1983, Lionel Bender proposed that Amharic may have been constructed as a pidgin as early as the 4th century AD to enable communication between Aksumite soldiers speaking Semitic, Cushitic, and Omotic languages, but this hypothesis has not garnered widespread acceptance. The preservation in Old Amharic of VSO word order and gutturals typical of Semitic languages, corresponding Cushitic influences shared with observed in other South Ethio-Semitic languages (especially those of the South Ethio-Semitic branch), and the multitude of geographically distinct Cushitic languages that have influenced Amharic at differing points in time (e.g. Oromo influence beginning in the 16th century) support a natural evolution of Amharic from a Proto-Ethio-Semitic language with considerable Cushitic influences (similar to Gurage, Tigrinya, etc.). Efekadu (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have a question about Hetzron (1972) and Demeke (2014), both of which alas I do not have access to: do they specifically mention Amharic as being more Cushitic substratum-influenced (or specifically Agaw-influenced) than other Ethiosemitic languages? –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Both authors point out that all Ethio-Semitic languages have Cushitic influences, but South Ethio-Semitic languages developed under even stronger Cushitic influences. Demeke goes further to state that Amharic must not have developed as a pidgin because it does not have a particularly stronger Cushitic influence than other South Ethio-Semitic languages, which also are thought to have begun to diverge before the 4th century AD.Efekadu (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@@Efekadu: Lionel Bender theory is indeed not mainstream, my question to other editors is how much alternative (non mainstream theories) should be in the ethnogenesis section, or should they be in the linguistic theories of Amharic article? There are a dozen theories, it can be confusing for readers Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria Good point. Let's confine that to the Amharic article. Efekadu (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Rework Ethnogenesis section

Amharic is a South Ethio-Semitic language, along with Gurage, Harari, and others. Some time before the 1st century AD, the North and South branches of Ethio-Semitic diverged. Due to the social stratification of the time, the Cushitic Agaw adopted the South Ethio-Semitic language and eventually absorbed the Semitic population. Amharic thus developed with a Cushitic substratum and a Semitic superstratum. Integration with the Kingdom of Aksum by the 8th century AD or earlier and Christianization of the Amhara or proto-Amhara resulted in a high prevalence of Geʽez (of the North Ethio-Semitic branch) sourced lexicon in Amharic. By about the 9th Century AD, there was a linguistically distinct ethnic group called the Amhara in the area between the Tekezé River and the valleys of the eastern tributaries of the Blue Nile. The Amhara became a linguistically distinct ethnic group some time after the 9th century AD, when Amharic diverged from its closest relative, Argobba, probably due to religious differences as the Argobba adopted Islam and founded the Ifat Sultanate.The morphology of modern day Agaw languages has also been influenced by Amharic to varying degrees. The difference between the varieties of Agaw tongues is greater than the diversity of the Romance languages, while the differentiation between Amharic speakers is negligible. There's a generally agreed consensus that the genesis of the Amharas were group(s), who spoke an old form(s) of Agaw, or Proto-Agaw that gradually semiticized through interaction with various Semitic-speaking peoples. However to varying degrees the morphology of modern day Agaw languages has also been influenced by Amharic, and the difference between the varieties of Agaw tongues is greater than the diversity of the Romance languages, in contrast the differentiation between Amharic speakers is negligible.

According to Donald Levine, the Amharas linguistically separated from the Agaws when they developed the Semitic tongue Amharic during the 1st millennium AD. Edward Ullendorff hypothesized that it occurred after the 8th century AD. Efekadu (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

How about:

How about another beginning? See fresh discussion. Some time before the 1st century AD, the North and South branches of Ethio-Semitic diverged. Due to the social stratification of the time, the Cushitic Agaw adopted the South Ethio-Semitic language and eventually absorbed the Semitic population. Amharic thus developed with a Cushitic substratum and a Semitic superstratum. interaction with the Kingdom of Aksum by the 8th or 9th century AD or earlier and Christianization of the Amhara or proto-Amhara resulted in a high prevalence of Geʽez (of the North Ethio-Semitic branch) sourced lexicon in Amharic. By about the ninth century, there was an distinct tribal (or linguistic) group, known by the name of Amhara in the area between the Tekeze river and the valleys of the eastern tributaries of the Blue Nile

Fresh Discussion

The removed section is too much detail about morphology of Agew language and comparison with Romance languages, should be relegated to the Amharic section for more indepth details. The same with Edward Ullendorf hypothesis which was based on Amharic being a southern variaty of Geez, which is no longer the mainstream theory, also to linguistic theories section. Also i don't have acces to pages 26-121 of Hetzron's so i'm asking resource exchange for some pages. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: The relevant piece of Hetzron 1972 p. 36 is the first quote below in the sources and theories section. [I see now that resource exchange is a wikiproject, let me know if you discover anything useful! Efekadu (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)] I agree on all fronts. In fact I don't think the piece about Agaw languages makes sense here topic-wise, and there's already a section on the low dialect variation of Amharic in the main Amharic article. I think we should replace what's already in the ethnogenesis section with the above, excluding sources such as Levine and Gilbert who propagate (but do not affirm) Bender's pidgin hypothesis, but leaving Butts p. 18 in (not sure why Butts p. 21 is cited here as that does not support the content). The statement "lingustically separated from the Agaw" is also misleading here, as there has always been a Proto-Amharic-Argobba or Proto-South Ethio-Semitic language (and thus a people who spoke it as a native tongue) that gradually acquired Cushitic influences over time and evolved into Amharic, assuming the pidgin hypothesis is fallacious. Additionally, the sources cited do not seem to support the "various Semitic-speaking peoples" statement, which is a shame as we know from our oral traditions that there has been a substantial Jewish contribution, particularly in Gondar.
On a separate note, since the Amhara have been historically defined by language and religion, and ethnogenesis occurs when a population becomes distinct from neighboring groups, what are your thoughts about the modified addition in bold above to conclude the section? Efekadu (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Efekadu: Oke my two cents.

@Dawit S Gondaria: Many thanks for the constructive feedback. See my responses below. Efekadu (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Good day! @Efekadu: not having acces to Girma A. Demeke source right now (a resource request is pending), but agree in princicpal to your proposed changes, though see also my responses, also regarding Tadesse Tamrat. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Thanks for catching the mathematical error on the Tadesse Tamrat source. I was going off the verbiage "first half of the 9th century" and then "about a half century earlier" without doing the math. I will also correct the history section here which cites Tadesse for an 8th century construction date of that church. Efekadu (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• The opening sentence looks excellent somewhere in the Amharic language of this article as well as the mainstream classification on Amharic article. instead of beginning with Amharic is a South Ethio-Semitic language, along with Gurage, Harari, and others. to somewhere along these lines. feel free to improve this part . >>> Amharas ancestors were part of a Southward movement of Semitic migrants who mingled with indigenous Cushitic peoples. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I avoided mention of the southward migration theory in order to avoid having to attribute various theories to various scholars here and keep it as streamlined and consensus-based as possible. According to Girma Demeke, who has conducted the most comprehensive analysis of the origin of Amharic to date, North and South ES split when North ES migrated northward from the ES homeland in central Ethiopia. Also according to him, later around the 6th or 7th century, the proto-Amhara-Argobba people also migrated northward and integrated with the Aksumite state, evidenced by Argobba (or Amhara) settlements as far North as Eritrea (see first Girma quote in sources and theories section below). Girma does note that the administrative center of Aksum shifted south in its waning days. See my comment on the last bullet point below. Efekadu (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I asked for the pages of Girma A Demeke @resource exchange to read his analysis, but we could already go ahead with your proposal in advance? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Integration with Aksum as a state? In what way? More like interaction with migrants from Aksum. The earliest source of Christian settelement in Amhara is derived from the Gadl (hagiography) of Tekle Haymanot who traced his genealogy to the mid 9th century in Amhara. Cambridge source page 126 suggest that Tekle Haymanot ancestor built the first church in the area, and that Amhara were still pagan at this time. Are there any sources that provide an earlier timeline? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Along with Girma's mention of a proto-Amhara-Argobba northward migration into Aksum by the 6th or 7th centuries, Tadesse Tamrat's Church and State provides an earliest date of the establishment of the church at Lake Hayq in the 8th century CE (according to Ahmed Gragn's chronicler). Girma cites lists of Kings with Amharic-sounding names as early as the 8th century CE, which he does concede are questionable. Aside from that, however, he does indicate that the existence of such names in the north by the 8th Century CE is a matter of historical fact, citing an 8th century burial inscription in Tigray with the name "Mängäša" as one example (note the palatal "š" preceding the "ya" construction for the instrumentative derivation of the infinitive verb which are not present in North ES languages which do not palatalize and end in "i": Amharic mägläč̣a/መግለጫ vs. Tigrinya mägläṣi/መግለፂ) Efekadu (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I added Tadesse Tamrat quotes, source place the traditions about the church foundations in the 9th century, both Tekle Haymanot and Iyasus Moa Gadl place it in the third quarter of the 9th century. Ahmad Gragn chronicler place it to early 9th century 1531 - 720 = around 811 AD. Though i'm very curious about Girma Demeke analysis about Amhara role in Aksum, hopefully it's can made available via resource exchange. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Cambridge source page 126 also says that by about the ninth century, there was an distinct tribal (or linguistic) group, known by the name of Amhara in the area between the Tekeze river and the valleys of the eastern tributaries of the Blue Nile, maybe that can replace the Argobba part for the distinction of Amhara as a group, since scholars are divided on whether Argobba founded the Ifat Sultanate or not? Maybe leave the Argobba part to the Amharic language section, highlight them as the closest relative. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed. Efekadu (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Cambridge source page 128/129 says that period of Zagwe dynasty strenghtend the particular Christian identity of Amharas. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Butts is more in depth discussing Agew Cushitic theory by comparing certain words and phrases. The forerunners who came with Agew Cushitic theory are Haberland and Leslau, which he cites a lot, (and later Bender who adds a pidgin theory with the Agews, and others) Page 21 of Butts said Amharic and Argobba have a probable Agew origin. Hetzron also mentions Haberland on page 36 about Semitic conquerers/migrants imposing their language on (Agew, Sidamo). Agew seems to be a recurring thing among different sources. So maybe just leave out Agew from the ethnogenesis section and replace it with Cushitic peoples just to be safe? and put Agew somewhere it in the Amharic linguistic theory section? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that Hetzron was also including the forerunners of the Gurage and other South ES groups in that page 36 statement, who would have mingled early with Sidamo societies further south. However, sources do indicate that sometime between the initial admixture of Semitic and Agew populations and the Oromo migrations, there was a Highland East Cushitic influence on Amharic. That said, I don't think mentioning Agew here would be contentious at all and I'm sure additional sources can easily be found to shore that up. Even so, if you think it would be beneficial, we could change it to "Cushitic peoples, primarily Agew" or something to that effect? Efekadu (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with you on the Levine part "lingustically separated from the Agaw" being misleading, for the reasons you mentioned above, Levine was citing Bender, thus the pidgin theory (non mainstream theory) hence should be relegated under Bender in the linguistic theories of Amharic. This was before i did research on Hetzron and the language classification (the language classification and North/South Ethiopic started with Marcel Cohen, which Hetzron cites). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Reinecke/Gilbert source: I chose ‘‘Various Semitic Speaking peoples’’ then because Reinecke on page 43 mentions Aksumite migration in the waning days, and page 44 Pre-Amharic speakers(South Ethio Semitic speakers) and page 43 that Proto South Ethio Semitic was probably spoken alongside Geez in Aksum prior to it's fall (which seems to agree somewhat with Demeke Girma). Reinecke/Gilbert mentions both Hetzron and Bender theories. More sources mentions an South-Ethio Semitic migration as the oldest known wave, and later also an late Aksumite migration based on Tekle Haymanot Gadl, and a third less known wave during Zagwe dynasty. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• My thought here would be rather than to combine the interactions of different peoples which occurred at different times into a single phrase, perhaps we could add a sentence about a later southward migration of Aksumites or a southern shift of the administrative center of Aksum? Particularly since the initial interaction would have been the one with the most impact, linguistically and otherwise. Efekadu (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed, we should both mention the South Ethio-Semitic precursor, and the Aksumite part. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources and theories

• Robert Hetzron (1972): "Our assumption is that at a very early period (probably B.C.), a group of Semitic-speaking people went south, imposed its language on the Cushitic peoples living there (Agaw, Sidamo) and finally got absorbed by them. The SE [South Ethiopic] area must have once been more or less continuous from the northern Amhara area (bordering on NE Təgrəɲɲa [North Ethiopic Tigrinya]) through Gafat to Gunnän-Gurage towards the South, and through Argobba to Harari and East Gurage towards the South-east. The thesis of this originally continuous Semitic-speaking area in the South was advanced by E. Haberland (1960, pp. 8-9) where, in addition to linguistic criteria supplied by Leslau, he advances historical, ethnological and other considerations that make this thesis very plausible." Efekadu (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Amharic is a South Ethiosemitic language and forms, together with Argobba, East Gurage languages and Harari, the Transversal sub-branch of South Ethio-semitic (Cf Hetzron, 1972, 119). No reliable information exist on when and where Amharic emerged as a language. Ullendorf (1955 226 f.) is of opinion that Amharic developed out of a southern variaty of Geez after the 8th century. This view was modified by Hetzron (1972 119 ff.) who considers Amharic not to be a direct descendant of Geez but an offspring of an common Ethio-Semitic Proto-language. [...] Today Hetzron's view is broadly accepted" (p. 1178). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Edzard (2019): "Amharic (ʔamarɨɲɲa) is the main modern exponent of the Southern Ethio-Semitic branch and is to be associated with Argobba, Eastern Gurage and Harari. The term most probably derives from the region Amhara (ʔamara) in the northern and central highlands of Ethiopia (Map 9.1). Following a widely accepted study by Hetzron (1972), Amharic should not be considered a direct offspring of Gɨʕɨz but rather a descendent of an early common Ethio-Semitic language" (p. 202)" –Austronesier (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Cambridge (1975): "In fact these glottochronological comparisons indicate that the split between South Arabian and ancient Ethio-Semitic probably took place no longer than 2000 BC; that the divergence between North Ethio-Semitic and South Ethio-Semitic began before 300 BC; and that the diversfication among the various constituents of South Ethio-Semitic may have occured between 300 BC and 100 AD."

• Aaron M. Butts (2015): "Amharic, and especially the written language, has been expanding its lexicon for many years using Geez as a resource in much the same way as the classical languages has been used in building English lexicon. Bender's survey, which operated with only a 100-item word list, perhaps unsurprisingly concluded that Tigre and especially Tigrinya shared a higher percentage (77% and 80%, respectively) of items in common with Geez than did Amharic (72%) or the various so-called Gurage languages (60%). Nonetheless these figures do show that Modern ES(Ethio-Semitic) does retain a higher proportion of Semitic lexicon than initial impressions may suppose." Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Girma A. Demeke (2014): "When we consider the minimal difference of these languages, it seems that they were mutually intelligible till three to four centuries ago. On the other hand, we know from history that the Argobba adopted the Islamic religion at least in the 9th century, while the "Amhara" in the north adopted Christianity much earlier time . . . I suggest that Amharic and Argobba became distinct languages not because of geographical differences but because of religious differences. Accordingly, Amharic's place of origin cannot be different than that of Proto-Central, i.e. the parent of Argobba and Amharic's place of origin . . . I have suggested that Proto-Central SES [South Ethio-Semitic] developed its own feature in the central part of Ethiopia probably around Gedem, and that Amharic and Argobba became distinct languages later than the "Amhara Kings" took power from the Zague dynasty. I have also pointed out above that Amharic or a pre-Amharic like language was in existence in the north during the Axumite period. As the settlements of Argobba and Amhara reveal, it seems plausible to assume that Proto-Central SES, after developing its own feature, moved to the east as far as Harar and to the south as far as Bale and to the north as far as Eritrea . . . I have laid out in chapters two and four the evidence for the expansion of a pre-Amharic-Argobba group to the far north. As the reader might remember, there are names similar to Amharic in the list of Axumite kings starting from the beginning of the 8th century. The first expansion of a pre-Amharic-Argobba group to north could have taken place, therefore, probably starting from the beginning of the sixth century or the seventh century." Efekadu (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tadesse Tamrat (1972): "3 The problem of the origin (or origins) of the modern Semitic languages is also relevant for the direction of both the initial south Arabian migration and the eventual expansion of the kingdom of Aksum and its medieval counterpart. The view generally accepted that the earliest immigrants probably spoke different dialects of a common south arabian language of which the modern Semitic languages of Ethiopia are the distant offspring. This implies that the spread of Semitic influence in the Ethiopian region originally had northern Ethiopia as a single point of departure. While accepting this as ‘la plus vraisemblable’ in the case of Amharic at least, Cohen has long drawn attention to the possibility that other ports like Raheita and Zeila may have also been used by south Arabian immigrants to move over to the regions of Amhara, Shawa and Harar, Etudes, pp.3-4, 38-40, 46-52." Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Robert Hetzron (1972): "It seems that at a certain moment of history a group split off from the common (Northern) stock and by developing its own features became independent. The remainder of the Northern stock yielded three NE languages, while the "dissidents", subjected to further very strong Cushitic influences, split again and again, and evolved into what we now classify as "South Ethiopic". Common features characterizing all the SE languages suggest that there was a common SE stage in their development." Efekadu (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Girma Demeke (2014): "Despite Amharic being assumed to originate from a pidgin-creole, no one (including Bender 1983) denies its being Semitic. 75% of its core vocabulary is claimed to be Semitic. Its non-concatenative morphology is clearly of Semitic origin like the agreement markers of verbs and a number of other morphological features. Amharic's non-Semitic behavior mainly shows itself in its syntax. However, such non-Semitic syntactic features including the word order can hardly support the pidgin origin theory. The phonological features, too, do not support such a hypothesis. Moreover, the non-Semitic features in Amharic are found to a similar degree in the other modern Ethio-Semitic languages, and Amharic exhibits a number of common features with South Ethio-Semitic languages. As Hetzron (1972) points out such features are indications of a common origin." Efekadu (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Brittanica: "As descendants of a southward movement of ancient Semitic conquerors who mingled with indigenous Cushitic peoples, they inhabit much of the central and western parts of present-day Ethiopia" Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Reinecke (1987): page 43 "The indigenious population of Amhara were probably Agew (speaking Central Cushitic languages), given that these were, as far we know, the ubiquitous inhabitants of northern highland Ethiopia at the time." [...] page 44: "While Amharic (perhaps better: pre Amharic) was the changing variaty of Proto-South-Ethiosemitic spoken in the Amhara region, other sister variaties (pre-Gafat, pre-Harari, etc) were developing in similar situations across the Blue Nile to the west, and to the east and south." Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tadesse Tamrat (1972): "According to the Life of Takla-Haymanot (c. 1215-1313) the advent of his ancestors to Amhara and Shawa is connected with Digna-Jan's programme of evangelization of his southern provinces. The reference to the king in this tradition may be related to the settlement of the earliest of the saint's ancestors in Amhara eighteen generations before him. This brings Digna-Jan to the first half of the ninth century. It is also about the same time that local traditions refer to the foundation of the famous church of Dabra Igziabher on the mountain-top overlooking Lake Hayq in the north-east. Two apparently independent traditions are preserved in Gadla Iyasus-Mo'a about the date of the foundation of this church. According to one of these traditions, the church was built by King Dilna'od and the Egyptian bishop Abuna Salama II, who is said to have come to Ethiopia 618 years after the advent of Salama I ((Fremnatos), the first bishop sentt to Ethiopia by the patriach of Alexandria. The other tradition dates the evvent at 6362 Year of Creation. The two dates are remarkably close to each other, and both take the foundatio of Dabra Igziabher to the third quarter of the ninth century. The chronicler of Ahmad Gragn also collected a similar tradition that the church was built 720 years before 1531 when the Muslim army destroyed it." Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

References

.

the Amhara have been the country dominant people. all but one (Yohannes Iv) of the Ethiopian emperors were Amhara.

it is possible that the woreda of Wag in the Amhara Region was the place of the mysterious town of Ku'bar, which was reported by Arab travellers like Al-Masudi as the capital of the Kingdom of Aksum in the 9th and 10th centuries.

The Amhara people are considered the heirs of the Aksumsite Empire. They are the keepers of the oral and written cultural and religious traditions of the old Ethiopian kingdom (often referred to as Abyssinia) and of the mythology of Queen Makeda.

Origin

by 800 AD Axum was Largely abandoned by its inhabitants and retained only symbolic significanceand, as the power shifted southward into Central Ethiopia.

by the 8th century Axum had almost ceased to exist, and its demographic resources were barely adequate to stop the once tributary pastoralists of the border marches from pillaging the defenseless countryside. the Axumite elite and a share of the common people migrated south into modern-day Amhara region. It was there, in Lasta and Begemder, that the foundations were laid for the 13th century emergence of the modern Ethiopian state.

starting from the 9th century there were migrations of Christian families from Axum southward into the provinces of Bete Amhara and northern Shewa. those families migration represents a slow population movement from the old provinces in the North into the much richer areas in the south. This process also seems to be connected with the southward shift of the Aksumite kingdom.

References

Removal of sources

Doug, l I have talked with you a couple of weeks ago and you said that you will protect the page of the Amhara people and now I found out that it was removed?! I saw your comment when you said that it was removed because the user that “edit” it was blocked. There were so many users that got Blocked that it’s difficult for me to follow. But I read all the sources that were removed and they are 100% accurate. You are welcome to read it for yourself. Please put it back. 46.31.101.84 (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of sources

All of the sources were removed! You can’t balme it on every “block user” those are well accurate sources and easy to access. How come it were removed? 46.31.101.84 (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

We routinely remove edits made by accounts or IPs trying to evade their block. Anyone restoring them takes responsibility for any problems, from copyright violations to misrepresentation or use in original research. I don't have the time or desire to check them all and take responsibility. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

editing sources

above origin:

the Amhara have been the country dominant people. all but one (Yohannes IV) of the Ethiopian emperors were Amhara.

source: Encyclopedia of Africa by by Henry gates page page 96

Below origin:

by 800 AD Axum was Largely abandoned by its inhabitants and retained only symbolic significanceand, as the power shifted southward into Central Ethiopia.

Source: Tōkyō Daigaku Rigakubu Chirigaku page 22

by the 8th century Axum had almost ceased to exist, and its demographic resources were barely adequate to stop the once tributary pastoralists of the border marches from pillaging the defenseless countryside. the Axumite elite and a share of the common people migrated south into modern-day Amhara region. It was there, in Lasta and Begemder, that the foundations were laid for the 13th century emergence of the modern Ethiopian state.

source: Rise and Fall of Axum, Ethiopia: A Geo-Archaeological Interpretation. page 492

arting from the 9th century there were migrations of Christian families from Axum southward into the provinces of Bete Amhara and northern Shewa. those families migration represents a slow population movement from the old provinces in the North into the much richer areas in the south. This process also seems to be connected with the southward shift of the Aksumite kingdom.

source: The Cambridge History of Africa: From c. 500 B.C. to A.D. 1050, by Ronald Anthony. page 101 46.31.102.64 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Notable Amharas

Abebe Aregai, Military Personnel

Belay Zeleke, Military Personnel

Tilahun Gessesse, Artist

Tsegaye Gabre-Medhin, Artist

Mulatu Astatke, Artist@ 196.189.17.87 (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2022

The reason was to add some important things.

Denied: No clear request; see request instructions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Notable people

This notable people section is not cited throughly with reliable sources. Therefore I made some notable persons section in the respective sub regions( Shewa, Gojjam etc. Zaikaidu (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Got a better idea, I added a "notable people" fraction to the page of the Amhara region. My suggestion is to move the section on this site to the Amhara Region Zaikaidu (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Zaikaidu Not all Amharas are born in exclusively in those four sub regions, or the Amhara region. This article notable section includes Amharas born outside that narrow bandwagon you are proposing.

Also many of the articles mention them as Amharas, you can make an argument for the few articles that doesn't mention their ethnicity though.

Overall your ideas are flawed and i don't support it. YonasJH (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of the persons do not even have reliable sources. So two suggestions: 1. Putting the ones in reliable source to the site of the Amhara Region 2. Or splitting them into 4 sub-regions Zaikaidu (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

please change

 Amhara is indigenous to Ethiopia.
 Amhara is the founder of the axumit kingdom
 Amhara population in Ethiopia is 40 million.
 Amhara is the first population size in Ethiopia. 196.188.75.56 (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate request. Please be mindful when using edit requests, and be aware that they are usually not seen and addressed immediately. Please do not write the same request multiple times, as that could be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or acting in bad faith, if continued as a pattern of behaviour. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

please change

 amhara is indigenous to Ethiopia.
 amhara the axumit kingdom
 amhara population in Ethiopia is 40 million.
 amhara is the first in Ethiopia. 196.188.75.56 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate request. Please be mindful when using edit requests, and be aware that they are usually not seen and addressed immediately. Please do not write the same request multiple times, as that could be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or acting in bad faith, if continued as a pattern of behaviour. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

amhara is indigenous to Ethiopia.Correct it they the founders the axumit kingdom amha population in Ethiopia is40 million.it is the first in Ethiopia. what you put wrong.donot post it you received the information from the ethnocentric minority government of the Tigre of the previous regime 196.188.75.56 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please remain civil. If you believe that some of the sources used in the article are unreliable, refer to them specifically, make an argument that supports your position, and back up your claims with reliable sources. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Re adding origin theories in the history section.

@Materialscientist: I added this [[1]] back in November 2021. User:محرر البوق is twisting sources to push a theory in the history section. Sources Bender, Aron Butts and Reinecke supports an Proto Agaw, but also mention Amharic as a descendant of an Ethio-Semitic language that is related to Geez through an Ethio-semitic ancestor (Hetzron theory, which is still the most common theory to this day). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm twisting sources to push a theory but the claim that "The Amhara people are considered heirs of the Aksumsite Empire." doesn't seem uncontroversial to you?

Your bias is showing.

محرر البوق (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@محرر البوق Your twist (in the form of Appiah source) is that the Proto-Agaws were semiticed by Geez speakers from Aksum, which is not supported by Reinecke, Aron Butts source. South Ethio Semitic speakers were already present. Geez played a role in the Christianization of the area later on. The sources mention Hetzron theory which classifies Amharic to this day as a South Ethio Semitic language, still the most mainstream theory. It's not a direct descendant of Geez, Proto-Amharic and Geez had a common Ethio-Semitic ancestor according to this theory. However, Geez influenced the lexicon of Amharic due to it's status as a sacred church language. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't, Aksum played a role in Christianization of the region. Amharas form the largest Orthodox Christian community in Africa. Golden age of Geez literature was during the Amhara Solomonic Dynasty not Aksumite period. In that case Amharas are heirs. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely is, there is no evidence to suggest that Amharas are the heirs of the Aksumite Empire. Edward Ullendorff in his book "The Ethiopians" on page 35 121 claim the the Tigrinya speaking people of Tigrai and Eritrea are the "authentic carriers of the historical and cultural traditions" of the Aksumite Empire. Most sources state that Tigrayans are the heirs of the Aksumite Empire, not Amharas.[2][3][4]

Even if you choose to not believe this, this is evidence that Amharas are NOT universally considered to be the heirs of the Aksumite Empire and the claim of being the heirs of the Aksumite Empire is very much contested. This is why I accused you of being biased because you removed my edits but you didn't remove that (which I also believe was added by a sock). محرر البوق (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

My edit back in 2021..

There's a generally agreed consensus that the genesis of the Amharas were group(s), who spoke an old form(s) of Agaw, or Proto-Agaw that gradually semiticized through interaction with various Semitic-speaking peoples.

VS your twist

There's a generally agreed consensus that the ancestors of the Amharas were group(s), who spoke an old form(s) of Cushitic Agaw, or Proto-Agaw These indigenous Agaws were then semiticized through intermarriage with Semitic Ge’ez speaking settlers from Aksum who gradually migrated southwards towards the modern Amhara homeland during the 9th century AD.

References

Aksum heirs claim

@Dawit S Gondaria The source referenced for the statement that Amharas are the heirs of the Aksumite Empire does not provide any evidence or explanation as to why they are. The source cited is an Encyclopedia and hence a tertiary source. Using this source alone would be against Wikipedia policy see WP:DONTUSETERTIARY and WP:TSF. Ullendorf's source is much more reliable then this and should be preferred as it is reputably published. There is no evidence that Amharas are the "cultural heirs" to Aksum. Your edit summary is your opinion alone and is not stated by any material. If you choose to include that in this article that would be WP:SYNTH and original research.

Seeing what google books have to say, most sources (admittedly, I have no idea if theyre reliable or not) suggest that Tigrinya and Tigre speakers are the heirs of Aksum. Or at best they group up Amharas and Tigrayans together and say that they together are the inheritors of Axum. Very few if any say that Amharas are the inheritors or "cultural heirs" of Aksum alone. محرر البوق (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@محرر البوق You are either not reading the abundant sources available or simply are pushing a minorty narrative. My edit summary is common fact, you don't seem to know much about this subject, they are overwhelmingly Orthodox Christians (not Mohammedans), the largest in Ethiopia, even Oromos and Tigrayans put together can't even come close to the number of Amharas adhering to Orthodox Christianity. Amharas remember their history and their wars against Arab influence and Mohammedans enchroachment. Amharic fidal is a modified script derived from Geez, and Geez golden age of literature happend during the Solomonic Dynasty not Aksum. There are plenty of sources that can back this up. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria You can read about Tigrayans being the successors of the Aksumite empire here[5][6][7]. I can provide significantly much more sources (you can easily took this up yourself) but it seems like this isn’t a minority narrative. So what if Amharas are overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian? That literally does not make any sense as to why they are the “heirs of Aksum”. By that logic Latin Americans are the heirs of the Roman Empire because they are overwhelmingly Catholic and outnumber European or Italian Catholics. Also if you want to still want to argue this Tigray is over 95% Orthodox Christian and is more Orthodox then Amhara percentage wise as Amharas have a significant Muslim minority. The point is Amharas are absolutely NOT universally considered the heirs of the Aksumite Empire. This is a heavily disputed statement and is not common fact, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Tigrayans are the successors to the Aksumite Empire you are clearly pushing some nationalistic perspective that has no consensus.

محرر البوق (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

محرر البوق A totally pointless discussion and a total waste of time with you, please bring this forward to one of the dispute settelements, the sources are provided in the article, i'm not going to add a dozens of more available sources just to humour you. What the hell is your point anyways? Your are just pov pushing trying to portray Tigrayans as the sole succesors, when that is NOT the case. If you are referring to the 2007 census it mentions the faith of whole regions and zones, not specific ethnic groups. The Amhara region has mohammedan minorites such as the Oromo's and Argobba. Amharas are much larger group than Tigray and have many more Orthodox Christians, in fact Amharas formed the vanguard of Christianity in the region so much that term Amhara was synomous with being Christian. It clears you are not bothering to read the sources or are lacking comptence. Aksum was a spiritual source of Christianity reaffirmed in the Kebra Negast togehter with the Solomonic Dynasty which Amharas dominated, plentiful sources say Amharas are heirs/inheritors of aksum, and continued their traditions (which means Orthodox Christian traditions, and the use of Geez as church language). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria That is the case and I’ve already provided tons of sources proving that Tigrayans are considered to be the direct successors of the Aksumite Empire more so then Amharas and that nobody except for crazy nationalists believes in that theory.

The source you cited for Donald Levine on pg 33 says this: “is that these influences were absorbed primarily by the Aksumites and their cultural heirs, the Tigreans and Amhara” WP:CHERRYPICK

”The Amhara region has mohammedan minorites such as the Oromo's and Argobba. Amharas are much larger group than Tigray and have many more Orthodox Christians, in fact Amharas formed the vanguard of Christianity in the region so much that term Amhara was synomous with being Christian.” None of this matters, please reread my previous comment about the Latin American analogy. You seem to be in complete denial that Amhara Muslims exist and exist in large numbers. 17% of the Amhara region are Muslims making them a significant minority. I’m not gonna respond to these ridiculous statements anymore if you continue to trick yourself into thinking that Amhara Muslims are some teeny tiny insignificant minority then that’s your problem.

My point is again, that Amharas are not considered to be the heirs of the Aksumite Empire. That is an incredibly controversial statement and is WP:FRNG. The so called “plentiful sources” that you provided can be easily refuted by my sources (which I provided earlier) suggesting that Tigre and Tigrinya speakers are the successors. Also the Kebra Nagast was propaganda piece written by the Solomonic kings in the 14th century to establish their legitimacy. By that logic Amharas are the heirs of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Why don’t you add that in?

More sources;

“The Tigrayans who consider themselves to be the heirs of the Aksumite Empire”

“The Tigreans , the direct descendants and cultural heirs of ancient Aksum”

And many more!

محرر البوق (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC) محرر البوق (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

محرر البوق Take this to a one of the dispute boards, waste of my precious time dealing with you. You will find a very time to convince most editors that the successorship to Aksum are exclusively to Tigrayans-Tigre i can tell you that already.

Orthodox Christianity DO MATTERS a lot for Amharas, it's part and parcel of their lives and the history of their forefathers. Amhara region doesn't mean all are Amharas, 91.47% of Amhara region are Amharas, there are other tribes as well. The census of religion is based on zones and districts not ethnic groups! The figure of 17% you are blabbing about doesn't mean Amharas are 17% mohammedans, far from it. For instance, the Oromia Zone are more than 85% Oromo's, but are 97% muslim. You have the Argobba special woreda (Amhara) more than 95% Argobba and more than 96% muslim. That one zone and special woreda takes 3% off the region's figure, not to mention dozens of other tribes who live in the rest of the zones. Figure of 17% is mathematically impossible, closer to ten percent, maybe? Still Amharas have numerically more Orthodox Christians than Oromos and Tigrayans combined. I don't care if you don't respond anymore, in fact please don't respond you damn mohammedan, go read the census properly and stfu.

Your Latin American analogy was ignored because it's simply an idiotic comparison, and even more moronic for you to mention it twice, you simply had no clue about the history of the Roman Empire before you made that ridiculous comment. Roman Empire continued without Rome. Ge'ez is no longer a spoken language, neither Tigrayans speak it, nor Amharas, both use it as a church language, both of their script are influenced by Ge'ez script.

I don't care about your point, you are pov pushing that Tigrayans are the only heirs of Aksumite Empire, when sources disagrees with you. Go ahead and take it to the notice boards. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria Blah blah blah blah, not going to address those completely irrelevant off topic arguments.

For the last time YOU ARE POV PUSHING. There is contradicting sources about the statement that Amhara are the heirs of Aksum. Yet you present it as a fact. “Amharas are considered to be the heirs of Aksum” by who? Themselves? You? We’re both familiar with the people of this region and we both know that if you tell a Tigrayan or an Eritrean that Amharas are the successors of Aksum they’ll laugh in your face. You have absolutely no idea what POV pushing is, please look at WP:YESPOV. “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.” and “Avoid stating opinions as facts.” The claim that Amhara are the heirs of Aksum is an opinion and is disputed by several other authors, the statement is also seriously contested but you present it as a fact. Maybe Tigrayans are the only successors maybe they’re not, but that theory is out there and should not be ignored. By ignoring the sources that consider Tigrayans to be the heirs and only including the ones that state Amharas are the heirs you are POV pushing, end of story.

you damn mohammedan, go read the census properly and stfu. This is a new low, even for you. Seems like a bigoted personal attack. DO NOT address me or Muslims as “Mohammedans”, that’s offensive as it comes from the false connotation that Muslims worship the Prophet Muhammad. Are you that stubborn that you cannot handle well cited opinions that are different to yours? Stop with these fucking temper tantrums and grow up. محرر البوق (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Manual revert afterWP:SOCK, and persistent revert that involved WP:POV and WP:EW

As indicated in the edit history, brought back the Old revision of Amhara people version due WP:SOCK, and persistent revert that involved WP:POV and WP:EW. This version reflects the discussion opened on a contentious religious and historical topics and the related source reliability questions that may require further discussion to decide on WP:RELIABILITY of foreign sources.Petra0922 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring WP:EW

Already left a note to محرر البوق talk page with a recommendation to include the opposing views and the contentious nature of the historical accounts in the body of the article. I have manually edited and brought back the version (contents and sources) that محرر البوق kept removing.Petra0922 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 This dispute is not over FYI. If you continue to ignore my replies on my talkpage, I will interpret that silence as you no longer objecting to the edit you reverted. محرر البوق (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@محرر البوق The previous editor added adequate sources and I also proposed additinoal supporting reference to the content. Please note that you persistently reverted edits for the third time while others disagree, and it is not clear why you made inaccurate edit summary when making the third revert claiming consenus was reached. Please note that this edit will be reverted back to the version where discussion was opened.Petra0922 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 I never claimed that consensus was reached. You stopped responding to my replies for whatever reason, this article says I can do that. WP:DNRNC Also can you please stop saying that this statement is supported by “adequate” sources, I already explained to you why those sources are NOT adequate. Using a tertiary source to make a very controversial statement is against Wikipedia guidelines. WP:TERTIARYNOT I was always ready to discuss and find a consensus on this article hence I feel like your just looking for problems where there isn’t any محرر البوق (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This similar note was also left on @محرر البوق talk page as well. @محرر البوق, are you seriously citing the “isolated study” of Wood's ambitious and ignorant "work" that completely dismisses the existence of nations and their core values? The argument and tendency to trash home “grown” authentic sources while presenting poorly researched Western materials as a standard and benchmark and taking them as a caliber for right or wrong becomes a series problem in some of editing processes. My suggestion is to open a new discussion on reliability of local literary works and manuscripts that are crucial to Ethiopian society. I believe, your argument seems to weigh on- literary works published by a certain non-Western country isn’t reliable unless the West verifies it. See WP:NOENG. I will copy this same message to the talk page for recording purposes. Petra0922 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 We are not going to discuss about the reliability of "local literary works" because according to Wikipedia policy using a primary source without a reliable secondary source backing it up is not prohibited (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE) and like I said before the Kebra Nagast does not state that the Amhara ethnicity are the successors to Axum, so that would be essentiality a waste of time. You argue that I'm dismissing non western sources, which is not true, I am dismissing primary sources that have not been supported by any reliable authority. You have completely misunderstood my argument. What I'd like to remind you is the current sources are not sufficient enough to justify including that controversial statement, see WP:HISTIC and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. One of the sources does not state that Amharas are the heirs to Axum and the other 2 are tertiary sources (for disputed statements you can't use tertiary sources exclusively). You are straight up ignoring this because your so insistent to keep that statement up for whatever reason. محرر البوق (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Engaging in such debate is optional but i see the relevance of discussing foreign/Ethiopian sources (WP:NOENG) here or in similar talk pages. This is not the first time it came up and will continue to show up.Petra0922 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 What do you mean by Ethiopian/foreign sources? Do you mean secondary works published by reputable Ethiopian scholars? Or do you mean medieval-era documents like the Kebra Nagaset? محرر البوق (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@محرر البوق, my take is that the scope and timeline need to be reasonable, and diverse enough, although this can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Again the serious watch out is framing ancient foreign publications and all literary works as irrelevant. Petra0922 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 Well that's just Wikipedia policy. You shouldn't cite primary works for disputed statements like that. Because it's prohibited by Wikipedia, I don't think such a discussion would be relevant. The problem is that the sources that are currently cited are not sufficient enough to justify including such a statement. I'm not saying that the Kebra Nagast is irrelevant, but per WP:HISTIC you should only use reliable scholarly work محرر البوق (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 I am done with your delaying tactics, either provide a reliable source for that statement or I will remove it again. محرر البوق (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

What tactic you are referring to? This doesn’t help at all. It seems this discussion consists of two topics: 1) a sort of debating sources for content added by another editor which you had a conflict with. The article reflects that you already added the Dubious tag for it which potentially invites other editors to look into the subject. This is the area where you reverted contents three times and now you are insisting for the fourth time on top of the tags, right?

2) is a question of identifying sources of foreign origins which seems to be an important topic, to establish/identify sources from Ethiopia as primary and secondary. What is raised here is only one book, Kebre Negast but I haven’t seen any consensus on the general criteria for overall source identification related to materials originating from Ethiopia. That is why it is important to keep this discussion open- so other editors, preferably, those with background on the subject of the material participate.

Although the question of determining the specific foreign sources stays open, I want to correct you that Primary sources can be used carefully, on a case-by-case basis: WP:USEPRIMARY.Petra0922 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This tactic is called WP:STONEWALLING. And I've already explained that the sources that are being cited are not sufficient enough to justify including that controversial statement, please see WP:HISTIC. The Kebra Negast is a primary source, so it is against wikipedia policy to include it without conjecture with another secondary source (WP:HISTIP). Perhaps we should request a third opinion (WP:3O) to finally resolve this dispute, whatever that opinion is, I will accept. محرر البوق (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 محرر البوق (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As a warning, you need to stop attacking other editors, presenting baseless accusations and starting another conflict. You do realize that Wikipedia editors are volunteers and majority aren’t full time? The key point here is it is important to engage/invite more SME participants to debate on sources derived from foreign materials (exactly what is happening for the debated content) and establish a consensus for determining /identifying Ethiopian sources that are primary and secondary, noting that all the sources you and Dawit had been discussing are derived from foreign sources.Petra0922 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I read a lot about primary, secondary and tertiary sources here. Taking about primary ones now: where do we use the Kebra Nagast as a direct source in the article? As in blah blah blah (statement in Wikivoice)^[1] with reference: 1.^ Kebra Nagast? This would be pretty much a no-go for historical topics. We don't prune data from primary sources and present them at face value to our readers. We cite from secondary scholarly sources that critically evaluate these texts. Scholarship. Modern scholarship. Not "western" scholarship. (There is a big difference between let's say Muhmammad is the messenger of God^[1], 1.^ The Holy Qur'an N and The Qur'an describes Muhmammad as the messenger of God^[1], 1.^ Secondary source. Y) @Petra0922:, if you are in doubt about it, you can bring it to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.

But still: do we actually do this in the current version of the article? محرر البوق, you have deplored the use of the Kebra Nagast as a primary source: help me out, as I can't find it. If you refer to the passage Many centuries later, the religious paramountcy of the Amhara received official sanction in the final redaction of the Kebra Negast, the Ethiopian national epic. It reaffirmed Aksum as the spiritual source of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Solomonic Dynasty of the Amhara as Aksum's rightful heir, that's not what we call citing a primary source. The Kebra Negast is mentioned in-text based on secondary sources, and this is fine in principle. (It would be perfectly fine, weren't it for the unencyclopedic peacock wording especially in the last sentence which drifts into Wikivoice. It is an obivous fact that the Kebra Nagast served as an important vehicle to construe the legitimacy of the Amhara-speaking Solomonic Dynasty as a successor of Aksum, but this doesn't mean that we can ascribe objective factuality to it based on the text alone, and also on further historical records which were produced in the same context. But that's another story.) –Austronesier (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment @Austronesier. But the reason why I explained to @Petra0922 that the Kebra Nagast was not a sufficient source is because I believed that he was proposing to add the Kebra Nagast as a reference for that statement, as he previously expressed the need for adding more sources. (Admittedly, I could be completely mistaken in interpreting his statements). That source you just cited, The Peopling of Africa, is an encyclopedia of various ethnic groups in Africa, and hence a tertiary source. I did not believe that it was good enough to justify including that statement due to the lack of scholarly sources (WP:HSC). I talked about this a lot more on my talk page with Petra. محرر البوق (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier, I guess this discussion now could go somewhere. I would say it is best to leave the Kebra Nagast discussion aside for now- there are still mentions of the book by scholarly works as the translation of others and a collection of prior works which I think begs the question weather the book could be a secondary source by itself. That is where SMEs may help and need a closer look at the material, which i plan to do as well. Focusing to the key point, the currently blocked editor (DSG, above) who had conflicts with @محرر البوق added the legitimacy of the Semitics people (Amhara + Tigray) as heirs of the Aksumite kingdom and provided sources which I believe are adequate although I also discovered an additional source and shared on محرر البوق talk page. In addition, numerous scholarly sources support the topic of Amhara and Tigray as heirs and that clearly present the controversial and exclusionary nature of legitimacy for Cushitic people (Agew) as descendants of Aksum, but not to the Semitic groups.

Here are the publications that align with the existing content and already added sources:

1. Federal Research Division. Library of Congress: The Tigray and Amhara, who saw themselves as heirs to Aksum, denied the Zagwe any share in that heritage and viewed the Zagwe as usurpers.: [8]
2. Moreover, for the Amhara dynasty, the most popular religious book of tabot Christianity is the Psalms of David, because the Amhara dynasty is said to have descended from Solomon, and as such, monarchs were claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the kings of Aksum.:[9]
3. Danver literally that the Amhara people are considered the heirs of Axumite Empire….: [10]
4. Amharas are a Semitic-speaking ethnic group indigenous to Ethiopia that trace their ancestry to the founders of the Empire of Aksum: St. Petersburg Journal of African Studies. Russia, Izd-vo Evropeĭskogo doma, St. Petersburg Association of Scientists, 1993. (p.97);
   Shack, William A.. The Central Ethiopians, Amhara, Tigriňa and Related Peoples: North Eastern Africa Part IV. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2017.
5. …continuous strife with the Agaw of central Ethiopia, often disastrous to Aksum and its Amhara and Tegre heirs: [11]
6. …continuous strife with the Agaw of central Ethiopia, often disastrous to Aksum and its Amhara and Tegre heirs: [12]
7. Over the following centuries, however, the Christian successors to the Aksumite kingdom gradually moved the political centres of their realms southwards., which is the current day Amhara and generally south of Ethiopia: [13]
8. These Axumite descendants developed a separate identity known as Amhara:[14]
9. Aksum itself was in rapid decline and the political capital was transferred to the southeast, which is Amhara. [15]
10. Unlike the other Semitic Aksum heirs (Amhara + Tigray}, the Agew were the ones discussed as illegitimate although this changed around the 7th / 8th century onward: the dynasts, called the Zagwe, have been identified as ethnically Agäw and speakers of a Cushitic language, unlike their Semitic-speaking Aksumite predecessors. …. due to these different cultural and regional origins, the Zagwe have been characterized as a usurper dynasty, illegitimate heirs of the Aksumite rulers: [16]
11. ..Tigrais still live in the area of the ancient Aksum kingdom, the Amharas and Gurages have expanded inland: [17]
12. Although the portion of Syrian introducing Christianity to the Axum kingdom is questionable, this source also discusses both Amhara and Tigray as descendants of Akumites, ..when Syrian missionaries brought Christianity to Aksumites and to their descendants, the Tigrais and the Amharas: [18]
13. The resulting economic downturn resulted in Aksum drastically reducing in size and losing its status as capital by AD 800. During the Post-Aksumite period authority shifted to the south…., which is the current date Amhara: [19].
    Overall, unless محرر البوق is pushing for some "isolated works", majority of the sources discuss the Aksumite kingdom as Semitic (mainly Amhara + Gurage + Tigray), and the Zagwe dynasty as Cushitic (mainly Agew). Petra0922 (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

To help closing this discussion, these are some of the scholarly sources and publications that state Amhara as heirs of Aksum (Axum).Petra0922 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 There’s a difference between being the descendants vs being the heirs/inheritors of a people or a polity, I already explained this to you on my talk page. We’re not discussing if Amharas are the descendants of Aksumites, but we’re talking about whenever the statement “Amharas are the heirs of Aksum” is correct. Only one out of the eight sources you cited explicitly state that Amharas are the heirs of Aksum. This is called WP:SYNTH. محرر البوق (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@محرر البوق, both heir and descendants are stated in the sources unless you don't want to read. Sources show both are the semitic legitimate heirs of Akumites but the Amhara continued the same kingdom taking it to the south and central part of Ethiopia for several centuries. Besides, Tigray is a present-day name given to a collective of ethnic groups living in the modern-day Tigray region. Based on these sources, I see the importance of correcting Wikipedia contents that describe the Tigray ethnic groups as sole heirs and if they specifically exclude Amhara. Petra0922 (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922, like I said before. Only one out of the 8 sources you’ve cited explicitly state that Amharas are the heirs of Aksum. You cannot combine multiple sources together to state a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. This is called WP:SYNTH and is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. That source says BOTH Amhara and Tigray are successors to the Aksumites, if you are going to mention that then do no omit Tigray (or gurage or other semitic groups mentioned). Tigray is also an ethnic group, not everyone who lives in Tigray is a “Tigray”, by your logic Amhara is a name given to multiple ethnic groups that live in the present day Amhara region, which is preposterous, nevertheless I’m not sure why you made that claim anyways. The current statement in the article implies that Amharas are the sole successors to Aksum by omitting other ethnic groups even though they are mentioned in the sources, which I believe violates WP:NPOV. Especially if you consider Edward Ullendorff’s opinion that Tigrayans are the successors to Aksum (the most reliable scholar who explicitly talked about this) محرر البوق (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

These sources are sufficient to keep as well as expand the content or section related of Semitics are heirs of Axum. At this stage it is obvious that your are pushing for: 1) WP:TE and 2) WP:POV. Tigray isnt an ethnic group rather a name of a place that describes a group of various ethnicities such as Irob, Kunama and many others.... Petra0922 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 No they're not. Only one out of the eight sources you cited say that Amharas are the heirs of Aksum, and "countrystudies.us" is not a reliable source, please find some actual scholarly sources. The rest are just original research (please read WP:SYNTH) because they do not explicitly state that Amhara are the heirs of Aksum. When we're talking about "Tigray", we are referring to the Tigrayan ethnic group, not the Tigray region and everyone inside of it. I'm not gonna play semantics with you. محرر البوق (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is becoming a discussion with yourself, and need to close since direct and scholarly sources such as the one pulled out from the Library of Congress are already given ([20]). Additional publications ([21] and [22]) also literally discuss the topic specifying Amhara as the legitimate heirs of Aksum. See the additional sources given above, 1 to 13. In a different note, who is "We"? You cant do WP:POV here.Petra0922 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922, we don’t need to close this discussion because we have not found consensus yet. I noticed that you are attempting to argue that Amharic speakers plus other Ethio-Semitic speakers are the “descendants of the Aksumites”, I initially didn’t want to argue about this to avoid prolonging this discussion, however this theory is outdated and largely been abandoned. Linguistic studies shows that Amharic and other South Ethio-semitic languages such as Gurage do not come from the Aksumites (who were North Ethio-Semitic speakers), these two groups diverged in around 2000 BCE[23] Amharic is not a descendant of Ge’ez but rather they share a similar ancestor according to Robert Hetzron [24], Amharas aren’t the descendants of the Aksumites, they were most likely a peripheral peoples of Aksum according to Ronald Oliver[25]. Infact according to Girma Demeke in his book “the origin of Amharic” (page 133-138), Amharas only came into contact with the Aksumites somewhere after the 7th century AD. Amharic is descended from a mixture of proto Ethio-Semitic and a indigenous highland east Cushitic language and significantly differs from Ge’ez and other north ethio-semitic languages according to Aaron Butts[26](pg 18). I could add significantly more scholarly sources but it seems like this isn’t some "isolated works", and instead the predominant view among most academics. This is already discussed in the “ethnogensis” section of this article, so there is no reason to add two separate origin theories in the article that contradict each other. Secondly, the library of congress source (we definitely should not take some area handbook over modern scholarship but whatever), says both Amharas and Tigrayans are the heirs of Aksum, if you are going to add that source and Levine’s source, you should include Tigrayans unless you wanna violate the WP:NPOV. محرر البوق (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

To help closing this discussion, scholarly sources that state Amhara as heirs of Aksum (Axum) are provided (1 to 13; text quoted further above) .Petra0922 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

To help to get this discussion to a more advanced level: I question that being "heirs" of an ancient civilization or empire is an objective concept that can be stated as such in WP:Wikivoice. Dynasties, ethnicities etc. might claim such a role for themselves, but this is essentially an ideological construct. Yes, Amhara-dominated Abyssinia construed a position of heirdom of Aksum, and manifested this in hagiographies, genealogies and epics. This fact is easily sourced. But this a construed legacy, not an objective one. Much of it was produced retroactively (in the same way as e.g. Jesus from Nazareth is described as a descendant of David in the Gospels to strengthen his legitimacy by construing a fulfilment of ancient prophecies). Likewise, linguistic continuity from Ge'ez to Tigrinya does not make Tigrayans "heirs of Aksum". Obviously, these things matter for present-day ethnic groups (or rather, certain factions within them) since "ownership" of a glorious past can be instrumentalized to elevate the status of one's ethnic group. But we don't portray history in encyclopedic text from the emic perspective. Unless, of course, we explicitly flag it as emic: we can certainly say that group A or group B have claimed or still claim for themselves the role of "Aksum's rightful heir". But we won't state this as an objective fact. –Austronesier (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922, this discussion is not going to be closed until consensus is found, no need to be so impatient. The sources you cited are not sufficient aswell, the new source you added[27] cites page 52-54 of J. Spencer Trimingham's "Islam in Ethiopia" for that statement, I checked the reference that it was citing[28] (35/148) and J. Spencer Trimingham does not state that the Amharas are the heirs of Axum, infact he doesn't even mention Amharas but rather refers to the Semitic speaking inhabitants of Ethiopia as "Abyssinians" to differentiate them from the Cushitic-speaking Agaw of Zagwe. The other source[29] talks about the "Amhara dynasty" which is obviously referring to the Solomonic Dynasty, and not the entire Amhara ethnicity. The source from the Library of Congress is apart of a collection of various handbooks,[30] I'm not sure how one would be able to provide a WP:INTEXT of this source, snice there is no reputable scholar to whom it could be attributed to. The rest of the sources you cited are WP:SYNTH nonsense and not worth looking into. Amharas and other south ethio-semitic speakers being the descendants of the Aksumites is a largely outdated theory according to modern linguistic research (not saying that this means that tigringa speakers are the "heirs of aksum" but rather Petra should stop propagating this theory).

Before you start looking for more questionable references for me to verify (which are abundant) I would like to remind you that you have admitted that there is no academic consensus on Amharas being the heirs of Aksum and that such statement is disputed[31], hence you should read WP:YESPOV if you are still insistent on keeping that statement. @Austronesier also brought up a very good argument that you should respond to before attempting to plug your ears and close this discussion. I also brought this up with Dawit, but "Amhara people are considered heirs of the Aksumsite Empire" is largely an opinion (a disputed one), and should not be presented as factual, per Wikipedia policy. محرر البوق (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@محرر البوق, plenty of strong and solid scholarly sources already given in this talk page that discuss Amhara as heir as well as a specific and arguably sole ethnic group that continued the Aksumite kingdom until modern days. If needed a long list of sources can be cited to also demonstrate that Amhara legitimate descendants of Axum still live in our present days although the point isn’t to discuss the modern day political aspect. Most of these sources directly/literally state the content in Amhara people article and further confirm that Amhara re-gain heir after Zagwie (Zagwe); and ruled until 1974 with no mention of specific ethnicity from Tigray region who ruled after Zagwe except one ruler, Emperor Yohannes. In addition, there is no source that confirms the existence of a specific Tigryan ethnic group (see above for source)- rather it is a name derived (it adapted some Amharic linguistic elements), and a common description constructed to refer to a collection of ethnic groups in the area.

Again, based on these sources it is not obvious which ethnic group in the constructed Tigray umbrella are actual heir of Aksum. As for continuing this discussion, sure, but as @Austronesier mentioned, the current content of the article, Amhara as heir is well-sourced. However, this discussion cannot be dragged forever to satisfy your WP:POV.Petra0922 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of what you said was already previously addressed or outside the scope of that edit. I feel like we're just running around in circles here. We might need to request a dispute resolution, also Austronesier never said that Amharas were the heirs. محرر البوق (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

You keep making such inaccurate and general statements (such as "already addressed") that could mislead other editors instead of providing scholarly sourced counterarguments specific to the ethnic group/s who were/were the legitimate heirs of Aksum for Tigray. You need to concisely discuss that. If you are confused, re-read Austronesier's reply and the source I already provided today. Petra0922 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I said that the claim that "Amharas are the heirs of Aksum" is a disputed statement, and the sources you have provided for that are questionable at best. Please read WP:YESPOV again. I've already addressed those sources you've cited multiple times in this thread, I don't really feeling like repeating myself. Edward Ullendorff believes that contemporary Tigrayans and Tigrinya speakers to be the successors of the Aksumites in his book "The Ethiopians".(pg 35 and 121), meaning that this heir claim is disputed. You can keep throwing sources around, but the reality is that claim is largely an opinion and not an objective fact, this is a textbook example of an WP:NPOV violation. محرر البوق (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier. I can agree with your take on the concept of "heirs" and possible impact on present day socio-politics. It warrants more discussion, as mentioned before involving participants/SMEs from WP:WikiProject History, WP:WikiProject Law, and WP:WikiProject Ethiopia. Just to clarify & add some perspective, Ge'ez is the mother of Amharic language as well. On the other hand, the term Tigray itself isnt found in Ge'ez language, and per this and other sources, “Tigray” is derived from Amharic elements. Source in this article (Tigray) also discusses that it was possibly derived from "Tigrētai" which holds a different meaning. The source I incorporated right here explains it further: Tigrinya derives by adaptation (cf. the English tigrinya or the French tigrigna). It is formed from a suffix -əñña used to indicate nouns of languages (cf. ənglizəñña for English, aräbəñña for Arabic, etc.), taken into borrowed from Amharic and then incorporated into the morphological system of Tigrinya, supplanting an older formation with the suffix -ay, from which the form derives təgray, now in disuse..Petra0922 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ge'ez is not the mother language of Amharic or Tigrinya, but it is significantly more related to Triginya then Amharic[32] I already previously explained this[33]. محرر البوق (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. Again, your synthesis on Ge'ez==> more Tigrigna==> modern-day Tigray==>Aksum heir... is a tenuous argument. That is why it is important to focus on reputable scholarly sources which clearly state that without a doubt Amhara are discussed as 1) legitimate heir 2), not only they are heirs but also they continued the kingdom until recently. Petra0922 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said that this makes Tigrayans the heirs of Aksum. This is an entirely different argument. محرر البوق (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)