Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2016/September

Etymology

I have a problem on the the meanings of Habesha. Here in Wikipedia it was described as to refer amharic & tigrignya speakers who are only Christians.First of all this definition was taken from an Eritrean dictionary based on Eritrean perspective not Ethiopian.Eritrean politics is too much influenced by Italian divide & conquer by religion when it was under their colonization.In Ethiopia the word Habesha has been used for about 1,000 year & never been used in history to identify people who speak any particular language like it was defined here in wikipedia (Amharic, Tigrinya or semetic speakers). Note that before 19th centuary no Ethiopian know the similarities & difference between languages. Agaws were being called Habesha for 100s of years eventhough they speak a cushitic language.For northerners Agaw language might sound too different for them to understand but that doesnt make Agaws not to be considered as Habesha. I also disagree to Habesha being associated to chrstianity. Majority Muslim Amharas prefer to call themselves as Habesha than even Amhara & so do other northern Christians call them Habesha.

Today if you ask any Ethiopian to define the word Habesha he will not tell you those people who speak these languages, neither these people who follows this religion, nor to people who comes from a particular geographical area but he will tell you Habesha means people who have a Caucasoid feature who speaks either kushitic, semetic, Omotic, Oromo, Agaw, Amhara, Tigre or any other ethnicgroup who comes from the horn region & this is how it was used in our definition for 100s & 1,000 years. We use Habesha to show our racial difference from Northern & Sub Saharan Africans. In it's use by all Ethiopians it has of racial group meaning than ethnicity, language speakers & religious group. I don't know how to put this definition (the right definition) here in Wikipedia by referencing books but i tried to prove that Axum did never consider themselves as Habesha neither claimed to come from a clan called Habesha. I also tried to prove with these books that 7-12th centuary Arab travelers see the horn region as Habesha country while not pointing the term "Al Habesha" to any particular ethnic groups, language speakers & religion followers. Zeila, now in Somaliland was considered to be Habesha country by these Arab travelers.

Also I tried to define the word Habesha which comes from a mehari language originaly defined as incense gatherers but not used as a clan name that come from South Arabia & settled in North Ethiopia. There are many books proving that semetic language was spoken for more than 4,000 years (before the the rise of Axumite & Daamat kingdoms) in the horn region.Many historians now consider Axum civilization as indigenous to the Horn of Africa making the previous assumption that some Arab rulers came from Arabia, built the empire & left their language which later becomes Geez & all other semetic languages in Ethiopia to be false.

I believe the Arabs of the 7-12th centuary sees Habesha as a geographic expression given to the Horn of Africa, which explains why they never conquer Ethiopia, Eritrea & Somalia and put it under their caliphate while they crossed to Christian Europe (Spain & Southern France) to put it under their expansive caliphate that stretched upto Pakistan.Let's not corrupt our history as we should tell it to every one as it is.I mean what if one Somali boy asks his teacher why did the Muslim caliphate didn't come to horn of Africa, located just 40kms from their base Arabia, while they went upto South Europe? What answer will he give him? We know they didn't come to Habesha not because we pushed them by war but because they didnt want to and that has got to do with the first Hijira in Axum which in turn the prophet order them not to conquer Habesha.Let's leave aside the politics and tell the history as it is.

Hi EthiopianHabesha. The etymology of the term "Habesha" is quite complicated. What can be asserted with certainty is that the Gulf Arab geographers differentiated Al-Habash from Barbara to its immediate east. Al-Maqrizi wrote that Zeila was in Barbara. This geographical distinction was actually first described by the Greeks in the 1st century CE Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. Note that there was an older civilization in the Horn that was ancestral to both of these subsequent regions; this was likely the Land of Punt. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This definition of habesha: "Habesha is believed to have given rise to the term "Abyssinia" to refer to Amharic and Tigrinya speaking Christian Ethiopians."

Was extracted from a dictionary that defines the term from Eritrean perspective. Since the word habesha's majority users are in Ethiopia (90 million) it should be defined from a dictionary that defines the term from Ethiopian perspective or even much better from books that defines it from Arabians perspective who came up with the word in the first place.

I tried to replace it with the following definition that tries to define it from European 19th centuary historians who bases their reference from European & Arabian sources.This definition is much better because it defines the term from Arabian & European perspective.

"In Arabic, the elevated plateau on the east of the Nile, from which most of the waters of that river are derived, is called Habesha, and its people Habeshi."

Hoping Middayexpress agree with it otherwise am gone have to open dispute.

Source previously used http://books.google.ca/books?id=SYsgpIc3mrsC&dq=habesha+definition&source=gbs_navlinks_s http://books.google.ca/books?id=SYsgpIc3mrsC&pg=PA279&dq=habesha+definition&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B5buUsGSH4fk2QWG9YHIDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=habesha%20definition&f=false

Source I used https://books.google.com.et/books?id=4ugXAQAAIAAJ&dq= https://books.google.com.et/books?id=4ugXAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA462&dq=In+Arabic,+the+elevated+plateau+on+the+east+of+the+Nile,+from+which+most+of+the+waters+of+that+river+are+derived,+is+called+Habesha,+and+its+people&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3DEwVaSWA8GzswHtnYC4CA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=%22In%20Arabic%2C%20the%20elevated%20plateau%20on%20the%20east%20of%20the%20Nile%22&f=false

Why are you writing in the third person? Is there someone else you are addressing other than me? If so, do let me know... At any rate, this page is on the Habesha people, not "Habshi". That etymology above by Tyler et al. is certainly not the traditional one. At any rate, I've asked for a Third Opinion. Middayexpress (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

3O Response: Hi, I came to this from the posting at third opinion. I will do some reading on this subject today and see what I can find. I do want to note that the etymology of Habesha is more a nationalistic/ideological issue than a semantic one.

The Eritrean independence struggle is basically the process of denying the similarity usually known as "Habesha identity" (Trivelli 1998: 268). Ethiopians stress their similarity with Eritrea in order to gain back Eritrea, but at the same time they stress the difference in order to underline the "superiority" of Ethiopian history as a non-colonized nation. Eritreans, however, stress their difference from Ethiopia because in spite of (or probably as a result of) colonization they feel more civilized than the Ethiopians

The source cited in the quote above seems to discuss this in more detail. Trivelli, Richard M. Divided Histories, Opportunistic Alliances: Background Notes on the Ethiopian-Eritrean War Africa Spectrum, Vol. 33, No. 3 (1998), pp. 257-289 JSTOR stable url. I can provide these papers on request. Jbh (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note - Before we go on here this article seems to be a massive copyvio of The True Origins of the Habesha duplication detector report. Can anyone address this? Thank you. Jbh (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jbhunley. However, the contention is over something different: whether the "Habesha" etymology or separate "Habshi" etymology above is more relevant. Middayexpress (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"Civilized"? That's quite on odd claim to make. Maybe more educated but that's pretty much it. Anyways, it's "Habesha" not "Habshi". I haven't even seen such a spelling until now. AcidSnow (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Middayexpress: Hmmm... I can not see any context, when speaking of African populations in Africa, where Habshi would be proper. The Habshi are Indians of Abyssinian extraction who were brought to India primarily in the 16th and 17th centuries. See Mengesha, Astair Gebremariam The Habshis International Journal of Ethiopian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Summer/Fall 2003), pp. 91-102 JSTOR stable link. Jbh (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, two different populations. Middayexpress (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Were they brought as slaves? If so, then they probably weren't Abyssinians but rather Nilotics. I am unaware of the Abyssinians enslaving one another. Though I could be wrong. AcidSnow (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

For a while, it was uncertain whether the "Habshi" were of partial Abyssinian origin or if they were simply named after the Abyssinian traders that in part brought them there. Their Bantu associated culture, religious beliefs and physiognomy strongly suggested the latter. Modern genetic studies on Habshi/Siddi descendants in the Indian subcontinent eventually showed that they are indeed of Bantu origin [1]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me break it down for them historians. Are they Christians/Jewish? No? Probably not Habesha. AcidSnow (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Habshi/Siddi seem to have adopted Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Their Bantu ancestors were apparently animists prior to that, and they have retained some vestiges of these and other traditions [2]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In Ethiopia Nilotics are not the only ones affected by slavery. Even Cushitcs & Semetics were also affected by slave trading, as a result of inter tribal & Inter clan wars which usually is followed by the victors taking men & women captives.If those captives not exported they usually will be taken to the victors land & becomes assimilated. Based on Richard Pankhurst book titled The Ethiopian Borderlands EthiopianHabesha — Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all we need to agree on weather the source used to define the term Habesha was the right one.The term was defined to include only Christians based on a dictionary that define terms from Eritrean perspective as can be seen here . The majority user of the word Habesha are in Ethiopia having 18 times more people than Eritrea.Don't you think it is fair to not use that dictionery and perhaps look for other sources that defines it from Ethiopian perspective. If not possible then may be to inform the readers that this definition applies only in Eritrea.EthiopianHabesha

There were actually different classes of slaves in Ethiopia. The plantation or menial labour slaves were mainly derived from a population known as the Shanqella, which was Nilotic. It's also been established that "Habshi" is traditionally a synonym for the Siddi, who are of Bantu extraction. At any rate, "Habesha" above specifically pertains to the Tigrinya and Amhara inhabited areas in Eritrea and Ethiopia i.e. the highlands. This is also the historical "Abyssinia", as demarcated by Al-Maqrizi and other early geographers. Middayexpress (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The slaves who are not Nilotics were quickly integrated with higher class society and becomes invisible but there are still many people in rural Ethiopia who do not look Nilotics but still considered as low class even though they look like the same with their higher class society.We should also note that there are people who look like Nilotics but considered as higher class.In Ethiopia class is based on ones family background rather than racial & tribal background.The childrens of the brave, land owners, people who have decent of royal blood, Officials, religious leaders are all considered as higher class people inspite of their racial & tribal background.The surfs (Chisenga) are middle class and those with slavery & war of prisoner background are considered as low class in spite of their racial & tribal background.EthiopianHabesha

Regarding to the term Habshi, but I thought Habeshi is Arabic form of calling Habesha people. I don't know Arabic but didn't the Arabs call the land as Al-Habesh and the people as Habeshi. May be any one who speaks Arabic will help us here. As far as I know all immigrant Ethiopians in Arabia are refereed as Habeshi. Besides, the book I suggested clearly referred Habeshi people as those people who leave in Ethiopia where the river Nile is originated. It didn’t say anything about Indian Sidi people. May be those people were taken from Ethiopia and probably they were also referred as Habesha / Habeshi/ Habshi people.I don't see any difference between these three words. The part where you said Al-Maqrizi demarcated the North as Habesha, we'll appreciate it if you give reference regarding to this claim. Contrary to your claim Al-Masudi & Al-Harani included inhabitants of Zeila (East Ethiopia & Somaliland areas) as being part of the Al-Habesha country.The book I suggested was written in 1850s i.e. before the scramble for Africa begun, before Horn languages were classified and before the rise of ethnic politics and for these matters this book should be used to define the term rather than than Eritrean dictionary written in 2010.EthiopianHabesha

@EthiopianHabesha: Actually the way we use terms in Wikipedia articles is based on how they are commonly used in reliable sources. For ethnonyms we use terms how they are used in scholarly sources. While you are correct that Habesha and Habshi share a derivation the terms apply to two distinct groups of people. In all of the scholarly sources I have seen the group of people under discussion in this article are Habesha not Habshi (Which refers to a different group of people on a different continent.) Using dictionaries, old books and non-scholarly sources to try to change or redefine a term is what Wikipedia terms original research and is prohibited. Jbh (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In that case then I'll have to look into other sources. — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I found another source and I suggest to delete this etymology which says "Habesha is believed to have given rise to the term "Abyssinia" to refer to Amharic and Tigrinya speaking Christian Ethiopians" with "The term Habesha refers to a South Semitic-speaking group of people whose cultural, linguistic, and in certain cases, ancestral origins trace back to the tribes of the Axumite (Habasha) and the Da'amat kingdom. Today they include the Amhara and Tigray-Tigrinya ethnic groups of Ethiopia and Eritrea who are predominantly Orthodox Christians, and have been since AD 332." source: Habesha People: Frederic P. Miller, 2009 - Google Books

Once again my problem is the dictionary used here to define the term based on Eritrean perspective. What is your comment on that? Do you think it is fair? The source I sugested defined from both countries perspective, which I think is fair. EthiopianHabesha

@EthiopianHabesha: What you seem to be missing is that 'fair' has nothing to do with how we use terms here. The cite gives a good definition of the term for out readers as a convenience. What informs our editorial judgement that the cite is the proper definition is how the term is used in scholarly works. The dictionary is a tertiary source in this case. Again ethnic 'perspective' has nothing to do with this issue either, Wikipedia is not the place to fight ethnic battles. If the balance of main stream scholarly works start using another definition then Wikipedia will follow suit but we will never lead the pack in new or different usage. WP:NPOV is not about 'fair' it is about reflecting what is said in reliable sources. Scholarship has moved on from the Nineteenth Century and when writing about contemporary topics contemporary sources are used. Jbh (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not about ethnic battle, neither politics.This is about informing the readers with the right & best definition in which Wikipedia stands for. We know Wikipedia is not a forum where anybody come here and post wrong definitions from a source that doesn't define the term by taking all sides into consideration.The term is used in Eritrea in much different way than in Ethiopia. After Italian colonization the use of Habesha in Eritrea is limited to only to the Tigrigna ethnic group while not being used by the muslim Tigrigna and by the ethnicgroup Tigre. Tigre are entirely muslims but their language is the most nearest language to Geez (the official language of Ethiopian Orthodox church). In Ethiopia the word Habesha has never been restricted to any ethnicgroup, religion or geographic area in our past history and that has got to do with our country not falling to any European divide and conquer.The word Habesha in Ethiopia is being used as it's original usage i.e. as a geographic expression to the inhabitants of the Horn of Africa. This is why I strongly disagree for the usage of this dictionary to define the term.EthiopianHabesha — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I can only offer some personal knowledge as an anecdote, but in Wollo (for example) there are Amharic families (i.e. their first language in the home is Amharic) with Muslims and Christians in the same household. Are they not Habesha? -- Gyrofrog (talk)

I believe they are since they are presumably of Abyssinian (Habesha) origin. In the medieval period and earlier, most Abyssinians were Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, so Al-Maqrizi and other early geographers equated the highland inhabitants with Christianity. Middayexpress (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Habesha people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060830103110/http://addistribune.com:80/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm to http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Swahili

That Habesha denotes Arab-African peoples generally -- which would include completely unrelated Bantu origin groups like the Swahili -- is spurious. Historically, Habesha and its etymological derivative Abyssinian referred to the inhabitants of Al-Habash. This was an area in the northern Horn, not in the lacustrine region to the south. Soupforone (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess you have not been to the middle east. Anyone who looks mixed would be called habesha including the Sudanis. Its not surprising because ancient habesh spanned the sudan and south yemen as well as most of the horn of africa. I have issues with you including ethio semitics as abyssinians. The source you provided is from 1965 during amhara apartheid rule. Most of those ethnic groups are offended by the use of the term Abyssinian. The word Habesha strictly denotes Christian Highlanders as shown by my sources. Zekenyan (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone is correct. I am one myself so I can answer any questions you have. Swahili people are definitely not regarded as 'Habesha', nor are any other ethnic groups outside of the Ethiopian/Eritrean highland inhabitants. Resourcer1 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Habash is an ancient term for a region in the Ethiopian/Eritrean northern highlands and its native inhabitants, not for "anyone who looks mixed" (whatever that means - Tigray-Tigrinya have more West Eurasian maternal lineages than many Yemenis). This is the real, amusing irony. Soupforone (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

What is relevant is what do the sources say. Please provide sources for the statements. Ogress 19:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see the link-through above. The Aksumites did not speak Tigrinya or Amharic. They spoke the parent Ge'ez language from which all of the Abyssinian languages descend. Soupforone (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep using {{od}} every time you write? What does who spoke Geez two and a half thousand years ago have to do with the modern ethnic category "Habesha"? Also, Geez is not even ancestral to any living Ethiosemitic language; its closest relatives today are Tigre and Tigrinya, but they are not descended from it. FIND A CITE. Ogress 02:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I already linked to a work by Igor M. Diakonoff, but it was blanked. Please also see outdent. Anyway, the lead indicates that the Abyssinians' cultural, linguistic and ancestral origins are rooted in the Kingdom of Dʿmt and the later Kingdom of Aksum. This is why I pointed out that those kingdoms' founders actually spoke Ge'ez, not Tigrinya or Amharic. These languages did not exist at the time, regardless of whether or not they descend from Ge'ez (which I'm aware is uncertain, though it is the traditional theory). The earliest written attestation of the Amhara dates to the 13th century [3]. That is hundreds of years after the Aksumite period. Soupforone (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Diakonoff cite appears to reference "Abyssinians", which is not the same as "Habesha", just as the Arabic word Habasha/Ahbash does not have the same meaning as "Habesha". Also, the cite is unavailable and you did not provide it. Other works seem to support the claim that Habesha specifically means "[Christian] Highlanders" such as Belcher, Wendy Laura (2012). Abyssinia's Samuel Johnson: Ethiopian Thought in the Making of an English Author. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-979331-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Ogress 17:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents here. First of all Habesha is derived from the Ge'ez word ሐበሰ which in proto-Aksum sites was a reference to a pre-Christian god while around the 4th century AD became a term to reference the Aksumites. (Aksum and Nubia: Warfare, Commerce, and Political Fictions in Ancient Northeast Africa) A curious note is the amharic language does not contain a requisite letter (ሐ) and that is probably why it has been corrupted in amharic (i.e. abesha). Further some definitions of "habesha" particularly from early Arab geographers, e.g. Al Yacubi, suggest the "habesha" are in fact the fusion of the Beja and Aksumites. Either way, no Swahili speaking groups seem to be implicated either way. Merhawie (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Merhawie: Your claims are not in that cite. I just looked myself. I see no listing of a pre-Christian God named "ḥbs", and the word "Habesha" does not appear. "Habasha" appears twice. Can you please cite the pages where these claims are substantiated? Ogress 00:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Habesha is rooted in antiquity. It was apparently first attested as "Hbst" in Ge'ez inscriptions belonging to the Aksumite king Ezana [4]. Soupforone (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: I know it's got an origin in ancient times, but Merhawie made some claims about its origin with a cite that does not appear to support their statements. Sadly I can only see that page, the next one is blocked where I am (because of how Google Books works), but ḥbśt as originating in the name of a divinity is a new one on me. If you can see it, what does the next page say about the groups it described in ancient times? Ogress 05:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ogress: Apologizes, I should have marked the cite more appropriately. The cite was for the background of "hbs". The point of the pre-Christian god reference (which I dont find particularly persuasive) can be found in Proceedings of the XVth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies. [5] Merhawie (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It would seem that the Aksum king Ezana (c. 330-370 CE) first appropriated the name "Ethiopians" for the Aksumites after he had conquered Nubia, which was the ancient "Ethiopia" of the Graeco-Roman world. A 4th century Ge'ez inscription belonging to this ruler thereafter equates Aἰθιόπoι ("Ethiopians") with Ḥbštm and Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat); ’ḥbs (’Aḥbāsh) is the equivalent in Sabaic/Sabaean [6]. Soupforone (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Habesha people (Amhara, Tigrinya, Tigre, Harari and Gurage)!

There is a misunderstanding here that Habesha people are only Amhara's and Tigrayans. This is not the case. Resourcer1 (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry we go by the sources. Your edits have been really disruptive. I think I have warned you enough. Zekenyan (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

My edits are sourced, they do not have a disruptive nature at all. I could say the same to you and coming from an ethnic group that you have decided to remove off the page, I am offended. As well as some of the information on the 'Coffee' page. Resourcer1 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your including original research. Please stop. Zekenyan (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by original? Resourcer1 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The way this works is that you get consensus before editing the article. Zekenyan (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for your addition? Zekenyan (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Informing readers on the wider and various definitions of the term 'Habesha' based on published reliable sources

Zekenyan, every sentences you deleted have references with published books written by professionals and these sources are regarded as reliable materials for writing articles here according to the rule of Wikipedia. I'll restore it back for that reason. If you have seen any particular sentences that is not sourced properly please indicate and we discuss about here. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you get consensus before such massive changes. Really every sentence was referenced? I don't think so. Do not restore it. Zekenyan (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Zekenyan, Well unlike the other sources used in this article which we need to go to the library search many books and pages to find a citation my sources all of them are from google books. Anyone can click on the links of the sources and see the citations highlighted in yellow. So anyone can easily confirm them and if you think there is any sentence that is out of Wikipedia rule please indicate the shortcut of the rule here supporting your deletion. Thank you EthiopianHabesha (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You removed citations that specifically mention that habesha denotes Amhara and Tigrinya people of Christian background. The other ethnic groups such as gurage, harar are not highlanders thus not habesha. The source you used indicating language of habesha Lulu (company) is not reliable and neither is the source you used to refer to the religion of habesha people. Zekenyan (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Gurage is an enset growing people and enset doesn't grow in lowland dry areas. Hararghe highlands are known to produce high quality coffee and Chat/Khat. If Chat/Khat can grow in lowlands then lowland Somalia would have grown it and no need for import from Yemen/Ethiopia/Kenya. For Amharic language Argoba, Silti and Harari are the most closest then followed by Gurage and lastly Tigrigna which is the farthest language for Amharic when Ethiopian semetic languages are classified by professional linguists, showing that Amharic separation from these languages is much much earlier than Tigrinya. By the way in north Ethiopia there are pockets of Cushitic speaking ancient Agaw people whom also referred as Habesha people by the ruling classes of Abyssinia and I believe the way they used 'Habesha' is similar to Arabs usage (who used it firstly) as a 'mixed people' to refer the people who look like between Bantu and Arabs. Anyways, the paragraph you deleted were serving to inform that many applications of 'Habesha' by various groups of people, showing that one definition contradicts with the other ones based on reliable published books. I believe people need to know that — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Habesha/Abyssinia does not simply denote ethio-semitic speakers, it specifically the Amhara and Tigrinya who have dominated habesha (highlands) and the region politically speaking. I don't see how coffee or any other plants have anything to do with this subject. We can come to an agreement to restore some of your edits as long as no other editors object. The religion and language section which denotes that habesha are strictly Christian and Amhara-tigrinya should remain Zekenyan (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why I used coffee or enset is to show you that infact Gurage and Harari people are highlanders, it is used to counter your claim stating their area is not highland. Actually my opinion is that in fact Habesha implies to 'mixed people'. My opinion, while still supported by over 5 reliable published sources will contradict with other sources who narrow it's definition. For instance Turks call the inhabitants of their province called Habesh Eyalet as Habeshistan people (Habeshi) while these people are cushitic Speaking Afars, Sahos and other Cushitic speaking muslim people whom all of them leave in lowland Red sea area. And when you see European sources use the term 'Abyssinia' they include all north Ethiopia including the cushitic Agaw and Wollo as well as the muslim Amharas and Bete Israels. While Ethiopians and Arabs on the other hand use the term Habesha/Habeshi for anyone who looks mixed. These are four contradicting definitions ("Turks/Arabs/Ethiopians use wider definitions" and "Europeans use narrow definitions") and to accommodate all the four views then applications needs to be broaden and narrowing them, in your opinion, is to tell one side story and obviously invalidating all the other views which are also equally referenced with reliable published sources. For these reason either they need to be described broadly to accommodate all the four views, if not then, not listing any languages and religion is I think most appropriate. Note that even when I say only "Ethiopian semetic languages" I am also invalidating the other 3 views and even the European view as well whom also includes the Cushitic Agaws as Abyssinians. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Zekenyan, about your concern with Lulu.com, which is a self publishing company. That source will not be used and it will be replaced with another book published by "New Africa Press" and all the points found in that book is also found in this one. Any other issues you have let me know — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring and discuss your edits here and gain consensus. Don't remove reliable sources and cherry pick sources that supports your own edits. I don't have issues with the inclusion of theories that people of Arab African descent are called habesha by Europeans, middle easterners etc. Let me reiterate my statement that reputable sources such as oxford and brill back reports that Habesha refers to highlanders, "Amhara-Tigrinya". It does not matter if you personally consider other regions to be highlands. You simply cant come to your own conclusion, what your doing is called wp:SNYTH it not allowed on Wikipedia. Now regarding languages of semitic speakers in Ethiopia, ONE old source categorizes this to mean Abyssinian speakers but its not to denote that the speakers are Abyssinian or habesha. Zekenyan (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok if you don't have problems with the inclusion of the theories and various definitions then why don't you leave them and just delete only the ones you have issues with. It is not fair to delete the whole of my paragraph and various sentences just because you are against the deletion of one source from Oxford. This way we will narrow the issues — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I had previously added some of the content and it was removed by user soupforone just refer to the discussion above, therefore it was my intention to uphold consensus even though I did not oppose the entirety of your contribution. Now I would like you to draft a new proposal by presenting exactly what it is you want added into the article, on the articles talk page so that we can come up with consensus. Zekenyan (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

SummaryThis is what I'm getting from our discussion: Zekenyan want to emphasise the narrow definition i.e. Habeshas are only Amharas and Tigrayans/Tigringas and he want to leave out the rest of semetic speaking people. Moreover, he want to narrow it further more by including only Orthodox ones while leaving Muslim Amharas (numbering more than 2 million) as well as Muslim Tigrayans and Jebertis, as well as Bete Israel and protestant religion followers (totaly numbering more than half a million). In other words, he want the most narrowest definition to be used in this article. That is one view! Contorary to this view other people want the broad definition and include all South Semitic speaking people plus all religion followers to be included in this 'Habesha' group. That is the second view. I, on the other hand want the most broadest definition to be used here by defining the term 'Habesha' primarily as a racial group and it includes all the people who look mixed, in spite of their citizenship, nationality, geography, language, culture or religion, and are intermediaries between the white Arabs and black Bantu/Nilotic people while still basing my claim on reliable published books. And this is the third view. There are also other views with much more broad definitions. Now the basic issue is which one should be emphasised more here while all three views are still supported by reliable sources? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Before we choose on which views we should take, I think all of them needs to be explained. Zekenyan, donot keep on deleting the statements used to describe all the views. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

your being disruptive I suggest you take time off from editing this article. A couple days of rest would do the trick. We can then discuss your contribution, if however you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by reverting, the discussion will go nowhere and you will be blocked. Zekenyan (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Zekenyan, the question is who is disrupting here and who is most likely to be blocked? For your continuous suggestions that consensus is required otherwise it will be reverted, please see the rule here WP:DRNC that says: Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and for unacceptable reversions see the rule here WP:DONTREVERT. I hope you will abide by these rules the next time I revert it back. Since the rule says to give warning before revering I want to let you know that I'll revert it back tomorrow, in the mean time if you have objections/reasons you may list them out here and we discuss about it in advance. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Habesha identity

You don't get to define what is/or isn't the highlands, leave that to reliable sources. The fact that other languages excluding "Amhara-Tigrinya", are semitic does not matter. The known definition of habesha is as following: "Christian highlanders of the Amhara & Tigrinya tribes". These two ethnic groups just happen to be semitic, it does not mean all semitic groups in the region are now "Habesha". It also has nothing to do with who is linguistically closer. We already know broadly Habesha may define any group in Ethiopia including the Oromo, who happen to be the largest ethnicity. The broad definitions should be added however the infobox (religion&language) should be reserved to what the group is mainly defined as today. Let me clarify, based on reliable sources the modern term relates to Christian Amhara&Tigrinya people. We can include broad usage in the article such as the whole of Ethiopia or even African and Arab ancestry per the middle eastern definition. Hopefully we can continue discussion after your block expires. Zekenyan (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Zekenyan, I try to respond to all of your points one by one

1) Regarding to your statement "You don't get to define what is/or isn't the highlands, leave that to reliable sources."

Then provide a reliable source defining ‘highland in Ethiopia’, you know someone saying simply ‘Ethiopian highland means north Ethiopia’ without inserting reference next to this claim is ‘original search’. Also what you said above should also be applied to you, infact I would be very happy if we make that rule for our discussion? For instance you don’t get to say “Harari is not the most closest language to Amharic than Tigrigna and that it’s origin is from other semitic language” and leave that also to other reliable sources.

2) When you say only orthodox religion should be added under the infobox for religion it means that an Amhara when he is Orthodox he is Habesha but one day if he decides to be protestant then automaticlly he is no longer an Habesha, have you seen it from that perspective? Because that is what we are telling for Wikipedia readers.

3) Regarding to your statement saying "The known definition of Habesha is as following: "Christian highlanders of the Amhara & Tigrinya tribes"" and I believe the sources you used to support this claim are as follows:

a) habesha refers loosely to Amharic- and Tigrinya-speaking (i.e. Semitic), it says 'loosly' but what you are saying is "Habeha strictly means Amhara and Tigre" so even the source you provided is against your claim. Besides the writer also said this ""I consider it preferable to terms such as Ethiopia and certainly Abyssinia"

b) The sedentary christian orthodox highlanders of Eritrea and Ethiopia (habesha) This quoate is used to show that Amhara and Tigre are Habesha and we all agree on this one but this statement doesn't indicate it only refers to this people. It's like saying zulu and masay tribes are African, saying this doesnt mean Africa means Zulu and Masay.

c) a self descriptive cultural definition derived from Abyssinia it starts defining the term by saying it is a 'self descriptive', not like something you impose on others like 'Black race' which is not self descriptive. Black race has strict definitions and not self desriptive but Habesha doesnot have a strict definition and is self descriptive. Besides the source says 'Habesha is drived from Abyssinia' while the widely accepted theory is that Abyssinia is derived from the term Habesha, and if requested I can be able to list many sources supporting this claim. This simple mistake shows the writers didn't research very well.

None of the above 3 sources you provided support your view by clearly saying "Habesha term is not self descriptive and that it strictly means Amhara and Tigre". Even if there could be a reliable source supporting your view it will invalidate/contradict the following sources:

a) Ethiopians and Eritreans, especially Semitic-speaking ones, collectively refer to themselves as Habesha or Abesha" even in this source there is no strict definition as it begins by claiming all Ethiopians and Eritreans as Habesha then by saying "especially semetic speaking ones" it includes all semetic speaking people even in loose/not strict definition and finally it also defines the term as self descriptive not something you can impose like you define Black race. A black person is not given the option to describe as not black and claim he is white because both white and black have strict definitions and it is not something self decriptive but something we impose based on a strict definition.

b) inhabitants are of many races of men with many systems of religion. and this definition implies that no one needs to be a member of any religion to be considered Habesha, and in this source it defines the term Habesha as mixed people.

c) Definition of Habesha from a racial group perspective as in Habesha means 'mixed blood' 'mixed people' can be seen in my added content here: the newly added content. I dont want to bring all the citations here because they are many and numbering 14, so if there is any issues with any specific source they can be brought at the talk page and discussed further in detail.

Therefore, the above 3 points contradicts with your view of "Habesha strictly means Amhara and Tigre" even if it can be supported with other reliable sources other than the 3 sources you used. The sources I provided with views that contradicts with your view are from reliable sources, if there is any opposition to this claim then they can be discussed in detail. Zekenyan, now I would like to get your comments/oppositions/recommendations/suggestions. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Harari language is closer to gurage who were part of the now extinct Harla people. Linguistics prove this with gurage groups like the Zay just refer to the Zay language article. I dont know where your getting the claim that Harari is closer to Amharic *source please*.

The traditional definition as backed by many reliable sources claiming christianity (orthodox) defines the habesha. The sources clearly provide that but the onus is on you to counter it which you have yet to do with significant reliable sources. Instead you added obscure sources that are inaccurate. You have also left out these sources [7][8] Do not tell me your opinion/personal experiences thats not relevant. Either you provide reliable sources or drop the issue.

Regarding your analogy that "It's like saying zulu and masay tribes are African, saying this doesnt mean Africa means Zulu and Masay" Your right, it shouldnt reflect that only two groups represent "habesha", and im assuming you mean this to mean "Ethiopian". However you have no problem ostracizing the Oromo people who are not semitic and represent the majority ethnicity in Ethiopia. If you are personally offended that your ethnic group is not included then this isnt the place to push a POV. I already told you that I agree that broadly it can refer to every ethnic group or northern africa. The article must focus on what most reliable sources say. You only provided one source while 5 refute yours. Providing one source does not give you the right to disregard the several other sources that contradict yours. The gospel in all lands source defines the people who live in the "land of habesha", and what religion they practice as opposed to defining the traditional inhabitants the "habesha" themselves. Zekenyan (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Zekenyan, in response to your 1st paragraph: Almost all languages in Wikipedia article are referenced from http://glottolog.org/, a reliable source which classified the world's languages based on thousands of linguists. As you can see here http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/amha1245 the most closest language for Amhara is indeed the Argoba (Muslims) then followed by Harari (Muslims) next comes the Gurages (Chrstians/Muslims) and then lastly comes Tigrigna (Orthodox). If you have issues with glotolog.com then it can be discussed further, if not let's conclude this topic and simplify our discussion, let's not repeat again and again.

Response to your 2nd paragraph: In this paragraph you have made several claims that is ambiguous such as saying "added obscure sources that are inaccurate" which ones and why? "Do not tell me your opinion/personal experiences thats not relevant" which ones? and how are they personal opinions? and again you said "get significant reliable sources." and also you said "provide reliable sources or drop the issue." So simply what you are saying in summary is that "all the sources you used are not reliable sources" in that case which ones? I have listed 3 sources above and left a shortcut for the newly added contents so that the 14 citations I provided can be seen & reviewed. You may go through it and bring any unreliable source and clearly indicate by saying it is not reliable for x and y reason just like I did above if you think you are committed for a serious discussion. Be specific for each of your claims/accusations.

Response to your 3rd paragraph: The reason why I use "It's like saying zulu and masay tribes are African, saying this doesnt mean Africa means Zulu and Masay" is to let know that the way that stament is used in that source is in a a way not defining it in your view. Do not paraphrase my statment, those opinions you said is not reflected above and anyone can clearly see that. In regards to your statment "The article must focus on what most reliable sources say", well the article is about Habeha and if there is any contradicting view, and if supported by reliable source then it has the right to be included, thats what wikipedia says, not me. You said "You only provided one source while 5 refute yours." which are these fives and how do they refute? and you continued saying "Providing one source does not give you the right to disregard the several other sources that contradict yours." which one is this 'one source' you are taliking about? and how do they disregard the several other sources? Be specific for all your concerns otherwise it will be hard to understand your objections and the reason for your continuous deletion of the added content. If you point issues just like I did above and be more specific then you would be making it easy for Administrators make their judgment, when intervention is requested later.

Regarding to your statement saying "If you are personally offended that your ethnic group is not included then this isnt the place to push a POV", first of all you do not know what tribe I belong to. Second, it should not be the topic of our discussion so I advise you to concentrate only on the issues presented. I'm only here for sharing knowledge and balancing biased information, not with tribal/nationalist agenda.

You provided 2 alternative sources to support your recommended view, let's review the citations

1) the term 'Habesha" which is associated with the Christian highlanders again 'associated' is not equivalent to 'strictly' and this citation did not say clearly as "Habesha means strictly Christian highlanders". Associated can mean predominantly and it is equivalent of saying: "the term 'India' is associated with Hindu religion followers" but remember that there are over 180 million (16%) Indian citizens who are Muslims. Anyways even if it supports your view, there is one reliable source which contradicts with it while still defining the term from modern definition. Therefore, either what is written in the info-box should accommodate both views, otherwise not mentioning any tribes and religions would be best. That is my proposed solution, if you have other solution we may discuss them.

2) Habesha (their own description). in recent times the term Habesha has become politicised as it is largely associated with the Amhara and the Tigreans in this citations words like 'own description', 'largely' and 'associated' all refer to loosely and predominantly but not strictly. Besides this citation actually is talking about how the Nilotic people refers to the Afro Asiatic peoples of Amharas, Oromos, Tigreans, Kambatas and Keffas. The source clearly says "these people collectively identifies themselves as habesha while the Anywaa call them collectively as galaa while the Nuer call them buny". Therefore, this source indicate the broad definition of Habesha, by referring Afro-Asiatic people (those who looks like mixed) collectively (semetic Amhara-Tigre, cushitic Oromo-Kambata and Omotic Keffa speaking people) as the people who described themselves as Habesha, and also the writer asserts that the so called "Habesha largely refers to Amhara and Tigre" is as a result of politicizing the term, this one I also agree with him. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you now proposing that every ethnic group in Ethiopia be added as "Habesha"? Please explain what infobox would say in the Religion and Language section. I would like you to create a draft of what it is your going to add onto the aticle on the talk page. so that we can decipher the issues if any be. Don't post a summary of your intended contribution. My advice is to leave out original research, synthesis etc. Zekenyan (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed solution: Infobox restore it to pre May 27, 2016 saying Ethiopian semitic languages, and religion including all followers. That is how it has been for a long time. Secondarily the paragraph that begins "Historicaly..........." should be in to let know readers with various usage of Habesha and it's applications from historically perspective. The next paragraph is dedicated to it's modern/present-day definition/application. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal for the infobox would go against reliable sources unless its revised to "Mainly Amhara and Tigrinya" then listing other ethnic groups. The religion section would similarly say "Mainly Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox Christians" then listing other religions. This would solve the misrepresentation issue you brought up. Regarding your insertion of "Muslim Cushitic" inhabitants, can you point out where in the source it says this because I cant find it. The modern day section should indicate the Amhara Tigrinya group per reliable sources not just any semitic group. Zekenyan (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Predominantly or mainly Amharic and Tigrinya speaking people should be because the Ethiopian Tigrinya speaking people do not identify themselves as Tigrinya people. We may say predominantly just "Orthodox Chrstians" since we cant say Ethiopian muslims and Eritrean muslims. Both churches traditions/laws are one as muslims in both countries. All muslims pray in Arabic and both orthodox churches pray in Ge'ez and the law is one. In regards to 'Muslim cushitics' the sources used did say how the Ottoman Turk caliphate geographers locate the geography of Habeshistan from Sawakin upto down Bab el Mandab based on here [9] and this source here [10] says Sawakin, located just north of Eritrea is the capital city of the province of Habesh and it says the Bedj or Beja people's Amir is very influential in the province and as can be seen in the wikipedia article Beja people are cushitic and muslims, if required reliable source describing Beja people could be included next to that source. That same source also says "province of Habesh was united with the sanjak of Jedda". Based on here [11] Sanjaks of Habesh province includes Sawakin (Sudan), Hargigo (Eritrea), Massawa (Eritrea), Zayla (Somaliland). And in these Sanjaks there are no chrstians and is inhabited by Beja, Saho, Afar and Issas (Somalis), all cushitics. All these sanjaks are located in the lowlands adjacent to the Red sea. If also required additional source might be included describing these people and their religions but I beleive no one argues by saying the people in Zeyla sanjak and Sawakin sanjak to be predominantly Christians. If the Turks continued to rule upto 1960s, if Italians didnot come, then most probably we would have two nations in the Horn one being called Abyssinia and the other one being Habeshistan. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words you added in personal analysis. If its not in the source you should not insert original research. The Ottoman state in eritrea was called Habesha not necessarily because the people were habesha, but that it was the geographical location which traditionally is the location of the ancient aksum empire. this is why they named it habesha. The Serbian people were under the ottoman empire but they are not considered ottoman just because they were occupied by the ottoman empire. The Ottomans were traditionally Sunni muslims and the serbs were orthodox christian but this is not to say ottoman lands didnt have various cultures and religion including catholicism, shiaism etc. Zekenyan (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources here [12] and [13] says "the Ottomon Turks call the country which they defined it stretching from Sawakin (Sudan) upto Bab el Mandab (Djuboti-Somaliland) as Habeshistan and the people as Habesh, and in their province of Habesh with it's capital at Sawakin, the Amir of the Beja tribe is very influential". May be I could just add that as it is and let the people do the analysis for themselves while one way or another they will still get the message written in short there. I don't want to get broad to state a simple message which can be told with 4 words, but it's upto you to choose one of the two description. I think the reason they call the lowland cushitic muslim peoples as Habesh is based on their definition for the term 'Habesh' as 'mixed people' or 'mixed blood'. The basic reason is also based on the Arabs usage of the term for any people who looks mixed with African and Arab parentage. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Zekenyan, I will be adding back all the content and then from that you will adjust in those areas which you think needs correction — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the reason because they controlled the sudan and they didn't call it habesha. The Ottomans being of muslim background were well aware of the Migration to Abyssinia therefore its not simply a "mixed" heritage as you say. Zekenyan (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, "Habesha" is certainly not etymologically derived from a "mixed" heritage. It is actually a term rooted in antiquity, as it was first attested as Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat) in Ge'ez inscriptions dating from the Aksumite era [14]. Soupforone (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ottomons didnot control the interior of Sudan, they only controlled areas of Cushitic speaking Beja of Sudan. Historically Peoples names are usually determined not by how the people want to be called but by others. For instance the term 'Indians' is used to call East Indians as well as to call all the native Americans collectively eventhough language and color of Indians in Canada and Argentina is greatly varied. Axumites in their many writings and inscriptions didnot say "We Habehsas" so it's a name like 'Indians' given by others but was adopted later. In Ethiopia the widely accepted definition for the term 'Abesha' is someone who looks mixed or with a common psychology and is not restricted to any tribe, religion and geography. The reason why Ottomons used Habesh province could either be because it was an area controlled by Axumites or it could be because of their and Arabs usage of the term for mixed people or who look like mixed, it is uncertain but one thing can be said surely is that Ottomons did use it as a name for their province where there are no Christians and inhabited by Cushitic people. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would there be "no Christians"??. As explained the inhabitants might of been cushitic, muslim or jewish but the rulers were the traditional semitic orthodox Christians called habeshi. The Ottomans fought against Bahr negus Yeshaq who was a puppet of the Emperor of Abyssinia to occupy "al habesh". The Beja people were also occupying land previously under the influence of Aksum. "The decline of Aksum caused a major political fragmentation in the whole region. Eritrea hosted various ethnolinguistic and tribal groups as well as immigrants from various parts of the region. Among the significant immigrant groups were the Beja clans. Generally the, fall of Aksum greatly affected the dominance by the Semitic-speaking peoples, and Eritrea now became home for multicultural ethnolinguistic groups."[15] "Even in this direction, however it seems that the southernmost tribes of the Beja were still Christian by religion and that they still paid allegiance to the nejashi of the Habasha" [16]. Zekenyan (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Aksumites actually did use Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat) as an endonym. That is the appellation's origin in Ge'ez, not the "mixed" thing. Habesha also obviously does not refer to Ethiopians generally, otherwise traditional distinctions like Shanqella would not exist. Moreover, note that the Habesh Eyalet was actually established over 500 years after the end of the Aksumite era. The Ottomans therefore referred to the governorate in this way because the area was already the realm of the Ḥbśt of the ancient Ge'ez inscriptions. Soupforone (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Zekenyan, the Ottoman's Habesh province existed between Gragn Mohamed and Italians emergence in the region by mid 19th centuary. Within this period of time Ottomons tried to conquer the chrstian highlands during Bahr Negus Yisehaq and briefly occupied those chrstian areas, may be for less than 10 years. Then they were defeated by the chrstians and were forced to retreat and establish their Habesh province in the lowland areas with cushitic and muslim inhabitants. There are no chrstian rulling classes in Habesh province, as the source I gave you above said it was actually the Beja muslim cushitic people with their Amir who were the rulling classes of this province and also note that the capital of this province, Sawakin, is not in present-day Eritrea but in Sudan. Soupforone, I agree that Axumites use Habashat, likely to describe area they knew, but if you have a source that says Axumites described themselves as "we Habeshas or Habeshats" please let us know. The reason why Ottomons used Habesh province could possibly be because as you said it was under the realm of Axumites, and if Ottomans associate the name to Christians and semetic speaking people then considering their state being a muslim caliphate they wouldnt have named a province where there are no chrstian rulling classes and inhabitants. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite possible. Ḥbśt may actually be even older, as it was apparently also attested during the Pharaonic era [17]. Soupforone (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Many agree it has been used for a long time, most likely as incense collectors[18], but no inscriptions left by Axumites says "we Habeshas/Habeshats". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Zekenyan, What is your opinion on Ottomans Habesh province under the paragraph describing it's usage historically? Which one should be in the broad one or just as it is? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Its getting messy, I suggest you make the edit and we'll sort out the issues after that. Zekenyan (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Amhara and "Amharaized Tigrayans" are the only Habesha/Abeshas(Abyssinians)

From a historical sources upto contemporary self-identification. No Eritrean Tigrinya, nor Oromo, Afar, Konso, Gurage, Adare, Sidamo,Gojjami(Agaw)..etc refer to themselves as Habesha/Abesha. This is a case of Habeshanization of Different Groups that have been forced into subjugation under the hegemony of Abyssinians.Otakrem (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, the rule of this forum described on top says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Habesha people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." . What you are claiming is something unknown, not mentioned in the article and not supported by even one reliable source. Therfore how will it improve this article? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a source on "Ahmarized tigrayns" being referred to as Habesha. Are you suggesting that only Amharas are Habesha? I agree that habesha is a code word for Ethiopian Empire though. The Tigrayan Yohannes IV was favoured over Amhara Emperor Menelik II but died unexpectedly, so I can understand the resentment and Tigrans don't want to be associated with the 18th century Ethiopian Empire. Habesha here is defining the ancient term and inhabitants of the northern highlands which would encompass the Amhara-Tigray regions, their religion being orthodox would also coincide with the religion of ancient Axum. Zekenyan (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Zekenyan Interesting read From Bulatovich, a Russian who was embedded with the Armies of Menelik, Emperor of Abyssinia "Amhara or Abyssinians The Abyssinians, rulers of the country, call themselves "Amhara" in contrast to the inhabitants of Tigre. Through all the extent of my journey to the west, I did not come any areas that they had completely settled, but, on the other hand, in those most recently conquered, all the rulers and troops are Abyssinian." I recommend you read the entire book as well as his other book which is linked in this website. If you can obtain the book online go for it. Otakrem (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add this to show the Thoughts of Non-Habesha Ethiopians, Anuaks and others The article is interesting but the comments are more revealing on this idea of "Habesha/Abesha/Abyssinians" and "Ethiopia/Ethiopians". Is Habesha/Abesha, an "ethnic group"? or is it a Two-ethnic group nation-state? Otakrem (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, In Bulatovich book there is nothing that says Amharized Tigrayans are the only Habeshas! There is also nothing that says Habeshas are only Amharas. In the sources it says Amharas or Abyssinians thats it. We still don't know what source you used to come up with that claim! — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha It says it right there ""Amhara or Abyssinians The Abyssinians, rulers of the country, call themselves "Amhara" in contrast to the inhabitants of Tigre."Otakrem (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, just to clarify, the principal distinction in Ethiopia is actually not between Habesha and non-Habesha. It is instead between Shanqella (barya) and non-Shanqella (non-barya). This is because the Habesha/Abyssinians share ancestral origins with other local Afro-Asiatic speakers [19]. Soupforone (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, actually it has always been between "Habesha/Habasha/Abesha/Abyssinian" and every other Non-"H-ba/e/sha"/Abyssinian. Take this example from this , Page 99 "Oromos who have mispronounced Amharic words by saying "Afun yalfata Galla; tabitaba Galla" (an Oromo who cannot express himself clearly). Habasha/Abesha/Habesha means "Amhara", always has and always will. Even in modern times, many Eritrean and Ethiopians are rejecting being labelled as "Habesha", scour the internet on social media as such. There is something singular ethnically-based about this term "Habesha/Habasha".Otakrem (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect, you are confusing intragroup rivalry with differing origins. The traditional ancestral cleavage in Ethiopian society has always been between the shanqella/barya and non-shanqella/barya [20]. This again is because the Afro-Asiatic speaking populations share actual ancestral origins (irrespective of any intragroup squabbles), whereas the shanqella/barya groups do not [21]. Soupforone (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, since you are stating that "shanquella" and "barya"(which is a name used by an Eritrean ethnic group Nara people) are the major group that is differenatiated from the so-called "non-shanqella/barya", I highly disagree. The differences within Ethiopia specifically was "Abyssinians/(Habesha)-Amhara" vs "Tigray/Oromo/"+"Shanqella/Barya/other Cushites and Negros". There was never a United Ethiopia under the Domination of Amhara(Habesha) until Menelik II and his modern weapons. Prior to that it was Several Kingdoms of which was the Zagwe(Za Agauw), Bejas(Kebessa Eritrea), Adals(modern day Ogaden), Oromos(Shewa Arsi,Bale..etc), Gojjam, Gambella(anything close to South Sudan never a part of Aksum nor Abyssinia until Menelik's Machine guns). All of these different ethnic groups, nationalities were in different forms of relationships with each other, sometimes trade but eventually everyone that was not Abyssinian(Habesha-Amhara) was subjugated to form this Habeshainized "ethiopia" that we have today. You can ask any Non-Habesha if they feel they are 1st Class citizen in Ethiopia, 99.999% will not answer that question because they know their truth, to be "Habesha" means to be "Amhara"(ethnically , linguistically, and socially).Otakrem (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Solomonic dynasty's political hegemony, but that is not what I was referring to there. I'm talking about the fundamental (not ancillary) linguistic, cultural and ancestral distinction in Ethiopia, which has traditionally been between the Hamitic-Semitic populations (non-Shanqella/barya) and the Shanqella/barya [22]. Soupforone (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, that is neither here nor there because the question is Who is Habesha? So far the answer is "Amhara and Amhariazed Tigrayans". James Bruce noted a distinct polity between Abyssinians(Habesha) and MedriBahri(Eritrea) in 1770. He described Abyssinia and the Amhara are at the center of it, hence the ones who are 100% Habesha. Every other Ethnic group is a periphery of the Habesha whether they are Cushitic-Semitic or non-Cushitic-Semitic.Otakrem (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. Soupforone (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is James Bruce describing some things about the "Tigres", the "Amharas" , "Shankallas", etc remember he is a Primary Source in terms of his account in addition to his use of prior sources. He called Amharic , a dialect of Arabic, interesting. HBST(Habashat) descend from Yemen according to the historical maps. The Aksumites being different according to King Ezana in how he distinguished himself from the Habashats by referring to them as a Separate Kingdom from his Empire and not himself as a "Habashat".[23]Otakrem (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Soupforone (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Otakrem, still what you are claiming is unknown and unsupported with any sources. Still a reliable source that precisely says your claim i.e. "Amhara and "Amharaized Tigrayans" are the only Habesha" are not provided yet. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'll ask you, is a Barya/Shankalla/Galla/Kayla/Shuro/Agame/Tigre Habesha? If so, then why are they referred to as Barya/Shankalla/Galla/Kayla/Shuro/Agame/Tigre etc? Obviously they are not Habesha to the Abyssinians as multiple sources confirm that Abyssinians(namely Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans) refer to all these people not as Habesha but as all those names which some if not most are meant in a derogatory manner.Otakrem (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, the Shanqella/barya groups are distinct from the non-Shanqella/barya (Afro-Asiatic) populations. The real question, then is, which of the Afro-Asiatic-speaking groups are descendants of the original Habesha? It obviously isn't the Amhara and Tigray-Tigrinya alone since the Amharic and Tigrinya languages weren't even spoken at the time when Ḥbśt was first attested in the ancient Ge'ez inscriptions. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Habesha/Abesha definition in Amharic and Tigrinya or in Geez?

What does the word "Habesha", "Abesha" mean in the Amharic and Tigrinya language? Or is it a foreign word attributed similar to "African" or "Black" or "Ethiopian" to a people who resemble each other to a foreign perspective? Otakrem (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

By most people usage in Ethiopia it refers primarily as a racial group i.e. when someone says I'm not Habesha most people take it as if he is saying "I am not teyim or I don't look like a mixed person" that is it! When we say Habeshanised then based on it's primary usage in Ethiopia of racial group then it means "Habeshanised" = "making someone look like mixed person.". People use the term like this: this one is white person and that one is black person and this one is Arab person but I am Habesha person (meaning a group of people with common racial group and psychology). That is how people use it. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That last bit is quite true, as this perception of distinctness is inherent in the Habesha/Abyssinian traditional origin myth [24]. Other local Afro-Asiatic/Hamitic-Semitic speaking populations have similar cosmogonies too, so it appears to be rooted in actual ancestry [25]. Soupforone (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"Habesha" (locally pronounced "Abesha", with a silent "h") was first attested as Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat) in Ge'ez inscriptions dating from the Aksumite era. The Aksum king Ezana (c. 330-370 CE) appropriated the name "Ethiopians" for the Aksumites after he had conquered Nubia, which was the original "Ethiopia" of the Greco-Roman world. He ostensibly did this for prestige since Meroe in Nubia was at the time the larger kingdom -- much like how the Greek Ptolemaic Kingdom appropriated ancient Egyptian titles and regalia after it had conquered dynastic Egypt, including the queen Cleopatra (whose family was of Macedonian origin). It is during this 4th century reign of King Ezana when a Ge'ez inscription belonging to him first equates the Meroitic Aἰθιόπoι ("Ethiopians") with the local Ḥbštm and Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat), a traditional designation for the Abyssinians; ’ḥbs (’Aḥbāsh) is the equivalent of Ḥbśt in Sabaic/Sabaean [26]. Soupforone (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What does the word "Habesha" or "Abesha" translate to in English from either Amharic or Tigrinya?Otakrem (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, What does the word "Indian" translate to in English from Hindi language and from native Americans language? If you can find an answer for this question then you may also use the same logic to find an answer to your question— EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok then, EthiopianHabesha, what does the word "Habesha" or "Abesha" translate to in English from either Amharic or Tigrinya since you are an Ethiopian Habesha? Btw here is the origin of the word "India" So is the word "Habesha" or "Abesha" even an Amharic or Tigrinya word?Otakrem (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, "Habesha" in English is transcribed as "Abyssinian". However, it is not of either Amharic or Tigrinya origin. It is instead derived from the Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat) of the ancient Ge'ez inscriptions. Soupforone (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, If you are claiming "Hbst(Habashat) is of ancient Geez inscription, again what does the word "Habashat" mean in English, the definition of the word "Habash"? if it is a Geez word since you say it is not an Amharic nor Tigrinya word?Otakrem (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, the site you gave for defining India says there was a name called Sindhu (the name of indus river) then sindhu corrupted as Hindu by others, neighbors and became Hindu and then Hindu was again corrupted by Greeks and became India and again Europeans used the term 'Indians' to call native Americans even-though those people are not neighbors and leave in 2 continents. That is how usually people are named i.e. by others even if they are over a billion. Now when we apply the same logic to Habesha, intitally it was used to refer to incense collectors [27], then it becomes a name for 'mixed people' or 'mixed blood' [28] then Europeans corrupted it to Abyssinia [29] now when I used the name 'Habesha' for my user name I am saying 'I look mixed'. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, you didn't answer my question. Thanks anyways. Here is a better source which says "The Sanskrit word Sindhu means river, stream or ocean, probably from a root sidh meaning "to keep off". Sindhu is still the local appellation for the Indus River." Therefore if "Habesha/Abesha" are Amharic/Tigrinya or Geez words then they should have a definition. What does Habesha/Abesha/Habasha translate to in English? Otakrem (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes Otakrem, Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat) was first attested in the ancient Ge'ez. Since then, its original meaning has occasionally been bastardized to mean something it does not really (like with the "mixed" thing). This is similar to the original denotation of "Ethiopia" (i.e., the antique Nubia), which the King Ezana later appropriated for his Aksumite kingdom. Soupforone (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, simple question, what does the word "Habesha" translate to into English? I showed what "Sindhu", an origin word for Hindu, translated into "river, lake, ocean". For example, Does "Habesha" translate to "Give me"? DOes it translate to "gatherer"? What does it translate to into English?Otakrem (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, let me ask you similar questions What does the word "Oromo" means in Oromo language? what does the word "Amhara" means in Amharic? and what does the word "Tigre" or "Tigrinya" means in Tigrniya language? I am assuming you speak one of these 3 languages and perhaps you can give us a definition for one of them. For all of them you begin "...... is a group of people.....". For the word Habesha also I have defined it above and said It's a name of a group of people which Ethiopians use it primarily as a group of people with common racial group i.e. people who look in between Arabs and Nilotic/Bantu people, I believe Eritreans also use it the same way. Europeans have different meanings for it as well as Turks, Arabs, Somalis and others have different meanings for it. It has no strict definition and it's definition depends on who use it and for what purpose. Peoples names usually is bastardised/corrupted like Sindi-Hindu-India-Hindu religion-Hindi language-Native Indian Americans-West Indians-East Indians etc etc — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha you tell me? I don't speak Amharic nor Oromo language. As for Tigre or Tigrinya, you would have to ask someone who speaks those languages. What do they translate to into English? And what does "Habashat/Habesha/Abesha" translate to into English? Every word has an origin and definition, it doesn't just get written down in Geez and not have core definitions of each syllable.Otakrem (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, Could you give me the source and page number were it says "Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat) was first attested in the ancient Ge'ez", because I have searched google books and other online libraries but could not be able to find it - EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, "Abyssinian" is simply an English rendering of "Habesha", so its meaning is the same as in the original Ge'ez. Soupforone (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If you seriously believe that Habesha is "a name of a group of people which Ethiopians use it primarily as a group of people with common racial group i.e. people who look in between Arabs and Nilotic/Bantu people", then, clearly, we are not talking about the same people at all [30]. Nor apparently was the 17th century explorer James Bruce when he described meeting the Abyssinian King Tekle Haymanot II. Anyway, Ḥbśt is attested in the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum [31]. Soupforone (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone You nor EthiopianHabesha has answered my question, what does the word "HBST" or "Habasha" or "Abesha" or "Habashat" translate to in English? And your source says "HBST" translated to Greek word "Aethiopian" (Ethiopian) which would mean "Burnt face". So is "HBST" a Geez word that means "Burnt face"?Otakrem (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, ok then if you don't speak the 3 languages then you do speak English so why not define the word "English" for us — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha "from Latin Anglus, (plural) Angli ‘the people of Angul,’ a district of Schleswig (now in northern Germany), so called because of its shape; of Germanic origin, related to Old English angul (see angle2). Compare with English." You've heard of the word Angle( a shape), therefore the English originate from the Name of their district in Germany. So India originates from Sanskrit word Sindhu ( river, stream, ocean). English originate from word "Angle" which is defined as a Shape. Now what does "Habasha" a Geez word translate to in English?Otakrem (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, it actually indicates that 1) "Ethiopian" was the original Greco-Roman appellation for the natives of Nubia (not Abyssinia), and 2) the Aksumite King Ezana later appropriated the name for his realm when he conquered Meroe in Nubia. The Ḥbśt designation for the Abyssinians only thereafter became tied to "Ethiopian", just as the Greek Ptolemaic Kingdom rulers of Egypt only became known as pharaohs after they had conquered Egypt and appropriated the ancient Egyptian royal traditions. Soupforone (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, that doesn't make sense. The Greeks with their maps showed South of Egypt specifically Nubia as "Aethiopia" to the entire continent. You nor Ethiopianhabesha have not answered the simple question of what does "Habesha/Abesha/Habashat" translate to into English? Habasha = Dust? Habasha = Frog? Habasha = Sand? I showed that "India" originated from "Sindhu" which translates to "river, stream, ocean" in Sanskrit. If Habasha is a Geez word then it must mean something which can be translated into English.Otakrem (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

"Aethiopia"/"Ethiopia" never actually referred to Africa as a whole, but rather to places where the ancient Greeks believed "Aethiopians"/"Ethiopians" inhabited. It originally designated Nubia, and only later came to encompass some other areas. This is why, with regard to the ancient Ethiopians' arrival on territory near ancient Egypt, Eusebius wrote that "formerly the Ethiopians occupied these regions... there was till then no Ethiopia" [32]. Soupforone (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, fine. so what does the word "Habesha/Habasha/Abesha/Habashat" translate to in English?Otakrem (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, please do not do not append any apocryphal and undecided etymologies, thanks. Soupforone (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, well that is kind of like asking what does Jesus translate to in Spanish. It is Jesús, a simple rendering of the name Jesus. Similarly, Abyssinian is an English rendering of the ethnonym Habesha [33]. Soupforone (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Soupforone (see Jesus#Etymology and Jesus (name), therefore my question isn't what is "Abyssinia" translate to". My question is quite clear: What does the word "Habesha/Habasha/Abesha/Habashat" translate to in English? I'm asking about the etymology of the word "Habesha".Otakrem (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, got it. The meaning of the word "Habesha" itself in the original ancient Ge'ez is unknown (and therefore also in the English derivation). It is just known that it served as an ethnonym for the early Abyssinians. Soupforone (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well we need to have a Geez language expert to determine the definition based on the letters used and words that create the word "Ha ba sha" or "Ha be sha" or "Hab asha" or "Hab esha", how is it spelled it in Geez script?Otakrem (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, well it was originally in the Ge'ez script, so it was transcribed into the Latin alphabet as Ḥbśt and Ḥbštm. Soupforone (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, as Otakrem already explained to you [34]:

::*EthiopianHabesha, see Talk:Habesha_people#Amhara_and_.22Amharaized_Tigrayans.22_are_the_only_Habesha.2FAbeshas.28Abyssinians.29 Since there is a discussion on who is Habesha, your entry of related groups as being Habesha is contested, therefore no consensus has been reached. I agree with Soupforone for removing what you added. "Ethiosemitic languages" cover more than just Amhara and Ethiopian Tigrayans, therefore the addition of it to an article dubbed "Habesha people" is not correct from the sources provided and the Non-Habesha populations own self-definition.Otakrem (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That said, kindly stop edit warring. Please instead discuss the material here on the talk page. Soupforone (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Various formations of the term 'Habesha' usage by various group of people

The term 'Habesha' is used by many groups of people like Arabs, Turks, Europeans, Ethiopians and Eritreans with all of them having different meanings for it.

Soupforone, you have deleted a paragraph describing the various formations of the term which was used historically by various group of people. All sentences are properly sourced with multiple reliable published books that are accessible from Google books and all citations can be confirmed online. But still you have deleted it without giving convincing reason, a reason that you can support by other reliable source. Before I add it back I want us to discuss about it here in advance. I will add it then you delete the sentence which you disagree and then we will discuss about it by supporting reasons with reliable sources. If you disagree with all sentences then we need to discuss about them all. Based on this rule WP:DRNC Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" . If you beleive the paragraph is 'original research' you may use tags. You can delete when there is obvious violations and if that is the reason you may need to provide the short cut of the rule. Anyhow there must be clearly described reason to delete one paragraph - EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem and Soupforone, let's try to base every claim of ours with reliable sources. We need to use many quotations from books like X writer says Habesha means ......... and Y writer says habesha is used for people like.......... . We are wikipedia editors, not anthropologists, linguists or historians and what is expected from us is to compile what other professionals have researched. Even a professional historian usually quotes other expert's work by referencing properly to assert his point of view. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem explained above what the actual policy is (that other link is to an essay). That being said, so as to avoid confusion, it is probably best to enumerate the ancient epigraphs where the Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat) etymology originates. The oldest of these appears to be the Ge'ez inscription belonging to the Aksumite king Ezana (c. 330-370 CE) [35]. Soupforone (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone Firstly, I have full access to the book which you referenced above and I have searched for your claim of "Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat) was used to name Axumite people" but I could not be able to find it there. I am assuming you have seen it yourself in the book, could you give me the page number and it will be best if you bring the exact citation here for discussion. Based on my findings after going through several sources there is no inscriptions left by Axumites calling themselves as "We Habashas" or "We Habashats" and if there is any source you know please share with us of the title of the book and page number. Secondly, even if there is any source that says that Axumites call themselves as Habashat/Habesha then it has got nothing to do with the paragraph you have deleted. That paragraph was used to describe how various groups of people use the term. For more clarification please bring in more quotations/citations supporting your POV. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The key thing here is what the ancient epigraphs actually indicate (not conjecture). With that said, Abyssinia and its natives had four main designations through different eras. 1-- An original endonym: "[Abyssinia] was called Habashat in the indigenous language, Ge'ez" [36]. This Ḥbśt appellation is enumerated in the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum [37]. 2-- An early exonym: "among the late Greek and Roman authors, Abyssinia was called not Ethiopia but India". This is also itemized in the Fontes and attested in the same ancient epigraphs. 3-- Another early exonym: "the late antique Ethiopian state was also commonly called Axum (or Aksum), after its capital". Attested in the Periplus. 4-- And finally, a later, borrowed endonym: "in the 4th century C.E., the name Ethiopia was adopted by King Ezana to designate his kingdom". Also attested in the Fontes. This is the actual epigraphic derivation [38]. Soupforone (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone . Firstly the term 'Abesha' is corrupted and became 'Abyssinia' by portugese recently in 16th centuary. Secondly the source provided did not clearly say Ezana/Axumites named their teritory as Habeshat or Abyssinia or Habesha. This is what the source says "Ethiopia was adopted by King Ezana to designate his kingdom, Abyssinia, in it's Greek inscriptions (it was called Habashat in the indigenous language, Ge'ez)" . It is ambiguous and does not say Ezana changed the name of his kingdom from Habashat/Abyssinia to Ethiopia. An inscription stating Axumites or one of the kings call themselves or their territory as Habashat or saying they changed the name from Habeshat to Ethiopia will make it much clear. There is an agreement that Habesha in Geez is Habeshat, in Arabic Habeshi, in Tukish Hebeshistan, by Europeans it is Abyssinian and in Amharic it is Abesha. Anyways even if there is inscription saying Axumites refer themselves and their teritory as Habeshat/Abyssinia it has got nothing to do with the paragraph you deleted which is telling how various formations of the term was used by various group of people historically. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, certain ancient iterations of "Habesh" have nothing to do with the Habesha/Abyssinians (viz. "Habshi" for the Siddi Bantus), just as certain ancient iterations of "Indian" having nothing to do with the Indians (viz. "Indians" for the Habesha/Abyssinians). It is therefore not the translation of "Habesh" itself that matters, but rather its translation in relation to actual Abyssinians. That being said, in King Ezana's epigraph, he did appropriate the biblical toponym "Ethiopia" for his kingdom, which was then known in Ge'ez as Habasat [39]. Soupforone (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, Cosmas the Greek traveler in 6th century does not refer the nation as Habesha or Habeshat see the source here [40] "Cosmas refers constantly to Ethiopia and it’s capital ‘’Axomites” and it’s ruler as “king of the Axomites”." .... "He makes no mention of Habashat and continually refers Ethiopia, where he traveled extensively". Again the same source here [41] says "Ezana styles himself as “Ezana, king of Aksum, and of Himyar, and Kasu, and Saba, and Habashat, and Raidan, and Salhen and Tsiamo, and Beja, the king of Kings." This shows that for him Habashat is one of the provinces in addition to Kasu (Kush) and Beja as well as other people around the Red sea and he designated the name 'Ethiopia' as you said above to all these provinces/Kingdoms under his possession. Another source here [42] says "The original use of the Greek designation `Ethiopia' was either as a general designation for the black peoples south of the Egyptian border (as the Arabs later used `al-Habasha' or its plural `Ahabish' for groups like the Zanj, Beja, and Nubians as well as the Abyssinians; Tolmacheva 1986), or more specifically as a reference to the kingdom of Kush or Kasu, with its capital at Meroë on the Sudanese Nile. But after the eclipse of this state, the kings of both Aksum and Nubia (Munro-Hay 1982-3) used the name `Ethiopia' to refer to their own countries and peoples.". This shows that when the Arabs translated Greek writings and encounter the name 'Ethiopia' or 'Aethiopia' as in used to refer people with 'sun burned faces' or blacks they translate it as 'Habshat' or Al-Habesh or Habesha and the source says the Arabs also used Habesha to call the Nilo-Saharan (Nilotic) people of Nubians, Zanj and Kasu as well as the cushitic Bejas and also Abyssinians (corrupted by Europeans to refer north Ethiopia). Now the paragraph you deleted is briefly clarifying these confusions by using a reliable source and described it's usage historically by different group of people. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, here is the passage you were disputing with Otakrem and Zekenyan:

Historically, similar formations of the term 'Habesha' have been used by many groups of people in the past to indicate different meanings. In it’s broad definition it has been used to name various geographical pockets that are located from Southern Arabian peninsula to the southern tip of the African continent. For the Turks it means people with 'mixed blood' and they used it as 'Habeshistan', also used it to name their lowland Red Sea province as Habesh Eyalet that was predominantly inhabited by the Muslim Cushitic speaking people. Arabs have two definitions for it, one is with narrower and northern sense which refers to the Aksumite empire, and their second definition has a wider application which refers particularly to modern-day Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa or even to Sub-Saharan Africa in general. In the Arab world, sometimes Habesha is used to refer people of mixed Arab and African parentage. Europeans use the narrow definition, while Ethiopians on the other hand use the wider definition to refer to any person from Ethiopia. The Habesha, as used by Arabs refers to mixed people and it is the etymological basis for the term 'Abyssinia' which is modified by the Europeans.

Besides the fact that the last phrase is patently untrue, right away it is obvious that the rest of the passage is not necessarily even relevant here since it is on the term Habesha rather than the actual Habesha/Abyssinian ethnic group. For instance, in the Indian subcontinent, "Habshi" is used for the Siddi Bantus. Similarly, in the Somali territories, "Habash" denotes slaves or serfs [43]; Abyssinians are instead known as "Amxaaro" [44]. This is what I meant by it is not the translation of "Habesh" itself that matters, but rather its translation in relation to actual Abyssinians. Soupforone (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, your claim of the last phrase being untrue, well it is not me who said that, but it is the source. If there is any problem with the source i.e. if you think it is unreliable or not what the citation talks about then we can discuss about that but extracting/compiling statements as they are from reliable sources is allowed. This is encyclopedia where people get answers for their question of 'What is Habesha?' and 'Who are Habeshas?'. None of the sources used in Wikipedia article for Habesha did define the term strictly. If you know any source that defines it by saying "Habesha strictly means..........." then you may let us know. All the sources define it loosely by saying 'it is self descriptive', 'associated with X and Y people' and 'Ethiopians and Eritreans in general and specially X and Y people use it oftenly' etc etc. Before one goes through the article one needs brief clarification on how the term is used historically and in modern times, and what you are saying is no need for it’s ancient usage but only it’s modern usage. One might read ancient books and documents written by ancient Arab/Turkish scholars/geographers and might find the term 'Al Habash' or ‘Habasha’ which the ancient scholars used to refer the black Nilotic Kasu or Kushs and Nubians but when they Googled to find an answer of who are Habashas, Wikipedia article tells them 'Habesha means Amhara and Tigre' written based on sources which none of them define it as strictly Amhara and Tigre, then we are confusing readers and letting them understand the ancient writing out of context. However, if we clarify for him on the terms ancient usage based on a reliable sources then he would be careful not to just take the writing out of context. I beleive wikipedia is for informing readers with reliable source but not to confuse people. The term is not modern and has been used for 1000s of years and is not justifiable to not mention how it was used historically by various people because it was not a term that was used after 1970s or after the Portuguese came in 16th century and corrupted ‘Abesha’, which was already corrupted from ‘Habesha’, to Abyssinia. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, per WP:OFFTOPIC, articles should contain no loosely relevant or irrelevant material. That, however, is precisely what most of the text above is i.e., digressions into tangential matter. The bottom line is, "Habesh" etymology ≠ the Habesha/Abyssinian ethnic group. Only the etymological derivations on actual Abyssinians (not Siddi Bantus or other peoples) are pertinent here. This should be obvious from the foregoing. Soupforone (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, If you want to talk about only north Ethiopian people for which Europeans corrupted the term Abesha into Abyssinia then I guess you need to create a new article in wikipedia for 'Abyssinians' and there you will make sure only stories related to Amhara and Tigre are described, also you may need to include the cushitic speaking Agaws which Europeans included as inhabitants within this geography area with Agaws being masters of this region through Zagwe dynasty after the fall of Axum. The article here is about 'Habesha people' for which Arabs/Turkish/Ethiopians and Eritreans all of them use the term to refer to people. What the Europeans did is took the term Habesha from the Arabs who used it to refer mixed people or incense growers and then from that they developed Abyssinia to refer north Ethiopia. Someone searching in Google for the term Habesha need to know it's ancient and modern application by various people as well as the meaning of the different formations corrupted from it i.e. Habeshi, Abesha, Abyssinians and Habeshistan etc etc. Therfore, you may need to open a new article for Abyssinians and in there if I speak of Abyssinian being used to refer Nilotic Nubians or Bantu Sidis historically then you might say it is offtopic and should not be included. The article is about the root word so if we want to narrow it then there may need to be several articles for each of these corrupted terms. Infact what would be WP:OFFTOPIC is applying the narrow definition of Abyssinians into the wider Habeshas and it's like saying Europeans are only Germans. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Habesha/Abyssinian ethnic group is the subject here, which is why it is categorized under Semitic peoples. Derivations of "Habesh" that relate instead to other, non-Habesha/Abyssinian populations are therefore indeed irrelevant. Also, you are mistaken about the Arabic etymology of "Habesh". It was simply inherited from the Ḥbštm and Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat) of the ancient Ge'ez epigraphs [45]. Soupforone (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, the issue is I have gone through all the sources used for the article and I did not find not even one source saying "Habesha is strictly applied to semetic people" and all the sources used define/apply it loosely. We cannot do original research and say let's vote, we Wikipedians, and dedicate the article for only semetic people when there is no reliable source backing the plan. This is against what Wikipedia stands for. If you know any source backing your plan please let us know. Secondly, Why do you keep on saying 'it is not true Habesha doesnot mean mixed' or 'you are wrong or mistaken and that it was from Ge'ez' Ḥbśt? Instead why don't you say your source X and Y is wrong? None of my statment are not mine and also note that none of your claims unless supported by reliable sources cannot be taken seriously. For instance, you and Otakrem teamed up and claimed Habesha means Amharised people only, I have the diff for that and still both of you have not provided a reliable source which supports your claim. There is even a section for it above. I have provided over 5 reliable sources clearly indicating Habesha was used by Arabs to refer mixed people now again do not criticise as if I came up with that story but instead just say "I have issues with the sources for X and Y reason". Your claim of Habesha being inherited from Ge'ez, I searched and I did not find it in the source you provided but I have other sources showing that initially 'Habashat' or 'Habasha' being Arabic/Mehari word originally used to refer incense gatherers and later it was used by Arabs to refer mixed people and black people. If requested I can list the sources. So far you have not given any inscriptions or documents left by Axumite or pre-Axumite states calling themselves or their territory as Habasha or Habashat, and as King Ezana said it himself Habashat is just one of his provinces but not a name of his entire kingdom — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, When a reliable source is provided stating 'Habesha strictly is applied to Semetic people' then may be the paragraph will go under the section for etymology and there it would be relevant as it is a section where titles of Wikipedia article are defined, how initially was used, what language it was derived from and how it was used historically by various group of people as well as explain other similar derivatives and formations and their meanings and applications are explained. Unless no source is provided backing the plan of dedicating the whole article for just Semitic people then other loosely definitions/applications can be included even outside the etymology section as long us the source talks about 'Habesha people'. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect, that is a bit like arguing that the Ghana Empire must have been in Ghana (since it is, after all, similarly named), though it was actually in Mauritania and Mali. The fact is, irrespective of how "Habesh" or etymological variations thereof may have been used as an exonym, there is only one actual Habesha/Abyssinian ethnic group, and this here is earmarked for it (not for unrelated etymologies). Actually, it should probably be titled "Abyssinians" since that is the most common name in English for the population. Anyway, Hbsbt was an actual regal title of the Aksumite King Ezana, as it is attested in the fourth century Ge'ez inscriptions [46]. The Aksumites were therefore indeed ancestral to the Habesha/Abyssinians. Soupforone (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, The ancient Ghana empire did not extend upto present day Ghana Republic and the term 'Ghana' has never been used to refer people who used to leave in todays Ghana Republic and for that "Ghana empire" and it's history is not included in the article for Ghana Republic which was established in the 1950s. However, if there is any section for name/etymology of Ghana under Ghana Republic then there Ghana empire and their relations might be described. There are also two Congos and two Sudans which are defined with strict definition (Democratic Republic of Congo vs Republic of Congo and Sudan and South Sudan). When it comes to Habesha Arabs used Habasha for both Nilotic Kushs and Nubians and Semetic/cushitic Abyssinians and also at one time in history they were one country as the source provided above clearly stated and the example of Ghana is not appropriate example to this topic. As you said above you may ask for move of the article to Abyssinians but also by providing a reliable source on how Abyssinia is defined/applied because Europeans called the Cushitic Agaws and other cushitics leaving by the Red sea coast as Abyssinians. The source you provided here [47] says Zaila, Badi and Dahalak which are inhabited by cushitic Afars, Bejas, Sahos and Somalis are towns of Al-Habshat/Abyssinians while the book writer preferred to name the centre of the kingdom as 'Axum' while not 'Habashat kingdom'. The source you provided says: "Hbsbt in Gs'az was used in the fourth century as a title of King Ezana". As your source says as well as the exact writing of the inscription above says Ezana used the title of 'King of Habashat' together with the title of 'King of Kasu (Kush)' as well as to his centeral kingdom 'King of Axoumis' and also titling himself as king of other kingdoms and finally titling himself as 'King of Kings' showing that his title of Habashat is for that province located in Yemen but not for his central kingdom and that is why many historians name the kingdom as Axum but not as Habashat or Al-Habashat kingdom. Please provide another reliable better source clearly stating Habesha is strictly applied to to only semetic people so that the article is dedicated for only this group of people inhabiting Horn of Africa, so that the paragraph you deleted goes into the etymology section. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the ancient Ghana Empire was not located in the modern Ghana nation-state. The point is, despite the similar toponyms, these areas weren't inhabited by the same people, just as the uses of "Habesh" that you are alluding to do not pertain to the same people. As Otrakrem and Zenkenyan explained, your idea of who were the early Habesha/Abyssinians is too broad and not in step with what is engraved on the ancient epigraphs. There are no early inscriptions in which the South Arabians designate natives outside of Habashat as Habesha. Why would they when they were fully aware of the ancestral ties between the Habashat and the Himyarites and Sabaeans? Also, by towns of al-Habashat what is meant is that Zayla, Dahlak and Badi later fell under the suzerainty of the Abyssinian kings. Abyssinia is the Habashat (Ḥbśt) of the ancient epigraphs [48], and King Ezana was for a period its ruler [49]. Soupforone (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Soupforone, above you said Ghana nation-state (Comprised of over 100 ethnic-groups whom speak the Niger-congo languages), but why we cannot also say the ancient Abyssinia (Axum) as a nation state (where 99% of it's inhabitants speak the Afro-Asiatic languages) and why say others were in suzerainty? Are you suggesting Africa needs to be a 1500 ethnic nation states (Like Zulu, Sweto, Kikuyu, Masay......) instead of 54 republics? When clan nations like in Somalia is considered it could be over 4,000 nation states in Africa. King Ezana married the princess of the Nilotic kingdom Nubia/Kush (Ethiopia) and his descendant was half Nilotic and half Afro-Asiatc who tookover the leadership of united kingdom of Ethiopia, a name King Ezana designated for his empire which included the South Arabian kingdoms of Habsahat, Saba and Raidan. After the split of the kingdoms both Kingdoms continued to name their territory as Ethiopia while Greeks, Romans and Europeans continued to name Sub-Saharn Africa as Ethiopia even until 19th centuary. Is there any kingdom centered in South Arabia (not in Horn of Africa like Aksum and Daamat Kingdom) who ruled over northern Ethiopia? If you know any please name that kingdom. Unless you have the name of that kingdom who ruled north Ethiopia with it's capital city located in South Arabia then we cannot be certain that semetic language (Ge'ez) was introduced to Horn of Africa from South Arabia and could be a language that developed in the region. Cushitic Horn of Africans conquered Semitic South Arabians and through integration Ge'ez might develop and that the people might still be Cushitic but brought Semitic language by conquering South Arabians! Note that the very black Nilo-Saharan (Nilotic) Nubians/Kushs did conquer Egyptians.
• Anyways, the article's topic here is about 'Habesha' not Habashat/Habeshi/Abyssinian/Abseha/Hbst and unless there is a reliable source that clearly explains how all these derivatives are connected then we cannot do original research and say Habesha means strictly this and that. Please provide a reliable source defining 'Habesha people' clearly and precisely, the source provided will decide weather Habesha is strictly applied for semetic people or not. We cannot in anyways decide on that matter but only reliable sources do. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The only current Ethnic group that calls themselve "Habesha/Abesha" are "Amhara" and "Ethiopian Tigrayans". Every other group does not do so including "Eritrean Tigrinya". Therefore this word "Habesha/Abesha" means something to "Amhara/Ethiopian Tigrayans". As for King Ezana, he never referred to himself as a Habashat(Habesha/Abesha) but he did state that he was King of the Habashat, Axum, Ethiopians(Nubians)" again these are the claims of a King somewhere in either Aksum or "Adulis", since this king is just "Boasting", we are not sure if he truly had control over these territories. Even so, his control of these territories does not equate to the conquered people as being "Habesha" or "modern day Ethiopians". If so, then we can argue that modern day Ethiopians belong to Mussolini's Fascist Italy therefore their land and people belong "Historically" to modern-day Italy.Otakrem (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, the ancient Periplus indicates that Avalites (Zayla) and the other areas were at the time independent tributary city-states. The Ge'ez language may very well have evolved locally. However, Habashat was in Abyssinia, and that is whence was derived Habesha. Soupforone (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, no original research under Wikipedia guidelines so back your claim of: "The only current Ethnic group that calls themselve "Habesha/Abesha" are "Amhara" and "Ethiopian Tigrayans"". I am Ethiopian and also know Eritreans and what you are claiming is not in my knowledge and perhaps if you can back it up with reliable source then it can be taken seriously. And for your example of Musoloni, his kingdom was not united with kingdom in Ethiopia i.e. no dynastic marriages (no state power sharing) between those states and no union like kingdom of England united with kingdom of Scotland through dynastic marriage and established the United Kingdom, or like United Arab Emirates where 7 kings established a union or like the United states of America created by states located in the north of the larger American continent who all of them shared the state power of the central government. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha The fact that the Independent Sovereign State of Eritrea exist shows me Eritreans do not view themselves as Abyssinians(Habesha) therefore the reliable source is the Fact, Eritreans are Not Abyssinians by fighting 30 Years to remove Abyssinian control of their country ie no speaking Amharic(Language of Abyssinia). As for reliable sources for Oromos, Gurages, Afars, etc! Well its only Amharas and Amhariazed Tigrayans making claims of "Habesha"ness on the non-Abyssinian ethnic groups in Ethiopia. You have to prove that they are Habesha not the other way around. Proving a negative is not a logical path to truth. The onus on showing "Who is Habesha?" is on you since you are making the claim here. No credible evidence to prove that other Ethnicities and Nationalities(Oromos, Eritreans, Somalis, Afars, Gurages, etc) are Habesha has so far been provided by you.Otakrem (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, again no source provided yet backing your plan of making the article just for semetic people. Please provide the source backing your claim of Habashat was in Abyssinia. Even the book writen by the Scholar Stuart Munroe-Hay in which the source I provided above on 18th July did quote another scholar by the name Tolmacheva to assert his point of view. As wikipedians we also need to back our plans/claims/statments with other experts and we cannot do original research on ourselves. Please let us know your proposal by backing it with reliable sources that talks about Habesha, but not Hbst/Abyssinia/Abesha/Habashat/Habeshistan/Habeshi and other derivatives. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see above where I explained that Abyssinia is the Habashat (Ḥbśt) of the ancient epigraphs. With regard to the other stuff, as Otrakem and Zekenyan pointed out (and is noted in the lede), Habesha/Abyssinians are and have traditionally been Semitic speakers. That is what the old Ge'ez language is, a Semitic tongue. Soupforone (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Soupforone, What we need is a reliable source which connects Habesha with it's other derivatives. What is Abyssinia? Habashat? Ḥbśt? Habeshi? and how are they connected with topic of the article, Habesha? We have to provide a research defining each derivatives that clearly explain their relation, otherwise we cannot do original research and apply the meaning of one of it's derivatives on the other ones. Since we are discussing for the improvement of the article based on Wikipedia guidelines please provided your proposal by backing it with reliable source. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Otakrem, Your claim is determined by strict definition of Habesha backed by a reliable source. For instance, if we define South and North Korea strictly by saying they are a sovereign republic countries, then the people will be officially referred as South and North Koreans (Official with strict definition) but the people might prefer to identify themselves simply as Koreans (self descriptive and non official use), and for one to come up with the claim of North Koreans not being Koreans then he must provide a reliable source that strictly define 'Koreans' and explain why they are not Koreans. I have added a paragraph with multiple sources, with over 12 citations and you can review the addition here [50], yet you have not provided not even one source defining Habesha strictly, a source that says "Habesha is.....". If there is a problem with the sources I used then we can discuss about them. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary EthiopianHabesha it is your claim that all the other Non-Amhara/Ethiopian Tigrayan Ethnic groups are "Habesha" that requires reliable sources. I mentioned that Eritreans fought a bloody 30 year war to Not Be Abyssinians after their Annexation by the Abyssinian Emperor HaileSelassie in 1950, they obviously do Not Identify as a "Habesha". The definition of "Habesha" has not been provided neither by you or anyone in this discussion. And as far as sources show, the only ethnic groups that are vocal throughout sources are the "Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans" who referr to themselves as "Habesha/Abesha". The onus of proof is on you for claiming Other ethnic groups as "Habesha". So far you agree that Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans are Abyssinian(Habesha/Abesha), do you not? Your answer has been Yes throughout all of your discussions. Your attempt to add other Ethnic groups lacks reliable sources but only your ancedotal "evidence" of "I know some Eritreans and Ethiopians that call themselves Habesha". This can be countered with well "I know some White people that referr to themselves as the N-word", does that make them "Black", when the N-word is a pejorative for Black people? Ofcourse not. Or commonly, Spanish-speaking South americans/Central americans referr to themselves as "Latino" based on the root word "Latin", does that make them Romans? Ofcourse not, neither the Spaniards nor the current Spanish population are Italian today.Otakrem (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, the old Ge'ez epigraphs indicate that the Aksumite ruler Ezana was King of Habashat. This is because he for a period controlled the ancient Habashat [51]. Soupforone (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

For those unaware the disruptive user by the name Zekenyan has been blocked for the use of multiple sock puppets, see here: [52]. His statements should not be taken into consideration. AcidSnow (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Soupforone (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, also, if by King Ezana's son you meant the coregent Saizana, the Emperor Constantius indicates that he was one of the princes of Aksum. They were therefore actually brothers [53]. Soupforone (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, the proposal is not to make the whole article based on how different people use the term. It will stay as it is before Zekenyan deleted other peoples and there was a statement stating that others don't identify themselves as Habesha which will stay. Since no source apply the term strictly and that because the term has been used by various group of people in history with many derivatives then a brief clarification on how they are connected is necessary. Many come to the article after going through ancient documents mentioning Habesha and it's other derivatives or may be to know how modern people use the term Habesha and for that reason both ancient and modern use as well as how various group of people use it needs to be explained as long us it can be backed with reliable source. The paragraph to be added can be seen here [54] — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Conclusion of the discussion for this section: No source is provided in the article or in this talk page defining and applying Habesha strictly to a particular group of people. After reviewing reliable sources used in the article they define and apply Habesha loosely. Otakrem and Soupforone if there is any source available that you know of please bring the citation together with it's writer name, title and publisher here for discussion. Wikipedia rule says every content added and article grouping should be based on properly cited and referenced citations. Based on what source and citation is wikipedias 'Habesha people' article is strictly applied to Amhara and Tigre and Orthodox religion followers?? Suggesting the article to be strictly for those particular group of people while not backing it with a source is against what Wikipedia stands for and should be reviewed by Administrators. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• The proposal is not to make the whole article based on how different people use the term. It will stay as it is before Zekenyan deleted other Semitic speaking people in which most reliable sources apply it loosely to them and previously there was a statement stating that others don't identify themselves as Habesha, which will stay. Since no source apply the term strictly to any particular ethnicgroups and that because the term has been used by various group of people in history with many derivatives then a brief clarification on how they are connected is necessary. Many come to the article after going through ancient documents mentioning Habesha and it's other derivatives or may be to know how modern people use the term Habesha and for that reason both ancient and modern use as well as how various group of people use it needs to be explained as long us it can be backed with reliable source and it talks about Habesha. The paragraph to be added can be seen here: [55] — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, Otakrem is correct when he points out that your extrapolation of "Habesha" to non-Abyssinians populations is highly idiosyncratic and certainly not in conformity with the ancient epigraphs. With that said, I've asked the specialists at WP:ETYMOLOGY to fix the etymology. Soupforone (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as sources and ethnic groups themselves, the only two current Ethnicities that refer to themselves as well as sources state, the Abyssinians(Habesha) are "Amhara and Tigrayan". Sources, James Bruce, Bulatovich, etc millions of Ethiopian Amhara, millions of Ethiopian Tigrayans. Otakrem (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Above Soupforone said: ".....is highly idiosyncratic and certainly not in conformity with the ancient epigraphs." which is against the rule which says Wikipedians can only present other Scholars conclusion and we cannot say "because X and Y epigraphs said this and that then Habesha should mean and should not mean that and this". There are researchers/Scholars/anthropologists/historians who published books who will analyse multiple quality sources and give us their conclusion on what Habesha is and how Habesha is applied. There was a request for citations from these kind of sources which talks about Habesha (the topic of the article) not about Hbst/Habeshi/Abyssinia and other derivatives and so far non is provided. Unless a scholar connects Hbst with Habesha we do not have the capacity to do that. On my side I have given a source who defined Habesha after going through multiple quality sources. Now let us talk about that source first and then we will proceed on the other sources I used. Soupforone and Otakrem do you think this source found here citations about Habesha people is reliable or not? Please review the source and let us know precisely for your objection on why it cannot be used for adding content in Wikipedia article. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect, those are straw man arguments. Anyway, the etymology has now been entrusted to the specialists at WP:ETYMOLOGY. Soupforone (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I would like to add that this article is about the "Habesha people" in the modern-state of Ethiopia. As far as the sources state, the Habeshas in Ethiopia are Amhara and Ethiopian Tigrayans. Your expansion of this articles scope to include "Habeshis" in India and other Ethnicities in Ethiopia and other African countries is Original Research.Otakrem (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary and Proposal The proposal is for us or other Wikipedians to bring many citations that says "Habesha is...... and is applied to X and Y people" then based on the citations we decide on what people it is strictly or loosely applied to. Let me bring one citation from a reliable published book acceseible from Google books accesed from here migrants in Gambela:

....migrants from various parts of the country. It is ethnically diverse and consists largely of Amhara, Oromo, Tigreans, Kambata and Kaffa. This category of people refered by various names: gaala (by the Anywaa), buny (by the nuer) and habesha (their own description). in recent times the term habesha has become politicised as it is largely associated with the Amhara and the Tigreans

The above citation talks about migrants in the Niliotic Gambela Region of Ethiopia and these Afro Asiatic speaking migrants Amhara and Tigreans (Semetic speaking) , Oromo & Kambata (cushitic speaking) and Kaffa (Omotic speaking) collectively refer themselves as Habesha while the Nilotic people of Anywaa (Anyuak) collectively calls them Gallas and the other Nilotic tribe in the state Nuers calls them Bunny (browns). The citation says that in recent times the term Habesha is politicized and largely associated with Amhara and Tigreans. Therfore, the Habesha article in Wikipedia in it's curent form, as it is supported by the user Otakrem, Soupforone and Zekenyan (blocked indefinitely for sock puppet) is its politicized usage but not Scholars/Historians usage and infact both Otakrem and Soupforon have opened a section above titled "Amharised......" where there are no source available supporting this kind of analysis. Usually even respected scholars assert their POV by quoting other experts and rules in Wikipedia says articles should be backed by citations and while Zekenyan provided several citations above both Otakrem and Soupforone did not provide not even one citation that says "Habesha is.....and is applied to X and Y people", and still continue to insist the application of the politicized usage. I believe Wikipedia is not a tool for Politicians propaganda and for that reason the article should be reviewed by administrators and apply conclusions made by only scholars/reliable sources. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes Otakrem, it is a rather odd broadening of the Abyssinian ethnic group to point to non-Abyssinian populations. However, as we know, the modern Ethiopia nation-state did not exist during the Aksumite period. I suppose a note indicating that "Habesha" also sometimes designates speakers of the Abyssinian languages and Afro-Asiatic-speaking Ethiopians generally would be alright, but the appropriate wording is for the etymology specialists to work out. It should also not be insinuated that this is in conformity with the ancient epigraphs. Soupforone (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I must add that EthiopianHabesha has misread that quote, the Term habesha clearly designates the "Amhara and Tigreans". The other ethnic groups mentioned do not refer to themselves nor are they historically identified as Habesha. This is original research on EthiopianHabeshas part. The source [56] Page 32 and 33, Further explains the designation of "Habesha" as specific to those who are Amhara/Tigrean from the Highland, there is even colorism involved as the "Dark" are the Indigenous Lowlanders and the Light skinned are the Habesha (Amhara/Tigrean). Otakrem (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't entirely wrong since the distinction in Gambela is not between the highlanders and lowlanders generally, but rather between the highlanders and the indigenous Nilotes (viz. "the boundary between highlanders and indigenes"). This dimorphism is actually a biological reality since the Hamitic-Semitic populations in Gambela and Addis Ababa are distinct from the local Nilotes [57]. Soupforone (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

An Abyssinian in Gambella is still an Abyssinian in Gondar(North Ethiopia). He seems to be attempting to merge as many "modern-day Ethiopian" Ethnic groups under the banner of "Habesha" identity which is incorrect and Biased driven. For example, an Australian Aborigine is Not Ethnically, Identity-wise, Socially, Culturally, Racially, biologically an English/British White person simply because he/she is a Citizen of English-dominated Australia. EthiopianHabesha's point seems to be about Whitewashing all Non-Abyssinian(Amhara/Tigrayans) ethnicities under a "Habesha" "ethnicity/identity" which is untrue. For example, an Oromo can never be a Habesha when he/she is referred to by a Habesha, as a "Galla", nor can a Konso/Gambella/Kaffa be a Shankalla and still identify as a "Habesha". Ethiopia's social structure is like India's Caste system based on EThnic Hierarchies instead of Caste where there are Untouchables (Shankalla/Barya ethnicities) and the Top of the Hierarchy the Abyssinian(Habeshas)(Amharas/Tigrayans). Oromos are nearer to the bottom but their large population makes them a serious threat to this Habesha ethnic caste system. Otakrem (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, let me add one citation regarding to Menelik "The emperor Menelik unifier of modern Ethiopia, for instance, inherited some of this stock from his mother, who was a slave. Menelik was thoroughly African in color and hair that several who knew him well have told me that not only his mother was a Chankalla (Shanqella)…………" [58] and Marcus Garvey concludes that "King Menelik’s mother was a slave. That’s the facility Abyssinian slavery may have...".[59]. Therfore, low class societies are integrated in the society and no segregation like found in India and to Bantu Somalis. Still today there are people with Nilotic apearance even in semetic speaking people like Amhara and still they identify themselves as Habesha. Also note that during Menelik there were higher class Nilotic rulling classes like Sultan Khojale of Benishangul. Menelik also appointed head of the empire's army high class Oromo (lord of Falle) Gobana Dache and also low class captive Habtegyorgis Dinagde (also an Oromo who became the first prime miniter).[60] As for Gambela it is entirley located in low land [61] and for them Oromos, Kambatas, Kaffas as well as Amharas are highlanders and because 'Habesha' has been poltisised in recent time they call all Afro Asiatic population as 'highlanders'. I am still in the opinion of applying only Scholars conclusion and application and I oppose Politicians usage. If provided with citations from Scholars, there is no reason why don't accept their conclusion. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, there are indeed parallels between the caste systems in Ethiopia and the Indian subcontinent. However, as EthiopianHabesha points out, these social barriers aren't as strict. There is the possibility of upward mobility for the low castes in the Ethiopian system (albeit a small one), but less so for those in the Indian system. Also, it's true that many of the rulers of the Shewa-based Solomonic dynasty were largely of Oromo heritage. The ancestors of Abyssinians in general would also have originally spoken Agaw languages. This is why there is an Agaw substrate in the Ethiopian-Semitic languages that are younger than the ancient Ge'ez language. Ultimately, Oromos and Abyssinians share ancestral origins [62]. Soupforone (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, Above in my last comment I also added other key people in Shewan government. And note that cushitic Agaws have been masters of North Ethiopia for over 200 years through Zagwe Dynasity as well as Yejju Oromos whom were lords of Amhara and north Ethiopia through Yejju dynasity [63] and I oppose Otakrems politicized conclusion. Ge'ez language itself has much influnce from Cushitic languages and is not a pure Semetic language. The other recently developed languages of Amharic/Argoba/Harari/Gurage/Tigrinya they have much more cushitic influnce than Ge'ez. Anyhow all languages developed in Horn of Africa and in physical appearance no difference between Afro Asiatic speaking peoples. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but I don't think Otakrem meant anything political by that. It's just a misconception. Soupforone (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

My response to EthiopianHabeshas "Anyhow all languages developed in Horn of Africa and in physical appearance no difference between Afro Asiatic speaking peoples." This is your own Original Research. As there are documented differences not only in Languages, but in Social structures, Physical Appearances, religious, farmers vs pastoralists, system of land distribution etc, All Horn of Africa (Afroasiatice language speaking people) are not the same therefore you can't attempt to Lump them into this "Habesha" Identity. The origin of the word Habasha is in Yemen. Just because Menelik's mother was a Shankalla, that doesn't change the fact that Menelik is Amhara by his Father side if he is Claiming the "Solomonic Dynasty" which was a Amhara ethnicity(Habesha) originated and maintained "Dynasty". Infact, the Solomonic (Habesha/Amhara) Dynasty Yekuno Amlak killed the Last of the Zagwe (Agaw) Dynasty kings before proclaiming himself the Restorer of the Solomonic Dynasty which has a history based in "Sheba" through the "Queen of Sheba", now where is "Sheba" located? It definitely is not Aksum because there is no Historical record of a Queen of Aksum as they were always male Kings. Is "Sheba" in Yemen, sounds pretty close to the word "Habasha" "Sheba" as there was a Kingdom called "Habashat" in Yemen. The King Kaleb of Aksum protected the Kingdom of Habashat from the Jewish kingdom in Yemen. There is from reading about Bet Israel (Falasha)Ethiopian Jews, a dislike of Ethiopian Jews by the Amhara(Habesha) people. The Habesha referred to the Falashas as "Kayla", some sort of insult. Anyhow, this term of Habesha as so far only been proven to be used amongst Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans (Abyssinians) as a common identity. Oromos, Gambellas, Kaffa, Afar, Gurage, Shankalla, Agaw, Eritrean ethnic groups are not Nor Identify themselves as "Habesha". The few ancedotal that EthiopianHabesha called his friends are most likely Amharaized Tigrayans who were probably born and raised in Eritrea. Otakrem (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition Geez is a Purely Semitic Language. It does not have a Cushitic background. EthiopianHabesha is referring to Amharic which most likely has some Cushitic influences. Tigre and Tigrinya are both direct Descendants of the Geez Language [64]. In addition, the Amhara are a separate ethnicity from the Oromo [65].Otakrem (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, let me ask you, if you see Amharas and Oromos wearing European suit and speaking English what is your chance of separating them correctly? For me I say probably less than 10%. Language, culture, religion and social structure are something that keeps on changing as societies integrate and are less reliable for people ethnicity. From my readings presently 'Habesha' is self descriptive (Some identify with it and some do not) and my proposal is not to impose the term on any other people but to inform wikipedia readers how it has been used in history by various people. Thats all! Among others Abyssinia is one narrow derivative corrupted from the term 'Habesha' just like Somaliland and Somalia are from Somali. Habesha was/is applied/imposed widely from calling the ancient Nilotic Nubians/Kushs upto the Bantu people and Horn of Africans by geographers leaving outside Africa just like the corrupted 'Indians' (by Greeks) was imposed on people leaving in South Asia. When an African Indian identifies himself as Habeshi then he is saying "I am Bantu" but when an Ethiopian or Eritrean says "I am Habesha" he is saying I am Afroasiatic (look like mixed). Anyhow Habesha is self descriptive and it's meaning is determined by the person using it. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You guys have created five sections on topics that are almost all the same. Try to boil down all your thoughts into one please. AcidSnow (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, there are actually no ancient epigraphs where the Sabaeans and Himyarites designate any Shanqella groups as Habashat. The old Habashat were Semitic speakers like themselves, as Otakrem points out. They spoke and wrote in the ancient Ge'ez. It seems that slavery was a major local institution and the Habashat exported many Shanqella captives. Thus, in some of the areas with which the Habashat traded, the Shanqella physiognomy itself as well as the term for slave gradually came to be etymologically associated with "Habesh". Also, "Afro-Asiatic" here does not mean mixed looking. It refers to the Afro-Asiatic language family, which includes among others the Cushitic and Semitic languages of the Horn, the Berber languages, the Coptic and ancient Egyptian languages, and the Semitic tongues of the Middle East. This family was originally known as "Hamitic-Semitic". However, the linguist Joseph Greenberg later popularized the alternative name "Afro-Asiatic" for it since he wanted to indicate that the languages in this phylum are today spoken in both Africa and Asia, much like how "Indo-European" indicates that the languages in the Indo-European family are today primarily spoken in the Indian subcontinent and Europe. Anyway, you're right about there being little physical difference between Oromo/Galla, Amhara and Tigrayans. I think what Otakrem was thinking of, though, are the many assimilated Omotic peoples that have adopted Oromo/Galla identities. This is why some Oromo/Galla individuals are physically quite divergent (i.e., because they're actually of Omotic ancestral origin), whereas other Oromo/Galla individuals (the ethnic/non-assimilated ones) are closely related to the Amhara and other northern Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations [66]. Soupforone (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I must make this point very clear. The only Ethnic group in the Horn of Africa that refers to themselves as "Habesha" are Amhara people, their provinces were under the collective called Abyssinia. The other ethnic groups Oromo et al in Ethiopia were incorporated in the 19th century through violent subjugation (see Alexander Bulatovich, Primary Witness in Menelik II's army) and through Treaties with the Europeans (See Scramble for Africa) as how "Abyssinia" became "Ethiopia" in the early 1900s. All of what "EthiopianHabesha" is saying is based on his ancedotal personal observation with few samples of people that he has associated with (ie "My oromo/eritrean/gambella/somali" friends call themselves Habesha)..this is his own Original Research. Bulatovich noted and referred to the Amhara as Abyssinians, to the Oromo as Galla, to the Tigre as Tigre, etc in his First hand account of 19th century "Ethiopia". Other sources that differentiate these people are James Bruce(1770), Bermudes(16th century), Dr. Donaldson Smith, De Salvac, Richard Ried, Dr. Kumsa, and lets not forget the majority of the Non-Amhara Ethnic groups do not refer to themselves as Habesha, ie Oromos, Tigrayans, Tigrinyas, Afars, Konsos, Ogadenis, Gambellans, Nuer, Omo, Kaffa, Saho, Kunama, Beja, Tigre, Bilen, Agaw, Raishada, Gurage, Hararri, Somali, Issa, etc. This blanket "Abyssiniazation"/"Habesha-white washing" is thoroughly discredited by all the sources. So for the sake of bettering this article, to expand the Habesha identity to all of these ethnic groups with no reliable sources other than Amhara-originated sources is not Wikipedia nor Scholastically researched conclusions, thus EthiopianHabesha's Original Research.Otakrem (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I don't think EthiopianHabesha meant anything political by that either. Anyway, while Abyssinians have Agaw ancestral roots, their genealogical traditions indeed trace descent from the ancient Habashat. Soupforone (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

My proposal is for the article to stay as it is before Zekenyan deleted other Semetic speaking people and also include how the term 'Habesha' has been used by various people in history. Amhara and Argoba used to be one people a few 100 years ago, then a few more 100 years ago Amhara/Argoba/Harari were one and a few more 100 years ago Amhara/Argoba/Harari/Gurage/Gafat were one and this common South Ethiopian Semetic language/people splited from a common Ethiopian Semetic language/people a lot more than 100s of years ago before it splited in to the above 5 ethnicgroups/languages. The other one i.e. northern Ethiopian semetic language, which includes highlander Tigre, lowland Tigre also splited from a common Ethiopian Semitic language (likely Ge'ez since it is the oldest recorded Semetic language in Horn of Africa). This conclusion comes if we have an agreement that language is a primary formula for People's ethnicity. If we have agreement that both north and south Ethiopian semetic languages used to be one language i.e. if we say Tigrayans/Tigrinyas (who leave around center of Axum empire) and Amharas are one and that if Amharas are included in the Habesha group then Amhara should be out unless it is included with it's other 5 ethnic groups in which it is much more related. And Ethiopian Tigraians should be out unless it is included with Eritrean highland Tigrinyas and Tigre (who leave in lowland).[67][68] That is based on what Scholars say and if you ask me to provide my personal opinion then I will tell you that language/culture/religion are something that contineously change and that based on history/DNA/phisical apearance my conclusion is Ge'ez+Beja+Agaw+Afar+Somali+Sidama+Kaffa= Tigre/Amhara/Gurage/Harari/Gafat and then Oromo very recently assimilated/integrated with all of them. However, since we are guided by Wikipedia rule then no one cannot push their personal conclusions and for every proposal/plan/analysis forwarded there has to be citations provided which so far Otakrem have not been provided not even one citation that says "Habesha is............. and is applied to X and Y people." — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal is your own original research. Here are three sources, one which confirms Bulatovich as a Reliable Neutral Primary Witness in Menelik's army and his collection of data regarding Abyssinians(Habeshas=Amhara), he describes Amhara or Abyssinians: The Abyssinians, rulers of the country, call themselves "Amhara" in contrast to the inhabitants of Tigre. Through all the extent of my journey to the west, I did not come across any areas that they had completely settled, but, on the other hand, in those most recently conquered, all the rulers and troops are Abyssinian.[69][70] [71]Otakrem (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem and EthiopianHabesha, yes, I think that's the most objective way to go about it. Enumerate the actual epigraphs by date, with the oldest first. Soupforone (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted back to Soupforone Version, EthiopianHabesha added his own personal analysis by Expanding the "Habesha" to all Ethiosemitic or South Semitic, this is incorrect and unsupported by the sources.Otakrem (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, the topic of the article is "Habesha people" and the source/citation you provided talks about Abyssinian people. Citations/Sources will relate Abyssinia with the topic of the article Habesha but not Wikipedians. Habeshi and Abyssinia are two of the derivatives of Habesha that have different meanings which are not used by Ethiopians in history or in modern times. Abyssinia is used/corrupted by Europeans and Habeshi is used/corrupted by Indians from Habesha based on this source here [72]. I added the other semetic people and religions based on reliable sources that can be seen here [73] and here [74] and as you can clearly see the sources talks about "Habesha people". I want to inform you in advance that I will revert it back after 24 hours and in the mean time please provide at least one source/citation that defines Habesha and apply it to peoples. We cannot compile various sources/epigraphs and we wikipedians forward our own personal conclusion on what Habesha is and is/not applied to. We can only present Scholars/reliable sources conclusions and write about what citations exactly talks about (presenting reliable sources conclusion). Otherwise, we are against what Wikipedia stands for and probably we should ask administrators intervention or even request for the deletion of the article if you believe there is no source that precisely says Habesh means.....and is applied for X and Y people. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Just as the name you used to identify yourself "EthiopianHabesha" tells me "Ethiopian" is a separate word from "Habesha",therefore you cannot call all "EThiopians" as "Habesha" since you specified what type of Ethiopian that you are, which is Habesha. Now as for sources, I provided sources above, and Abyssinian = Habesha (just like Japanese=Nipponese). The Habeshas were identified by European explorers and interactions to mean "Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans". So you state we should ask administrators intervention or even request for the deletion of the article if you believe there is no source that precisely says Habesh means.....and is applied for X and Y people. The sources that define as Amhara/Tigrayans are plentiful, the sources that expand it to beyond Amhara/Tigrayans are unreliable and Original Research. Therefore, we can either keep to what ethnic groups it has been used by and identified the most or Delete this entire "Habesha" article. I am not one for Deletion but if you continue to expand the scope of this Article then it should be deleted as it would just be Puffery of "Habesha" identity.Otakrem (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, again no citation/source is provided supporting your POV of Abyssinia = Habesha. Once a citation is provided precisely stating how both are related then we can conclude that indeed they are equal. That being said, If you think there is no source/citation that precisely defines Habesha and apply the term on specific peoples then why should the article exist? If so why you should not have been requesting for the articles deletion. Indeed, the sources/citations are widely available but you do not want to bring them here because they are against the politicised usage of Habesha (your supported application in this article) as the citation I provided on 28th July above said it. In your last comment above you said "Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans" which is equivalent to politicians repeatedly used brainwashing propaganda of "Amhara and Orthodox are the only Habeshas presently or historically". Please Know Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda but a place for sharing knowledge and the term 'Habesha' like the term 'India' has been used for thousands of years and presently it is used by 10s of millions of people and it deserves to have an article, and based on NPOV policy it should include contradicting views regarding 'Habesha'. We cannot define Habesha but citation will do and the rule in Wikipedia is simple and it says cite cite cite and what we can do is just write what the citation exactly talks about but not apply our own personal conclusion. You insisting the application of only the politicised usage is an obvious violation of NPOV policy of Wikipedia. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, Otakrem is correct when he points out that Habesha is obviously not equivalent to Ethiopian or Eritrean. This is because the modern Ethiopia and Eritrea nation-states did not exist in antiquity, when the ethnonym was first actually attested in the Ge'ez inscriptions. The furthest, then, that Habesha/Abyssinian can go is perhaps to the local Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations (not the Shanqella). And even this is a stretch since the Habashat, at least during the time of the ancient epigraphs, were Ge'ez speakers specifically. Soupforone (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I already provided 3 Sources above which limited and specified who is and is not Habesha(Abyssinian) <===(This is Commonly Known and used Interchangeablly by many Scholars of Ethiopian Studies). Your refusal to read the sources and then proceed to expand the "Habesha" identity to people that were never Habesha nor had any benefit of "Habesha" other than being Subjugated as the 19th Century Subjugation and Enslavement of Non-Habesha by the Habesha/Abyssinian(Amhara,Amharaized Tigrayans). Just because they(Non-Habeshas) have been assimilated in the Habesha-dominated Nation-state of "Ethiopia" does not mean that they are Habesha. This is equivalent to calling a Black American, an Anglo-saxon simply because the USA is Anglo-Saxon-dominated historically. This is very Chauvenistic on your part trying "Habesha-wash"Whitewash the Identity of all these Ethnic groups in Ethiopia and the HOrn of Africa. So far the only sources that definitively define Habesha, state that the Term within the context of Ethiopia is relegated to the Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans (Orthodox christians,Solomonic dynasty, Amharic language). I must disagree with Soupforone, the Habashat were not Geez speakers nor the originators of Geez, Geez was an Aksumite language for which the Habashat borrowed. The closest living languages to Geez is Eritrean Tigre and then Tigrinya. Habashat do not speak Tigre nor Tigrinya.Otakrem (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is an article describing the origin of the word Habesha. It cites other sources and the sources are linked. It appears "EThiopianists" which I think is his/her position try to expand the term "Habesha" to everyone in Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, this is clearly politicization of the word. Majority of Ethiopianists are of the "Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayan" ethnicities, therefore if they are calling themselves Habesha for their Ethiopianist agenda, then it can be concluded they are the only Habesha people. Everyone else is just being tagged with a name that they do not identify with nor would want to be identified with. Habesha means "gatherer" in the Yemeni Mahri language. It's origin is not Geez according to this article.[75] Otakrem (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I don't understand. What are you suggesting? That the original Habesha/Abyssinian language was Mehri rather than Ge'ez? Which, if any, ancient epigraphs in Abyssinia are in Mehri, though? Perhaps you mean Socotri? Because there are closer uniparental marker ties with the Socotri than with the Mehri. Soupforone (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, I am not suggesting anything. I am only referring to what the sourced article [76] is saying. And it kinda makes sense when you read the article and then read the sources and then read other sources. How can King Ezana be King of Aksum, King of Habashat, King of Beja..etc and then King of Kings, all of sudden become a "Habashat"? How is King Ezana Habasha, when he makes a distinction between himself and Habashat as in, the same way a Colonizer would refer to his Colony, a British Colonizer was not a Ghanian, when Ghana was a colony of Britain. I asked for a definition of "Habasha" in Geez and neither you nor EthiopianHabesha provided a response and even stated there is no definition. However, int he Mahri language in Yemen, "Habasha" means "gatherers" specifically of Incense, hence why the Article goes into further description of this term and historical uses.Otakrem (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There is strict definition for Korea/North Korea/South Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea DPRK VS Republic of Korea), Congo/Democratic Republic of the Congo/Republic of the Congo, Old Sudan/South Sudan/North Sudan, Somali/Somaliland/Somalia and Ghana/Ghana empire/Ghana republic. There are also two Chinas one being Republic of China (Taiwan) the other being People's Republic of China (Mainland China). When the communists took over mainland China rulling classes of the mainland (big China) migrated to Taiwan and established Republic of China (Taiwan). As for Ethiopia there is Old Ethiopia (Kush/Nubia), Old Ethiopia (Sub Saharan Africa in general), Old Ethiopia (Abyssinian empire), Modern Ethiopia (as an Empire based on Shewan Kingdom upto 1974, Ethiopian republic upto 1993 and now EFDRE). Therfore, each terms have strict definitions and when one talks about Korea, the question of which Korea follows? And when one talks about Americans the question of Which Americans (Latin, north, central?) follows and when we talk about Ethiopia then the question of Which Ethiopia are we talking about follows. These sources here [77] and here [78] precisely and clearly says the term 'Habesha' was applied for all 4 Ethiopias namely Kush/Nubia, Sub saharan Africa in general, Abyssinian empire and modern Ethiopia. It is the reliable sources that are saying this but not me. Since we are discussing for the improvement of this article now Otakrem and Soupforone what is your opinion/proposal for the statement made by these reliable published books that are accessible from google books? Are we going to ignore these researches and apply the politicised usage only? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes EthiopianHabesha, the semantics do vary. However, as clearly indicated by the Semitic peoples link at the bottom, this page is on the Habesha/Abyssinian ethnic group specifically. The problem is the claim that all Ethiopians and Eritreans are Habesha/Abyssinians, as that would imply that even the Shanqella are ancestrally Abyssinian (!). Obvious nonsense. Soupforone (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, if the Habashat were Mehri, then why isn't there a Mehri substrate in the Abyssinian languages? Why is there instead an Agaw substrate? Soupforone (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, the "Habashat" of Ancient Yemen migrated to Aksum proper (Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia), they moved through the territory and finally intermixed heavily with an Agaw population no longer present and most likely transformed into the Amhara ethnic group. The Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayan myths and legends all go back to "Sheba" in Yemen. They believe in the Legend of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon hence they have a Solomonic dynasty from 1137 until 1974 in the Amhara dominated provinces of Gondar, Shewa, Gojjam and Tigrai(to a lesser extent) = Abyssinia...Explorers in the past described and defined the territory as well as the Abyssinians(Habeshas). Their origin is most likely the Habashat Kingdom in Ancient Yemen. The List of Kings of the Abyssinians does not match with the List of Kings of Ancient Aksum Kingdom. The religions are different to say the least. There is much to be learned in this area and promoting this "Uniform Habesha" identity amongst all the Diverse Ethnic Groups in Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa, etc is Habesha Revisionism of the Past. Relabeling Nubians as Habesha (Which EthiopianHabesha did in his post) is Original Research. As I have stated the sources being books and living ethnic groups all have defined themselves, the Books and Amhara People say that they are Habesha. All the other Ethnic groups that EthiopianHabesha mentioned reject the "Habesha" label. As for Mahri language, I hope you read that article because thats what it is saying. Otakrem (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If Aksum wasn't the realm of the Habashat (which is indeed theoretically possible), then in your opinion whose domain was it? It appears to have evolved out of the D'mt kingdom, which already used the Ge'ez script. However, there was the even earlier Ona culture at Sembel and other areas. This civilization appears instead to have had ties with the ancient Land of Punt and Pharaonic Egypt. Soupforone (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Aksum was for the Aksumites and Not Habashats. The geography and languages were different. Aksumites spoke Geez and lived in Eritrea and Tigray region. Habashats spoke Old South Arabic languages and lived in East Yemen. In the Mehri language, the word "Habashat" means "gatherers" of "incense". The Abyssinian(Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans) Kebra Negast legends of Queen of "Sheba" which is very questionable but lets take their story at face value, means that they (Abyssinians) originate in Yemen (Habasha) and Not Aksum(Geez). It is stated in different sources, that the Habashats were saved by King(Negus) Kaleb of Aksum against the Himyarite Kingdoms war. Kaleb brought back Habashats to Aksum and allowed them settlements on the peripheries of Aksum to the South, hence you have this people Habashat(gatherers of incense) intermixing with Agaws and Oromos, which created this modern ethnic Group "Amhara" which has a strong Self-declared connection to "Habesha". You do not see this Strong Self-Identification as "Habesha" amongst the other Ethnic groups in Ethiopia, Eritrea. Infact, to be referred to as a "Habasha" in some non-Amhara ethnic groups is to be called something similar to the N-word.Otakrem (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, this article being grouped under Semitic people is in question. Since this categorization is controversial, editors need to provide citation referenced properly, otherwise any editor can remove the page from Semitic people based on this rule here WP:CHALLENGE which says:

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." and also saying "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)".

No group of people in Ethiopia and Eritrea (except Rashaidas) looks like white Arabs and white Jews and in Amharic, Oromo and Tigrinya speaking people there are people with pure Nilotic appearance, Omotic apearance and Cushitic apearance. People are not categorized just based on the language they speak and if so then the Arab leage members black/mixed looking Sudanese people or tribes who speak the semitic Arabic language as their only and mother tongue as well as the other Arab league members in the horn of Africa (Somalia and Djibouti) will be categorized under Semitic people category here [79]. We know most Northern Sudanese do have Nilotic appearance who speak Arabic as their mother tongue and are not categorized under the Semitic people. Infact, of all the Semitic people listed there the Habesha group are the only blacks and for that reason this categorization is challenged and anyone can remove it unless supported with a properly referenced citation. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, by your own recent Edit of Claiming All Ethiosemitic(SouthSemitic) speaking ethnic groups(Tigre, Tigrinya, Tigrayans, Amhara, Gurage, Argobba..etc) are Habesha based strictly on them being "South Semitic" linguistic. Your citation is not reliable nor solid proof of inclusion of All of these Ethnic groups. Your inclusion is warranted for removal per the WP:CHALLENGE. Your additions are contested. We haven't reached consensus here, therefore I am within Wikipedia guidelines to replace "Ethiosemitic" with "Amharic" as that is the only language that has been sourced consistently as being Habasha, through out all of the sources.Otakrem (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I direct you to the 18th century explorer James Bruce, who actually visited Abyssinia. His testimony is on the Abyssinians and other Hamitic-Semitic autochthones, as well as the Shanqella/Negro folks you allude to above [80]. Soupforone (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, the claim that all Ethiopians and Eritreans are Habesha/Abyssinians is false. The Shanqella for one are certainly not of Abyssinian origin. Soupforone (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, very interesting. Actually, what you assert makes sense since Bruce indicates that the Aksumites were Ge'ez or Abyssinian speakers. He describes the Abyssinians as being physically similar to the Hamitic autochthones (Agaw, Galla), but culturally and linguistically distinct [81]. Soupforone (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, the problem I see and has been noted by scholars who have studied the History of the Region is, the timelines are skewed and modern ethnic groups project into the past and revise the history and Ethnicize (Habeshaize) the Past people as if they belonged to their current group. As far as the historical records show, Habashats lived in Yemen. Aksumites lived in Eritrea and Northern Tigray. Abyssinians(Habashat descendants) lived AFTER the Fall of the Aksumite Kingdom in Gondar, Gojjam, Shewa (1137 - 1974), the Abyssinians are the Solomonic Dynasty basically. After 1974, the Abyssinians(Habeshas/Amhara) lost power and fell in the hands of Mengistu Hailemariam (A Shankalla), he is quoted in some book I read about the downfall of Haile Selassie, as saying something about "being dark skinned and thick lips makes one a slave, I will make those who said this (light skinned Amhara/Habeshas) go down and grind corn." Grinding corn in the Abyssinian dominated Ethiopia was the work of slaves. Mengistu continued his Reign of Terror which killed alot of Abyssinians(light skinned mostly)Habeshas. After Mengistu, the Tigrayan Liberation People's Front (TLPF) took over in 1991 and has continued an Ethnic-based political system, where they (Tigrayans) dominate every aspect of Ethiopian political, military, social, even religious institutions. They(TPLF) has continued the tradition of Oppression of the Other Ethnic groups which was the State-form of Cohesion through Violence/Coercion/Corruption. Now, to the term of Habesha, obviously, the Tigrayans of today do not refer to themselves as Habesha, the Amhara are the only standing Ethnic group which refers to themselves as Habesha, in modern language, they have started to identify "Habesha" = "Ethiopia" vice versa, where to be "Ethiopian" is to be "Habesha", and if you are Not "Habesha" then you are a "Ferenji" from Madagascar of which the Amhara/Habesha refer to the Oromo/Galla people. Otakrem (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, weird stuff. Soupforone (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, Ok now the article is fine and in a way that makes sense unlike in the previous form i.e. saying Tigre and Amhara (tribal names/languages that did not exist and likely who were traditional religion followers leaving south of Axum upto 10th century) and excluding the other Semitic languages that are very closely related to them which obviously does not make sense from ethnicity categorization based on language classification perspective. Now the other issue is the article in it's current form i.e. for Semitic speaking people is based on European very recent application/corruption of the ancient word 'Habesha' who changed it to 'Abyssinians'. As I said above there is great difference between even two Sudans, two Congos, two Somalis, two Chinese, two Koreans, two Ghanas and 4 Ethiopias eventhough the words are same each of them have strict definitions. Unlike them Habeshas VS Abyssininans is very different when we just simply observe the words. I beleive the article in it's current form should be titled as Abyssinians because it is greatly talking about this usage which was/is promoted by Europeans. I tried to open an article for Ge'ez people since there is an article for the ancient Latin people and instead administrators recommended for enhancement of the article for "Ge'ez language" to talk about those ancient people. If I ask an article for ancient 'Habesha' usage and it's various usage by people other than Europeans I am guessing they will recommend to enhance the article that is already created, which is here. Therfore, either someone asks for the move of this article to Abyssinians or this article needs to be enhanced and give more space for it's ancient application, it's various derivatives/formations and how it has/is being used in the past as well as in the present by various group of people. The paragraph you deleted may not be applicable to Abyssinians but indeed is applicable to Habeshas and is written based on published reliable source written by respected Scholars. Since Wikipedia is a place for people to get knowledge and clarify terms but not confuse people then they also need to know the other kind of usage. Opposing the inclusion of that statements is not in accordance with Wikipedias NPOV policy which recommends for inclusion of contradicting statements as long as they are properly cited and referenced — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, what you are talking about there are the various etymological derivations of the root "Habesh", many of which are completely unrelated to Abyssinians and to each other. There is no ancestral group that sired Abyssinians, Shanqella, Sidi Bantus, or however else "Habesh" was used, just as the Ghana Empire was not located in present-day Ghana despite the old kingdom and modern nation-state sharing a similar etymological root. Therefore, if you want to discuss each separate etymology, you'll have to do so in their respective, appropriate contexts on each page (i.e. the Abyssinian etymology here, the Sidi Bantu etymology on Sidi, the Shanqella etymology on Shanqella, etc.). Soupforone (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As I have read EthiopianHabesha's Personal analysis regarding the definition of Habesha/Abyssinians(Mehri/English), he has used a fallacious logic to defend his position which is basically "Habesha = Every Semitic Speakers" which is wrong. By his own logic, he can add the "Sabaens" as being "Habesha" as well which would be contradictory. Infact, the addition of the Tigre and Tigrinya to the list is false since, the Tigrettas and Agamettas are mentioned in the Peripelus of Erythraem Sea in the Momemtum Adulitanum (Adulis Monument) where an Unknown King states that he had conquered the Tigrettas,Agamettas, Blemyess, etc. Obvsiouly the Tigrettas of Eritrea are different from the Habashats of Yemen. The only current ethnic group which has Tribal history based in Habesha are the Amhara. The Amhara are the only people who have referred to themselves as Habesha and as Abyssinian in the Treaties that they signed with Italy, Britain, France etc. EthiopianHabesha expansion of Habasha to "Tigre, Tigrinya" is highly contested by the source data which have been stated several times throughout these talk discussions on this talkpage. I say limiting the Language of the Habesha to "Amharic" as that is the only people that have cited by several sources. In addition, "Mahri/Mehri" and "aMHARA" has very similar sounding syllables within each word. Geez was not the language of the Ancient Habashats. After King Kaleb of Aksum brought over the Habashats into Aksum's southern periphery, the Habashats continued their existence and then in 1137 Yekuno Amlak "Restored" the Habashat's "Solomonic Dynasty" and hence the re-creation of the Habesha kingdom south of the Aksum kingdom.Otakrem (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

[82] Page 250 - 252. "Habashat" is from Yemen. "HBS" means "to collect", "gatherers" of incense, were a collection of Sabaen and Hamyarite merchants. The Aksumites were in modern day Eritrea and North Tigray and would invade Yemen for various reasons. There was some type of "incense" trade which they wanted to control. The Aksumites after conquering the South part of Nubia called themselves "King of Ethiopia", and when conquered parts of Yemen, "King of Hadramut, Habashat, Homerite...etc". The Habashats were different and distinct from the Aksumites. Interesting there was a people called "Hara" which may be the origin of amHara"? Anyways, the expansion of Habasha to Geez Speaking Aksumites and their descendants is incorrect per the source provided.Otakrem (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that Mehri theory is quite interesting. Is the suggestion, therefore, also that Amharic evolved as a modified Mehri dialect? Soupforone (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, language/people relation between Amhara/Mehri/Hara/Harla/Habahat is not determined by how the name of their tribe sounds similar but primarly based on how the languages are related and how the people look like psychically, their DNA relation and based on their history presented by historians/biologists/linguists. Let's leave the conclusion to the experts. However, if you ask me my personal opinion I can give the following analysis. The very ancient civilisation in the World is that of Egypt. The very black Nilo Sahran (Shanqella) Kushs/Nubians took over Egyptian civilization. Then the Punts (incense exporter/gatherer horn of Africans) made up of cushitic people (Beja, Somali, Agaw and Afar) took over the civilization from their Nilotic neighbor Kush/Nubia (Ethiopia) 5,000 years ago. South Arabians took this civilization from their neighbour Punts and through this integration of Cushitic Punts with semitic south Arabians lead to the development of African Semitic language (Ge'ez).[83] Again Ge'ez goes down south and integrated with more various highland Cushitic/Omotic/Nilotic people and lead to the development of Amharic/Tigre/Tigra/Gurage/Harari/Gafat. This analysis is based on linguists/historians/biologists conclusions. There is no architecture (one evidence of scientific knowledge) in South Arabia that can be compared to what is done by the Nilotic Nubians, Cushitic Agaws (Lalibela rockhewn churches) and Axums Oblisk.[84][85][86] The concept of Egyptians and Nubians Pyramid as well as Axums Oblisk is to build tomb for the dead. Egyptians/Nubians constructed it with materials available to them i.e. Sand and Axumites did it with rocks that is widely available to them. Therfore, civilization was flowing Egypt->Nubia->Punt->South Arabia direction but not South Arabia to Horn of Africa direction. This is the history of Horn of Africa and no politician comes and tell us that we do not have history before 19th century. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, as for modern Ethiopia, it was actually the Shewan kingdom that expanded to north, west, east and south. Shewan Kingdom intitally was a muslim sulatanate (likely established by muslim Argoba/Amhara/Harari union government). In one source I saw that Menz people used to be Muslims and when they converted to chrtiantiy Argoba/Harari most likely splited from the union and established Ifat Sultanate. However, in 19th/20th centuary the Shewan kingdom ended up as a christian Kingdom and it ended as an Amhara/Oromo union government that expanded in all 4 directions. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, in that case don't you think the topic of this article should be changed to Abyssinians? It should be moved to Abyssinians not to give wikipedia readers the impression that historically and by various people usage 'Habeshas' is equal to 'Abyssinians' which contradicts with reliable sources which clearly and precisely says they are not equal. My opinion is that instead of changing the article to Abyssinians then may be give a little more space for it's other derivatives, after all, all derivatives are used on black African people. In America pure white & pure black mixed people are also considered black people and best example is Barack Obama whose father was a Nilotic Lou tribe and his mother is pure White. However, if the article should not include all the other derivatives applied to black people then I am in the opinion that the topic of the article should be changed to ‘Abyssinians’. May be if we cannot reach consensus on this matter probably we could ask Administrators opinion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I already contacted the specialists at WP:ETYMOLOGY. Anyway, I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean. As Otakrem pointed out, though, Abyssinians are the lineal Habesha (not Nubians etc.). Soupforone (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, in summary what my last comment made on 8 August mean is that as Cushitic people/language is a result of African-West Asian people integration so do Horn of African Semetic languages/peoples. Ethio-Semetic languages, all of them developed in the Horn of Africa through integration with various tribes. Therfore, an Abyssinian have the blood/DNA/ancestry of the Nilotics (Shankellas)/Omotics/cushitics/semetics. Architichure found in north Ethiopia shows that Abyssinians borrowed knowledge from the Egyptians and their neighbour black Nilotic Nubians (Shankellas) but not South Arabians. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, Could you send me the link where you notified to an etymology specialist, I want to participate in the discussion. Before I ask administrators opinion, let me get your conclusion briefly.

In summary what you are saying is what is clearly and precisely stated about 'Habesha People' here [87] and here [88] is false and should not be included in this article, right? So far in our discussion with you and Otakrem there is no complain regarding these two sources including their reliability which therefore can be concluded that the sources are ok for adding content in wikipedia articles but the issue is what is written in the source. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, see the link above for the etymology specialists. Anyway, you are quite mistaken about the biogenesis of the Afro-Asiatic-speaking groups in the Horn [89]. Aksumite culture also actually had Sabaean/Himyarite and even some pharaonic cultural affinities, but not any Shanqella ties. As Otakrem pointed out, the ancient Ge'ez is a Semitic idiom. The linguistic substrata in the modern Ethiopian-Semitic languages are likewise other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch (Agaw in Amharic and Tigrinya, Sidamo in Gurage, and Beja in Tigre). Soupforone (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, went through the link and I did not find your communication with etymology specialists. Axumites got pharonic cultural affinities from their neighbour Nubia/Kush (Shanqellas) and infact by 4th centuary Axum's Ezana went to their capital Merowe, married the Nilotic princess, and united his kingdom which used to be named Axoumis, and designated the name 'Ethiopia' (Nubians official name and also a name used on sub saharan Africans) for all his kingdoms under his possessions including those found in South Arabia (Habashat, Saba, Raidan and Himyar). In history there is no known kingdom centered in South Arabia that ruled over Horn of Africa, however as a result of continuous peoples movement languages/cultures/knowledges blend and continuously change. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, where is your source for this claim of "King Ezana" marrying a "Princess" from Meroe? Also your use of "Shankella" on "Meroites/Nubians/Kushites" is incorrect and not backed by any sources. You are creating "new information" ie Original Research. Otakrem (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, do you agree to the conclusion of our discussion I made on 9 August? If not please let us know the reasons. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, look again. The etymological specialists will sort this out. As for the claim that Aksum received its pharaonic cultural affinities from Shanqella, this is inaccurate. The Meroites were not ancestral to Nilotes (though they may have intermarried with them). We know this because their actual DNA has been analysed [90]. Soupforone (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nubians and Kushites are not the same kingdoms infact, the modern Nubian people in Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan, are different from the Beja and other Cushitic speaking people who were not necessarily part of the Kushite Kingdom. And Meroe was also a separate Kingdom with its Meroitic language and alphabet (which has not been deciphered yet). EthiopianHabesha, is mixing up peoples and kingdoms based simply on them being "African". This is not the way to go about figuring out the history of the people of this region. There is diversity, so much so that to try to "Unify" under this "Semitic-originated" "Abyssinian" and revise past history to accommodate the "3000 Year Abyssinian Myth of existing as a Unitary Nation-state", has been disproven by the sources and the mere fact, all of these Ethnic groups in the Horn of Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, Egypt..etc have their own History, culture, religions, languages, alphabets, their own Identity. The only Abyssinians(Habeshas) are the "Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans", every other ethnic group is just a subjugated ethnicity/nationality.Otakrem (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, although there is disagreement on Egyptians racial appearance there is agreement by most historians that before the arrival of the Arabs (recently by 10th centuary) people leaving south of Egypt i.e. Kushs/Nubians are Ethiopians (black people with sun burned faces). I am not talking about the present day Nubians who are mixed with Arabs and look like the Afro Asiatic speaking Horn of Africans, I am talking about the ancient Nubians who speak the Nubian languages which is classified under Nilo-Saharan languages and who look like the Nilotics/Nilotes like this [91][92]. Actually ancient Nubian/Kush civilization is administered by these people with Nilotic physical appearance. Axum got it's pharonic cultural affinities and also it's name from it's neighbor, the Nilotics and applied that name to South Arabians under his possession also. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, as for the article being only about Abyssinians (only Semitic Speaking people): your opinion is that it's various historical and other people usage of the term should not be included in this article titled 'Habesha people', even if the sources are reliable and clearly and precisely talk about 'Habesha people'. Is this your conclusion for our discussion? Please confirm this? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I just wrote that the etymology specialists will sort this out. As for Nubia, as Otakrem points out, it is a region inhabited by peoples of different ancestral origins. Some were related to Egyptians and other local Afro-Asiatic (Hamitic-Semitic) speaking populations, whereas others were of Nilotic extraction. There were also some Near Easterners, and apparently even some peoples of European origin. The Meroites were among the early Egyptian-related populations, as their DNA shows. Modern inhabitants of the Nubia area reflect this ancient diversity. Soupforone (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, as you said above Nubian society is made up of people with different ancestral origins so do Abyssinian society and both of them speak languages that developed/created in Africa. Note that there is no evidence of Nubian languages and Abyssinian languages (ancient Ge'ez as well as recently developed Tigrinya/Tigra and Amarinya/Argoba/Harari/Guraginya) being spoken outside Africa. We can say Africans are Arabised (a language that did not develop in Africa) but we can not say Africans are Omotised, Cushitised or Semitised because these languages are a result of Africans and West Asians integration and that is why these languages are named Afro-Asiatic languages by linguists.

Soupforone, etymologist specialist are notified on 26 July and after two weeks no response. May be we should ask administratos opinion. We could provide all reliable sources that talks about the title of the article (Habesha people) and they will make the decision as to weather move the article to Abyssinians or let it stay as it is and give a little more space for it's other usages. Please note that if they decide the article to be moved to Abyssinians then this article will not be focusing on only one of it's derivatives (Abyssinians) but will focus on black peoples in general (Nilotic Nubians, the Bantus and as well as mixed peoples) as the reliable sources I provided above apply it clearly and precisely. Before that please confirm or state reason for your opposition to the conclusion I made on 11 August. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, as already explained, the Afro-Asiatic language family does not mean that its speakers are of African+West Asian descent anymore than the Indo-European family means that its speakers are of Indian+European descent. These are trans-continental, geographical designations that simply mean that the languages are spoken in Africa and Asia (Afro-Asiatic) and the Indian subcontinent and Europe (Indo-European). Also, please familizarize yourself with WP:RELEVANCE. This page is on Abyssinians, not Nilotes and other peoples. Anyway, I've contacted one of the etymology specialists directly; he should hopefully sort this out soon enough [93]. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, what most DNA research regarding to Afro-Asiatic speaking Horn of Africans (who look like mixed) is that they are mixed with black Africans and white west & north Asians. Within various tribes of HA there are people with Caucasoid feature and also there are many who do not have this feature while still speaking the same language. I don't want to say they mixed with Arabs and Jews because by the time this integration occurred those semitic languages did not exist. Even by the time Punt established relation with Egypt (5,000 years ago) there was probably a Proto-Semitic language but not Hebrew/Arabic/Ge'ez. No DNA research concludes Horn of Africans as a separate unique race that did not mix with other races like South Asian Indian race or Native American Indian race. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, as for the conclusion & recommendation of our discussion, then why should we not ask for a move of the article to Abyssinians? Why do you oppose this recommendation? As you can see above in this talkpage many people opened a section and complain the application of 'Habesha people' only on Semitic speaking people because it is against how they use it for their day to day communication which is just to refer their unique racial group (people who look like mixed) and to refer their similar way of thinking, which is how millions of people use the term presently in Ethiopia and Eritrea, and a citation supporting this claim is provided on 28th July above. The current articles application of 'Habesha people' to just Semitic speaking people is also against how ancient Muslim Arab and Turk scholars/geographers/historians usage who applied the term even upto 19th centuary to people who follows various religions (including Muslims) and also to all black peoples in general (Mixed, Nilotic & Bantu). Reliable sources are also provided for all these claims above. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, Abyssinians/Habesha vary just as the South Arabs do. Some are lighter, some are darker; the Mehri that Otakrem mentioned are actually oftentimes swarthier than the Abyssinians (not that this even matters). Anyway, as Otakrem noted, your usage of "Habesha" for Nilotes and other non-Abyssinian peoples is quite unusual, as is the idea that "Habeshanised" denotes something other than simply acculturation into Abyssinian society. What you are describing above are the various etymologies of the root "Habesh", of which only that related to actual Abyssinians is pertinent here per WP:RELEVANCE. The etymology specialists will fix this. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, Seen the pictures of Mehri people and their hair is very soft like Indians but not curely or like black Africans hair in which Abysinians have. As an Ethiopian myself I cannot differentiate Abyssinians (semitic speaking people) from other people in the Horn of Africa by looking at their physical appearance. Abyssinians are tall, short, curly hair, like black African hair, Caucasoid feature, with Nilotic apearance or even people who look like the Bantus. There is no group of people in Ethiopia who entirely look like the Mehri/Yemeni people. As for Habesha people, how Ethiopians and Eritreans use the term is in a way their neighbours Arabs/Turks uses it i.e. for mixed people but not like Europeans who uses it to refer to north Ethiopia, and for this claim I already provided a citation on 28 July which clearly says "the Afro Asiatic speaking Ethiopians collectively refer themselves as Habesha", therfore it is not unusual for the term being used by non-Abyssinian. Otakrem's idea of acculturation into Abyssinian society (Habeshanised) is political usage and not scholars usage. Sharing culture/language is not unique to this region as I said even Axumites borrowed pharonic culture from their neighbour Nilotic Nubians, the Europeans borrowed the Arabic numeral from Arabs, all African republics (almost all having over 30 languages) borrowed European and Arabic languages and cultures so on and so on. For Horn of Africans Arabic/European language and culture might be alien/foreign imported but Abysinian/Beja/Somali/Oromo/Afar languages and cultures are a result of Horn of African peoples integration for 1000s of years since Punt civilization and we can not be sure who acculturated who. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Assimilation or Acculturation does not mean the "Subjugated group" identifies or has ever identified as the "Dominating group"...Abyssinians(Habesha=Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans) in 1137 under the reign of Yekuno Amlak defeated the Zagwe(Agaw) Kingdom and "Restored" their "Habashat-(Queen of Sheba/Yemen/Mehri) reign under the title of "Solomonic Dynasty". Sure the Habashats during the reign of Aksumite King Kaleb were allowed to settle on the southern peripheries of the Aksumite kingdom, does not transform the Agaw/Oromo/Cushites into "Habashats/Habesha/Abyssinians". The only current existing Ethnic group that refers to itself as Habesha are the Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans. The Oromos, Afars, Bejas, Konsos, Shankellas, Nubians, Tigre, Tigrinyas, Kunamas, Bilens, Sahos, Sidamo, Ogadeni, Gambellans, Nuer, Omo, Kaffa, Somalis, Issa, etc (non-Habesha ethnics) do not and haven not referred to themselves as 'Habesha', its a foreign Identity to them. They have their own histories and Myths. Your argument is that of an Imperialist, ie "since I conquered you, you are the property of the Habesha even in identity". The "Abysinnian/Habeshas" may have stripped the non-Habeshas of their land, freedoms, and even their future political freedoms, it doesn't translate to this attempt by your Argument to Habeshanize these People's ancestors who were the Victims of the Habesha Subjugation. Nothing political but what the sources and the current state of affairs Obviously show. Oromos are not protesting to be called "Habesha". Nor are the other Ethnic groups in Ethiopia protesting to be called "Habesha". Nor did the Eritrean Tigrinya and other 8 Ethnic groups fight a 30 year armed struggle to be called "Habesha". Nor do the Afar who fought wars against the Habesha/Abyssinians are sitting and waiting to be called "Habesha". Your argument has no standing and is disputed without bias but clear Facts on the Ground and in the History books.Otakrem (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I dont know how it is diffcult to support your claims with a properly referenced citation? It will help in convincing between ourself and administrators if we get use to discussing and solving issues by presenting our claims by saying 'according to X & Y Scholar/Historian/ ....'. When I presented the claim of 'Afro asiatic speaking Ethiopians do refer themselves as 'Habesha' i have provided a citation on 28 July. The way they use the term is just to refer their brown/mixed color/feature. As for what you claim is Amharas culture/values/language, one thing we can all agree is that it is not found outside of Africa like the alien imported Arab/European culture/language/values. Secondly, Can you please quote a neutral respected historian/scholar concluding on how and from whom the Amharas got their culture/language/values? Is it from the Nilotic Nubians? the cushitic Punts? the cushitic Agaws? Cushitic Bejas? the omotic Kafas?or Ge'ez people of Axumites? From whom did they got it when linguists/historians dated the existence of Amhara/Tigrinya/Gurage/Oromo just only by 13th century? Where were they when these ancient Horn of Africans established states? Therfore, you did not answer my question of 'who acculturated who?' You may have your conclusion but if you ask me then I say Amhara/Tigrinya is a result of mixing of these ancient people blood/language/culture/values and infact it is the Amharas who are acculturated/assimilated by these ancient people of Horn of Africa based on the finding of their DNA research (if requested I can provide Biologist and linguists conclusion). I can easily relate the language/culture of Afro Arabs of Sudan/Somalia/Djibouti to a language/culture currently found in Arabian peninsula but I cannot relate any native indigenous language/culture found in Horn of Africa outside of Africa. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha I will use a simply analogy for you "Habesha/Habeshat" are to Ethiopia, like what "Aryans" are to India. Meaning foreigners from a different land who intermixed with the natives. The Amhara resemble in terms of Status and Cultural domination to the Hindu Indians of India. The rest of the ethnics are natives who have become subjugated in an Abyssinian system. The Eritreans rebelled and liberated themselves from the Habesha subjugation. The rest of the Ethiopian ethnic groups are going through their own liberation from this Centralized Habeshainazation that has been going on for 150 years since the time of Tewdros. The sources provided to you in Previous posts state the Habashas were a kingdom in Yemen and that they were "incense gatherers". They (Habashats) had issues with the Himyratie Kingdoms and requested the Help of the Aksumite Negus(King) Kaleb. Kaleb provided the help and saved them from defeat. The Habashats were permitted to settle in Aksums southern peripheries hence you have the modern AMhara, descendants of these Habashat refugees. Yekuno Amlak referring to himself as a "Restorer of the Solomonic Dynasty" based on the myth of a Queen of Sheba (Habesha) and King Solomon producing a King "Menelik" who founded the Solomonic Dynasty. Obviously,t he Aksumites were not Habasha during their time. But the AMhara have been Habasha since their inception in the 13th century. However you incorrect in your claim that "Tigre/Tigrinya" were known of their existence in the 13th century. Infact, an Adulis inscription called the Monumentum Adulitanum (Adulis Monument) states that a King in Adulis had conquered the Blemyeesss(Bejas), Tigrettas(Tigres/Tigrinya), Agamettas(Agame Tigrayans)....etc! It does not list the "Amhara" people. The AMhara a mixture of Habasha and Agaw population that no longer exists.Otakrem (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, your comment above is your own persoanl analysis and that you did not quote atleast one expert/historian. I want to give you some corrections to your last comments: 1) By 1137 - 1270 it is not Amharas who ruled (infact by this time there is no proof of existence of Amharic/Tigrinya language/people/tribe) but the cushitic ancient Agaw people who also constructed unique churches that is not found in any other parts of Africa, in Arabia and the world. This kind of construction requires scientific knowledge.[94][95]. Probably these cushitic Agawas while administering north Ethiopia for over 200 years expanded their cultures/religions/languages south and northward until Amharas/Tigrayans assimilated to it and demanded their share in the government which followed with Solomonic dyansity. Axumites also showed their scientific knowledge by constructing obelisks based on the paharonic cultures they adopted from the Nilotic Nubians. These are two evidences showing that infact it is the Amhara/Tigrinya speaking people who acculturated/assimilated/borrowed knowledge that now you referred as Abyssinian system/culture from the ancient cushitic Punts/Nilotic Nubians-Kushs/Cushitic Agaws/Axumites/cushitic Bejas civilizations. Second correction is that Tewodros is Qwara/Agaw, where the dialect of the cushitic Agaw Quarigna (Qwara dialect) is widely spoken. Lastely, the source you provided here [96] mentions no Tigre or Amhara tribe while it mentions the cushitic Athagaus (Agaws) and the cushitic Bega (Bejas). Names of modern Amhara/Tigre/Oromo/Gurage/Somali/Afar not mentioned not even by one of Axumite inscriptions doesnot mean they were not part of that kingdom but their ancestors were part of it who used to speak/culture different one. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I think you are perhaps confusing Abyssinians with the inhabitants of Zanzibar and Comoros. Please see the 18th century explorer James Bruce, who actually visited the old Abyssinia [97]. Soupforone (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, what you mean by that? At the time of James Bruce DNA research was not available. What DNA research shows is that Ethio semetic speaking people DNA is no different from the rest of Horn of African tribes whom all of them have Black African and Caucasian blood. Linguists also note heavy influence from neighboring Cushitic languages particularly ancient Bejas and Agaws. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, Abyssinians are indeed closely related to the adjacent Cushitic speaking groups. However, their actual population affinities are far more complicated than the foregoing. Bruce described the old Abyssinia that he visited, as it was during the 18th century. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, check this article out, interesting with map explaining locations of peoples etc in [98] Otakrem (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, I think what we should do is concluding/summarising this discussion because if it continues we will just be bringing what we have already discussed again and again. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Conclusion and Recommendation

Otakrem wants the politicised application in this article which is Amhara/Amharised. Soupforone wants the article to be exclusively based on one of it's derivatives i.e. Abyssinians which Europeans corrupted the term and use it to refer North Ethiopia. The European use is against how 10s of millions of Ethiopians/Eritreans presently use the term for their day to day communications to refer mixed people who look like them. Applying only the European use also go against how the term has been used by Muslim Arab and Ottoman caliphate (Turks) ancient Scholars/geographers/historians who also applied the term 'Habesha' on black African people in general but mainly to mixed people who follow various religions including Islam, they applied the term this way even upto 19th century. Reliable sources for Habesha application by various people can be seen here [99] and here [100]. A citation is also given on 28th July here [101] describing the use the term ‘Habesha’ by mixed looking various Afro Asiatic speaking Ethiopians and the citation also explains how the term has been politicised in recent times. My opinion is to move the article to ‘Abyssinians’ and the article for ‘Habesha people’ should accommodate all usages by all various people historically and presently including usage of Arabs, Turks, Europeans and Ethiopians/Eritreans. Based on WP:NPOV policy even if those usages contradict one another should be included if a reliable sources that talks about 'Habesha people' is provided. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, what you are talking about there are the various etymological derivations of the root "Habesh", many of which are completely unrelated to Abyssinians and to each other. There is no ancestral group that sired Abyssinians, Shanqella, Sidi Bantus, or however else "Habesh" was used, just as the Ghana Empire was not located in present-day Ghana despite the old kingdom and modern nation-state sharing a similar etymological root. Therefore, as per WP:RELEVANCE, if you want to discuss each separate etymology, you'll have to do so in their respective, appropriate contexts on each page (i.e. the Abyssinian etymology here, the Sidi Bantu etymology on Sidi, the Shanqella etymology on Shanqella, etc.). Soupforone (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with EthiopianHabesha's use of "Abyssinian" and "Habesha" as being different when infact and many sources state, the two are interchangeable and only a translation between languages ie American in English language = "Americano" in Spanish language. Means the same thing and identifies the same people, ie Habesha = Abyssinian = Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans. Nothing political on my part nor is my argument based on politics but historical sources and anthropological studies. EthiopianHabesha's argument is an attempt to proclaim a mythical "Habasha" ancestor to a diverse group of ethnic groups in Africa and India, which is his own personal analysis. Otakrem (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, for your claim of Abyssinian = Habesha please provide a citation/source. Reliable source presented above who analysed the term Habesha and it's various derivatives says they are not equal. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Page 99 of [102] Speaks of how the "Habesha" are boastful and self-represent themselves to the Portoguese, they claim Queen of Sheba was Habesha. The Portoguese referred to the "Habashas" as "Abyssinians". So yes Abyssinian = Habesha/Habasha/Habashat. Again, I have provided you a Source where they are discussing a Book called a Voyage to Abyssinia. Clearly, Abyssinia = Habesha.Otakrem (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, you see this is how you are confusing people. When they say Queen of Sheba is Habesha, they are saying she looks like us and she has our blood and she is not ferenji (white person), which is based on how Ethiopians/Eritreans historically and presently use the term. If they were saying Queen of Sheba is Amhara/Amharised then I beleive nothing prevented them from stating it precisely by saying "She is Amhara or Amharised Tigre" which is based on your own and it's politicized application. Please let's not make Wikipedia a place to confuse people and a tool for political propaganda. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you are denying the Abyssinian Myth story of the Solomonic Dynasty? Queen of Sheba(Habesha) is not a "Mulatto" or "Looks like us", she was Queen of Habashats because she was an "Incense gatherer". She brought King Solomon gifts which included Myrrh, and other incense. It ties quite well with the Mehri definition of Habesha (Incense gatherers). Do not Abyssinians burn incense in their coffee ceremonies? Will you deny this as well? Habesha=Abyssinian = Incense gatherers = Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans, linguistically, historically, culturally, self-identification, DNA-wise, geopolitically, religous-wise(KebraNegast, FithiNegast), etc! Your attempt at taking this loaded Word "Habesha" and try to apply to Nilotes/Bantus/Agaws/Bejas/Nubians/Shankallas/Oromos/Afars/Tigres/Naras/Kunamas/Konsos/Omos/Sidamo/Kaffa/Shuros/Gambella/Ogadeni/Somali/Issa/...etc is blatantly discredited. You have not provided nor can there be a "reliable source" which states your claim here. Your claim is what is confusing people and it will get straightened out per reliable sources.Otakrem (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, No citation provided for your claim. As todays politicians lie so do ancient politicians who rule their people by claiming their genealogy goes upto Prophet Solomon or Prophet Mohamed. For instance in 1930s Ras Gugsa Wale, ruler of Gondar & descendant of the Yejju Oromo dynasty founded by Ras Ali, wanted to become emperor. His campaign to mobilise soldiers from the conservative society is by saying “Shewans are so much modernised by ferenji (white) culture under the leadership of Haileselase that they are now eating dog meat”.[103] That is how politics work but here let’s just focus on what scholars are saying. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, the issue is there are reliable sources that clearly and precisely apply the term 'Habesha' on mixed, Nilotic and Bantu people and also no one in Ethiopia and Eritrea uses the term 'Habesha' to refer to particular ethnic-groups or geographic area and is used only for referring people with mixed appearance. The term 'Habesha' usage by 10s of millions of Ethiopians/Eritreans equals with the usage of Mulatto in the Americas and I have given a citation for this claim above. For these reasons this article should be moved to Abyssinians and what is your opinion for this recommendation? We should request for move of this article. Please let us know your reasons for your opposition or support for this recommendation. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My Recommendations Either keep the "Habesha" only to mean "Abyssinian, Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans" or Completely Delete this Article. EthiopianHabeshas of Ethnic Puffery ie Stuffing this Article with as many Unrelated Ethnic groups into this "Habesha" article distorts and is not Per Wikipedia Standards. Calling "Nilotes" and "Bantu" people as being "Habesha" is an Extraordinary claim. And the connotation that you are using it is "Habesha = Abyssinian = Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayan".Otakrem (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, it is not me who came up with what you called 'extraordinary claim' but the reliable sources I presented above and instead what you should be criticising is the sources, not me. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, Otakrem provided his recommendation above and what is yours? What is your proposal to the issues I raised on 15th august regarding how the article in it's current form being against the use of Ethiopians/Eritreans and Arabs/Turks? What is your comment to my proposal of moving the article to Abyssinians for solving this issue? EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, my proposal is that you provide at least one reliable source that substantiates your central claim that "in the broadest sense, the word Habesha may refer to anyone from Ethiopia or Eritrea, although some do not identify with this association". Because what Mekonnen alludes to is actually an endonym (and one mainly used by the Semitic speaking highlanders), not an exonym like with that claim [104]. Yimene's claim that "Habashat" denotes the current Ethiopia nation-state, the Horn of Africa, and even sometimes Sub-Saharan Africa is obvious nonsense; these modern areas did not even exist in antiquity. Munro-Hay's claim that "Habesha" was derived from the "Ahabish" is likewise based on unfounded speculation originating with Lammens [105]. Please either substantiate this extraordinary claim, or Otakrem's "Abyssinian, Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans" -- the traditional Abyssinians/Habesha -- is kept as is. Soupforone (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, I have already given several reliable sources above. See the sources I used on my post on 15 August (conclusion & recommendation). As for Yimene and Munro-Hays research on the term Habesha, can you please precisely say they are or not reliable? Do you have an article (another reliable source) who reviewed their research and concluded they are nonsense? Otherwise, how do we accept your own personal conclusion (while not providing citation) of their researches? If you ask me my own personal conclusion I will also tell you it's very nonsense and very awkward the term 'Habesha' being applied to Amharas or semetic speaking people only because I am an Ethiopian and this is not how we use the term Habesha on our day to day communication. However, since we are under the rule of wikipedia we all need to be discussing based on citations and reliable sources conclusion (who concludes after a disciplined research), not our own personal guessing conclusion/research. Still you have not commented on moving this article to Abyssinians. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, see this wikipedia rule here [106] which says "All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources" and "Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say". Rule here WP:IMPARTIAL says "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". Rule here WP:BALANCE says "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance". Rule here Wikipedia:Conflicting sources says " If two reliable sources offer contradicting information on a subject and none of them can be demonstrated unreliable, then an article should cite both " and "...include both. In those cases, it is up to the reader to choose which source they want to believe personally and not the task of Wikipedia editors to choose for them. Instead the article should contain a mention that different information exists.". Therefore, deleting the paragraph I added [107] based on sources that precisely talks about 'Habesha people' while you not proofing unreliability of the sources is an obvious violations of those quoted Wikipedia rules. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, your claim that "in the broadest sense, the word Habesha may refer to anyone from Ethiopia or Eritrea, although some do not identify with this association" was linked to Mekonnen, Yimene and Munro-Hay specifically, not to whatever it is you are alluding to above. The last two are not reliable for the reasons just explained, whereas the wiki phrasing is contrary to what Mekonnen indicates. He writes that Habesha is an endonym mainly for the Semitic speakers, while that wiki phrase claims that it is an exonym for all Ethiopians and Eritreans. As Otakrem indicated, either find a reliable source that supports this WP:REDFLAG claim, or there is no reason to even question the assertion that "more generally, Abyssinians denotes the native speakers of the Abyssinian languages." Soupforone (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, my last comment is for the deletion of the paragraph I added which can be seen here [108] and I am saying deleting the paragraph is in violation of wikipedia rules I quoted above. As for the phrase that you quoted and claimed it is contrary to what is found in the source, well I did not add that one and I am not talking about that but just the paragraph deleted. However, after going through the source my opinion is that the editor added it as it is found in the source, and if you think it is not then you may adjust it instead of deleting and censoring (not showing that a different information exists) which would be contrary to what Wikipedia stands for. As for your claim of Yimene and Munro-Hay research being unreliable, these researches are found in published books that went through a review by printing organisations named Cuvillier Verlag and British Library Cataloguing. Moreover, they are found in Amazon.com for sale here [109][110], and their books are quoted in various published books with 754 result for Munro-Hay's book in Google books here [111][112] and 11 results for Yimene as can be seen here [113][114]. My research for their reliability shows that they are indeed exceptional sources that can be used for exceptional claims and qualify under this wikipedia rule here WP:RELIABLE — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I already explained above in my comment dated 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC) why exactly Otakrem and myself rejected your passage. In short, it was largely WP:IRRELEVANT for the reasons enumerated there. This page is on actual Abyssinians/Habesha, not on the Siddi Bantus and other populations. If you want to discuss those other groups' etymologies, please do so on their respective pages. Anyway, I see that you are still adamant about the Yimene and Munro-Hay claims. As this discussion is clearly going nowhere, I've queried on the original research board to determine whether this phrase indeed constitutes OR. This is the last reply I'll be making here until I receive word on the etymology. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, all the sources I used to add the content (which you deleted) talk about 'Habesha People', people found in Ethiopia but not just Sidi people found in India. Please know that it is the reliable sources that will determine who is the actual Habesha and who is not. As said I am requesting for the move of this article to 'Abyssinians' so that the article for 'Habesha people' includes all it's various usage historically and presently (without focusing on Abyssinians) based on Yimene, Munro-Hay and other reliable sources. I did requested for your opinion regarding this move multiple times above and it seems you are not willing to comment about it. Anyways I will proceed with the request and explain the issues, while supporting them with reliable sources, to administrators and hopefully they'll pass a decision that will prevent Wikipedia readers from being confused. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha What you claim is incorrect. The Arab use of the word "Habesha" does not deviate from its use to mean specifically "Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans". Arabs make a distinction and between Habasha and "Asud"(Black), Habasha is designated for Abyssinians. Abyssinian translates to AlHabshi, which you translate into Amharic as "Habesha/Abesha/Habashat(in Mehri)". So your source is incorrect therefore you can not expand "Habesha" to SubSaharan Africa nor to Non-Abyssinian(Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayan) ethnicities within Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. You are drawing at Straws here to Puff up the size of the Abyssinian people and territory size. Abyssinians(Habesha) are limited to Gondar, Gojjam, Shewa, Parts of Tigray and thats it. Any further, is Ethnic Puffery on your part.Otakrem (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I renamed it to "Abyssinian people" per WP:COMMONNAME and Otakrem and your recommendations above. There was apparently already a page earmarked for the Habesha name. Also, I think "panethnicity" is more neutral and accurate than a "quasi-related population". Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As Yimene and Munroe (exceptional reliable sources) pointed out clearly that confusion arises as one quotes the other (Europeans quoting Arabs/Turks/Ethiopians VS Arabs/Turks/Ethiopians quoting European sources). All of them have their own meanings and the article being moved from much more controversial title to a much more less controversial title is better. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Monumentum Adulitanum

Otakrem, interesting stuff thanks. When do you think the Monumentum Adulitanum may have been chiseled? Soupforone (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone From the fact, the unknown king mentions sacrificing to the Greek god of War (Aries) and the Sabaen god of war (Mahrem), it would have to be around the time of the Ancient Greeks decline and Ancient Romans rise as an empire.Otakrem (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

To add Cosmas's reference to the Tigerets living near Adulis, [115]

See Page 156 of this [116] This talks about the distinctions between Aksumites, Adulites, Tigretes, Gazes, Kasus, Nobas, Habashat..etc. EthiopianHabesha's attempts at trying to unify these distinct ancient ethnic groups into this Monocoque group as "Habesha" is contrary to these sources which are cited within this one page.Otakrem (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Soupforone (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not Every Ethio-semitic Language Speaker is an Abyssinian(Habesha)

EthiopianHabesha is falsely using language groupings to IMPOSE the Abyssinian identity on the following Ethnic groups: Tigre people and Tigrinyas of Eritrea. According to the Monumentum Adulitanum, see the discussion above. The "Tigretes" were distinct from the Gaze(Geez speakers) and the "Habashats" of Yemen as well as the Adulites were distinct from the Aksumites. I will be deleting the Tigre and Tigrinyas from the listing. Otakrem (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

See Page 156 of this [117] This talks about the distinctions between Aksumites, Adulites, Tigretes, Gazes, Kasus, Nobas, Habashat..etc. EthiopianHabesha's attempts at trying to unify these distinct ancient ethnic groups into this Monocoque group as "Habesha" is contrary to these sources which are cited within this one page.Otakrem (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the Source on Page 156 (see above) states "The Christian Topography tells us that the regions of Adulis and Agau were under the control of the Archons, a Byzantine designation which may be broadly translated as 'governor'(Kirwan 1972). 'Elite' buildings, or palace structures, are also found at Matara and Adulis, and of course at Aksum; the former may be the residence of these functionaries, whilst smaller elite residences at Aksum may be connected with royal family and other bureaucrats. It is probable that control of the polity was based on administrative boundaries which contiguous with boundaries of ethnic groups These groups are often mentioned in textual sources; an early third-century South Arabian inscription from Marib refers explicitly to the 'Nagashi of Habashat and Aksuman', implying two distinctive ethnic groups(Jamme 1962). Otakrem (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Epiphanius' fourth-century list of the nine kingdoms of the Indians also explicitly refers to the difference between the Aksumites and the Adulites (Munro-Hay 1991: 37) Cosmas Indicopleustus also makes a similar distinction between the Gazen of the Aksum region and the tribes of the Adulis region as the TIGREtes (Huntingford 1989: 43).

These sources above make it clear who is Habashat, who is Adulite(Tigretes), who is Aksumite(Gazen). The addition of Tigre and Tigrinya into the "Abyssinian(Habesha)" has no reliable source other than EthiopianHabesha's personal analysis using "language groupings", this is equivalent to calling an Iranian Persian, as an Indian or a European because of the Persian language belonging to the Indo-European language groupings.In addition, this Abyssinian(Habesha) identity has no language that is associated with it as the South Arabian inscription above makes a distinction between the "Habashat" and the "Aksuman". Otakrem (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, EthiopianHabesha's addition of Harla, Afar, Argobba, Harari people is contested since they are the People of the Adal Sultanate, here is a map which is a cartoonic outline of where Aksum controlled but necessarily were the people there Abyssinians(Habashats/Habesha) [118] Clearly Adal Sultanate was Distinct and at Times at War with Aksum. The use of "Ethio-Semitic" to Pump up the Population count of the "Abyssinians(Habesha)" is Heavily Contested and will be deleted. Otakrem (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Adals could never be Abyssinians if they were at war with Abyssinia see Wiki article on Abyssinian-Adal War [119]. EthiopianHabesha is Pumping up the Population count of the Abyssinians using the False Logic/Argument of "Ethio-semitic languages". There is no equivalency between "Abyssinian languages" and "Ethio-semitic", this is a Ethno-Politically-charged agenda on EthiopianHabesha's part. In addition, the Medri-Bahri Kingdoms of Eritrea and the Tigre(Lowland) Eritreans were never an "integral part" of "Abyssinia" as they were always at war with Abyssinia(Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans). From Ancient Times (TigretesAdulites vs Habashats from Yemen) uptil present the Eritrean Armed Struggle for Independence (1950s-1991). The Abyssinians(Habashas) are only Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans as far as the Sources state and the Various Ethnic Groups which Reject not only Verbally but Violently as has the Past History has shown. I will Delete the Ethnic groups that EthiopianHabesha has added inorder to Pump up the Number of so-called Abyssinians(Habesha). Otakrem (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, Wikipedians may not have an idea as to what ‘Habeshat’ and ‘Tigretes’ is? Perhaps if you can quote another scholar what they are, where exactly are located and what language they speak (or may be what they look like). Based on the sources I read ‘Habashat’ is a province located in Yemen in which was part of Axum empire, if you have any source locating ‘Habashat’ in Horn of Africa let us know. The source you provided said “the tribes of the Adulis region is Tigretas” and based on just this quote wikipedians can not conclude Tigretas=Tigrinyas and not equal to Tigrayans, but Scholars will do and our job is just summarize their conclusion. If you ask me my personal conclusion/analysis there is a high possibility “Tigretas” being a proto language/people that later divided into the Tigre (spoken in lowlands of Eritrea) and Tigray/Tigrinya language spoken in the northern highlands of Ethiopia & Eritrea whom might have expanded from their native land of Adulis area (lowland) into the center of Axum (highlands) after the weakening & collapse of the empire, while also absorbing/assimilating the native Ge’ez speaking Axumites to Tigretas.

If we say the article should include Amhara and Tigrinya speaking people then it should be known that there is no proof of these languages being spoken anywhere in the world until 13th century. Before 13th century they were in Proto language form i.e. proto South Ethiopian semitic language that separated into Amhara/Argoba/Harari/Gurage/Gafat and Proto North Ethiopian semtic language that separated into Tigra/Tigray-Tigrinya. Otakrem, if the article should be about Amharas then why need to create this article in the first place? There is already an article for “Amhara people”.

This article is about the people/ethnicity who speak/spoke the native African Semitic languages and not about states, empires & religions. Note that before 4th centuary Axum was a traditional religion following state based on pharonic/Nubian culture. We cannot say Axum people/ethnicity was Nilotic Nubian/Egyptian pharonic (determining ethnicity just by culture & religion of the state). Moreover, the Shewan kingdom (Sultanate) was a Muslim state when it was established by 10th century and was a Christian kingdom when it was disestablished in 1974. At the time of Axum Kingdom, Axum area was inhabited by Ge’ez people and now it is inhabited by Tigrinya speaking people. Sultanate of Shewa initially was ruled by muslim Argoba/Amhra/Harari proto language speaking people and by 19th/20th century it was ruled by Amhara and Oromo rulers where Tigrayns/Gojame/Gondare were not given key positions in the central Shewan government. Also just because states went to war or are in peaceful contact does not determine peoples ethnicity because even Gojames VS Gondares VS Shewans were constantly fighting each other. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, that one page 156 references so many other Sources that you are Purposefully Overlooking those sources. Your arguments and Personal Analysis is Incorrect and Not Per Wikipedia Guidelines. You have made up a Reason for Pumping up the Abyssinian(Habesha) numbers and Imposing your definition of Abyssinian(Habesha) onto Non-Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans. And your tone of discussion here by trying to Underestimate my Wikipedia perspective is Unacceptable. And Other Wikipedians are able to Read so the Source(s) I have provided make it clear who is Habashat and Who isn't. Obviously, you refuse to even acknowledge the source and the sources that support it. Primary, Secondary provided all in that one page 156. Your Ethiosemitic speaker = Abyssinian(Habesha) is ORIGINAL RESEARCH on your Part and I will delete that.Otakrem (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, No I did not came up with Ethiosemitic speakers = Abyssinian(Habesha) but the 10s of Wikipedia editors who created/updated it for several years and in all these years it has been applied to Ethiopian (African) indigenous Semitic languages and their speakers to distinguish it from non African Semitic languages/peoples of Arabic, Sabean & Hebrew whom their origin/creation/development is outside Africa unlike the African semitic languages/peoples who have a great African/Omotic/Cushitic/Nilotic influences linguistically, culturally and ancestrally and all of them's origin/creation/development is in African continent particularly in Horn of Africa region. Soupforone moved it to Abyssinian people after our long discussion above. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Well I contest this claim that you support with the Sources I provided. And I am within Wikipedia guidelines to delete all Contested entries. Things without consensus based on sources can be deleted. Abyssinian Imposition on Non-Abyssinians is outright wrong. Abyssinian is Not an Ethnic Group, it was a "Nationality" based on specific criteria of which many Sources including Bulatovich Provide. I will use Bulatovich and Monumentum Adulitanum and the other sources on Page 156 of the Source above to delete the "Ethnic groups" which have been Stuffed into this Abyssinian article.Otakrem (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, for discussion I have brought this source here [120] which dated creation of Ethio-Semitic languages/peoples. 960 years ago there is no Amhara language/people but unknown proto language that separated by around 1040 into Argoba (muslims) & Amharic (mainly Christians). Note that Shewa sultanate was established in 890 while Argoba & Amhara separated by 1040. 1475 years ago (around 525 when caleb was king of Axum) Tigre (muslims) & Tigrinya (chrstians) used to be one unknown proto language/people while unknown proto Amharic/Argoba/Gafat language/people exists at the same time. The last time Amhara & Tigrinya people spoke one unknown proto language was 3,325 years ago. Therefore, when we speak of Daamat/Axum/Shewa sultanate/Shewa Kingdom states we are not talking about the modern Tigrinya, Amharic & Argoba speaking people but of common unknown proto semitic languages/peoples. Either do not include the history of these ancient states in the article as well as not including the story of Amhara & Tigrinya ancestors came from South Arabia because it is against linguists research, or if we must include them in this article then all the other people that separated into various Semitic languages should be included. Excluding muslim Argobas and saying Amharas & Tigrinya speaking people used to be one by let say 980 does not make sense from linguists conclusion because by 980 Amhara & Argoba used to speak one unknown proto language. I hope now it is clear why all the other Semitic speaking people were included for many years until Zekenyan (blocked indefinitely) deleted them and now it is restored. Usually names are associated with predominant people, for instance the term 'African' is associated with Bantu/Nilotic people but that does not necessarily mean the term 'African' strictly means black people. Morocans, Egyptians, Mauritanians, Ethiopians & Somalians are also Africans based on the name Africa used to name a continent. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha I am not convinced by your argument here. "Abyssinian" is specific to "Abyssinia" (1270 AD - 1905 AD) if we are to get specific to when "Abyssinia" became "Ethiopia = Abyssinia + Conquered territories/people of Oromo,Afars, Gambellans", therefore your use of "Ethiosemitic" = "Abyssinian" is False. It would be like calling Arabs as Hebrews simply of their linguistic grouping. I will delete the ethnic groups which do not belong in Abyssinia. Also Tigrinya and Tigre is Older than Amharic as a language. The only people in the Horn of Africa who continually identify as "Habesha/Abyssinian" are the "Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans".Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I tried my best to convince one another by bringing citations/sources and analyzing what the sources exactly are saying. My opinion is that it is nonsense to talk about Daamat-Axum & Shewa Sulatanate-Shewa kingdom-Ifat Sultanate which are one of the earliest sultanates & Kingdoms (traditional & Christian) in the Horn region as if they were inhabited by modern Amhara, Tigrinya, Argoba & Harari speaking people. This kind of hasty generalization does not make sense based on respected linguists/scholars/archaeologists hard work to make their conclusion. We are writing an encyclopedia on a respected organisation called Wikipedia so either include all separated modern & ancient Semitic languages/peoples from a common proto languages in this article and talk about them collectively about their history & myths (like "they migrated from Yemen/Habashat", "they have this & that history" etc etc) or exclude both of them because there was no Amhara language/people before 1040 AD and Tigrinya language/people before 525 AD. Either Soupforone give his opinion on this issue or we may ask administrators opinion about it. Also Otakrem could you bring a source where a linguist/historian/biologist/archaeologist expert concluding after he researched and gathered evidences for many years to come up with what you are claiming as "Habesha/Abyssinian as being the only Amhara & Amharised Tigrayans historically & presently". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

See Page 156 of this [121] The Aksumites were the "Gazes"(Geez speakers), the Adulites(Adulis) were "Tigretes", and the "Habashat" were in Yemen. Obviously this is quite valid, verifiable and is written from an Archaelogical source: The Archaeology of Ethiopia By Niall Finneran Page 156-157. So your conclusion of "Proto-Ethiosemitic people" = Habashat(Abyssinians/Habeshas) is proven False, therefore the removal of the Tigre, Tigrinya is a valid edit. Otakrem (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just incase you dispute Dr.Niall Finneran, here is his academic scholarship information [122]. He is trained as an Africanist archaeologist who has done landscape archaeology works in Aksum, Lalibela, Ethiopia. He wrote the book that I linked in the response above this one. Inaddition, he is an expert in Early Christianity in Ethiopia and the Levant. He's a legitimate expert in our discussion above here.Otakrem (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem so far I have no issues with Dr.Niall Finneran. But my issue is let say you used his research to remove Tigre & Tigrinya based on his conclusion that there were none Tigre-Tigrinya language/people at the time of Axum (before 525 AD), but don't you think this logic you brought will also obviously exclude Amhara language/people as well which was created much recently by 1040 AD? Don't you think this logic you brought will also invalidate your personal theory (since no citation is provided yet) of "Amharised Tigrayans"? Tigrinya is much older by 500 years than Amarinya and there is a high possibility that infact modern Amharas being Tigranised or Agewanised (the cushitic Agaw language/people is much much older than both modern Amharinya, Tigrinya or even possibly than Ge'ez language/people and also they the Agaws through Zagwe dynasty dominated north Ethiopia-Shewa Sultanate-upto Damot for over 200 years even before the creation of old Amarinya language by 1040).Shewa & Damot (Welega) were under Zagwe Dynasity — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha You seem to have missed the point I made above, which was "Habashats" are identified as Different from "Aksumites" and "Adulites(Tigretes)" which means the descendants of "Aksumites" and "Adulites" are Not Habeshas(Abyssinians). However, the Amhara by Yekuno Amlak(1270AD) referred to themselves as Habeshas(Habashasts/Abyssinians) and having a history much older than the Aksumites however in their native Habashat Kingdom (Sheba) in Yemen. Using this information, one can clearly see that the Habesha = Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans. As for the Amharaized Tigrayans, it is because they have become a part of the Abyssinian(Solomonic)polity. The History of the Region goes Damot(Cushitic) --> Aksum, Adulis (Gaze, Tigretes) --> Abyssinia(Amhara),Medri-Bahri(Tigrinyas) --> Ethiopia(Amhara-dominated), Eritrea(Colony) --> Present day, Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans only call themselves "Habesha". The Tigre and Tigrinya of Eritrea have rejected the Habesha identity by their liberation war against the Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans(Habeshas) and gained their independence (Eritrea). So your conclusion of using "ethio-semitic" = "Abyssinian" is False. Otakrem (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, How can one come up with the above analysis/conclusion just based on Dr.Niall Finneran Page 156-157 which you quoted as ""Habashats" are identified as Different from "Aksumites" and "Adulites(Tigretes)"? Firstly, there has to be a source provided that defines Habashat geographically/linguistically/racially-DNA. So far you only defined Habshats linguistically (while still not providing a source) as a people who spoke Mehri and then you said Mehri/Mhara & Amhara name sound similar and must have been one ethnicgroup called Habashat or Habesha which contradicts to linguists conclusion (who analysed & concluded after many years of hard work/research) of Amarinya & Mehri language being not closely related at all except being part of the larger proto semitic language that used to exist 4725 years ago (300 years later Punt established contact with Egypt) from which all Ethio-Semitic as well as Old South Arabian languages were derived which is based on this source here [123] I presented on 25 August. If you provide a quote from an expert (Doctor & Professor) who specialised in history/linguist/DNA/archaeology saying "Habesha = Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans" we wouldnt be making all these long arguments. Why do you always bring librations front/politicians to this talkpage as a source to support your POV? They are politicians and everyone knows most of them are liers and cannot be quoted in wikipedia to write an article about history/linguist/DNA/archaeology. Remember Wikipedia says articles should not be serving for advocation (political agenda). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with Oktarem, it's completely incorrcet to impose the Abyssinian identity on the ethnic groups Tigre people and Tigrinyas of Eritrea. Remove the the Eritrean Tigre people and Tigrinyas from the list. Remeber that Habesha is not even an ethnic group. Richard0048 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition per the Dr. Niall Finneran, we can remove the "Geez" language since the Gaze (Aksumites) were different from the Habashats also. "Habesha" is correctly identified as a non-ethnicity and in reality a blanket term imposed by Amhara/Amharaized Tigrayans on other Ethiosemitic groups. So far EthiopanHabesha has imposed this Amhara/AmharaizedTigrayan-originated imposition on these other ethnic groups and even on the Ancient Aksumites who never identified themselves as Habashat(Abyssinians) therefore this is an outrage to those Ancient Aksumites. Otakrem (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there is no proof of Tigrinya, Tigre & Amhara language/people/identity being existed at the time of Axum & Daamat most scholars prefer to use 'Abyssinian people' to refer proto semitic speaking people like Munro Hay used it here[124]. Saying Amhara & Tigrinya speaking people did this and that in Axum & Daamat kingdom and saying they migrated from Yemen/Habashat is historical distortion and people will make hasty generalization and assume there was Amhara/Tigrayan/Tigrinya/Tigre identity at the time of the migration, Axum & Daamat. Linguists also conclude Tigrinya & Amharinya language did not exist until 525-1040.[125] — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Already provided a source to show that "Tigretes(Adulites)", "Aksumites", and "Habashats" were names inscribed in the "Monumentum Adulitanum"(Archaelogical proof) also See Page 156 of this [126] by Dr.Finneran. Again you are Missing the pOint. It is agreed upon by Linguists also that "Tigre and Tigrinya" are closer to Geez, than Amharic is. "Abyssinians" are historically known from 1270-1935 which is predominately of the Amhara ethnicity. Your addition of "Tigre" and "Tigrinya" of Eritrea is highly disputed and the source provided here shows that."Abyssinian imposition" on non-Abyssinians has been your whole agenda in these discussions. We are backed by sources to the contrary and will delete the "Tigre and Tigrinya" from this "Abyssinian people" article.Otakrem (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"According to Dr. Eduard Glaser, a renowned Austrian epigraphist and historian, Habeshas were originally from Southeastern Yemen who lived east of the Hadhramaut kingdom in the modern district of Mahra.[2] He believed the etymology of Habesha must have derived from the Mahri language which means “gatherers” [2](as in gatherers of incense). He asserted that the Mahrites and their language should be regarded as the descendants of the people and speech of ancient Habeshas.[2]" Otakrem (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, In a nutshell what you are saying is it is only the Amhara people who migrated from Yemen! This story is something that I have never heard but only from you. Are we now creating stories in wikipedia? What scholar did precisely said Tigrinya speaking people did not came from Yemen but only Amharas? Once again you did not provide a source that defines Habashat geographically, linguistically & racially-DNA. I got two questions for you: 1) Are you saying much respected Scholar Munroe Hay (his book quoted by over 700 books) is wrong using the term 'Abyssinians' to Axum Kingdom as can be seen here [127] 2) But your personal analysis (original research) is correct? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Obviously you can read what Dr. Eduard Glaser wrote, what Dr. Finneran wrote. What the Monumentum Adulitanum wrote. You are refusal to get the Point is Not Per Wikipedia Guidelines of reaching a NPOV. Infact, its disruptive behavior like this that will not help us to fix this Abyssinian article. So far Habashat(Abyssinian) does not Apply to "Aksumites/Gazes" nor "Tigre/Tigrinya/Tigretes/Adulites" per the Sources I provided. As for Munro, he is but one source and not the Complete Authority either. I provided several sources and you refuse to read them. I am going to remove the Tigre and Tigrinya from this Abyssinian article as it doesn't apply to them. Otakrem (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I read Dr. Eduard Glaser and he is talking about Habeshas in general (not specifically talking about Amharas). Can you go thorogh his book and give a citation on how he used the term 'Habeshas' and obviously you don't expect me to take your own personal original research i.e. when Dr. Edward Glaser said Habesha then he meant Amharas (based on your own conclusion with out basing it with citation from his book defining Habeshas). As for Dr. Finneran, he did not say Ge'ez people are not Abysinians (Habeshas) and obviously he did not say Habashats/Habeshas are Amharas so stop using him as the source for your own personal (original research) claim of Habashats=Amhara while scholars are saying there is a possibility of Habeshats=Proto Semitic language that developed into Ge'ez, Tigrinya, Amhara, Tigre, Gurage & Harari. As I said earlier if Tigre and Tigrinya is excluded then obviously Amhara is excluded together with all its much closely related languages/peoples. And after that perhaps the article about Habesha people will be on black people in general based on the term's use by Arabs, Turks & Ethiopians i.e. for Mixed, Bantu & Nilotic people as reliable sources Munroe and Yimene research on the term 'Habesha' shows — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha The Tigre and Tigrinya are Not Habesha period. Dr. Finneran made a DISTINCTION between Habashats and Aksumans/Adulites(Tigretes). It is your own Personal Analysis and Original Research which is saying "Habashat is a Proto-ethiosemitic group" is Debunked by Dr.Finneran. Therefore, the removal of Tigre and Tigrinya is correct. Your Forced Abyssinianazation of these Ethnic groups is your Own Original research. As for "Amhara" being "Abyssinians"..Go Read Bulatovich, he made a Distinction between "Abyssinians(Amhara)" and the "Tigre". So Amhara = Abyssinians, the rest of these ethnic groups do Not! Abyssinian is a specific term used to describe the Amhara kingdoms from 1270 - 1974(last of the Solomonic dynasty). Are you denying that Amhara are Abyssinians(Habesha)?. I provided evidence and sources that say "Habashat" are different from Tigretes. Your refusal is your own opinion and not based on a reliable source.Otakrem (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, we are talking about people & ethnicity and the relevant experts (with at least a BA degree) in this topic are historians, linguists, archaeologists, biologists or anthropologists but not people with degree or no degree at all specialized in politics or military. Bulatovich is a Russian military officer and is not relevant to the topic we are discussing about. Please provide another reliable source who precisely concluded Habashat=Amhara. If no reliable source is provided clearly stating Habashat=Amhara then Amhara (unless included together with all semitic languages/people) should be removed in an article that says there is a possibility of a people called Habashat migrated from south Arabia/Yemen; and also from an article that talks about Axum Kingdom & Daamat kingdoms in which Amhara language & identity did not exist at the time of their establishment and also disestablishment based on linguists conclusion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, reverted your last edit. Removing Tigre & Tigrinya speaking Eritrean is disrespecting 100s of respected scholars who wrote about Axum & Daamat referring the inhabitants who built it as 'Abyssinian people'. If you beleive excluding them convinces other Wikipedians & Administrators then we can ask their opinion. I read a lot of history books and when historians talk about Axum & Daamat kingdoms they use Abyssinian people but not Tigrayans, Tigrinyas, Tigre or Amhara because there is consensus among scholars that these languages/identities were not present at that time and saying let say Tigrayans to refer kings of Axum is obviously historical distortion. If requested I can list as many us 100 scholars using the term 'Abyssinian' to refer Daamat, Axum, it's kings & inhabitants in general. Excluding Tigrinya speaking Eritreans & Tigre from Abyssinian group is telling them that they were not part of Axum & Daamat and that when these sources use Abyssinian it is not referring them. A simple search for books containing both 'Axum' and 'Abyssinian' keyword comes up with over 19,000 results as can be seen here [128]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Aksum and Damot were Before Abyssinia. You are the one that is Forcing Abyssinian identity on Ancient Aksumites and Tigrinyas/Tigres. Your one source has been critiqued and Countered by Dr. Finneran and other Archaelogists. You are clearly doing Original Research here by Imposing Abyssinian(1270 AD - 1974) identification on Aksumites/Tigretes/Adulites (960 BC - 940 AD) civilizations. I will remove the Tigre and Tigrinya again from this article. This Wikipedia has become a battleground for you to Impose Abyssinian(Habesha) Identity on so many other Ethnic groups. Please stop Imposing this IDentity on every Ethiosemitic. Otakrem (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I did not create this article based on your claim. You may check the history of the article backward many many years and you will see that over 100 wikipedia editors maintained it while including all Ethio-semitic speaking people. Thefore, stop your continued false accusations (making wikipedia a battleground) as if I personally did impose it and instead what you should have been saying was "you wikipedia editors are wrong to impose Abyssinian(Habesha) Identity on all Ethio-semitic". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But you added all of those other Ethnic groups based on their groupings into the Ethiosemitic language. And your claim of a Proto-ethiosemitic language = Habashat(Abyssinians) is Not back by any reliable source. Infact, the sources I provided completely identify the differences between Geez Speakers, Tigretes(Adulites) and Habashats(Abyssinians). I think the removal of Geez, Tigre, and Tigrinya will have to be done. Your reverting based on no reliable sources and a diagram which doesn't identify even the "Habashat" should be removed as well. All ethnic groups are identified but the Habashats(Abyssinians) are this phantom identity that you imposed on the other ethiosemitic language groups. This Original Research on your part. Otakrem (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Daamot, Aksum, Adulis, and Abyssinia(Habashat descendants) Are Not the Same People, Lets Discuss the Timelines and Differences of these Civilizations and Peoples

A Daamot person would not be an Abyssinian, if their kingdom/state is called Daamot?

1. An Aksumite person would not be an Abyssinian, if their kingdom/state is called Aksum?

2. An Adulite person(Tigretes) would not be an Abyssinian, if their kingdom/state is called Adulis?

3. An Abyssinian person would not be called a Daamot person, if their kingdom/state is called Abyssinia?

4. An Abyssinian/Habashat person would not be called an Aksumite/Adulite/Tigretes/Daamot person, if their kingdom/state is called Abyssinia/Habashat?

I provided sources from Dr. Finerran and Dr. Glauser and the Monumentum Adulitanum stone inscriptions. It has been studied by many scholars that "Abyssinia" is a corruption of the word "Habashat" which is clearly defined in the Monumentum Adulitanum inscriptions and defined by Dr. Fineran and Dr. Glauser. What part of any of these discussions, does one lead to believe that "Daamot", "Aksumites", and "Adulites(Tigretes) equals to being Habashat (Abyssinian)?

FYI, Daamot was before Aksum, and Aksum was before Abyssinia in the Timeline sense. The Languages of these civilizations were the following, Daamot (Not Amharic nor Geez), Aksum(Geez), Adulis (Tigretes/Greek/Sabaic), Abyssinia (Amharic..Yekuno Amlak restorer), Habashat (in Yemen, Mahri Language and Old South Arabian). Otakrem (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, There are 100s of scholars who called Axum & Daamat kings & inhabitants as Abyssinian. Let me bring a few scholars quotations: "It bears the name of Aeizana, a sovereign of Abyssinia", "Abyssinia's Axumite king Ezana (also spelled Aezanas) converted to Christianity", 'Throughout the centuries the Abyssinian empire which began in Axum continued to exist", "During the period of late antiquity, the kingdom of Axum, sometimes called Abyssinia and later named Ethiopia", "As a result of this conquest the country which had been called Ethiopia became merged with Abyssinia and the name of the land known as Cush moved southwards from Meroe to Axum." "He was still serving as such when Constantius sent a latter to the "lords" of Abyssinia, Ezana, and Saizana, in 356/7 A.D", "From the first to the eighth century AD, Aksum was the capital of the Abyssinian Empire", "it was 'Ezana who proclaimed Christianity the religion of Abyssinia", "It was during the Aksumite era that the inhabitants of the state began to refer to themselves as Abyssinians and their preeminent leader as the king of kings or emperor." [129] These are just few I could be able to gather from the many 100s of books. You may google those quotations and confirm them, I don't want to bring all links here & bloat this talkpage . Therfore, when this quotations say 'Abyssinians' to the kings of Axum, Daamat and the inhabitants it is also referring Eritrean Tigre & Tigrinya speaking people. Eritrean wikipedia editors maintained Axum & Daamat in the countries article, under formation here Eritrea, which shows there is a consensus among them that kings of Axum are also their own and that they were also part of that kingdom. I will revert your last edit and again don't remove them without requesting others opinion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You are doing Original Research using 1837 written Text to come to your conclusion. Also Hundreds of Scholars have also been Wrong and proven wrong by Present day scholars such as Dr. Finneran and other Current Scholars in Ethiopian Studies, Oromo Studies, and Eritrean Studies. Otakrem (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, your opinion is needed. Otakrem is adding multiple tags (disrupting) [130] in the article because he is against 100s of scholars (present & past scholars from all around the world) use of 'Abyssinian' to refer Daamat-Axum kingdoms/kings/inhabitants and their present-day descendants who existed as Proto language/people at that time (Tigre-Tigray/Tigrinya and Amhara-Argoba-Gafat-Harari-Gurage) being included in the article. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha All that you have brought is Munro-Hayes who was cited by Dr. Finneran and Finneran gave his Expertise analysis since Finneran is an Ethiopian Studies Archaelogical Expert.Otakrem (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources that Identifies Abyssinian ethnic groups From Page 18 of Revolutionary Ethiopia: From Empire to People's Republic [131] states "modern Ethiopian state, a state that ultimately came to incorporate peoples other than the original Abyssinians-the Amharas and Tigreans" Abyssinians =Amharas and Tigrayans(Tigreans) and NOT Eritrean Tigre, Eritrean Tigrinya, Hararis, Gafat, Agews, Argobba..etc. The Author of the Book Professor Edmonds Keller [132] Otakrem (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Page 20 of Politics and the Ethiopian Famine: 1984 - 1985 By Jason W. Clay, Bonnie K. Holcomb [133] states: During major conflict between Amhara and Tigray principalities for supremacy within the Abyssinian kingdom...Many Oromos did not partake in this internal jockeying for power not being Abyssinian or even of Semitic stock. Amhara + Tigrayans = Abyssinians.Otakrem (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Page 13 of The Long Struggle of Eritrea for Independence and Constructive Peace By Lionel Cliffe[134] states: "In the fifteenth century, Medri Bahri was constantly invaded by the rulers of Tigrai(Tigray Province); and Zula and Hirgigo were almost destroyed by the Abyssinians. However, in the same century the local forces repulsed and held the Abyssinians at a frontier on the Mereb River. The most serious thrust into the territory was by Abyssinian-Portoguese allied forces, in 1540-41, but these in the end failed to subdue Medri-Bahri."Otakrem (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

3. Page 110 of Institutional Change in the Horn of Africa: The Allocation of Property By Sandra F. Joireman [135] states: "Amhara-Tigrayan Christians, the ethnic group that encompassed the old nobility, were the heart of Abyssinia, the empire that controlled the highland plateu...until the mid 1800s. The term Abyssinian is currently used to refer to the northern peoples of Ethiopia, of Amhara or Tigrayan ethnicity." Otakrem (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

4. Page 19 of Evil Days: Thirty Years of War and Famine in Ethiopia By Alexander De Waal[136] states "In the region, highland Amhara and Tigray are commonly called "habash", a word with the same derivation." Habash(Abyssinians) = Amhara and Tigrayans.Otakrem (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, the sources you brought above are historians. Can you bring quoatations/citations from linguists concluding on the existence of Amhara language at the time of Axum kingdom. And also provide another historian proofing the existence of Amharic & Tigrinya language before 13th centuary. When you bring these sources then we will conclude that those 100s of scholars use/application of 'Abyssinian' on Daamat-Axum kings & inhabitants is indeed on Amhara & Tigrinya speaking people only. Unless such sources are provided what we can go is with the linguists conclusion (who concluded after many years of research) who stated that there was absolutely no Amhara language in all existence of Axum kingdom and even for most part of Zagwe dyansity. Tigrinya language on the other hand didnot exit during Daamat kingdom time at all but existed after the weakening of Axum kingdom by 500 AD (since no proof of Tigrinya language before 13th centuary their role as a Tigrayan/Tigrinya identity in Axum kingdom is not proofed). As there are many scholars who used/applied the term 'Abyssinian' on Axumites-Daamats there are also many who applied it after 1270 and we do not choose scholars and say those who applied it after 1270 (after the creation of old Amharic language) are right and those who applied it before are wrong, and doing that would be considered politicising/corrupting history. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The question is what is an Abyssinian and the answer is "Amhara and Tigrayans". It doesn't matter if some scholars were lazy and called everyone that looked Black as Abyssinian, it doesn't change the fact, the Abyssinians have been "Amhara and Tigrayans". Also that Abyssinia was something formed after 1270 AD. I can keep bringing more sources showing this. Everything that you have claimed regarding Ethiosemitic language speakers = Abyssinians is DEBUNKED because that is an impossibility. How can a "Abyssinian "ETHNICITY"" exist among groups fighting the Abyssinian Kingdom? Impossible, its illogical.Anyways, that is why I presented all the sources that DEFINED what an Abyssinian is and was. You are more than Free to read the FOUR Sources I provided for more information.Otakrem (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Issues with citations you provided above: The source you claimed written by Lionel Cliffe, which was actually written by Semere Haile, states that James Bruce found out that "Baharenegash was a separate entities, often at war", this is paraphrasing out of context and we went through James Bruce's own book published in 1805 and is contrary to what Smere Haile stated. James Bruce [137][138] says no difference between Enderta, Bahrenegash, Antallow, Begemider & other northern provinces and Henery salt even claims Shewa-Ifat was more separate than those northern provinces including Bahrenegash.[139] — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I made no claims here. Stop Accusing me. I only re-stated what the Sources Said. And We DID NOT GO THROUGH James BRUCES's Book. You are FALSELY CLAIMING We did. I DID NO SUCH THING WITH YOU OR ANYONE on Wikipedia. Do Not Make FALSE CLAIMS on MY Name Here. I do not care what issues you have with someone named Smere Haile either. That is your own Issue. Discuss the Issue here. The Issue is that you Claim Everyone that speaks an Ethiosemitic Language = Abyssinian(Habesha), and I showed you that your Originally-Researched Claim is Proven False with SOURCES!.Otakrem (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, all Ethio-semetic have been included & maintained in this article for many years and the reason for all of them inclusion is simply because linguists & historians have concluded that there was no Amhara language & no proof of Tigrinya language before 13th centuary. For this reason common name 'Abyssinian' (people who spoke proto Semitic languages that broke away into several languages) was preferred by scholars, since saying Amhara & Tigre is historical distortion, when speaking of those ancient states & it's inhabitants. When scholars speak of Roman empire they do not say those Italian-Spaniard-Portuguese did this and that and instead they say Latins because these modern languages were no more present at that time and descended from the extinct old Latin language/people. This is my last response to your issues with the inclusion of all Ethio-semitic in this article and if we continue we will just be bringing what has been discussed over and over again. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, modern-day Italians-Spaniard-Portoguese are not called Roman either. Therefore, modern-day Tigre, Tigrinya should not be called Abyssinian. The only people referred to as Abyssinians historically and culturally are the Amhara - Tigrayans which I provided 5 Sources above written by scholars. As for your "linguist" argument referring to "Proto-semites" = Abyssinians(a medieval name for Habesha) is Outright FALSE! By the 5 Sources provided, I will delete all the languages you added and only add the Amhara-Tigrayan = Abyssinian. You are making an Exceptional Claim here stating "All Ethiosemitic linguistic groups = ABYSSINIANS". Otakrem (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I think it's better we solve this issue from a global context, after all, we are not different from the rest of the world. Yes indeed these modern-day Italians-Spaniards-Portoguese are considered 'Romance people' as can be seen here [140]. And the article for Latin people (named after Latin language of the Roman empire which divided into various Romance languages) includes not only people who speak the Romance languages with white European race but also mainly used to refer native American people/race (which are two completely different races inhabiting two continents with over 20,000 kms apart before it is connected by ships 500 years ago). I beleive the issue you raised is about people whom biologist declared as black African (mixed Afro Asiatic speaking people) people who leave between 100-1000kms. I beleive that there are many scientist, doctor & professor Latinos (native Americans) who did not mind to be called by the language of the Roman empire. I beleive Horn of African people in general somehow contributed directly or indirectly in building the Axum empire. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, modern-day Italians, Spaniards, Portoguese, Romanians are not called "Romance" people, their languages are part of the Romance languages. This is not equivalent to "Abyssinian" = "All Ethiosemitic language speakers". This is your own Original Research. As for Latino, the people of Latin America are called that. Your personal analysis conclusiong of "Abyssinian = All Ethiosemitic Speakers" is Original Research again. Horn of Africa people (including the Axum(Aksumite) Empire) were Not All Abyssinians. Your Generalizing of 100 Ethnic groups into this One Identity called "Abyssinian" is Original Research and Disproven by the sources provided Above.Otakrem (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, if modern-day Italians, Spaniards, Portugese and Romanians are not called "Romance" people then why are they included in this category titled as "Romance peoples" as can be seen here [141]? Latin is the language of Roman empire yet it is also used by ordinary & intellectual 100s of millions of native Americans as an identity name (Latina, Latino & Latin Americans) yet their ancestors have no role in building the Roman Empire, while Horn of Africans in general played great role directly & indirectly in building Axum empire. Where do you think export commodities of Axum came from? It is actually supplied by clan lords of Horn of Africa and Axumites facilitated trades, gave protection for trade routes, set up markets and taxed transactions on imported & exported items while entry/exit at Adulis & Zeila key sea outlets that they controlled (two key ports for resource entry/exit to all the lowland & highland Horn of Africans). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Abyssinians are Not the Origin of the 100 Ethnic Groups of the Horn of Africa. Abyssinians are Not the Origin of the Ethiosemitic Language Speakers. Abyssinians(Amhara/Tigrayans) are a subgroup of the Ethiosemitic language grouping. Also, Romans are to Rome, what Aksumites were to Aksum. Abyssinians are a Medieval collection of Amhara/Tigrayan kingdoms. What you are doing is equivalent to calling Ancient Romans as Italians or Portoguese similarly, you are calling Aksumites as Abyssinians. This completely your own Original Research and the sources I provided above define who or what is an Abyssinian. As for the Romance Language, again you mixing categories of Linguistics with Ethnicity. This elusive "Abyssinian" ethnicity does not go beyond Amhara and Tigrayans, infact its mostly Amhara.Otakrem (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add, that the argument you have been trying to prove EthiopianHabesha amounts to Cultural genocide specifically "Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for: (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;" This constant attempt of yours to turn 100 Different, distinct Ethnic groups in the Horn of Africa into this pseudo-ethnic group(people) called "Abyssinians" is cultural genocide of 100 ethnic groups.Otakrem (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, those are straw mans arguments because i did not say those things you have said in your last two posts. I am just comparing & contrasting Latin usage/application on native Americans (also called Indians after the unrelated East Indians) and 'Romance people' usage with of Abyssinian usage/application. My personal beleif is that all the culture and language of Horn of Africa are a result of integration of peoples for many centuries. It is not possible but if we could all learn the over 80 indigenous languages/cultures of the region would be great because it belongs to all of us since we all are one black (mixed) horn of African people. I say mixed because of biologists conclusion, after studying the DNA, of the regions tribes having both the Caucasoid and black African DNA which shows that the region's inhabitants color being brown is not because they are a separate race like black/brown Indians. I say black people because mixed people are also considered black people & best example is Obama. I want to let you know once again it is not me who applied the name 'Abyssinian' to Axumites it is actually scholars and I have provided a few among 100s of them, and it is better you precisely say those 100s of scholars are wrong. Threfore, can we not repeat this argument again & again because saying "Abyssinain has never been applied on Axumites but only to a collection of Medieval Amhara/Tigrayan kingdoms" will not make it true no matter how many times it has been repeated (based on communists suggestions of true becomes false & false becomes true when told to the society repeatedly). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha stated "For this reason common name 'Abyssinian' (people who spoke proto Semitic languages that broke away into several languages) was preferred by scholars, since saying Amhara & Tigre is historical distortion, when speaking of those ancient states & it's inhabitants" = 'Abyssinian = all Ethiosemitic speakers ancestor"...etc. I provided 5 sources identifying the Abyssinians = Amhara/Tigrayan from actual Experts in Ethiopian Studies and Horn of Africa studies.Otakrem (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Caution on sourcing

Please be more critical and selective with your sourcing on this page. It is not a reliable source just because it is hosted on Google Books. There are several "publishers" which make a living from re-packaging Wikipedia and selling to works as print-on-demand "books". There are others that re-word, but credit Wikipedia as the "source" of all their information. Neither scenario is acceptable to our standards. Kuru (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Tigre people

The Tigre people are also Habesha. I don't understand why they keep getting removed off the list. They are extremely late muslim converts and the mainland ones only converted to Islam in the 19th Century. Resourcer1 (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Resource1 or EthiopianHabesha, lets just call everyone Habesha who speaks a Semitic language? Right? Hebrews, Arabs, Egyptians, Sudanese, Saudis,Syrians, Libyans Berbers,..etc!? Right? this is your entire argument, because all of these people are Semitic speakers just like the Tigre, Tigrinya. This Forced Abyssinization of various Ethnic groups Post-Abyssinia would be funny if isn't for the Forced Amharaization that led to the Wars in the Horn of Africa. Wikipedia can't change how people Identify themselves and the sources outside of Wikipedia including the peoples of Tigre and Tigrinya do not identify themselves as "Habesha = Abyssinian =Amhara". AMhara(Abyssinians) don't even respectfully identify their fellow Abyssinians(Tigrayans) as Tigray instead you call them "Tigre": Page 101 of [142]Otakrem (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If you or EthiopianHabesha keep deleting the entry regarding the Tigrinya and Tigre people's rejection of Abyssinian identity, I will keep adding it back again and again because it is properly source and provides a NPOV to this article which just claims "They (Tigrinya Tigre) are Habesha(AByssinian)" as if it is a widely accepted identity for these people. It is rejected by them and Wikipedia will show this point of view since EthiopianHabesha and yourself want them to be Habesha(Abyssinian) no matter what their self-identification is(Cultural Imperialism and Chauvenism) is you and EthiopianHabesha's agenda here.Otakrem (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Resourcer1 stop Edit warring, Stop Deleting Sourced entries. The Tigre are not Abyssinians, they are not Habesha and their conversion to Islam is not what makes them Non-Abyssinians. They (Tigres) are culturally, linguistically, historically distinct from the Amhara and Tigrayans. Otakrem (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop Deletion of This Sourced Data "The Tigrinya and the Tigre from Eritrea rejected the "Abyssinian" or "Habesha" identification during the Eritrean War for Independence who found the "Habesha" identity as an offensive and oppressive identifier." "found that not all people readily claim Habesha identity, and some, like those who identify with Eritrea or Oromia nationalist efforts find it to be an offensive and oppressive identifier" This other perspective has to be added otherwise your and EthiopianHabesha's POV is falsely presenting "Everyone identifies as Abyssinian(Habesha)" political agenda.Otakrem (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Also read Page 101 of Identity Jilted [143] it states "The war over "Y": Tigrayans call their homeland Tigray and the Amhara called it "Tigre" which, per force, became the official name. The struggle over the name boiled down to basically the letter "Y", although the Tigrinya letter is different. The imposition of the name "Tigre" upon their homeland reminded the people of the Amhara political, economic and cultural hegemony. Resenting the name came to symbolize resisting the Amhara establishment. And "Tigray" became a diacritical signal that showed identity in the Barthian sense....The Tigrayans were given a board with the name "Tigre" on it. To the uproar and dismay of the Amhara officials, they changed the name on the board to "Tigray" and participated in the parade. The penalty was severe: Tigray and its players were banned until and unless they accepted the name "Tigre."" So No "Tigre", "Tigrinya" and "Tigray" are not the same thing nor the Same People. Your Forced Abyssiniazation is just an Amhara-Agenda on Wikipedia. Anyhow, this history of Forcing ethnic identification on people as if they are your Slaves has been fought against hence you have Eritrean War for Independence, Eritrean People's Liberation Front, Tigrayan People's Liberation Front, and you have an independent country called Eritrea. Otakrem (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The case of Romance people/languages (Spanish, Portugese & Italians)

Spanish, Portugese, Italians and other Romance languages/peoples are descendants of the old extinct Latins which was the language of Roman Empire. Eritrean Tigrinya & muslim Tigres as well as Amharic, Argoba, Harari & other Ethiopian Semitic languages are also descendants of the old extinct Ge'ez language (Abyssinian language) which was the language of Kingdom of Aksum as these source here [144] and here [145]] says. That being said if Spanish, Portugese & Italians are put under the category of Romance people (based on language classification of them being under Romance languages) as can be seen here [146] and under Latin people also as can be seen here Latin peoples. Similarly descendants of Ge'ez of Axumites (whom 100s of scholars refer them as Abyssinian language/people) today transformed into various Ethiopian semitic languages and it is with the Romance people model that all Ethiopian Semitic speaking (Abyssinian languages) people are included under this article. Otakrem, If Eritrean Tigrinya & muslim Tigres are not part of this Abyssinian group on the grounds that they leave in two countries then why should we not also remove Spanish & Portuguese people (who also went to war in the past) from Romance people & Latin people category based on your reasoning for exclusion due to political factor (because people leave in several countries)? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Aksumites were not called Abyssinians nor did they refer to themselves as Abyssinians. Daamot people were not Abyssinians(Habashat) and there is no evidence provided by you that they called themselves Abyssinians(Habashat). I've already provided sources above that states that. Monumentum Adulitanum clearly makes a distinction between Habashat(Abyssinians) and Aksumans(Geez/gaze)/Adulite(Tigretas). And saying that every speaker of Ethiosemitic languages = Abyssinian is your own Original research. Abyssinians(1270- 1974) = Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans(territories being Tigray province, Gondar, Parts of Gojjam, and Shewa). Otakrem (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I did provide a source showing Aksumites & Daamat being referred as Abyssinians (Ge'ez people/Ethiopian Proto semitic language) by scholars.[147] Scholars came up with this derivative called 'Abyssinian' either from 'Habashat' (teritory located in Yemen) or from the Arabs use of Habesh/Habeshi to refer mixed black people or from Ethiopian use as Abesha to refer people who look like mixed which ever it is is uncertain & does not matter but what we know for a fact is that those scholars use the term 'Abyssinian' for Ge'ez people of Axumites-Daamats & their semitic speaking descendants who now developed into various 'Abyssinian languages'[148] just as Latin developed into Romance languages (Spanish-Portugese-Italian-Romanian). [149] = [150]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Abyssinian is very specific to the 1270AD - 1974 Solomonic Dynasty kingdom which had Tigray, Gondar, parts of Gojjam, parts of Shewa. So are you saying the Habashat language is Habashinya? There is too much Original Research going on in your claims here EthiopianHabesha. You are using mislabeled or generalizations to impose a Habashat ethnicity upon disparate groups within the Horn of Africa.Otakrem (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Abyssinian Languages do not form an ethnological class" Language Grouping Does not Equal Unitary Ethnic Group(Abyssinian)

Page 204 of Seventeenth Meeting ; Held At Oxford In June 1847: 16 [151]

The naming of these languages Tigre(which was meant to be Tigrinya), Amharic, Argobba, Gafat, etc as "Abyssinian" language was due to Geographical convention ie region and not Ethnological. The term "Abyssinian" does not represent an ethnicity as it currently is shown in this article. Nor is it a panethnicity. At best Abyssinia is an empire of two linguistic groups (Amhara and Tigrayans) with the periphery people of the Gurage, Tigrinyas, Gafats, Agaws, Oromos..etc. The way this current article is presented and promoted, it presents itas being some "panethnicity" of which it is NOT! This article should either be deleted or modified to show what it is trying to state.Otakrem (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, the source you provided says Ge'ez is the original Abyssinian language, the language of the old capital Axum & new capital Gondar. The source also continues to state that the southern ones more specifically Amhara-Argoba-Gafat-Harari are more close to African ones than to Abyssinian language (Ge'ez). Also the source says Tigré has generally been considered to contain the greatest portion of the old Ethiopic or the Ge'ez of Axum. Therfore, if any ethnic group should be excluded from what linguists classify as Abyssinian languages (ethiosemitic) firstly what should be excluded is the southern ones including Amharic. As for the issue with the use of 'ethnicity' under this article (which is included by other editors & maintained for many years): if that becomes an issue and there is suggestion to change it to linguistic-group then I may also have an issue (based on same logic forwarded by you) with the use of 'ethnicity' under Oromo article and why we also should not change it to linguistic-group. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the source which says "Abyssinian languages do not form an ethnological class, since of ..Nevertheless, they do form a geographical class, and as such it is convenient to treat them." That means Abyssinians were called that due to geography and not Ethnicity. This article creates the impression that all of these ethnicities = Unitary Abyssinian ethnicgroup, which is false.Otakrem (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, what you have provided is one writers opinion while many writers indicates possibility of Abyssinian (proto semitic speaking people) migration & settlement (to talk about migration-settlement, as in saying black people migrated and settled in America, is to talk about ethnicity not geography) and this people later divided into other Semitic languages/peoples. What did you/the writer mean by "geographical class"? The writer defined Abyssinia geographically being extending upto Harar language (as he said it Harrur) and he said: "it is spoken in the south east of Abyssinia in the eastern parts of Efat". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

All that you have done is cherrypick sources to agree with your pro-Amhara(Abyssinian)-Bias. You referr to Tigrinyas, Tigres, and Tigrayans as "Tigre" which is an Amharic pronounciation. This Amhara-Biased agenda of yours is thoroughly noted.Otakrem (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Abyssinian Article is being Transformed into a Geez People article (Which was deleted) "Proto-Ethiosemitic" = Abyssinian people is original research and synthesis

[152] EthiopianHabesha has been very active in transforming this "Abyssinian" article into a Geez People article. This article needs to either be Deleted or Heavily Modified.

Almost all Languages in Wikipedia articles are referenced from http://glottolog.org/ and this site I believe classified the whole world's languages based on 1000s of professional linguists research. And based on this site's classification as can be clearly seen here http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/amha1245 the most closest language for Amharic is Argoba and Harari not Tigringa. If you believe Harari is not part of Ethiopian Semitic languages you must quote a professional linguist supporting your claim, not history because even German/Korean speaking people leave in various nation/history. Since Ge'ez is the oldest semetic language to be spoken in the Horn region (evidences show that Ge'ez was spoken 2,900 years ago) and based on linguists listing languages by their proximity some might suggest that all ethio-semetic languages originated from Ge'ez and some other professional Historians/linguists/archologists might disagree to this claim and as wikipedians we need to write both opinions based on reliable sources and if you find any professional person clearly stating your point of view you are most welcome to add them in the article. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

   Actually, the burden of proof is not upon @Zekenyan: to prove a negative, it's upon you to prove that it's true. Extraordinary claims require verification on Wikipedia, and you are using WP:Synthesis to prove a contentious claim. That's not what Wikipedia is for: an encyclopaedia merely documents what's already widely known to be true, not conducting WP:Original research. OnionRing (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC) "

EthiopianHabesha was told to prove his position and he thus far has cherrypicked sources to come to this conclusion of Proto-Ethiosemitic = Abyssinian People. This is Original Researcha and Synthesis on his part. Otakrem (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, once again let me inform you to stop engaging in personal attack and instead engage in discussion by supporting your claims with reliable sources, like saying according to X & Y scholar etc etc. That comment you brought is about my issues with another user in another article and not about this article. For your info my issues with that user was settled after engaging with him with a civilized discussion and he even agreed to the inclusion of the content which he opposed initially as can be seen here [153]. If you believe Abyssinian Article is being transformed into a Ge'ez People article then be precise & be specific on how it is transformed. All claims I came up is based on relevant experts conclusion to the topic we are discussing about not liberation fronts (politicians which are irrelevant experts to archaeology, linguist, Race-DNA) as you have been basing your POV through out our discussion in various talk pages. If we are talking about phisics we need to quote Albert Einestein not Donald Trump and if we talk about ethnography/people then the right experts are scholars like linguist, biologist, archaeologists etc but not Donald Trump, Isayas, Meles, Mengistu, Lencho, DERG, OLF or TPLF. You are in violation of this rule Wikipedia:Advocacy. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Stop promoting your POV and Stop Removing the Sourced entry that I inserted in this Article. Your Bias Against Eritrean Tigrinya/Tigre Self-Determination is duly noted. "Biologist" seriously, you are pulling a Stretch here, what Biologist has confirmed a "Abyssinian" DNA? This is an outrageous Ludicrious ORIGINAL Research Talking point that you have come up with. You are transforming this article into a Geez People article just as you did in the Geez Article. You are making this claim, unless you are Denying that you are? If so, then you are editting based on an agenda which is clearly a Pro-Amhara(Abyssinian) domination agenda. Nothing personal here, just observing that you are constantly deleting sourced entry which counters your Non-neutral point of view.

The Amhara-Biased Version of Abyssinian identification is a NON-Neutral point of view. I already backed the Statement with RELIABLE SOURCES! The more you Delete the entry, the more a Disruptive Editor you are showing yourself to be.Otakrem (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Abyssinian delineation

Your edits are becoming highly disruptive, racist and political. If you want to spread some of your own opinionated biases, I suggest you go on another site, this is not a forum and you are highly starting to look like someone fixated on politics that just came from one of these forums. Your viewpoint is obvious and to say you are not from the region is merely the truth. Take a look at what this page was like before you arrived, it's simply turned into chaos and I don't understand what makes you think you can carry on. Thank you. Resourcer1 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You should follow Talkpage guidelines. Your adding a discussion about me is a violation of Talkpage Guidelines.Otakrem (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I just had a look at what you're alluding to above, and I actually have to agree with EthiopianHabesha and Resourcer1. That stuff on Siddi Bantus and other non-Abyssinians is indeed completely WP:IRRELEVANT and WP:POLEMICal. However, per the WP:TRIBE policy, you are certainly correct that an ethnic group's autonym must be respected. The WP:POINTy stuff is not the way to go about things, though. Instead, italicize a brief paragraph here on the talk page for consideration, and the appropriate wording can be worked it out from there. Soupforone (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For the RECORD: EthiopianHabesha added the Siddi Bantus and other non-Abyssinian section called "Habesha Identity on Mixed and Black People in General"' See Diff [154], therefore your disagreement with that should be guided at EthiopianHabesha. And EthiopianHabesha can respond to why he/she added that section. See my reasonings below for adding the Criticism of Abyssinian Identity which was added prior to EthiopianHabesha's section addition.Otakrem (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring that Resourcer1's Talkpage "Otakrem - disruptive edit" is in violation of Talkpage guidelines, I am responding to your statement here for clarity reasons. See below the Criticism of the Abyssinian Identity which is backed by reliable sources. The issue I have is if you truly observe and read this Abyssinian article, it is a self-aggrandizing rendition of a "Amhara/Tigrayan" ethnicities history and powerplay. The fact that the Eritrean Tigrinya and Tigre history and current position is not even Represented here, makes this is a POV article. The assignment of Abyssinian identity based on "Ethiosemitic linguistics" is completely Rejected by Linguists. "Abyssinian" is a geographical identity of which the Eritrean Biher-Tigrinya (with their Medri Bahri territory and distinction from Abyssinia) and the Eritrean Tigre people (with their complete Rejection of the Geez script, Islamic religion, geographically Outside of Abyssinia(Amhara/Tigrayan)polity) makes this Abyssinian article making the claim they (Biher-Tigrinya and Tigre are geographical Abyssinians) absolute absurdity, in what world is the Black man enslaved by the White man referred to as a White man? Subjugated people are not referred to as their Oppressors, of which historically the Abyssinians have been to the Eritrean Tigrinya and Tigre per the Eritrean War for Independence in recent times,as for Resourcer1 I completely reject his Abyssiniazation of Eritrean Tigrinya/Tigres(ancedotal identification by his person is not a reliable source). See Criticism of the Abyssinian Identity below, if we are going to state that the Eritrean Tigrinya and Tigre are Abyssinians today when NO SUCH Geographical Entity called Abyssinia EXISTS anymore, then the Criticism of the Abyssinian Identity is valid. In addition, the argument that Abyssinian = Any Ethiosemitic Speaker is Clearly False per the Linguistic Definitions and Ethiopian Semitic languages article. EthiopianHabesha attempted to add Abyssinian identifier to "Geez" which is not backed by multiple Linguistic studies, highly contested and in the talkpage it was determined. So, ethno-linguistic identifier is not a valid argument for "abyssinian" identity on "Tigrinyas" and "Tigres". Abyssinian is a Geographical identifier of which the Tigrinyas and the Tigres are Outside of, Subjugation doesnt equate to acquired or accepted Identity especially when such Ethnic groups Violently Rejected the Geographical identifier of Abyssinian whether it was during Pre-Italian Colonization and Post-Ethiopian annexation, it all translates to a Peoples who have Rejected the Abyssinian Identity.

My Recommendations

1. Delete the Tigrinyas and the Tigre people from this Abyssinian people article

2. If no deletion, then let the Criticism of the Abyssinian Identity (see Below) be added to this article

Otherwise, all this article will show is a contradiction of Wikipedia guidelines ie WP:TRIBE, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (as the Amhara-Tigrayan narrative is the only one presented here) Because claiming a Tigrinyas and Tigre people people are Abyssinian when the historical records show that they(Tigrinyas, Tigre people) have been Fighting against Abyssinians is utter absurdity (my apologies for the hyperbole but it can't go without being said).

So, What is the solution to this problem?Otakrem (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

""Criticism of the Abyssinian Identity In a counterbalance to the claim that the term "Habesha"(Abyssinian) includes other ethnic groups beside the Amhara people and Tigrayans regardless of being speakers of Cushitic or Semitic languages, this section examines the rejection of the Abyssinian identity in modern times and historically. According to Samuel Johnson, "modern-day Ethiopians and Eritreans, especially those who are not Habesha, reject any focus on the so-called Semitic past, seeing it as part of promoting a racist and arrogant culture that oppressed other African peoples.". Johnson continues to state "the Habesha have been invested in asserting that their sometimes lighter complexion and more "European" features are the mark of superiour ancestry. Nor that the Habesha relegated the Jewish Beta-Israel people to the role of artisans, the foreign Muslims to the role of merchants, and the southern (and often darker) peoples to the role of slaves." Johnson also states that the "ethnic identity 'Habesha' is itself a claim and like all ethnicities, is constructed, hybrid, and impermanent. Outsiders can become part of the dominant Habesha culture by adopting its language, dress, and religion, and numerous individuals who did not see themselves as born Habesha became Habesha." [42] [43]

Modern day ethnic groups in the region such as the Oromo people and other Cushitic speaking peoples reject the "Abyssinian identity". In addition, Semitic speaking ethnic groups such as the Tigrinya and the Tigre from Eritrea rejected the "Abyssinian" or "Habesha" identification during the Eritrean War for Independence who found the "Habesha" identity as an offensive and oppressive identifier."[44][45][46][47][48] The view by Ethiopians and Eritreans who reject the Abyssinian identity is the tie between the "Abyssinian identity" and the preeminent ethnic group of the Abyssinians, the Amhara people.[49][50]

The Oromo people in their rejection of the Abyssinian nationalism, "according to Trimingham, the Oromo in Wallo not only kept their identity but also "reinforced their independence by the adoption of Islam" He goes on to add that the Oromo accepted Islam "as bulwark against being swamped by Abyssinian nationalism".[51][52] Also Trimingham stated: "It was the religion hostile to that of the Amharic[sic] race who lorded it over them.....Amharic Christianity was fixed and sterile. The result was that as it had become more and more fossilized to embody the spirit and form of Ethiopian nationalism, it was regarded by pagan tribes as the tribal religion of their enemies(Amhara people)"[53]

Historically, Tigrinyas rejected Abyssinian rule as was the case when the Akele Guzay, a subdivision of the Eritrean Tigrinyas did not consider the "Tigrayans or Abyssinian people rulers as legitimate chiefs. Accordingly, Their sense of nationality was strong enough".[54][55] Eritrean Tigrinyas Ras Woldemichael Solomon fought against Abyssinian people occupation of his homeland Hamasien in the Eritrea in 1877. He had a 7,000 strong army equipped with 700 Remington rifles which fought against Abyssinian Tigrayans like Ras Alula and Atsi(Emperor) Yohannes IV.[56][57]

According to Robert Gale Woolbert, "during the 18th and early 19th centuries, the traditional Abyssinian kingdoms of "Tigre(Tigrai), Amhara, Godjam, and Shoa were in chaos."[58][59] Peoples out side of these kingdoms were not considered Abyssinians but subjects which paid tribute, for example, at times the Medri Bahri would pay tribute. However at times, the Bahrnegash would go to war against the Abyssinians, specifically the Tigrayans warlords such as Ras Alula. The Scottish traveler James Bruce reported in 1770 that Medri Bahri was a distinct political entity from Abyssinia, noting that the two territories were frequently in conflict. The Bahre-Nagassi ("Kings of the Sea") alternately fought with or against the Abyssinians and the neighbouring Muslim Adal Sultanate depending on the geopolitical circumstances. Medri Bahri was thus part of the Christian resistance against Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi of Adal's forces, but later joined the Adalite states and the Ottoman Empire front against Abyssinia in 1572. That 16th century also marked the arrival of the Ottomans, who began making inroads in the Red Sea area.[60]"" Otakrem (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to also add the following from this source I found Page 738 [155] states: "..the historic Abyssinians(namely Amhara and Tigray people)...(Levine 1974, 8).".

From page 739, it states "The core regions for launching imperial expansion were in historic Abyssinia, which included the regions Tigray, Begemeder, Gojam, Wollo, and Northern Shawa....Between the 12th and 13th centuries, the Abyssinian state had slowly expanded from Tigray to the region of Wollo and Northern Shawa". "It was also in the name of the "civilizing mission" that Amharanization - the policy of spreading the Amharic language as well as the Amhara culture, way of life, and beliefs- was imposed on the conquered people of the south."

From page 743, "The Abyssinian elites also share the historical myth that their nation had existed for 3,000 years, a claim that would make Ethiopia one of the oldest nations on Earth. The irony of this myth is that Ethiopia still lacks nationals consensus on the nature of the state and nation." ..It goes on to say "the city state of Harrar were at similar stages...", a distinction with the Abyssinians(Amhara/Tigrayans). So how are "Harraris" = Abyssinians when they are historically different?

Finally, from Page 743, "The history of the Amhara and Tigrayan people has been taught as the history of Ethiopia throughout the Ethiopian educational system." Abyssinian identity is strictly tied with Amhara/Tigrayan history/definitions hence a POV based on two Ethnic groups against 99 Ethnic groups in the Horn of Africa region.Otakrem (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

In continuation with this questioning, the [156] has a section called [157] "Validity of ethnic group status" for the Amhara ethnic group. Doing a comparison of the Amhara people page and this Abyssinian people article, it seems to have copied the Amhara people and meshed some of the Tigrayans page, with a sprinkle of the Ethiopian Empire page = equaling this article called Abyssinian people...so where is the Tigrinyas, Tigre people connection besides being subjugated or at war with these Amhara(Abyssinian people)? I am of the opinion of either deletion of this article for its Synthesis Original Research or removing the Questionable Portions of this article?Otakrem (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem First of all, no I do not agree that any of your latest edits need to be added Otakrem. Right now I know you are an ethnic Eritrean that has some sort of issue with Amhara people in general, hence your latest edits on the Amhara people page. First of all, no, not the entire ethnic group rejects the term "Habesha", and definitely not the Biher-Tigrinya. This is mainly the case with adults (those over-obsessed with politics) or the elderly. I have already told you I am one myself, and I can tell you for sure this word is still in our vocabulary and it is how we refer to all the groups listed apart from sometimes the Tigre people. It just is. First hand experience, if we do bump into one of each other on the street, we either say the informal word for "hello" which is the same in both languages, or the question asked is "Are you Habesha". All sides will respond yes, it's not up for discussion. Secondly, the Oromo peoples rejection does not need to be talked about, they have never been referred to as Habesha people or call themselves as such. Thirdly, you are just picking out information here and there and pasting it on the page, it's hardly of any relevance and all edits seem to be from one-sided political people. And lastly, for your information, no one, even when speaking English refers to themselves as "Abyssinian": not the Amhara, not the Tigrayans, not Biher-Tigrinya, not the Gurage etc. Resourcer1 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone I do not agree with anything he has lately added and has started to add on other ethnic groups pages. I either want this page to be taken down, or it needs to be locked for everyone, there is enough information as it is. He has at times posted information from the site called "madote", which is a highly political site that just posts nonsense, hence why I believe he is going to carry on doing as much as he can to this page and insulting groups such as the Amhara people and Tigrayans. This page needs fixing as soon as possible. Resourcer1 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You, Resourcer1 still have not provided any Wikipedia approved response to my request for NPOV. From your own responses above here, any Eritrean Biher-Tigrinya can come to conclusion that you are infact a Tigrayan ethnic masquerading as a Eritrean Tigrinyas trying to give merit to your anecodatl "unreliable source" of "we Eritrean Biher-Tigrinya refer to ourselves as Habesha"...Nonsense. You are Ethiopian and Not Eritrean by any stretch of the imagination. And "Madote" being political, its a website yes, it has some sources but it isn't the Source that I used for the Criticism of Abyssinian Identity. You didn't even look at the sources cited in the Criticism of Abyssinian Identity. The Title itself Offended your Ethiopian-AMhara Biased POV to the point that you have resorted to Name-calling me on this TALKPAGE!. Soupforone has reverted what I added because he Disagreed with what EthiopianHabesha added. EthiopianHabesha was doing SLICK DISRUPTIVE EDITING by Adding what he knew Soupforone would Delete and Tie what I added with it. I have clearly showing what has Transpired. You Resourcer1 = EthiopianHabesha = Same Agenda! Abyssinian Article = Deleted Geez People Article! nothing different here.Otakrem2 (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Abyssinian people Ethno-linguistic people like Iranian peoples (Kurds? VS Persians) and Latin peoples (Italians? VS Spaniards)

So far the consensus for Abyssinian people article is based on grouping people with Ethno-linguistic factors of which languages classification is the primary factor with politics not being one of them. The article is created to equal with other ethno-linguistic people such as Romance People, [158] who speak the Romance language and Iranian peoples who speak Iranian languages and now Otakrem wants to politicise the article by adding stories related to liberation front struggle, nationalist opinion and their criticisms (which is like adding a section for kurdish struggle with Iran republic under Iranian peoples article that is dedicated for ethno-linguistic factors of which politic is not a factor and to tell Kurdishs propaganda on the name Iran and their criticism on being grouped under Iranian ethno-linguistic people). The article for Iranian peoples and Romance People is dedicated to study peoples language relation and common ancestry as the name Ethno-linguistic indicates. The article should not be about nationalism, to talk about wars, hostility that exists between people, story of liberation fronts struggle, list nationalist heroes who fought for separation, border conflicts and dedicate the article to tell how the ethno-linguistic people are criticised/viewed by their neighbours by even dedicating several paragraphs just to explain that. Such kind of story is not found under the article for Romance People and Iranian peoples leave alone creating a section. For these reasons I have been deleting his addition whom is swearing to continue adding such kind of information until the article is about only Amhara & Amharised Tigrayans [159] which equals insisting strongly the article for Latin people to be about only Spanish & Portugese people because they are the most numerous ones (representing 85% of all Latin people/Romance people and primarly because 'Latin People' is mainly associated with these two of these peoples), or saying out of the 230 million Iranian peoples the majority ones who leave in Republic of Iran numbering 75 million are the only Iranian peoples & also because the name 'Iran' is offensive and oppressive for the rest of the 160 million people (who are citizens of Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikstan etc) whom are regarded by scholars as Iranian people because they all speak various Iranian languages that separated from what linguists call Proto-Iranian. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

DELETE THIS ENTIRE ABYSSINIAN ARTICLE This entire Article is nothing but Amhara-Tigrayan Ethnic Identification enforced on Non-Amhara/Tigrayan ethnicities in the Horn of Africa. Every person and historical person mentioned in this article is Amhara or Tigrayan. Otakrem2 (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So you've decided to make a new account now?Otakrem2? Just because it hasn't gone your way, it doesn't mean the page is going to be deleted. I will file a report again if you carry on editing without consensus and adding unnecessary information. Resourcer1 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

My way , your way? No, its about the Right way. You appear to be in the Wrong Way. You couldn't discuss without resorting to this path you took. That is fine. I doubt that you are Eritrean but that doesn't matter here. This article as it reads now is Strictly Based on Amhara/Tigrayan people's inputs(Your People). Otakrem2 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem2 Go to an online forum if you want to behave in such a way. You "doubt" I am Eritrean. You can doubt as much as you like, I don't really care. You've made an extra two accounts now so I have reported you.Resourcer1 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

STOP DELETING MY COMMENTS RESOURCER1 Otakrem2 (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Fellas, please note that per WP:TALK, headers must be neutral and templates and see also links do not belong on the talkspace. Also try and keep comments impersonal and concise. Anyway, Otakrem, I apologize for thinking that irrelevant, polemical stuff on the Bantus was your text. I also agree that noting that the Bahre-Nagassi's empire was separate from Abyssinia makes sense. However, as Resourcer1 explained, the claim that the current Abyssinians reject any focus on the so-called Semitic past is absurd. If anything, Abyssinians are as proud as ever about this Ge'ez heritage. As regards the Tigre, you certainly have a point. Unlike in Amharic and Tigrinya, the Cushitic substrate in the Tigre language is Beja, which suggests that the Tigre originally spoke Beja rather than Agaw like the Amhara [160]. Their paternal DNA lineages also strongly point to this (Tigre are largely haplogroup E1b1b-V32 carriers like most Beja). Therefore, a brief note on the Bahre-Nagassi in the history area and one on the various linguistic substrates in the language area should do it. Please italicize here on the talk page the appropriate wording for this. Soupforone (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Habesh

Derivations of the root "Habesh" that are unrelated to actual Abyssinians are irrelevant here per WP:IRRELEVANT and WP:SYNTHESIS. Also, no barelinks and WP:CITEKILL. The same goes for "ferenj" and the Turkish Habeshtan polity, which was centered in Suakin in Sudan, not Abyssinia [161]. Soupforone (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)