Jump to content

Talk:Tigrayans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sennaitgebremariam (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 20 February 2017 (→‎Vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pov issue. Undue weight giving to Tigrinyas

undue weight giving to Tigrinyas when article is about Tigrayans. Request to remove Tigrinyas information from Tigrayans and add it to Tigrinyas article.CrumpPlint (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Tigrayans of the Ethiopian highlands are distinct from the Biher-Tigrinya of the Eritrean highlands. I've moved the Tigrinya ethnonym & kingdom there. Soupforone (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soupforone Since when are they distinct? Since the past year you have basically made an entire new ethnic group. You source that it is an 'ethnolinguistic' group so they should both belong on one page. There is no difference between the two groups apart from historical kingdoms being different. The culture, practices, religion, language etc. is all the same. The page is just misinforming and confusing. Surprising how there is a page for 'Arabs' if all these tiny differences actually mattered. There is a page for Arabs and several sub-pages for the Arab peoples of different countries, the same should be applied here as these are also an ethnolinguistic group.Resourcer1 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tigrinya and Tigray are indeed ethnolinguistically the same (perhaps you mean Tigre, who are a different ethnic group with a different language). What I meant by distinct was that there is a geographical, kingdom and nomenclature distinction. Soupforone (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups can speak similar language but still be different ethnic groups. Ethnicity is not strictly language based. Tigrayans and Tigrinyas are not the same ethnic group per their own WP:TRIBE and reliable sources(RS) such as James Bruce who noted a distinction between "Medri Bahri (Baharnagash)" and Tigray Proper(Abyssinia).CrumpPlint (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CrumpPlint Soupforone I understand that they are ethnolinguistically the same, but I am just wondering why the article has been split then. The only main difference between the two groups like CrumpPlint said is in history they had different empires. But the same thing can be applied to Amhara's, Arabs etc. Like Arabs, there should be a parent article and then it should either branch off within the page or the two should be given two different pages. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels for example. Resourcer1 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnolinguistically, Abyssinian is the progenitor analogue. Soupforone (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Language is indeed distinct from ethnicity, as are kingdoms. There may or may not be a correlation depending on whether or not the speakers descend from the original speech community of a given language, or if they instead descend from peoples who adopted that language at some point in antiquity (i.e., a language shift). Soupforone (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Tigrayans" and "Tigrinyas" are two separate ethnic groups based on several factors or characteristics: [1]. For example, they are separate in geography, clan identification, marriage, historical kingdoms, languages spoken other than Tigrinya, their self-identification with respect to each other, their myths. Reading the sources and the different modern day identifiers such as "Tigrinyas as Eritrean and different from Ethiopians due to their Medri Bahri" and "Tigrayans as Ethiopians with direct link to Abyssinia(1270-1974)". We can't keep using the Aksumite past as sole point of definition or use Geez as a sole point of definition of these ethnic groups. And the Arab argument doesn't work with neither groups as Tigrinya isn't a lingua franca spoken outside of Eritrea or Ethiopia by non-ethnic members. There is more to ethnic identification than just language. In the source provided, it is interesting there are "Monolingual Enemies(or separate ethnic groups who speak one language)" and then there is the counter argument of the "Multilinguage Singular Ethnic group who identifies as One ethnic group altho speaking muliple languages". The Tigrayans and Tigrinyas are by definition in the "Monolingual Enemies" group.CrumpPlint (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but Tigrinya and Tigray do share actual ancestors. Soupforone (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So do Tigre, Tigrinya, Tigrayans. As do Tigrayans, Amhara, Oromo share common ancestors yet they all have separate ethnicity identification. I guess the point of disagreement is why a need to homogenize "Tigrayans" and "Tigrinyas" into a monolith "ethnic group" based on language, when there are varieties within each that makes them distinct. Using border people as the reason for the one ethnicity narrative could also be used to say the Amhara and Tigrayans are one ethnicity based on the Wolkayet people [2]. Similarly here, using ancient connections (ie Aksum which Amhara, Tigre, Tigrayans, Tigrinyas, etc all share) to conclude that these modern ethnic groups are the same One ethnic group is Original research and WP:SYNTH. Again there is enough reliable sources and two ethnic groups own self-identification to give them separate ethnic articles.CrumpPlint (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tigrinya and Tigray share recent Tigrinya-speaking ancestors. Nonetheless, those forebears weren't called Tigrayans, so point taken. Soupforone (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source that states that the modern day people who identify as Tigrayan and the people that identify as Tigrinya had a proto-Tigrinya-speaking ancestor? For all we know, neither of these ethnic groups were originally Tigrinya-speaking people but adopted the language via assimilation and adaptation.CrumpPlint (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't indicate that Tigrinya and Tigray had a proto-Tigrinya-speaking ancestor, but rather recent Tigrinya-speaking ancestors. The latter is a shallower timescale. Soupforone (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are saying that "Tigrayans" and "Tigrinyas" recent meaning within 200 years were "Tigrinya-speaking people". But were they the same ethnic group within 200 years? An actual reliable source stating that they are the same ethnic group would be helpful. I've only found sources stating they are distinct or view each other as different, and then ancedotal sources such as social media, opinion pieces, and general members of these groups self-identifying as different ethnic groups.CrumpPlint (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Africanus, who lived in the 15th/16th century contemporaneously with the Abyssinian Empire, indicated that Tigremahon was inhabited by the Abyssinians and was among the vassal kingdoms to the Prete Ianni (Ethiopian emperor) [3]. Tigremahon encompassed the area between the Red Sea littoral in modern Eritrea and old Tigray in the Axumite region [4]. Soupforone (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page 37-38 [5] talks about Barnagasso (Baharnagash [Medri Bahri]) which is distinct from Tigremahon (I'm guessing means Tigray). It also states the Peter Lanni (Peter John Prester John IEmperor of Abyssinia) is landlocked on page 37. This source shows two different kingdoms and no mention that the Tigremahon(Tigray) and the Barnagasso (Tigrinyas/Tigre/Saho) are the same ethnicity. Also, Tigremahon is stated to lie between Marabo(Merab River, Nilus River, Red Sea and kingdom of Angote (Agaw?) while Barnagasso is the Red Sea, Saukin and to Angote, either way Barnagasso and Tigremahon are distinct.CrumpPlint (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tigremahon was in the 16th century located between the river Marabo, Nile, the Red Sea and the Angote kingdom. Angote was therefore its southern terminus, and the Red Sea was its northeastern terminus. Soupforone (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barngasso (Baharnagash(Medri Bahri)) terminus was Red Sea. I don't read anything that says "Tigremahon" had territory on the Red Sea such as a "Port" or something. Barnagasso(Baharnagash) has a port on the Isel of Masua(Massawa). Sorry this source is confusing and doesn't really give a good idea of territories however it gives a good Distinction between Barnagasso(Medri Bahri) and Tigremahon which tells me that the Tigrinya and Tigrayans were distinct kingdoms/people from each other.CrumpPlint (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leo Africanus indicates that Barnagasso was flanked to the south by the Abagni river. Ergo, Tigremahon was not its southern boundary. Soupforone (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abagni river is? We need an actual map not only this book with wording that has to be translated to their english names. Barnagasso is distinct geographically from Tigremahon, therefore the people in both kingdoms are different from each other "ethnically" if we are to also conclude the Tigremahon are ethnically different from the Angote kingdom.CrumpPlint (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, kingdoms may or may consist of one ancestral heritage. Soupforone (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone, the conclusion of ethnic 1 = ethnic 2 based on your source is just not there. Issue is using language solely as determinant for ethnicity can be applied to Amhara and Tigrayans too (ie Geez). Many ethnic groups in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Djbouti, Somalia share similarities in customs, food, religions, ways of life, etc. In this case, the language factor is the sole "criteria" to make the claim of ethnolinguistic ethnic sameneness. On the contrary, the sources make it clear these two ethnicities are distinct from each other. The paradigm of "they are the same" without a reliable source and then argue against the reliable sources that they say "they are distinct" is not logical.CrumpPlint (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggested using language solely as determinant for ethnicity, nor does Leo Africanus. Soupforone (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone, duly noted. Then what criteria are we using here? CrumpPlint (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoupforoneCrumpPlint Which piece of text states the differences between these supposed two different ethnic groups. Apart from both having different historical kingdoms in the past, I do not see any differences still. There is no marriage differences as CrumpPlint stated, there is no language differences, no geographical differences (both inhabit the same area, no gaps), no cuisine differences, no clothing differences, no genetic differences etc. The only valid difference I have seen listed is different historical kingdoms.Resourcer1 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Resourcer1 Resourcer1, I never stated anything that you are claiming that I stated. Please do not make false statements about what I said. You must've ignored the fact, Geographically they are different: Barnagasso is located in modern day Eritrea while Tigremahon is modern day Tigray. Your other claims are without evidence. If we are to use your rational then one could say Oromo and Tigrayan are the same ethnic group because of "lack of evidence" for them "not to be different".CrumpPlint (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CrumpPlint You stated " For example, they are separate in geography, clan identification, marriage, historical kingdoms, languages spoken other than Tigrinya, their self-identification with respect to each other, their myths." Your evidence of there being a separate kingdom does not justify why they need to be classed as two different ethnic groups. Even Tigray wasn't entirely one kingdom in it's history but several kingdoms instead. Go look up the culture of Tigrigna speakers and differentiate amongst yourself then, me being raised by parents each of Eritrean and Ethiopian Tigrinya ancestry is enough for me to tell you the differences. We can split up X number of ethnic groups using your argument about how a different kingdom=different ethnic group. Your Oromo-Tigrayan argument is a very weak one and the differences are staring at you in the face and are very clear.Resourcer1 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoupforoneCrumpPlint The bottom line is, both of you have not provided enough evidence to label them as different ‘'ethnic‘' groups. These kingdom differences do not mean anything. There were so many different kingdoms present in the current Amhara region but I have yet to see someone try to split this ethnic group up into different components. This 'geographically they are different' is nonsense too. The land they inhabit has no gaps in-between, rather one large area. Again all you have provided is two different kingdoms. The only suggestion I will make if you want to keep both the Tigrayan article and the Biher-Tigrinya article, is to change the title from Tigrinyas->Biher Tigrinya. Soupforone you have already agreed to this before, the term Tigrinya to denote the people is incorrect for starters, it is either Biher Tigrinya or Kebesa. Resourcer1 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC) CrumpPlint[reply]

"Based on a shared culture, language and contingent territories, the TPLF gained the support of the Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front (EPLF)" Says one source.Resourcer1 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Biher-Tigrinya" is already used as an alternative name to "Tigrinyas" in the Tigrinyas article. Tigrinyas is used there because that is more commonly used or known. Tigrayans are not commonly called "Tigrinyas" by their own nom or other tribes. The two articles already exist and all I was doing was removing duplications in the Tigrayans article.CrumpPlint (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CrumpPlint 'Tigrinyas' are not called that amongst their own too, again I will know. This is a term that just came about with writers based off of how the English language works, exactly how Tigrayans came about. I am saying the title should be Kebessa or Biher Tigrinya, that is how we are meant to be called as an ethnic group. Not Tigrinyas. Tigrinyas denotes anyone that speaks the Tigrinya language, and that is what the suffix inya/igna means in our language. I'm the one who even changed the Tigrinya name of Tigrayans on this article, otherwise again it would have been a mistake. If you want to keep it correct it needs to be changed to Kebesa's/Biher Tigrinya's. We simply do not say "Are you Tigrinya" either in our language, that sounds awfully wrong and is not even a term to begin with, Tigrinya is simply the language, that is it. This has been explained a countless number of times on archived talk pages too but nothing has been done about it, the title needs to be changed.Resourcer1 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resourcer, open a discussion in the Tigrinyas article if you want a name change there? I think this discussion here has come to a standstill due to lack of information. fair enough?CrumpPlint (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
talk Okay that's better. Will do soonResourcer1 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH WP:OR issue with the dubious-discuss tagged statements

From sources used to add the statements creates a vague notion that Baharnagash(Medri Bahri/Biher-Tigrinyas)) were property of Tigray and Tigrayans, but the sources contradict the statements themselves:

James Bruce p. 229 "At Masuah, on the coast of the Red Sea, begins an imaginary division of Abyssinia into two, which is rather a division of language than strictly to be understood as territorial. The first division is called Tigre, between the Red Sea and the river Tacazze. Between that river and the Nile, westward, where it bounds the Galla, it is called Amhara. But whatever convenience there may be from this division, there is neither geographical nor historical precision in it, for there are many little provinces included in the first that do not belong to Tigre; and, in the second division, or Amhara, that which gives the name is but a very small part of it.

Masuah, ancient times was one of the principal places of residence of the Baharnagash, who, when he was not there himself, constantly left his deputy or lieutenant. In summer, he resided for several months in the island of Dahalac, then accounted part of his territory. ....

Tigre is the next province of Abyssinia, as well for greatness as riches, power, dignity, and nearest Masuah. It is bounded by the territory of the Baharnagash, that is, by the river Mareb on th east, and the Tacasse upon the west."[6]

James Bruce p. 176 "They next passed the Mareb, which is the boundary between Tigre and the Baharnagash, on this side."[7] CrumpPlint (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Sennaitgebremariam You need to stop vandalising this page and discuss your edits on the talk page otherwise I will file a report and let moderators deal with this. You have been told the JoshuaProject cannot be used as a source for population and speaking the language does not necessarily mean they are Tigrayan. As for the images, it does not state on the guidelines that it cannot be used.Resourcer1 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the reasons for not adding CHILDREN images, one could speak of pedophilia--Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tigrayans&oldid=766499582"