Talk:Amhara people

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hcobb (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 14 September 2023 (The current conflict). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit warring WP:EW

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

@Petra0922 This dispute is not over FYI. If you continue to ignore my replies on my talkpage, I will interpret that silence as you no longer objecting to the edit you reverted. محرر البوق (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@محرر البوق The previous editor added adequate sources and I also proposed additinoal supporting reference to the content. Please note that you persistently reverted edits for the third time while others disagree, and it is not clear why you made inaccurate edit summary when making the third revert claiming consenus was reached. Please note that this edit will be reverted back to the version where discussion was opened.Petra0922 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922 I never claimed that consensus was reached. You stopped responding to my replies for whatever reason, this article says I can do that. WP:DNRNC Also can you please stop saying that this statement is supported by “adequate” sources, I already explained to you why those sources are NOT adequate. Using a tertiary source to make a very controversial statement is against Wikipedia guidelines. WP:TERTIARYNOT I was always ready to discuss and find a consensus on this article hence I feel like your just looking for problems where there isn’t any محرر البوق (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This similar note was also left on @محرر البوق talk page as well. @محرر البوق, are you seriously citing the “isolated study” of Wood's ambitious and ignorant "work" that completely dismisses the existence of nations and their core values? The argument and tendency to trash home “grown” authentic sources while presenting poorly researched Western materials as a standard and benchmark and taking them as a caliber for right or wrong becomes a series problem in some of editing processes. My suggestion is to open a new discussion on reliability of local literary works and manuscripts that are crucial to Ethiopian society. I believe, your argument seems to weigh on- literary works published by a certain non-Western country isn’t reliable unless the West verifies it. See WP:NOENG. I will copy this same message to the talk page for recording purposes. Petra0922 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922 We are not going to discuss about the reliability of "local literary works" because according to Wikipedia policy using a primary source without a reliable secondary source backing it up is not prohibited (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE) and like I said before the Kebra Nagast does not state that the Amhara ethnicity are the successors to Axum, so that would be essentiality a waste of time. You argue that I'm dismissing non western sources, which is not true, I am dismissing primary sources that have not been supported by any reliable authority. You have completely misunderstood my argument. What I'd like to remind you is the current sources are not sufficient enough to justify including that controversial statement, see WP:HISTIC and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. One of the sources does not state that Amharas are the heirs to Axum and the other 2 are tertiary sources (for disputed statements you can't use tertiary sources exclusively). You are straight up ignoring this because your so insistent to keep that statement up for whatever reason. محرر البوق (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Engaging in such debate is optional but i see the relevance of discussing foreign/Ethiopian sources (WP:NOENG) here or in similar talk pages. This is not the first time it came up and will continue to show up.Petra0922 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922 What do you mean by Ethiopian/foreign sources? Do you mean secondary works published by reputable Ethiopian scholars? Or do you mean medieval-era documents like the Kebra Nagaset? محرر البوق (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@محرر البوق, my take is that the scope and timeline need to be reasonable, and diverse enough, although this can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Again the serious watch out is framing ancient foreign publications and all literary works as irrelevant. Petra0922 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922 Well that's just Wikipedia policy. You shouldn't cite primary works for disputed statements like that. Because it's prohibited by Wikipedia, I don't think such a discussion would be relevant. The problem is that the sources that are currently cited are not sufficient enough to justify including such a statement. I'm not saying that the Kebra Nagast is irrelevant, but per WP:HISTIC you should only use reliable scholarly work محرر البوق (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922 I am done with your delaying tactics, either provide a reliable source for that statement or I will remove it again. محرر البوق (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What tactic you are referring to? This doesn’t help at all. It seems this discussion consists of two topics: 1) a sort of debating sources for content added by another editor which you had a conflict with. The article reflects that you already added the Dubious tag for it which potentially invites other editors to look into the subject. This is the area where you reverted contents three times and now you are insisting for the fourth time on top of the tags, right?
2) is a question of identifying sources of foreign origins which seems to be an important topic, to establish/identify sources from Ethiopia as primary and secondary. What is raised here is only one book, Kebre Negast but I haven’t seen any consensus on the general criteria for overall source identification related to materials originating from Ethiopia. That is why it is important to keep this discussion open- so other editors, preferably, those with background on the subject of the material participate.
Although the question of determining the specific foreign sources stays open, I want to correct you that Primary sources can be used carefully, on a case-by-case basis: WP:USEPRIMARY.Petra0922 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This tactic is called WP:STONEWALLING. And I've already explained that the sources that are being cited are not sufficient enough to justify including that controversial statement, please see WP:HISTIC. The Kebra Negast is a primary source, so it is against wikipedia policy to include it without conjecture with another secondary source (WP:HISTIP). Perhaps we should request a third opinion (WP:3O) to finally resolve this dispute, whatever that opinion is, I will accept. محرر البوق (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922 محرر البوق (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a warning, you need to stop attacking other editors, presenting baseless accusations and starting another conflict. You do realize that Wikipedia editors are volunteers and majority aren’t full time? The key point here is it is important to engage/invite more SME participants to debate on sources derived from foreign materials (exactly what is happening for the debated content) and establish a consensus for determining /identifying Ethiopian sources that are primary and secondary, noting that all the sources you and Dawit had been discussing are derived from foreign sources.Petra0922 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read a lot about primary, secondary and tertiary sources here. Taking about primary ones now: where do we use the Kebra Nagast as a direct source in the article? As in blah blah blah (statement in Wikivoice)[1] with reference: 1.^ Kebra Nagast? This would be pretty much a no-go for historical topics. We don't prune data from primary sources and present them at face value to our readers. We cite from secondary scholarly sources that critically evaluate these texts. Scholarship. Modern scholarship. Not "western" scholarship. (There is a big difference between let's say Muhmammad is the messenger of God[1], 1.^ The Holy Qur'an Red XN and The Qur'an describes Muhmammad as the messenger of God[1], 1.^ Secondary source. Green tickY) @Petra0922:, if you are in doubt about it, you can bring it to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.
But still: do we actually do this in the current version of the article? محرر البوق, you have deplored the use of the Kebra Nagast as a primary source: help me out, as I can't find it. If you refer to the passage Many centuries later, the religious paramountcy of the Amhara received official sanction in the final redaction of the Kebra Negast, the Ethiopian national epic. It reaffirmed Aksum as the spiritual source of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Solomonic Dynasty of the Amhara as Aksum's rightful heir, that's not what we call citing a primary source. The Kebra Negast is mentioned in-text based on secondary sources, and this is fine in principle. (It would be perfectly fine, weren't it for the unencyclopedic peacock wording especially in the last sentence which drifts into Wikivoice. It is an obivous fact that the Kebra Nagast served as an important vehicle to construe the legitimacy of the Amhara-speaking Solomonic Dynasty as a successor of Aksum, but this doesn't mean that we can ascribe objective factuality to it based on the text alone, and also on further historical records which were produced in the same context. But that's another story.) –Austronesier (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you comment @Austronesier. But the reason why I explained to @Petra0922 that the Kebra Nagast was not a sufficient source is because I believed that he was proposing to add the Kebra Nagast as a reference for that statement, as he previously expressed the need for adding more sources. (Admittedly, I could be completely mistaken in interpreting his statements). That source you just cited, The Peopling of Africa, is an encyclopedia of various ethnic groups in Africa, and hence a tertiary source. I did not believe that it was good enough to justify including that statement due to the lack of scholarly sources (WP:HSC). I talked about this a lot more on my talk page with Petra. محرر البوق (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier, I guess this discussion now could go somewhere. I would say it is best to leave the Kebra Nagast discussion aside for now- there are still mentions of the book by scholarly works as the translation of others and a collection of prior works which I think begs the question weather the book could be a secondary source by itself. That is where SMEs may help and need a closer look at the material, which i plan to do as well. Focusing to the key point, the currently blocked editor (DSG, above) who had conflicts with @محرر البوق added the legitimacy of the Semitics people (Amhara + Tigray) as heirs of the Aksumite kingdom and provided sources which I believe are adequate although I also discovered an additional source and shared on محرر البوق talk page. In addition, numerous scholarly sources support the topic of Amhara and Tigray as heirs and that clearly present the controversial and exclusionary nature of legitimacy for Cushitic people (Agew) as descendants of Aksum, but not to the Semitic groups.
Here are the publications that align with the existing content and already added sources:
  1. Federal Research Division. Library of Congress: The Tigray and Amhara, who saw themselves as heirs to Aksum, denied the Zagwe any share in that heritage and viewed the Zagwe as usurpers.: [1]
  2. Moreover, for the Amhara dynasty, the most popular religious book of tabot Christianity is the Psalms of David, because the Amhara dynasty is said to have descended from Solomon, and as such, monarchs were claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the kings of Aksum.:[2]
  3. Danver literally that the Amhara people are considered the heirs of Axumite Empire….: [3]
  4. Amharas are a Semitic-speaking ethnic group indigenous to Ethiopia that trace their ancestry to the founders of the Empire of Aksum: St. Petersburg Journal of African Studies. Russia, Izd-vo Evropeĭskogo doma, St. Petersburg Association of Scientists, 1993. (p.97);
    Shack, William A.. The Central Ethiopians, Amhara, Tigriňa and Related Peoples: North Eastern Africa Part IV. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2017.
  5. …continuous strife with the Agaw of central Ethiopia, often disastrous to Aksum and its Amhara and Tegre heirs: [4]
  6. …continuous strife with the Agaw of central Ethiopia, often disastrous to Aksum and its Amhara and Tegre heirs: [5]
  7. Over the following centuries, however, the Christian successors to the Aksumite kingdom gradually moved the political centres of their realms southwards., which is the current day Amhara and generally south of Ethiopia: [6]
  8. These Axumite descendants developed a separate identity known as Amhara:[7]
  9. Aksum itself was in rapid decline and the political capital was transferred to the southeast, which is Amhara. [8]
  10. Unlike the other Semitic Aksum heirs (Amhara + Tigray}, the Agew were the ones discussed as illegitimate although this changed around the 7th / 8th century onward: the dynasts, called the Zagwe, have been identified as ethnically Agäw and speakers of a Cushitic language, unlike their Semitic-speaking Aksumite predecessors. …. due to these different cultural and regional origins, the Zagwe have been characterized as a usurper dynasty, illegitimate heirs of the Aksumite rulers: [9]
  11. ..Tigrais still live in the area of the ancient Aksum kingdom, the Amharas and Gurages have expanded inland: [10]
  12. Although the portion of Syrian introducing Christianity to the Axum kingdom is questionable, this source also discusses both Amhara and Tigray as descendants of Akumites, ..when Syrian missionaries brought Christianity to Aksumites and to their descendants, the Tigrais and the Amharas: [11]
  13. The resulting economic downturn resulted in Aksum drastically reducing in size and losing its status as capital by AD 800. During the Post-Aksumite period authority shifted to the south…., which is the current date Amhara: [12].
    Overall, unless محرر البوق is pushing for some "isolated works", majority of the sources discuss the Aksumite kingdom as Semitic (mainly Amhara + Gurage + Tigray), and the Zagwe dynasty as Cushitic (mainly Agew). Petra0922 (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Petra0922 There’s a difference between being the descendants vs being the heirs/inheritors of a people or a polity, I already explained this to you on my talk page. We’re not discussing if Amharas are the descendants of Aksumites, but we’re talking about whenever the statement “Amharas are the heirs of Aksum” is correct. Only one out of the eight sources you cited explicitly state that Amharas are the heirs of Aksum. This is called WP:SYNTH. محرر البوق (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@محرر البوق, both heir and descendants are stated in the sources unless you don't want to read. Sources show both are the semitic legitimate heirs of Akumites but the Amhara continued the same kingdom taking it to the south and central part of Ethiopia for several centuries. Besides, Tigray is a present-day name given to a collective of ethnic groups living in the modern-day Tigray region. Based on these sources, I see the importance of correcting Wikipedia contents that describe the Tigray ethnic groups as sole heirs and if they specifically exclude Amhara. Petra0922 (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922, like I said before. Only one out of the 8 sources you’ve cited explicitly state that Amharas are the heirs of Aksum. You cannot combine multiple sources together to state a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. This is called WP:SYNTH and is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. That source says BOTH Amhara and Tigray are successors to the Aksumites, if you are going to mention that then do no omit Tigray (or gurage or other semitic groups mentioned). Tigray is also an ethnic group, not everyone who lives in Tigray is a “Tigray”, by your logic Amhara is a name given to multiple ethnic groups that live in the present day Amhara region, which is preposterous, nevertheless I’m not sure why you made that claim anyways. The current statement in the article implies that Amharas are the sole successors to Aksum by omitting other ethnic groups even though they are mentioned in the sources, which I believe violates WP:NPOV. Especially if you consider Edward Ullendorff’s opinion that Tigrayans are the successors to Aksum (the most reliable scholar who explicitly talked about this) محرر البوق (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are sufficient to keep as well as expand the content or section related of Semitics are heirs of Axum. At this stage it is obvious that your are pushing for: 1) WP:TE and 2) WP:POV. Tigray isnt an ethnic group rather a name of a place that describes a group of various ethnicities such as Irob, Kunama and many others.... Petra0922 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922 No they're not. Only one out of the eight sources you cited say that Amharas are the heirs of Aksum, and "countrystudies.us" is not a reliable source, please find some actual scholarly sources. The rest are just original research (please read WP:SYNTH) because they do not explicitly state that Amhara are the heirs of Aksum. When we're talking about "Tigray", we are referring to the Tigrayan ethnic group, not the Tigray region and everyone inside of it. I'm not gonna play semantics with you. محرر البوق (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a discussion with yourself, and need to close since direct and scholarly sources such as the one pulled out from the Library of Congress are already given ([13]). Additional publications ([14] and [15]) also literally discuss the topic specifying Amhara as the legitimate heirs of Aksum. See the additional sources given above, 1 to 13. In a different note, who is "We"? You cant do WP:POV here.Petra0922 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922, we don’t need to close this discussion because we have not found consensus yet. I noticed that you are attempting to argue that Amharic speakers plus other Ethio-Semitic speakers are the “descendants of the Aksumites”, I initially didn’t want to argue about this to avoid prolonging this discussion, however this theory is outdated and largely been abandoned. Linguistic studies shows that Amharic and other South Ethio-semitic languages such as Gurage do not come from the Aksumites (who were North Ethio-Semitic speakers), these two groups diverged in around 2000 BCE[16] Amharic is not a descendant of Ge’ez but rather they share a similar ancestor according to Robert Hetzron [17], Amharas aren’t the descendants of the Aksumites, they were most likely a peripheral peoples of Aksum according to Ronald Oliver[18]. Infact according to Girma Demeke in his book “the origin of Amharic” (page 133-138), Amharas only came into contact with the Aksumites somewhere after the 7th century AD. Amharic is descended from a mixture of proto Ethio-Semitic and a indigenous highland east Cushitic language and significantly differs from Ge’ez and other north ethio-semitic languages according to Aaron Butts[19](pg 18). I could add significantly more scholarly sources but it seems like this isn’t some "isolated works", and instead the predominant view among most academics. This is already discussed in the “ethnogensis” section of this article, so there is no reason to add two separate origin theories in the article that contradict each other. Secondly, the library of congress source (we definitely should not take some area handbook over modern scholarship but whatever), says both Amharas and Tigrayans are the heirs of Aksum, if you are going to add that source and Levine’s source, you should include Tigrayans unless you wanna violate the WP:NPOV. محرر البوق (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

To help to get this discussion to a more advanced level: I question that being "heirs" of an ancient civilization or empire is an objective concept that can be stated as such in WP:Wikivoice. Dynasties, ethnicities etc. might claim such a role for themselves, but this is essentially an ideological construct. Yes, Amhara-dominated Abyssinia construed a position of heirdom of Aksum, and manifested this in hagiographies, genealogies and epics. This fact is easily sourced. But this a construed legacy, not an objective one. Much of it was produced retroactively (in the same way as e.g. Jesus from Nazareth is described as a descendant of David in the Gospels to strengthen his legitimacy by construing a fulfilment of ancient prophecies). Likewise, linguistic continuity from Ge'ez to Tigrinya does not make Tigrayans "heirs of Aksum". Obviously, these things matter for present-day ethnic groups (or rather, certain factions within them) since "ownership" of a glorious past can be instrumentalized to elevate the status of one's ethnic group. But we don't portray history in encyclopedic text from the emic perspective. Unless, of course, we explicitly flag it as emic: we can certainly say that group A or group B have claimed or still claim for themselves the role of "Aksum's rightful heir". But we won't state this as an objective fact. –Austronesier (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922, this discussion is not going to be closed until consensus is found, no need to be so impatient. The sources you cited are not sufficient aswell, the new source you added[20] cites page 52-54 of J. Spencer Trimingham's "Islam in Ethiopia" for that statement, I checked the reference that it was citing[21] (35/148) and J. Spencer Trimingham does not state that the Amharas are the heirs of Axum, infact he doesn't even mention Amharas but rather refers to the Semitic speaking inhabitants of Ethiopia as "Abyssinians" to differentiate them from the Cushitic-speaking Agaw of Zagwe. The other source[22] talks about the "Amhara dynasty" which is obviously referring to the Solomonic Dynasty, and not the entire Amhara ethnicity. The source from the Library of Congress is apart of a collection of various handbooks,[23] I'm not sure how one would be able to provide a WP:INTEXT of this source, snice there is no reputable scholar to whom it could be attributed to. The rest of the sources you cited are WP:SYNTH nonsense and not worth looking into. Amharas and other south ethio-semitic speakers being the descendants of the Aksumites is a largely outdated theory according to modern linguistic research (not saying that this means that tigringa speakers are the "heirs of aksum" but rather Petra should stop propagating this theory).
Before you start looking for more questionable references for me to verify (which are abundant) I would like to remind you that you have admitted that there is no academic consensus on Amharas being the heirs of Aksum and that such statement is disputed[24], hence you should read WP:YESPOV if you are still insistent on keeping that statement. @Austronesier also brought up a very good argument that you should respond to before attempting to plug your ears and close this discussion. I also brought this up with Dawit, but "Amhara people are considered heirs of the Aksumsite Empire" is largely an opinion (a disputed one), and should not be presented as factual, per Wikipedia policy. محرر البوق (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@محرر البوق, plenty of strong and solid scholarly sources already given in this talk page that discuss Amhara as heir as well as a specific and arguably sole ethnic group that continued the Aksumite kingdom until modern days. If needed a long list of sources can be cited to also demonstrate that Amhara legitimate descendants of Axum still live in our present days although the point isn’t to discuss the modern day political aspect. Most of these sources directly/literally state the content in Amhara people article and further confirm that Amhara re-gain heir after Zagwie (Zagwe); and ruled until 1974 with no mention of specific ethnicity from Tigray region who ruled after Zagwe except one ruler, Emperor Yohannes. In addition, there is no source that confirms the existence of a specific Tigryan ethnic group (see above for source)- rather it is a name derived (it adapted some Amharic linguistic elements), and a common description constructed to refer to a collection of ethnic groups in the area.
Again, based on these sources it is not obvious which ethnic group in the constructed Tigray umbrella are actual heir of Aksum. As for continuing this discussion, sure, but as @Austronesier mentioned, the current content of the article, Amhara as heir is well-sourced. However, this discussion cannot be dragged forever to satisfy your WP:POV.Petra0922 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what you said was already previously addressed or outside the scope of that edit. I feel like we're just running around in circles here. We might need to request a dispute resolution, also Austronesier never said that Amharas were the heirs. محرر البوق (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making such inaccurate and general statements (such as "already addressed") that could mislead other editors instead of providing scholarly sourced counterarguments specific to the ethnic group/s who were/were the legitimate heirs of Aksum for Tigray. You need to concisely discuss that. If you are confused, re-read Austronesier's reply and the source I already provided today. Petra0922 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said that the claim that "Amharas are the heirs of Aksum" is a disputed statement, and the sources you have provided for that are questionable at best. Please read WP:YESPOV again. I've already addressed those sources you've cited multiple times in this thread, I don't really feeling like repeating myself. Edward Ullendorff believes that contemporary Tigrayans and Tigrinya speakers to be the successors of the Aksumites in his book "The Ethiopians".(pg 35 and 121), meaning that this heir claim is disputed. You can keep throwing sources around, but the reality is that claim is largely an opinion and not an objective fact, this is a textbook example of an WP:NPOV violation. محرر البوق (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier. I can agree with your take on the concept of "heirs" and possible impact on present day socio-politics. It warrants more discussion, as mentioned before involving participants/SMEs from WP:WikiProject History, WP:WikiProject Law, and WP:WikiProject Ethiopia. Just to clarify & add some perspective, Ge'ez is the mother of Amharic language as well. On the other hand, the term Tigray itself isnt found in Ge'ez language, and per this and other sources, “Tigray” is derived from Amharic elements. Source in this article (Tigray) also discusses that it was possibly derived from "Tigrētai" which holds a different meaning. The source I incorporated right here explains it further: Tigrinya derives by adaptation (cf. the English tigrinya or the French tigrigna). It is formed from a suffix -əñña used to indicate nouns of languages (cf. ənglizəñña for English, aräbəñña for Arabic, etc.), taken into borrowed from Amharic and then incorporated into the morphological system of Tigrinya, supplanting an older formation with the suffix -ay, from which the form derives təgray, now in disuse..Petra0922 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ge'ez is not the mother language of Amharic or Tigrinya, but it is significantly more related to Triginya then Amharic[25] I already previously explained this[26]. محرر البوق (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Again, your synthesis on Ge'ez==> more Tigrigna==> modern-day Tigray==>Aksum heir... is a tenuous argument. That is why it is important to focus on reputable scholarly sources which clearly state that without a doubt Amhara are discussed as 1) legitimate heir 2), not only they are heirs but also they continued the kingdom until recently. Petra0922 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that this makes Tigrayans the heirs of Aksum. This is an entirely different argument. محرر البوق (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2023

The source for the statement "The Amhara people are considered heirs of the Aksumsite Empire" is [48] (Steven Danver, Native Peoples of the World", p.15).

- Change the sentence "Amharas are a Semitic-speaking ethnic group which is indigenous to Ethiopia" to "Amharas are a Semitic-speaking ethnic group indigenous to Ethiopia that trace their ancestry to the founders of the Empire of Aksum. (Sources: St. Petersburg Journal of African Studies. Russia, Izd-vo Evropeĭskogo doma, St. Petersburg Association of Scientists, 1993. (p.97); Shack, William A.. The Central Ethiopians, Amhara, Tigriňa and Related Peoples: North Eastern Africa Part IV. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2017.

- Add Melaku Worede (the Ethiopian scientist) under "notable Amhara people" (he's the son of well-known Amhara nobles) 2601:140:9481:F7A0:614B:337D:8887:9571 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source has been discussed here (Danver literally stated that the Amhara people are considered the heirs of Axumite Empire). The other two sources you listed also support the content in the article and will be added to the list of sources provided in this talk page as well (including Danver et al...). Let me try to find links for the last two.Petra0922 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
. A third editor confirmed existence of more than adequete sources for the disputed content and said, Yes, Amhara-dominated Abyssinia construed a position of heirdom of Aksum, and manifested this in hagiographies, genealogies and epics. This fact is easily sourced.. Edits were made accordingly to the existing content in the article. Petra0922 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have made it crystal clear that I object to using phrases like "the Amhara as Aksum's rightful heir" etc. in Wikivoice. This is based on the perspective from Amhara hagiography, but it's not something of an objective nature. Several sources are explicit about the fact that this is a claim since the times of the Solomonic dynasty. –Austronesier (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems similar terminologies ("authentic carriers", "successors"...) have already been used in articles that mention Aksum and Tigrayans as its "heirs." What do you think the better approch be to help resolving any possible ambiguity. Sorces repeatedly and directly stated the term although its current day implication is unclear.Petra0922 (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Amhara-dominated Abyssinia construed a position of heirdom of Aksum". It's the "construed" part that is easily sourced, and shouldn't be left out. –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly interesting perspective! I think considering the controversies in Aksum's succession, it may not be a bad idea to initiate similar discussions in the related articles where Tigray is claimed as the default heir. Studies of the sources raise many questions on the modern-day Tigray versus the legitimate ancient ethnic group/s while signifying, in my understanding the position of the Amhara in the Aksumite Kingdom. Petra0922 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

How are the there 170k Amharas in israel? This is the amount of the Falasha(Beta israel)ethnic group. There is no source whatsoever that say the amount of Amhara in Israel. Ldyey272 (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current conflict

Where is the current conflict covered? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66496137 Hcobb (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amhara_people&oldid=1175385185"