Jump to content

Talk:Habesha peoples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Habesha)

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

[edit]

Change Hegira to Hijrah اخسجہ (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation

[edit]

በኢትዮጵያ ቴሌኮሙኒኬሽን ኮርፖሬሽን ትዕዛዝ የኢትዮ ቴሌኮም ደንበኞችን ይዘት መሰረዝ ይቁም:: ኢንተርኔት ለሁሉም የአለም አቀፍ እና የኢትዮጵያ ህዝቦች ደንበኞቻችን ግሎባል ደቡብ የኢንተርኔት አገልግሎት አቅራቢዎችን (አይኤስፒዎችን) የሚዘጋ የኢንተርኔት በር ጠባቂ በምዕራቡ አለም አይዘጋቸውም። / By Order of the Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation: Stop deleting content of Ethio Telecom Customers. The Internet is for all to use World Wide and the Ethiopian people, our customers will not be silenced by Western gatekeeper of the internet who block Global South Internet Service Providers (ISPs). // 196.191.61.46 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that you are making have been discussed at length for multiple years. No one is censoring Ethio Telecom customers. You've got to build consensus on the Talk page. You have thus far not been able to do that. Pathawi (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really the ISP, that's nonsensical. El_C 19:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, almost certainly not. The idea that it would matter if it were is a little amusing. But to the sham Ethio Telecom: This stuff is going to get fairly quickly reverted every single time if you don't go thru the collective process of Wikipedia in good faith. It's just not going to stick for more than a few minutes. It may be the case that Wikipedia just isn't the kind of project that you want it to be: If you want it to advocate a particular position, it's not a very good tool for that. Take care. Pathawi (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as this page is concerned, at least, they can't because I just set its protection not to expire as a logged WP:HORN WP:ACDS action (diff). And I have no qualms in increasing it further to WP:ECP, if need be.
I, however, don't quite understand what you mean when you write The idea that it would matter if it was is a little amusing. If there was actual evidence to suggest that this was so, it'd be grounds for an immediate WP:INDEFBLOCK and WP:SITEBAN, and likely also a global ban, too (i.e. across all Wikimedia Foundation projects). And it would be noteworthy and maybe even newsworthy. I'd be obliged to report it to WP:T&S and/or the Arbitration Committee, and so on.
Of course it isn't that. It's just a poorly-executed intimidation tactic. But it would matter if it were so, is my point. I don't even know if we'll need further sanctions. Unless the IP/s spam this talk page incessantly or go on to disrupt other pages, there's really nothing else to do. HTH. El_C 01:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what I meant was that other editors wouldn't simply step aside & allow unsourced edits & fabricated sources if the message really had been from Ethio Telecom. If we had believed the claim, it wouldn't have led to the desired result: The intimidation wouldn't be intimidating. (I don't mean that as a jibe against Ethio Telecom: It would be the same for AT&T or China Mobile.) Edit: & thank you, El_C, for the increased protection: This disruptive editing issue has been going on for quite a while. Pathawi (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Of course, no concessions to intimidation. What I'm saying is that there's no way this would be the official position of a major Ethiopian state-owned company. Doesn't matter if the user in question is some random employee of theirs (unlikely) misrepresenting their own company's official stance. It's just a person that doesn't fully grasp how the internet works and how major organizations operate in the real world, and I'm really not trying to belittle them for that, even if it was an underhanded tactic. Just trying to explain.

So, for example, I'm obliged to report edits from IPs belonging to parts of the United States Capitol Complex to the Foundation, which I have done. I believe the latest was from the House of Reps, specifically. But it obviously would be absurd to suggest that whomever intern made that edit (or even in the in the unlikely event it was a higher up, even the Rep themselves somehow) would be the stance of some official organ of the US gov't wrt Wikipedia (i.e. making demands for their edits to stand for whatever reason, etc.). That would be absurd.

And while we've had some more extreme or extreme-leaning 'news' organizations of sizable circulation directly agitate on Wikipedia (not by directly editing from their offices so much as sending their followers to do their bidding), which I've also dealt with in the past — this mostly concerned themselves, their own image, or whatever raison d'etre socio-political topic happened to occupy them at that time. But an Ethiopian state-owned enterprise advocating for some random user, here, on this page? It's a total non sequitur, obviously.

Anyway, I ramble, but just some context about Wikipedia and claims, real or imagined, of edits by organizations of scope. Cheers! El_C 02:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap (at the risk of picking at an old wound): I believe Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/June describes the basic issue surrounding this article for more than two years. Hoaeter et al have never answered the questions I posed there (15 March 2020), and there really was no way forward without doing so. (They've long since had bigger hurdles to clear.) Everything that's happened since then is "lather, rinse and repeat," at least until December 2021 when the editor's focus evidently shifted to Ethiopian Protestantism and Evangelicalism. Hence El_C's semi-protection of four other articles, related to that area, earlier this week (thanks!). After those articles' semi-protection was in place, this article became a target again. See also: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hoaeter.
P.S. I've just removed a large talk page section that one of the sockpuppets placed here. It's part of their m.o. to place the source code of their preferred version here on this talk page (and I've also seen this occur off-wiki) and, given that they're WP:3X, it doesn't serve any useful purpose (instead, it clutters up this page, and the already-messed-up archives when it gets moved there). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habesha definition doesn't match actual usage

[edit]

Why does this specify habesha is only between Asmara and Addis Abeba? I don't see a source for that. And it's not part of the oral tradition of the word.

And why does this exclude other Ethio-semetic langauge speakers? For example, Gurage, Hariri are habesha people and self-identify as such. 2601:645:C180:3770:AC4A:E8A:33E4:A9BF (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the specific mention of Asmara and Addis Ababa. That seems strange. The change was made in late January by Dawit S Gondaria. From the above conversation it would appear to be derived from an areal description in Gérard Prunier & Éloi Ficquet's Understanding Contemporary Ethiopia. My read of the original source is that this is meant to be a general characterisation of the highlands area, rather than a limiting boundary. I think it might be unhelpful here, but I doubt it's meant to be understood the way you've read it.
I think a key issue is that there is no singular thing that can be characterised as 'actual usage': There are multiple competing definitions, which is why so many editors committed to particular points of view are repeatedly obsessing over modifying that lead paragraph to match their preferred usage. Were there one actual usage, this wouldn't be an issue. The characterisation as given here says that one particular usage remains common today, then notes that various other uses vary in inclusivity & exclusivity. If you have specific questions about the justification for the present wording, then a good next step would be to read prior discussions on this Talk page. One recent conversation is above at Talk:Habesha_peoples#Gerard_Prunier_source_and_restrictive_use. Pathawi (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IP as @Pathawi: suggested, read the prior discussion, and if you are disagreement, present sources and engage with editors. The lead itself is fine, area between Addis and Asmara (i.e central and northern highlands of Ethiopia, and highlands of Eritrea) is where most Habesha's (Habesha according to the definition of most sources are Amharas, Tigray and Tigrinya) live, and it's culture is the strongest (Orthodox Christianity, food, clothes, music and other customs). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Orthodox Christian peoples”

[edit]

The line should properly read “Oriental Orthodox” or “Miaphysite”, as “Orthodox Christian” actually means Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox. GabrielAugustine86 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could mean either, but you're right that in this context, it does not mean both.  Done I have changed the verbiage. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oldest inscriptions

[edit]

Where is evidence that oldest inscriptions are on Yemen, no proof of such they are dated to the same time as those found in horn. 149.90.75.126 (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The right question for Wikipedia isn't 'where is the evidence' but rather 'what is the source'. You're right, tho: For a long time the assumption was that Epigraphic South Arabian appeared in Yemen long before the it was used in Africa. More recent research suggests that the appearances were very close together in time. Pathawi (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Habesha_peoples&oldid=1219920560"