From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Tigray-Tigrinya people)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Africa / Eritrea (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eritrea.
WikiProject Ethiopia / History and politics department / People and culture department (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by History and politics department (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by People and culture department (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.



please we have to Learn from Afar people we have Ethiopian Afar Eritrean Afar Djibouti Afar.

Tigray is not only the name of the please or the Region it is also the name of the Ethnic group Ethiopian Tigray and  Eritrean Tigray Just like Afar and Kunama .it is quit easy. 
 Belay HAile Selassie    

The history of this page was destroyed due to some unfortunate circumstances with the name disagreement, so here is the history of the page before Merhawie's move: History of Tigray people.

Name of the ethnicity[edit]

I believe "Tigray" is only used for the region, "Tigrean" or "Tigrayan" for the people. -- MikeGasser (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am by no means knowledgeable on this group of people. I simply created the article because the ragion and the language articles referred to an ethnic group of "Tigrays". Please move the content to a more correctly titled page. //Big Adamsky 04:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned at Talk:Tigrinya language, an earlier version of this article was called "Tigrawot," but the fact that no one could verify the use of the term (other than as a neologism) led to the article's deletion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's keep at least one article — however minuscule — dedicated to focusing on the ethnic group (and/or speech community) until such a time as a more (politically) correct ethnonym can be agreed upon. =] //Big Adamsky 08:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the following articles from Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins:
He states that the most correct title would be Tigray-Tigrinya. He also continues in another article to say:
The two groups are often referred to together under the combined name of Tigray-Tigrinya. They are often treated as two sub-groups of one ethnicity. The growing animosity and war of recent years has lead to a greater contrast in the two groups and has led to a greater distinction between their distinct ethnicities.
For these reasons I believe that this page name should be change to 'Tigray-Tigrinya'.
Merhawie 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Though it might be worded betterly, A search for "Tigray-Tigrinya" online only nets 138 results (with the quotations), some of which are actually "Tigray/Tigrinya" or "Tigray, Tigrinya," and others which are parts of larger words ("Tigray-Tigrinya-Beja" comes up). It seems to be a neologism, which Wikipedia avoids. Tegaru or Tegrawot would be more applicable, but the name is almost unknown in English. Tegaru gets 187 hits when searching in english pages (and -japan -japanese), but "Tigray people" gets over 21,000 (~21,300). I think the numbers speak for themselves. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common (in non-pedantic matters) English name.
Yom 03:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Yom: "Tigray people" could be used for an article about the people of Tigray. It would be inaccurate and offensive to use "Tigray people" as a title for an article which includes the Tigrigna speaking people of Eritrea. If the purpose of generalizing a name is to be less offensive, then using "Tigray people" as a title would obviously defeat the purpose as it would prove offensive to an Eritrean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue is already solved. You need not discuss it anymore. — ዮም (Yom) | contribsTalkE 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yom, I am going to have to disagree with you here about this being a Wiki Guideline. This issue deals quite specifically with a naming convention. There is indeed a naming convention specifically for this, [1] and in it it states:
Use the most specific terminology available...,
given the caveat,
If this is objectionable often a more general name is more neutral or more accurate.
However, in defense of your perspective, the guidline continues to say that :
Do not assume that any one term is the most inclusive or accurate.
I do believe though that one of the final guidelines given is,
On the other hand, generalizing a subject is often the least offensive way to deal with it.
Which, when applied specifically to this case, would lead us to use the most general term to refer to the ethnic group. This would most reasonably be by their language, "Tigrinya/Tigrigna", or to be more general, "Tigrayan-Tigrinya".
Because Yom and I have already gone back and forth over this subject, I think it is important to get further input from others.
Merhawie 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the guidline you are quoting seems to support "Tigray people" a little more than "Tigray-Tigrinya." As you said, Use the most specific terminology available would support "Tigrinya-Tigray," but that generalizing a subject is often the least offensive way to deal with it supports "Tigray people," while the following policy supports neither:
Do not assume that any one term is the most inclusive or accurate.
The guidline seems to be unhelpful, but if you look at the larger guidline (the official wikipedia policy one, rather than the guidline subset), you'll see that it says to article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. While linking isn't very difficult in either case, I have shown pretty definitively that "Tigray people" is much more often used than "Tigray-Tigrinya" or any of the other alternatives. Moreover, there is little more ambiguity involved in "Tigray people" vs. "Tigray-Tigrinya." While the latter says what groups are called in their respective countries, that can easily be explained in the larger article, and "Tigray people" cannot be confused for anything that it is not.
Yom 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think much confusion arises from the often unappreciated fact that there is an entirely separate people and language in Eritrea known as Tigre ትግሬ while the name of the region associated with the people in this article is Tigray ትግራይ and their language is Tigrinya (sometimes spelled the Italianate way as Tigrigna, but always ትግርኛ in feedel); then the name for the people in Ethiopia is "Tigrawee" ትግራዊ, which in English would most properly be "Tigrayan" IMO. There is still more confusion arising from the fact that many English speakers might assume Tigre and Tigray are pronounced the same, but Tigray in Ethiopia is pronounced with a long dipthong, to rhyme with "RYE", as opposed to Tigre in Eritrea, pronounced to rhyme with "RAY". The Tigrinya language is also found on the Eritrean side of the border, but it is not inter-comprehensible with the Tigre language, indigenous to Eritrea: About half of the Tigre language is taken from Agew languages like Beja, making it far less Semitic. As for Tigrinya, this word is only properly applied to the language and not the people or region, since -inya is the suffix meaning a language. Now, as for the people of Tigray who speak Tigrinya, as I said they are called Tigrawee (singular or adjectival) or Tigrawyan (plural); these have the suffixes -awee and -awyan, but the best and most accurate spelling using English rules is "Tigrayan"; ie, "from Tigray" (noun or adjective). Note, this is also the spelling you see when you see TPLF spelled out correctly in English. So, my recommendation for the location of this article is at the title "Tigrayan people". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)]

To Sinaiticus: The Tigre language is derived mainly from Ge'ez, the greatest influence to Tigre is Arabic, thus making it probably the most Semitic of all languages which originated in Ge'ez. Agew languages contributed mostly to Amharic but also to the many Tigrigna dialects spoken in the areas close to the land of the Agews (southern Tigray). The Tigre who inhabit northern Eritea had very little contact with Agew related people with the exception of the Bilen in Keren. Their contacts were mainly with the Bejas but the extent of Beja vocabulary in the Tigre language is not what you claim it is and some would even claim that Tigre influenced the vocabulary of the Beja clans (Hedareb and Haddendoa specifically) more than vice versa. What is more, the Bejas are not an Agew related people, they are a North Cushitic people who mainly inhabit northern Sudan, Libya and Egypt as opposed to the Agew who are a Central Cushitic people.

WRT to Codex_Sinaiticus,
The name Tigray is the name used for this people group in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian province where they live is named Tigray after them. The people are called Tigrinya in Eritrea, so-called after the language they speak.
The Tigrinya of Eritrea are the same culturally and linguistically as the Tigray (sometimes spelled Tigrai) of Tigray (also sometimes spelled Tigrai) Province of Ethiopia. The Tigrinya people are one of Eritrea´s nine diverse people groups, each with its own distinct customs and language. In Ethiopia, they are one of more than 100 ethnic groups.
WRT to the issue of the Wikipedia naming conventions and guidlines, I disagree that " is not helpful. In fact, the suggestion that the more General Guideline should be used in this case is not correct because there is a specific Guideline that has been developed for dealing with the issue of IDENTITY (of which this discussion is certainly pertaining to). I do however, not think its relation to this particular discussion was made clear, and so I will clarify:
Do not assume that any one term is the most inclusive or accurate.
If we take a look at this quote from this Guideline we would note that 'Tigray' will not be anymore inclusive than 'Tigrinya' and therefore would suggest the use of 'Tigrinya speaking people' or 'Tigray/an-Tigrinya people'.
On the other hand, generalizing a subject is often the least offensive way to deal with it.
If we look at this line, the most general term would be 'Tigray/an-Tigrinya people' (referring to the peoples of both countries.
Use the most specific terminology available...,
given the caveat,
If this is objectionable often a more general name is more neutral or more accurate.
To call a 'Tigrinya' person a 'Tigrayan' is indeed objectionable and that is why the IDENTITY Guideline for Naming Conventions was made. To deal with issues like this.
Also, lets be clear if we are talking about Tigrinya speakers, they are best classified as such. However, especially in recent years, the cultures have begun to develop in different ways (much like the British and Americans). So when one refers to the 'Tigray people' it is obvious that s/he is talking about those from the Tigray Province of Ethiopia, while if one refers to the 'Tigrinya people' they are talking about the people of Eritrea. If you are talking about the two groups as a whole, you would be refererring to them as 'Tigrinya speakers' or by their names in union, 'Tigray-Tigrinya people'. This is all laid out quite clearly in the analysis/research of Dr. Orville. I implore you to reassess your perspective in light of this.
Therefore the only remaining dispute with 'Tigray people' will be either its name, or its continued inclusion of the people of Eritrea as they are 'Tigrinya people'.
Well the source you quoted is not quite correct, because the name of the province Tigray came first, and if the people are called "Tigray", that is an abbreviation of Tigrawee, which comes from the name of the province. This is all getting so easily confused, I am going to make a new section below with a chart to better show all the differences. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To Sinaiticus: There is no such thing as "Tigrawee" whether in English or in Tigrigna. Someone from Tigray is called Tigraway (Tigra-why) as a male and Tigraweyti (Tigra-weighty) as a female and Tegaru in plural. In English perhaps one could use the term Tigrayan for both males and females and Tigrayans for plural.

Also, how is "Tigrayan" objectionable, and why? I've never heard anything like that before... If it really is for some reason, then Tigray (where it stands now) is probably the next best thing... But I'm positive the TPLF call themselves in English, "Tigrayan peoples liberation front"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To add some more confusion into the mix, I have always called Tigrinya speakers Tigré (rhymes with "ray," not "rye"), and this is how my mother (whose mother is Tigray/Tigré/Tigrayan/Tigrean/whatever) has always referred to them. In fidel, the pronounciation would be written ትግሬ, though I'm not sure how she actually writes the word. Wrt to "Tigrayan," I can see how Eritreans might reject such a labeling since they want to differentiate themselves from Ethiopians.

As to the ትግሬ (Tigre in Eritrea), I've never heard that they have a lot of Beja words. I know there are a significant number (over 100,000, Orville says 206,000, and this might be where I got my information) of Beja who speak Tigre, but I've heard that Tigre is in fact just as close if not closer to Ge'ez than Tigrinya, varying from Tigrinya basically in endings (they don't have all the -i endings) and derivations from different Ge'ez roots (i.e. if there's two ways to say x, then Tigre kept way 1 only, and Tigrinya kept way 2 only). I know it has a lot of Arabic influence.

Yom 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WRT to Sinaiticus, Tigrayan would be objectionable to an Eritrean 'Tigrinya' because we are different group from the Tigray of Tigray. Remember that Tigray the province has no existed as long as the language Tigrinya and they obviously cannot be used interchangably. Futhermore the Province of Tigray never encompassed an area that included all of the Tigrinya of Eritrea. For more than a century the destinies of the Eritrean Tigrinya and the Ethiopian Tigrayans have been separate. Also recall that the Tigrayan Liberation Front (TPLF) was fighting for the liberation of the province of Tigray with a vision for a Greater Tigray but this was not based on the Tigrinya speaking people of Eritrea who favored the Nationalist Eritrean People's Liberation Front and Eritrean Liberation Front.

As an Eritrean Tigrinya I have always referred to Eritrean Tigrinya as 'Tigrinya' and Ethiopian 'Tigrayans' as 'Tigrayans'. Both my father and mother are Eritrean Tigrinya. Merhawie 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am just now beginning to realize that the Tigrinya speakers in Eritrea are using the word "Tigrinya" nowadays to refer to the people, and not just the language, I guess because "Tigray" is the name of a place in Ethiopia! This is getting confusing! Yes, the pronunciation Tigre for Tigray is common in Amharic, but it's already confusing enough, the Amharic pronunciation Tigre for Tigray shouldn't even be a consideration! I understand now why he might want to call the article Tigray-Tigrinya, because now I see the term Tigrinya is used on the Eritrean side for the same people... But since Tigrayan is more accurate than Tigray (<Tigrawee), maybe Tigrayan-Tigrinya would be better still? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Tigray are Ethiopians from the northern Ethiopian province of Tigraya. Tigrinya is a language the people of Tigraya speak but it’s also used to refer to the Tigrinya speaking ethnic group in Eritrea. Nadeana 20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would question whether the combined term "Tigrayan-Tigrinya" is really used very often (and for that matter, whether Jenkins' website is very scholarly: "a greater distinction between their distinct ethnicities" is rather clumsy writing, to these eyes). However, I do agree that the combined term is more neutral. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering, though, if there is some root word "Tigr-" from which "Tigrinya" and "Tigray" are both derived (like "Amhara"->"Amharic," or "Angl-"->"Enlish," "England"). If so, then that root word seems the most neutral of all. Unless the root word is "Tigray" which, as pointed out, has other, Ethiopia-specific connotations. I'm not sure that hepled much -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a case where there isn't any clear English convention, but we do have pretty good evidence after all of this discussion of what the conventions are within the Tigrinya-speaking communities themselves, with Tigrinya now being used in Eritrea for a people and not just a language. As Merhawie says, the word Tigray, whatever else it may sometimes mean in English, refers to a province in Ethiopia, which postdates the language and never encompassed the whole region where the language is spoken. I think this is a case where we should defer to the conventions within the community of speakers themselves; this would (hopefully) avoid offending anyone. And those conventions would lead us to refer to the ethnicity as Tigray/Tigrinya or Tigrayan/Tigrinya. Or (I hate to stir things up, but I guess we should be considering all possibilities), should there be separate articles for two different ethnicities that share a language? To take an extreme example, there is no Wikipedia article for the various English-speaking peoples around the world, even for those whose ancestors were English. -- MikeGasser (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wondered about splitting the article, too. I notice that there are different articles for Arabic language dialects, but only one article, Arab, aout the people. There are no separate articles about, say, Moroccan Arabs and Syrian Arabs, though I am guessing that there may be more differences between those two than there are between Ethiopian Tigrayans and Eritrean Tigrinya. So, I'd still lean toward keeping the one article but maybe using the combined name. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusion, but I'm not sure it has been conclusively shown that the name of the province Tigray "postdates the language". It still seems far more likely that Tigray is the oldest word, a name for the region where the people originated and subsequently spread out from. The name "Tigrinya" cannot be older than "Tigray", because it is formed from the word "Tigray" with a suffix -inya (normally used to denote a language). The other various nouns and adjective forms used to denote the ethnicity, like Tigrawee, Tigrawot, etc. are similarly formed by adding suffixes to "Tigray". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I didn't mean that the word Tigray postdated the language, only that the modern province itself did. I agree that the word Tigrinya must have come from Tigray (or some other similar word). In his book on the language, Leslau claims that the language name comes from the "region" name in fact (though he uses Tigré for this instead of Tigray). -- MikeGasser (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the first known mention of a "Tigray" people is from an 8th-10th century manuscript explaining the Monumentum Adulitanum. According to Stuart Munro-Hay,

The 8th to 10th century manuscripts in which this inscription is preserved have some explanatory glosses about some of these names; thus Gaze apparently means the Aksumites, still called Agaze, the Siguene are the Suskinitai, the tribes near Adulis are called the Tigretes (the earliest mention of Tigray?)

I don't see how knowing this is helpful, however, seeing as the term is unused. It's obviously a triliteral t-g-r root, though.

To Yom: If the manuscript refers to a tribe living near Adulis then it was probably not referring to the "Tigray people" or to Tigray. The term "Tigretes" does not automatically translate into Tigray people or Tigray. It could have been ancestors of the Tigre, or even Tigrigna speaking peoples, not necessarily associated with the province of Tigray.

Yom 20:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has made any contributions to this page in a bit I thought that I would assess what has been said. Here is the list of people that have contributed to this conversation so far, and the way they seem to be leaning for the title:

  • Codex_Sinaiticus (combined)
  • Gyrofrog (combined)
  • Merhawie (separate/combined)
  • MikeGasser (separate/combined)
  • Nadeana (separate)
  • Yom (unified)

Its seems that the overriding preference is to maintain an article in reference to both groups (Tigrinya and Tigrayan) combined but to use a more neutral combined name such as Tigrayan-Tigrinya or Tigrinya-Tigrayan. So if there arent any concerns, I will change the name of this page to...."Tigrinya-Tigrayan" tomorrow afternoon.

Retrieved from ""

FOR some reason i find women from eritrea more beautiful than ethiopian women. maybe it's just me. anyone want to comment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Tigray-Tigrinya people article. I suggest you find another forum for other types of discussion. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I. in Eritrea only

Region: Zoba Anseba, Eritrea and Zoba Gash-Barka, Eritrea (in general, spread throughout the country)
Language: Tigre
People: Tigre
Region: Zoba Ma'akel, Eritrea & Zoba Debub, Eritrea (in general, spread throughout the country)
Language: Tigrinya
People: "Tigrinya" in Eritrea

-Not to be confused with -

II - Ethiopia

Regions: Tigray, Ethiopia
Language: Tigrinya (or spelled Tigrigna)
People: "Tigrawee" (or Tigray) in Ethiopia

--ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Edited Merhawie 19:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


My understanding is that the Tigray are overwhelmingly Ethiopian Orthodox, with very few Muslims and very few converts to P'ent'ay among them (this may be completely different from Tigrinya speakers in Eritrea). However, this is based purely on hearsay. I am wondering if someone can cite a source that confirms or denies this, before we add such a statement to the article? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably 95% of all Tigrinya are Orthodox, with few Muslim (Jeberti in Eritrea) or P'en'tay converts. Someone just added it to their religion, though, but I'm not sure as to how many are Muslim in Eritrea (still very small, but not sure their extent), so I don't know whether to leave it or take it out. What's the usual cut-off % for including or excluding a religion in the info-box? (Yom, though I forgot to sign this)


I noticed this on accident, but when I copied and pasted the text from the old version of "Tigray people" to "Tigray-Tigrinya," the diff. of the two versions shows that Merhawie started changing the orders of Eritrea to come before Ethiopia. While I think alphabetical order and prominence should be more important (i.e. Eritrea, Ethiopia for popplace, but Ethio orthodox before Eri since more are members of the former), I don't want this to result in an edit war. The order it is in now seems to me to be fine, and I would posit that we simply leave it in this order and also the same order as when any additions are made, with the only exception where it clearly makes sense to put one in front of the other or in the case of a massive overhaul of the article, where it first explains Tigrays in Ethiopia and then Tigrinya in Eritrea (or vice-versa) and then the two groups as a whole. OTherwise, it would be best not to start an edit war over this and just leave the orders be.

Also, Merhawie, why did you remove the picture? You may object to it as he was the Emperor of Ethiopia, but he is a prominent Tigray-Tigrinya and an acceptable choice for a picture to represent the ethnic group (also it's very old so the copywright has expired).

On an unrelated note, should citations go outside of the period of the sentence or inside?

Yom 23:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I looked at a few people articles (Kurds, Hausas, Igbos), and it seems that the popplace should be in order of population, so I'm going to put Ethiopia first again. Apparently it is the total number that is important and not the percentage, since Turkey comes before Iraq for Kurds, even though it's 15% of Iraq's population vs. 12.5% of Turkey's.

Yom 23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who removed the picture, because Yohannes IV does NOT represent our ethnic group, he represents a political force which along with his chief cohort Alula Abanega committed genocide on our people in the late 19th century, like puttting up a picture of Hitler to represent German ethnicity, an absolutely disgusting choice. You couldn't find a better example of a picture like people wearing traditional costumes, playing krar and keboro and dancing around in a ring typical of the Tigrayan and Biher-Tigrigna? Even putting up an Axum monument would have been slightly inaccurate (since it is a legacy common to all Abyssinian peoples that predates the Biher-Tigrigna/Tigrayan ethnicity) but much less insensitive!

Do you have any evidence for this so called genocide against Tigrinya speaking peoples? If your referring to his persection of Jebertis, then I don't deny that, but there's a separate article for them, and it would very inappropriate to include a picture of him to represent Jebertis (since he was not Jeberti and persecuted them). Yohannes was, however, a prominent Tigray-Tigrinya being an Emperor. The picture box is for prominent members of the ethnic group, so people wearing traditional costumes and the like wouldn't do. More modern figures like Isayas and Meles are inappropriate by themselves as they don't represent both groups (whereas Yohannes lived before the separation of Eritrea, so can be said to represent the ethnic group as a whole). The ultimate goal is a composite image of famous people, however, so if you want to put Yohannes as the beginning of the list, followed by Meles and Isayas, then that's fine. Putting up a monument of Aksum is inappropriate for two reasons: one, it doesn't fulfill the purpose of the image box (to show a prominent member of the ethnic group), and two, it existed before Tigrinya existed as a language or Tigray/Tigrinya as an ethnic group (back when everyone spoke Ge'ez - the first mention of Tigray isn't until the 8th or 10th century as "Tigretes" – a tribe living near the coast). — ዮም (Yom) | contribsTalk 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitler did not committ genocide on Germans he committed genocide on Jews who are an unrelated people. So I guess using that kind of racist logic it would be entirely appropriate to put up Hitlers picture to represent Germans? "Emperor" Yohannes IV like many other "Emperors" before him CLAIMED to be ruler over many territories thereamong the areas populated by Tigrigna speakers in present day Eritrea. These territories were never effectively united under one Empire so the legitimacy of such a claim is in question. Precolonial Africa did not consist of nationstates with clear boundaries, it consisted of realms of influence which constantly changed. Resistance to Yohannes IV's rule was rife in many areas of his "Empire" thereamong the Tigrinya speaking region of present day Eritrea then known as Medri Bahri (in Abyssinia" Mereb Mellash or Bahr Negash), and this could be a possible explanation as to why he ended up betrayed in his own "Empire" to the Sudanese who decapitated his skull and still have it on display in the National Museum of Khartoum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Who did Yohannes commit genocide on? Not on an ethnic group, though he certainly killed Muslims. Either way, he's the best example of a Tigrinya speaking person that we have, though I'm working on adding a couple more to make a horizontal picture reel. Who betrayed Yohannes to the Sudanese? No one did, he was just unlucky and hit by a lone sniper, otherwise the Battle of Metemma would have been won as the Sudanese were losing, it's just Yohannes's death that lead to the Ethiopian retreat. What does Yohannes's head have to do with anything, by the way? Eritrea has been a part of Ethiopia since time memorial, though, I don't know what you mean that it was never really under control. Rebellions have occurred in every part of the Empire before, but the time you're talking about, the Zemene Mesafint (1755-1855) is when the whole empire was weak and losely controlled by regents, while the Emperor was a figure head. Before and after the Empire was united. — ዮም (Yom) | contribsTalkE 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"he's the best example of a Tigrinya speaking person that we have" you must be joking to say that,thats why berhanu chopped his head off,his old loyal jeberti commander till yohannes started butchering his fellow jeberti to please his fanatic priests.who ever said that only 5% of tigray are muslims are you people on drugs?just like tigrenya in eritrea is 50% of the population and are 100% christians.i cant believe some of you still get information from cia websites and produce it here claiming its the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaya7 (talkcontribs) 05:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


1. A person from Tigray speaks Tigrigna (Tigrinya) and is a Tigrayan in English, or Tigraway (-way pronounced "why") for the masculine singular and Tigraweyti (-weyti pronounced as "weigh-tee") for the feminine singular or Tegaru ("tegah-roo" emphasis on "roo") for the plural in Tigrigna. I do not know where "Tigrawee" comes from (which language) but it is not a phonetic rendition of anything remotely Tigrigna nor does the suffix "-wee" make any sense in English.

2. As an Eritrean of the Tigrigna-speaking ethnicity I would like to inform you that our official definition as a people is Biher-Tigrigna NOT simply "Tigrigna". Biher-Tigrigna means roughly -the Tigrigna ethnicity-, Biher meaning ethnicity. Eritrea is home to nine "Biherat" (plural of Biher), nine ethnicities, one of which is the Biher-Tigrigna.

3. The prefix or title Biher is important when denoting Tigrigna speakers as opposed to our language because of the nature of the word Tigrigna itself. Since this word is taken directly from Tigrigna (the language) and is not an anglicised construct, it carries its own exact meaning according to the Tigrigna grammar which can not be confused with English words or constructs that apply equally to nation-states and languages (like the word "English" for example). Tigrigna is specifically a language not a people. To denote the Eritrean people who are its native speakers, start with the Tigrigna word for ethnicity which is "Biher".

Ex. I am Biher-Tigrigna and I speak Tigrigna.

4. Biher-Tigrigna is both a noun and an adjective, both singular and plural (but like "people" or "hair") is a singlar word which can denote plurality as well as singularity and it is applicable to both sexes: I am Biher-Tigrigna and so is she hence we belong to the Biher-Tigrigna which numbers about 2 million (my own guesstimate).

5. No other Eritrean ethnicities need to be adressed "Biher" other than for formalities sake, since their names do correspond with the name of their language. The Tigre people speak Tigre for example. The Tigre and the Beja contributed vicabulary to eachother's languages while Arabic influenced them both. But the Beja language is NOT an Agew language. Infact Beja is in an entirely different branch of the Cushitic language family than Agew. Beja is a North Cushitic language while Agew is Central Cushitic, just like Bilen (with whom you must have either the Tigre or Bilen mixed up).

I removed your comments from the top. One copy on the page is enough (if you want, you can move specific comments up there, too, but there's no need to reduplicate the whole commoent). I don't have time to comment on this fully right now, but let me say that I have an Eritrean friend who refers to his ethnicity as just Tigrinya and not Biher Tigrinya. Furthermore, keep in mind that this is an English article. We have to choose the name that is most used in English, and the name that we found most used (that identified the Biher Tigrinya component, instead of just "Tigray/Tigré") was "Tigray-Tigrinya people." Again, I'll respond in full in a few hours. — ዮም (Yom) | contribsTalk 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
For starters, no one disagrees with #1 or #5 (Codex Sinaiticus/Feqade was mistaken). With regards to #s 2 and 3, the official definition isn't what determines what we use for the English article. If you can find a citation of Biher Tigrinya instead of just "Tigrinya," then we can add that to the article for the Eritrean name for the ethnic group, but as I said before, my Eritrean friend didn't say anything about "Biher" when saying that the ethnic group in Eritrea was called Tigrinya. Biher means more "nation" than ethnicity, though. That's why you would say "biher" for land in Ge'ez (e.g. John ze-Bihere Doe - John of the land of Doe). It certainly makes more sense to have some sort of description in front of Tigrinya to distinguish between the language and ethnicity, though (btw, when was this ethnonym created? Why don't Tigrinya-speaking peoples in Eritrea refer to themselves as Tigraway/weyti or Tigaru?). Either way, you need a citation to show that "Biher" is used in conjunction. Still, it shouldn't go at the top of the infobox. I believe it's simply for the English name (or perhaps the native name, in which case it would say "Tigraway/Tigraweyti/Tegaru-Biher Tigrinya" or something like that - maybe "Tigaru-Biher Tigrinya"???) — ዮም (Yom) | contribsTalk 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If official definitions do not determine what you use for the English article, what does? What your Eritrean friend told you? No offense to him or her or you but this "criteria" of yours seems a little flimsy at best. No one says "Ane Tigrigna iye" in Eritrea it is absurd, the correct way to refer to oneself is "ane biher Tigrigna iye". Indeed "Biher" is derived from the Ge'ez word for nation, and the original meaning of nation is not state, but an ethnically homogenous population (as in the Zulu nation who inhabit six states all in all). I am not sure when the term "Biher Tigrigna" was coined, but it was taught in school while under Ethiopian occupation (the nine ethnicities of Eritrea). I admit it is very "academical" and seldom used in an everyday context where expressions like "Hamasienai", "Seroetai" or "deqi khebesa" abound. This brings me to why the Biher-Tigrigna do not call ourselves Tegaru or Tigraway. It would be as inaccurate as calling someone from Tembien "Hamassienai". To be a "Tigraway" doesn't mean ethnicity or tribe to us, it means geography: to be a citizen of the province of Tigray, which we thankfully are not! {{subst:untitled2:15:46, 5 July 2006|}}

You haven't explained your recent changes. Until you find a better picture than Yohannes's it should stay up. "Biher-Tigrinya" isn't the name of the ethnic group in English or the ethnic group in Ethiopia, so it shouldn't be used. "Tigray-Tigrinya" is the most widely used name for the two peoples, aside from just Tigray/Tigrayan/Tigrean, which others have deemed offensive. I'll leave the "Biher-Tigrinya" for the name in Eritrea, but it still needs a site and a "fact" tag on it. The title of the page is not "Biher-Tigrinya," though, as that would simply be about Eritrean Tigrinya speakers. Why did you remove the part about traditionally descending from Menilek and Solomon? I'm pretty certain that exists in Eritrea too, as Menilek was supposed to have been born in Hamasien in Eritrea. Don't change the name of everything without getting consensus. As you see above, there has been a consensus for the current name. I'm not simply using what my Eritrean friend told me, but what I've also seen online and elsewhere. If you guys don't call yourself Tigraway, then I'll edit the article to show that only Tigrinya speakers in Tigray do that, but that doesn't mean that the whole article should be called Biher-Tigrinya. It's not what the official term in Eritrea is that matters, but what the most common English use is. Of course, the Eritrean official term should be noted, but not used throughout unless it is also the most common English term (Amarinya is the official term for the Amharic language in Ethiopia, but the name of the article here is Amharic language since that's the most common term in English). — ዮም (Yom) | contribsTalkE 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The language of Tigrinya and Tigray[edit]

Yom, you may know the answer but anyone else should go ahead if they know. How do the modern boundaries of the Tigray region of Ethiopia relate to the current distribution of Tigrinya speakers. Similarly how do the current boundaries of Tigray relate to the historical boundaries of Tigray. This may or may not clarify a sentence in the article text. --Merhawie 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tigray generally contains all of the Tigrinya speakers, but in the Northwest, like Welqayt, Tsegede, and Tselemti, the people are generally Amharic speakers and consider themselves Gonderes. The very far southern part of Tigray Region today includes some areas of Wello with Amharic speakers as well. Other than that, it's accurate. Historically, in the 20th century, the province excluded these lands, but included Afar lands to the east. In medieval times, the province size varied. It could include Seraye and Akkele Guzay (and rarely Hamasien), or not, but it never included Bur along the coast, or the Mitsiwa coast region (first Ma'ikele Bahr, later Bahr Negash lands). It really depends, because for some of the provinces mentioned, it's hard to tell if they were sub-regions of the province or separate provinces, like with Inderta, Seraye, etc. Bahr Negash/Ma'ikele Bahr was generally centered in Hamasien to the coast, but I think it might have included Seraye and Akkele Guzay, it's really hard to tell. It might have included Marya to the north (north of the Bilen), but I think that was a separate province in the 14th century. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 19:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions about Jeberti[edit]

I've removed the two statements below regarding the Jebertis, as both are factually false. First off, Muslim Tigrinya speakers (whatever that means) aren't called Biher-Tigrinya as that is insulting to their heritage. Plus they aren't unofficially known as Jebertis. They have ALWAYS been known as Jebertis; and have a long and distinct history that began with the arrival of the companions of Prophet Muhammad to Abyssinia. They were named Jebertis by the Prophet himself (see main Jeberti article) and remained so for more than 1400+ years. There are many Jebertis who lived throughout this time and were known distinctly as Jebertis. One such example of this is the great Egyptian historian Al-Jabarti (meaning the one who is a Jeberti), who was of Jeberti descent. The inclusion of Jebertis is a conspiracy by the government of Eritrea (GOE) to boost the number of Tigrinya Christians. The Tigrinya has always been used to identify Tigrinya-speaking Christians. By adding the Jebertis into the fold, the GOE is then able to maintain the religious balance of 50% Muslims-50% Christians in the country. By count the Jebertis as Muslim on the sole basis of linguistical affiliation, the government is able to claim clamp down on the Muslims and deny them their rights (such as the right to learn their OTHER LANGUAGE Arabic)! The two statements that I removed are:

"In Eritrea, officially, any ethnic Tigrinya is known as Bihér-Tigrinya regardless of their religion."

"In Eritrea, Muslim speakers of Tigrinya are known unofficially as Jebertis."

More info can be found on this site [

Jeberti as an ethnic group] 05:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking to be a "nationality" you must have a different history. Both Christian and Muslim Tigrinya have the same history. To be a separate ethnic group their ethnicity must be different (e.g. Tigre and Tigrinya), however, as far as all my research shows, they do not fit this definition. In short, a different religion is not enough to be recognized as a separate ethnic or national group (e.g. there are both Christian and Muslim Tigre).
As to your statement about the government of Eritrea, it is important to note that there is no religious classification given to each ethnic group. Finally, the last approximation of religious groups in Eritrea I have seen said something to the effect that neither major religious grouping (Muslim or Chrisitan) accounts for 50% of the population, both are at least 5% shy. Merhawie 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway there should be a subsection about Muslim Tigray-Tigrinya...Merhawie 23:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"MPlease it is time for as Tigreans and Eritreans to come together like our glorious ancestors of Axum and Adulis! What would Aste Yohanes, Alula Aba Nega, Ras Weldemicheal and Bahri Negash say when their sons and daughters of Tigray-Tigrigna fighting over worthless things. This entire problem has arisen from the mistakes of Amhara War lords who sold Eritrea to Italians dividing the mighty People of Tigray-Tigrigna in to two. Badme belongs to both people of Tigray and Eritrea.[(Tigreans=Eritreans)- --->Tigray-Tigrigna] Alitena, Tesorona, Zalambesa and the HOLE OF TIGRAY AND ERITREA BELONG TO THE PEOPLE OF TIGRAY-TIGRIGNA!!! So please it is time for us to come to realize our past that we are one people and join hand with hand to unite our divided people in to one! Peace to the People of Tigray and Eritrea! We are one! Let's stop the hatred for we are hating ourselves and our great ancestors of Axum and Adulis. This message is directed to both peoples of Tigray and Eritrea (That is to Tigray-Tigrigna for we are the same! The time has come to realize our destiny as one people.LONG LIVE PEOPLE OF TIGRAY-TIGRIGNA!!!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Mesfin 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

image of Tigrinya woman[edit]

Would you say the image at the bottom right of this page: represents correctly a typical Tigrinya woman?

No, that woman is Bilen (you can tell b/c she has a nose ring and is from Keren), or perhaps Tigre. If you mean physically, though, then there isn't really much difference between a Tigrinya, Tigre, or Bilen woman. Culturally, though, a Tigrinya woman won't have any nose piercing and may have Christian tattoos on her face or neck. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 01:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved comments from article[edit]

I have moved the following comments from the article space. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"It looks there are alot of wrong information on this content about TIGRAY. So readers should check the information on other related sites befor they tack this info as a reference"—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:24, 5 February 2008

Ancient Axumite rulers spoke Geez and fled to Shoa-Amhara in 900 AD[edit]

Axum, or Aksum, is a city in northern Ethiopia named after the Kingdom of Aksum, a naval and trading power that ruled from the region ca. 1000 BC into the 10th century. The kingdom was occasionally referred to in medieval writings as "Ethiopia".

Located in the Mehakelegnaw Zone of the Tigray Region near the base of the Adwa mountains, the city has an elevation of 2,130 metres. It was the centre of the (eventual) Christian marine trading power the Aksumite Kingdom, which predated the earliest mentions in Roman era writings (around the time of the birth of Jesus) in good correlation to the expansion of Rome into northern Africa, and later when it developed into the Christian kingdom, was a quasi-ally of Byzantium against the day's Persian Empire. The historical record is unclear, primary sources being in the main limited to ancient church records. There are no evidences that Axumites considered themselves as Tigres or Tigreans. They spoke the ancient language of Ethiopia and Eritrea called "Ge'ez" and also Classical Greek. Therefore we must realize that Axum was an independent State which was certainly culturally and ethnically not "Tigrean" but rather cosmopolitic.

It is believed it began a long slow decline after the 7th century due partly to Islamic groups contesting trade routes. Eventually Aksum was cut off from its principal markets in Alexandria, Byzantium and Southern Europe and its trade share was captured by Arab traders of the era. The Kingdom of Aksum also quarreled with Islamic groups over religion. Eventually the people of Aksum were forced south into Shoa and their civilization declined. As the kingdom's power declined so did the influence of the city, which is believed to have lost population in the decline similar to Rome and other cities thrust away from the flow of world events. The last known (nominal) king to reign was crowned ca. 10th century, but the kingdom's influence and power ended long before that.

Its decline in population and trade then contributed to the shift of the power centre of the Ethiopian Empire so that it moved further inland and bequeathed its alternative place name (Ethiopia) to the region, and eventually, the modern state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tigrinya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Tigrinya is under discussion, see talk:Tigrinya language -- (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Tigre language dispute[edit]

Reverted text on mainpage identifying Tigre language as Tigre-Beja. Tigre and Beja are distinct languages. Many Tigre people understand and speak Beja, but they are distinct languages (nor are they dialects). Merhawie (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The consensus is that this is the more common and concise name. Cúchullain t/c 21:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tigray-Tigrinya peopleTigrayans – Per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONAME. See results from Google Ngram Viewer, where the phrase "Tigrinya people" is extremely rare -- it does not even show up in the graph. The most common word to refer to the people is "Tigrayans". The word "people" can be eliminated from the title as it's redundant as per WP:ETHNICGROUP. Khestwol (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per evidence provided and WP:NCET. RGloucester 16:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move as nom since no one opposed. Khestwol (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please see above discussion. There are strong reasons to not refer to those who speak Tigrigna as a singular "Tigrayan" ethnic group. It is a label only used for those who come from Ethiopia's Tigray province and one rejected by Tigrigna speakers who come from Eritrea. Mesfin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The current name was chosen with a formal move request. It should not be moved again without a new consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 12:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
A formal request should be be started, since user:Mesfin mentions "Tigrayan" is rejected by Tigrinya speakers of Eritrea and it only refers to those coming from Tigray province in Ethiopia. I have started a new discussion below on the page to either change the name of the article to "Tigrinya people and Tigrayan people" or split the current article in to two articles. Richard0048 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus – It appears unlikely than any admin or anyone else will be able to see a consensus in this discussion that's been open for 8 weeks, or in the sections that follow that might be considered related or part of the discussion. If I'm wrong, start a new RM with a crisp proposal and explanation and let us see the consensus. (non-admin closure)Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

TigrayansTigray-Tigrinya people – Please see above discussion. There are strong reasons to not refer to those who speak Tigrigna as a singular "Tigrayan" ethnic group. It is a label only used for those who come from Ethiopia's Tigray province and one rejected by Tigrigna speakers who come from Eritrea. Mesfin (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as previous discussion did not incorporate the Article Title policy and ignored previous discussion, and used poor analysis.
    • Previous discussion on the Talk page [3] establishes the analysis of the editors that was brought to a civil conclusion. These discussion points were completely ignored in the previous move request. Ultimately, none of the points have changed. Should not have been moved with a proper reading of this information. In particular based on this specific policy: Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes
    • The Article Title Policy is also discussed in the above previous discussion of previous editors. To understand the analysis it must be first understood that the article page is discussing an ethnic group with sub nationalities that share a common tongue (mostly) a common religion (mostly) and live in geographically distinct places. Specifically the policy characteristics of: 1) recognizability the modification violates this characteristic by having a general user identify the people described from only one of the geographical regions (tantamount to referring to Canadians and people from the US as "Americans") 2) naturalness - editors would only naturally link to this article with this name if they were linking to a group of a particular geographical location 3) precision - the title is imprecise as the title now only refers to people from a particular geographical location 4) conciseness - although concise, at a minimum it must identify the subject matter of the article which it does not (overly restrictive) , and 5) consistency - inconsistent title pattern compared to other regional ethnicities (e.g. Tigre people, Nara people, and Amhara people) .
    • Poor analysis using ngram-viewer because the tool only counts use of a word as opposed to meaning of the word. The meaning of Tigrayan is a narrow geographical subset of persons from the ethnic group. It discounts a large separate group from a wholly separate set of regions. Also ignore previous discussion that find a more generalized description may be less offensive (see previous Talk) Merhawie (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as no evidence provided for the proposed change. It was shown already in last move request that "Tigray-Tigrinya people" is uncommon. Some users in the section being referred to by Mesfin seem to be favoring using the title "Tigrayans" for this article. Khestwol (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't quite understand. "Tigrayan" is an accurate term for those who are from Ethiopia's Tigray region (where Tigrinya is spoken). In Eritrea Tigrinya speakers do not call themselves by this name, most see it as offensive (I cannot stress this enough). In Eritrea, the proper reference is to refer to them by language (Tigrinya); all ethnic groups are referred to by the language they speak. If this article is to serve as one for all speakers of Tigrinya then "Tigrayan" is not a proper term; however if it is only for those Ethiopians who come from the Tigray region then it is accurate. Mesfin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Tigrinya is uncommon in English. All my point is that usage in reliable English-languages sources is all what matters. Khestwol (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for the past few days I've been earnestly attempting to understand Khestwol's viewpoint and I think it comes down to the unfamiliarity with the local nomenclature; quite frankly:
1. "Tigrayan" is the term uniquely for Ethiopians who come from Ethiopia's Tigray region.
2. This term is unsuitable for referring to Eritreans who speak Tigrinya.
3. In Eritrea, all ethnic groups are referred to by their native languages.
4. The above rules exist for all creditable sources in every language (including English). Examples below:
"Author’s note: after the formal interview, I had a pleasant chat with Ted. He told me that he enjoyed “mies,” a traditional Eritrean liquor. Ted also expressed astonishment and disbelief at seeing dancers doing the traditional Tigrinya dance routine"
- a quote from the Eritrean Government information ministry referring (in English) to Eritreans who speak Tigrinya as "Tigrinya".
"Populating the Ethiopian armed forces with Tigrayans and making sure that all of Ethiopia’s vital institutions were headed by card carrying cadres of the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF),"
- the same source referring to ETHIOPIANS who come from Tigray as "Tigrayans" (also in English).
"Nation and Nationalities
Ethiopia is home to over 80 different peoples and nationalities. According to the 2007 census the larger ones are: Oromo 25.5 million (35%); Amhara 20 million (27%); Somali 4.6 million 6.2%); Tigrean 4.5 million (6.1%) Sidama 3 million (4%); Gurage 1.9 million (2.5%); Welayta 1.7 million (2.3%); Hadiya 1.3 million (1.7%); Afar 1.3 million (1.7%); Gamo 1.1 million (1.5%)."
- The Ethiopian-US Embassy referring to ETHIOPIANS who come from Tigray as "Tigrean" (in English)
"Ethnic groups:
nine recognized ethnic groups: Tigrinya 55%, Tigre 30%, Saho 4%, Kunama 2%, Rashaida 2%, Bilen 2%, other (Afar, Beni Amir, Nera) 5% (2010 est.)"
- The US government's (English) labeling of Eritrean ethnic groups by language (save Rashaida who speak Arabic)
I'd like to summarize by highlighting this fact; renaming a 10 year old wikipedia article about tigrinya speakers to just Ethiopian tigrayans is misinforming people. If the purpose of the article is about Ethiopians from the Tigray region then the name is fine, but current article now will requires an overhaul to remove all references to Eritreans. Mesfin (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mesfin. After reading about the Tigrinya-speakers more, I agree more with you now. But still, the proposed title "Tigray-Tigrinya people" is odd and too long. If you are not happy with "Tigrayans", then why put the word "Tigray" at the start of the proposed title? If you are happy about the shorter title "Tigrinyas", perhaps we can move this article to that title? After all, on Wikipedia many of the ethnic group articles' titles are short and single-word (e.g. Arabs, Germans, Swedes, Saudis, etc). Khestwol (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Khestwol, your proposal of Tigrinyas is certainly more reasonable than Tigrayans, although based on reading the original discussion from 2006 Tigray + Tigrinya was used to make sure that both were well understood. Tigrinya may be prefererd See: Olson, James Stuart (1996). The Peoples of Africa: An Ethnohistorical Dictionary, Greenwood Publishing, p. 558, ISBN 9780313279188 Merhawie (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close flipflopping nomination of a move request closed less than a week ago. Does not appear to have gone to Move Review. -- (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
    • However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title.Merhawie (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
      • The recent move involved a proper consensus discussion, and not a Bold Move, so this is flipflopping without a move review and should be squashed immediately. We shouldn't file flipflop nominations every other day just because something moved. If it has a properly formulated discussion, the flipflop should be squashed and people should wait 3 months. -- (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If there is no further issue and or discussion I think the weight of the arguments and opinions favors returning to the prior, long-standing title of "Tigray-Tigrinya".Merhawie (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I closed the previous RM, so I won't close this one, but I'll weigh in. I oppose the proposed move. "Tigray-Tigrinya" (nevermind "Tigray-Tigrinya people") is less common than the other options. I find 1160 Google Books hits, compared to 4740 for "Tigrayans" and 31,800 for "Tigrinya" (though many are for the language). I can't find any specific references indicating why "Tigray-Tigrinya" should be preferred.
Previously I recommended that editors favoring a move determine what name is really the most common in the reliable sources, and propose a move to that title, because "Tigray-Tigrinya people" doesn't seem to be it. That should still be done, but at this point it will likely require yet another RM.--Cúchullain t/c 15:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Cúchullain, above I note that the reason the term Tigrayan is more prevalent in the count is because it is a "flawed" search. Tigrayan is indeed a word - a common one, but does not refer to an ethnic group, instead it refers to people of a geographic region. For example, if an Amhara was born in Adwa, Tigray, s/he would be known as a Tigrayan, but would not be a person of the ethnic group described in this page. I did provide a reference above from a "dictionary" of ethnic histories in africa which confirms that the group is known as Tigrinya. Finally, even a cursory example of a search of the first couple pages of Google returns for the search term "Tigrayan" clearly referly exclusively to people of the geographic region. Does this not sway your opinion?Merhawie (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't change my opinion that Tigray-Tigrinya people isn't a good title. I'm open to other suggestions.--Cúchullain t/c 02:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Cúchullain, reliable sources (e.g. "Household and Society in Ethiopia: An economic and Social Analysis of Tigray, 1977" & "The Peoples of Africa: An Ethnohistorical Dictionary, 1996") seem to be equally split on the subject, though all sources concede that the term "Tigrayan" confusingly refers to any people from the Tigray region of Ethiopia. When I refer to Tigrinya or Tigrayan below I am referring to "Tigrinya people" and "Tigrayan people" respectively.
Based on article title principles, much discussed previously, the first step is to title article based on (1) "what the subject is called in reliable sources." When this offers multiple possibilities, "editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles (2) titles for similar articles, (3) precisely identifies the subject, and is (4) short, (5) natural, (6) distinguishable and recognizable." (of course all these factors are undergirded by the principles of Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.)
(1) Subject is called in reliable sources - As has been described above, almost ad naseum, reliable sources seem to equally characterize the term for the "ethnic group" as Tigrayan or Tigrinya. (with a much smaller subset referring to the group as Tigrean or Tigray-Tigrinya) Because there are multiple possibilities we must review factors 2-6.
(2) Title for similar articles - Again as describe above, but summarized here, articles about neighboring ethnic groups have article titles that reflect their language (e.g. Amhara people, Tigre people, Saho people, etc.). This lends itself to the use of Tigrinya (as tigrinya is the name of the common language) and against the use of Tigrayan (as this is a reference to a subset of the geographical location of members).
(3) Precisley identifies the subject - This factor does not weigh heavily towards either of the contending titles although it may slightly weigh towards Tigrinya as it refers to a common theme of the ethnic group unlike Tigrayan, which refers to a particular subset of the ethnic group.
(4) Short - both are short, though Tigrayan is one character shorter than Tigrinya. Will not be added to ultimate weight as it is a marginal difference.
(5) Natural - I dont believe this necessarily weighs towoards either candidate but, in the WP:TITLE page it suggests that "English commonly refers to either the people or the language and thus we use the alternative, "English people" and "English language" as a "natural" distinguisher. This is what is recommended here, leaving the disambiguity of the geographically specific, "Tigrayan".
(6) Distinguishable & recognizable - This point weighs towards the title "Tigrinya" as "the title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize". I conclude this because referring to "Tigrayan" by someone familiar but not an expert in the subject would confuse them as to whether the page is referring to people of the Tigray region of Ethiopia or to the Tigrinya speaking people of Ethiopia. Fewer would understand as referring to a culture group whose common bond includes the speaking of Tigrinya. Whereas, the title "Tigrinya people" would clearly denote, and be recognizable as, a page describing the Tigrinya speaking people making up the ethnic group.
As we weigh factors 1-6 I think it is clear that all the factors (but one) weight towards the Tigrinya name, according to the policy rules. The one that does not weigh towards Tigrinya does not weigh in either direction. Finally, I think the term Tigrayan fails factors (2), (3), and (6) as describe above. Merhawie (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Cúchullain I have identified a Library Study Guide on Ethnic Studies of Africa from Boston University ( which provides a list of several resources online. Presumably this resource has been developed by librarians to provide an overview generally representative of the research work. I have searched through each book that is available online (primarily through Google Books). The books that have been made available (fully or partially) through Google Books find the following:
  • Cultures and societies of Africa. Edited by Simon and Phoebe Ottenberg. New York, Random House [1960] (No mention of any related demonym: e.g. Tigray, Tigre, Tigrinya)
  • Encyclopedia of African Peoples. New York: Facts on File, 2000. (Tigre or Tigrinya p 202 - should use Tigrinya to prevent confusion with the Tigre ethno-linguistic group)
  • Ethnographic Survey of Africa. London: International African Institute. 1950-1974. 60 monographs in seven parts of Africa. (Tigrinya speaking peoples are referred to as the Tigriña; p 15)
  • Levinson, David. Encyclopedia of World Cultures. Boston: G.K. Hall, 1991-96 10 vols (vol. 9 Africa and the Middle East. Indexes in 10th volume). Mugar Ref GN 307 E53 1991 (Refers to the Tigre/Tigray; p 346)
  • Moss, Joyce and George Wilson. Peoples of the World. Africans South of the Sahara. Detroit, London, Gale Research, 1991 (Refers to Tigre; p. 331)
  • Murdock, George Peter. Africa: its peoples and their culture history. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1959. (Tigrinya is the term used to refer to the people on p. 185)
  • Peoples of Africa. Edited by James L. Gibbs, Jr. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston [1965] DT15 F65 (Tigrinya is the term used to refer to the people on p. 558)
The books that are not available online but are listed by the Library are as follows:
  • Yakan, Mohamad Z. Almanac of African peoples & nations. New Brunswick, N.J. : Transaction, c1999. DT15 .Y35 1999
In summary, it is found that Tigrinya is used by 4 resources and Tigray/Tigrayans is used by 1 resource. Two resources refer to Tigre (but where they only refer to Tigre it has been discounted as it would be confused with Tigre people page. Based on the number of books that use Tigrinya instead of Tigrayans, we should defer to that standard. Based on this I think we can safely retitle this page to Tigrinya people. Please confirm that based on this analysis you agree?Merhawie (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
"Tigrinya" is acceptable to me. As I said, my oppose is only directed at "Tigray-Tigrinya people", which seems to be uncommon.--Cúchullain t/c 17:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
To make it clear, I support Tigrinya (eliminating the dab page per WP:G6). It's clear that "Tigrinya" is in use for Tigrinya-speaking people on both sides of the border, according to the above sources, and others.[4][5] It certainly seems more common than the proposed name.--Cúchullain t/c 15:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. This is certainly a difficult one. As far as I can gather, the problem is that this is an ethnic group with completely different names across the border. If it was just about the Ethiopians, we'd call them Tigrayans. If it was just about Eritreans, we'd call them Tigrinya people. Tigrayans is probably inaccurate for Eritreans, while Tigrinya people is a little more accurate for Ethiopians, since that's their language, but it's still not ideal, and "Tigrayans" is clearly the promiment and commonly used name for them. All that being case, I think there's a somewhat rare case where I think a WP:IAR dispensing with WP:COMMONNAME is called for. The form Tigray-Tigrinya people is clearly not widely used in the sources, but it has the major advantage that it covers both bases. It's a rare example of a Wikipedia "composite" title, but with a degree of naturalness as well. The common Ethiopian form "Tigray" is not lost, while the "Tigrinya" moniker favoured in Eritrea is still present. This title existed for ten years at the proposed location, until the recent move, and I think it's a good compromise solution. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Tigrayans" is the commonly used name for two thirds of the people who make up this group (i.e. 6 million in Ethiopia vs 3 million in Eritrea if the article is to be believed). I therefore strongly urge that we move back to the original long standing title, as I mentioned above, and as the move was closed earlier today. It would be somewhat odd to not include "Tigray" at all, when that is the name used for the majority of the group, yet I understand the Eritrean argument as well. Hence why "Tigray-Tigrinya" is a good compromise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Tigray-Tigrinya people – I originally closed this as move but due to comments I missed and currently active discussion, I don't think it would be a good idea for me to close it again in this stage. I understand the WP:COMMONNAME concerns, but there are many examples where COMMONNAME is not applied, obvious examples including MOS:IDENTITY and WP:USPLACE. When faced with a topic spanning two countries, and where its significance in either country is comparable, a compromise is useful to maintain neutrality. Liancourt Rocks is used far less than either "Dokdo" or "Takeshima", but it is a neutral title between the usage in South Korea and Japan. SSTflyer 02:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Counterproposal: TigrayansTigrinyas[edit]

  • The term Tigrayans is a name for the inhabitants of Tigray, a Regional State in Ethiopia, and not a name of an ethnicity, the previous name "Tigray-Tigrinya" is also not suitable for the simple fact that it's a made-up name and is a combination of two distinct names; a region (Tigray) and a language (Tigrinya). As a rule of thumb, the name Tigray should be avoided when referring to an ethnicity as it specifically points to a Politically defined Region or State and not a group of people. I support the use of the term "Tigrinyas" as proposed by Khestwol. The term does not have any political connotation and seems the most accurate English term used to describe the ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divex (talkcontribs) 10:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Divex. The politically neutral title is "Tigrinyas". Tag admin Cuchullain for comments, who originally moved the article to current title. Khestwol (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I asked Widr to restore the page to account for the comments by Divex and Khestwol, who tagged me. These comments apparently came just as the RM was closed and were not added to this section, so I've moved them here. Sincere apologies for the confusion, but I think they ought to be considered here.--Cúchullain t/c 15:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree*** with the proposal to "Tigrinyas". As noted in the extensive discussion above (some of which I participated), the term is more consistent with the description of a culture group as opposed to other alternatives which are more appropriate for the description of a territory some Tigrinyas inhabit. I think we have consensus on the new page name. Merhawie (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm late to this discussion as I haven't been as active on Wikipedia. Agree with Divex although it looks like a move, and a revert, has already taken place (though the lede uses "Tigrinyas"). I think it's the best we can do in English ("Tigrinya-speaking people" might be even more neutral, but it's a rather clumsy wording and I'm not sure it has precedent elsewhere in Wikipedia.) I'd agree that non-Tigrinya tend to refer to Tigrinya speakers as "Tigre," but this leads to confusion with Tigre people. (I have seen some references using the term "Tigre," with demographic percentages that suggest they meant Tigrinya rather than Tigre -- not sure if that would help. I think we'd be second-guessing those references and that might (or might not) fall under WP:NOR and/or WP:SYNTH.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The original problem people had with Tigray-Tigrinya people is that it falls foul of WP:COMMONNAME, yet now people are proposing a term "Tigrinyas" which hardly appears in the literature at all. It has 79 book results by my reckoning. Honestly it would be better to stick with Tigrayans than move to Tigrinyas, if you want a name that is actually used by real people somewhere in the world. I oppose this counterproposal, and reaffirm my !vote above for a return to the long standing title Tigray-Tigrinya people, which appeared to have a consensus until this 11th hour proposal for something else.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Eritrean-Tigrinyas are NOT Tigrayans(AGAMES!)![edit]

I've titled this way to make a point, Tigrayans are their districts which are Agame, Shire, Adowa, Mekele...etc! Eritrea Kebessa(Tigrinya) are Akele Guzaye, Seraye, Hammasien!. So Eritrean Tigrinyas are NOT MEKELE, Nor are they SHire nor Adowa, Nor AGAME which makes ERitrean Tigrinyas are NOT TIGRAYANS!

Wikipedia has allowed itself to be a promoter of the Ethiopian Tigrayans shenangins! Pretty pathetic.

This article was Titled "Tigray-Tigrinya" to encompass the "Tigray" in Ethiopia and the "Tigrinya" in Eritrea. However after some wiki manipulations by some Tigrayan POV agents, its become POV article to satisfy the Tigrayan POVists!

If this is to be only about Ethiopian "TIGRAY" ie "TIGRAYANS" then we should remove any reference to ERITREAN TIGRINYAS.

Eritrean TIgrinyas Do Not See themselves as Tigrayans (Ethiopian Tigrayans).

I recommend, we split this article into "Tigrayans-Ethiopians" and "Eritrean- TIgrinyas". They are not the same people, they have been killing each other for 100s of years. Go read the history books.

2001:558:600A:4B:1C46:2D4D:CD43:A6E9 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:4B:1C46:2D4D:CD43:A6E9 (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia follow this link to the Book "Mai Weini, a Highland Village in Eritrea: A Study of the People, Their.." by Kjetil Tronvoll. [1]

In this Book, it explains the ethnic identity of Eritrean Tigrinyas: For example, Eritrean Tigrinya are called officially by the Government of Eritrea as "Biher-Tigrinya", the people in general refer to themselves as either Aliet Tigrinya or Kebessa (Highland) and specifically as Hammasien, Seraye, or Akele Guzay BUT they DO NOT REFER to Themselves as "TIGRAYAN". To an Eritrean TIgrinya, a "TIGRAYAN" is someone from the "TIGRAY" province in Ethiopia. 2001:558:600A:4B:1C46:2D4D:CD43:A6E9 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Ancient AXUM(AKSUM) Kings were NOT STRICTLY TIGRAYANS, they were GEEZ-speakers[edit]

The Notable-Tigray-Tigrinya People part of this Wiki entry needs to remove all the Listed Kings of Axum(AKsum).2001:558:600A:4B:1C46:2D4D:CD43:A6E9 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

  This would be the equivalent of calling Ancient Roman emperors as Notable modern-day Sicilians even though Ancient Romans could've have been from any of the Groups that formed the Roman Empire. 2001:558:600A:4B:1C46:2D4D:CD43:A6E9 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree the Axumite(Aksumite) emperors(Kings) were Not only Tigrayans so to classify them as "Notable Tigrayans" is incorrect historically. Most of the Axumite(Aksumite) emperors were Amharas....I think we should delete them from the Notable Tigrayan section. Puhleec (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed common one word name for the Tigray-Tigrinya people[edit]

Recently Wikipedia changed title of this article to Tigrayans on the ground that two words cannot be used to identify one people with one language and recommended to search for a common one word. For instance there are somali people leaving in many Horn of African countries but when one says "Somalia people" it doesnt mean the somali speaking Djiboutians or Kenyans or Ethiopians or Somalilanders but yet when you say "Somali people" they all agree to this one word name. Tigray-Tigrigna people need to look for a common 1 word name just like the word "Somalis"

Historically non Tigrigna speaking people identify both Eritrean and north Ethiopian Tigrigna speaking people as Tigre (ትግሬ). I am assuming the Ethiopian Tigringa speaking changed it to Tigrayan just like Somali was changed to "Somaliya" or Oromo changed to "Oromiya" while Eritreans on the other hand changed it to "Tigrigna people". So I'm thinking the root word is "ትግሬ" but the problem is when you write it in english script it contradicts with Tigre (ትግረ) ethnicgroup of Eritrea. If you ask any other Ethiopian on how they will identify Ethiopian Tigrigna speaking peoples no one will say "Tigray" but he will say Tigrae (ትግሬ) and will use the term "Tigray" to describe the province found in Ethiopia and also when you ask how do you identify Tigrigna speaking Eritreans he will not say "Tigringa people" but again he will say Tigre (ትግሬ) and will use the term "Tigrigna" to identify the language spoken but not the people because calling people as Tigrigna equals calling Amharas as "Amarigna people".

So instead of writing Tigrayans why not use "Tigrae" to write the Geez script "ትግሬ" to English and avoid the contradiction with the "ትግረ" (Tigre) of Eritrea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthiopianHabesha (talkcontribs) 22:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read the discourse in the previous section (related to move of March 2). As you will find there, your proposal is inconsistent with the naming conventions and rules of Wikipedia. In particular, note that the point of reference is English speakers (for the English Wikipedia) not the people's being described. Merhawie (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, I think the one neutral word would be Tigrinyas as suggested above in Counterproposal: Tigrayans → Tigrinyas. Khestwol (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Merhawie, I am against the use of Tigray/Tigrayans as a common name and it's use equals using the name Somalia/Somalians on all Somali speaking people in which all Somalis outside Somalia strongly disagree. Even when someone identifies himself while speaking english no one will say "I am Tigray" but rather he will say "I am from Tigray" and no one will also says "I am Tigrigna" but rather he will say "I speak Tigrigna". Everyone agrees with common terms like "I am Somali", "I am Afar" or "I am Oromo" on these ethnic-groups who leave between Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Kenya. I think it is time to find a common name for Tigrigna speaking people, which linguists categorize their language as one, and in which their land was a heartland of Axum i.e. one of the greatest civilization in this world, but now that land being separated by a border created by Europeans who were stateless by the 4th century when Axumites built an empire and printed gold coins, made Greek it's official language and learned Greek Philosophy before the British, Germans & Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthiopianHabesha (talkcontribs) 12:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Tigrayans are a ethnic SUBset of the larger Tigrinya(Tigrigna)-Speaking People and the Biher-Tigrinya (Eritrea) are an ethnic SUBSet of the larger Tigrinya(Tigrigna)-speaking people. They do not see each other as the Same Ethnic group, they only see a familiarity in a language that has TWO DIalects which is the ASMARA Dialect of ERitrean Tigrinyas and the Adwa Dialect of the Tigrayans. An Eritrean Tigrinya would not fully understand aN Adwa dialect but would know that person is a Tigrayan. Whereas Tigrayans have been teaching themselves since the 1990s to learn the ASMARA Dialect. 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
So far there is no dialect listed under Tigrigna language by linguists as you can see here , although there might be accent variations just English speakers of USA, British or India or like Amharic speakers of Addis Ababa, Gojam or Gondar. As for ethnicity, in our region (East Africa) ethnicity is determined by the language spoken and since both people speak one language and one dialect but various accents then it is assumed they are one people who leave in different countries with different citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthiopianHabesha (talkcontribs) 16:57, 3 May 2016
The HUTU and the TUTSI Speak the SAME EXACT Language but have some dialect differences JUST Like the Eritrean Tigrinyas and the Ethiopian Tigrayans. Using your logic of in "Our East African region", well in both the Wiki articles for Hutu and Tutsi, they have separate Articles and ARE NOT REFERRED to as the SAME ETHNIC GROUP!. Everyone on Wikipedia and the World Knows what happened between the HUTUs and TUTSIs..and everyone in the World knows what has Happened between the ERitrean Tigrinyas(ERitrea) and EThiopian Tigrayans(TPLF) ie BADME 1998 WAR :ALL OUT World War I trench I ask why is there a Push On WIKIPEDIA to FORCE this ONE ETHNICITY RULE on ERITREAN TIGRINYAS and ETHIOPIAN TIGRAYANS? Why, WIKIPEDIA DOESN"t DO it FOR HUTUS and TUTSIs!....Agenda? Or Out RIGHT DISREGARD for the TRUTH...if Wikipedia is About the TRUTH then Speak about it or Continue to Perpetuate a FALSE Article!. Eritrean Tigrinyas and EThiopian Tigrayans are NOT the Same Ethnicity even if they speak TWO Different Dialects of the Tigrinya Language! 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually there is a single article for Hutu and Tutsi, it's at Banyarwanda. But it is perhaps an interesting point. Is there a case for splitting the two sides into separate articles? Do reliable sources usually lump them together or separately?  — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru are you still opposed to the proposed title Tigrinyas in spite of the research library notes I made above (preceding the counter-proposal)? The research library assembled a set of reference books on African ethnic groups, and I went through and search for proposed terms. I thought this was better path than the traditional n-gram analysis because I was concerned that geographical descriptions were being confused with ethnic group descriptions. Please let us know what you think? Merhawie (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

To Amakuru, there is a Banyarwanda article as there are also separate Hutu and Tutsi articles as well which are linked in the Banyarwanda article. Still this topic is quite controversial to both the Eritrean Tigrinyas and the Ethiopian Tigrayans. Whatever Wikipedia guidelines are, it can Not change the Truth on the Ground that Eritrean Tigrinyas and Ethiopian Tigrayans see themselves as Separate and Distinct Ethnic groups. Go read the History on these two people on how they have at times collaborated and at times Went to all out War, mostly Tigrayans would invade Eritrean Tigrinya territories. But on wikipedia, somehow in agreement with some unrealistic guideline, Editors have to ignore the Obvious truth in the reality of the Subject matter in this Article. Why is there a need to refer to Eritrean Tigrinyas as Tigrayans? This would be equal to referring to a Tutsi as a Hutu even after the 1990s Genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus?2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Both Hutu and Tutsi speak a language called Rwanda-Rundi and I counted 13 dialects of this language listed here but again I looked at the Tigrigna lanaguage and I couldnt be able to find not even one dialect listed below it. If you have any other source listing dialects of Tigrigna please share with us. As Amakuru said both Hutu and Tutsi have a common page even though they speak different dialects. The Hutu-Tutsi difference is about physical appearance and the Tutsi's look like cushitic speaking people while the Hutus look like the Bantu speaking people and this difference is also applied to the Bantu-Somalis who also speak the Somali language but different by ethnicity from majority Somalis. Bantu-Somalis trace their origin to Tanzania and some of them even know their true tribal identity and practice their culture still today. In my opinion to claim a separate ethnicity there atleast should be a great difference in either dialect or physical appearance which is not the case for the Tigray-Tigrigna people. Wars, Citizenship, Nationality, Religion and Dialect are not used to claim separate ethnicity and best example for this is the Punjabis who number 138 million and leave between India and Pakistan who also went to war, have 2 citizenships, 2 nationality, 2 religions and who speak one language with over 7 dialects as can be seen here Pakistan-India split for religion reason and Ethio-Eritrea and Somaliland-Somalia split based on African nations agreement which says "we all should stay on the borders created for us by Europeans" which also divided many tribes of Africa like Maasai people, Tuareg people, Berbers etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthiopianHabesha (talkcontribs) 21:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
To EthiopianHabesha, since you decided Not to Sign your Name just use four tedlas, a tedla is ~. I am responding to your post here regarding not finding a single "Wiki article" on the Tigrinya dialects. Remember Wikipedia is Meta-encyclopedia of other legitimate sources. Here is a link to a UCLA Profile about the Eritrean Asmara Dialect and the Tigrayan Dialect, whether they call it Adwa or Tigray, it makes no difference. [1]. Either way as the UCLA page states: HISTORY "The earliest written Tigrinya is from the 13th century and was found in Logosarda in southern Eritrea. Many of the words in this text, which concerns local laws, are similar to those found in modern Tigrinya." Eritrean Tigrinya is the Standard Tigrinya." 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The source you provided also says this "the consensus among Tigrinya scholars is that are no significant social dialect differences" and still the two important sources i.e. and Linguasphere Observatory which wikipedia relies mainly for classification of world's languages lists no dialect for Tigrniya so far. Anyways even if there is many dialects the people will still be considered as one language speakers and based on the example of Punjabis given above and the people will also be regarded as one ethnic-group. Now the issue is part of the people who leave in Eritrea find it inappropriate to be called Tigrayans and part of the people who leave in Ethiopia find it inappropriate to be called Tigrinyas so now we have to find a common name where it is considered appropriate for all of them. It should be noted that this topic is not about they both should have one nationality/citizenship but it's about ethnic-group and finding common name for it just like all the other ethnicgroups of Africa/world who leave between several countries.
EthiopianHabesha, with regard to regional dialects and variation with Tigrinya please see this article: Taddese Beyene, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, p. 20. And here, you are right, we are talking about the best title for an article, not whether the ethnolinguistic group belongs in one country or another. In that spirit however, one of the current proposals (that was earlier discussed) is that the reference be to the common language that binds them as opposed to a demonym needlessly selected to refer to a subset of the population when a broader language based label exists. As cited above, the demonym was selected only because the term existed most in the corpus, which is not surprising when it is considered that 1) the region has been subjected to more written word than the language, 2) there are more people living in that region, and 3) historical sites in the region have been studied longer and deeper. None of the previously mentioned reasons however, reflects the ethnic group discussed on this page. If you see above, I selected a well known research library that had a set of reference guides on ethnic groups and searched through each of them for the terms related to this subject. The results are above, but ultimately suggest that the page should be titled based on the language e.g. Tigrinya people. Again, I used this methodology to be as consistent with the Wikipedia policy to choose title that would be most easily referenced while remaining as precise as possible - Tigrayan cannot fit this mandate (too restrictive) while Tigray-Tigrinya cannot either (redundant). I hope you agree. Merhawie (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
To Merhawie The proposed term "Tigrinyas" equals with Germans for German language speakers who leave in various countries of Europe. It might be ok but the thing is nobody says "I am Tigrinya" while describing his ethnicgroup while speaking english. As you said Tigrinya has no political definition on it but then again since it was heavily used in Eritrea, while not in Ethiopia it might be hard for both groups to accept it as a common name. Besides, semetic languages have two separate names to refer the language and the people example: Amhara, Argoba, Gurage is used to identify the people while Amarigna, Argobigna & Guragigna are used to refer the language. Since this language also being semetic it has same characteristics and that Tigrey/Tigrae (not read like "Tigray") is used to identify the people while Tigrigna is used to refer the language. so using "Tigrinyas" from english speakers/foreigners perspective it might be ok to use it but from Ethiopians/Eritreans perspective it is awkward to identify people as "Tiginya people" — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthiopianHabesha (talkcontribs) 15:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Requested move 9 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for this suggested rename. Fascinating discussion! (specially that very last part <tic>) Closed with no prejudice, i.e., any new move request that would result from any given proposal made in this discussion is, of course, fine by me. (closed by a page mover)  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  08:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

TigrayansTigrinyas – Extensive discussion has found the term "Tigrinyas" is more consistent with the description of the culture group described as opposed to other alternatives which are more appropriate for the description of a territory only some Tigrinya speaking people inhabit. Additionally, Tigrinyas does not have any political connotation (as the current title, Tigrayans, does) and seems the most accurate English term used to describe the ethnicity. Since the last move request, opposition comments has been addressed and detailed based on research library references over n-gram analysis which has confused geographical references with ethnic group references (the latter of which is the focus of the article). A well known research library that had a set of reference guides on ethnic groups and searched through each of them for the terms related to this subject. The results are above, but ultimately suggest that the page should be titled based on the language e.g. Tigrinya people. Again, I used this methodology to be as consistent with the Wikipedia policy to choose title that would be most easily referenced while remaining as precise as possible - Tigrayan cannot fit this mandate (too restrictive) while Tigray-Tigrinya cannot either (redundant). Merhawie (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Apologies for not continuing the discussion above earlier this month, but to answer the question posed, I haven't seen enough evidence to overturn my belief that we should return to the old title of Tigray-Tigrinya people, which was the long term stable title of this article until very recently, and almost had enough consensus above. The argument that Tigrayan refers to a geographic region rather than an ethnicity simply isn't borne out by reliable sources, which consistently list "Tigray" as one of Ethiopia's major ethnic groups.[6][7] Assuming that there isn't a consensus to split the two groups along Eritrean/Ethiopian lines, the best solution remains to include both the Ethiopian name (Tigray) and the Eritrean name (Tigrinya) as a composite hyphenated title. If we can't get agreement for that, then we might as well stick with the current title, which at least is correct for two-thirds of the population of the group. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Even the article itself now almost exclusively uses "Tigrinyas", not the geographically/politically incorrect "Tigrayans." Do you want to change the wording of the article? Khestwol (talk)
Question: Amakuru, I understand one of the sources you provide seems to use "Tigray" as a shorthand for "Tigray-Tigrinya", is this why you prefer the return to the stable title? Have you seen the examples I provided above which provide a basis for the Tigrinyas title? Finally, can you help me understand why you do not believe "Tigrayan" is a demonym and instead an ethnonym? Merhawie (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Merhawie: Look at almost any source discussing the ethnicities of Ethiopia, and you will see it lists "Tigrayan", (or slight spelling variations, such as Tigray or Tigrean) and not "Tigryinya", for example CIA, Nations Encyclopedia, Ethiopia: the Land, Its People, History and Culture, to name a few. Reliable sources regard the Tigray as a single people or ethnicity, rather than a group simply hailing from a geographics region. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I see, that seems to indicate however that the culture group, as limited by the boundaries of Ethiopia is best designated as Tigrayan, but not dispositive of the whole culture group (i.e. on both sides of the border). Whereas, the sources found in the Boston University "Research Guide: Peoples and Cultures of Africa," suggest otherwise, e.g., see: Encyclopedia of African Peoples. , Ethnographic Survey of Africa. , Encyclopedia of World Cultures. , Peoples of the World. Africans South of the Sahara. , Africa: its peoples and their culture history. , and Peoples of Africa. . The majority of these sources (again I am focusing strictly on texts related to ethnography, especially crossing national borders instead of those focused on strictly one country or another) identify the appropriate label as Tigrinya while only one refers to the whole culture group as Tigrayan. As this page is focused on the ethnic group across borders, wouldn't Tigrinya be more appropriate as a result? Merhawie (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I would liken this case to the decision on what to call Association football. In the UK and other countries, it is known as simply football, while in the US it is known as soccer. Now clearly the term "soccer" could apply worldwide, it's the only usage of that name, and is also known in the UK. That is similar to how the term "Tigrinya" is known in Ethiopia, and could be used to refer to the Tigrayan people. Conversely, the term "football" does not mean soccer in the US, so is not a suitable title for the soccer article. However, we do not call the article soccer, even though that is a universally known term, because it is not the common term in the UK, where the game is played more than the US. Similarly, we should not call this article Tigrinya, even though that technically applies to all the people, because the Ethiopians, who form the majority of the population, are overwhelmingly commonly known as Tigrayans, not Tigrinyas. The previous compromise solution Tigray-Tigrinya people, neatly skirts this issue similar to the compromise name Association football. These are not the most common, but avoid the confusion between different countries that call it different things. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Either move it to "Tigrinyas" (or "Tigrinya people") or move it back to the rather clumsy, but also neutral, Tigray-Tigrinya people. "Tigrayans" refers to people who are from or live in the Tigray region (or the older province). It is inaccurate to use this term for Tigrinya-speaking people in Eritrea. (Also see my previous comment from 29 April 2016 in the earlier discussion section.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Return to status quo ante: Obviously the current title is controversial considering the amount of discussion it has generated, any title it is moved to that favors one side of the border over another is going to cause further controversy, "Tigray-Tigrinya" may seem a bit awkward and a unconventional but it is a much more neutral and inclusive title. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support move to "Tigrinyas" as per nom and others who agreed with this proposal formerly at this section. "Tigrinyas" is the politically neutral title acceptable to all Tirgrinyas from both Eritrea and Ethiopia. Oppose "Tigray-Tigrinya people". Khestwol (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Return to status quo slash reopen the first RM. I find it a bit baffling that the first RM was closed after only a week and two comments. Maybe that's enough input to get consensus in an uncontroversial case, but I think the almost immediate opposition in the wake of the closure suggests that the RM wasn't advertised widely enough. I don't think there's anything wrongful that's happened, but I think the formal RM close should be treated as a bold pagemove following a discussion rather than changing the status quo, especially given there was easily a majority if not a consensus that the present title is probably incorrect. While the onus is normally on the moving party to show that a rename is the right move, the first RM has been shown to be problematic. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am a bit apprehensive in referring to Tigrayans as "Tigrinya" since someone from Tigray will call themselves as Tigraway while an Eritrean Tigrinya will refer to themselves as "Tigrinya" because of how "ethnicity" is denoted in Eritrea is by the name of the Language. Eritrean Tigrinyas only identify their "Tigrinya" when they come in contact with Non-ERitrean Tigrinya ethnicities of which Ethiopian Tigrayans are seen as a different ethnicity to Eritrean Tigrinyas. To an Eritrean Tigrinya, a Tigrayan is a Tigraway/Tigrawayit(m/f) or Tegaru (plural) and I do not think Tigrayans refer to themselves as Tigrinya. Nonetheless, referring to Eritrean Tigrinyas as "Tigrayans" is incorrect socially, politically, ethnically, nationally,culturally, historically, and geographically. I think it is better to not represent these two ethnic groups as "one ethnic group". If the Hutus and Tutsis are referred to as two separate Ethnic groups yet are collectivelly called Binyarwanda "People" due to their linguistic commonality. Maybe this article could be split out as "Eritrean Tigrinya" and "Ethiopian Tigrayan", and then the collective "Tigrinya-speakers" or tie the two separate articles. I say this because there are many historical experiences and cultural/social practices which differentiate Eritrean Tigrinyas from Ethiopian Tigrayans. 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Tigray-Tigrinya people per my vote above. "Tigrinyas" isn't neutral either. SSTflyer 05:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Question: SSTflyer, I understand that you believe "Tigrinyas" is not neutral. I am trying to understand why? Is it because it is also used to denote ethno-linguistic groups in Eritrea? Does it help if you understand that this designation was specifically chosen to be objective? Merhawie (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Merhawie, the term Tigrinyas is the most accurate English term to describe the ethnicity and the page should be moved. I *oppose Khestwol's and Abrahamic Faiths' proposal to return to the previous name Tigray-Tigrinya as the term is clumsy and has never been used to describe the ethnicity in question. The term Tigrinyas is an apolitical term and is valid for all Tigrinya speakers in both Eritrea and Tigray. Divex (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tigré is a common name before 1884: The Penny Cyclopaedia uses the name Tigré or Tigrie (ትግሬ) to identify the people who leave on north and south of Mareb River, and it places Bejas or Bojas as the people who leave north of Tigré, Danakil and Oromos on the east and south, while Amharas leave on the southwest of Tigré.[1][2] This encyclopedia was published in 1833 i.e. before the scramble for Africa began in 1884 and the establishment of Modern Ethiopia in 1896 and establishment of Eritrea in 1889. The book was compiled from westerners who travelled in this region like James Bruce and Henry Salt (Egyptologist) who wrote the book titled A voyage to Abyssinia in 1814.[3] Henry Salt travelled to Abysinia and described all provinces and districts of Tigré geographically, politically and historically in detail from page 378-382. In his book Henry said: "....portion of Tigré, commonly called the kingdom of Baharnegash which may be considered as comprising the districts of Hamazen......".[4] According to the most independent neutral and reliable sources presented above we can conclude that both Tigray and Biher Tigrigna are new names developed by nationalist in the 20th centuary from the original name Tigré similar to Somalia and Somaliland being developed from the original name Somali. Based on most related languages to Tigrigna a person is identified as Tigré, Amhara, Gurage, Argoba while their languages are called Tigrinya, Amarinya, Guraginya and Argobinya and for these people to be identified as Amarinyas, Guraginyas, Argobinyas and Tigrinyas is very awkward and for English speakers the most appropriate name for these people would be Amharas, Gurages, Argobas and Tigrés. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Charles Knight The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Difussion of Useful Knowledge. Published in 1833 pp. 53 Google Books
  2. ^ Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge: Bassantin - Bloemaart, Volume 4. Published in 1835 pp. 170 Google Books
  3. ^ Henry Salt A Voyage to Abyssinia. M. Carey (1816)
  4. ^ Henry Salt A Voyage to Abyssinia. Published in 1816 pp. 381 Google Books
  • ResponsetoEthiopianHabesha: If we are going to use the Definition or Descriptions of a European whether it was in 1940s, 1930s, 1880s, 1810s..etc, then would it be fair to call Black Africans by the Name used by Europeans/Whites throughout all of this history, or would it be better and More Truthful to ask the People what they prefer to be called? Radical Islamic jihadists may refer to nonbelievers as "Infidels" for example, but "nonbelievers" may refer to themselves as Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, ATHEISTS, animists, shamans, "insert religion designation". Would the radical islamic jidhadist naming convention OVERRIDE the name the people called themselves? Why are you and why Does Wikipedia HEAVILY Depend on Western European definitions, naming conventions, rules, paradigms, philosophies etc to Present Cultures and Peoples that ARE NOT WESTERN EUROPEANS? This is becoming an Exercise of Western European Intellectual Chauvenism! Eritrean Tigrinyas do not want to be Called Tigrayans. Ethiopian Tigrayans do not identify as what Eritrean Tigrinyas Identify. This forced UNITY of TWO Peoples into ONE Ethnic Group is a Western Imposed exercise in futility! The reality on the ground is otherwise, ie there lies several Bodies of Humans fertilizing the ground between Eritrea and Ethiopia! The DUTCH = DEUSTCH= DANISH = GERMANS= All Of them are NAZIS because at One Point they were All NAZIS LOGIC is being used here. 2001:558:600A:83:E554:EA61:3CD4:5EF8 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • More Historical analysis and response to the above comment: Firstly, I tried to give a solution based on neutral sources (European scholars). I beleive the European travellers have interviewed all the elite of Abyssinia including key rulling classes from the presentday Tigrayan-Tigrinya people, in which Mr. Salt refer them as Tigrés and describes them as the most powerful of all Abysinians because of their advantage being close to the Red sea, which helped them accumulate modern weapons from Turks and Europeans. And if anyone opposed the name of Tigré at the time of their travel then it would have been indicated in their books, assuming the European scholars were neutral/independent as well as Tigrés being the most powerufl as described by them. Secondly, in addition from European perspective I tried to analyse it based on Ethio-Eritrean perspective and other closely related languages to Tigrinya. I tried to inform foreigners on how it is awkward for people to be identified as Guraginyas for Gurage people and Amarinyas for Amhara people so and so on. "-inya" is a suffix applied to describe any other languages by southern semetic languages including Tigrinya, and it is used like Somalinya, Orominya, Englizinya etc. By the way I am also against the use of Tigrayans on all Tigrinya speaking people. See results from Google Ngram Viewer, where there is no book mentioning Tigrayans or Tigrinyas written before 1980s, a time were there was high Marxist led ethnic nationalism in Ethiopia. And I beleive both EPLF and TPLF used Marxism–Leninism as their manual, an ideology written by white people whom you condemned them. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Tigrinya". As I said in the last RM, it does appear that it's in use as a term for Tigrinya-speaking people.[8][9][10] I'm not convinced that by the argument that "Tigray-Tigrinya", not to mention "Tigray-Tigrinya people", is a common term.--Cúchullain t/c 15:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Tigrinya". I say It is EITHER "TIGRINYA" or TWO-SEPARATE ARTICLES (TIGRINYA) and (TIGRAYAN). Anything else at this point will cause further issues. The TWO-SEPARATE ARTICLES would remove any Controversy. But if Wikipedia does not Agree to Separate the Articles to speak for the Two Different Ethnic Groups, then "TIGRINYA" better be used or else VANDALISM and EDIT WARS will BE RAMPANT! I Don't predict this I am Fully Convinced this will happen!Puhleec (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Status - It seems clear that there is a consensus for changing the title from "Tigrayans". The current question is what to change the title to. There are two current suggestions: (1) "Tigray/Tigrinya people" (4 editors support) and (2) "Tigrinyas" or "Tigrinya people" (6 editors support). Merhawie (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Merhawie: there is no consensus that Tigrinyas is a better title than Tigrayans. Those supporting a return to Tigray-Tigrinya people do not favour replacing one POV title with another one. I still don't understand why you prefer an Eritrean title over one that covers both names equally. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: I think you have misread what I wrote. I said in my status note that the consensus seems to be to move away from the title "Tigrayans", not that there is a consensus to move to Tigrinyas. As for your question about why I prefer the title "Tigrinyas" or "Tigrinya people", I have two comments: (1) although the term is used in Eritrea to refer to an ethno-linguistic group, the term is not narrowly focused on a people group in Eritrea but to the people who ethnic history is based in the language (i.e. Eritrean Tigrinya speakers and Tigrayan Tigrinya speakers) which inherently covers the entire people group and (2) the literature (albeit academic) seems to support the term more broadly than any other single term (unless you combine two terms, e.g. "Tigray/Tigrinya people"). Merhawie (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: To everyone on Here, I intentionally changed the Name to "AGAMES" to make a point about how defining a people using a NARROW subgroup within that group will cause Conflicts. Just watch all the Edits which rightfully will show that by LOGIC: 1. Agames speak Tigrinya. Eritrean Tigrinyas speak Tigrinyas. Ethiopian Tigrayans speak Tigrinya. Agames are a subgroup of Ethiopian Tigrayans. Therefore if speaking Tigrinya makes you an Agame, then All Tigrinya-speakers are "AGAMES"! This is type of logic being used here when trying to Turn Eritrean Tigrinyas into Ethiopian Tigrayans or vice versa! 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Ethiopians vs Eritreans To All readers here, this "Ethnic" naming issue is nothing but a Minor Battle amongst a Greater War which is IDENTITY Politics between EThiopian People Forcing their "Ethiopian" Identity on "Eritrean" People who obviously have Went to War against for the past 100 Years. I recommend to Split out this Article and Not Confuse the Two Ethnic Groups and Two Peoples. This is becoming Ridiculous and Wikipedia is ONly Using this to gain More Hits/Internet Traffic when "Contention" of this magnitude is used for "profits".Disturbing, to say the least. The End of this Story is that ERITREAN TIGRINYAS will Not Be called Nor Accept and Will VIOLENTLY DESTROY anyone Who forces Ethiopian Tigrayan Identity upon them!. Wikipedia keep Stoking the Flames of Ethnic Battles and National Wars!..I wonder if a war of Ethnicities etc fans if Wikipedia can be SUED for promoting One side over the Other?2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Cicero

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

REQUEST to DELETE Aksumite(Axumite) Kings listed under Notable Tigrayans because it is Original Research. No Citation provided[edit]

I have put an Original Research tag and Citation needed for the List of Axumite(Aksumite) kings listed as "Notable Tigrayans" There is no historical records or evidence that says these Axumite(Aksumite) kings were Tigrayans because they do not meet the criteria of the Ethnic Tigrayan which is Speak Tigrinya and be from Tigray. The Aksumite(Axumite) kings spoke Geez and did NOT refer to themselves as "Tigrayan". Until there is evidence or verifiable sources saying so, I request to delete all the Axumite(Aksumite) kings listed under the Notable Tigrayans.Puhleec (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I repeat as I said once before User talk:2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C the people of Tigray in discedenze Axumite culture by so many factors that can be the type of construction of rural and very similar urban dwellings, with many rural life testimonies and behaviors that differ from other Ethiopian peoples not to mention that the main cities and places of historical importance are found in Tigray.
Mr. you have multiple accounts and not good Sockpuppet--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I request Admin support here. Sennaitgebremariam is accusing me of sockpuppetry. And he has not provided Citation to show the Axumite(Aksumite) kings were strictly Tigrayans. No Citation, no verifiable sources. As far the records show, the Aksumite/Axumite kings did not refer to themselves as Tigrayan or Amhara or Tigrinya. They spoke Geez which would make them Ageezians or Geez people. Puhleec (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think since adding the Aksumite kings to be part of the Notable Tigrayans is original research on the part of Sennaitgebraim. I will give Sennaitgebremariam to provide verifiable sources stating that the Aksumite kings were Tigrayans, if not I will delete all the Aksumite kings listed under Notable Tigrayans. Sennaitgebremariam, you have 3 Days to provide a verifiable source.Puhleec (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

My argument as well as the argument of historians is that Aksumites can not be referred to as Tigrinya, Tigrayan, Tigre, nor Amhara since these are the Descendants of Aksumites not the otherway around as Sennaitgebremariam is trying to impose with Original Research ie "Since Axum is in Tigray region/province, then it must mean the Aksumites were Tigrayans", this doesn't hold water to the evolution of the language, culture, and religion in this region. I am recommending and will most likely delete the Aksumite Kings listed under the "Notable Tigrayan" section. Since this article is about Tigrayans and Tigrinyas and Not Aksumites.Puhleec (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article on the History of Tigre, Tigrinya, and Tigrayan: [1] sources are cited within the Article itself.Puhleec (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

here we are talking simply if the Tigrinya speaking people have origins from the ancient Axumite, being that the most important archaeological and cultural remains found in Tigray is normal that the origin there is, but that does not mean that there is not even in the origin Amhara and Eritrean people who speak Tigrinya language, languages that originate from Ge'ez.

there is a page created Tigrinyas just specific people who speak Tigrinya in Eritrea and can be safely added them. you could do more than distinguish the two pages between Tigrayans ethiopians and Tigrinyas Eritrea, it is okay.

who cares to know that a certain ras was guilty of treason on a page that talks about the culture tigrina if he wants he can add this item this anecdote Second Italo-Ethiopian War
stop making this edit wars--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


To answer her and others who want to join the discussion
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the page Tigrayans in paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people were also included now deleted Ethiopian Axumite kings and saints by another user.
Here I was required references from Puhleec and I have added them. All Axumite kings born in Tigray is the people Tigrayan and language is direct source for both the source Ge'ez language, most importantly the type of stone construction (Hudmo)1 of peasant dwellings, churchs and rock hewn churches of Tigray in classic style Axumite and almost all of the practice of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of religion and most monumental archaeological treasures and inherits library stored in Tigray all bring back the Axumite period not retrievable in some parts Amhara and especially Oromo.--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User Sennaitgebremariam, your sources do NOT State that the Aksumite Kings were TIGRAYANS therefore adding them under Notable Tigrayans is not valid. You are using your own original research to come to this conclusion, I will delete your Aksumite kings again.Puhleec (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello there seems to be a dispute, i'll try to assist in resolving this after I figure out the issue. Zekenyan (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Zekenyan, my issue with Sennaitgebremariams: and as many historians as well as Ethnographists will attest is the labeling of "Ancient Aksumite kings" as being "Notable Tigrayans", a Modern ethnic group. This attempt by SennaitG can be discredited simply on the fact that the Ancient Aksumite kings Spoke and Wrote in Geez and NOT Tigrinya, therefore the linguistic aspect of ethnography is gone here. Religion also is another factor, Tigrayans are Orthodox christians, while these Ancient Aksumite kings practiced polytheism hence can not be referred to as Tigrayans nor Notable Tigrayans. This is the equivalent of referring to Ancient Romans as "Italians" simply because "Rome" is in modern-day Italy. SennaitG is using this type of logic to do their original research and conclusions. Also, the sources that SennaitG added to the "Aksumite kings" Do NOT state nor Identify the Kings as Tigrayans hence it is original research on SennaitG's part. There seems to be a concerted effort of PUFFERY going on here trying to make the "Tigrayan" article seem greater than the "Tigrinya" article. I intentionally added the Aksumite Kings to the Notable Biher Tigrinya's list to show that the same logic and original research that Sennait used can be applied hence. But Watch Sennait or others of his Tigrayan viewpoints delete it. Puhleec (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Tigray people live in Tigray for 3,000 years, and are direct descendants from the people of the kingdom of axum
the axum became a Christian kingdom with King Ezana
for Italy it is another matter passed a great variety of peoples in that region but that the Italian culture is predominantly Latin unlike other European peoples.
King Aksumite add to the list of Notable Biher-Eritrean Tigrinya people it's ok--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
For the Horn of Africa a great variety of people have passed through as well, so how can you really prove that modern Tigrayans, Tigrinyas are the ethnic makeup of Ancient Aksumites? In actuality by linguistic studies, the Tigre people of Eritrea speak a Language Closer to Geez even more so than Tigrinya or Amharic. I hope you see how ridiculous it looks to refer to the same King as being ethnically "Amhara", "Tigrinya", "Tigrayan" when neither of these three options were referred to by your Sources nor the Aksumite Kings themselves. Infact, an Aksumite king made a distinction between himself and the Agammettas and Tigrettas (Agames and Tigrayans/Tigrinyas) in the Momentum Adalitanum, an ancient text(a verifiable source).Puhleec (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


Division of Tigrayans and Tigrinya pages[edit]

It was created a new page that distinguishes two peoples Tigrayans and Tigrinyas but was not completed well because in the Tigrayans page there are arguments that speak of people Tigrinyas I plan to complete the Tigrinyas page to give a clear division to two pages.
if you agree Kuru?--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - "Tigrayans" only refers to those living in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, if the title is to remain at "Tigrayans" than a page for "Tigrinyas" should exist as well, if the two groups are to remain in one article than the page should be renamed, but since it is clear it will never be renamed the split is the only right way to go about it. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The most recent survey finds consensus of changing the title from Tigrayans. The trouble seems to be identifying what to change it to. 40% of editors support a return to the Tigray-Tigrinyas while 60% editors support a change to Tigrinyas or Tigrinya people. I think we need to move the needle on these two proposals instead of splitting the pages. Merhawie (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    I disagree. Tigrinyas is the worst of the three possible titles, since it overlooks the "Tigray" identity completely. If we can't go back to the long term title of Tigray-Tigrinya people, then I'd prefer this article to stick to the current title, as it was moved to in Feb, which at least is an accurate description for the majority of the ethnic group. A split may be warranted if reliable sources really do confirm the notion that the Ethiopian and Eritrean speakers of this language are culturally and historically separate, I'd need to look at more data to decide that, but the solution is not to resurrect the failed move request above.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with dividing the two groups into two wikipedia articles. By definition of ethnic groups Ethnic group, "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences", it is evident by not only the disagreements between Tigrayans and Tigrinyas,but "ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences" of Tigrinyas and Tigrayans is different at minimum. Those who want to keep these two Ethnic groups as One, are basing it solely on Language (of which there is dialectal differences). The origin myth history of the Tigrinyas and Tigrayans is different as well, therefore these are geniunely two different ethnic groups. Commonly shared foods, languages, and occasional interrmarriage does not make two ethnic groups automatically "One". There is intermarriage between Oromo and Amhara and Tigrayan, however they are different ethnic groups. Tigrayans speak Amharic in addition to Tigrinya. Eritrean Tigrinyas speak Tigre in addition to Tigrinya. There are many sources available on the internet, in libraries, online books, and other historical as well research from various Universities that can back that these Two groups are two separate ethnic groups.Otakrem (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A split is much better and easier to edit in the long run and reduce edit wars of which there are many on these highly charged ethnic articles. Someone has already started a separate Tigrinya article for "Biher Tigrinya"(Eritreans) and I think if we move most of the "Tigrinya" related things over to the "Tigrinya" article. What most people on Wikipedia are missing is the diversity even within the "Tigrayans" and "Tigrinyas", the history, the culture it is Not the Same and it is incorrect to Monolothically present these People as all the Same. If that is the route to go, then we might as well not have a "Tigrayan" article , and just have one Monolithic "Ethiopian" article and in that case the majority and minority-powerful will have the loudest voice on Wikipedia. If a distinction can be made between Belgians, Dutch, Duestche(Germans) etc, English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, etc, I think it is only fair to make a distinction between Tigrinya and Tigrayans, and give them both their Space in Wiki otherwise, this is double standard when it comes to African ethnic groups (peoples). Does Wikipedia only Provide Distinct Presentation for Western White(Welsh, English) people but Not Africans like Tigrinyas and Tigrayans? Puhleec (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment -for the division of the two pages I do not agree personally because encyclopedic the Tigray-Tigrinya ethnic group is one that both Eritrean Ethiopian
But over time I saw that some users were complaining about this and I proposed to divide it but do not agree.--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

SennaitGebremariam VANDALISING by DELETING SOURCED, VERIFIED Haile Selassie Gugsa entry in NOTABLE TIGRAYANS section[edit]

 All on Wikipedia editors, Sennaitgebremariam has been Deleting a Sourced/Verified/Linked Haile Selassie Gugsa entry and then masking his Vandalism by adding other "changes".  Admin support needed as this is leading to an UNNECESSARY Edit War with Sennaitgebremariam. Puhleec (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Also SennaitGebremariam keeps adding his Original Research with regards to Kingdom of Aksum Kings and listing them as "Notable Tigrayans", his sources do Not State this. It is Original Research, I will keep Deleting them.Puhleec (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I added new sources easily found which attest what I say--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your addition of "Tigreans burned his house down" is irrelevant to why he is a Notable Tigrayan. He was Notable because of his involvement with the Italians against the Ethiopian nation. Otherwise, if his house was burned down by "patriotic Tigreans" is irrelevant to the main point. And Yes, he is a Notable Tigrayan as his actions affected many Ethiopians and Eritreans. Your addition of "Tigreans burned his house down" was removed because it is irrelevant Chatter to the main point of the Notable Tigraayans. If you add it again, I will seek Admin support.Puhleec (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Puhleec, I agree with your conclusion of removing "Tigrean patriots burned down his house" is Offtopic and does not belong in the Notable Tigrayans haile selassie gugsa. I went to the Haile Selassie Gugsa linked in this Notable Tigrayan section and found this: "On 10 October, Haile Selassie Gugsa went over to the advancing Italians and announced his submission to Italian rule. The Italians immediately released photographs of Haile Selassie Gugsa participating in war councils with the Italian commander on the northern front, General de Bono. Furious Tigrean patriots in Mek'ele promptly set fire to Dejazmach Haile Selassie Gugsa's home in the town. On 8 November, Mek'ele fell." I will delete it because it is being duplicated and irrelevant to this section entry.Ethiopianhistorian (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Ethiopianhistorian I vote to delete it for Duplication/Offtopic.Otakrem (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I added the story following the guidelines of Wikipedia: Neutral point of view--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You added unverified and irrelevant information about Haile Selasie Gugsa with regards to him being a Notable Tigrayan. Puhleec (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ADMINS/EDITORS: Prove that Ancient Aksumite(Axum) Kings were TIGRAYANS?[edit]

I am having a dispute with SennaitGebremariam who keeps adding the Ancient Aksumite(Axum) Kings as being Notable Tigrayans. I have been in a minor Edit battle with Him. But at this Point I have intentionally added the Ancient Aksumite Kings to the Notable Biher Tigrinya (Eritrean) list just to see if Sennaitgebremariam will delete it based on his "Original Research" which it is. None of his Sources state that these Ancient Aksumite kings were Tigrayans. Infact one King Zoskales was of Adulis, which is in Eritrea which would make him NOT TIGRAYAN clearly. Sennait's logic is that since Axum is in Tigray, therefore all Ancestors were "Tigrayans". The problem with his original research is the fact that historians and linguists have found that the Ancient Aksumite Kings spoke Geez ( Parent language to Amharic, Tigre(Eritrea), and Tigrinya, and some other semitic languages in the Eritrean/Ethiopian linguistic groups) however, Sennait's original research is faulty because, he uses "architecture, and alphabets" which are shared by Amhara, Eritrean Tigrinyas, Ethiopian Tigrayans, as well as many other Groups within this region. I recommend DELETING the Ancient Aksumite Kings listed in "Notable Tigrayans, Notable Tigrinyas, Notable Amharas", as this is equivalent to referring to Ancient Romans as "Notable Spaniards, Notable Italians, Notable English" simply because of a connection to an Ancient Roman emperor. This is original research on the part of SennaitG. I call on ANY Wiki Admins and Editors other than SennaitG to come and PROVE that these ANCIENT AKSUMITE kings were "EThnically Tigrayan"? PROVE IT!Puhleec (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

the direct origin of the ancient Axumite was tigrayans with the rise to power of Menelik I first king of axum led to the creation in the first century the Axum Empire.--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You Sennaitgebremariam stated "the direct origin of the ancient Axumite was tigrayans", provide a verifiable source that states this?Puhleec (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Bad English/Grammar/Focus in Haile Selassie Gugsa under Notable Tigrayans[edit]

Other Editors assistance needed here, which of these two versions reads better and stays within the focus of the entry(HaileSelassieGugsa) in Notable Tigrayans:

Sennaitgebremariams version: "Haile Selassie Gugsa - he was granted the title of ras by Italian, title usurped by the occupants has collaborated with the Italians during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, furious Tigrean patriots in Mek'ele promptly set fire to his house in the city[32][33] and for this he was sentenced to death but it was commuted to life imprisonment."

Otakrems version: "Haile Selassie Gugsa - Dejazmatch who collaborated with the Italians during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War [32] and was granted the title of ras by the Italians. For his collaboration with the Italians, he was convicted by Ethiopia for being a traitor and sentenced to death but it was commuted to life imprisonment." Otakrem (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Haile Selassie Gugsa - Dejazmatch who collaborated with the Italians during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War and was granted the title of ras by the Italians, title usurped by the occupants and for this furious Tigrean patriots in Mek'ele promptly set fire to his house in the city, it was sentenced to death but it was commuted to life imprisonment.--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Your entry is bad grammar and bad english. "it was sentenced to death but it was commuted"? What is "it"?. This entry is about Haile Selassie Gugsa and Not furious tigrean patriots. Also, "Furious tigrean patriots setting fire to his house" does not add Balance about Haile Selassie Gugsa(One Person) therefore your use of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight is not correct here. Infact your entry is bloated with irrelevant and offtopic things like "furious tigrean patriots". You are giving Undue Weight to "furious tigrean patriots".Also, "title usurped by the occupants and for this" Bad english. I will have to shorten this entry on Haile Selassie Gugsa to Dejazmatch who collaborated with the Italians during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War." That is short and shows why he is a Notable Tigrayan, everything else, people can go read in the Article about Haile Selassie Gugsa. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editingOtakrem (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you two are still in dispute. Can you provide a link to the source for these statements? Zekenyan (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
These are the sources on Gugsa being a collaborator with the Italians. [11] [12]. Here are some additional details on H.S.Gugsa, See page 57,63 [13]And this is Sennaitgebremariams source on "furious tigreans patriots" burning down his house promptly, Nicolle, David, ''The Italian Invasion of Abyssinia 1935-1936'', p. 8 If you are able to access this book great if not, then it isn't verified yet. However, my main issue is the bad english and grammar being used that confuses the Gugsa entry, it seems offtopic to mention "furious tigrean patriots", when the entry is about Gugsa and why he is Notable? Gugsa reminds me of Vidkun Quisling which makes him a Notable Tigrayan because of his collaboration with the Italians against the Emperor Haile Selassie I. Otakrem (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand Sennait's attempt to make clear to readers that not all Tigrayans supported Gugsa but that can be left for his article page. His sentencing is also not important enough to be mentioned here, it just clogs the entry. His notability here is his collaboration with italians and being granted "Ras" title. Zekenyan (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Zekenyan, that was my thoughts to but I even shortened it to only his collaboration with the Italians and didn't even mention his being granted a Ras title by the Italians as that could be covered in his own article.Otakrem (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Falsely "sourced" Aksumite(Axum) kings listed under "Notable Tigrayans and Tigrinyas" - Deletion Candidates[edit]

I have noticed the sources cited for the Notable Tigrayan and Tigrinya "Kings of Axum"/Aksumite Kings are falsely sourced ie the sources mention nothing of them being Tigrayan or Tigrinya. An editor Fitrawrari deleted them and then I reviewed the sources and found no indication or statements saying they were 'Tigrayan" or "Tigrinyas". I have attached "weasel words" and "unreliable sources" to each one of the entries I looked at the source. Simply on the basis of them being falsely sourced, I think they should be deleted. I will give whoever entered it a few days to properly source them, or I will delete them. Five days from now, I plan on deleting them. Otakrem (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

the references are there, not to spoil the work of others
Tellez, The Travels of the Jesuits in Ethiopia, 1710 (LaVergue: Kessinger, 2010), pp. 89F.
E. Bernard, AJ Drewes, and R. Schneider, Recueil des Inscriptions de l'Ethiopie périodes des pré-axoumite et axoumite. Volume I:. Les Inscriptions Paris: Diffusion de Boccard 1991, p. 247.
Siegbert Uhlig (ed.) (2016). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, Volume 2 Eight Harrassowitz Verlag .. p. 211
S. C. Munro-Hay, Aksum: an African civilization Late Antiquity (Edinburgh University Press, 1991), p. 91.
letter to Antoine d'Abbadie, January 8, 1869 mentions a coin of this ruler. Sven Rubenson, Aethiopica Acta, vol 3: internal rivalries and external threats, from 1869 to 1879 (Addis Ababa: University Press, 2000), p. 3
See the article on ELLA Saham by Gianfranco Fiaccadori Aethiopica the Encyclopedia, vol. 2, Wiesbaden 2016

await an answer--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Response None of your sources state These "Aksumite Kings" were "Tigrayan" or "Tigrinya". Infact, some of your sources only say they spoke "Geez" (Yared). Therefore your claim that these "Aksumite kings" were "Tigrayan" or "Tigrinya" is your Own Original Research and Personal Analysis. Per Wikipedia Guidelines, they will need to be deleted and can be deleted. Provide a reliable source or the "Aksumite kings" will be deleted from the "Notable Tigrayans" and "Notable Tigrinyas".Otakrem (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

tigrayans as I said they are the direct descendants of the Axumite people will not repeat the reasons why I have already listed--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Tigrayans do not speak Geez as their native tongue, they speak Tigrinya, Amharic. You are making a personal analysis which is not per Wikipedia Guidelines. Your sources do not say so, therefore I plan on deleting your "Aksumite king" entries in both the "Notable Tigrayans" and "Notable Tigrinyas". Otakrem (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem Puhleec Ethiopianhistorian EthiopianHabesha stop making this vandalism because signal Sockpuppet--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What we know from History is that Tigrinya and Amharic language existence was only proofed by 13th century, which is after the ancient Agaws Zagwe dynasty dominated north Ethiopia for over 200 years. None of Axumite inscriptions recorded people and language called Tigre/Tigrinya. Like Amharic language Tigrinya is a result of Ge'ez, Agaw, and other extinct proto cushitic language based on linguists conclusion. People constantly move and integrate and there is also a possibility people from south of Agaw moved northward and settled in what we call today Tigray/Tigrinya. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
For once I will agree with you EthiopianHabesha in that you recognize the movements of people and languages being what they are. The Ancient Aksumites spoke Geez, wrote Geez. The modern-Tigrayan/Tigrinya speak Tigrinya and write in Tigrinya. Geez is the language that is used in the Churches of ethnically Tigrayan, Tigrinya, and Amhara people. Sennaitgebremariam is doing Original research and making Non-sourced Claims. I will keep deleting the Aksumite kings entered...I'm even thinking of the Yared, and other Ethiopian persons listed under the Notable Tigrayan. Please look at the Notable Tigrayan list and tell us which ones are just Aksumites? Otakrem (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

stop, you do the questions alone and you answer as well--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

New proposal for changing article name or split the article in two[edit]

The article is named "Tigrayans", which is by no means correct to describe the Eritrean ethnic group of Eritrea which are the Tigrinyas. Ethiopian ethnic group Tigrayans and the region Tigray is not the same as the Eritrean Tigrinyas which are the "Kebessa's". They do however have strong historical ties, but to claim that they are the same exact ethnic group is not correct. Either change the name article name from "Tigrayans" to "Tigrinya people and Tigrayan people", or split the article into two separate articles. Richard0048 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Split Splitting the article into "Tigrayans" and "Tigrinyas" will remove all unnecessary clumsy edits to capture the differences between the two ethnic groups. Already, there exists a "Tigrinya" article, all that remains is to remove "Tigrinya" data from "Tigrayan" article and move it over to Tigrinyas". As for historical ties, it appears the records show a hostile relation between the two ethnic groups with moments of collaboration of conveniences. Otherwise, they are two separate ethnic groups. They know it and the past and present relations shows it.Otakrem (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Split for the same reasons I listed in prior discussion, plus the Tigrinyas page already exists, having the same information both here and there is redundant, I also want to point out that other linguistically similar ethnic groups separated by borders are granted separate articles on Wikipedia, such as Isan people in Thailand and Lao people in Laos or Dutch people in the Netherlands and Flemish people in Belgium. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Any more comments from Others? We need to build consensus on a split otherwise this article is going to remain in this redundant statusquo which will hinder further improvements and redundant editting. I say we start moving "Tigrinya" specific data from here over to Tigrinyas. The arguments to keep them together has fallen apart and therefore the next logical step is to separate these two articles. Abrahamic Faith and Richard0048 have given their two cents as have I. The more we delay this, the more of these talkpage discussions are going to occur with no movement forward. Why are these two ethnic groups being imposed on each other? They clearly have different historical paths, traditions, territories, even cultural symbolism and ancestral mythologies which can not be captured in this current state.Otakrem (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the split eventhough I don't support the name 'Tigrayans' (corrupted from the common historical ethnicity name Tigré (ትግሬ) just like Somalia & Somaliland corrupted from ethnic Somali) being extended into Tigrinya speaking people of Eritrea. I think we should try one more time to come up with a name that both groups are ok with it, after all both groups speak one language and there is no wikipedia article saying Ethiopian Tigrinya language and Eritrean Tigrinya language but only one Tigrinya language. As can be seen here [14] there is a widely accepted consensus among worlds professional linguists that there is no Tigrinya dialect but possibly various accents like various English accents. Even if there are dialects they all would have been considered one Tigrinya language. If possible return it to it's previous naming Tigray-Tigrinya people, or may be use the historical common ethnicity name 'Tigré' or may be some other name that both are fine with it like 'Tigrinya speaking people' or other common name that they both use. If all German, Korean & Chinese speaking people leaving in different countries who went to war have one common article in Wikipedia then I see no reason why all Tigrinya speaking people should not have one. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Support the Split Again I support it because of Abrahamic Faith's argument and the fact that Tigrayans and Tigrinya people have two completely different histories. Any past association does not mean a current "Unity" in "ethnic identity". And Language alone is not the criteria for the definition of an Ethnicity. Otakrem (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Tigrinya Specific Data from Tigrayan Article Abrahamic Faith, Soupforone, Richard0048, other Editors who have created Tigrinyas shall we agree to Finalize this Move?Otakrem (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be the best option for the sake of avoiding confusion. It is confusing to have them in one article and then naming the article "Tigrayans" since there obviously exist a distinction between the two. However they are deeply interconnected, almost identical when it comes to culture, ancestry, and lingustically. If seperated, this must be highlited in both articles. Another question is if some info could be redundant and exists within two article if nessecary? Oktarem could you please explain the "Abrahamic Faith's argument"? A second alternative could be to create a "central" article that includes general info and then link it to the Tigrinyas article and this article. Another option would could basically be changing the name of the article to more appropriate name, including both (tigrinya and tigrayan) and make a clear distinction between the two within the article. Richard0048 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Richard0048, Abrahamic Faith stated: I also want to point out that other linguistically similar ethnic groups separated by borders are granted separate articles on Wikipedia, such as Isan people in Thailand and Lao people in Laos or Dutch people in the Netherlands and Flemish people in Belgium. Tigrayans and Tigrinyas fit this argument, therefore if it is done for those groups then it applies for Tigrayans and Tigrinyas. I say just split them and forget about a third central article. A simple "Related Ethnic group" mention in each article is sufficient enough. And all this attempt at trying to turn Eritrean Tigrinyas into Ethiopian Tigrayans using different sources at different timelines is also ridiculous since obviously these Two People do not Identify as the Same people. Their interconnectedness is no different then neigbors living near each other but they are still two different Houses.Otakrem (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The article have been central for all Tigrinya speaking people and may be renaming this article's title would be best instead of creating another central article. Any name suggestions? I think there is noway administrators will not agree to name change if they are informed with the issue by supporting it with reliable sources. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Oktarem, thanks for clearing that out. As I mentioned before if sepereted, it should be mentioned that they are very close. I would say that they could even have one similar section somwehere in their respective articles even if this is redundant. And maybe there could also exists a small Tigray section in the Tigrinya section, and vice versa highlighting their close ties. Richard0048 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the related by the language Tigrinya is enough, adding a small section will result in the current article eventually where there will be attempts to say "they are one" and then attempts to say "they are different" etc etc. Then it will be an unreadable article confusing to those who do not anything about these ethnic groups. The focus of either article should be on the ethnic group(s), example: breakdown of the ethnic group into subdivisions, the mythology of each subdivision, the names of their villages, etc. To simply say they are all the same takes away from the diversity within both Tigrayan and Tigrinya ethnic groups. Also do not forget that the Tigrinyas of Eritrea have historical ties to the Beja and Tigre people, while the Tigrayans of Ethiopia have historical ties to the Amhara people and Oromo people. The Tigrinyas have a colonial experience as well as interactions with Turkish, Egyptian, etc.Otakrem (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
. To state that they are only related by language is quite obscure. They are much more closer than you make it seem. I do not support a split that separates these two groups on those grounds. Also you are very wrong when claiming that there occoured interactions between specifically Tigrinyas and Turks, Italians and Egyptians as if Tigrinyas are the result of this which is not true and do lack sources to claim this. For that reason I support a name change instead and keeping the current structure. Richard0048 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
They are related by a common language but the breakdown of their societial structure, subdivision histories, Medri Bahri vs Tigrai, Medri Bahri vs Turks/Egyptians/Italians are actually different. They are related by language atleast that is verifiable. Everything else has been presented as a Monolithic Linguistic group which is incorrect to say the least. Tigrayans are broken down into Enderta, Tembien, Agame, Adowa, Axum, RayaAzebo(Oromo relation). Tigrinyas are broken down into Akele Guzay, Hamasien, Seraye, also yes they have some major differences and its been written about.Otakrem (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
As Richard said it is not only linguistic share and it goes beyond that and includes historically, culturally, racially etc. All Tigrinya speaking people fought together and resisted the Turks expansion into the highlands and preserved their identity, culture & languages that we see today. Had they not resisted Ottomans and fought back together they would have been like the Greek Constantinople which is now Istanbul (was occupied at the same time Turks controlled Red Sea). Together they also fought with other provinces to grab power in the Abyssinian empire. I think there is only a 60+25 years of separate history between them while the border sealed for only 18 years. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By this argument, then all Amhara and Tigrayans, Oromos are the Same Ethnic group? Alliance don't mean being the "Same Ethnic group". The Tigrinya have/had relations with other ethnic groups. The Tigrayans had/have relations with other Ethnic groups. This argument of interaction doesn't translate to "they are the same ethnic group". Otakrem (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, war also does not mean separate Ethnic group. If Gojame & Gondare can be considered Amhara ethnicgroup or if Jimma & Welega can be considered as Oromo or if Somlilanders, Somalians, Kenya-Somali, Djibouti-Somali & Ethiopia-Somali can be considered Somali then I see no reason why all Tigrinya speaking people cannot be considered as one ethnicgroup. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha Gojjame and Gondare are not both Amhara. Gojjame have Agaw. Agaw is a different Ethnicity from Amhara. Your comparison here is a false equivalency. As for Tigrinyas and Tigrayans, the language is the only thing being used to make these groups into One Ethnicity which by the definition of Ethnicity, its more than just language. The case for their split has been made. The case for Forced Unity has been destroyed by the Eritrean War of Independence where a majority of Tigrinyas and many other Eritrean ethnic groups fought against an Annexation into Ethiopia. The Badme War was a war of Tigrayan People's Liberation Front against the Independence of Eritrea at large and the Tigrinyas specifically. So yes Wars like this does make them, two separate Ethnic groups. Otakrem (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Otakrem said "Gojjame and Gondare are not both Amhara". You know you need to be careful when you come up with that kind of claims and other claims like "colonization", "alien culture/language imposition", "invasion", "we have separate history", "ethnic liberation struggle", "forced unity", "Annexation", etc etc (terms which have been used by you extensively in talk pages). If we begun to analyse them impartially and apply them in between African peoples we may end up with over 2,000 tribal republics. It is those kind of extreme ridiculous usage of terms by communists that caused in 8 republics from Yugoslavia whom all spoke one language called Serbo-Croatian (named as Serbian, Bossinian, Montenegrin & croatian) as a native/mother-tongue with slight dialect difference. Please know that when we apply those terms for instance on Oromo people we may end up with over 20 distinct tribes (nations) who used to have their own distinct & separate history/language/culture/states before 16th centuary as recorded by Gragn Mohamed Arab historians when he conquered much of Horn of Africa. If I am an Oromo and want the unity of Oromo people I wouldnt use those extreme communist terms because other clans with various dialects & relgions will also adopt those terms (after repeatedly told) & begun applying it on them & could end up like Yugoslavia. A person who speaks Oromo obviously observes the presence of various dialects (Afan Borana, Afan Guji, Afan Sodo), which are not just accents like Tigrinya & Amarinya accents. The question of which dialect is the correct Oromo language simply can divide people similar to what happned in Yugoslavia. Based on there is no dialect for Amharic & Tigrinya while 19 dialects for Oromo [15][16][17]. Even Eritrea is a multi-ethnic nation with over 9 ethnic-groups/languages and half/half Christian and Muslims. It's better they all leave those communist terms for their own interest and follow the rest of over 50 multi ethnic African republics (200 tribes/languages & 1 Nigeria nation, 40 tribes/languages & 1 Kenya nation, 11 tribes/languages and 1 South African nation). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me bring one example here [18] on how Serbo-Croatian language is one (except being given several names in breakaway countries and written by various scripts). As can be seen in the example there is no difference between them and I believe they could understand each other fully. Before the break away all 8 republics were governed by communist parties who implemented Lenin's ideology. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Lets bring this back to topic which is the Split of the Tigrinyas and Tigrayans articles since it has been argued that they are two separate ethnic groups. The current article which mashes these two together distorts and does not show what each ethnic group is about. Past common ancestry doesn't change the fact that in the modern times, Tigrinyas and Tigrayans are separate ethnic groups(different in history, self-identification, ancestral mythologies, tribal breakdowns(subdivisions), family networks, linguistic dialects, etc) and they have expressed that.Otakrem (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

comment Similar examples on the issue are provided above from various people leaving in various countries who speak one languages (either with no dialect or with several dialects and either in peace or at war) but having one common article like Germans, Koreans, Somalis, Oromos, Amharas & Punjabis (Muslim/Hindu, with Arabic-Punjabi script, at war, Pakistan/India Democratic multi-ethnic nations). On the other hand other people who speak one language but having separate ethnic-group articles like Serbo-Croatian (Yugoslavia ruled by communist/Leninism parties before breakaway). I think the option for this article is to let it stay as it is, or rename it, or may be make it like Serbo-Croatian (Tigray-Tigrinya) with similar infobox found in that article, though both call the language Tigrinya which is contrary to the Serbo-Croatian language with different names in the breakaway countries. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic Definition Wikipedia's article Ethnic_group. Ethnicity can be defined by more than just a language. The whole argument for keeping these two ethnic groups into one article is based solely on language which is not even how these two ethnic groups identify in relation to each other and other ethnic groups. Otakrem (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I am also here to learn. Since you have said they don't have anything in common other than language Could you let us know how they are not related by culture, tradition (dress, food, music, hair style), values, history, racial-physical appearance, way of life, historical & present political & social structure etc etc. In my opinion war, hostility & leaving in various countries doesn't guarantee separate ethnic-group based on the examples I gave above. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I personally don't have to tell you anything, it is the sources that will tell you. It is the people that will tell you. By the way, 19th century(1800s-1900) sources are not the end-all validation of ethnic identification, ethnicity is defined by the people themselves and not 19th century travelers(tourists), AND in the case of Tigrinyas,Tigrayans, ethnic identity is not defined by the Abyssinian(Amhara people dominated feudal Ethiopian Empire regime propaganda either(of which I surmise is your source of personal worldview)-being that you identify as Ethiopian-Habesha(Abyssinian).Otakrem (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Otakrem, since we are discussing to solve this issue regarding to split or not split, it would have be been great if how they are different is explained clearly & precisely & compare them with other global ethnic groups, so that there is a convincing points that will guarantee separate articles. Why 19th centuary European travelers (referred as tourists by you) are brought here is because they were being used repeatedly to remind how the people were different in the past historically/politically. I brought the writers own book published in the 1800s in wikipedia for clarification & to show how their writings are paraphrased out of context. As I said in our previous discussion under the Abyssinian people talk page Habesha has different meanings & it's definition depends on who uses it & for what purpose. African Indians say they are Habesha (Habeshi) to refer their Bantu race and I say I am Habesha (Habesh) based on how Arabs/Turks originally applied it on Horn of Africans one example being the Cushitic Beja muslims (their province, Habesh Eyalet, centered in present day Sudan Suakin) to refer only my unique race that is one part of the larger black race (mixed, Bantu & Nilotic). In addition to Habesha applied to Nubians & Kushs there is one more derivative of it which is Habesha (Abyssinian) which I may or may not belong to it & I don't want to disclose it here. I have one question for you, if Tigrinyas and Tigrayans should split then why should we not split Afar people either into 3 articles or into 3 sections like seen in this article (Eritrean Afar, Ethiopian Afar & Djibouti Afar) based on your reasoning to split ethnic-groups due to war, hostility because of Badme, resistance, annexation, 30 years of struggle for liberation & separate history (In Eritrean medias & meetings we also hear other extremist terms which I don't want to bring here) between Ethiopia & Eritrea? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Do Amhara people "Amhara" People like yourself EthiopianHabesha(AMHARA) call Tigray people; 1.Tigray or 2. Tigre? Otakrem (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I have told you multiple times that I am not Amhara, the rest of the ethnicgroups are 79 & still your chance of knowing my tribe is 1/79. James Bruce & Henry Salt both of them identified the highland people who leave between Red sea and Tekeze as Tigré (it's provinces includes Antalow, Wajerat, Bahreneagash, Enderta, Shire etc). By the time James Bruce travelled the Tigré Ras Mikael Seul and his elites from all the above listed Tigré provinces were in Gondar & made the solomonic emperors powerless symbols and ruled over not just Tigré people but also Amhara people. While Henry Salt made his travel power is shifted from the Tigré elites to the Yejju Oromo tribe elites whom effectively controlled Gondar & Amhara provinces by making the solomonic emperors symbols like Ras Mikael Seul did. That is what James Bruce & Henry salt's own book is saying. Why is everything has to be between Amharas and others? What is your issues with them? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
If your name is "Ethiopian"..."Habesha", that drives down your ethnicity down to two Choices "Amhara" or "Tigrayan", Obviously you can't be Oromo or the 79 other ethnic groups...As for James Bruce/Henry Salt, they are not the end-all source for ethnic identification. Because it has been between "Amhara" and others ever since the creation of the Solomonic Dynasty, historically. But in recent times, its been Amhara versus everyone including Tigrayans. So I'm curious, why do you call Tigray people as "Tigre"? Page 101 of Identity jilted, or, Re-imagining identity? by Alemseged Abbay [19] Obviously you are Amhara by your calling of the Tigray people as "Tigre" when it is offensive to Tigray people to be called "Tigre" as you do so nonchalantly. Otakrem (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
My identity card does not say Amhara neither Tigray but 1 of the 78 ethnic-groups found in Ethiopia. Habesha is defined by Arabs as Mixed black peoples found in Arabia & Horn of Africa. In Ethiopia 2/3 of the people are non Amhara and by democracy and true freedom it is those people who decide everything. If they want to speak Chinese or Amharic it will be their choice. To be 80 republics (40% of the worlds total countries) and increase African countries from 54 to 134 is another choice if we go by Lenin's Ideology (nations & nationalities upto independence). If Yugoslavian nations & nationalities who speak one language broke away by Lenin's ideology then there is also no guarantee for united Oromo & Eritrea whom also included various nations & nationalities. The book you provided is written by Alemseged Abbay, could you provide another neutral source regarding the name Tigré. When Henry Salt & James Bruce traveled Gondar was ruled by the Tigré & Yejju rulling classes not Amharas. According to Google books [20] the term 'Tigray' is used for the first time since 1978 while Tigré was used since 1800s. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Still Support Split Back to the topic again, this discussion is about the Split of the Tigrinyas and Tigrayan articles. Like Richard had surmised, he'd like a split but with some small section talking about their relation. If the Tigrayans get a small section so should the Tigre people, Bilen, Saho, Beja etc because the Tigrinyas have relations with all of its ethnic neighbors.James Bruce did state that the MedriBahri(Tigrinyas) were a distinct polity to Abyssinia.Otakrem (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Article with Multiple Sources [21] Article talks about the historical differences between Tigrinyas and Tigrayans, interesting quote here: “You want the country to the Mareb (Eritrean highlands/Medri Bahri) to cultivate your gardens, to build your houses, to construct your churches....? We can give it to you. [And not menilek.] Let the Italian soldiers come to Adwa, I shall come to meet them like a friend." (1996, Ḥagai Erlikh, P. 164) Ras Alula Tigrayan warlord of Tigray Otakrem (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── MedriBahri(Tigrinyas) & Tigrayans resisted Turks & ruled Gondar: James Bruce & Henry Salt own book published in 1800s says MedriBahri(Tigrinyas) was part of the Tigré province who together fought back/resisted Turks expansion into the highland and also who went to Gondar together & ruled the Amhara people/provinces under their governor Ras Mikael Sehul. No need to bring those others who paraphrase out of context (corrupting history) for their own agenda. If that is not what Bruce & Salt are saying then we can ask other wikipedia editors to give their opinion. Otakrem, please do not repeat this corrupted history (MedriBahri(Tigrinyas) were a distinct polity to Abyssinia) again & again until other wikipedia editors intervene and clarify on this matter. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha Your making stuff up here EthiopianHabesha, no evidence of MedriBahri ruling Gondar. James Bruce did say "MedriBahri were a distinct polity to Abyssinia
 "Other wikipedia editors intervene."  What does that even mean?  You have been going on and on attacking authors of books that you disagree with. You want to do Original research here, go ahead, it will be thrown out per Wikipedia guidelines. Again, James Bruce nor Henry Salt define how the Tigrinyas and Tigrayans view themselves. And an Ethiopian Amhara like yourself does not get to define how these ethnic groups define themselves. Cherrypicking quotes from Henry Salt and James Bruce to synthesize to agree with your pre-determined position of "All are Abyssinians"-the dominating Amhara worldview is not going to do here and will be thoroughly contested and shown for the propaganda that it is.Otakrem (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Otakrem, as said earlier I am only here in wikipedia for sharing knowledge. There is no reason for me not to accept If you can bring James Bruces book written by himself and show me what you claim is said by him. Just because 9 people said "he did say that" and 1 person said "he did not" doesn't change what he exactly said in his own book. I went through his books, also Henry salt's and I could not find it as can be seen here [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. I beleive any one can review these books written by the travelers themselves and make their own conclusion. It's better you stop your personal attacks to convince and rather attack or criticize the sources and content presented. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Lingusitic or Ethnolinguistic[edit]

Otakrem , Soupforone "Ethnolinguistic" group is better for these people. I have stated a source and that is what it says. There is nothing Otakrem you have really provided to prove they are a different ethnicity apart from saying they have different cultures, which is wrong. The language, clothing, food, way of life, names etc. are the same on both sides of the border apart from the most southern parts of the Tigray region. To simply put it, the only reason there are many words to describe the Tigrinya speakers is their view points. Both are from different countries that wanted different things, it does not mean they are a different ethnic group. Take a look at Koreans. They are labelled as an ethnic group yet there is more differences in culture in North Korea compared to the South. I have made a request for the title of the Tigrinyas page to be changed too, as it doesn't make sense. Resourcer1 (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Title and conjecture[edit]

Why are Tigrinyas being appended to a page titled Tigrayans? It hasn't been titled "Tigray-Tigrinya" for a few months now. Per WP:IRRELEVANT, anything not on actual, ethnic Tigrayans is therefore indeed irrelevant. Otakrem is also correct about the internal link-thrus. As WP:BLP, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:Common knowledge, WP:NOTMADEUP and Template:Speculation instruct, the internal link-thrus must reliably and verifiably indicate beforehand that the individuals are ethnically Tigrayan - only then can they be appended. Personal websites are not reliable per WP:BLOGS. One can't just claim that so and so is of Tigrayan parentage/clan heritage. Likewise, external links should not be linked to in the body per WP:ELCITE. As for the Kingdom of Aksum, claiming that the ancient kings of Aksum were Tigrayan specifically is absurd. They didn't even speak and write in the Tigrinya language, but instead in the parent Ge'ez language. These individuals would therefore be more appropriate on the Abyssinian people page, as Amhara and other Abyssinians trace descent to them too, not just Tigrayans. Soupforone (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Split has already happened it is just that this Tigrayans article is holding onto as much Tigrinyas information it can keep. I don't see why we just don't go in and start transferring over Tigrinyas data over and delete it from here? Remove the data, remove the confusion and unnecessary arguments. A simple mention in each respective article that the two ethnic groups speak Tigrinya language as their primary language, however the difference being Eritrean Biher-Tigrinyas speak Tigre and Arabic also while Tigrayans speak Tigrinya and Amharic also.Otakrem (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that would probably work best. Soupforone (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
So how should we start confirming Tigrinyas has transferred over prior to deletion from this Tigrayans article? Post it here? Or just delete whatever is here and lets build the Tigrinyas article in its own article? I am ok with either choice.Otakrem (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────User talk:Mulugheta alula roma Keeps reverting the unverified Aksumite Kings. I choose not to get into an edit war with him/her, therefore for the sake of awareness, Please do the applicable activity with this type of disruptive editing. Otakrem (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, split? why? You guys need to be carfull on separating people based on politics which is not a factor in grouping people by ethnicity, grouping people by race and grouping people by ethno-linguistic. Relevant experts opinion is needed to define what is ethnic-group, ethno-linguistic and racial grouping and the factors used to group people. If politics is a factor then Afars (leaving in Eritrea, Ethiopia & Djibouti) should have been split together with Tigray Tigrinya people, or Koreans & Punjabis should have been split into two because of their hostile relation, Germans should have also split if politics is a factor in grouping people. For most editors I think the issue is about the name and probably that one should be solved rather than splitting — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Self-identification matters even more than "relevant scholars" especially outdated travelers who incorrectly grouped people based on their first hand bias. To many things have transpired to maintain a false narrative of "they are the same people". See Eritrean War for Independence as a background to understanding the why this Split has happened. Ethnic groups are based on more than just language. Ethno-regionalism, Ethno-nationalism, the Tigrayans and Tigrinyas split on these points and reasons alone.Otakrem (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, ok in that case then why should we not split Afar in to three articles i.e. based on your justification politics matter? Are you saying they fought for 30 years for only Biher-Tigrinya people? If James Bruce is outdated then why do nationalists quote him repeatedly (paraphrasing out of context as observed from his own books published in 1800s) to prove how the people were separate historically? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha James Bruce is but one "observer". There are other Primary(Eritrean Biher-Tigrinya scholars) and Secondary sources which speak of the self-identification of the Biher-Tigrinya as their own ethnic group distinct from the Tigrayans. Bring up sources showing that the Afar in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Djbouti see themselves as Distinct from each other? And key word you used, you referred to Biher-Tigrinya Eritreans as "nationalists", the Eritrean Identity is a much Stronger identity in the Biher-Tigrinya ethnicity than is this "Tigray-Tigrinya" which was rejected by Eritrean Biher-Tigrinya after the forceful annexation of Eritrea by the Abyssinian people autocrat Haile Selassie Amhara-dominated regime. This lead to the Eritrean War for Independence where the Biher-Tigrinya with the Eritrean Tigre people and members from the other ethnic groups of Eritrea united in the war for their independence in 1991. They being Eritreans in general but the Biher-Tigrinya voted for Independence in a UN-monitored Referendum, see Eritrean independence referendum, 1993 without going into detail every Eritrean region voted for Independence from Ethiopia including regions populated heavily by Afar people. And the referendum was deemed free and fair.Otakrem (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Otakrem, isaaq Somalis also say they are not same with Hawiye Somalis and based on your justification of separate self identification should we also split the article for all Somalis into various articles? Speaking of Eritrea & Ethiopia separation here is what I know. Initially there were unionist (mainly the highlander people) who pushed United nation for union and also Haileselase pushed for it as well. Then some muslims unhappy with the union who want free Eritrea or unite with Sudan started the libration struggle helped by the Arab nations . In retaliation to Arabs initiating/aiding the struggle 10s of thousands of Arabs were expelled from Ethiopia with their property confiscated (to Siltis and Gurages). Until the Leninist (communist) student movement organised in Ethiopia, highlander Eritreans were very few in the liberation struggle and liberation was still dominated by muslims but that Leninist student movement lead for many more highlander Eritreans to join with the Muslims initially as soldiers but letter they became leaders of the Leninist EPLF. That Leninist student movement also gave birth to leftist TPLF, OLF, DERG, EPRP and Maeson parties since there are no university educated who pushed for westerners democracy & free market, infact these systems were regarded as imperialist/enemy. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha It is well documented that the Unionists (Andinet) were bought and paid for by the HaileSelassie regime hence you have a Liberated and Independent Eritrea by the People of Eritrea itself. The entire Annexation of Eritrea by Haile Selassie's regime is well documented and even key participants of the annexation (on the Eritrean side), joined the LIberation movement afterwards namely Tedla Bairu. Therefore, the Tigrinyas move towards complete independence was based on their cultural, social, political, economic freedoms being taken away by the forced Amhara-domination. Amhara regime were burning Tigrinya books similar to Adolf Hitler's burning of Jewish books. This was forced cultural assimilation and eventual genocide where Amhara(Abyssinian) with the support of Tigrayans spies(documented too) were part and parcel of the forced annexation of Eritrea as a whole and the Biher-Tigrinya specifically. Otakrem (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Otakrem, are you saying there is cultural genocide going on within the over 50 African republics? Since all of them made European and Arabic as working languages and cultures, which are alien and non African borrowed from the European continent and the Arabian peninsula, in which no African was involved in the development of those languages and cultures? What do you think the solution for a continent with 2,000 languages? European model? or Yugoslavian model? Anyways, I think there are different factors for grouping people under one ethnicgroup with politics (people leaving in various countries with various citizenship) being not a factor and if we include it as a factor then we would have been splitting Afars, Somalis & Koreans as well. The same ethnicgroup may identify with different names and I think what editors did was to take one of them that is widely used like applying Somalians to Somalilanders. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Otakrem, to add one more point the Gojame Hailu Tekle Haymanot rebelled and sided with Italians for political reason and does this mean he is like Ras Woldemichael of Medri Bahri? Based on these two people should we exclude Gojames from Amhara or Abyssinian group? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


Since it's apparently fine to append files post-split, the ones that were there initially take precedence. Also, Biher-Tigrinya are Tigrinya speakers north of Tigray, not within it. Soupforone (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── EthiopianHabesha, Tigray-Tigrinya was already renamed/split a few months ago (see note at the top of the page). Therefore, as per WP:MOVE, please either respect this or use the move template to propose here a rename to Tigray-Tigrinya. Either way, the page title (which is Tigrayans, not Tigray-Tigrinya) must reflect its contents per WP:TITLE. Soupforone (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, you said "Biher-Tigrinya are Tigrinya speakers north of Tigray" others also say "Tigray is found south of Biher-Tigrinya" I think this is why "also known as" is added based on the scope of the article as initially created/developed for Tigray-Tigrinya people. I think there was consensus for 10 years that both are one ethnic-group (that has no separate Tigrinya or Tigryan article) until this article is moved to Tigrayans by 20 February 2016. Before making this article for only tigrinya speaking Ethiopians there should be consensus and until then I think it should stay as it is. Can some other editors ask? or may be I'll ask for a move to a title that is more neutral/common. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2016[edit]

TigrayansTigré people – article developed for 10 years[31] for an ethnic-group who identifies themselves as Tigrayan and Biher-Tigrinya whom both call their native language as Tigrinya language, which has no dialect[32] and with not that much difference in ethnicity, culture and religion. The issue is Tigrinya speaking Ethiopians don't identify themselves as Biher-Tigrinya while Tigrinya speaking Eritreans don't identify themselves as Tigrayans. There have been requests by Eritreans for a move twice claiming Tigrayan is for a people found in Tigray Region. Proposal is to rename this article, which have been central article for both people, with common/neutral name and create another article for Tigrayan people as Eritreans already created for Tigrinyas after this article renamed from Tigray-Tigrinya to Tigrayans. For this central article I think the name "Tigré people" has been neutral & common name for both people until "Tigrayan" developed by 1978 to refer the inhabitants of Tigray region as the Ngram result[33] shows. European scholars who traveled in the region such as James Bruce & Henry Salt (Egyptologist) referred all Tigrinya speaking people (inhabitants of Bahrenegash & other provinces that are now under Tigray region) as "Tigré people"[34]. I believe they should have a central article while both having their own separate articles because both have so much in common. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The WP:COMMONNAME for Tigrayans in English is Tigrayans, not Tigré. The Tigre people are a separate ethnic group from the Tigrayans. They inhabit Eritrea and Sudan, not Ethiopia like the Tigrayans. They also speak the Tigre language as a mother tongue, which is a completely different language from the Tigrayans' native Tigrinya language. Soupforone (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Soupforone I don't think (I may be wrong) you speak Amharic or Tigrinya Soupforone but where all this confusion with the word "Tigre" is coming from is in-fact the Amharic language. The word for a Tigrayan (inhabiting the TIgray region) in Amharic is actually ትግሬ/tigre (e as in bed). This is where the common confusion is coming from, even though it's specific to Amharic and shouldn't be used in English as the English "tigre" as you said describes the ethnic group in Eritrea/Sudan. Also are you opposing the overall plan (with a central article and 2 smaller ones) or the name of the article? I still don't understand why this page isn't called Tigray-Biher Tigrinya people...

I also Oppose with the idea of it being moved to "Tigrè" people, as this is an Amharic term for the northerners in Ethiopia, not for the Biher Tigrinya people or English. Resourcer1 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Resource1, I am neutral on the Tigray-Tigrinya dichotomy. However, your explanation above on the ethnolinguistic heritage makes sense. It's the difference between the Tigre and the accented Tigré that seems unneccessarily confusing. Soupforone (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Soupforone, as Resourcer1 said there is a difference between Tigré and Tigre and we are not applying the same name on two people who speak different languages. I also agree with resourcer1 for both people to have a centeral article but now the issue is how do we title the central one while both having separate ones. If the previous title Tigray-Tigrinya is possible to return it would be better but if not possible then my opinion is to move it to Tigré people which I think is more neutral than Tigrayans. I disagree with resourcer1 claiming 'Tigré' as being Amharic which is claimed by nationalists to promote their newly modified names (Tigrayan & Biher-Tigrinya) acceptable and discourage for the use of the old ones. As can be seen under Henry Salt diary (traveled in 1809) he did not even go to Amhara territories & compiled his data from only Tigrinya speaking elites (based on how priests & rulling classes identify themselves), and based on the information he aquired from Tigré elites he divided Abyssinia into three - 1.Tigré (including Baharnegash), 2. Amhara (under the possession of Yejjus)[35] and 3. Shewa-Efat. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
As I explained to Resourcer1, his ethnolinguistic rationale actually makes sense. I would be willing to support the Tigray-Tigrinya or Tigray-Biher Tigrinya title (since they are ethnically the same people) if you agree to forgo the etymologies on non-Abyssinians (since they are not ethnically the same people). It's only fair. Soupforone (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I will also support 'Tigray-Tigrinya people' if it is possible under wikipedia rule to name people with two words, which I think is the reason why consensus on moving it to the previous name was not possible. Not clear for me when you say forgo etymologies on non Abyssinians? Is it for informing people on the use of Al-habasha on wider populations? If so it would be like insisting the article for Aethiopia should be for modern Ethiopia country only. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Inapt comparison. Al-Habash was only ever located in the Abyssinian highlands, whereas the ancient Aethiopia wasn't even in the modern Ethiopia but rather in Nubia. Soupforone (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
That is your opinion. I could have been convinced if you either try to invalidate the sources I used to support my claim or may be provide another alternative source which suports your claim that says "Al-Habash is used to refer the Abyssinian highlands only". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Also see the geography of Abulfeda, which was penned in the 14th century [36]. Soupforone (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)