Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/May

Incomplete move

At 01:57, 27 June 2019‎HoAHabeshamoved pageAbyssinian peopletoHabesha peoples:the more common endonym "Habesha peoples" takes precedence over the less common archaic exonyme "Abyssinian people"

Since this page has archives (subpages), you should have asked an administrator (preferably) or a page mover for help. The archives still need moved; I'll do that now. –wbm1058(talk)13:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, archive configuration is a bit complicated:

• User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Habesha peoples
• User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Abyssinian people

—wbm1058(talk)14:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Wbm1058:Thanks for your efforts! I'm not sure what to do about the two sets of archive indices. I'll leave a message for ClueBot III's handler. --Gyrofrog(talk)17:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  This might resolve itself the next time ClueBot III passes by this page, hopefully within the next 24 hours.wbm1058(talk)17:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  OK, for now I didn't leave them a note. Thanks again! --Gyrofrog(talk)17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Habesha peopleis an orphaned talk page, as are its archivesTalk:Habesha people/Archive 1,Talk:Habesha people/Archive 2,Talk:Habesha people/Archive 3andTalk:Habesha people/Archive index.I left a note atUser talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2020/May#Orphaned archives following page moveabout it, before I tried to figure out what (if anything) to do about those pages. --Gyrofrog(talk)18:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That page was acopy-paste

at 02:06, 18 August 2016Soupforonemoved pageTalk:Habesha peopletoTalk:Abyssinian people(common name)

Talk:Habesha people/Archive 3has a discussion dated 16 August 2016, just two days before that move.

There is a different archiving setup over at the destination, the first archive done was:

at 06:08, 19 December 2016‎ClueBot III353,880 bytes +353,880‎ Archiving 21 discussions fromTalk:Abyssinian people.(BOT)

This is what happens when bull-in-a-China-shop editors (before they eventually and inevitably get blocked) move talk pages while leaving thier correspoding archives behind, and then start a new, different archiving scheme at the article's new destination, copy-paste talk from the page they just moved back to the page they moved from, then do it again when they move to a third different title. Cleanup will make an admin's head spin. –wbm1058(talk)04:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, articles about "people" or "peoples", or languages, are notorious for this. Look for competing POV-pushing behind it.wbm1058(talk)04:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

DoneOK, I've cleaned this up by moving the older archives to here. They used a different system. Archive 1 & 2 and their index are linked to from the banners at the top of the page rather than the separate archives box on the right margin. –wbm1058(talk)19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, though for some reason now I don't seeTalk:Habesha people/Archive 2#Various formations of the term 'Habesha' usage by various group of people.(I was linking to it from another discussion) --Gyrofrog(talk)19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah! Now I see it atTalk:Habesha_peoples/Archives/2016/September.So presumably it's all here somewhere. --Gyrofrog(talk)20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Source redux

I've found another issue with a source. Perhaps@192.5.215.225andHoAHabeshacan explain this more fully, as they're the ones who collectively added it (seethis edit;plusthisandthis). The last sentence in the "In the Context of the Zemene Mesafint" section cited a single source (I added this citation template to the article; the previous citation appeared to have been copy-pasted, e.g. an ellipsis in place of the DOI):

• Goitom, Mary (2017). "'Unconventional Canadians': Second-generation 'Habesha' youth and belonging in Toronto, Canada ".Global Social Welfare.4(4).Springer:179–190.doi:10.1007/s40609-017-0098-0.

However, nothing in this source saysanythingabout "Zemene Mesafint," or "Gurage," or "warring factions" that are mentioned in the article section. What's strange (I think) is that there'sa PDF copy of this at Academia.eduthat further specifies "Original By: Mary Goitom | Edited By: Habesha Gaaffaa-Geeska Yäafrika, PhD". Yäafrika is the author of the problematic source I removed a couple of weeks ago (see previous#Synthesis, POVsection). There is highlighting throughout the PDF, which presumably represents Yäafrika's modifications, except that the original author's name is highlighted, as well. The inline citations in this article don't actually specify the Academia.edu version, but it makes me wonder whether that version was used in the course of editing this article. It raises a couple of questions: (1) Why does Yäafrika keep turning up as a source (or, as an ostensible contributor to a source) where this Wikipedia article is concerned? (2) A larger question for Wikipedia in general: How can we tell that an upload to Academia.org is the verbatim text that the author wrote? For all we know, the "editing" didn't merely involve highlighting, and the text itself could've been modified. Since the original version at Springer is paid access, all I'm (currently) able to see is the Academia.edu version and I can't be sure it's what the author actually wrote or not. But ironically (I guess?) the edited version at Academia.edu doesn't even corroborate the the aforementioned "Zemene Mesafint" section. The other citations of this source seem less problematic, i.e. generally corroborating what the article says, but I didn't look extremely closely. For now I've removed the inline citation from the "Zemene Mesafint" section, although this leaves it unreferenced (and I've flagged it as such). I consolidated a duplicate citation of the same source, and removed it from "Further reading" since we're already citing it as a reference, anyway. --Gyrofrog(talk)00:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

2020-04-30

I've just removed the following text from the end of the lede: "The population groups that make up the Habesha peoples trace their culture and ancestry back to the various constituent kingdoms, predecessor states, and successor states of theEthiopian Empirein theHorn of Africa(e.g. the Kingdom ofDʿmt,theKingdom of Aksum,Medri Bahri,theKingdom of Kaffaas predecessors states, and the peoples and diaspora of the modern day successor statesEthiopiaandEritrea). "Further along the same source and another are cited to specify ethnic groups, but both sources are aboutlanguages.Presumably these would mostly overlap with the ethnic groups but, once again,this isn't what the sources actually say.It's one thing to cite these regarding the evolution of languages but they say nothing about the emergence of groups or cultures. The Kitchen,et al.(2009) source only mentions pre-Aksumite and early Aksumite society in the context of when the Ethiosemitic languages emerged in that area. No mention of any other kingdoms. --Gyrofrog(talk)17:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. In the meantime I had raised this article's various issues atWikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Long-term issues at Habesha peoplesas well asWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter.--Gyrofrog(talk)18:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

For future reference theWP:NPOVNdiscussion has been archived atWikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Long-term issues at Habesha peoples.--Gyrofrog(talk)19:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References