The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geez People[edit]

Geez People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a combination of WP:Synthesis, WP:Original research and wishful thinking. I can find nothing online about a Ge'ez people, and all of the sources cited are for the Ge'ez language, as spoken in the Kingdom of Aksum. My speedy deletion A10 was declined following a talk page discussion, where the article's creator claims seems to claim that since there's a Ge'ez language, there must have been a Ge'ez people. OnionRing (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude, let's see this from Rome perspective. Rome and Axum are capital cities of these two empires and Romans & Axumites are the people who built them. Romans and Axumites used to speak Latin & Geez languages respectively but today there are no group of people who speak both of these languages for their day to day communications, however both Latin & Geez are thought and used in Catholic and Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox churches respectively. Many European languages borrowed many words and scripts from Latin language so do many Ethiopian Semetic languages. Romans/Axumites is too broad and includes other language speaking people within their empires but Latin/Geez people includes only the people who speak these languages. As can be seen from Ge'ez language#Origins it's a language that was spoken widely for almost 1800 years from 900 BC to 950 AD showing that the language existed even before the establishment of Axumite kingdom and using the name "Axumites" to refer Geez speaking people based on a kingdom that emerged in around 100 AD is I think inappropriate. I believe the old Latin language also existed before the establishment of Roman empire which makes it inappropriate to call the ancient Latins only as "Romans". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically said that when people refer to Latin it is usually to refer to Romans, not that only the Romans spoke Latin. As for the topic of your comment, Ge'ez as far as I can tell is a language that is only used by the church, Latin is not the same here. Many languages are derived from Latin, this includes Latin and Romance languages of the French, Italian, Spanish and Romanians. Unlike Latin I cannot find a single reference to a language that is derived from Ge'ez. This however isn't important. What is important is that Ge'ez as a language is known to the Aksumites/Axumites and to those churches which still use the script. There may never have been a Ge'ez people only a people who spoke Ge'ez. When the Kingdom of Axum disappeared in the 10th century so did the language, it resurfaced in literature about 300 years later (from what I could find). I won't say there weren't a Ge'ez people, only that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to justify creating an article about a Ge'ez people yet. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Kingdom of Axum was established in 100 AD and the language was not spoken just by Axumites but also other pre-Axumite states like Dʿmt and their capital city was Yeha city not Axum city. Axumite is the name of the nation that existed between 100 AD - 950 AD and Ge'ez people did not leave just within this period but also were inhabitants of Dʿmt that exited between 980 BC - 400 BC, in other words they are not just Axumites but also D'mt (Daamat) people when we call them by the name of their nation/country. This source: A History of African Archaeology says: "an indigenous Semitic- speaking (Ge'ez) people were already leaving in northern Ethiopia in the early 1st millennium BC. These people formed the basic ethnic and cultural stock for both the pre- Axumite and Axumite states" while this source: The Iconographic Encyclopaedia of the Arts and Sciences, Volume 1 says: "we must class the Geez people among the African Semites when we take an ethnologic view of them". In which both sources describe Ge'ez people as an ethnic-group and cultural-group not like a linguistic people by saying "Geez speaking people are these tribes, peoples or ethnicgroups or even saying "Axumite peoples"". EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from History of African Archaeology about "an indigenous Semitic- speaking (Ge'ez) people", is consistent with what User:Cnilep wrote above, that in every case that seems to be a shorthand for "the people who spoke Ge'ez". The text just prior to the second quote from The Iconographic Encyclopaedia of the Arts and Sciences also clarifies that it's a shorthand for a linguistic group, not an ethnic group. We need a WP:RS that clearly and unambiguously states that there was a Ge'ez people, rather than Ge'ez-speaking peoples. If we can find some, then I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I write that quote similarly like this: "an indigenous Bantu- speaking (Zulu) people formed the basic ethnic and cultural stock for Zulu Kingdom" or "an indigenous Italic- speaking (Latin) people formed the basic ethnic and cultural stock for Roman Empire" would it also clarifies that it's a shorthand for linguistic group? The question is if Ge'ez people is a linguistic group then what people did speak it? Aksum and pre-Aksumite kingdoms never left an inscriptions written in Amharic and Tigrigna, and when they listed the people they conquered they never mentioned those people infact the oldest written evidence for Amhara & Tigré people is dated 13th centuary, 300 years after the fall of Axum. The way the other 3 sources I provided used "Geez" is not like a linguistic group but as a people and as can be seen all 4 sources provided are published books which qualifies them as a reliable sources. If you have other sources clearly indicating Geez speaking people as a linguistic group please let us know. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify your terms: what do you mean by "linguistic group", and what do you mean by "ethnic group"? It occurs to me that we may not be talking about the same things. Strictly speaking, the term" linguistic group" is normally used to talk about languages, not people, so I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You wrote "The question is if Ge'ez people is a linguistic group then what people did speak it?" Do you mean prior to the Kingdom of Aksum? That's simple: we don't know. We may never know, absent new archaeological evidence. Frustrating? Certainly. Archaeology is like that. OnionRing (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistic group as in "Francophone people" for french speaking people with black African ethnicity and "Latinos" for Spanish (a Romance language developed from the ancient Latin language) speaking Latin Americans is what I meant by. All the 4 reliable published book writers did clearly said "Ge'ez people" which equals with saying English people which in Wikipedia talks about only the people found in UK while leaving the other 100s of millions English speaking ethnic Africans, Americans and ethnic Indians who spoke it as their mother tongue and their only language for communications. To Say "English speaking people" or "Ge'ez speaking people" is to talk about a linguistic group (including other ethnic-groups who spoke the languages) but saying "English people" or "Ge'ez people" is to talk about an ethnic and cultural group (also where the language initially developed in the 1st place). I believe the people who published a book with 100s of pages do know these differences and would be careful in using their terms and it's applications. In those reliable published sources provided above "Ge'ez people" is used while not "Ge'ez speaking people". Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the old time same people also go to war and there was continuous fighting between Amhara clans, Tigray clans and also they fight with other people who are not same with them for political and economic dominance. You haven't provided a reliable source supporting your claim that Harla people did speak semetic language and even the wikipedia article for Harla says they speak either Semetic Harari or Cushitic Somali and doesnot even include Gurages as people of Harla Kingdom. The most closest languages for Amharic, official labguage of Ethiopia, is firstly Argoba (Muslims) and Harari (Muslims), Secondly Gurages (Chrstian/Muslim) and lastly Tigrigna (Chrstians) are the farthest language for Amharic among Ethiopian Semetic languages as can be seen here http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/amha1245. This shows that Amhara and Argoba/Harari separated much earlier while they together as one language separated from Tigringa much much long time ago. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparing highlanders with lowlanders again. Harar is not part of the history of Ethiopia (habesha). The Harla lived as far as Somalia that's why you have cities called Hargeisa. Its only recently in the 19th century that Harar was occupied by Ethiopian forces, they are not the same people. I told you Geez and Harla were two different languages. Harla did speak a semitic language here's some sources [1] The Harla people were assimilated by Oromo & Somali, which is why you have languages that were once related with Harari in Gurageland and Zay in a sea of Cushitic speakers. [2] [3] however you cant find the claim the harla spoke a Cushitic language so I'm not sure why that's in the article. It simply does not matter if they are related linguistically because all semitic languages have similarities however even if they were not semitic it still does not prove your original research theory that somehow Cushitic influence transformed geez speakers resulting in Harari or gurage. IF the harla were not semitic they may have been hamitic and the modern Harari are semitic due to arab influence not Geez. Why not go the whole hog and consider arabs and jews as an extension of geez? we know habesha extended to south arabia. A widely accepted theory is that geez originated in south arabia but you fail to mention that in the article, instead you attempt to claim an African origin for "geez speakers". Zekenyan (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all Languages in Wikipedia articles are referenced from http://glottolog.org/ and this site I believe classified the whole world's languages based on 1000s of professional linguists research. And based on this site's classification as can be clearly seen here http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/amha1245 the most closest language for Amharic is Argoba and Harari not Tigringa. If you believe Harari is not part of Ethiopian Semitic languages you must quote a professional linguist supporting your claim, not history because even German/Korean speaking people leave in various nation/history. Since Ge'ez is the oldest semetic language to be spoken in the Horn region (evidences show that Ge'ez was spoken 2,900 years ago) and based on linguists listing languages by their proximity some might suggest that all ethio-semetic languages originated from Ge'ez and some other professional Historians/linguists/archologists might disagree to this claim and as wikipedians we need to write both opinions based on reliable sources and if you find any professional person clearly stating your point of view you are most welcome to add them in the article. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the burden of proof is not upon @Zekenyan: to prove a negative, it's upon you to prove that it's true. Extraordinary claims require verification on Wikipedia, and you are using WP:Synthesis to prove a contentious claim. That's not what Wikipedia is for: an encyclopaedia merely documents what's already widely known to be true, not conducting WP:Original research. OnionRing (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know the widely accepted theories is that Harari language is part of the Ethiopian semitic languages and that Harari and Gurage people are highlanders and everyone in Ethiopia knows that Gurageland and Hararland is a highland region. However, when you see his above statement he insists that "they are people who leave in lowland area". These maps Topography map of Ethiopia, Ethnic map of Ethiopia shows that indeed Harari and Gurage people are highlanders, infact Harar highland is home to one of the best cofee called 'Harar coffee' and Coffee doesn't grow in lowlands. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The languages are considered semitic but they are distinct in origin. Traditionally Ethiopia is in the highlands, northern area encompassing the Amhara region and Tigray region. This doesn't include the southern or eastern parts of the region. Most importantly not the lands of non orthodox Christians which is the basis of civilization for geez speakers tied with the Axum empire. What your doing in this article is that your including your own theories and failing to cite them. The Ethiopian Empire had previously used this tactic to subjugate areas that it stole from the native population. The article is full of bad faith citations, wp:synth and original research. I suggest you figure out how Wikipedia works if you want to be an editor here. Zekenyan (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And statements like:
  • "As far as I know the widely accepted theories is that..."
  • "...and everyone in Ethiopia knows that..."
  • "These maps shows that indeed..."
  • "And based on this site's classification as can be clearly seen here..."
... are loud, shrill alarm bells of WP:Original research. OnionRing (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zekenyan, "The languages are considered semitic but they are distinct in origin." that is your opinion and you are entitled to have any kinds of opinion you wish but if you support your claim with a profesional linguist then I have no reason to take it as a serious claim. Based on the sources I provided above, glottolog.org I am actually still 99% sure that for Amhara the most closest language/people is indeed the Muslim Argobas and the Muslim Hararis than the orthodox Tigrigna speaking people when speaking from language and peoples origin perspective. If Hararis did not separate from the Ge'ez people then obviously Amharas also did not separate from Geez and may be they both separated from other common semetic people. As for a religion the Ge'ez people from 980 BC (may be more than that) upto 350 AD, for more than 1300 years have been proven to be traditional religion followers and have been worshipping the moon and the sun just like the rest of Horn of Africans and Africans in general. Religion is something that can simply be changed within few years. Today I may be a catholic but after a few years I will probably be a protestant and then later I might became a Muslim and finally I might become atheist but in all this changes my ancestry/blood/DNA will still be the same no matter what and that is my identity EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, you said it yourself "may be they both separated from other common semitic people". Wikipedia is not the place for theories, speculation etc, lets leave that for the blogs. Before creating an article you need significant reliable sources on said subject, please see WP:N. I advise you to spend your block duration getting familiar with Wikipedia policies. Zekenyan (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category