Talk:Shanqella

I moved this page without discussion, because Shanqella is by far the more used name, especially for modern times. It must be noted that it is considered derogatory today, however. —

However, the form "Shangella" shows up enough times in various books that this spelling should be mentioned in the article, so I have added it. -- llywrch 22:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article contains more mis-information than useful information. I would vote to remove it. It perpetuates wrong concepts in several areas. At most, we could leave a very brief article explaining that "Shankilla", "Shanqilla", "Shanqella", etc. are all terms that simply refer to darker-skinned groups of Ethiopia, the term is not specific to any one group and is not useful for referring to any group of people today.Pete unseth (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. At least the article should be drastically shorter, stripped of all useless information which reflects the point of view of the early 20th century. In fact, I will do that right now. If you think that I overstep the line, please just revert my edit, but let me know why you would want to include this information. Landroving Linguist (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did think your step was drastic, although a change was needed. I added a section restoring the references which explicitly recognizes it is old information and very probably obsolete. But to me it seems there should be room for historical information on this group, and perhaps the term is only of historical interest. If it is only current as a derogatory reference (and a verifiable citation can be provided) it should be filed in the appropriate category (Ethnic and religious slurs; Pejorative terms for people). But so far all the verifiable information I have seen indicate the current categorization (Ethnic groups in Ethiopia) is a correct one, at least historically speaking, and nothing modern has been cited to contradict this. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I like your edits - the real bad stuff that I have deleted is still kept out, and the old references certainly have a historical interest. I would still think that classifying this as Ethnic Groups in Ethiopia is inappropriate - it is not unlike creating an article on goons and have it classified as

Ethnic groups of Asia. Nobody would be too happy to find this term on the category page. This is not about one specific ethnic group, but about a term used for a variety of ethnic groups, and then of course this is a bad name. I hope I will find a reference that goes along with this claim. Landroving Linguist (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

'Shanqella' is not actually derogatory, it may have been confused with another word by some author. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I must differ with Til Eulenspiegel: the term is derogatory in all the areas I visited. I claim a certain amount of 1st hand expertise on this point. It is derogatory, and the people who are labeled as 'Shanqella' resent it. Pete unseth (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Wolbert Smidt in the Shanqəlla article of the Encyclopedia Aethiopica (Vol. 4, p. 525ff, 2010)) writesː "Sh. is a derogatory, imprecise and very general term which has widely fallen out of use. [...] The term Sh. bore mainly the connotation of 'black slave'" - Clearly, following this published source, it is right to state the derogatory nature in the article. Landroving Linguist (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]