Talk:Oromo language

Can we find out why they would want to use latin to write a language, an African language with a non-African script. Now there letters are like 13 charecters due to the limits of latin, more history on the politics behind this would be good as i am very confused to the perks of this shift.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the the fact is that the majority of African languages are written with Latin script. Each script has its own limitations when it comes to representing a language. The Latin script was obviously not designed for English or German or Polish, let alone Swahili, Oromo, or Hausa, so it had to be adapted in each case, and this was not particularly difficult in any of these cases. Latin doesn't have any particular advantage or limitation when it comes to representing Oromo (any more than it does for English, which phonologically is probably as different from Latin as Oromo is); I believe it was adopted in part because of its use for many other languages, certainly not because Latin is "European" rather than "African". In fact, the European origin of Latin script can hardly be seen as very relevant anymore, given that this script is now used for languages as diverse as Vietnamese, Tagalog, Quechua, and Zulu. As with English, Swahili, and other languages, the adaptations for Oromo included character combinations to represent particular phonemes (for example, "ch", "th", "ng" for English; "ch", "th", "ng" for Swahili; "dh", "ny", "ph" for Oromo). I guess the question being asked is why the Ge'ez script wasn't chosen, and in this case, politics of course enters in. It isn't any more difficult to adapt the Ge'ez script to Oromo than it is to adapt the Latin script (well, some arguments have been made that it is more difficult, but these seem to me to be politically oriented arguments). Of course Ge'ez script has been used for Oromo, going to back Onesimus. But not today. — MikeG (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is one point for which the Latin alphabet seems to suit better for writing Oromo than the Ge’ez writing system, that is the representation of vowels. You can represent seven different vowels with the Ge’ez system but Oromo has ten vowels, five short and five long vowels. And especially different length of final vowels can change the meaning of verb forms. Since the Ge’ez system is a syllabic system (every sign representing a consonant and a following vowel) it would be a little bit difficult to represent the missing three vowels. The Latin writing system differentiates between consonants and vowels. I think that is the most important advantage. But I would have also been possible to write Oromo with Latin or Ge’ez without representing vowel length. Haussa is written with Latin, but vowel length and tone are usually not marked. You could do the same with Oromo using one of the two writing systems at the risk of ambiguity in cases where vowel length changes the grammatical meaning. But, remembering the political situation in the early nineties, I also think that the main reason for choosing Latin was a political one. By the way there is also a remarkable body of Oromo literature in Arabic script, mainly from the Harar region and Wollo. Driss 09:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

More importantly - What is the alphabet used for the Standard Written Oromo is the *critical* what is needed.

Many languages on this planet use a latin alphabet - All have different numbers of letters used and/or diacritics and accents used. The few google images I searched make no mention of 10 vowels in Latin Script - However, there is a Unicode Paper addressing Sapalo that needs to be included or addressed as I see no separate wiki article for this. I did not dig any further to see if this at proposal stage or included as yet into the Unicode Standard. - From counting the charts there are roughly 27 constructs for consonants and 13 vowels for each - So for this latin script we have an alphabet of at least 351 latin based glyphs for this "latin script". ^[1] 80.5.219.60 (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

In the part about dialects and especially about the Wollo dialect there is mentioning of “the city of Wollo”. But there is no city with that name. Wollo is, as most people know, the name of the respective region. I think it is a mistake and the author meant another city/town. In fact, the area where Oromo is spoken stretches approximately from the area of Shewa Robit in the south to somewhere in the north of Bati. Driss 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I wrote that, and I meant the city of Dessie, not Wollo. Feel free to edit this part if you know more about the boundaries of the dialect. — MikeG (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole question of dialects is being avoided in this article. Variation in the way that many Oromo people speak is not addressed by politicians, but certainly scholars should be able to dispassionately address this huge issue. Somebody please write something, but not just a parroting of the politicians. Pete unseth (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states Oromo "is spoken as a first language by more than 35 million." However, no source is quoted for this claim. The Ethnologue lists a total of 17,273,000 mother tongue speakers in Ethiopia and Kenya. Also, the article states "Within Ethiopia, Oromo is the first most spoken (more than 40%)." The Ethnologue states that there are 17,372,913 speakers of Amharic.^[1] That is larger than the number cited speakers of Oromo. There are many people who speak Oromo and Amharic as a second language, but the claim that it is the most widely spoken language in Ethiopia needs some documentation or it must be changed in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a place where documented information is the rule.

Wikipedia List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers says that Amharic has 25,000,000 versus 24,000,000 for Amharic. Ethnologue and most other souces say that Oromo is a group of several languages, none having as many as 10,000,000 . It seems decisive; I will remove the claim that Oromo is Ethiopia's most-spoken language. 24.108.58.1 (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There are frequent changes to the statistic for the number of speakers. But no editor cites a reliable source. Certainly there must be a source that we can agree on! Peace to all people of the Horn of Africa!Pete unseth (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not language expert but from what I know, Oromo has both definite and indefinite articles. The indefinite article in Oromo is tokko. Tokko is a number actually which means one, but it is also used as indefinite article. For example, mucaa tokkon arge means I saw some/a boy. However, articles in general are not commonly used in Afan Oromo . I speak Western Oromo myself and I am telling you from my experience. Please, consider revising the idea that Afan Oromo does not have indefinite article. Tumsaa (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of this edit last November was reverted, but it left a lot of rambling details in the lede section and confused the sense of the previous version. I’ll remove it - if it’s relevant it should probably be added to the Speakers section. I’ll dump the current version here for now.

Oromo (pron. /ˈɒrəmoʊ/^[1] or /ɔːˈroʊmoʊ/^[2][3]) is an Afroasiatic language. It is the most widely spoken tongue in the family's Cushitic branch. Forms of Oromo are spoken as a first language by more than 20 million Oromo people in Oromia and neighboring peoples in Ethiopia like:- In Harari region (56%) are Oromo people, Benishangul Gumuz, walloo(around 5 million Oromo people), west Gojjam(Metakkel woreda, Meca woreda 1 & 2, Ilma Nadessa woreda), Dire Dhawa administration(48% of Oromo people), Addis Ababa(Finfinnee) Adiminstration with more than 1.5 million Oromo people, Raayyaa and Azeeboo(more than 1.6 million Oromo people) in Tigrai region and parts of other countries in Africa Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania, South Africa, Egypt, Libya, Eritrea and other parts of the world like: US, specifically Minnesota (Little Oromia), Europe, Australia and Saudi Arabia. Oromo is a dialect continuum; not all varieties are mutually intelligible. Older publications often refer to the language as Galla, a term that is considered pejorative and no longer used.

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 03:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oromo language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120905203327/http://www.oromia.org/Letter_to_UN.htm to http://www.oromia.org/Letter_to_UN.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709074520/http://www.abyssiniacybergateway.net/fidel/ShaykhBakriSapalo/ to http://www.abyssiniacybergateway.net/fidel/ShaykhBakriSapalo/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615082250/http://jimmatimes.com/article/ARTS/ARTS/Ethiopia_Online_Afaan_Oromoo_English_Dictionary/32153 to http://www.jimmatimes.com/article/ARTS/ARTS/Ethiopia_Online_Afaan_Oromoo_English_Dictionary/32153
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ilx.nl/blonline/blonlinesearch2.php?ficheid=200000109475
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617065043/http://jimmatimes.com/AfaanOromoo.cfm to http://www.jimmatimes.com/AfaanOromoo.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014023507/http://www.wafido.org/page6.html to http://www.wafido.org/page6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This article uses a BBC source "Children's books breathe new life into Oromo language". bbc.co.uk. that is clearly inaccurate(as spelled out in the title). Amharic has more total speakers by a large margin "Amharic". as reliable language source ethnologue cleary show, the same source from ethnologue is used for the Oromo language article as well. I suggest the removal of this BBC source, as it is inaccurate.

@User:MfactDr You reverted me calling it misleading, on what basis? I only added the facts, Amharic has more speakers Oromo, and now you reverted the same at Oromo people in the language section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oromo_people&diff=1033489883&oldid=1033398349 claiming unsource or poorly sourced content, while you removed the ethnologue source. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria According to Wikipedia rule You cannot remove existing source without adequate reasoning as you did here and falsifying existing content here to mislead other editorsMfactDr (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:MfactDr The BBC source discussing children books is clearly wrong and not based on facts, and contradicting the source from ethnologue, argueably far more credible, and which you removed twice, are you against the figures provided by ethnologue? As for your claim/accusation i misled other editors that is complete nonsense, Oromo can't be the fourth most spoken language in Africa, when it's behind Amharic in terms of total speakers. Which is why i argued above, the removal of the incorrect BBC source, which is misleading. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria adding unsourced content and changing existing content without source is against Wikipedia rule MfactDr (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:MfactDr Will you please stop dodging my question, are you against the figures provided by ethnologue? How is that unsourced? If you don't have acces, you can ask others to acces it for you, but the source from ethnologue has been verified. Judging by your dodgy reaction you are maintaining the BBC source, correct? Last time, give straight answers or this will be brought forward to one of dispute resolution mechanism. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria as you said on summary, "Oromo is fifth most spoken language in Africa, Amharic is ahead". honestly this why I said misleading as ethnlogue dont tell us fifth or fourth. we need to stick to existing sourced contents. again you can not add what you think or opinion to the existing content. Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources.MfactDr (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

MfactDr Ethnologue does show the total speakers for Amharic & Oromo, and Amharic is far ahead. The data shows it in numbers. The data has been verified. So Oromo being the fourth is misleading and the BBC source thereforth incorrect. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Calm down, both of you. Both sources are correct, depending on what is counted. Ethnologue gives numbers for both second- and first-language speakers, whereas the BBC source only counts the first-language speakers. There are more total speakers of Amharic than of Oromo, but there are more mother-tongue speakers of Oromo. Make sure in all your edits that it is clear what the figure actually means. LandLing 08:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing Hello, and no the BBC source is obviously wrong, because even if you count the native speakers only it's not even in the top 5, it's also behind Igbo language 45 million speakers & Yoruba language 50 million speakers. Can we agree that Oromo is not the fourth most spoken language in Africa, both native or otherwise? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't it occur to you that the numbers for Igbo and Yoruba on those Wikipedia pages also include second-language speakers? Well, Ethnologue lists 29 million speakers for Igbo, but 41 million L1 speakers for Yoruba. So indeed the BBC source is apparently wrong about not including Yoruba in the list. BBC reports still count as reliable sources, so it is not okay to cut it out. You are welcome to balance it with a different source that gives a different ranking. As far as I know, Ethnologue does not provide a ranking, so basing one on Ethnologe figures would be original research. LandLing 08:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing Even if ethnologue doesn't give rankings, you can see the figures for the different languages? So editorial mistakes by BBC counts as reliable source? Here's the problem, the BBC source doesn't mention that it's only about native speakers or total speakers, you just assumed that is about native speakers. Even if we go by your assumption that it's only about native speakers, it's still the fifth and not the fourth language. It's only the 8th when it comes to total speakers. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Find a source that gives a ranking and include it. You cannot do it yourself from Ethnologue as the figures in the Ethnologue come from different years, which is why Ethnologue does not provide any ranking. And yes, BBC counts as a reliable source, even if we have evidence that it is wrong in some instances. This is how Wikipedia works. I know several things to be wrong in Wikipedia, but I don't change them, because they are reliably sourced and I can't provide a better source. This is exactly the same situation here. And really, what is it to you if Oromo is fourth or fifth on a list of African languages? This is not a peeing contest, and you shouldn't strive to make it one. LandLing 09:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing It does matter because the user accused me of misleading other editors, so it's not the fourth not even by native speakers, as you said apparently wrong for not including Yoruba, the point is i didn't mislead, and this specfic BBC source is wrong. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I told you all I have to say to this. Read it carefully and act accordingly. LandLing 09:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Even though I find the discussion here a bit silly, I do not agree with some statements. Here's how I see it:

1) First, BBC is a reliable source. But I would argue that Wikipedia:CONTEXTMATTERS, and it's a bit weird that we are referencing to an article that has no author and is about children's books, not something linguistic. If you take a closer look, the ranking here does also not give any year, and seems to be taken directly from the audio, from the interviewed person and not the BBC author. So it's a statement that was repeated by BBC news, but can not be directly attributed to any of their editors. However, even with this caveats we cannot simply "discard" BBC as unreliable. But we can have suspicions that the info here is not of great quality.

2) Ethnologue does not rank languages. This is true, and it makes it difficult to directly cite a ranking from them. However, I do not believe that comparing numbers does constitute WP:OR per se. I'm not trying to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but please do remember that we have list articles that rank things based on sources which only give the individual numbers, not the rankings. In this context specifically: List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers#Ethnologue_(2021,_24th_edition). This list does not smell like original research to me, because it should be obvious to anyone that comparing numbers allows one to rank them. We do not need attribution for basic facts, and I do not think I need to cite a source to say specifically that "in July it usually is hotter in Berlin than in December", because we only have a table giving the temperatures per month. We can easily compare the data for the months and write that in prose. I guarantee no one will contest that, and argue it is covered by WP:CALC.

3) We have another list which ranks languages at Languages_of_Africa#Demographics_2 where Oromo indeed ranks fourth, but its sourcing is messy and all over the place. I wouldn't go by it, or you would have to find a reasoning on why you are using all these different sources to draw a comparison (as it is discouraged by WP:CALC).

4) There's an older book which ranks languages by speakers, but it's obviously not up to date. You may reference it, but you will need to give the year (1993) if you do so. You cannot claim the numbers still stand.

In conclusion, I can see a ranking being made based on Ethnologue data. However, the point brought forth by LandLing is important: Are we talking about L1 or L2 speakers here? There's List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers and List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers#Ethnologue_(2021,_24th_edition), and those are about different things. You will need to be precise on what you are comparing, cite the source and not remove anything reliable. You could say "According to the BBC it's this, according to data from Ethnologue it's this for native, and that for total speakers." That might not please those of you that are trying to "win" a contest here, but it would be appropriate for Wikipedia. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

These lists appear on Wikipedia, based on various sources. Still, we cannot cite them here, because Wikipedia does not cite itself. Then based on what source do we want to give an in-line citation for rankings? I don't see how it could work. LandLing 10:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @LordPeterII this is my diff [], If we go by a Ethnologue ranking it would be 5th in terms of native speakers in Africa, and only 8th in terms of total speakers. I didn't want to make a contest of anything, hoewever i was accused of misleading editors, when i have no such intention. I just used the ethnologue source which is also used on this page, and i clearly mentioned as you can see in the diff that Oromo has more native speakers, but Amharic is more widely spoken as it has more total speakers when L2 are included. I also opened a RFC in reliable sources about this. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing this list List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers#Ethnologue_(2021,_24th_edition) provided by LordPeterII is citing Ethnologue as source thanks again @LordPeterII for your input. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria - you haven't paid attention. "If we go by Ethnologue ranking..." does not work, as there is no ranking given by the Ethnologue. There is no single page on Ethnologue that provides a list of languages by number of mother-tongue or total speakers. Each language's page provides its speaker number (L1 and, where appropriate, L2), but there is no way I can quote Ethnologue as saying "Oromo is the 5th-largest language on the African continent", as the numbers of different languages are never compared. This comparison happens on the pages that LordPeterII mentioned above, because each language comes with its own source, and these are given together in a table. But as I said, we cannot quote these pages as sources for our statement here. I think I can come up with a good compromise though that does justice to the BBC source without falsely claiming that Oromo is the fourth-largest language in Africa. I will make that edit and we'll see how you take it. LandLing 12:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing i did pay attention, and there are conflicting views about using this BBC source, here and at Noticeboard. You did say Ethnologue gives numbers for both second- and first-language speakers, whereas the BBC source only counts the first-language speakers. There are more total speakers of Amharic than of Oromo, but there are more mother-tongue speakers of Oromo. Make sure in all your edits that it is clear what the figure actually means. I did add that and it was reverted by user. Also your assumption is that BBC is talking about first language speakers and not total speakers, it is not in the BBC source. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing Will you stop contradicting yourself, and stop removing sourced content which you also confirmed to be corret? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for this edit, where I apparently partly reverted my own previous edit when I formatted some sources - I don't know how I accomplished this feat. So I went back to what I did previously, and what I announced above - with respect to that, there should be no contradiction. Furthermore, you inserted a lot of stuff pertaining to the Amhara language on an Oromo language page, where it really doesn't belong. I removed that material. Please let me know your good reasons for reverting my edit, otherwise I will revert again tomorrow (will go to bed now). LandLing 22:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing You said There are more total speakers of Amharic than of Oromo, but there are more mother-tongue speakers of Oromo. Make sure in all your edits that it is clear what the figure actually means. ●I did just that [] adding one sentence that Amharic has more total speakers. ● You then removed it and changed it to [] and switched gears saying it's not about Amhara, and a lot of stuff pertaining to Amhara language when it's one sentence. Basically you don't want the part Amharic has more total speakers, this is essentially what you removed, and in contradiction of what you said. Not is this only anoying, i find it disruptive. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: You need a source to support your statement that Amharic is the most spoken language. It doesn't matter what anyone says or if they change their mind. The CIA site only lists the percentages, not total speakers with their 1st and 2nd language. The other source is unreliable since it appears to be crowdsourced. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

David S Gondaria, I removed that material because it has nothing to do with the article at hand. This is the Oromo language article, and if you insist that in the Oromo language article there needs to be a sentence "but Amharic is the bigger language, if you just count the right things!" than you cannot tell me that you are not interested in that peeing contest I wrote about earlier. It just doesn't belong here. What would you say if I add a sentence to Amharic stating "but Oromo language has more mother-tongue speakers"? You would revert it as soon as you see the edit, and you would be right. Let's keep all that ethnic nationalist crap out of Wikipedia, it is poisoning already way too many things. LandLing 06:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Timtempleton i didn't add the cia source, and as for the other source, meaning Ethnologue reliability, others including here, resourche exchange and at reliable sources noticeboard don't seem to agree with you. It's also widely used here on Wikipedia including in this article for the Oromo speakers in the infobox. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As for It doesn't matter what anyone says or if they change their mind. Isn't this community based consensus building? How can you build consensus with someone if one agreed that the source is reliable, and says There are more total speakers of Amharic than of Oromo, but there are more mother-tongue speakers of Oromo. Make sure in all your edits that it is clear what the figure actually means., and after adding a single sentence reflecting this, user suddenly says you added a lot of stuff pertaining to Amhara language Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The sentence you quote here I addressed at the other editor in this discussion who did not initially differentiate between native and total speakers. And yes, wherever we introduce a comparison between language populations, it needs to be clear what is compared. The current state of the page now has this clear. Also notice that this is all about notability: It is notable about Oromo that it has the largest mother-tongue population in Ethiopia, so we mention that here. It is less notable that it comes second in terms of total speakers, which means we can mention that here, or we can leave it out. The way you mention this in your edits comes across as an ethnic "but we are still bigger than you", and for that reason I object to it. I think there are ways to bring this point across in a more neutral way, and I will attempt to do so now. LandLing 07:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing Full sentences Calm down, both of you. Both sources are correct, depending on what is counted. Ethnologue gives numbers for both second- and first-language speakers, whereas the BBC source only counts the first-language speakers. There are more total speakers of Amharic than of Oromo, but there are more mother-tongue speakers of Oromo. Make sure in all your edits that it is clear what the figure actually means. You adressed both of us, but carry on. As for your objection, it's frankly baseless if you look at the statements by yourself, and about the source, if it was someone totally different, for example sally from scotland, you couldn't be as accusatory as you are now towards me, trying to throw a ethnic label. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing Answering What would you say if I add a sentence to Amharic stating "but Oromo language has more mother-tongue speakers"? It is actually in the Amharic article, so why is it an issue for you to mention the total speakers here in the Oromo language? As lot off stuff about Amharic you said, one sentence and you're going ham about ethnic nationalism, did you sleep well? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the enquiry. My sleep was reinvigorating. The Amharic page mentions Oromo language with two words ("after Oromo") to set the context where someone found it necessary to mention the number of mother-tongue speakers. You instead want to introduce an entirely new parameter to the Oromo language article (total number of speakers) just to make it clear to every reader that Amharic is still larger than Oromo. LandLing 06:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@LandLing I agree with your latest edits, for that thank you. I don't see a big difference from what i edited actually, only yours is better phrased. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Good we could come to an agreement. LandLing 07:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The fourth largest language in Africa claim seems to be quite widespread, there is another scholarly article here from 1990 that makes the claim, as does this one from this year. The BBC source might not be the best in the world, but there is plenty out there to source the claim. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, and not only those sources, but even the Cambridge University Language Center site cited in the first paragraph. This seems to be some academic urban myth passed around for generations, as in all these rankings Yoruba is conveniently left out. BTW, I just checked: even in the 10th edition of the Ethnologue from 1984 (a well-thumbed paper book I happen to have standing in my shelf) Yoruba had 15 million speakers as opposed to Oromo's combined 10 million. LandLing 07:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Folks, I have made a minor tweak in the phrasing which doesn't alter the meaning, but doesn't make use of editorializing "buts" and "insteads". The focus remains on Oromo without topic discontinuity, and still gives full mention of Amharic as the most widely spoken language by total speaker number. –Austronesier (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. LandLing 09:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I support the current wording " Oromo is ... among the five languages of Africa with the largest mother-tongue populations". One thing worse than a peeing contest is doing a peeing contest and brag mine is bigger than yours (I was about to link to SoaD's "Cigaro", but that might not be to everyone's taste :)). –Austronesier (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Never heard of SoaD until this morning (apparently not my style of music). Just found the lyrics to Cigaro. Good call for not linking this here, but it seems to be disturbingly to the point. LandLing 07:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The article leaves the reader in the dark about the question of whether there is a standardized variety of Oromo or not. We learn in section 1 that Oromo has a number of varieties, but in the sections that follow one gets the impression as if there must be a kind of prestige or standard variety, since info about broadcasting, public information services, education etc. only speaks of the Oromo language (the only exception is Kenya-related information, which specifies about the variety (Borana)). Also the huge unsourced grammar section does not specify which variety is discussed, as if a certain variant might be taken for granted here.

Having skimmed through several papers that are available online, I get the impression that standardization is still an ongoing process. So we need to know more about the current public use of Oromo: are children taught in the local variety of their region? What variety is chosen in official federal websites? @MfactDr and Landroving Linguist: I would be great if you could add some information about this in the article, or at least help us out with some quality sources which can be preliminarily placed in the "Further reading"-section for future expansion. –Austronesier (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No, there is currently no clearly defined standard for all Oromo, although it is developing by default as being West-Central Oromo. You can read up on that in this article.^[1] Can't think why I am particularly recommending this one... LandLing 09:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: Wow. I have expected much by asking the right one, but this is more than expected. :) Spot on, thanks! So there is at least a dominant ("de-facto standard") variety, with all the potential sociolinguistic ups and downs. I'll try to weave this into the article in the next days. –Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I was grown in Hararghe which speaks Eastern Oromo variety. However I used to learn book written in West-central Oromo. This is due to Western Oromo have exposure to learning and they are more literate and are in office in many region of Oromia(as they created writing system). I think the difference is not the grammar but vocabulary(there are unfamiliar words which is not known in Easter Oromo but for them). Media also use West Central Oromo but nowadays all variety are used. As all variety can be understood if you know one. 196.189.89.248 (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Some dangerous historical terrorists are removing the true fact that this language was once called "Galla". It's fine to say "we don't use the word any more" -- but these terrorists are trying to erase the entire history of the thing. Very dangerous. Be aware of these criminals. It's true, historically proven, that the language was called Galla. You can't delete history. But you can try. Equinox ◑ 10:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the matter at hand, calling other editors terrorists or criminals is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you continue to display this kind of behavior, your editing history on Wikipedia is likely to be very short. To the matter as such: yes, the language was called that in the past, and for that reason I support your restoration of the text. There are linguistic treatments of the language from 20th century where this name was used in the title, and Wikipedia therefore needs to mention that name. But it is also important to note that the name had a pejorative meaning and is therefore rejected by Oromos. LandLing 10:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Since WP principles of inertia put the WP:ONUS on the one(s) who want to add content to an article, here are the facts:

• The exonym "Galla" was adopted by Westerners from the Abyssinians.
• Whatever baggage came (or in the course of time has come) with the term (as a pejorative or slur), it was the common name for the ethnic group and their language until the mid 20th century:
• Oromos strongly disfavor the term, which is the main reason why it eventually became obsolete.

Clearly, we can and must mention the term "Galla language" in the article. To be "ledeworthy", it must have some currency in the literature; we don't include ephemeral or insular alternative names in the lede. As for Galla, a quick survey through scholarly sources shows that it was very relevant and therefore IMHO worthy of mention (with all the necessary explanations) in the lede section. –Austronesier (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist

We don't mention the pejorative term for African American in the lead. Despite having currency in literature and scholarly sources showing that that pejorative was very relevant. Therefore, we shouldn't mention the pejorative term for Oromo's in the lead either.

The fact that it should be mentioned with all the necessary explanations, in and of itself suggests to me it's not a neutral statement, and not concise and should therefore be left to mention elsewhere in the article. The average reader wouldn't even know that that was an alternative name for Oromo's as that term is not relevant today at all but only in historical sources.

I definitely think it is necessary to include it in the article. But definitely not in the lead. LeenchaOromia (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the comparison with African American does not support your claim. The link points to the page African Americans, which is not about a language, but about an ethnic group. There is a page called African-American Vernacular English which is about the language, and it mentions in the lead all names I have ever seen about this language in the academic literature, and then some.

Of course I would agree with you if the name in question is only used in bad faith by people who want to distract from the Oromo people, but this is clearly not the case. As Austronesier has shown, the term has been the default name for the language in much of the academic literature of the 20th century, by people who clearly were not aware that the Oromos resented being called by that name. For that reason, there is a redirect from that name that points you straight to the Oromo language article. Users who typed in that name and end up on that page need to see straight from the lead why this is the case. So there are encyclopedic reasons why this name needs to be shown in the lead, with all disclaimers, and this is fully in line with Wikipedia policy. LandLing 10:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The name of the ethnic group and the name of that ethnic groups language are often synonymous as made apparent in the African-American Vernacular English page that you linked. Yet they are saying "black english" or "african-american english/dialect" and not the pejorative. It mentions all the names but the pejorative. The same can be applied to Oromo. If you are trying to suggest the name of the pejorative wasn't used in substitute of the modern name "black" or "african-american" to reference the language/dialect, then you are simply mistaken there. The modern term wasn't even popularized until the late 90's so the only way they would be using to reference the language is the dialect pejorative.

People who used the pejorative to reference black american's also were not only using it bad faith. It was the common default term. Your whole second paragraph in general is also applicable to African-Americans, yet you do not see their pejorative in the lead. So if you are going to argue it should be in the lead for Oromo's, argue the same for African-American's.

As for the redirect, the redirect itself literally mentions why. No need to mention it for most other cases of casual readers who would have no clue of that name. Wikipedia policy does not address the specific policy for pejoratives. But again, if you are going to say it does, then make the same argument for African-Americans. LeenchaOromia (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You missed the crucial part of my argument: the usage in academic literature, as opposed to any other kind of writing. I'm not sure which pejorative term you refer to - I thought you meant "black English", which was indeed used in the literature until the 1990s, and to the best of my knowledge is today seen as pejorative. No other more pejorative name is found in any of the sources mentioned at the bottom of that page. In any case, the alternative name for Oromo has been a widely used name in the academic literature, and for this reason we need to have a reference to it in the lead. The policy I was referring to is this section of the Manual of Style. The policy mentions significant alternative names. Use in the academic literature makes this name significant in this sense, although people now see it as offensive - a fact that we need to mention. Please accept that we need to follow the rules of Wikipedia in this, whether this is appreciated by all and everyone or not. Any attempt to get the reference out of there will be regarded as censoring. LandLing 21:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems there's a cultural confusion here. "black" is not a pejorative to refer to African American's. I am referring to the usage of the term Negro. Does this now make better sense to you as to what I am arguing? LeenchaOromia (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. It seems that you are right. The further-reading section does not mention this name in the given titles, but among the cited sources there are at least four (the newest from 1970) that make use of the term "negro." Therefore, based on what I said above, I think it could be argued that "Negro dialect" should be listed there as an alternative name. You certainly convinced me that the two cases are indeed very similar. From what I see on that talk page, so far this idea has not been discussed. I wonder what would happen if the name was introduced in the lead?

In any case, non-policy use on one Wikipedia page is not a valid reason to not apply the policy on a different page. The policy as such is fairly clear, and there are good encyclopedic reasons to apply it in this case. LandLing 08:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Glad we're on the same page now.

Regarding Wikipedia policy, I actually started a discussion on the WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section talk page at the very bottom titled Usage of a Pejorative as Alternative Name in Lead, to get better clarification as to the Wiki policy.

Some points were made in the discussion there that point to wiki guidelines that may suggest pejoratives do not need to be included in the lead. For instance, WP:GRATUITOUS statement of:

"Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available" LeenchaOromia (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the final gist of the discussion in the lead-section page was to leave things as they currently are, with the alternative name mentioned in the lead. I think they would also support it in African-American Vernacular English, but I have no desire to fight it out on that page. We've dropped the idea there on the talk page, at least. LandLing 07:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have just asked the people on the African-American Vernacular English talk page for advice. I hope we may hear from some of them about this. LandLing 11:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

you can't called someone by the name their Hater's gave them!! 102.218.50.169 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Map of Oromo language varieties and dialects.svg
• Map of the Oromo language.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andreas, you wrote that 'Oromo, historically also called Galla.' Here, 'Galla' means which is an insult and a misrepresentation of the population. It appears that you may have copied and pasted without investigating what the haters wrote a century ago. I strongly recommend removing the reference that mentions 'Galla' unless you want to perpetuate an insult to the Oromo people even today. Zealber (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

See discussion above. LandLing 23:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Zealber, you will also find more discussion on this on the talk page of another user. I hope you'll find it to be helpful. LandLing 23:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If it is mandatory to include the pejorative term Galla, it is also mandatory to mention that this term is pejorative and the Oromo people never used it. Otherwise, this simply contributes to the continuation of its usage and the dehumanization of Oromo people. Oromo never called themselves Galla just like black people never called themselves the N word. Tumsaa (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a valid point, and this is indeed what the article does now. The term is clearly marked as pejorative, as it needs to be. And I am very happy to observe that it is practically not used by anyone anymore, at least not in the academic discourse. But, as stated elsewhere, as it has been the standard name for language and people for large parts of the previous century, it needs to be mentioned here, with all appropriate disclaimers, out of encyclopaedic necessity. Thanks for your understanding! LandLing 04:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Good day to you all!

In the infobox for this page, Afaan Oromoo is shown written in Sheikh Sapaloo's script. However, why not include both Latin and Fidal, which historically Oromoo has been written in? Including only Sheikh Sapaloo's script is odd given is odd. I believe we should imitate the style of editing found in the Somali language's article. In the article infobox, Osmanya, Arabic, and Latin are all used to showcase the Somali language as they are historic scripts and all included - even despite the fact that the *vast* majority of Somali speakers use Latin to write the language, and so do Oromoos. I might make this edit in the future after making and uploading an appropriate image to Wikicommons but for now I am leaving this here. Thank you. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 00:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Over the course of the last couple of years various editors attempted to remove the mention of the old pejorative name of Oromo (which does not need to be repeated here), or at least they advocated for it. As this discussion comes up repeatedly, I think it is necessary to summarize once more the arguments that are brought to this discussion from both sides, and to state why the policies of Wikipedia leave us not much room to deviate from the state the article will again have from today, that is with a mention in the lead.

Against: The name in question is indeed a name that was used in the past in unfriendly ways by outsiders to denigrate the Oromo community. There is no question that the Oromos nowadays feel insulted by this name, and I have experienced the deterioration of relationships when this name inadvertantly slipped in during a language development event for the Oromo language. Although there are people (usually not Oromos) who insist that the name is not loaded with bad content, and that even bring up folk-etymologies that shed a more positive light on the name, there is no reason whatsoever why this name should ever be used in a public setting again.

And nobody even does so anymore. For the past 40 years the name has disappeared from the titles of the academic literature about the Oromo people and language, and also in the public discourse in Ethiopia it is hardly mentioned at all anymore. All this is very good, and nobody here on Wikipedia (I hope) wants to change that. Some editors therefore argue that because the name is no longer in use, it should also not appear on this page.

For: There is only one compelling reason to mention this name in the article, and even to mention it in the lead section of the article: As the bibliography section of the article shows, the old pejorative name was not only used as a racial slur by unfriendly outsiders, but also by many members of the academic community when referring to language and people in their linguistic, sociological and historic publications. Most likely there was no ill-will involved by these people - they used the name they heard from the Amhara ruling class in Ethiopia, and didn't know that it was less than polite. But the very fact that these publications exist makes it necessary to mention the name in the lead section out of encyclopedic necessity. We need to assume that Wikpedia users stumble on this old name in one of these publications (which are still widely circulated in the academic community) and want to find out more about language and people. When they now enter the name in Wikipedia, they will be rerouted to the Oromo language page. They will then need a brief clue as to why that happened: the language has been known under a different name in the past, which is no longer in use, because it is seen as insulting. This is accomplished by the addition of the old name in the lead, with the important disclaimer that this name is seen as insulting (=pejorative). If this information is not given here, then the users will be left in the dark about why they were re-routed, and that the name they have known the language under is not an acceptable way to talk about the people or the language. We therefore need to mention the name here, even if this is seen as offensive by some of the readers, in line with Wikipedia's stance against censoring, as expressed in the words "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

I hope this helps with understanding what is happening here. As usual, it does not help the discussion when bad faith is assumed of the actions of another editor, so further discussions should be focussing on the policies surrounding this matter, not on the motives of the participants. In the end, if mediation needs to be sought here from other editors and admins, it will be the policies that decide the matter, not our personal feelings. LandLing 16:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion from User talk:Wieditor25#June 2025, @Landroving Linguist there you state The inclusion of the term is not necessary from a linguistic perspective. No linguist in their right mind is currently using this pejorative term. The reason to include it here is solely for encyclopaedic reasons: users who have been redirected to this page after entering the other name need to know why they ended up on the Oromo language page after entering a very different name that they may have picked up from a 50-year old publication. However, the article readers are directed to at the Galla dab page is Oromo people where it is thoroughly covered in the body and Oromo people is linked in the first sentence in this article. If, as you state, it is not necessary to include the term from a linguistic perspective, then it does not belong in this article. Certainly not in the lead, just like it is not mentioned in the lead of Oromo people. Pinging @Wieditor25. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Correct, but I am referring to the call Galla language. This is a very old and necessary redirect. LandLing 20:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Then cover it in the body like Oromo people does. It being a redirect does not mean it needs to be mentioned in the lead. S0091 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, it needs to be in the lead, as users coming to the page through the redirect will need to see right away why they landed on this page, without having to read through other sections of the article. I also think that it should be the same on the Oromo people page, but this is not the point of this discussion. In any encyclopaedia, any possible naming confusion is dealth with right at the beginning of the article. To find out more about what needs to be in the lead section, and why alternative names need to be in the lead section, please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Here we have the extra complication that the alternative name is pejorative, and this information needs to be included together as critical context for mentioning the name. LandLing 21:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @S0091 for putting together this discussion. This article should be treated consistently and follow the same approach as others which have the same issues. Other articles in Wiki don't mention any pejorative term. Let's follow the same approaches. If it's needed from a linguistic perspective, we can explicitly mention that the term never accepted or recognized by speakers and place it in the right sections. Wieditor25 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, comparable pages are Khoekhoe language or Romani People. The Oromo language is by far not the only language that has been given bad names in the past that even made it into the academic literature. And these pages do the same what was done here so far, for the same reason: encyclopaedic usefulness. There are other pages where this doesn't happen, as Wikipedia's rules are not followed the same way in all places - for that reason individual Wikipedia pages should only be presented as models for other pages when they follow the rules as specified in the Manual of Style. LandLing 21:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to research this. I reviewed the Romani people article and noticed that the term Gypsy does not appear in the lead section. It does, however, appear in redirect and within the article body.For Khoekhoe language the article does mention the term Hottentot in the lead, although that article's structure may not be entirely consistent with how similar cases are handled elsewhere (as you also pointed out).

Also I didn't see any major debates about these terms on the article talk pages for either article.

To avoid misunderstanding or unintentionally normalizing offensive terms, while still preserving "historical" context, would it make sense to keep the lead section clean and address the historical use of such term in a clearly labeled section or footnote- just as in Oromo people? That way, readers looking for that information can easily find it, without giving undue weight to pejorative name. Wieditor25 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Look, I cited the policies to you. Here in the wording from MOS:Article titles: "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." And I've explained the reasons to you (and many times to others higher up on this talkpage) why this policy exists. It is to make the page useful to those who get redirected here using the other name, because they found it in an academic publication. You still want to rationalize why this policy shouldn't be followed here, but this in effect constitutes censoring, and that is not a valid motivation in Wikipedia for not following the rules. It is also not valid to observe that the rules are not followed elsewhere on Wikipedia - this is a matter that needs to be discussed on those pages, not here. You are welcome to do that. I'm doing it here. LandLing 08:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for the clarification. No censoring intended here, but I've reviewed the MOS:Article titles, and I agree it offers helpful direction — but doesn't mention if it's pejorative.

Additionally, per WP:OTHERNAMES, there's an illustrative example: "For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited..." Looking at the Gdańsk article itself, we see that the pronunciation and alternate names are embedded in the footnote.

A similar approach is also recommended in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which includes the suggestion for more nuanced presentation when dealing with complex material (please refer to the table provided there). This approach actually will help reduce the number of footnotes and improve the article's readability.

I hope this helps us move toward a consensus based on Wikipedia's established practices. Wieditor25 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I like the footnote option where additional explanation can be provided and we can direct readers to Oromo people#Origins and nomenclature for the more detailed history. Another option is cover it briefly here in the Language policy or another section and update the redirect to target that section. S0091 (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback and insight. I agree with both of your suggestions.Wieditor25 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The MOS article doesn't mention pejoratives, because for the application of the policy it doesn't matter whether the name is pejorative, if the other name is a significant name, which is the case here. Furthermore, the footnote in the Gdansk article is a new development, and it may or may not be in line with the policy, which still demands that the significant other name is mentioned in the first sentence. But I agree that placing the whole thing inside a footnote may be a workable compromise for the Oromo language page. It will make it less visible, but the footnote marker behind the first name will alert redirected readers that there is more to the name they need to know. I'll give it a try. LandLing 19:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That will hopefully help alleviate some of the users' frustration. I also appreciate your efforts to support other Ethiopian languages. Wieditor25 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. Thanks LandLing for implementing it and Wieditor25 for engaging in discussion. S0091 (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)