Talk:Ethiopid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What should i do to clean the page. Am still working on it though. I ll make sure it meets the standards—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Learning1 (talk • contribs) 30 January 2006.

Contents

[edit] I think this should be deleted.

This is a carry over from a debate on the racial myths board and doesn't belong here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VinceT (talk • contribs) 30 January 2006.

[edit] Agreed. I think this page is ripe for an AfD[1] move and a speedy delete

Agreed. This is total bull. "Ethiopid" wasn't even in the dictionary I consulted. It's a made-up classification -- which, incidentally includes Ethiopians, Dogon, Nilotics, Cushites, etc. And there is no question that these peoples are considered Africoid/Negroid peoples. This term has absolutely no credibility and is an off-the-wall attempt to separate the blacks of the Nile region and the Horn of Africa out of black Africa. If you were to approach any of the Dinka peoples or any of the Somalis, Ethiopians or Oromo I know and tell them they aren't black, they'd look at you like you were off your rocker. deeceevoice 11:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Why? The author gave me permission. This is BS. It is not being debated. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN both geneticaly and physically. Please tell me beofre you erase my hard work. I am sure you wouldnt like someone deleting something you worked on for 3 days straight. Thank you—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Learning1 (talk • contribs) 30 January 2006.

[edit] Copyright violations and removal of text/imgs

The great majority of the text of this recently-created article appears to consist of unattributed quotes taken from a variety of on-line sources. While it is permissable to use (properly-attributed) direct quotes from sources in an article, the article should not consist of these entirely. As such, these contributions may readily be regarded as infringements of copyright. I have deleted the offending sections, the ones which remain I have not as yet been able to determine their source.

The passages identified are taken from a variety of sources: compare prev version with these:

Additionally, although each of the (too-many) images in the article claim to be original contributions by the uploader (Learning1 (talk · contribs)), I doubt very much whether this is the case, at least for all of them. Compare for example Image:Aids8.jpg with the img on this PBS website.

In summary, not only does it need a cleanup but a diligent check for any other possible infringements.--cjllw | TALK 01:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ..........

U love doing this don't you? I have asked permession for every single picture and I ASKED THE AUTHOR OF EVERY WORD N HERE. ON TOP OF THAT I GAVE THE SOURCES (I think that is how you find the site. Am I correct?) UR JUST ASSUMING I DIDINT. Please stop deleting my stuff because i have permission for everything.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Learning1 (talk • contribs) 31 January 2006.

If you indeed have explicit permission, you firstly need to prove this is so. The single source you provide a link to is not the original source of the texts, but seems to be some blog compendium. For example, where is your permission from the original authors of the Nature article? And where is your permission for the image taken from the PBS website?--cjllw | TALK 01:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] YEA

Yea, u guys are great a picking on 14 year olds. Why dont u just leave my hard work legitemate legal work alone. I have all the permission i need. I asked the author on an E-mail..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Learning1 (talk • contribs) 1 February 2006.

Learning1, please understand that this is not a case of being arbitrarily "picked on", whatever your claimed age, background or intention. Again, I urge you to read and understand Wikipedia:Copyrights and associated pages to see why it is very important to ensure material on wikipedia does not infringe on copyright. You claim this to be legitimate legal work, but the evidence on balance does not support this. You say you've asked the author on email, but which author (there are several involved here), what did you ask and where is the proof that this is so? You firstly need to be very specific as to what, when and how any permission you think has been granted to you, and furthermore to produce direct evidence that this exists. As has been demonstrated above, the text is taken verbatim and unattributed from at least three separate sources- even if you obtained all these texts from some reproduction on that anthropology blog that you link to (I'm only able to find one of those texts there), that blog is not the original author of those texts.
As for the several dozen images you have uploaded, after further investigations I now highly doubt whether you are the original creator of any of those photos and diagrams, depsite you tagging them as such. I also very much doubt that you have any direct permission to use these images from their various sources; I believe that you have merely trawled through some image searches for Ethiopians and simply copied them from a wide range of sources. At least 10 I've been able to check so far are clearly taken from sites such as university staff boards, government boards, news agencies, even a personal photo of some real estate agent in California who happens to be Ethiopian from her company's website..! If you revisit these sites again, you will see that most of them mention that the materials therein are copyrighted, and none of them make the explicit mention necessary to release the imgs under Public Domain or GFDL licence for use here. Do you really maintain that you have sought and obtained permission from all of these sources?
Unless or until you can demonstrate that any of this material you've submitted is clear of copyright concerns, please do not again restore the text or images. The place to provide and discuss the material is here on this talk page, and I await further clarification and actual proof from you that you have your stated permissions.--cjllw | TALK 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] HOW?

How can i prove it. If i write what the author told me on the email you guys will just say i made it up. How do you want me to prove it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Learning1 (talk • contribs) 2 February 2006.

As far as the text is concerned, the first thing for you to do would be to tell us here the name and contact details of this author you are referring to. As already pointed out, the text comes from at least three separate original sources, so I am not sure why you are referring to just a single author. Are you perhaps referring to Dienekes Pontikos, the publisher of the dienekes.blogspot.com blog you have cited? If so, it will be a simple-enough matter for me to email them and confirm. I hope however that you realise that Dienekes is not the original author of most of the material posted there- Dienekes takes a range of (attributed) quotes from abstracts and articles published elsewhere and adds a few comments to them.
It would help therefore if you answer the following direct questions:
  1. Do you have any association with Dienekes or that blogsite?
  2. Is Dienekes the 'author' you are referring to who is supposed to have given you permission?
  3. If so, what exactly did Dienekes say?
  4. Did you write any of the text in the article yourself?
  5. If so, which pieces exactly?
  6. By my count, you have uploaded 110 photos and diagrams, most of which you have included on this article. For these images,
    1. Did you take any of these photos, or draw any of these diagrams, yourself? If so, which ones specifically?
    2. At least 20 of these photos appear on a wide range of other sites, none of which indicate that they are free to use. I suspect that in fact all of these images have been copied by you from other sites, despite you tagging them as your original free-use creations. Do you deny that you have copied these from other sites?
    3. If you claim that you have permission for free use of any of these images, for which ones do you have permission, who did you get the permission from, and what are their contact details so that this can be verified?
If you respond to the above questions, then we shall be some of the way towards resolving this. I await your replies.
One further comment for now: as per the analysis presented at talk:Human#Carleton Coon, it would appear that you have altered a photo in such a way as to make it seem that 'Ethiopian' was included as one of the original major racial divisions in one of Coon's publications. If so, you must recognise that this is not an acceptable practice, and can be construed as somewhat dishonest. Kindly do not replace images with adulterated versions. If you want to replace or amend an image, discuss on the relevant talk page first.
You've been asked several times not to revert this article until the infringement concerns are addressed. If you persist, the page can be protected and you may be blocked from editing.--cjllw | TALK 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I see that you've already been temporarily blocked for attempted vandalism, and this article has been protected. When your block expires, please do answer the above questions in any case.--cjllw | TALK 23:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page straw poll to delete this article as utterly without merit

DELETE

  1. Yes. Speedy delete. Utterly without merit. deeceevoice 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Delete. As per Deeceevoice. --Khoikhoi 05:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


KEEP

  1. Keep That the Hutu are generally described as 'Bantu' and the Tutsi as 'Ethiopids' was a major factor in the Rwandan genocide, Thus the division into 'Bantu', 'Ethiopids' and 'Pygmoids' is an essentially social and political reality. See Human Rights Watch report [2] and the e-magazine "African Societies" [3] CoYep 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If the article is maintained, it has to be accurate. I stand by my vote for a speedy delete. With "Ethiopid" properly defined (currently, as written, the article is grossly inaccurate), the term can be incorporated (as an aside) into the articles Nilotic, Cushitic, etc. Nowhere among anthropologists or historians of any note is "Ethiopid" recognized as a "racial" category alongside Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid. As an ethnic designation, it may have merit; however, as the article now defines it, it is entirely without merit. Further, in some quarters, the divisions between the Tutsi as "Ethiopids" is regarded as a rather quirky semantic convention. Tutsi are Nilotic peoples, and the rather marginal term "Ethiopid" is considered roughly equivalent to the more common term "Nilotic" (a classification which includes many indigenous North and East African peoples). However, "Ethiopid" is also inaccurate/misleading in that the "Ethiopid" peoples of the Horn are also Cushite (Oromo/Galla), Amhara and others. Such latter designations are more commonly used. Virtually no one uses "Ethiopid" as a term of self-designation; the ethnic and linguistic lines are more finely drawn than that. The diverse Bantu peoples range across the breadth and depth of Africa, including the Horn; but predominate in the south and west of the continent and have supplanted/intermarried with many of the Khoisan peoples (who once were common in regions near the Horn of Africa) of the eastern and southern regions, as well. Regardless of whoever may call themselves "Ethiopid," there is no doubt whatsoever that all of these peoples are properly classified racially as Africoid/Negroid. They are indigenous Africans (read "black" peoples). deeceevoice 21:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT

  • I certainly have my doubts about the validity of this as an encyclopaedic topic, but cannot discount altogether that some notable researchers somewhere have attempted to use this or a similar term. Maybe it would be best to nominate for WP:AFD to gauge a wider opinion as this particular article is presumably little-known. I'd also like to see first if Learning1 is able to provide some clarifications on the issues raised above.--cjllw | TALK 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, duh. That's what my earlier comments near the top of the page are about. I didn't want to unilaterally decide to do an AfD. I thought I'd do a straw poll here to gauge reaction first. Presumably, if Learning1 has any credible defense of this, IMO, completely disingenuous term, he/she will enter it here. While "Ethiopid" appears to be in extremely limited use (Googling turned up only 3 pages, whereas "Africoid" turned up 40), nowhere is it used to designate one of the major "racial" groups of humankind. As it is, it is an exceedingly vague ethnic designation which includes a number of indigenous (read "black"/Africoid) North African populations. I've only skimmed Learning1's edit history, but his/her contributions seem devoted solely to this matter. If Learning1 has anything substantive to contribute, then let him/her do so now. Otherwise, this "article" is going up for a delete vote ASAP. deeceevoice 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I'd simply not noticed your earlier comments, above. If you look at the earlier version of this page which Learning1 had set up, they had posted some (uncredited) extracts from various biogenetic papers, seemingly in support of (but IMO actually mis-using and misrepresenting) their presumed conception that 'Ethiopid' is closer to 'Caucasoid' than 'Negroid' - at least that's what I think they were trying to demonstrate. As per above I would agree that the use of this term and for this purpose is bogus, the extracts are taken out of context, and that few would recognise it as a valid racial descriptor- but then few if any racial definitions have universal recognition, even among academics. Would still like Learning1 to comment further, but they don't seem to have been active (at least under that username) since their temporary block expired.--cjllw | TALK 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopid should be a redirect

This page contains patently inaccurate, misleading information. The lead paragraph, which states that "Ethiopid is a racial classification usually used as part of a system also including Australoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid, and sometimes others such as Capoid" is false. The fact is that system of ethnic/racial classification traditionally includes Capoid -- not Ethiopid. (E.g., see Capoid. Further, under "Geographic scope," the article states that Ethiopid is a distinct "race," along with Caucasoid and Mongoloid, leaving the impression that Ethiopid is not a subgroup of Negroid, which is the term that belongs in the company of the two other terms, as "Caucasoid," "Mongoloid" and "Negroid"/"Africoid" are the three universally recognized, major "racial" groups of humankind. Since ancient times, "Ethiopian" has been synononymous with "black African." Further, the term "Ethiopid" is an exceedingly archaic one. Googling "Ethiopid" produces 6 pages; whereas, "Cushitic" produces 1300+ results.

Further, no anthropologist of the last half century would contend that "Ethiopid" is a separate racial category. The term roughly corresponds to "Cushitic." Participating editors have generally agreed that the term has little credibility/use. (See the article talk page.) I suggest the page and its inaccurate information be essentially obliterated and made a redirect to Cushitic. This page should include a simple sentence stating that the term "Ethiopid" is a somewhat archaic, equivalent term referring to Cushitic peoples. deeceevoice 09:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopid is now a redirect to Cushitic, with a brief addendeum to the article. The talk page, however, has been preserved here. deeceevoice 15:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Redirect?

Though the article that Learning1 created was not at all of Encyclopedic quality, I do believe that an encyclopedic article on "Ethiopid" can be made. Redirecting it to Cushitic, however, is misleading, as "Ethiopid" is intended to include Cushitic as well as Semitic speaking groups (and Beja, if you consider that to be a separate branch of AA). Regarding its usage, I get 276 hits on google, unlike the 6 that deeceevoice gets, but comparing it to Cushitic is misleading, as Cushitic is a widely used linguistic term, whereas "Ethiopid" is more often used by "race-ologists" (is there a correct term?) whose field is becoming increasingly outdated. As another Wikipedian stated, it also has historical importance with regards to the Hamitic Myth and the Rwandan Genocide.

Yom 09:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)