Talk:Eastern Ethiopian

Genesis Quote

The article says that Genesis 10:6-32 says that the Ethiopians are racially Caucasoid and Negroid. I have found the quotes. Genesis 10:6, says "And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan." Genesis 10:32, says "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood." The Genesis quotes do not seem to support what the editor who used them as a reference claims they support.----^DarkTea © 22:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the Eastern Ethiopians

I originally put that the debate is in regards to the "indigenous people of India". User:Tripping Nambiar who believes Aryans and Dravidians are in reality the same people who are both indigenous to India finds fault with this phrase, because it posits Aryans as not being indigenous to India. Would it be better if the article stated that the debate is over "the people who live in India who are considered to physically resemble Ethiopians by some people but who are not the recent descendant of Ethiopians or other Africans.'"----^DarkTea © 03:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be apt, I don't think Herodotus, Homer and other Greek authors referred to Dravidians as such, as the concept of Dravidian didn't exist during those times previous to when European linguists found that people of southern India spoke a linguistically distinct language, and because Dravidian peoples do not have a distinct look among peoples in India. I think the sources refer to Indian peoples and not Dravidian, and I hope not all references of indigenous in the article is not replaced by "Dravidian", as who the original inhabitants (Adivasi) of India is still a matter of conjecture. Trips (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it appears that the term Dravidian was not used by the ancient historians. India was referred to in my perusal of the sources.----^DarkTea © 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny's linguistic analysis

User:Tripping Nambiar made this edit where this editor claimed that WP:FRINGE warranted the removal of the Pliny quote. Was it Pliny, the ancient historian who made the quote, or Professor Nunes dos Santos whose book included it that User:Tripping Nambiar considers to be a fringe scholar? Is it that it was given undue weight for a historical source by not being listed with the other historical quotes?----^DarkTea © 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [[1]]. The book is not a citable source for etymologies of Dravidian words, and Pliny's statement and this fringe theory supporting book is used as WP:SYNTH to suggest a connection by the editor. Trips (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH is when two sources are used to form a new theory not present in either. For example, if we have one scholar who refers to the indigenous people of India as being Ethiopians and another who says the Ethiopians are a people of lean build and brown skin, then it would be synthesis to say that the indigenous people of India are of lean build and brown skin by combining both sources. No, Nunes Dos Santos listing of a Pliny quote in their own book does not constitute synthesis. It would be of questionable reliability if Nunes dos Santos' theory of Atlantis was added as part of a standard history, but that does not affect the reliability that this researcher has found an ancient quote and has reliably stated it in their book. I see nothing wrong with the quote as long as it is listed in its time frame with the other ancient Greek historian quotes.----^DarkTea © 04:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize the entire paragraph came from that one source. Trips (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]