Talk:White Aethiopians/Archive 1

AngloP - would you please provide a quote from one of the sources which justifies the title of this article? -- Snowded TALK  05:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Garamantes
I've deleted "According to Pliny, the Leucaethiopes ("White Aethiopians") dwelled south of the Gaetuli and Libyans, and therefore may have been a term applied to the Garamantes.". First, it wasn't in the source. Secondly, the Garamantes are described as dark skinned, swarthy, etc. in various classical sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Negroid?
I don't mean to be PC (in fact, I hate poltical correctness), but doesn't the term negroid (regardless of actual meaning) seem a bit archaic and arcane in this day and age? How often do people use Mongoloid or Caucoid? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 02:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie. I changed it from "non-negroid" to "non-Black," which is a more acceptable term. If someone has better terminology, please change it. --Mvblair (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a little more context for the usage of the word "Negro?" I understand that Morel used it in 1902, but that is quite a long time ago given today's vocabulary. Mvblair (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Negro" is the actual term used by Morel. There unfortunately is no modern equivalent of the ethnonym that is not either inaccurate or a WP:EUPHEMISM. Soupforone (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but I don't see why it is a better term than "Black." The description is referring to a hypothetical population that we are discussing today. If there was a quote from Morel, perhaps using it in that context would be understandable. If Morel uses "negroid," he no doubt used the equally outdated "Caucasoid," but the description uses the term "light-complexioned" instead. Using "Black" or "dark skinned" would make more sense. Mvblair (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Morel indicates -- "From Ptolemy's description, we gather that in the neighbourhood of the Gambia (Stachir) the Carthaginians came across a people of a lighter hue than the Negroes. These people the author calls "Leucaethiopes." Pliny also speaks of the "Leucaethiopes," placing them, however, a couple of degrees farther north. Thus five hundred years B.C., Carthaginian navigators reported in West Africa the existence of a people to whom the epithet of "black" did not apply, in the same region which eight hundred years later--that being the first reference to West Africa which has come down to us--we hear of an Empire whose rulers were "white," founded by a monarch with a Fulfulde affix to his name. Who could these light-complexioned "Africans" have been? Not, assuredly, Arabs; still less Bantus." Therefore, Morel specifically contrasts "Negroes" with Ptolemy's "light-complexioned" Leucaethiopes, and he separately distinguishes the Leucaethiopes from Arabs and Bantus as well. The phrasing "black" is inapt because Morel elsewhere also distinguishes the Bantus (whom he suggests are a "Semitic" and "Negro" mixture) from the "Negroes" proper. Soupforone (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These are logical and semantic stretches to justify using an outdated, racist term. Mvblair (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it seems that way that's probably because White Aethiopians itself is an outdated, racist term. Therefore, the period testimonies on the ancient Leucaethiopes are typically of a similar nature. Soupforone (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be happy about interpreting what the original authors meant. I'd prefer just quoting them. Doug Weller  talk 15:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That could perhaps work. Soupforone (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Who is Richatd Smith?
This article is full of references to one "Richard Smith", for whom there are no independent references. All links to his quotes are dead.

I will therefore delete all things in the article based on Richard Smith.CannotFindAName (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need links if there is enough to verify the source, which is a peer reviewed journal. Doug Weller (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Fula
An editor has now twice removed a relevant, cited Commons image. The second time mentioned WP:OI, which states "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments", which certainly isn't a problem here; the idea was published by Morel as cited. The editor also mentioned WP:IUP, which says at great length that photos taken in a public place that do not unfairly demean or ridicule the subject are acceptable. It is quite clear from the image that the location was public and that there was nothing demeaning to the people concerned. I can't see any good reason not to use the image, which is encyclopedic, relevant, and gives the reader a point of focus on Morel's investigations as discussed. What more can an image do to improve an article? In short, I suggest we put the image back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Edmund Dene Morel bases his claim that the Leucsethiopes may have been Fulani on the Carthaginian Hanno's Periplus. According to Morel, this Periplus, as translated by Ptolemy, indicates that-- "the Carthaginians came across a people of a lighter hue than the Negroes" . Morel also describes the "pure" Fulani as a "straight-nosed, straight-haired, relatively thin-lipped, wiry, copper or bronze complexioned ("pale-gold " as one writer puts it) Fulani male, with his well-developed cranium, and refined extremities ; and the Fulani woman, with her clear skin, her rounded breasts, large eyes, antimony-dyed eyebrows, gracefulness of movement, beauty of form, coquettish ways and general attractiveness — are Asiatics" . The Fulani file does not correspond to either Morel's description or that of Hanno's Periplus on which he bases his theory. It thus fails WP:OI and WP:IUP. That is why I replaced it with the more neutral map from Morel's book itself. Also, Morel makes it clear that he is actually referring to the early Fulani that the Carthaginians encountered when he specifies that-- "to what race but the Fulani, to whom the description given by Hanno could alone — bearing in mind the period of the expedition — by any possibility apply?" . This Carthaginian expedition took place in the latter part of the sixteenth century, before the Christian era. Soupforone (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you have looked into it, as I did a long time ago, which is a good thing. The problem with the above explanation is your opinion, based on your reading of the "file" (the image), and your interpretation of Morel, that 1) the Morel meant people who looked unlike actual Fulani, and 2) that Morel was drawing a distinction between early and late Fulani. It's equally likely, and I believe the case, that "bearing in mind the period" just meant "at that period there weren't any other peoples there who it could have been". The point is that it is not for editors to draw inferences, which is what you are trying to do, but to take the stated claims as they are, which is what I did. If readers say to themselves, "hm, I wonder if Morel can really have been right", that's up to them. It's up to us to give them the opportunity to think that. If your point is that we need a Fulani male as well as a female, to illustrate the two halves of Morel's description, then I would agree with you, it would be highly desirable: we should have both. Having neither is just a mistake. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but it is not speculation that these folks are not the Fulani that Morel actually has in mind. The women in the file do not match the description above that Morel provides on the "pure" Fulani, nor that of the ancient Leucsethiopes provided by the Carthaginian Hanno. They instead resemble Morel's "half-caste" Fulani. In order to properly convey what Morel means when he associates the Fulani with the Leucsethiopes of yore, the file should match his actual description of the "pure" Fulani (ex. ). Any non-map file other than that would be misrepresenting his Leucsethiopes theory. Soupforone (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For the sake of harmony, and since we agree that Morel mentioned both men and women, I'm happy to use an image such as this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that file doesn't particularly match Morel's description either; this is clearer from a different angle. Morel's short description on the "pure" Fulani was "straight-nosed, straight-haired, relatively thin-lipped, wiry, copper or bronze complexioned... "pale-gold"". This is close to Saint Martin's theory that the Leucaethiopes were early Berbers, who penetrated southward into the desert. Perhaps, then, a Berber file would work ? Or maybe just Morel's toponym map. Soupforone (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We can certainly mention Saint Martin, and that entitles us to illustrate that with a Berber image: you are welcome to add such, or I can do it as you like. Your constant objections about the Fula however seem to me to be pure WP:OR, and are now bordering on filibustering. Since Morel is cited as mentioning the Fula, we are perfectly entitled to show an image of them, and readers can draw their own conclusions, as is proper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)



Actually, I did not object above to a Fula file. I wrote that the Fulani files you suggested do not match Morel's actual description of the "pure" Fula (especially his "straight-nosed, straight-haired" claim); they instead resemble his "half-caste" Fula. I also linked to an example of a Fulani file that more closely matches Morel's description of the "pure" Fula. We need to accurately represent what Morel actually indicates the "pure" Fula look like or it's original research and a misrepresentation of his Fulani=Leucaethiopes theory. With that noted, to the right is a better example of Morel's "straight-nosed, straight-haired, relatively thin-lipped, wiry, copper or bronze complexioned" "pure" Fula that we can perhaps use along with the Berber file. Soupforone (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh good, let's use one of each then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Soupforone (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Function of second map
The first map mentions the Leucaethiopes and gives them a geographic location. The second one doesn't, and is neither mentioned in the text nor of a relevant period (either Morel's own time, or Pliny's). It thus has no discernible function, so I suggest we either make sufficient use of it to justify its presence or remove it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - I've rearranged the article (ancient/medieval/modern), formatted the references consistently, and repositioned the images. There is no space for the second map, and since it doesn't seem to contribute I've removed it. The existing map seems to do the required job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the Berber file with Saint Martin since the latter's is also a modern interpretation. Soupforone (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)