Template:Eritrea

Ethiopia Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A couple of issues: Would someone provide a source that refutes the Arabic etymolgy of "Habesha," and/or that demonstrates that is is a portmanteau of "Ham" and "Shem"? I mention this after seeing a couple of back-and-forth reverts, but if this is something about which people are often mistaken, then these people (including myself) would appreciate seeing a citation. Also, an earlier version described the ancient kingdom of Abyssinia subjugating the surrounding areas; in a later edit this was changed to Aksum.I'm figuring both are correct, with similar activity over the centuries in between. For example, see the map Image:UpperNubiaAndAbyssinia1891map.jpg, which depicts Abyssinia as not yet including vast amounts of territory that are now part of Ethiopia. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had added Gurage as another group to whom the term "Habesha" refers. However, that particular sentence was worded to include the "politically dominant" Amhara and Tigray. I could be mistaken, but I don't think the Gurage are politically dominant, at least not in the same sense that the other two groups are held to be dominant. But I assume the term "Habesha" still applies to Gurage as speakers of Semitic languages, so I have re-worded the sentence to that effect. (I could be completely mistaken in this regard, too: perhaps the Gurage are not called, and/or do not consider themselves "Habesha"?) The historical dominance by the other two groups is still mentioned further along in the article. If I'm wrong about any of this then please correct the text, but I wanted to esplain the reason for my edit. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrofrog, why did you revert my edits correcting the first kingdom of Ethiopia and the mistatement that Ethiopia did not historically include "non-habesha" groups, and then change the correct (or more correct than the number you changed it to) data regarding the percentage of Tigreans and Amharas in Ethiopia (the data I have up now is straight from the 1994 census, the most recent census in Ethiopia)?

Yom

I assume you are talking about my edits from January 6, which I already discussed in the first paragraph on this talk page. I'm not convinced that surrounding areas (e.g. Harar, Oromiya, Sidamo, Somali etc.) were subjugated to the Abyssinian kingdom(s) as far back as Aksum, at least not to the degree that they constitute present-day Ethiopia. I'm certain that Aksum subjugated its neighbors, that's what kingdoms do, but the article should be more specific about this. But do take a look at the map I cited above, it depicts the country no later than 1891 and does not include large amounts of territory that now include Harar, Afar region, Somali region, Oromiya etc. (I have another map from the 1920s that, more or less, looks like present-day Ethiopia.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know exactly the extents of Ethiopia during the Axumite Empire, though I know it extended into Shewa and perhaps farther (I haven't researched the subject enough), but a lot of the areas you listed were incorporated under Amda-Siyon and his successors in the 14th and 15th centuries before the invasion of Ahmed Gragn. I refer you to Taddesse Tamrat's brilliantly researched "Church in State in Ethiopia: 1270-1527." It includes a few maps which show the limits of Ethiopia being close to its present day boundaries with the exception of the areas inhabited by Afars and the Ogaden/Harerghe region. Bali, Sidamo, Hadya, Shewa (especially so, since Axumite times), Damot, Ifat, etc. were all part of Ethiopia and directly under the rule of the Ethiopian emperors. The Harer region (e.g. Adal) was indirectly under Ethiopian control (through tributes, appointing leaders, and a general lack of Adal sovereignty - shown best by the tracking down of Sa'adadin through Adal and his death in Zeila).

Btw, how do I get a timestamp to appear?

Yom 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I'm trying to remember what the original issue was. ;-) I think my contention was how much the Aksumite Kingdom subjugated the surrounding area (and whether this encompassed, for example, Sidamo). You mention the gains made by Amda-Siyon, and while I'm not familiar with this era, isn't it several hundred years after Aksum? I think that was my point. As far as Adal being under Ethiopian sovereignty, from your description (e.g. indirect control) I would not say it was (then) part of Ethiopia any more than (for example) Lebanon is a part of Syria. The Amda-Syon era does seem more likely than the Aksumite era for this degree of expansion. I would definitely be interested in seeing the maps, if they are easily available (not for further contention but simply because I love maps). But, again, check the 1891(?) map that I cited, if for no other reason that it's interesting to see: the southeastern extent of Abyssinia is approximately where Nazret/Adama or Sodere is presently located (though this took some figuring on my part, because neither these two towns, nor Addis, is actually on the map). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I guess you figured out the timestamp, ~~~~ should put your name and timestamp while ~~~ just puts your name, and ~~~~~ just puts the timestamp. I took the liberty of making the additional indentations (which I think you may have tried to do in a subsequent edit). If you use a line break you'll have to indent the following lines, as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk)

I don't remember the original point of contention, either, but let me clarify a few things. Again, I'm not entirely certain as to the extent of Axumite control by the end of its demise (it had expanded significantly southwards over the last few centuries of its existence, though), but I am fairly certain that Axum control extended to and included the modern day province of Shewa. When Gudit (or Yudit or Judith, or the Queen who defeated Axum) took over Axum, Shewa is said to have been free from her yoke, which presumably allowed the Solomonid dynasty to survive through Yekunno-Amlak. Agaw areas (e.g. Wag and Lasta) were thoroughly Christian and integral parts of Axum by the first quarter of 6th century according to Taddesse Tamrat, and:

Strong traditional data show the Christian kings actively engaged in military campaigns of territorial expansion south of this central region [between the Tekeze and Bashilo, or Agaw country] in the ninth century [still the Axumite Empire]. The Traditions centre around a 'king of Aksum' remembered under the name of Digna Jan:

During his rain he (who) led 150 priests from Aksum to Amhara and assigned them |to teach?| there. As he came out of Tigre he camped at Wayna-Daga (And had) with him 50 tabots...When he counted his troops there were found (among them) 180,150 dressed in coats of mail. Taking these he went to another country in Innarya [just north of Lake Zway, but much farther to the west], one month's journey away...

...[B]y the tenth century contemporary writers describe the kingdom as controlling a vast territory between the Dahlak islands and Zeila on the coast, and from the upper basins of the Ansaba-Barka rivers to the central Shawan plateau in the interior. A new ethnic and linguistic group of people had also been added within the sphere of Christian military control. It is apparent that the Sidama, who were probably the original inhabitants of the Shawan plateau, had already become tributary to the Christian kings by that time.

All of what I quoted above is thoroughly referenced (and the obvious exaggeration of the army's strength is pointed out).

As for Amda-Siyon's reign (and his successors), Amda-Siyon ruled from 1314-1344 (and his main campaigns were carried out in 1332), and Ethiopia really only lacked the Ogaden and Afar areas to differentiate it in size from modern (pre-Eritrean secession) Ethiopia, with the exception of frontier borders being generally 50 miles further inward. Until the invasion of Ahmed Gragn in the 1520s, Ethiopia continued to expand (though much more slowly, and it was focused more on internal evangelization and integration). The maps of "Abyssinia" in the 19th century show an Ethiopia just out of Zemena Mesafint (during which Ethiopia's emperors were figureheads and each region had great autonomy), and still (even though it was 300 years later) greatly weakened from the wars of Ahmed Gragn.

Regarding Adal, I disagree, but I can understand your position. I don't believe that the situation is that similar to Syria and Lebanon's relationship, however. Whereas Syria meddled greatly in Lebanese politics and controlled much of the country, the Lebanese subjugation is largely subvertive, whereas Adal accepted that it had to give tribute (with the exception of some revolts like those of Sa'adadin all of which were put down until Ahmed Gragn). Anyway, it's a minor disagreement; Taddesse Tamrat doesn't actually include Adal in the "Christian controlled areas" on his map, but this may be due to the dates of his maps (during the reign of Amda Siyon, before Adal was conquered, and on the eve of Ahmed Gragn's invasions when Adal invaded Ethiopia). Unfortunately I don't have a scanner, so I can't upload his very informative pictures, but just ask, and I can describe them for you. I highly recommend his book, as it is [b]the[/b] book for the history of that period. -- Yom 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Yom: ሃበሻ->ሓበሻ

Merhawie, the Kingdom of Aksum referred to itself as "Ethiopia" from Ezana onwards. Do you deny this? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yom, my concern is a confusion in naming. This will easily lead to a confusion between Aksum and the modern state of Ethiopia which are two completely different entities. Furthermore it could even lead to confusion with the central African empire of Ethiopia of which we saw a map some time ago. --Merhawie 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merhawie, there never was any central African empire which was called Ethiopia. And I guess that we shouldn't really care about what other people call us or others. Because if the Aksumites called themselves Ethiopians from some point on, we should respect that an not change the name into something else. Then it would become political and would sway away from the historical "truth". --Tiqur Anbessa 13:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it says Ethiopia here...

Would you deny that there is a difference between the historical "Ethiopia" and "Aksum"? Especially those who identify with each? --Merhawie 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two are continuations of each other and in fact, overlap for the period between ca. 330 (?) AD with Ezana's first use and the beginning of the Zagwe dynasty in 950 or 1137 AD. There was no major revolution that changed the nature of the state during this time, just a shift of power to Lasta. A confused European map does not change that fact, any more than it makes Dravidian speakers associate themselves with Ethiopia because of Herodotus's confused associations based solely on skin color. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Yom, you are suggesting that there is no way that anyone (and here I am talking about the average Wikipedia user) could be confused by the reference of Ethiopia and Aksum as being synonomous? You do believe that there should either be a warning or explanation not to confuse Aksum with Ethiopia? --Merhawie 16:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, Merhawie, do you really think that we should honor the ignorance of the general Wikipedia user about this subject? It is very clear that the Ethiopian Empire is the successor of Aksum. Why do we always have to look at things from the Eurocentric point of view? Please think about this! --Tiqur Anbessa 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Habesha is a self-descriptitve cultural defintion applied to members of the Tigrinya ethno-linguistic group as well as the Amharic speaking christians in Ethiopia. Semitic and Cushitic elements in the Eritrean-Tigrean highlands which flowered during the Aksumite kingdom." -Killion

As far as I know this would mean that only the Eritrean Tigrinya would be classified as Habesha right?Merhawie 18:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yom, explain to me how Habesha is an ethnic group? It is a collection of ethnic groups. If you truly want to aid in navigation you would create a super-category with the sub-elements being the Tigray-Tigrinya people and the Amhara people pages. Merhawie 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a "Habesha" Category? I think that would be hard to pull off because the definition is so flexible (it can at its most general meaning include 90 ethnic groups, or at its minimum only 2), or perhaps a "Semitic-speaking" medium of 12-17). "Habesha" is an ethnic categorization and a sort of ethnic group on its own, even if it's doesn't strictly correspond to one language. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand how it is an ethnic group. Even your own definition of what it encompasses seem to confirm that it is not an ethnic group but an ethnic grouping, and as such I dont think it would qualify as an "ethnic group". It is because of that I think it would be best to create a "Habesha" category and put all those ethnic groups under it. I do not think anywhere here do I say it should be based strictly on language. Merhawie 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm....did you forget Yom? Am I going to get a response? --Merhawie 17:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was there no discussion of a merger? Especially when a substantial bit of information was removed in the 'merger'? I will rv if there is no discussion. Plese do not forget Merging and moving pages]. --Merhawie 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like it was a page move than a merger, but I agree, this should have been discussed first. I don't think it's as simple as a revert since the new article already has a lot of edits. But I'd be willing to do the work, if there's a consensus to move this back. (I've had a little more free time for Wikipedia recently.) Also see my comments below in "Some issues." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the page move was by an anonymous editor. Given that and the lack of discussion, I think the page move falls outside the boundaries of Wikipedia's "Be Bold" motto. I think my bigger issue, though, is that some information was removed that led to more clumsy-looking text (again, see my comments below). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Happy New Year![reply]

I think perhaps some formatting has been lost (e.g. boldfacing the first occurrence of "Habesha" and linking to the various languages). I'll take care of these in a minute if it hasn't been changed already. Also, I'm not sure which text Merhawie noticed had been deleted, but I think some was omitted from the introduction. It stated "The term Habesha . . . refers more specifically to the Semitic-speaking peoples of Ethiopia and Eritrea." More specifically than what? It didn't make sense so I have removed the "more specifically." But I preferred how the introduction was worded as seen in this edit from before the page move.

Another issue is with the population numbers in the infobox. The number for Ethiopia seems to refer only to the Amhara while the number for Eritrea is about three five times the population of that entire country. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the first modification that I mentioned. Now I'm wondering why "Ethiopian Orthodox Church" is now the only religion listed in the infobox. A question: can "Habesha" refer to, say, other Semitic-language speakers, such as Gurage or Tigre (as opposed to Tigrinya) speaking people? I thought this was the case, and earlier versions of the article were generally more inclusive in this regard. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody, not me, deleted the others, but in fairness you could add Islam and Pente minorities of people classed as Habesha ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was getting at. I think Judaism could've been listed and, without actually looking, I imagine the number of Roman Catholics in Eritrea is more than substantial, at least as a percentage of population. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tigre people are not Habesha so no...they cannot be called Habesha :). As for the religions...I dont think any religion that has fewer than 5% of the population should not be listed... --Merhawie 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the Tigre people seen as Habesha? Is it because they are lowlanders? It can't be because of linguistics as their language is closest to Ge'ez from all surviving languages. --Tiqur Anbessa 22:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CluckbangEveryone, this is especially important for you, but I will let everyone to know also. Not all Eritreans are Habesha. In fact, most non-Tigrinya Eritreans, are quite offended by the misuse of the term. Do not use it to refer to all Eritreans. So in effect Cluckbang, change the wording in the table! --Merhawie 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesnt some add the amount of ethiopians living in australia these is heaps of ethios down under

Codex keeps deleting the most important part of the Genetics section. The reason why I say this, is that it gives more information to the reader about which peoples they are related to. This is in terms of the fact that they have some indigenous african and also middleastern. I believe that what Yom added to it was important to keep but also that the other information included is also recent and legible information. It is clearly evident from the information provided in the whole section, that both parts are equally important. Many believe it is too long for a genetic section. However, if one looked at other articles of ethnic people, this is roughly how much information you would see. By including the Genetics section, it is also including the history of the genetics of the people, and who they are relating to. Please provide your input/opinion Yom, Merhawie and everyone else, or there will be continuous reverting.

Cluckbang 17:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

What is wrong with you guys posting this crap?

The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara and the Tigray-Tigrinya people, descended from Arabian conquerors. The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara located in an intermediate position."

"On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation."

This has been discarded. Ethiopians have little to no admixture on average. This information was made on some blog and dosent reflect reality. I removed it with more realistic facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.103.62 (talk • contribs)

How come in the infobox Somalia is listed as having both 75,000 and 1,900 Habesha people? I couldn't find the info in the source given. --Ted87 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is it. The genetics section is BULL. You guys are using freaking outdated information and speculations. What in the heck are you thinking? The info you have on there is back from 1930s, freaking 50 years before I was born. Even coon would think that crap was out of date. There is better new information made in the last 10 years and you guys feel no shame in posting that outdated crap. SHAME SHAME —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.235.48 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." You (I believe you are also editing as Not44 (talk • contribs)) are repeatedly removing text that cites its source. If you believe the source is invalid, then kindly provide us with a better source. Until then, please leave the text alone. I will do you a favor and mark the section as "disputed." I'd also like to remind you of another Wikipedia policy: No personal attacks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nonsense about gentics belongs on a genetic page, it is a exotic empty study which is being given undue priority. Notice it gets scraped from every page this editor tries to introduce it to. If the NAtion of Islam said white people where from Yakub no one would be compying and pasting it everywhere. Yet Oxford is different, I would like to add the same Oxford academics said the Negro has never acheived the 21 components of civilization. The same group. so there little pov isnt worthy of content here.See Extra-European Caucasoidwhich shows the motives for snatching African civilization into one of European authorship, so these studies could prove we are all from Mars due to DNA found on a space rock. In addition they have never proved the direction of the genetics, who gave who what genes. All Arabs have African MtDna for example, so why not go to Arab and say they are mixed?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pls dont revert my content, if something is under dispute esp a big piece of junk being added u use the talk page if edits who edit here disagree. dont jump into to topics you dont understand and copy and paste material.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will allow that new revised version until other editor wake up to discuss it. I am a very fair and honest editor I seems. But people who study genes are not qualified to discuss Habesha, he doesnt say Habesha he says Ethiopians. 4 him dem is all de same. We all know Ethiopian r a very very broad group of people, just like Americans. So... i think the whole section needs to find a new home. but lets discuss.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being fair this time, but why do you and Yom go around wikipedia removing the Oxford study from every article you see it on. These are the smartest geneticists in the world and they say Ethiopians are not black whether you like it or not. I don't understand why you go ballistic every time science proves Ethiopians are Arab. There's nothing wrong with being Arab. Don't be ashamed of your Arab blood. See I'm mixed race too (half Oriental, half white) but I've learned to accept it. I think it's wonderful. Mixed race people will bring the races togetherChristmasgirl

Xmas girl we know you r lilly white, post your picture so we can see. Funny u dont seem to be bringing anyone together. I have noticed "mixed people" such as you, never marry to produce a darker "person" they always make sure they get whiter and not blacker. my little observation. I think the Arabs have our blood not the other way around. Ethiopians are as mixed as the Hausa, the Fulani, the Xhosa. And to be mixed race why dont they say this about the black blood in the spanish, or the romans? why dont u try that there . and u know what you did on Zanj was wrong, and wrong is wrong. see you in the purple rain--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They say Ethiopians are not black". Amazing. The very example that the Bible gives for the extreme of someone being out of touch with reality - trying to change the Ethiopian's skin color - and sure enough, here comes Oxford University finding out the shoe fits, so they wear it! Of course they are both Black AND Semitic, that is what the word "hybrid" means but Oxford professors wouldn't know anything about all that... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the content will not last long enought to disturb us. And you raise a valid point. Oxford doesnt have a clue because their make so many assumptions and generalizations. DId they sample the people of Konso? Or the mursi? so there averages r based on what? The wolof have Arabic words does that make them mixed, they said this about the fulani.

First of all my Oriental parent has whiter skin than my white parent, so if I married white that would make my kids darker. If I marry a Northern Oriental my kids will be whiter than Snow White. Now no matter how much you argue and protest you're never going to change the facts and you're never going to convince any educated person that Ethiopians are not half Arab. There's far too much genetic, linguistic, and historical evidence. Stop fighting it and just accept it, because the truth will always win out in the end and there's nothing you can do to stop it Christmasgirl

1/2 Arab, so when did it happen. which 1/2? I am looking around Addis and i dont c these Arabs. Have u been to Ethiopia? CHeck this, A 1/2 chinese lady is telling African what they r, the roots of racism. Like when they told bush about Sunni and Shite, he didnt understand. Ethiopia is a collection of 100s of ethnic groups. I think Eznu likes you go and marry him and expand your aims, but never will u darken purity. Arabs isnt a race didnt they tell you?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 16:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)==Make your argument 1st and then force everything 2 fit it== In a paper published in 1997, Shomarka Keita and Rick A. Kittles have criticized the primary methodology used by Cavalli-Sforza and other like-minded geneticists, pointing out the "inappropriateness of using a priori predefined racial categories and then sorting genetic diversity as much as possible into these categories." [2] (Evolutionary Anthropology, pg. 39) In some cases, groups generated by cluster analysis of genetic data reproduce traditional racial categories, but in some further analysis Cavalli-Sforza uses groupings like Extra-European Caucasoid that are apparently a priori and not generated by the data itself. THis is my argument against the inclusion. Cavalli is know for forcing circles into premade squares. He is forcing this connection. Also he isnt an antropologis, never been to Ethiopia, doesnt use the term Habesha and knows little of the diversity of Ethiopia. he studies numbers in a vac, --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 16:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking some fringe Afro-centric criticism over Cavalli-Sfroza who is considered a God in the world of genetics. Christmasgirl

he aint my God, and i studied gentics, he also aint an Ethiopian and i def aint an Afrocentric. You shuld expose igronace like bush who thinks shite n sunni are the same, U dont even know wht the word means. He aint God in my world, and nobody knows or cares about him in Africa. And if he is God in gentics he should stick to genetics and not this Habesha article. (and dont delete warnings from your talk page).--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a fringe statement 100 years ago, Africans are human, African are civilized, Africans can build things. All of these are statements which were fringe. But only fringe in Europe. This is wiki not a Eurocentric centre for whites. Since this article is about EThiopians and not Europeans leave Cavalli to discuss white people as he is an expert on them. p.s. the critic of him comes from his own poeple, he is a well respected genetic racist like coon and rushton, Lewis et al--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopians are dark whites (i.e. Caucasians of middle eastern origin), and as you say, Sforza is an expert on white people Christmasgirl

Xmas girl thanks for telling us this. R u finished now. PLs tell the Italians[1] that they are really 1/2 negroes. And i am expert on my own blood line.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 16:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopians are not Caucasians by any stretch of the term. Semites, yes. Caucasians are something else again. Of course you can always find some psychobabble to back up any position, like Ethiopians are Caucasian. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford said African are uncivilized, yes you can find much research to prove any piece of junk. I say strike the content from the article.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xmas girl is a know wiki Wikipedia:What is a troll many complaints have been reported she has a habit of smashing teh notion of race by playing in articles such as Zanj. Black people, White people to prove a WP:POINT. she just reverted an editor on an article she knows nothing about. Do not Feed the troll--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]