Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Ethiopians

2008-12-20T22:50:30Z

Peelinglayers: /* Yhever */

{{WikiProject Ethiopia
| class=B
| importance=Top
}}
im a leisbein and i find this site offencesive
==Yhever==

Great references, great work! many Thanks [[User:Ldingley|Ldingley]] 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

----
I don't mean to be a wet blanket on this article, but what is it's intent? Does it describe all of the different ethnic groups in Ethiopia? Or is it an attempt to provide an alternative narrative to [[History of Ethiopia]] -- which could stand a lot of work? I am honestly confused. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

==Utterly Biased==

Who writes these articles on Ethiopia?! Do you guys know how utterly biased you sound? This is throughly offensive to people of Ethiopian origin! The 'world surprised' by Italy's defeat by the Ethiopians?! It is more like the arrogant European looters who were surprised. Ethiopia has maintained an unbroken legacy of independence throughout time. Ethiopia was 'isolated' after rejecting Catholicism?! Ethiopia may have been in decline in the 17th Century, but still a significant power in the region. It's like saying France was isolated from the West for vocally opposing the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq. Europeans, as stated in the article, could not even make a trip to Ethiopia in response to the 'first' diplomatic contact initiated by Ethiopia, but came to the defense of Ethiopia?! 19th and 20th Century Eurocentric historians through Eurocenteric institutions intentionally distorted Ethiopian (African, for that matter) history to justify their own empty and barbaric past. Quite a bit of this fabricated history is being debunked, but these articles in Wikipedia continue to propagate them. Students are now quoting Wikipeidia as a source, and this is not source of any kind.[[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]]) 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Geʽez

2008-12-20T20:19:52Z

Peelinglayers: /* History and literature */

{{Contains Ethiopic text}}
{{Otheruses4|the language|the alphabet|Ge'ez alphabet}}
{{redirect|Geez|the Canadian cultural magazine|Geez magazine}}
{{Infobox Language
|name=Ge'ez
|nativename={{Unicode|ግዕዝ}} ''{{transl|sem|Gəʿəz}}'' Ethiopic
|pronunciation=[ɡɨʕɨz]
|states=[[Ethiopia]], [[Eritrea]] and [[Israel]]
|extinct=Extinct<ref name=GEE>[GEE]</ref>. Ceased to be a spoken tongue (in 4th century CE according to <ref>Evans De Lacy O'Leary, 2000"Comparative grammar of the semitic languages". Routledge. p23</ref>)(sometime before the 10th century CE according to <ref name=GraggSL>Gene Gragg 1997. "The Semitic Languages". Taylor & Francis. [[Robert Hetzron]] Ed. ISBN 0415057671</ref>), remains in use as a [[liturgical language]]<ref name=CHA>"No longer in popular use, Ge'ez has always remained the language of the Church", [CHA]</ref>
|familycolor=Afro-Asiatic
|fam2=[[Semitic languages|Semitic]]
|fam3=[[South Semitic languages|South Semitic]]
|fam4=[[Ethiopic languages|Ethiopic]]
|fam5=[[North Ethiopic languages|North Ethiopic]]
|script=[[Ge'ez alphabet]]
|nation=[[Liturgical language]] of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]], [[Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church]], [[Ethiopic Catholic Church]],<ref name=CHA/> and [[Beta Israel]]<ref name=PER>"They read the Bible in Geez" (Leaders and Religion of the Falashas); "after each passage, recited in Geez, the translation is read in Kailina" (Festivals). [PER]. Note the publication date of this source.</ref>
|iso2=gez|iso3=gez}}

'''Ge'ez''' (ግዕዝ, ''{{transl|sem|Gəʿəz}}'', {{IPA2|ɡɨʕɨz}}; also [[transliteration|transliterated]] '''Gi'iz''', and referred to as '''Ethiopic''') is an ancient [[South Semitic]] [[language]] that developed in the current region of [[Eritrea]] and northern [[Ethiopia]] in the [[Horn of Africa]]. It later became the official language of the [[Kingdom of Aksum]] and [[Ethiopian imperial court]].

Today Ge'ez remains only as the main language used in the [[liturgy]] of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]], the [[Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church]], the [[Ethiopian Catholic Church]], and also the [[Beta Israel]] [[Jewish]] community. However, in Ethiopia [[Amharic language|Amharic]] (the main [[lingua franca]] of modern Ethiopia) or other local languages, and in Eritrea and [[Tigray Region]] in Ethiopia [[Tigrinya language|Tigrinya]] may be used for [[sermon]]s.

==Phonology==
===Vowels===

*a {{IPA|/æ/}}, later *e < Proto-Semitic *a
*u {{IPA|/uː/}} < Proto-Semitic *ū
*i {{IPA|/iː/}} < Proto-Semitic *ī
*ā {{IPA|/aː/}}, later *a < Proto-Semitic *ā
*e {{IPA|/eː/}} < Proto-Semitic *ay
*i {{IPA|/i/}} < Proto-Semitic *i, *u
*o {{IPA|/oː/}} < Proto-Semitic *aw

also transliterated as {{Unicode|ǎ, û, î, â, ê, ě, ô}}.

===Consonants===
Ge'ez consonants have a triple opposition between voiceless, voiced, and [[ejective consonant|ejective]] (or [[emphatic consonant|emphatic]]) obstruents. The [[Proto-Semitic]] "emphasis" in Ge'ez has been generalized to include emphatic {{Unicode|p̣}}. Ge'ez has phonologized [[labiovelar consonant|labiovelars]], descending from Proto-Semitic biphonemes. Ge'ez {{Unicode|ś}} {{unicode|ሠ}} Sawt (in Amharic, also called ''{{Unicode|śe-nigūś}}'', i.e. the ''se'' letter used for spelling the word ''{{Unicode|nigūś}}'' "king") is reconstructed as descended from a Proto-Semitic [[voiceless lateral fricative]] {{IPA|[ɬ]}}. Like Arabic, Ge'ez merged Proto-Semitic [[Shin (letter)|š]] and [[Samekh|s]] in {{unicode|ሰ}} (also called ''{{Unicode|se-isat}}'': the ''se'' letter used for spelling the word ''isāt'' "fire"). Apart from this, Ge'ez phonology is comparably conservative; the only other Proto-Semitic phonological contrasts lost may be the interdental fricatives and [[ghayin]].

In the chart below, [[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]] values are shown. When transcription is different from the IPA, the character is shown in angular brackets.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ '''Consonants'''
|-
!colspan="2" rowspan="2" |
!rowspan="2" |[[Labial consonant|Labial]]
!colspan="2"|[[Dental consonant|Dental]]
!rowspan="2" |[[Palatal consonant|Palatal]]
!colspan="2"| [[Velar consonant|Velar]]
!rowspan="2" |[[Uvular consonant|Uvular]]
!rowspan="2" |[[Pharyngeal consonant|Pharyn- geal]]
!rowspan="2" |[[Glottal consonant|Glottal]]
|-
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|plain
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|[[lateral consonant|lateral]]
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|plain
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|[[labialization|labialized]]
|- align="center"
!colspan="2"|[[Nasal consonant|Nasal]]
|{{IPA|m}}
|{{IPA|n}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|- align="center"
!rowspan="3"|[[Stop consonant|Plosive]]
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|[[Voice (phonetics)|voiceless]]
|{{IPA|p}}
|{{Unicode|t}}
|
|
|{{IPA|k}}
||{{IPA|kʷ}}
|
|
|{{IPA|ʔ}} {{Unicode|<’>}}
|- align="center"
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|[[Voice (phonetics)|voiced]]
|{{IPA|b}}
|{{IPA|d}}
|
|
|{{IPA|g}}
|{{IPA|ɡʷ}}
|
|
|
|- align="center"
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|[[Emphatic consonant|emphatic]]1
|{{IPA|pʼ}} {{Unicode|<p̣>}}
|{{IPA|tʼ}} {{Unicode|<ṭ>}}
|
|
|{{IPA|kʼ}} {{Unicode|<ḳ>}}
|{{IPA|kʷʼ}} {{Unicode|<ḳʷ>}}
|
|
|
|- align="center"
!|[[Affricate consonant|Affricate]]
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|[[Emphatic consonant|emphatic]]
|
|{{IPA|ʦʼ}} {{Unicode|<ṣ>}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|- align="center"
!rowspan="3"|[[Fricative consonant|Fricative]]
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|[[Voice (phonetics)|voiceless]]
|{{IPA|f}}
|{{IPA|s}}
|{{IPA|ɬ}} {{Unicode|<ś>}}
|
|
|
|{{IPA|χ}} {{Unicode|<ḫ>}}
|{{IPA|ħ}} {{Unicode|<ḥ>}}
|{{IPA|h}}
|- align="center"
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|[[Voice (phonetics)|voiced]]
|
|{{IPA|z}}
|
|
|
|
|
|{{IPA|ʕ}} {{Unicode|<‘>}}
|
|- align="center"
!style="text-align: left; font-size: 80%;"|[[Emphatic consonant|emphatic]]
|
|
|{{IPA|ɬʼ}} {{Unicode|<ṣ́>}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|- align="center"
!colspan="2"|[[Trill consonant|Trill]]
|
|{{IPA|r}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|- align="center"
!colspan="2"|[[Approximant consonant|Approximant]]
|
|
|{{IPA|l}}
|{{IPA|j}} {{Unicode|<y>}}
|
|{{IPA|w}}
|
|
|
|}

#Emphatic consonants are [[ejective]]. As is the case with [[Arabic language|Arabic]], emphatic velars may actually be phonetically [[uvular consonant|uvular]] ({{IPA|[q]}} and {{IPA|[qʷ]}}.

==Morphology==
===Nouns===
Ge'ez distinguishes two genders masculine and feminine, which in certain words is marked with the suffix ''-t''. There are two numbers singular and plural. The plural can be constructed either by suffixing ''-āt'' to a word, or by [[internal plural]].
*Plural using suffix: ʿāmat – ʿāmatāt 'year(s)', māy – māyāt 'water(s)' (Note: In contrast to adjectives and other semitic languages the ''-āt'' suffix can be used for constructing the plural of both genders).
*Internal plural: bet – ʾābyāt 'house, houses'; qərnəb – qarānəbt 'eyelid, eyelids'.
Nouns also have two cases, the nominative which is not marked and the accusative which is marked with final ''-a'' (e.g. bet, bet-a).

==== Internal Plural ====
Internal plurals follow follow certain patterns. Triconsonantal nouns follow one of the following patterns.
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
!colspan="4"|Patterns of internal plural for triconsonantal nouns.<ref name=GraggSL/><ref name=GraggMEA>Gene Gragg, 2008. "The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum". Cambridge University Press. Roger D. Woodard Ed.</ref> (C=Consonant, V=Vowel)
|-
!Pattern
!Singular
!Meaning
!Plural
|-
|rowspan=6|'''āCCāC'''
|-
|ləbs
|'garment'
|ālbās
|-
|faras
|'horse'
|āfrās
|-
|bet
|'house'
|ābyāt
|-
|ṣom
|'fast'
|āṣwām
|-
|səm
|'name'
|āsmāt
|-
|rowspan=3|'''āCCuC'''
|-
|ādg
|'ass'
|āʾdug
|-
|hagar
|'city'
|āhgur
|-
|rowspan=3|'''āCCəCt'''
|-
|rəʾs
|'head'
|arʾəst
|-
|gbr
|'slave'
|āgbərt
|-
|rowspan="3"|'''āCāCə(t)'''
|-
|bagʾ
|'sheep'
|ābāgəʾ
|-
|gānen
|'devil'
|āgnānənt
|-
|rowspan="3"|'''CVCaC'''
|-
|əzn
|'ear'
|əzan
|-
|əgr
|'foot'
|əgar
|-
|rowspan="4"|'''CVCaw'''
|-
|əd
|'hand'
|ədaw
|-
|ab
|'father'
|ābaw
|-
|əḫw
|'brother'
|āḫaw
|}

Quadriconsonantal and some triconsonantal nouns follow the following pattern. Triconsonantal nouns that take this pattern must have at least one long vowel<ref name=GraggSL/>

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
!colspan="4"|Patterns of internal plural for quadriconsonantal nouns.<ref name=GraggSL/><ref name=GraggMEA>Gene Gragg, 2008. "The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum". Cambridge University Press. Roger D. Woodard Ed.</ref> (C=Consonant, V=Vowel)
|-
!Pattern
!Singular
!Meaning
!Plural
|-
|rowspan=5|'''CaCāCəC(t)'''
|-
|dəngəl
|'virgin'
|danāgəl
|-
|masfən
|'prince'
|masāfənt
|-
|kokab
|'planet'
|kawākəbt
|-
|qasis
|'priest'
|qasāwəst
|}

===Pronomial morphology===
{| class="prettytable"
!rowspan=2|Number
!rowspan=2|Person
!rowspan=2|Isolated personal pronoun
!colspan=2|Pronominal suffix
|-
|With noun
|With verb
|-
|rowspan=5|Singular
|1.
|''ʾāna''
|''-ya''
|''-ni''
|-
|2. masculine
|''ʾānta''
|colspan=2|''-ka''
|-
|2. feminine
|''ʾānti''
|colspan=2|''-ki''
|-
|3. masculine
|''wəʾətu''
|colspan=2|''-(h)u''
|-
|3. feminine
|''yəʾəti''
|colspan=2|''-(h)a''
|-
|rowspan=5|Plural
|1.
|''nəḥna''
|colspan=2|''-na''
|-
|2. masculine
|''ʾāntəmu''
|colspan=2|''-kəmu''
|-
|2. feminine
|''ʾāntən''
|colspan=2|''-kən''
|-
|3. masculine
|''wəʾətomu'' / ''əmuntu''
|colspan=2|''-(h)omu''
|-
|3. feminine
|''wəʾəton'' / ''əmāntu''
|colspan=2|''-(h)on''
|}
===Verb conjugation===
{|class=prettytable
!rowspan=2 colspan=2|Person
!rowspan=2|Perfect ''qatal-''
!colspan=2|Imperfect
|-
!Indicative ''-qattəl''
!Jussive ''-qtəl''
|-
|rowspan=5|Singular
|1.
|''qatal-ku''
|''ʾə-qattəl''
|''ʾə-qtəl''
|-
|2. m.
|''qatal-ka''
|''tə-qattəl''
|''tə-qtəl''
|-
|2. f.
|''qatal-ki''
|''tə-qattəl-i''
|''tə-qtəl-i''
|-
|3. m.
|''qatal-a''
|''yə-qattəl''
|''yə-qtəl''
|-
|3. f.
|''qatal-at''
|''tə-qattəl''
|''tə-qtəl''
|-
|rowspan=5|Plural
|1.
|''qatal-na''
|''nə-qattəl''
|''nə-qtəl''
|-
|2. m.
|''qatal-kəmmu''
|''tə-qattəl-u''
|''tə-qtəl-u''
|-
|2. f.
|''qatal-kən''
|''tə-qattəl-ā''
|''tə-qtəl-ā''
|-
|3. m.
|''qatal-u''
|''yə-qattəl-u''
|''yə-qtəl-u''
|-
|3. f.
|''qatal-ā''
|''yə-qattəl-ā''
|''yə-qtəl-ā''
|}

==Syntax==
=== Negation ===
The common way of negation is the prefix ''ʾi-'' which descends from ʾey- (which is attested in Axum inscriptions) from ʾay from [[proto-semitic]] *ʾal by [[palatization]]<ref name=GraggSL/>, it is prefixed to verbs as following:

{|class=prettytable
|''nəḥna''
|''ʾi-nəkl''
|''ḥawira''
|-
|we
|(we) cannot
|go
|-
|colspan="3"|we cannot go
|}

==Writing system==
[[Image:ethiopic genesis.jpg|right|thumb|[[Genesis]] 29.11–16 in Ge'ez]]
{{main|Ge'ez alphabet}}
Ge'ez is written with Ethiopic or the Ge'ez [[abugida]], a script which was originally developed specifically for this language. In languages which use it, eg Amharic and Tigrinya, the script is called ''{{transl|sem|Fidäl}}'', which means script or alphabet.

Unlike other Semitic scripts, Ge'ez is read from left to right.

The Ge'ez script has been adapted to write other languages, usually Semitic ones. The most widespread use is for [[Amharic language|Amharic]] in [[Ethiopia]] and [[Tigrinya language|Tigrinya]] in [[Eritrea]] and Ethiopia. It is also used for [[Sebat Bet Gurage language|Sebatbeit]], [[Me'en language|Me'en]], Agew and most other languages of Ethiopia. In Eritrea it is used for [[Tigre language|Tigre]], and it is often used for [[Blin language|Blin]], a [[Cushitic languages|Cushitic language]]. Some other languages in the [[Horn of Africa]], such as [[Oromo language|Oromo]], used to be written using Ge'ez but have switched to [[Latin alphabet|Latin]]-based orthographies.

The script has 26 basic consonant signs used to write Ge'ez:

<div style="float:left">
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
!translit.
|{{transl|sem|h}}||{{transl|sem|l}}||{{transl|sem|ḥ}}||{{transl|sem|m}}
|{{transl|sem|ś}}||{{transl|sem|r}}||{{transl|sem|s}}||{{transl|sem|ḳ}}
|{{transl|sem|b}}||{{transl|sem|t}}||{{transl|sem|ḫ}}||{{transl|sem|n}}
|{{transl|sem|ʾ}}
|-style="font-size:2em"
!style="font-size:0.5em"|Ge'ez
|ሀ||ለ||ሐ||መ
|ሠ||ረ||ሰ||ቀ
|በ||ተ||ኀ||ነ
|አ
|}
</div>
<div style="float:left">
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
!translit.
|{{transl|sem|k}}||{{transl|sem|w}}||{{transl|sem|ʿ}}
|{{transl|sem|z}}||{{transl|sem|y}}||{{transl|sem|d}}||{{transl|sem|g}}
|{{transl|sem|ṭ}}||{{transl|sem|p̣}}||{{transl|sem|ṣ}}||{{transl|sem|ṣ́}}
|{{transl|sem|f}}||{{transl|sem|p}}
|-style="font-size:2em"
!style="font-size:0.5em"|Ge'ez
|ከ||ወ||ዐ
|ዘ||የ||ደ||ገ
|ጠ||ጰ||ጸ||ፀ
|ፈ||ፐ
|}
</div>
<div style="clear:both"></div>

It also uses 4 symbols for [[Labiovelar consonant|labialized velar]] consonants, which are variants of the non-labialized velar consonants:
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
!rowspan="2" |Basic sign
|{{transl|sem|ḳ}}
|{{transl|sem|ḫ}}||{{transl|sem|k}}
|{{transl|sem|g}}
|-style="font-size:2em"
|ቀ||ኀ||ከ||ገ
|-
!rowspan="2"|Labialized variant
|{{transl|sem|ḳʷ}}
|{{transl|sem|ḫʷ}}||{{transl|sem|kʷ}}
|{{transl|sem|gʷ}}
|-style="font-size:2em"
|ቈ||ኈ||ኰ||ጐ
|}

== History and literature ==

Ge'ez literature is dominated by the [[Bible]] including the [[Deuterocanon]]. Most of its important works are also the literature of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]], which include Christian liturgy (service books, prayers, hymns), [[Lives]] of Saints, and [[Patristic]] literature. This religious orientation of Ge'ez literature was a result of traditional education being the responsibility of priests and monks. "The Church thus constituted the custodian of the nation's culture", notes [[Richard K.P. Pankhurst|Richard Pankhurst]], and describes the traditional education as follows:

: Traditional education was largely biblical. It began with the learning of the alphabet, or more properly, syllabary... The student's second grade comprised the memorization of the first chapter of the [[First Epistle of John|first Epistle General of St. John]] in Geez. The study of writing would probably also begin at this time, and particularly in more modern times some arithmetic might be added. In the third stage the [[Acts of the Apostles]] were studied, while certain prayers were also learnt, and writing and arithmetic continued. ... The fourth stage began with the study of the [[Psalms|Psalms of David]] and was considered an important landmark in a child's education, being celebrated by the parents with a feast to which the teacher, father confessor, relatives and neighbours were invited. A boy who had reached this stage would moreover usually be able to write, and might act as a letter writer.<ref name=PAN>[PAN], pp. 666f.; cf. the EOTC's own account at [http://www.eotc-patriarch.org/teachings.htm#read its official website]</ref>

However works of history and chronography, ecclesiastical and civil law, philology, medicine, and letters were also written in Ge'ez.

The Ethiopian collection in the [[British Library]] comprises some 800 manuscripts dating from the 15th to the 20th centuries, notably including magical and divinatory scrolls, and illuminated manuscripts of the 16th to 17th centuries. It was initiated by a donation of 74 codices by the [[Church of England Missionary Society]] in the 1830s and 1840s, and substantially expanded by 349 codices, stolen by the British from the [[Tewodros II of Ethiopia|Tewodros II]]'s capital at [[Amba Mariam|Magdala]] in the [[1868 Expedition to Abyssinia]].

===Origins===
The Ge'ez language is classified as a [[South Semitic language]]. It evolved from an earlier proto-[[Ethiopian Semitic languages|Ethio-Semitic]] ancestor used to write [[monarchy|royal]] inscriptions of the kingdom of {{Unicode|[[Dʿmt]]}} in [[South Arabian alphabet|Epigraphic South Arabian]]. Ge'ez language is no longer thought, as previously assumed, to be an offshoot of Sabaean or Old South Arabian[2], and there is linguistic evidence of Semitic languages being spoken in Eritrea and Ethiopia since at least 2000 BC.{{Fact|date=August 2008}} However, the [[Ge'ez alphabet]] later replaced Epigraphic South Arabian in the [[Kingdom of Aksum]] (Epigraphic South Arabian letters were used for a few inscriptions into the 8th century, though not any South Arabian language since {{Unicode|Dʿmt}}). Early inscriptions in Ge'ez and Ge'ez alphabet have been dated<ref name=MAT>[MAT]</ref> to as early as the 5th century BC, and in a sort of proto-Ge'ez written in ESA since the 8th century BC. Ge'ez literature properly begins with the Christianization of Ethiopia (and the civilization of Axum) in the 4th century, during the reign of [[Ezana of Axum]].{{Fact|date=February 2007}}

===5th to 7th centuries===
Almost all texts from this early "[[Aksumite]]" period are religious ([[Christian]]) in nature, many of them translations from Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and later also Arabic. The translation of the Christian Bible was undertaken by Syrian monks known as the [[Nine Saints]], who had come to Ethiopia in the 5th century fleeing the Byzantine persecution of the [[Monophysites]]. The Ethiopic Bible contains 81 Books; 46 of the Old Testament and 35 of the New. A number of these Books are called "deuterocanonical" (or "apocryphal" according to certain Western theologians), such as the [[Ascension of Isaiah]], [[Jubilees]], [[Book of Enoch|Enoch]], the [[Paralipomena of Baruch]], [[Book of Noah|Noah]], [[Ezra]], [[Nehemiah]], [[Maccabees]], [[Moses]] and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]]. The Book of Enoch in particular is notable since its complete text has survived in no other language.

Also to this early period dates [[Qerlos]], a collection of Christological writings beginning with the treatise of [[Saint Cyril]] known as ''Hamanot Rete’et'', or ''De Recta Fide'', the theological foundation of the Ethiopic Church. Another work is ''Ser'ata Paknemis'', a translation of the monastic Rules of [[Pachomius]]. Non-religious works translated in this period include ''[[Physiologus]]'', a work of natural history also very popular in Europe.<ref name=BUD566>[BUD], pp. 566f.</ref>

===13th to 14th centuries===
After the decline of the Aksumites, a lengthy gap follows; no works have survived that can be dated to the years of the 8th through 12th centuries. Only with the rise of the [[Solomonic dynasty]] around 1270 can we find evidence of authors committing their works to writings. Some writers consider the period beginning from the 14th century an actual "Golden Age" of Ge'ez literature -- although by this time Ge'ez was no longer a living language. While there is ample evidence that it had been replaced by the [[Amharic language]] in the south and by the [[Tigrigna language|Tigrigna]] and [[Tigre language|Tigre]] languages in the north, Ge'ez remained in use as the official written language until the 19th century, its status comparable to that of [[Medieval Latin]] in Europe.

Important [[hagiographies]] from this period include:
*the ''Gadle Sama’etat'' "Acts of the Martyrs"
*the ''Gadle Hawaryat'' "Acts of the Apostles"
*the ''Senkessar'' or ''[[Synaxarium]]'', translated as "The Book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Church"
*Other Lives of [[Anthony the Great|Saint Anthony]], [[Saint George]], Saint [[Tekle Haymanot]], Saint [[Gabra Manfas Qeddus]]

Also at this time the ''[[Apostolic Constitutions]]'' was translated in Ge'ez, which provided another set of instructions and laws for the Ethiopian Church. Another translation from this period is Zena 'Ayhud, a translation (probably from an Arabic translation) of Joseph ben Gurion's "History of the Jews" ("Sefer Yosephon") written in Hebrew in the 10th century, which covers the period from the Captivity to the capture of Jerusalem by Titus.

Apart from theological works, the earliest contemporary Royal Chronicles of Ethiopia are date to the reign of [[Amda Seyon I]] (1314-44). With the appearance of the "Victory Songs" of Amda Seyon, this period also marks the beginning of [[Amharic]] literature.

The 14th century ''[[Kebra Nagast|Kəbrä Nägäst]]'' or "Glory of the Kings" by the [[Nebura’ed Yeshaq]] of Aksum is among the most significant works of Ethiopian literature, combining history, allegory and symbolism in a retelling of the story of [[Queen Sheba]], [[King Solomon]], and their son [[Menelik I of Ethiopia]]. Another work that began to take shape in this period is the ''Mashafa Aksum'' or "[[Book of Axum]]".<ref name=BUD574>[BUD], p. 574</ref>

===15th to 16th centuries===
The early 15th century ''[[Fekkare Iyasus]]'' "The Explication of Jesus" contains a prophecy of a king called ''Tewodros'', which rose to importance in 19th century Ethiopia as [[Tewodros II of Ethiopia|Tewodros II]] chose this throne name.

Literature flourished especially during the reign of Emperor [[Zara Yaqob]]. Written by the Emperor himself were ''Matshafa Berhan'' ("The Book of Light") and ''Matshafa Milad'' ("The Book of Nativity"). Numerous homilies were written in this period, notably ''Retu’a Haimanot'' ("True Orthodoxy") ascribed to [[John Chrysostom]]. Also of monumental importance was the appearance of the Geez translation of the [[Fetha Negest]] ("Laws of the Kings"), thought to have been around 1450, and ascribed to one Petros Abda Sayd — that was later to function as the supreme Law for Ethiopia, until it was replaced by a modern Constitution in 1930.

By the beginning of the 16th century, the Islamic invasions put an end to the flourishing of Ethiopian literature.
A letter of [[Abba 'Enbaqom]] (or "Habakkuk") to Imam [[Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi|Ahmad Ibn Ibrahim]], entitled ''Anqasa Amin'' ("Gate of the Faith"), giving his reasons for abandoning Islam, although probably first written in Arabic and later rewritten in an expanded Ge'ez version around 1532, is considered one of the classics of later Ge'ez literature.<ref name=PUN03>[PAN03]</ref> During this period, Ethiopian writers begin to address differences between the Ethiopian and the Roman Catholic Church in such works as the ''Confession'' of Emperor [[Gelawdewos of Ethiopia|Gelawdewos]], ''Sawana Nafs'' ("Refuge of the Soul"), ''Fekkare Malakot'' ("Exposition of the Godhead") and ''Haymanote Abaw'' ("Faith of the Fathers"). Around the year 1600, a number of works were translated from Arabic into Ge'ez for the first time, including the ''Chronicle'' of [[John of Nikiu]] and the ''[[Universal History]]'' of Jirjis ibn al'Amid Abi'l-Wasir (also known as [[al-Makin]]).

==Sample==

The first sentence of the [[Book of Enoch]]:
:{{Unicode|ቃለ፡ በረከት፡ ዘሄኖክ፡ ዘከመ፡ ባረከ፡ ኅሩያነ፡ ወጻድቃነ፡ እለ፡ ሀለው፡ ይኩኑ፡}}
:{{Unicode|በዕለተ፡ ምንዳቤ፡ ለአሰስሎ፡ ኲሉ፡ እኩያን፡ ወረሲዓን።}}
:''{{transl|sem|Ḳāla barakat za-Hēnok zakama bārraka ḫirūyāna waṣādiḳāna ʾila halaw yikūnū}}''
:''{{transl|sem|baʿilata mindābē laʾasaslō kʷīlū ʾikūyān warasīʿān}}''

:"Word of blessing of Henok, wherewith he blessed the chosen and righteous who would be alive in the day of tribulation for the removal of all wrongdoers and backsliders."

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
*[BUD] Budge, E. A. Wallis. 1928. ''A History of Ethiopia: Nubia and Abyssinia'', Oosterhout, the Netherlands: Anthropological Publications, 1970.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05566a.htm CHA] Chain, M. ''Ethiopia'' transcribed by: Donahue M. in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V. Published 1909. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. + John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
*[DIR] Diringer, David. 1968. ''The Alphabet, A Key To The History of Mankind.''
*[http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gez GEE] The Ge'ez language info card at Ethnologue
*[KOB] Kobishchanov, Yuri M. 1979. Axum in ''SomeCollectionOfWritings''{{Fact|date=February 2007}}, edited by Joseph W. Michels; translated by: Lorraine T. Kapitanoff. University Park, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania. ISBN 0-271-00531-9.
*[http://hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/atobrukh/archaeology/matara/matara.html MAT] Matara Aksumite & Pre-Aksumite City Webpage
*[MUN] Munro-Hay Stuart. 1991. ''Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity''. Edinburgh: University Press. ISBN 0-7486-0106-6.
*[PAN68] Pankhurst, Richard K.P. 1968.''An Economic History of Ethiopia, 1800-1935'', Addis Ababa: Haile Selassie I University Press.
*[http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/11/14-11-03/Glimpse.htm PAN03] Pankhurst, Richard K.P. ''A Glimpse into 16th. Century Ethiopian History Abba 'Enbaqom, Imam Ahmad Ibn Ibrahim, and the "Conquest of Abyssinia"''. Addis Tribune. November 14, 2003.
*[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=13&letter=F&search=geez PER] Perruchon, J. D. and Gottheil, Richard. Falashas in ''The Jewish Encyclopidia''. 1901-1906.

==Further reading==
===Grammar===
*Aläqa Tayyä, ''Maṣḥafa sawāsəw''. Monkullo: Swedish Mission 1896/7 (= [[Ethiopian calendar|E.C.]] 1889).
*[[Marius Chaîne|Chaîne, Marius]], ''Grammaire éthiopienne''. Beyrouth: Imprimerie catholique 1907, 1938 (Nouvelle édition). ([http://www.archive.org/details/grammairethiop00chauoft electronic version] at the [[Internet Archive]]).
*[[Marcel Cohen|Cohen, Marcel]], "la pronunciation traditionelle du Guèze (éthiopien classique)", in: ''Journal asiatique'' (1921) Sér. 11 / T. 18 ([http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k932990 electronic version] in [[Gallica]] digital library of the [[Bibliothèque nationale de France]] [[PDF]]).
*[[August Dillmann|Dillmann, August]]; [[Carl Bezold|Bezold, Carl]], ''Ethiopic Grammar'', 2nd edition translated from German by James Crichton, London 1907. ISBN 1-59244-145-9 (2003 reprint). (Published in German: ¹1857, ²1899).
*Gäbrä-Yohannəs Gäbrä-Maryam, ''Gəss - Mäzgäbä-ḳalat - Gə'əz-ənna Amarəñña; yä-Gə'əz ḳʷanḳʷa mämmariya'' (A Grammar of Classical Ethiopic). Addis Ababa 2001/2002 (= [[Ethiopian calendar|E.C.]] 1994)[http://www.ilx.nl/blonline/blonlinesearch2.php?ficheid=200000162516]
*Gene Gragg "Ge`ez Phonology," in: ''Phonologies of Asia and Africa'' (Vol 1), ed. A. S. Kaye & P. T. Daniels, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana (1997).
*{{IPA|Kidanä Wäld Kəfle}}, ''{{IPA|Maṣḥafa sawāsəw wagəss wamazgaba ḳālāt ḥaddis}}'' ("A new grammar and dictionary"), Dire Dawa: Artistik Matämiya Bet 1955/6 (E.C. 1948).
*[[Thomas Oden Lambdin|Lambdin, Thomas O.]], ''Introduction to Classical Ethiopic'', Harvard Semitic Studies 24, Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press 1978. ISBN 0-89130-263-8.
*[[Hiob Ludolf|Ludolf, Hiob]], ''Grammatica aethiopica. Londini 1661; 2nd ed. Francofurti 1702.
*Praetorius, Franz, ''Äthiopische Grammatik'', Karlsruhe: Reuther 1886.
*Weninger, Stefan, ''Ge‘ez grammar'', Munich: LINCOM Europa, ISBN 3-929075-04-0 (1st edition, 1993), ISBN 3-89586-604-0 (2nd revised edition, 1999).
*Weninger, Stefan, ''Das Verbalsystem des Altäthiopischen: Eine Untersuchung seiner Verwendung und Funktion unter Berücksichtigung des Interferenzproblems", Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2001. ISBN 3447044845.
*Tropper, Josef, ''Altäthiopisch: Grammatik der Ge'ez mit Übungstexten und Glossar'', Elementa Linguarum Orientis (ELO) 2, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 2002. ISBN 3-934628-29-X
*Vittorio, Mariano, ''Chaldeae seu Aethiopicae linguae institutiones'', Roma 1548.
*Wemmers, ''Linguae aethiopicae institutiones'', Roma 1638.

===Literature===
*Taddesse Adera, Ali Jimale Ahmed (eds.), ''Silence Is Not Golden: A Critical Anthology of Ethiopian Literature'', Red Sea Press (1995), ISBN 0-932415-47-4.
*Jon Bonk, ''Annotated and Classified Bibliography of English Literature Pertaining to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church'', Atla Bibliography Series, Scarecrow Pr (1984), ISBN 0-8108-1710-1.
*[[August Dillmann|Dillmann, August]], ''Chrestomathia Aethiopica''. Leipzig 1866. ([http://www.archive.org/details/chrestomathiaaet00dilluoft Online version] at the [[Internet Archive]])

===Dictionaries===
*[[August Dillmann|Dillmann, August]], ''Lexicon linguæ Æthiopicæ cum indice Latino'', Lipsiae 1865.
*[[Wolf Leslau|Leslau, Wolf]], ''Comparative Dictionary of Geez (Classical Ethiopic): Geez-English, English-Geez, with an Index of the Semitic Roots'', Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1987. ISBN 3-447-02592-1.
*Leslau, Wolf, ''Concise Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic)'', Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1989. ISBN 3-447-02873-4.
*[[Hiob Ludolf|Ludolf, Hiob]], ''Lexicon Aethiopico-Latinum'', Ed. by [[J. M. Wansleben]], London 1661.
*Wemmers, J., ''Lexicon Aethiopicum'', Rome 1638.

==See also==
* [[Kingdom of Aksum]]
* [[Kebra Nagast]]
* [[1 Enoch]]
* [[Ge'ez alphabet]]

==External links==
*[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/harden_ethiopic_literature.htm J. M.Harden, ''An Introduction to Ethiopic Christian Literature'' (1926)]
*[http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1200.pdf Unicode Chart]
*[http://www.senamirmir.com/projects/typography/typeface.html Senamirmir Projects: Free Ethiopic Font (Win32, MacOS, Linux)]

{{writing systems}}

[[Category:Ge'ez language| ]]

[[am:ግዕዝ]]
[[ar:لغة جعزية]]
[[an:Guiés]]
[[br:Geuzeg]]
[[bg:Геез]]
[[ca:Gueez]]
[[cs:Ge'ez]]
[[de:Ge'ez (Sprache)]]
[[es:Ge'ez]]
[[eo:Geeza lingvo]]
[[eu:Ge'ez]]
[[fa:زبان گعز]]
[[fr:Guèze]]
[[ko:그으즈어]]
[[it:Ge'ez]]
[[he:געז]]
[[mk:Гез јазик]]
[[ms:Bahasa Ge'ez]]
[[nl:Ge'ez]]
[[ja:ゲエズ語]]
[[pl:Język gyyz]]
[[pt:Língua ge'ez]]
[[ro:Limba gî'îz]]
[[ru:Геэз]]
[[sl:Giz]]
[[sv:Geez]]
[[zh:吉茲語]]

Talk:Dogon people

2008-12-19T01:39:58Z

Peelinglayers: /* Completely by Robert Temple? */

{{AfricaProject|class=B|Mali=yes|importance=High|Mali-importance=Top|}}

{{ethnic groups|class=B}}
== Original Research on the Toguna ==

from http://acpizza.livejournal.com/529828.html
"It seems entirely likely to me that the Toguna also served the function of a catabatic swamp cooler." This represents a much better opportunity to prove an early technological accomplishment of the Dogon, for it does not rely upon the need to discover stashed telescopes, time travellers, or space aliens, but rather, simply to test the effectiveness of structures that still exist and everyone agrees existed long ago.
[[User:Zaphraud|Zaphraud]] 18:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Sirius ==

Most of this should be okay. The Dogon are an actual tribe, and apparently like Sirius very much. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 09:22, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

:Still, there should be some critical piece added - one anthropologist describes the Dogon myth about Sirius B, but a few others deny having come across it. [[User:Andre Engels|Andre Engels]] 12:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done. —[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 17:46, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is no known Sirius C... not only is it 'invisible without a telescope', it has never been observed. The only thing that's been found is a possible regular perturbation in A and B, but that hasn't been confirmed. Frankly, I'm confused as to what's going in with Sirius C in this article. [[User:Omnipotent Q|Omnipotent Q]] 05:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

:Well, thanks for fixing 'er, Frecklefoot. I thought about just removing the C information but thought that maybe I was missing something. [[User:Omnipotent Q|Omnipotent Q]] 23:18, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, it was my fault for adding it. Sorry about that. I am not an astronomy expert and thought I had heard reference to Sirius C in my investigation. :S —[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 15:14, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

==3000 BC?==

Consider this passage:

::''Information from those other cultures'' [i.e. advanced civilisations on Earth] ''do talk about dark companions'' [i.e. invisible companions of stars] ''circa 3000 BCE in their mythology which may have reached the then less isolated Dogon.''

In other words, this sentence claims that cultures like the ancient Sumerians or Greeks were talking about dwarf stars back in 3000 BC. This sounds like bollocks to me. Is it? [[User:The Singing Badger|The Singing Badger]] 17:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Confusing facts ==

#''When'' did the tribe first describe that companion of Sirius? Before 1860 as it says in the first section, or before 1970's as the last section implies?
# Why are the article talking about a ''binary/trinary'' system? If there are no evidence of a third companion star, it would reduce confusion to remove that ''trinary''-reference, or at least mention that we don't know if the system is binary or trinary.
# ''They are most noted for their descriptions of the Sirius star system.'' - What is this? In the first section of an article - which is the only part most people will read - one cannot have such disputed statements presented as facts. I wouldn't mind if it had said something about a claim that ''they are noted for the claim that their mythology describes the star Sirius B'' or some such weasel terms. But giving such a statement without any explanation, that's no good... [[User:Mikez|\Mike(z)]] 09:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last one bothers me the most. Bah! this is a sensationalist article, it's not an encyclopedic article about the Dogon at all. It's a shame for Wikipedia. You know, I think we should move all that Sirius stuff to the Talk page until we have a decent article on the Dogon, ''the people'', you know, ''real people'', speaking a ''real language'', living in a ''real world'' and not under the microscope of Western exotists. I'm sorry for the rant, it's nothing personal, Mike. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 01:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Ah, no problem. As I said, there are some stuff that should be removed - at least from the first paragraphs. If one wants to mock these exotists (I like that name, btw), one could of course keep it at the end of the article... Or rather just refer to some other article about those creatures and their beliefs of other peoples... :P [[User:Mikez|\Mike(z)]] 08:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

==Marcel Griaule==
French anthropologist [[Marcel Griaule]] took part in several expeditions to the Dogon in the 1930s, which resulted in his highly controversial (but also highly interesting - IMO) book "Conversations with Ogotemmeli". (I´ve addded the ref. at the end; was quite suprised to find that there was no ref. to him.) The french version of the book was published around 1952, me think. I also believe Griaule was the first to connect the knowledge of Sirius with the Dogon.
I believe the (english?) anthropologist Mary McCartny (??..spelling probably not correct) and other english academics were very critical of it; they thought Griaule "read" too much into the Dogons belief. Feted them as "the Greeks of Africa", etc. Especially after the book was published in english (in 1965), several anthropologist wrote critically of it. -I read about this controvercy years ago -will try to find the references.
To sum up: not always easy to differentiate between what knowledge originated with the Dogons, and what knowledge originate with the anthropologist :-> [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] 00:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

-and I added a link to [[Nommo]]; strange that that was missing. There is some discussion there about the influence of Griaule. (Oh dear; I believe this Dogon article still needs quite a bit of work...)[[User:Huldra|Huldra]] 03:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

== natural to talk about astronomy? ==

This sentence "It is only natural that conversations with visitors would eventually turn to astronomy" sounded dubious to me at first. But it does make sense when I think about it. For a westerner visiting non-electrified peoples, it is amazing how dark it gets after dusk. So it is easy to imagine that a visitor, wondering what to do in the dark (not being used to going to sleep so early) and sitting outside because of the heat, would start talking about the stars above. [[User:208.145.81.25|208.145.81.25]] 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

== Mythology and controversy ==

:"...they had had a great deal of contact with the western world and had time to incorporate Sirius B into their religion."

I have been following the development of this article for a while, but I still cannot shut my eye over this argument. The section puts forward an assumption that the Dogon supposedly got their information on Sirius B and so on from Western astronomers and incorporated that into their religion. This assumption has, in my opinion, two problems, one from the point of view of religious history, and the other from an encyclopaedia's point of view.

The first problem is simply that I do not see anything to support this claim. I've spent many years studying the workings of mythology and religions, and I've read and heard first-hand experience of dozens of cases where mythologies, religions and cultures (including Native American, Australian and Asian cultures), had contact with modern Western civilization. And while many have started adapting and using modern technology, out of the many dozens of cases I have not heard one that ever changed anything in their religious practice or mythologies. This is partly because these cultures possess tradition that is hundreds or thousands years of age, and there is no indication that it would have any basis to simply include anything that is heard. It is also important to point out that there is also no reason for this culture to change their whole mythological system (whether there is one star or two stars at the centre of their religious system) just because of one instance of a group of unknown people going there and telling them something.
While I do not consider myself an expert in the field of religious history, based on my current knowledge I see no reason that contrary to every instance I know of Western culture meeting other cultures, the Dogons would import such a piece of information into their religion.

The second problem is that we seemingly have no objective, NPOV recollection of actual Dogon mythology besides what Temple and co. had been saying. Why is it, then, that there has to be a tedious down-to-earth, skeptical explanation of why the Dogons must have changed their mythology according to modern Western knowledge when this is not supported by anything.

Because of these two problems I think that there is no need for this sub-section to be there. It is also a possibility that the current text should be something that is more NPOV than the current version which claims to be a universal truth. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 18:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

: "I have not heard one that ever changed anything in their religious practice or mythologies." Wow. Your claim is so preposterous, I don't even know where to start rejecting it. Have you ever heard of [[syncretism]]? Incorporating elements of western culture is exactly what happens in almost every case when native people meet westeners. Your claim is a personal theory, and those don't belong in articles, unless they are supported by a considerable number of people. That's why I deleted this section. --[[User:Zumbo|Zumbo]] 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

:: I appreciate your taking time to revise my editing and to point out the flaws of what I have written. I admit that what I have written is not clear in some parts, especially in the sentence you quoted, which is quite dubious.
:: However, in what I have said I have not tried to express that there has never been a case of religions and mythologies never influenced each other. I was familiar with the fact that when religious cultures border each other, frequently meet and other variations, things start to merge, replace one another, etc. I'm afraid, rather, that I haven't found anything of which you have mentioned which would enable the content described in the syncretism article to be applied to the Dogon problem.
:: As I have pointed out earlier, in the case of the Dogons we are talking about (and the article mentions) only a few instances of Dogons meeting Westerners, and not traditions living together or exchanging knowledge a high number of times, as is the case with all the examples mentioned in the Syncretism article. Where are the examples you mentioned, Zumbo, of "almost every case when native people meet westeners"? I haven't seen one. I may have not been clear in my first post about what I mean in relation to the Dogons meeting Westerners, but I hope it is clear enough now.
:: I still do not see why this should be instantly regarded as syncretism, as I still see no evidence for this case being so simple as a whole tribe changing the base of their religious system based on some random people saying something. The Greek mythology's meeting the Egyptian or the Christian influence on many religions did not happen overnight, but gradually, with two or more cultures constantly interacting. In the Dogon case, however, we do not know of such, only a few instances are mentioned here and in all the other sources that are available on the Internet (unfortunately I could not yet get my hands on any of the books). That is why I think it is not a good idea to state that the Dogon religion would simply change because of one opinion heard once or twice and from one or two parties.
:: As for the whole "Skepticism" heading, the current text tries to explain the whole Temple controversy with an assumption about what may have happened in the case of Temple's research (not his assumptions) having any ground, using not more than expressions such as "it is only natural" and "it is reasonable" to support its claims. I wonder on what basis is it that much more NPOV than my proposal (not the part that this is unprobable, but the part that this is also only an opinion and not fact). Syncretism may be one solution but the problem is, we cannot really know based on just this. As far as I can tell we do not have an actual, objective recollection of the Dogons' mythology and religion in our hands right now, based upon which we could decide.
:: I do not know why the article has to lean toward this opinion (and not stating it is an opinion but presenting it as the most probable version) while the whole problem is so blurry. I even do not know why the article on the Dogons has to be so much about what the solution to Temple's claims about what the Dogon believe in are, if that those have any ground whatsoever. Do we know for certain the Dogons have talked about those things at all? Why, if this is so controversial, does it have to be decided with these current paragraphs? Why cannot it be there instead that these are opinions, instead of using "it is only natural" and "it is reasonable" as support? I don't think it would be very wise to decide this question, based upon so little, on probability. I think that just a teency addition of stating this was another opinion would do.
:: This is why I have edited the article, I admit not too well in some parts, but the problem is still the same. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
:::OK, so we agree, religions do get influenced by other cultures. And the Dogons wouldn't have changed the principles of their religion overnight after meeting one or two westeners. But nobody claimed the opposite. Well, it's hard to define what exactly the claims about their belief system are, since there is no precise account of it, especially of their belief system before they meet westeners. What the article says about Sagan's claims (I haven't read Sagan myself) is that the Dogons already had an interested in astronomy and in Sirius, and when a western visitor told them about Sirius B, they just incorporated this bit of information into their belief system. Now that I've read over that section, it looks quite suspicious to me, especially the part about the "dark companions about 5,000 years ago in myths". To me, this looks like someone has grossly misquoted this source: [http://skepdic.com/dogon.html]. I'm going to change it in a moment. --[[User:Zumbo|Zumbo]] 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

:To Zumbo: What makes me (and I think perhaps others) think that it is the article that leans toward the skeptic opinion is the arrangement and logic of sentences and paragraphs. In the Skepticism section, the first paragraph has the thesis sentence that introduces us to the Temple version. The second paragraph follows by introducing us to the Sagan version. The third paragraph does not contain any reference whether it is continuing the description of either version. In the logic of the section it does not follow that the third paragraph would be continuing the Carl Sagan version, and thus it seemed to me -- up until closely reading the section a number of times -- that this is meant to be a general statement that summarizes the problem. Thus I included the final paragraph but perhaps it would be best to make the second and third paragraph into one paragraph (maybe even shortening it a little?), to resolve any misunderstanding.
:I will try to make a simple structure change. Please tell me if you agree with me. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, I have been reading James Oberg's comprehensive article on The Sirius Mystery, mainly collecting the many arguments and evidence against Temple's claims. An online version can be found here: [http://www.debunker.com/texts/dogon.html], we may want to refer to parts of that to make things (like what exactly Temple and Sagan had said) more clear. What do you say? [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:I've updated the part on mythology, removing from the general mythology part the Temple-based claim that the Dogon were describing Sirius B -- the debate on that belongs, I think, to the controversy section (which I've changed to this title, I think skepticism does not really describe the problem anymore), and the mythology that is known to exist should stay there.
:Also, it seems that many of what Oberg stated in his book was attributed to Sagan in the article, so I've made small sections for the individual people. As I've spent a few hours into the night writing this and my native language is not English I may have made mistakes in grammar and sentence structure, sorry if I did.
:One more question to you all: what to do with the [[Nommo]]? It is part of the mythology and maybe it should be included there (or carried over from the top of the article), but the Nommo article as well has its problems with being a bit confusing over who claimed what and what the myth/myths really is/are. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

===Completely by Robert Temple?===

I noticed that the whole Dogon mythology heading now falls under the theory of Robert Temple. But is the part about Sirius, Orion and other stars being important to the Dogon really only said by Temple? Is the sentence about the Bozo people also a theory of Robert Temple? We really don't know anything about Dogon mythology but Temple's theories? [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 13:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:Well, we probably do know more, but this article (or at least this section) doesn't mention much more, which is why I attributed it to him. The wording might need to be improved, but that's my reasoning. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 13:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very important point. Temple seems to have used the work of [[Marcel Griaule]] to build his theory upon that there would have been an extraterrestrial contact. To write this down carefully, we would like to know what exactly wrote Griaule on Sirius? What is the contribution of each of these two? Does any of you have the original Griaule book ‘Dieu d’eau’ to find this out? If not, I could try to find it, that should be not too complicated.
Two other points on Dogon myths / knowledge and the difficulty of knowing what is true, that are described in ‘La mère des masques’:

1. Their knowledge is transmitted orally, from father to son, over many years and from one generation to the next. One can imagine that such stories change easily over a few generations. They wrote down almost nothing themselves (especially the elder, that have most knowledge, do not write and read) and they still rarely do. I wonder whether there would be as many different myths / stories / variations as there are Dogon? It is said that no Dogon would ever be able to know all their myths / stories.

2. It seems that the Dogon like to satisfy their (western) interlocutors. That might even help them avoiding revealing real secrets. This means that an anthropologist would have to be very careful not to direct the Dogon in a specific sense, as the Dogon would easily confirm his hypothesis, true or false.

I will develop the part on oral transmission of knowledge in the article later on.--[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 14:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone just has to laugh at the idiocy of westerners who try to conjuncture the history of other people when they cannot even tell their own well enough. One can start trying to tell his/her own story, but the loud arrogance westerners have now perfected as a sign of intelligence makes even the thought of such attempt undesirable. Go knock yourselves out and hopefully you will come to your senses soon enough. [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]]) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

==Balance==
I'm glad that the Sirius part of the article is improving; I've never liked the fact that so much weight was given to some exotist claims while there always has been enough serious ethnographical research to counterbalance it. In any case, don't forget to source everything using [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. It's the only way for us to be verifiable and thus trustworthy. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 11:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:Mark, I would really like to see some reliable ethnographical info on the Dogons here (and well, generally). You mention serious research: do you have titles or names, perhaps? [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogon_people&diff=15864995&oldid=15864339 made a start] on their languages and also added something on the people. Marcel Griaule is the inevitable starting point, but later Dogon ethnographers have shown that he focused too strongly on uncovering a certain 'native philosophy' and that his informants were, well, 'creative' and 'not without monetary realism', as Van Beek (2004) puts it. Some of the more recent studies:
*Apter, Andrew (2005) 'Griaule's legacy : rethinking "la parole claire" in Dogon studies', ''Cahiers d'études africaines'', 45, 177.
*Beek, Walter E.A. van (2004) 'Haunting Griaule: experiences from the restudy of the Dogon', ''History in Africa'', 31.
*Berche, Thierry (1998) ''Anthropologie et santé publique en pays dogon'', Karthala.
*Diawara, Mamadou (1997) ' "Dieu d'eau", eau du barrag : les populations du plateau Dogon face aux contraintes: pluviométrie, terre et démographie', ''Africa''.
*Huet, Jean-Christophe (1994) ''Villages perchés des Dogon du Mali : habitat, espace, et société''. L'Harmattan.
*Paulme, Denise (1988) ''Organisation sociale des Dogon''. Jean-Michel Place.
To be clear: by saying '...ethnographical studies to counterbalance it' above, I meant that this article should be more about the ''Dogon people'' and less about views ascribed to them by Western exotists. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 09:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

:Thank you for the sources. I hope at least one of these titles will be available somewhere in Budapest, but I'm not sure.
:About ethnographical studies, I agree that the article should be about the Dogon people, but I also think that the amount of misinformation that is on the internet and seemingly everywhere has to be sorted out. I myself didn't know what was partand not part of Dogon mythology until I read up on the various sources the essence of which I worked into the article yesterday. And I also know a Hungarian physicist who also only knew the Temple version of Dogon mythology, and this almost got into a television programme. There are simply too many sources (just look up Dogon on Google and it will be 90% New Age and Temple-influenced posed as fact) that treat Temple's version as the base without saying so - probably they got it from elsewhere, too.
:An alternate solution would be to devote a different article to the Dogon mythology controversy, and to leave the information on the people here. A yet another solution would be to create a Dogon mythology article, including what is here and what is in the [[Nommo]] article. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 11:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
::''...but I also think that the amount of misinformation that is on the internet and seemingly everywhere has to be sorted out.'' I fully concur. The 'meta-ethnographical' studies by Van Beek and Apter are good sources in that respect, as they show where it went wrong. One other relevant one is Ciarcia, Gaetano (2003) ''De la mémoire ethnographique: l'exotisme du pays dogon'', (Cahiers de l'homme). ISBN 2713217954. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 12:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Great, then if they are, let them be summarized in this entry and let us direct the reader's attention to those studies. I still think it is necessary to present the whole picture, if not in this article then another, because for the average internet user or non-professional who hears Dogon and becomes interested won't instantly know to go and research Van Beek and Apter, as there are very few publicly available references to them in "non-academic circles" such as the Internet. I myself have started my search on the Dogon on the internet, and I have not found one search result that mentioned Van Beek, Apter, Ciarcia or others of relevancy, but I have found a number of New Age articles, skeptic pages and summaries of the Dogon which looked like non-superficial but still contained information that I could only know not to be true after spending many days and weeks sorting out what came from which source. Now if I'm just a casual person that is interested wouldn't it be nice to be able to read one NPOV recollection of the whole problem. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 13:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
::::You've got mail. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

== Polygamy and marriages ==

I just came back from the Dogon. They are definitely polygamous. We have been discussing this matter for hours with our Dogon-guide. He even said there are more women than men (very strange, I don't believe this) so it is important that men have several women. "A woman is only happy when she has children and the man has to take care of this."
I corrected the text on this point (monogamy = polygamy).
An interesting point is that men and women do not live together during the first years of their marriage. A woman slips into the house of the man (still living with his family) during the night and gets back to her own family early in the morning. She will raise her first child in the house of her parents. This gives the man some time to construct a house for his new family. They move in together after this period. The first born child stays with the family of the woman, to compensate for her loss. =AM, France.

:The article already did mention [[polygyny]]. Over the last days, it had been changed several times from [[polygyny]] to [[polygamy]] and I changed it back because polygyny is more specific in this context. Your change looked like the same change, so at first I undid it; but upon reading your comment, I changed the text to reflect what you say. It would be nice to have published sources to [[WP:CITE|cite]] for this, however, in order to maintain the [[WP:V|verifiability]] of our articles. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::The website you mentioned below, says that a Dogon can have up to 4 spouses http://www.necep.net/facts.php?id_soc=12, look at the social organization. ''F15 Extension of marriage prohibition Yes, up to four spouses'' and ''F16 Polygamy Virilocal, patrilocal (formally wives only joined their husband's residence unit after the birth of their first child)''. I agree that polygyny is more accurate than polygamy. I think however, that it would be more accurate to say that Dogon society is primarily polygynic but that some men have only one wife =AM

:::You're right, and I agree. I'll leave it to you to update the article, and I wish to apologize for yesterday's revert; I should have assumed [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. Thanks for coming back to discuss! — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::::OK done. Apologize accepted and appreciated! I think you are right that things should be verifiable. However, this is also a weak point as I cannot write down my experiences / information I obtained at the Dogon as I have no backup litterature for many of them.--[[User:AAM|AAM]] 10:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Good to see that you've created an account; welcome to Wikipedia! As for literature, if you feel like reading up on the Dogon, you might find something to your liking in the above section (titled [[#Balance]]), where I mentioned a few recent anthropological publications on the Dogon. As noted in that section, too, this article (just like the Dogon themselves, I imagine) often suffers from exotism, which is the main reason that I was somewhat protective. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 11:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

== New online source available ==

An interesting online resource on the Dogon has come recently available: the [http://www.necep.net/society.php?id_soc=12 NECEP] database. There is much to be found there that could be of use for expanding the article. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

==Etymology of Dogon==
What is the etymology of the name ''[[Dogon]]''? [[User:Alexander 007|Alexander 007]] 20:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

==Requested move==
*'''Oppose''' - XXXX people is standard. [[User:PeaceOnEarth|PeaceOnEarth]] 01:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:Who requested a move? [[User:Alexander 007|Alexander 007]] 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''', why not? I wasn't aware of the request either, but it can be found [[Wikipedia:Requested_moves#5_March_2006|here]]. As [[Dogon]] is simply a redirect at the moment, I see no reason why we would have this article at [[Dogon people]] instead of [[Dogon]]. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 07:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''': I think it is strange to have an empty Dogon page and use Dogon people instead.--[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 09:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' The Dogon are the Dogon, I think this should not be such a controversy to rename. [[User:Gryffindor|Gryffindor]] 09:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I undid the premature archival of this vote and have noticed {{user|Nightstallion}} of my doing so. The initial request dates from five days ago, but it seems that most of us became aware of it only today. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 11:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

==Numbers==
The numbers don't add up in this sentence:
"Sigui: the most important ceremony of the Dogon. It takes place every 60 years and can take several years. The last one started in 1967 and ended in 1973, the next one will start in 2007."
Should it be 40 years, or does the next one start in 2027? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:151.200.49.25|151.200.49.25]] ([[User talk:151.200.49.25|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/151.200.49.25|contribs]]) 03:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks and you are right it should be 2027. It has been changed. --[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 08:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

== Circumcision + age groups ==
There has been a modification that changes the signification of the text ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogon_people&diff=49195779&oldid=45868348 look] at age groups last AAM version vs the current version). This might be a language matter (I am not a native english speaker) so I would like somebody that is to verify it.
What I tried to express in the original version that there is a circumcision ceremony every three years and that all boys of the 'age group of 9-12 years' are taken together to be circumsized at that same moment. I mentioned 'age groups' as this is very important for the ceremony and their social position afterwards (their age in that specific group), so this aspect should not get lost the way it seems in the current version. It now reads as if boys are grouped at random at some moment between the age of 9-12 years and circumsized. If nobody could help me I will revert to the original version. --[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:No, you are right, I'd revert the 'circumcision' section to your version; 'age group' is a common term in ethnography. However, not all changes in that edit were bad, so please don't simply revert it; a change that should stay, for example, is the change from "and were not a technologically advanced civilization" to "did not have telescopes or other astronomical technology". — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks - only the edits in the CC part are reverted as suggested. --[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== Recent changes ==

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogon_people&diff=92634598&oldid=90647993 recent changes] by {{user|71.193.82.16}} are not all bad, but they are all unsourced, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert them. What do others think? — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:I think they are good-faith edits. I would let them stand. [[User:Wikiwizzy|Wizzy]]…[[User talk:Wikiwizzy|<big><big>'''☎'''</big></big>]] 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, that came across too curtly, I also think the edits are in good faith. But who's going to provide sources for say, the population number and the change from 60 to 65 years for the interval of the Sigui ceremony? — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 07:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

== "Sirius" addendum ==

I think that this entire little part of the article should be considered for deletion or revision. It's obviously someone who professes New Age beliefs trying to argue for the Dogons being contacted by extraterrestrials.

While most people with any or no science background think stuff like this is bunk, we're on Wikipedia here, so maybe could we just make sure it's mentioned somewhere in this or another article that certain religions believe "the following".

Not only all this, but this "Sirius" addendum is not very continuous with the thought stream of the rest of the article.

You'd think because I do lots of work on a fictional language called "Atlantean" that I'd have more leniency for such causes. Think again. This alien-astronaught business is merely a figment of modern imagination and literature.

[[User:Epigraphist|Epigraphist]] ([[User talk:Epigraphist|talk]]) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

::I would support the moving of this whole thing to a sub article. It has precious little to do with Dogon people, and a lot to do with some by westerners. It is quite notable and should not be deleted, but the actual living Dogon community plays no role in it. If you can get concensus, I'll help with the move, perhaps to [[Dogon Sirius theory]]? [[User:T L Miles|T L Miles]] ([[User talk:T L Miles|talk]]) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

==Move==
I'm going to suggest again that the Sirus controversy section be moved to its own article. At over 8,000 bytes it represents just about 1/3rd of the article, and seems to have much more to do with Western researchers debating than the voices/lives/history of actual Dogon people. I'll tag the page, but people should weigh in here so we can get some concensus. [[User:T L Miles|T L Miles]] ([[User talk:T L Miles|talk]]) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:As it happens, I moved the whole Robert Temple section to the entry on The Sirius Mystery only yesterday, but one Taharqa reinstated it without good reason. There seems widespread agreement that it is not relevant here, irrespective of its validity. If it is reinstated again, we can be sure that the person concerned has a POV agenda that is not compatible with the aims of Wikipedia.[[User:Skeptic2|Skeptic2]] ([[User talk:Skeptic2|talk]]) 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::That may be the answer, but I think it would be nice if we could reach some kind of consensus on this instead of just a revert war. The first answer, I would suggest, is that this debate has little to do with the Dogon people, unless we can get accepted Dogon writers debating this topic. But because it's an issue that, given the ink spilled, deserves a place on Wikipedia (whether I agree with the veracity of it or not), I'd hope that partisans on either side can agree where it should be placed, rather than one editor sticking somewhere, and another sticking it back. Can we get an agreement between both sides to where this should be moved? [[User:T L Miles|T L Miles]] ([[User talk:T L Miles|talk]]) 02:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I now agree that it should be removed, however I did not read the talk page, which is my mistake. I don't appreciate however, being accused of anything as suggested above since ironically, I saw such drastic rewording/pov refining (devoid of citation) as an indication of that exact behavior. Also, your name would to most, confirm that suspicion but I've learned to give the benefit of the doubt, which I will do regardless of the immediate distrust displayed above and unwillingness to cooperate with editors in civil accordance with wiki standards. See your talk page for additional concerns. Hopefully we don't have to resort to such ill mannered dialogue in the future. Not really sure where that emotion comes from (this is aimed at Skeptic2).

Thank you also TL Miles for your contributions and I will abide by consensus, devoid of misguided additions rooted in pov. Didn't at all mean to detract away from that and I appreciate your general tone and take on this.[[User:Taharqa|Taharqa]] ([[User talk:Taharqa|talk]]) 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think previous editors had realized there was an entry on The Sirius Mystery book, otherwise we would probably have been having this argument on that page instead. As a comment on the now-removed text, let me note that it attributed information on the Dogon knowledge of astronomy to "A number of researchers". As far as I am aware this number is One, i.e. Griaule, with the inevitable support of his colleague Dieterlin. As we now know, other anthropologists seem to disagree with Griaule, some quite strongly. In reply to Taharqa's comment on Oberg's views, Oberg wasn't aware of the criticisms of Griaule's work when he wrote about Sirius mystery. It seems to me there is little point discussing supposed explanations for Griaule's findings about the Dogon when it's not even established that there is anything to explain. These points were made at much greater length over two years ago, particularly by AdamDobay (see above). [[User:Skeptic2|Skeptic2]] ([[User talk:Skeptic2|talk]]) 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:::PS: If Taharqa knows of independent confirmation of Griaule's findings then I'm sure we would all would welcome the reference(s). The unsourced statement at the end which Taharqa objects to was inserted by another editor (anonymous), although it strikes me as fair comment. [[User:Skeptic2|Skeptic2]] ([[User talk:Skeptic2|talk]]) 09:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Dogon people

2008-12-19T01:37:09Z

Peelinglayers: /* Mythology and controversy */

{{AfricaProject|class=B|Mali=yes|importance=High|Mali-importance=Top|}}

{{ethnic groups|class=B}}
== Original Research on the Toguna ==

from http://acpizza.livejournal.com/529828.html
"It seems entirely likely to me that the Toguna also served the function of a catabatic swamp cooler." This represents a much better opportunity to prove an early technological accomplishment of the Dogon, for it does not rely upon the need to discover stashed telescopes, time travellers, or space aliens, but rather, simply to test the effectiveness of structures that still exist and everyone agrees existed long ago.
[[User:Zaphraud|Zaphraud]] 18:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Sirius ==

Most of this should be okay. The Dogon are an actual tribe, and apparently like Sirius very much. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 09:22, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

:Still, there should be some critical piece added - one anthropologist describes the Dogon myth about Sirius B, but a few others deny having come across it. [[User:Andre Engels|Andre Engels]] 12:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done. —[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 17:46, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is no known Sirius C... not only is it 'invisible without a telescope', it has never been observed. The only thing that's been found is a possible regular perturbation in A and B, but that hasn't been confirmed. Frankly, I'm confused as to what's going in with Sirius C in this article. [[User:Omnipotent Q|Omnipotent Q]] 05:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

:Well, thanks for fixing 'er, Frecklefoot. I thought about just removing the C information but thought that maybe I was missing something. [[User:Omnipotent Q|Omnipotent Q]] 23:18, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, it was my fault for adding it. Sorry about that. I am not an astronomy expert and thought I had heard reference to Sirius C in my investigation. :S —[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 15:14, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

==3000 BC?==

Consider this passage:

::''Information from those other cultures'' [i.e. advanced civilisations on Earth] ''do talk about dark companions'' [i.e. invisible companions of stars] ''circa 3000 BCE in their mythology which may have reached the then less isolated Dogon.''

In other words, this sentence claims that cultures like the ancient Sumerians or Greeks were talking about dwarf stars back in 3000 BC. This sounds like bollocks to me. Is it? [[User:The Singing Badger|The Singing Badger]] 17:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Confusing facts ==

#''When'' did the tribe first describe that companion of Sirius? Before 1860 as it says in the first section, or before 1970's as the last section implies?
# Why are the article talking about a ''binary/trinary'' system? If there are no evidence of a third companion star, it would reduce confusion to remove that ''trinary''-reference, or at least mention that we don't know if the system is binary or trinary.
# ''They are most noted for their descriptions of the Sirius star system.'' - What is this? In the first section of an article - which is the only part most people will read - one cannot have such disputed statements presented as facts. I wouldn't mind if it had said something about a claim that ''they are noted for the claim that their mythology describes the star Sirius B'' or some such weasel terms. But giving such a statement without any explanation, that's no good... [[User:Mikez|\Mike(z)]] 09:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last one bothers me the most. Bah! this is a sensationalist article, it's not an encyclopedic article about the Dogon at all. It's a shame for Wikipedia. You know, I think we should move all that Sirius stuff to the Talk page until we have a decent article on the Dogon, ''the people'', you know, ''real people'', speaking a ''real language'', living in a ''real world'' and not under the microscope of Western exotists. I'm sorry for the rant, it's nothing personal, Mike. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 01:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Ah, no problem. As I said, there are some stuff that should be removed - at least from the first paragraphs. If one wants to mock these exotists (I like that name, btw), one could of course keep it at the end of the article... Or rather just refer to some other article about those creatures and their beliefs of other peoples... :P [[User:Mikez|\Mike(z)]] 08:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

==Marcel Griaule==
French anthropologist [[Marcel Griaule]] took part in several expeditions to the Dogon in the 1930s, which resulted in his highly controversial (but also highly interesting - IMO) book "Conversations with Ogotemmeli". (I´ve addded the ref. at the end; was quite suprised to find that there was no ref. to him.) The french version of the book was published around 1952, me think. I also believe Griaule was the first to connect the knowledge of Sirius with the Dogon.
I believe the (english?) anthropologist Mary McCartny (??..spelling probably not correct) and other english academics were very critical of it; they thought Griaule "read" too much into the Dogons belief. Feted them as "the Greeks of Africa", etc. Especially after the book was published in english (in 1965), several anthropologist wrote critically of it. -I read about this controvercy years ago -will try to find the references.
To sum up: not always easy to differentiate between what knowledge originated with the Dogons, and what knowledge originate with the anthropologist :-> [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] 00:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

-and I added a link to [[Nommo]]; strange that that was missing. There is some discussion there about the influence of Griaule. (Oh dear; I believe this Dogon article still needs quite a bit of work...)[[User:Huldra|Huldra]] 03:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

== natural to talk about astronomy? ==

This sentence "It is only natural that conversations with visitors would eventually turn to astronomy" sounded dubious to me at first. But it does make sense when I think about it. For a westerner visiting non-electrified peoples, it is amazing how dark it gets after dusk. So it is easy to imagine that a visitor, wondering what to do in the dark (not being used to going to sleep so early) and sitting outside because of the heat, would start talking about the stars above. [[User:208.145.81.25|208.145.81.25]] 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

== Mythology and controversy ==

:"...they had had a great deal of contact with the western world and had time to incorporate Sirius B into their religion."

I have been following the development of this article for a while, but I still cannot shut my eye over this argument. The section puts forward an assumption that the Dogon supposedly got their information on Sirius B and so on from Western astronomers and incorporated that into their religion. This assumption has, in my opinion, two problems, one from the point of view of religious history, and the other from an encyclopaedia's point of view.

The first problem is simply that I do not see anything to support this claim. I've spent many years studying the workings of mythology and religions, and I've read and heard first-hand experience of dozens of cases where mythologies, religions and cultures (including Native American, Australian and Asian cultures), had contact with modern Western civilization. And while many have started adapting and using modern technology, out of the many dozens of cases I have not heard one that ever changed anything in their religious practice or mythologies. This is partly because these cultures possess tradition that is hundreds or thousands years of age, and there is no indication that it would have any basis to simply include anything that is heard. It is also important to point out that there is also no reason for this culture to change their whole mythological system (whether there is one star or two stars at the centre of their religious system) just because of one instance of a group of unknown people going there and telling them something.
While I do not consider myself an expert in the field of religious history, based on my current knowledge I see no reason that contrary to every instance I know of Western culture meeting other cultures, the Dogons would import such a piece of information into their religion.

The second problem is that we seemingly have no objective, NPOV recollection of actual Dogon mythology besides what Temple and co. had been saying. Why is it, then, that there has to be a tedious down-to-earth, skeptical explanation of why the Dogons must have changed their mythology according to modern Western knowledge when this is not supported by anything.

Because of these two problems I think that there is no need for this sub-section to be there. It is also a possibility that the current text should be something that is more NPOV than the current version which claims to be a universal truth. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 18:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

: "I have not heard one that ever changed anything in their religious practice or mythologies." Wow. Your claim is so preposterous, I don't even know where to start rejecting it. Have you ever heard of [[syncretism]]? Incorporating elements of western culture is exactly what happens in almost every case when native people meet westeners. Your claim is a personal theory, and those don't belong in articles, unless they are supported by a considerable number of people. That's why I deleted this section. --[[User:Zumbo|Zumbo]] 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

:: I appreciate your taking time to revise my editing and to point out the flaws of what I have written. I admit that what I have written is not clear in some parts, especially in the sentence you quoted, which is quite dubious.
:: However, in what I have said I have not tried to express that there has never been a case of religions and mythologies never influenced each other. I was familiar with the fact that when religious cultures border each other, frequently meet and other variations, things start to merge, replace one another, etc. I'm afraid, rather, that I haven't found anything of which you have mentioned which would enable the content described in the syncretism article to be applied to the Dogon problem.
:: As I have pointed out earlier, in the case of the Dogons we are talking about (and the article mentions) only a few instances of Dogons meeting Westerners, and not traditions living together or exchanging knowledge a high number of times, as is the case with all the examples mentioned in the Syncretism article. Where are the examples you mentioned, Zumbo, of "almost every case when native people meet westeners"? I haven't seen one. I may have not been clear in my first post about what I mean in relation to the Dogons meeting Westerners, but I hope it is clear enough now.
:: I still do not see why this should be instantly regarded as syncretism, as I still see no evidence for this case being so simple as a whole tribe changing the base of their religious system based on some random people saying something. The Greek mythology's meeting the Egyptian or the Christian influence on many religions did not happen overnight, but gradually, with two or more cultures constantly interacting. In the Dogon case, however, we do not know of such, only a few instances are mentioned here and in all the other sources that are available on the Internet (unfortunately I could not yet get my hands on any of the books). That is why I think it is not a good idea to state that the Dogon religion would simply change because of one opinion heard once or twice and from one or two parties.
:: As for the whole "Skepticism" heading, the current text tries to explain the whole Temple controversy with an assumption about what may have happened in the case of Temple's research (not his assumptions) having any ground, using not more than expressions such as "it is only natural" and "it is reasonable" to support its claims. I wonder on what basis is it that much more NPOV than my proposal (not the part that this is unprobable, but the part that this is also only an opinion and not fact). Syncretism may be one solution but the problem is, we cannot really know based on just this. As far as I can tell we do not have an actual, objective recollection of the Dogons' mythology and religion in our hands right now, based upon which we could decide.
:: I do not know why the article has to lean toward this opinion (and not stating it is an opinion but presenting it as the most probable version) while the whole problem is so blurry. I even do not know why the article on the Dogons has to be so much about what the solution to Temple's claims about what the Dogon believe in are, if that those have any ground whatsoever. Do we know for certain the Dogons have talked about those things at all? Why, if this is so controversial, does it have to be decided with these current paragraphs? Why cannot it be there instead that these are opinions, instead of using "it is only natural" and "it is reasonable" as support? I don't think it would be very wise to decide this question, based upon so little, on probability. I think that just a teency addition of stating this was another opinion would do.
:: This is why I have edited the article, I admit not too well in some parts, but the problem is still the same. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
:::OK, so we agree, religions do get influenced by other cultures. And the Dogons wouldn't have changed the principles of their religion overnight after meeting one or two westeners. But nobody claimed the opposite. Well, it's hard to define what exactly the claims about their belief system are, since there is no precise account of it, especially of their belief system before they meet westeners. What the article says about Sagan's claims (I haven't read Sagan myself) is that the Dogons already had an interested in astronomy and in Sirius, and when a western visitor told them about Sirius B, they just incorporated this bit of information into their belief system. Now that I've read over that section, it looks quite suspicious to me, especially the part about the "dark companions about 5,000 years ago in myths". To me, this looks like someone has grossly misquoted this source: [http://skepdic.com/dogon.html]. I'm going to change it in a moment. --[[User:Zumbo|Zumbo]] 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

:To Zumbo: What makes me (and I think perhaps others) think that it is the article that leans toward the skeptic opinion is the arrangement and logic of sentences and paragraphs. In the Skepticism section, the first paragraph has the thesis sentence that introduces us to the Temple version. The second paragraph follows by introducing us to the Sagan version. The third paragraph does not contain any reference whether it is continuing the description of either version. In the logic of the section it does not follow that the third paragraph would be continuing the Carl Sagan version, and thus it seemed to me -- up until closely reading the section a number of times -- that this is meant to be a general statement that summarizes the problem. Thus I included the final paragraph but perhaps it would be best to make the second and third paragraph into one paragraph (maybe even shortening it a little?), to resolve any misunderstanding.
:I will try to make a simple structure change. Please tell me if you agree with me. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, I have been reading James Oberg's comprehensive article on The Sirius Mystery, mainly collecting the many arguments and evidence against Temple's claims. An online version can be found here: [http://www.debunker.com/texts/dogon.html], we may want to refer to parts of that to make things (like what exactly Temple and Sagan had said) more clear. What do you say? [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:I've updated the part on mythology, removing from the general mythology part the Temple-based claim that the Dogon were describing Sirius B -- the debate on that belongs, I think, to the controversy section (which I've changed to this title, I think skepticism does not really describe the problem anymore), and the mythology that is known to exist should stay there.
:Also, it seems that many of what Oberg stated in his book was attributed to Sagan in the article, so I've made small sections for the individual people. As I've spent a few hours into the night writing this and my native language is not English I may have made mistakes in grammar and sentence structure, sorry if I did.
:One more question to you all: what to do with the [[Nommo]]? It is part of the mythology and maybe it should be included there (or carried over from the top of the article), but the Nommo article as well has its problems with being a bit confusing over who claimed what and what the myth/myths really is/are. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

===Completely by Robert Temple?===

I noticed that the whole Dogon mythology heading now falls under the theory of Robert Temple. But is the part about Sirius, Orion and other stars being important to the Dogon really only said by Temple? Is the sentence about the Bozo people also a theory of Robert Temple? We really don't know anything about Dogon mythology but Temple's theories? [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 13:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:Well, we probably do know more, but this article (or at least this section) doesn't mention much more, which is why I attributed it to him. The wording might need to be improved, but that's my reasoning. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 13:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very important point. Temple seems to have used the work of [[Marcel Griaule]] to build his theory upon that there would have been an extraterrestrial contact. To write this down carefully, we would like to know what exactly wrote Griaule on Sirius? What is the contribution of each of these two? Does any of you have the original Griaule book ‘Dieu d’eau’ to find this out? If not, I could try to find it, that should be not too complicated.
Two other points on Dogon myths / knowledge and the difficulty of knowing what is true, that are described in ‘La mère des masques’:

1. Their knowledge is transmitted orally, from father to son, over many years and from one generation to the next. One can imagine that such stories change easily over a few generations. They wrote down almost nothing themselves (especially the elder, that have most knowledge, do not write and read) and they still rarely do. I wonder whether there would be as many different myths / stories / variations as there are Dogon? It is said that no Dogon would ever be able to know all their myths / stories.

2. It seems that the Dogon like to satisfy their (western) interlocutors. That might even help them avoiding revealing real secrets. This means that an anthropologist would have to be very careful not to direct the Dogon in a specific sense, as the Dogon would easily confirm his hypothesis, true or false.

I will develop the part on oral transmission of knowledge in the article later on.--[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 14:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone just has to laugh at the idiocy of westerners who try to conjuncture the history of other people when they cannot even tell their own well enough. One can start trying to tell his/her own story, but the loud arrogance westerners have now perfected as a sign of intelligence makes even thought of such attempt undesirable. Go knock yourselves out and hopefully you will come to your senses soon enough. [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]]) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

==Balance==
I'm glad that the Sirius part of the article is improving; I've never liked the fact that so much weight was given to some exotist claims while there always has been enough serious ethnographical research to counterbalance it. In any case, don't forget to source everything using [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. It's the only way for us to be verifiable and thus trustworthy. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 11:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:Mark, I would really like to see some reliable ethnographical info on the Dogons here (and well, generally). You mention serious research: do you have titles or names, perhaps? [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogon_people&diff=15864995&oldid=15864339 made a start] on their languages and also added something on the people. Marcel Griaule is the inevitable starting point, but later Dogon ethnographers have shown that he focused too strongly on uncovering a certain 'native philosophy' and that his informants were, well, 'creative' and 'not without monetary realism', as Van Beek (2004) puts it. Some of the more recent studies:
*Apter, Andrew (2005) 'Griaule's legacy : rethinking "la parole claire" in Dogon studies', ''Cahiers d'études africaines'', 45, 177.
*Beek, Walter E.A. van (2004) 'Haunting Griaule: experiences from the restudy of the Dogon', ''History in Africa'', 31.
*Berche, Thierry (1998) ''Anthropologie et santé publique en pays dogon'', Karthala.
*Diawara, Mamadou (1997) ' "Dieu d'eau", eau du barrag : les populations du plateau Dogon face aux contraintes: pluviométrie, terre et démographie', ''Africa''.
*Huet, Jean-Christophe (1994) ''Villages perchés des Dogon du Mali : habitat, espace, et société''. L'Harmattan.
*Paulme, Denise (1988) ''Organisation sociale des Dogon''. Jean-Michel Place.
To be clear: by saying '...ethnographical studies to counterbalance it' above, I meant that this article should be more about the ''Dogon people'' and less about views ascribed to them by Western exotists. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 09:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

:Thank you for the sources. I hope at least one of these titles will be available somewhere in Budapest, but I'm not sure.
:About ethnographical studies, I agree that the article should be about the Dogon people, but I also think that the amount of misinformation that is on the internet and seemingly everywhere has to be sorted out. I myself didn't know what was partand not part of Dogon mythology until I read up on the various sources the essence of which I worked into the article yesterday. And I also know a Hungarian physicist who also only knew the Temple version of Dogon mythology, and this almost got into a television programme. There are simply too many sources (just look up Dogon on Google and it will be 90% New Age and Temple-influenced posed as fact) that treat Temple's version as the base without saying so - probably they got it from elsewhere, too.
:An alternate solution would be to devote a different article to the Dogon mythology controversy, and to leave the information on the people here. A yet another solution would be to create a Dogon mythology article, including what is here and what is in the [[Nommo]] article. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 11:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
::''...but I also think that the amount of misinformation that is on the internet and seemingly everywhere has to be sorted out.'' I fully concur. The 'meta-ethnographical' studies by Van Beek and Apter are good sources in that respect, as they show where it went wrong. One other relevant one is Ciarcia, Gaetano (2003) ''De la mémoire ethnographique: l'exotisme du pays dogon'', (Cahiers de l'homme). ISBN 2713217954. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 12:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Great, then if they are, let them be summarized in this entry and let us direct the reader's attention to those studies. I still think it is necessary to present the whole picture, if not in this article then another, because for the average internet user or non-professional who hears Dogon and becomes interested won't instantly know to go and research Van Beek and Apter, as there are very few publicly available references to them in "non-academic circles" such as the Internet. I myself have started my search on the Dogon on the internet, and I have not found one search result that mentioned Van Beek, Apter, Ciarcia or others of relevancy, but I have found a number of New Age articles, skeptic pages and summaries of the Dogon which looked like non-superficial but still contained information that I could only know not to be true after spending many days and weeks sorting out what came from which source. Now if I'm just a casual person that is interested wouldn't it be nice to be able to read one NPOV recollection of the whole problem. [[User:AdamDobay|AdamDobay]] 13:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
::::You've got mail. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

== Polygamy and marriages ==

I just came back from the Dogon. They are definitely polygamous. We have been discussing this matter for hours with our Dogon-guide. He even said there are more women than men (very strange, I don't believe this) so it is important that men have several women. "A woman is only happy when she has children and the man has to take care of this."
I corrected the text on this point (monogamy = polygamy).
An interesting point is that men and women do not live together during the first years of their marriage. A woman slips into the house of the man (still living with his family) during the night and gets back to her own family early in the morning. She will raise her first child in the house of her parents. This gives the man some time to construct a house for his new family. They move in together after this period. The first born child stays with the family of the woman, to compensate for her loss. =AM, France.

:The article already did mention [[polygyny]]. Over the last days, it had been changed several times from [[polygyny]] to [[polygamy]] and I changed it back because polygyny is more specific in this context. Your change looked like the same change, so at first I undid it; but upon reading your comment, I changed the text to reflect what you say. It would be nice to have published sources to [[WP:CITE|cite]] for this, however, in order to maintain the [[WP:V|verifiability]] of our articles. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::The website you mentioned below, says that a Dogon can have up to 4 spouses http://www.necep.net/facts.php?id_soc=12, look at the social organization. ''F15 Extension of marriage prohibition Yes, up to four spouses'' and ''F16 Polygamy Virilocal, patrilocal (formally wives only joined their husband's residence unit after the birth of their first child)''. I agree that polygyny is more accurate than polygamy. I think however, that it would be more accurate to say that Dogon society is primarily polygynic but that some men have only one wife =AM

:::You're right, and I agree. I'll leave it to you to update the article, and I wish to apologize for yesterday's revert; I should have assumed [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. Thanks for coming back to discuss! — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::::OK done. Apologize accepted and appreciated! I think you are right that things should be verifiable. However, this is also a weak point as I cannot write down my experiences / information I obtained at the Dogon as I have no backup litterature for many of them.--[[User:AAM|AAM]] 10:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Good to see that you've created an account; welcome to Wikipedia! As for literature, if you feel like reading up on the Dogon, you might find something to your liking in the above section (titled [[#Balance]]), where I mentioned a few recent anthropological publications on the Dogon. As noted in that section, too, this article (just like the Dogon themselves, I imagine) often suffers from exotism, which is the main reason that I was somewhat protective. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 11:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

== New online source available ==

An interesting online resource on the Dogon has come recently available: the [http://www.necep.net/society.php?id_soc=12 NECEP] database. There is much to be found there that could be of use for expanding the article. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

==Etymology of Dogon==
What is the etymology of the name ''[[Dogon]]''? [[User:Alexander 007|Alexander 007]] 20:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

==Requested move==
*'''Oppose''' - XXXX people is standard. [[User:PeaceOnEarth|PeaceOnEarth]] 01:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:Who requested a move? [[User:Alexander 007|Alexander 007]] 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''', why not? I wasn't aware of the request either, but it can be found [[Wikipedia:Requested_moves#5_March_2006|here]]. As [[Dogon]] is simply a redirect at the moment, I see no reason why we would have this article at [[Dogon people]] instead of [[Dogon]]. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 07:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''': I think it is strange to have an empty Dogon page and use Dogon people instead.--[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 09:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' The Dogon are the Dogon, I think this should not be such a controversy to rename. [[User:Gryffindor|Gryffindor]] 09:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I undid the premature archival of this vote and have noticed {{user|Nightstallion}} of my doing so. The initial request dates from five days ago, but it seems that most of us became aware of it only today. — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 11:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

==Numbers==
The numbers don't add up in this sentence:
"Sigui: the most important ceremony of the Dogon. It takes place every 60 years and can take several years. The last one started in 1967 and ended in 1973, the next one will start in 2007."
Should it be 40 years, or does the next one start in 2027? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:151.200.49.25|151.200.49.25]] ([[User talk:151.200.49.25|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/151.200.49.25|contribs]]) 03:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks and you are right it should be 2027. It has been changed. --[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 08:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

== Circumcision + age groups ==
There has been a modification that changes the signification of the text ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogon_people&diff=49195779&oldid=45868348 look] at age groups last AAM version vs the current version). This might be a language matter (I am not a native english speaker) so I would like somebody that is to verify it.
What I tried to express in the original version that there is a circumcision ceremony every three years and that all boys of the 'age group of 9-12 years' are taken together to be circumsized at that same moment. I mentioned 'age groups' as this is very important for the ceremony and their social position afterwards (their age in that specific group), so this aspect should not get lost the way it seems in the current version. It now reads as if boys are grouped at random at some moment between the age of 9-12 years and circumsized. If nobody could help me I will revert to the original version. --[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:No, you are right, I'd revert the 'circumcision' section to your version; 'age group' is a common term in ethnography. However, not all changes in that edit were bad, so please don't simply revert it; a change that should stay, for example, is the change from "and were not a technologically advanced civilization" to "did not have telescopes or other astronomical technology". — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks - only the edits in the CC part are reverted as suggested. --[[User:AAM]] | [[User talk:AAM|Talk]] 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== Recent changes ==

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogon_people&diff=92634598&oldid=90647993 recent changes] by {{user|71.193.82.16}} are not all bad, but they are all unsourced, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert them. What do others think? — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:I think they are good-faith edits. I would let them stand. [[User:Wikiwizzy|Wizzy]]…[[User talk:Wikiwizzy|<big><big>'''☎'''</big></big>]] 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, that came across too curtly, I also think the edits are in good faith. But who's going to provide sources for say, the population number and the change from 60 to 65 years for the interval of the Sigui ceremony? — [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 07:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

== "Sirius" addendum ==

I think that this entire little part of the article should be considered for deletion or revision. It's obviously someone who professes New Age beliefs trying to argue for the Dogons being contacted by extraterrestrials.

While most people with any or no science background think stuff like this is bunk, we're on Wikipedia here, so maybe could we just make sure it's mentioned somewhere in this or another article that certain religions believe "the following".

Not only all this, but this "Sirius" addendum is not very continuous with the thought stream of the rest of the article.

You'd think because I do lots of work on a fictional language called "Atlantean" that I'd have more leniency for such causes. Think again. This alien-astronaught business is merely a figment of modern imagination and literature.

[[User:Epigraphist|Epigraphist]] ([[User talk:Epigraphist|talk]]) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

::I would support the moving of this whole thing to a sub article. It has precious little to do with Dogon people, and a lot to do with some by westerners. It is quite notable and should not be deleted, but the actual living Dogon community plays no role in it. If you can get concensus, I'll help with the move, perhaps to [[Dogon Sirius theory]]? [[User:T L Miles|T L Miles]] ([[User talk:T L Miles|talk]]) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

==Move==
I'm going to suggest again that the Sirus controversy section be moved to its own article. At over 8,000 bytes it represents just about 1/3rd of the article, and seems to have much more to do with Western researchers debating than the voices/lives/history of actual Dogon people. I'll tag the page, but people should weigh in here so we can get some concensus. [[User:T L Miles|T L Miles]] ([[User talk:T L Miles|talk]]) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:As it happens, I moved the whole Robert Temple section to the entry on The Sirius Mystery only yesterday, but one Taharqa reinstated it without good reason. There seems widespread agreement that it is not relevant here, irrespective of its validity. If it is reinstated again, we can be sure that the person concerned has a POV agenda that is not compatible with the aims of Wikipedia.[[User:Skeptic2|Skeptic2]] ([[User talk:Skeptic2|talk]]) 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::That may be the answer, but I think it would be nice if we could reach some kind of consensus on this instead of just a revert war. The first answer, I would suggest, is that this debate has little to do with the Dogon people, unless we can get accepted Dogon writers debating this topic. But because it's an issue that, given the ink spilled, deserves a place on Wikipedia (whether I agree with the veracity of it or not), I'd hope that partisans on either side can agree where it should be placed, rather than one editor sticking somewhere, and another sticking it back. Can we get an agreement between both sides to where this should be moved? [[User:T L Miles|T L Miles]] ([[User talk:T L Miles|talk]]) 02:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I now agree that it should be removed, however I did not read the talk page, which is my mistake. I don't appreciate however, being accused of anything as suggested above since ironically, I saw such drastic rewording/pov refining (devoid of citation) as an indication of that exact behavior. Also, your name would to most, confirm that suspicion but I've learned to give the benefit of the doubt, which I will do regardless of the immediate distrust displayed above and unwillingness to cooperate with editors in civil accordance with wiki standards. See your talk page for additional concerns. Hopefully we don't have to resort to such ill mannered dialogue in the future. Not really sure where that emotion comes from (this is aimed at Skeptic2).

Thank you also TL Miles for your contributions and I will abide by consensus, devoid of misguided additions rooted in pov. Didn't at all mean to detract away from that and I appreciate your general tone and take on this.[[User:Taharqa|Taharqa]] ([[User talk:Taharqa|talk]]) 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think previous editors had realized there was an entry on The Sirius Mystery book, otherwise we would probably have been having this argument on that page instead. As a comment on the now-removed text, let me note that it attributed information on the Dogon knowledge of astronomy to "A number of researchers". As far as I am aware this number is One, i.e. Griaule, with the inevitable support of his colleague Dieterlin. As we now know, other anthropologists seem to disagree with Griaule, some quite strongly. In reply to Taharqa's comment on Oberg's views, Oberg wasn't aware of the criticisms of Griaule's work when he wrote about Sirius mystery. It seems to me there is little point discussing supposed explanations for Griaule's findings about the Dogon when it's not even established that there is anything to explain. These points were made at much greater length over two years ago, particularly by AdamDobay (see above). [[User:Skeptic2|Skeptic2]] ([[User talk:Skeptic2|talk]]) 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:::PS: If Taharqa knows of independent confirmation of Griaule's findings then I'm sure we would all would welcome the reference(s). The unsourced statement at the end which Taharqa objects to was inserted by another editor (anonymous), although it strikes me as fair comment. [[User:Skeptic2|Skeptic2]] ([[User talk:Skeptic2|talk]]) 09:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Beta Israel

2008-12-16T04:38:07Z

Peelinglayers: /* Somewhat insulting */

{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Ethiopia | nested= yes | class= B | importance= High }}
{{WikiProject Judaism | nested= yes | class= B | importance= high }}
{{Ethnic groups | nested= yes | importance=High | class= B }}
{{WikiProject Jewish history | nested= yes | class= B | importance= high }}}}
}}
{{FAOL|French|fr:Falashas}}
==Position in Israel==

This article does not mention alleged discrimination faced by Beta Israel. Nor does it give any account to their integration into Israeli society or where siginificant commnities are. As far as I recall there are substantial communities in certain suburbs of Tel Aviv.

:I am adding a section about the current situation of the Ethiopian Jews in Israel. I am still tweeking the section so be kind.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer your questions.
Ge'ez as a spoken language:
1. Beta Israel groups are mainly from North Ethiopia from states where Amharic and Tigrigna are spoken. Ge'ez is a designated sacred language used by various groups all over Ethiopia and it isn't used unless one is reading scriptures and/or conducting a church/synagogue ceremony.
2. Beta as opposed to Beit:
It's not a matter of word play to indicate one's regional designation (Ashkenazi, Ethiopian/Mizrahi, Sephardic,etc). Simply, "Beta" is in Ge'ez and is equivalent of Beit in Hebrew and both mean "house [of]".
3. This isn't your question but just to clarify possible misconception created by this article,
"Falasha" is a word that comes from "me-feles", meaning to migrate. The term Falasha was probably given by the group to indicate that some groups within this society are actually migrants (and they acknowledge this history by indicating where they came from), and the term wasn't intended to negate them as this article and some western publications suppose. Falashas do refer to themselves as Falashas. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.18.208.195|75.18.208.195]] ([[User talk:75.18.208.195|talk]]) 06:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 

==Beta Israel speak Geez?==
I thought they spoke a language called Geez?--[[User:Yoshiah ap|Josiah]] 04:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ge'ez is an archaic, ancient language, that is used as a holy language.[[User:Datepalm17|Datepalm17]] 12:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beta Israel? Why not Beit/Beyt (בית ישראל)? Also, here in Israel the "Falash Mura" are called "Flashmura" (פלאשמורה), I think. [[User:Dorfl|Dorfl]] 02:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:(Sorry about delayed reply:) “Beta Israel” (or “Beta Esrael”) because this is the name they identify under. “Bet Yisrael” is also a broader term applicable to just about any Jewish/Israelite group and therefore unusable as a specific term for this group. Also, the forms “Beit” and “Beyt” reflect a specific subset of European (mainly Ashkenazi) Jewish pronunciation which would be problematic even if this problem of ambiguity didn’t exist. -- [[User:Olve|Olve]] 21:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

==DNA/genetic evidence?==

How credible is the "DNA evidence" mentioned here? I've never heard a compelling case for a "Jewish gene," especially considering that many modern Jews are likely to be either the decendents of converts (such as the [[Khazars]]) or the product of centuries of occasional interbreeding with neighboring ''goyim.'' --[[User:Cholling|Cholling]] 23:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:The evidence is quite credible. A "Jewish gene" is not really a scientific concept, but the genetic relationships within and between different populations can be measured. Ashenazi Jews are closely related to Sephardi Jews, and both are closely related to other Middle Eastern populations (and not to European populations). Beta Israel are closely related to other Ethiopians, and not to any of the other groups. Here's a link to one study: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 23:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:: In my opinion, really think it is not a good idea to use the word "gene" if you are not talking about scientific concept. Its also hard to get a definative result using the DNA for such a large group of people, but then again i may be seeing too many detective movies. Anyway, there is a story here of Israel doubling [[Falash Mura]] immigration. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52711-2005Jan31.html?nav=headlines]

:::The question I have on the DNA testing done is in terms of whether the numbers of Ethiopian Jews, constitutes that the entirity of Ethiopian are devoid of the DNA markers found in the Sepharadi, Teimani, Ashkenazi, Lemba, Samaritan, etc. populations '''that were tested'''. I stress the last part, because some of the data I have seen seems to suggest that the people who were tested had the connection, but that some didn't. For example one report I read seemed, and I stress seemd, to suggest more Ashkenazi Levites, had similar DNA to non-Jewish Slavic people and that fewer Sepharadi Levites had similar DNA to the local population in their region. [http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-cohen-levite.html] None of the evidence I have seen so far suggest that all Sephardim, Mizrakhim, Teimainim, Ashkenazim, etc. are conclusively related by the DNA. Most of the information I have seen seems to be on-going in nature. [http://www.math.biu.ac.il/~louzouy/courses/statgen/israel.pdf#search='The%20Y%20Chromosome%20Pool%20of%20Jews%20as']

:::What I mean is the following: most of the DNA research I have seen on the matter shows that 38, 19, etc. Ethiopian Jews were tested. We know that thousands of Ethiopian Jews, and non-Jews immagrated to Israel during Operation Moses and Operation Solomon. We also know that untold numbers of Ethiopian Jews died trying to make their way to Israel and the Sudan. That being said, it would seem that the data at this point points to a number of Ethiopian Jews having no genetic connection to the before listed Jewish communities. I.e. that the men tested do not descend from Ancient Israelites. According to one study I read there seems to have been a connection between certain Yemenite Jewish men that were tested and Ethiopians.[http://www.cmb.usc.edu/people/noahr/libjews.pdf] I state all this to wonder if the wording in this article should be worded to take this into account. The possibility could still remain that the majority of Ethiopian Jews descend from Gerim, which halakhically still makes them descendent of Jews since Gerim who go through a Beith Din are Jews, converted by a minority group of Jews from Yemen or Egypt. That is to say that there could still be a minority with similar Yemenite or Egyptian Jewish genes that simply haven't been tested. I think this is important to recognize or at least look into given that most of the interest in the Beta Israel has been to either disprove they are Jewish or to make them seem inferior to other Jewish communities. I am not saying that this is the case with this article in its current state, but I am wondering if there is a way to word it so that the facts as we currently have them can be more crystal. Regardless, if the Rabbinate recognizes them as Jews then they are Jews. Just some thoughts. I can come up with some wording later tonight and see if it is acceptable. --[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Ancient Felasha? ==

Several seemingly trustworthy websites refer to "Felasha" in the tenth century, such as [http://www.imperialethiopia.org/history2.htm this one]: "The Felasha (Jewish) queen [[Gudit|Yodit]], daughter of the quasi-legendary Gideon, led a destructive expedition against [[Axum]] around 980." Since the Falasha, according to this article, weren't even around in this period, is this just a blatant mistake on their part? - [[User:BanyanTree|BanyanTree]] 17:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From the Ethiopians Gentiles' point of view, "falasha", as a Semitic word root, also means "intruder, foreigner" (פ-ל-ש) which is already close to the meaning of the name.--[[User:Bo Basil|Bo Basil]] 12:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:There's plenty of legend around masquerading as history. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 18:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: Gudit is a semi-legendary personage, whose facts are as mixed with legend as is the case with [[King Arthur]]. (Unlike the case with Arthur, we have a contemporary document that mentions her, so we can be assured she existed.) Experts are divided over whether she was Jewish, pagan, [[Agaw]], or a queen of the Kingdom of [[Damot]] in the south of Ethiopia. But the reference to "Falasha" is anachronistic: I just found a passage today in my research that shows that "Falasha" was not used to refer to these Agaw Jews until the reign of [[Zara Yaqob]]. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 21:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== Rabbonim ==

There is no need to have a long list of Rabbonim who rule one way or another on this article. It suffices to list the most well known and respected posek ruling each way, and to state which view is held by the majority.--[[User:Yoshiah ap|Josiah]] 19:03, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Four of the most respected Rabbis of the late 20th century? I think each of their names should be included. There are many more who have ruled that way, I've restricted myself to just four. As it is, the claim "most" is unclear, unless you included some of the names. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 19:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Josiah, each one deserves to be mentioned. Off the top of my head I cannot state the fine details of each ''psak'', but if ''one'' [[posek]] is mentioned, that does not mean others hold that way. The fact that Rav Waldenberg allows abortion of a known Tay-Sachs fetus does not mean this is followed in practice. Typically, the "majority view" is decided when several poskim arrive at the same conclusion, as has been mentioned on this page. This is more encyclopedic than "most poskim" (which is imprecise). [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|T@lk]] 21:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:In fact, Rav Waldenberg used to be in my list, it was 5 poskim, but I took out one as a compromise. Should I put him back? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 21:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Yes. -- [[User:Olve|Olve]] 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Article ==

An article highly relevant to this page is in Haartez at [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=565262] and also in Forward at [http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=shaviv20050330911] (needs free registration). --[[User:Zero0000|Zero]] 02:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Population figures ==

For years I've been reading much higher figures than those listed in the article. I've changed the figures in accordance with [http://www.shavei.org/article.php?id=413 this article], from http://www.shavei.org/ which, while the organization has a vested interested in this community (and others), is also in a pretty good position to have accurate figures. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] [[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 19:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

== Ethiopian Judaism & Ewostatewos ==

Is the following an accurate paraphrase of Harold Marcus' POV?

: Marcus pinpoints their origins to the persecutions of the sabbatarian movement of Abba Ewostatewos (c. 1273–1352), the remnants of which he believes grew into the Beta Israel of today.

I ask this because the followers of Ewostatewos (who did argue for the observance of a Sabbath on both Saturday & Sunday) were persecuted for a time, but eventually their beliefs were adopted by the Ethiopian Church at a synod in 1450, & are now accepted as mainstream within that belief. (References include Taddesse Tamrat, ''Church and State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527'', and Edward Ullendorff, ''The Ethiopians: An Introduction to Country and People''.) I'd like to think that Marcus is being misunderstood, rather than that he betrayed such a major misunderstanding about the history of Ethiopia.

(FWIW, Paul Henze, in his ''Layers of Time: A History of Ethiopia'' also accepts this hypothesis that the Beta Israel originated from an archaizing movement within Ethiopian Christianity, & refers to James Quirin's work.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 18:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

: '''Update'''. I've found this assertion in Marcus' book (''A History of Ethiopia'' [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994], p. 23). I'll be gentle here, & state that his argument is based on an oversight in his research. The dates above for Ewostatewos' life are close to what Taddesse Tamrat provides in his book: the earliest mention of the Beta Israel I have found is in the ''Glorious Victories'' which reports events in the year 1332 (or 1329, if we follow G.W.B. Huntingford's arguments). For a professed Christian to embrace the Old Testament so violently that he inspires non-members to be even more radical than he (i.e., claim to be Jews) strains one's credulity; maybe if this had been a change that could be shown to have been simmering for a generation or so, this would be plausible.

: Add to this chronological fact the following:
:* One of Ewostatewos' followers settled amongst this group with the intent of missionizing them;
:* Ewostatewos (who was a ''very'' controversial figure during his lifetime) was never accused of Judaizing the faith (which would have been a powerful tool to have refuted his followers);
:* Ewostatewos had little or nothing to do personally with the regions where the Jews are known in the 14th century to have lived;
: and Marcus needs to develop a far more detailed argument than what he has written in his ''History'' to believe his argument.

: This is not to say that this theory is untentable: only Marcus' specific argument is. As a result, I've replaced the text mentioning him with a quotation from Paul B. Henze, who puts forward a similar argument -- but IMHO better -- argument. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== Origins of the Beta Israel ==

There is a serious problem with the interpretation of the Lucotte article and its import into the present context. Luccote performed Y chromosome analysis comparing ethiopian jews to non-jewish ethiopians. What this methodology fails to take into account is the traditions of the ethiopians themselves that holds that the entire population of northern ethiopia was jewish before the arival of christianinity. For a review of this issue see (http://www.13suns.com/EJUDAISM.HTM)
The Beta Israel see themselves as the last remaining followers of an ancient faith. Thus any comparison between "jewish" ethiopians and "non-jewish" ethiopians has to be tempered by that fact. The non-jews are seen as ancient jews who adopted christianinity, and Islam.
The fact is that the issue is confused by the uncertainties and misinterpretation involved. For example the Sephardi and Ashkenazi communities are not isolates. They have had a very intense and continuous interaction with one another. The same goes for most other jewish communities that follow modern Rabbinical judaism. The reality is that any commonalties found among them might, probably did, arise post-exile. The fact the the Beta Israel do not have the exact same profile as Sephardi, Ahkenazi, or Cochin jews for that matters means nothing as there was significant gene flow between these communities even cotinuing to this day. Given the Beta Israel's isolation divergence should be expected.
Most revealing in the Lucotte article is where he explains that
''An important point to consider is the result concerning haplotype VIll, the ancestral haplotype in Jews (Lucotte et al. 1996); this haplotype is present at a frequency of 23.1% in non-Falasha Ethiopians. In fact, the Jewish haplotypes VII and VIII occurred at similarly high frequencies in samples of Lebanese (Santachiara-Benerecetti et al. 1993) and Palestinians (Lucotte, unpublished data, 1997); so it seems more practical, as
proposed by Spurdle and Jenkins (1996), to consider that elevated frequencies of these 2 haplotypes may represent most of the Semitic groups.''
(http://www.ethioguide.com/aa-ethioguide/ethioguide/News_Archive/1299/origin%20of%20falasha_jews122399.htm)
It's not hard to realise that this data only supports the thesis that ealy on there was an influx of immigrants from the syria-palestine region to northern ethiopia bringing with them judaism. The day=ta finds that HVIII, known as the ancestral Jewish Haplotype is found at the level of 23% in "non-jewish ethiopians." This is as high as found among lebanese and palestinians. How could these high rates be explained?
In the end the problem with the entire section on the analysis of genetics of the ethiopians jews is really one conceptual road block. The general perception of a jewish population is an that of isolated pockets of groups seperate from the major population. Such a picture fails in the enthiopian context, where the ancient kingdon in northern ethiopia experienced a large influx of jews, who left their cultural mark on the entire population in the region, and who progressively melded with the local population over a very long time period indeed (800BC). In the Kaplan book cited, he mentions that ethiopian priests claimed that half the population was of jewish extraction during the ancient period. He calls this an "exageration" yet how can we be sure. He also mentions a large number of hebrew and aramaic loan words in the Geez language. How can we explain this. The bible also indicates that "beyond the rivers of ethiopia" there were jews living in acient times. In short eveidence that jewish ethiopians look like, or are similar to non-jewish ethiopians, is not evidence of local origin for ethiopian jews at all. Not in any way shape or form! The only evidence would be that northern ethiopians in general do not show evidence of genetic imput from the near east. In fact the Luccote article shows just the opposite, with ethiopians shown to have the jewish haplotype at high rates indeed. In fact just as high as Lebanese and Palestinians who actually live in the area known to have been the center of ancient jewish kingdoms. In general I fault the entire article for not mentioning the theory, for which there is ample evidence, that the entire population of northern Ethiopia adopted the mosaic faith in ancient times prior to christianity. This is something looked at in the Kaplan book, and in others. Although conclusions might be drawn that the numbers of isrealites living in the area during ancient times was small while others might claim it was larger. Given the scant historical data, and often conflicted information this cannot be kown with certainty. What is known, and agreed to by most scholars is that it was there, i ancient times there was judaism in ethiopia. It had an effect on the ethiopiancoptic church in that this churc is closer to the kosaic faith than any other curch in the world. It is possible that these ancient jews just vanished, and then centuries latters a new, completely different group of jews calling themselves the Beta Israel emerged suddenly. Or it is possible that the Beta Israel are the only in northern ethiopia to remain faithful to the ancient ethiopian/hebrew tradition. —''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:216979|216979]] ([[User talk:216979|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216979|contribs]]) 20:18, 1 October 2005.

:From my understanding there is no evidence for any cultural continuity between those judaised groups in Ethiopia (lake Tana area) and the group that later emerged as the beita israel. In fact all the evidence is to the contrary since all the texts, liturgy etc of the beita israel appear to date no earlier than the 14th century and originate from the ethiopian church. It is also slightly after this that we first begin to hear the term 'Falasha' ( probably meaning 'without land'). This is not to say that the group emerged 'suddenly'. The Falasha probably do have origins from previous judaised groups, however not all these groups emerged as Falashas and not all Falashas emerged from these groups.

:Perhaps there could be something about the biblical references to Beta Israel? Isaiah 11:11 was mentioned shortly, but Acts. 8:27 should be mentioned too. —''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:84.249.236.122|84.249.236.122]] ([[User talk:84.249.236.122|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/84.249.236.122|contribs]]) 00:37, 17 January 2006.

==Beta Ysrael and Ethiopian History==

The deletion from my sections on the "western discovery" od Beta Ysrael, and the role Beta Ysrael plaid in Ethiopian history, I feel considerably lessens the worth of this article.

The claims made about copywrite are not true. The article is based on a compilation of sources drawn from a number of scholarly works prepared for an article on Ancient Biblical History in 2004.

Regards

[[User:John D. Croft|John D. Croft]] 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:I see wording basically equivalent to that of the Virtual Jewish Library (whose copywright status I do not know).

:For instance, from [this section http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejtime.html] of the VJL, I see these copywrite problems. Croft's writing italicized, the VJL's bolded.
::'''1769 — Scottish explorer James Bruce awakens the western world to the existence of the Ethiopian Jews in his travels to discover the source of the Nile. He estimates the Jewish population at 100,000.'''

::''[[Daniel Ben Hamdya]], an Ethiopian Jew, in 1855 independently traveled to Jerusalem to meet with rabbis''

::'''1855 — Daniel Ben Hamdya, an Ethiopian Jew, independently travels to Jerusalem to meet with rabbis.'''

::''followed in [[1864]] by [[Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer]], the Rabbi of Eisenstadt, Germany, publishing a manifesto in the Jewish press calling for the spiritual rescue of Ethiopian Jewry. Three years later Professor [[Joseph Halevy]] is the first European Jew to visit the Beta Yisrael, subsequently becoming an advocate for the community.''

::'''1864 — Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer, the Rabbi of Eisenstadt, Germany, publishes a manifesto in the Jewish press calling for the spiritual rescue of Ethiopian Jewry.

::1867 — Professor Joseph Halevy is the first European Jew to visit the Beta Israel, subsequently becoming an advocate for the community.''' (the next sentence is downright wrong, claiming there are only 35,000 Beta Israel)

:From [elsewhere http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejhist.html] on the site:

::''Little additional contact was made with the community, but in [[1935]] their stability was greatly threatened as the Italian army marched into Ethiopia. Ethiopia's ruler, Emperor [[Haile Selassie]] fled his country and actually took refuge in Jerusalem for a short time. Selassie returned to power in [[1941]], but the situation for the Beta Israel improved little.''

::'''Little additional contact was made with the community, but in 1935 their stability was greatly threatened as the Italian army marched into Ethiopia. Ethiopia's ruler, Emperor Haile Selassie fled his country and actually took refuge in Jerusalem for a short time. Selassie returned to power in 1941, but the situation for the Beta Israel improved little.'''

::''In 1956, Ethiopia and Israel established consular relations, which were improved in 1961 when the two countries established full diplomatic ties. Positive relations between Israel and Ethiopia existed until 1973 when, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, Ethiopia (and 28 African nations) broke diplomatic relations with Israel under the threat of an Arab oil embargo.''

::'''In 1956, Ethiopia and Israel established consular relations, which were improved in 1961 when the two countries established full diplomatic ties. Positive relations between Israel and Ethiopia existed until 1973, when, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, Ethiopia (and 28 African nations) broke diplomatic relations with Israel under the threat of an Arab oil embargo.'''

::''Months later, Emperor Selassie's regime ended in a coup d'etat. Colonel [[Mengistu Haile Mariam]], whose [[Marxist-Leninist]] [[dictatorship]] increased the threat to the Beta Israel, replaced Selassie. During the weeks surrounding Mariam's coup, an estimated 2,500 Jews were killed and 7,000 became homeless.''

::'''Months later, Emperor Selassie's regime ended in a coup d'etat. Selassie was replaced by Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam, whose Marxist-Leninist dictatorship increased the threat to the Beta Israel. During the weeks surrounding Mariam's coup, an estimated 2,500 Jews were killed and 7,000 became homeless.'''

::''Soon Mariam instituted a policy of "villagization": relocating millions of peasant farmers onto state-run cooperatives. This policy greatly harmed the Beta Israel by forcing them to "share" their villages (even though they were denied the right to own the land) with non-Jewish farmers, resulting in increased levels of anti-Semitism throughout the Gondar Province. According to the Ethiopian government, over 30% of the population had been moved from privately owned farms to cooperatives as of 1989.''

::'''Soon Mariam instituted a policy of “villagization,” relocating millions of peasant farmers onto state-run cooperatives which greatly harmed the Beta Israel by forcing them to “share” their villages—though they were denied the right to own the land—with non-Jewish farmers, resulting in increased levels of anti-Semitism throughout the Gondar Province. According to the Ethiopian government, over 30% of the population had been moved from privately owned farms to cooperatives as of 1989.'''

::''After taking office in 1977, Israeli Prime Minister [[Menachem Begin]] was eager to facilitate the rescue of Ethiopia's Jews, and so Israel entered into a period of selling arms to the Mariam government in hopes that Ethiopia would allow Jews to leave for Israel. In 1977, Begin asked President Mengistu to allow 200 Ethiopian Jews to leave for Israel aboard an Israeli military jet that had emptied its military cargo and was returning to Israel. Mariam agreed, and that may have been the precursor to the mass exodus of Operation Moses began.''

::'''After taking office in 1977, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was eager to facilitate the rescue of Ethiopia's Jews, and so Israel entered into a period of selling arms to the Mariam government in hopes that Ethiopia would allow Jews to leave for Israel. In 1977, Begin asked President Mengistu to allow 200 Ethiopian Jews to leave for Israel aboard an Israeli military jet that had emptied its military cargo and was returning to Israel. Mariam agreed, and that may have been the precursor to the mass exodus of Operation Moses began.'''

::''In the early 1980's, Ethiopia forbade the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew. Numerous members of the Beta Israel were imprisoned on fabricated charges of being "Zionist spies," and Jewish religious leaders, Kesim,(sing. Kes) were harassed and monitored by the government.''

::'''In the early 1980's, Ethiopia forbade the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew. Numerous members of the Beta Israel were imprisoned on fabricated charges of being “Zionist spies,” and Jewish religious leaders, ''Kesim'',(sing. ''Kes'') were harassed and monitored by the government.'''

::''The situation remained exceedingly bleak through the early 1980's. Forced [[conscription]] at age 12 took many Jewish boys away from their parents, some never to be heard from again. Additionally, with the constant threat of war, famine, and horrendous health conditions (Ethiopia has one of the world's worst [[infant mortality rates]] and doctor to patient ratios), the Beta Israel's position became more precarious as time progressed.''

::'''The situation remained exceedingly bleak through the early 1980's. Forced conscription at age 12 took many Jewish boys away from their parents, some never to be heard from again. Additionally, with the constant threat of war, famine, and horrendous health conditions (Ethiopia has one of the world's worst infant mortality rates and doctor to patient ratios), the Beta Israel's position became more precarious as time progressed.'''

::''The government began to slightly soften its treatment of the Jews, however, during the mid-1980's when terrible [[famine]]s wreaked havoc on the economy. Ethiopia was forced to ask Western nations for famine relief, including the United States of America and Israel, allowing them both to exert a modicum of pressure for the release of the Beta Israel.''

::'''The government began to slightly soften its treatment of the Jews, however, during the mid-1980's when terrible famines wreaked havoc on the economy. Ethiopia was forced to ask Western nations for famine relief, including the United States of America and Israel, allowing them both to exert a modicum of pressure for the release of the Beta Israel.'''

::''Over 8,000 Beta Israel came to Israel between 1977 and 1984. But these efforts pale in comparison with the modern exodus that took place during 1984's Operation Moses.''

::'''Over 8,000 Beta Israel came to Israel between 1977 and 1984. But these efforts pale in comparison with the modern exodus that took place during 1984's Operation Moses.'''

::''There are 5 principle theories of their origins, not all of them mutually exclusive.

:::''1) They may be descendants of Menelik I, son of King Solomon and Queen Sheba.

:::''2) The Beita Yisrael may be the lost Israelite tribe of Dan.

:::''3) They may be descendants of Ethiopian Christians and pagans who converted to Judaism centuries ago.

:::''4) They may be descendants of Jews who fled Israel for Egypt after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and eventually settled in Ethiopia.'' (Number 5. is his own doing)

::'''Because much of the Beta Israel's history is passed orally from generation to generation, we may never truly know their origins. Four main theories exist concerning the beginnings of the Beta Israel community:

:::'''1) The Beta Israel may be the lost Israelite tribe of Dan.

:::'''2) They may be descendants of Menelik I, son of King Solomon and Queen Sheba.

:::'''3) They may be descendants of Ethiopian Christians and pagans who converted to Judaism centuries ago.

:::'''4) They may be descendants of Jews who fled Israel for Egypt after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and eventually settled in Ethiopia.

:::'''(Excerpted from “Reunify Ethiopian Jewry,” World Union of Jewish Students)'''

:Now here's some stuff from [this http://www.falasha-recordings.co.uk/teachings/ras.html] website (and many others, including [[The History Channel]], with the exact same info and wording, with minor changes).

::''Some scholars place the date of their origin before the 2d century BC, largely because the Beita Yisrael are unfamiliar with either the Babylonian or Palestinian Talmud. The religion of the Beita Yisrael is a modified form of Mosaic Judaism unaffected generally by post-biblical developments. The Beita Yisrael retain animal sacrifice. They celebrate scriptural and nonscriptural feast days, although the latter are not the same as those celebrated by other Jews. One of the Falasha nonscriptural feast days, for example, is the Commemoration of Abraham. Their Sabbath regulations are stringent. They observe biblical dietary laws, but not the postbiblical rabbinic regulations concerning distinctions between meat and dairy foods. Marriage outside the religious community is forbidden. Monogamy is practiced, marriage at a very early age is rare, and high moral standards are maintained.

::''The center of Beita Yisrael religious life is the masjid, or synagogue. The chief functionary in each village is the high priest, who is assisted by lower priests. Falasha monks live alone or in monasteries, isolated from other Beita Yisrael . Rabbis do not exist among the Beita Yisrael.''

::'''Falashas, native Jewish sect of Ethiopia.The origin of the Falashas is unknown. One Falasha tradition claims to trace their ancestry to Menelik, son of King Solomon of Israel and the queen of Sheba. Some scholars place the date of their origin before the 2d century bc, largely because the Falashas are unfamiliar with either the Babylonian or Palestinian Talmud. The Bible of the Falashas is written in an archaic Semitic dialect, known as Gecez, and the Hebrew Scriptures are unknown to them. The name Falasha is Amharic for "exiles" or "landless ones"; the Falashas themselves refer to their sect as Beta Esrael ("House of Israel").

::'''The religion of the Falashas is a modified form of Mosaic Judaism unaffected generally by postbiblical developments. The Falashas retain animal sacrifice. They celebrate scriptural and nonscriptural feast days, although the latter are not the same as those celebrated by other Jewish groups. One of the Falasha nonscriptural feast days, for example, is the Commemoration of Abraham. The Sabbath regulations of the Falashas are stringent. They observe biblical dietary laws, but not the postbiblical rabbinic regulations concerning distinctions between meat and dairy foods. Marriage outside the religious community is forbidden. Monogamy is practiced, marriage at a very early age is rare, and high moral standards are maintained.

::'''The center of Falasha religious life is the masjid, or synagogue. The chief functionary in each village is the high priest, who is assisted by lower priests. Falasha monks live alone or in monasteries, isolated from other Falashas. Rabbis do not exist among the Falashas.'''

:From a ton of sites, again:

::''Other Researchers think some of the defeated Yemenite Jews from the [[Abu Duwas]] Jewish Kingdom came to Ethiopia.''

:The following is taken from [here http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9033614], the Encyclopedia Britannica.

::''From 1980 to 1992 some 45,000 Falasha fled drought- and war-stricken Ethiopia and emigrated to Israel. The number of Falasha remaining in Ethiopia was uncertain, but estimates ranged to only a few thousand. The ongoing absorption of the Falasha community into Israeli society was a source of controversy and ethnic tension in subsequent years.''

:I don't have time to find copywrites for the rest of the material, but you can see that much, if not most of it is word for word for other (copywrited) texts.

== Get rid of the DNA material ==

There is too much material on DNA here. First of all, it isn't important. DNA does not determine whether or not somebody is Jewish. Would an encyclopedia entry on the Irish be devoted to analyzing their Y-Chromosomes and mitochodria, to determine the relative importance of their Norse, Pict, and Celtic bloodlines?

I am very interested in this kind of study, but there is too much of this material on this island. Can we move this DNA material to another page? How about a separate page on Ethiopian Jewish genetic studies, referenced from here?

Many of the people who are devotees of these genetic and quasi-racial studies don't realize how preliminary and sketchy the work they admire is. Responsible human geneticists understand that studies with 38 or 11 individuals who are not randomly selected cannot be interpreted so strongly. However, the average user of this encyclopedia does not know that.

Haplotype analysis, the basis of such ethnic studies, is a cummulative body of knowledge. It depends on identification of sufficient genetic markers to organize individuals into an inverted tree. With such a tiny sample, how did they even know what genetic markers to test for? In these studies, there was insufficient data to create such a tree. A study based on such a tiny number of individuals, either in the Ethiopian Jewish population or in other populations to which they are being compared, is very preliminary. Not until much more data is known can we make such inferences. The comparable studies done with Ashkenazi Jews look at hundreds of individuals, and yet they still have not identified many of the haplotypes.

I have some pictures of Ethiopian Jews in Israel to share here, but there is no place to put them here right now. The Ethiopian Jews are not frozen in time. This article needs material about the modern Ethiopian community in Israel, and the issues that have arisen as they have adjusted to living in a modern, western society? In Israel, young Ethiopian Jews have now grown up speaking Hebrew, and some have graduated from universities and earned advanced degrees. --[[User:Metzenberg|Metzenberg]] 11:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:DNA information is important in this article for the simple reason that some people felt that this group of Ethiopians were in fact not a lost jewish tribe, but were just trying to get into Israel by pretending to be jews. Remember, unlike being a christian or muslim, one can't just make the claim that one is now of the jewish faith by just saying so (or with a fairly simple baptism type ceremony). So if the Falashah's claim to be jewish wasn't true, what would be their reason for emigrating? DNA is at least one possible way of determining the truths of their story. I'm not opining here, just stating why I think this section of the article is important.[[User:Odysseybookshop|Odysseybookshop]] 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

'''Odysseybookshop'''

Please Do separate between word '''"ISRAELITES"''' whom were Genetically blood descendants of Israel/Jacob(i,e BLOOD LINE RACE), and between The word '''"JEW"''' who is any one adhere to the Judaic Faith(i.e RELIGION), That is because GOYIM Ashkenazi and Sephardim Jews around the world BOTH of them Have NO Genetic relation to Semites people let alone genetically blood tie to ancient Hebrew people(whom proven to be Genetically blood ancestors of today Arabs)

[[Special:Contributions/82.5.167.237|82.5.167.237]] ([[User talk:82.5.167.237|talk]]) 18:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*That is incorrect, European Jews are of mixed Middle Eastern/European ancestry. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Somewhat insulting ==

Much of this article seems to push an anti-Beta Israel view. Some specific problems I have are with the Rabbinical views (no Rabbis since the Radbaz are shown supporting the fact that Beta Israel are Jews and yet further up it is indicated that Ovadia Yosef acknowledged there Jewishness. Can he be the only Rabbi with this position? Also, all the Rabbis quoted are ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazis. I'm no expert on halakhic authorities, but wouldn't it be better to have a wider range of Rabbis with a wider range of positions?) Also, I don't see the usefulness of the comparisons in the Henze quotation. Both those examples stayed quite definitely Christian and would never be mistaken for non-Christians. Typically, Christian groups that absorbed enough Jewish elements to be confused with Judaism haven't lasted long (the only other example I can think of is the Skhariya example, and I don't think that lasted more than 30 years.) If, as this article seems to state the Beta Israel stem from rebellious Christians, shouldn't it be explained why they lasted longer than any other such group? Also why is the possibility of Judaism in pre-Christian Ethiopia rejected despite the fact that the Tewahedo Church follows many more seemingly Jewish laws than other well-established Christian group (and how can such conclusions be reached when the historical record of Ethiopia before 1300 is has gaps)? I know it is hard to get answers to these questions (I hope I have time to research some of them this month), but I think it would make a more balanced article. As it is, it is incomprehensible that attacks on the Judaism of the Beta Israel should take up so much of the article, when articles on some groups of Indian Jews whose claim to Judaism is more tenuous have much less space devoted to such attacks.--[[User:Lastexpofan|Lastexpofan]] 08:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Expo Fan. I couldn't agree more. Sephardic rabbinical authorities have been more supportive of the Ethiopian Jews and Beta Israel, perhaps because they knew that the Ethiopian Jews would be likely to reward them with political support in the long run once they all became Israeli voters. All of which illustrates how so-called rabbinical and religious opinion is sometimes merely political posturing. --[[User:Metzenberg|Metzenberg]] 12:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:There's one sentence on Rabbis who suspect their Jewishness, vs. an entire section on the supporting view. I hardly think that's unbalanced. The Ovadia Yosef reference used to be in there, but it was deleted by an anonymous IP editor. I've restored it. As for the rest, Wikipedia quotes [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] on subjects, we don't do our own [[WP:NOR|original research]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

::Speaking of not doing 'our own research', what evidence is this statement qualified by :''Most of the Beta Israel consider the Kebra Negast legend to be a fabrication''? Is there any kind of polling numbers that anyone can provide to support such assertion? I have removed the entire paragraph until it is supported by some sort of evidence. If not, this mere hearsay and should have no place on an information source the claims to be balanced. I agree, this article is blatantly biased against Bete Israel Jews. [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]]) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

::What I intend to do is not what is described in the original research article. I read a recent book on the subject that has a different POV from much of the article. I just don't feel like citing it without checking its sources, since some of it was a bit shaky, so therefore I need time to research, especially since there aren't a whole lot of readily accessible Ethiopian history books.--[[User:Lastexpofan|Lastexpofan]] 07:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Maybe the best way to please all sides in this is to provide more information about the traditions and history of the Beta Israel from their own sources and perspectives. I do agree that this article seems to be bogged down with information trying to prove or disprove the Jewishness of the Beta Israel. One way to balence this is to simply add more information about their community structure and religious life when they were Ethiopia and now that they are in Israel. --[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 15:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Agreed. Encyclopedic coverage of the community can discuss the views of various authorities, but the article should, in the main, discuss the community itself, not outside views regarding the legitimacy of its claims to Jewishness. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|talk]] 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think some of the information I have added in the Religous practices and Ethiopian Jews in Israel today should now satify those who feel to much of the article was about their origins. I will look for some more info about the current situation in Israel.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, author, thanks for sharing "doubious" info on history section before you kindly edited it. And your strong POV still remains from your responses below as "pagans and Jews", commentary of the unlikelihood of Saba's journey to Solomon's Kingdom, etc. What I am concerned about is that this isn't a history to be written by you unless you are an authorized scholar, preferably from Ethiopia, since it would be "kind" to give people to tell their own history. No other nation has the official authority to write the history of U.S. or Israel except for scholars with sufficient expertise. I strongly suggest you take off this article as I am contacting both Wikipedia and scholars in Ethiopia and/or Israel (Falasha) on this issue, in the meantime, I thank you for your attempt to write my history but nontheless I question your authority of writing on this subject, and you also present a one sided point of view on the group. I ask you to remove your article. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.18.208.195|75.18.208.195]] ([[User talk:75.18.208.195|talk]]) 06:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 

==History==
I just did a major rewrite of the history section involving a lot of trimming but also addition of information. The anon who added the information is clearly relatively well-versed in Beta Israel history, but also a bit confused. The [[Zagwe dynasty]] for instance was certainly Christian, for instance. The [[Monolithic church|Rock-hewn churches]] of [[Lalibela]] are a clear testament to that, especially [[Church of St. George, Lalibela|Beta Giyorgis]] (not to mention that basically all of the rulers are celebrated as Saints and Priest-Kings by the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]]). I also removed a lot of dubious information regarding early origins. It's generally believed now that Judaism didn't exist in Ethiopia until Medieval times (certainly by the 13th/14th century, possibly in early medieval times as well). Jacqueline Pirenne's views (certainly not the ''foremost'' scholar on the [[Sabaeans]]) on the possibility of ancient migrations of Jews involving Saba' are unlikely and generally not accepted, especially considering that [[South Arabian alphabet|Epigraphic South Arabian]] is a descendent of [[Proto-Sinaitic]] but not [[Proto-Canaanite]] or [[Phoenician alphabet|Phoenician]] like [[Hebrew alphabet|Hebrew]]. I left some of the theories that sounded more plausible that I didn't know much about wrt their veracity, but added citation tags. I also very much doubt the accuracy of "one million" Jews in Ethiopia in the 17th century. Though certainly present in full-force in [[Gonder]], the capital (itself the 2nd largest city in the world at the time) and surrounding areas, the majority of Ethiopia wasn't home to many Beta Israel, and the population of Ethiopia at the time would have probably been less than 10 million, making the 1 million figure a bit suspect. I would also like to caution against the use of "Jewish," as a general term for the Beta Israel, as there are other Agew groups that have Jewish traditions. I'll be adding more on later history tomorrow. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I am the "anon" contributor whose comments were so tendentiously edited out or recast by the above "editor." Much of what he/she says seems to present a pretty strong POV. In effect, any other point of view is rubbished, either removed from the site or rephrased in such a way as to nullify it. The editing is consistent. For example, I wrote in my contribution the following: "According to probably the leading scholar on the Sabeans, Jacqueline Pirenne, the spread of Sabeans across the Red Sea to Ethiopia began in the 8th or 7th centuries BCE when considerable numbers of Sabeans crossed over to Ethiopia to escape the Assyrians who had already devastated the kingdoms of Israel and Judea, and were extending their raids further south. Jacqueline Pirenne summarizes 30 years of research (cf. Munro-Hay, Aksum, 65) into the Sabeans by adding that a second major wave of Sabeans crossed over in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE to escape Nebuchadnezzar; this wave included Jews fleeing from the Babylonian takeover of Judah too. These Jews and pagans constituted a kind of aristocracy ruling the kingdom of Da’amat in the Tigray area of Ethiopia ( in the northwest near the Red Sea), with their capital at Aksum. She also suggests that some or almost all of these Sabeans and Jews returned to southern Arabia in the succeeding centuries, leaving elements of their civilization firmly imbedded in Ethiopia and maintained by native Ethiopians. This Aksumite culture established itself as the “high culture” of Ethiopia, with a written literature and trade and cultural contacts with the wider world, creating stone buildings, palaces and temples, making it admired by and quite superior to the mostly illiterate pagan tribal cultures around it who had only wood and thatch buildings. These cultural contacts brought constantly renewed encounter with Jews elsewhere in Judah and north and south Arabia, and the literacy and literature of the Jews ended up permeating and changing Sabean and Aksumite cultures and peoples. We have to do with a gradual but effective and widespread conversion of the local peoples to Judaism, around perhaps a core of Jews from abroad. In this way, says Pirenne, we can understand the Jewish influence on Ethiopian culture, and the persistence of the Black Jews in Ethiopia."

:Most of this contribution has been eliminated, and the editor declares ex cathedra that Pirenne is not such an authority on the Aksumite and Sabean cultures as claimed. However, I am not the source of that claim; I merely reproduce what Munro-Hay himself says on this. What this really means is that our editor is of the coterie of revisionist scholars centering at Hebrew University, which has entirely bought into the Quirin thesis about Beta Israel history and origins. No other respectable historical viewpoint therefore can be recognized. This is not the sort of scholarly neutrality we expect from encyclopedia articles, and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Pirenne and Munro-Hay and the many other scholars taking a more positive view of the depth and antiquity of Judaism in Ethiopia should be given a respectful hearing. They are not a small weird group of dissenters. Actually, it is the other way around; the Quirin-Kaplan group are the dissenters, who wish to take over the entire discourse by a forced reading of the whole of Beta Israel history.

::Pirenne was not at all the leading scholar on Sabaeans and Ethiopia. There are a number of leading scholars (Anfray, AJ Drewes, Fattovich, Schneider, etc.), but Pirenne's theory is not at all widespread. It was first proposed in the 1970s I believe, and hasn't gained much support since then. There's absolutely '''no''' evidence of Jewish traits in the Kingdom of [[D`mt]], though there are some gods from the [[Sabaeans|Sabaean]] [[Pantheon (gods)|pantheon]] worshipped. Current dating, moreover, no longer fits with Pirenne's dating. Whereas she would have the first Sabaeans in Yemen beginning around the 6th and 5th century BC, the earliest inscriptions in Yemen are from the 8th century BC (Norbert Nebes, "Epigraphic South Arabian" in von Uhlig, Siegbert, ed. ''Encylopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha''. Weissbaden: Otto Harrassowitz KG, 2005 p.333). The first in Ethiopia are from the 9th century BC, so a migration from Assyria to Ethiopia wouldn't work since the first deportation of Jews was under [[Tiglath-Pileser III]], who ruled in the second half of the 8th century BC. It also doesn't fit with the fact that the Jews were using an alphabet completely different from South Semitic scripts. Moreover, that there were only "wood and thatched buildings" before D`mt is not at all correct. I direct you to Fattovich's "The development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa in ancient and medieval times," which identifies a number of preceding urban complex cultures in the region. Note that Munro-Hay is not an authority on the Beta Israel by any means. His book on Aksum is certainly a masterpiece, but the reviews I've read of his work usually point out the unlikelyness of Pirenne's theories. Furthermore, I am not of the "coterie of revisionist scholars centering at Hebrew University" as you assume, just an informed Ethiopian. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:For example, another section of my contribution that was simply eliminated related to the Ethiopian Christian persecution of Beta Israel down through the ages. It is a part of the Catholic scholar Quirin's case that Jews were not significantly persecuted by the mostly benevolent Ethiopian Christians, and there was nothing like the antisemitism or Judeophobia characteristic of other lands. So the following comment by me was just wiped from the article: "Some of the worst massacres, attacks and forced conversions of the Christian kingdom occurred in the 1400s, for example, under the King Yacob Zara. (He even added the title “Exterminator of the Jews” to his name, and his subjects were required to tie a strip of parchment to their foreheads bearning an inscription expressing their commitment to the Christian faith.)"

::That section was never removed. I couldn't find a source for "King Yacob Zara [sic]" ever claiming that title, nor for the "worst massacres, attacks and forced conversions...occurr[ing] in the 1400s," so I put a citation needed tag on it. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Another portion of the original contribution related to the Jewishness of the Zagwe dynasty. However, our editor assures us that this dynasty was not Jewish at all, and I am just "confused" about it. In that case, so were both Christian and Muslim testimonies of the Middle Ages. Naturally, it has always been in the Christian interest to devalue or dismiss any deep Jewish claim to Ethiopian antiquity. Quirin certainly shows this. Our editor says that a proof of Christian Zagwe rule is the excavated church ruins from that period. But he/she ignores that I did not deny the existence and even flourishing of Christianity during the Zagwe dynasty, since it appears that this Jewish dynasty was quite tolerant not only of Christianity but also of paganism. The founding queen was called Gudit, Judit, and even Esato (Esther), according to the Kebra Negast. These are all clearly Jewish names. However, it is not entirely clear from the Christian chronicles whether she actually was Jewish or pagan (naturally they would try to discredit her Biblical legitimacy, as they would all Jewish resistance), and later scholars have interpreted her in both ways. The names would certainly seem to be Jewish and even to underline her Jewishness. Nevertheless, a decisive proof of her Jewishness, in my view, is the fact that the Zagwe dynasty that stemmed from her kin legitimated itself, and sought to better the claims of Aksumite kings, by claiming to be descended directly from Moses and his Ethiopian wife, even according to the Kebra Negast itself. This geneaological claim indicates her Jewishness. It cannot be mere coincidence that this claim is the same as that we hear from Eldad the Danite in the 9th century, before she existed, and from Beta Israel of more recent date, long after she and her Jewish dynasty have disappeared. Arab historians explicitly affirm that she was a Jewish queen. It is hard to know how much more evidence one needs that she was. Of course, there are modern scholars that still reject these attributions and insist that she was an anti-Christian pagan, or even “Jewish/pagan,” whatever that means (cf. Munro-Hay, Aksum, p. 15; Ullendorf, History of Ethiopia, 61), simply because of the vagueness of the Christian royal chronicles, the Kebra Negast. It is quite possible that some of these sceptical scholars are inclined by their Catholicism (in the case of Jean Doresse and Quirin) or other motives. Tradition says that 11 rulers of the Zagwe dynasty followed after Judith, in the course of some 330 years. According to traditions reported both by Arabs and by early modern European travellors in Ethiopia (e.g., James Bruce, in his 1773 account) some of these rulers were Jews, some were pagans and some were Christian, so the Zagwe dynasty inaugurated by Queen Judith was remarkably tolerant and ecumenical, fitting the Jewish Biblical view that non-Jews can know God too. By the way, Manuel de Almeida wrote in the 1640s regarding this, "There were Jews in Ethiopia from the first. Some of them were converted to the law of Christ Our Lord; others persisted in their blindness and formerly possessed many wide territories, almost the whole Kingdom of Dambea and the provinces of Ogara and Seman. This was when the [Christian] empire was much larger, but since the [pagan and Muslim] Gallas have been pressing in upon them [from the east and south], the Emperors have pressed in upon them [i.e., the Jews to the west?] much more and took Dambea and Ogara from them by force of arms many years ago." In regard to the downfall of the Zagwe dynasty, which I repeat was by all indications a chiefly Jewish dynasty, at least in origin, Christians bitter at the shared rule with infidels nursed dreams of revenge, which were fulfilled when in 1270 the “true Solomonic rule” was “restored” by King Yekuno Amlak. Again according to Stuart Munro-Hay, Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity (1991), however, King Amlak was actually a warlord who could not have been of the direct line of the old Aksumite kings. One further point. I recall when doing research on these questions some twenty years ago at the Truman Center at Hebrew University that I read a scholarly article (no longer remember the author or journal; could have been Pe'amim) on the names of the Zagwe rulers, which argued that these names showed a regular pattern of Jewish, Christian and pagan kings sharing the rule between them. The Zagwe dynasty was truly extraordinarily tolerant, entirely unlike the "Solomonic dynasty" that followed it, and which was dedicated from the start to wiping out Jewish sovereignty and power, and giving no quarter to paganism.

::What "Christian and Muslim testimonies of the Middle Ages" are you referring to that claim the Jewishness of the Zagwe dynasty? There are no such testimonies as far as I am aware. I have no reason to deny any Jewishness of Ethiopia in antiquity; indeed, I used to think it true before I knew much about the matter, but the evidence simply doesn't support such a view. Note that the "excavated church ruins [sic]" (the churches were not excavated, they have been in continuous use and are not at all ruins) are not the only thing that supports the view that the Zagwe were Christian. Most of the kings are worshipped as Saints in the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]], and no sources of the medieval period call the Zagwe Jews. Not being "Israelites" is not the same thing as being Jews. Note that "Gudit" is not a Jewish name, but from an [[Ethiopian Semitic languages|Ethio-Semitic]] word ''gud'' meaning "freak, monster, strange, wonderful" and the name is a "symbolic term connoting masculine powers as well as unsual characteristics (according to Taddesse Tamrat, cited - Knud Tage Andersen, "The Queen of Habasha in Ethiopian History, Tradition and Chronology," ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London'', Vol. 63, No. 1 (2000), p.20.). Note also that "Esato" (better transliterated "Isato") is not the name "Esther" (that is "Aster," a common name in Ethiopia for ''Christians'', I'm not sure as to its popularity among the Beta Israel), but rather connected to the Ethiosemitic word "Isat," meaning "fire," and is connected to the tradition that she burned down Aksum and [[Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion|Aksum Tsiyon]]. "Yodit" does mean "Judith," but it's a name used for Christians in Ethiopia as well, so characterizing her name as "Jewish" is not accurate. A Zagwe claim from Moses makes them no more Jewish than does "[[Solomonic dynasty|Solomonic]]" Emperors' claims of descent from the Jewish [[King Solomon]]. The religion of Gudit is uncertain. Tradition credits her as being Jewish, the account of the interaction of the Church with its counterpart in Egypt indicates that she may have been pagan, but that section is possibly a later addition, and it's even possible that she was originally seen as a legitimate inheritor of the ruling Aksumite dynasty, as Anbessa Widim, a late Aksumite King remembered as such, was ruling ca. 1125-50 (from a contemporary note in a colophon of a Bible by the Patriarch of the time in Ethiopia), yet by this time the Zagwe dynasty must have already been established. I'm not well-versed in [[Eldad Ha-Dani]]'s claims, but apparently (according to Steve Kaplan, whom you of course dismiss, seemingly categorically) his works don't show much knowledge of the area (Ethiopia) from which he purported to have come, and his writing shows absolutely no Ethio-Semitic or Cushitic influence (see also Ullendorf-Beckingham 1982; Morag 1997). What traditions by Arabs are you speaking of that say that some Zagwe were Jewish, and to what era do they date. Can you give me a page number or chapter for Bruce's claim? I've never heard such a claim, but such a late tradition conflicts with earlier, more contemporary data on the dynasty and is more useful in analyzing Ethiopian perceptions of Kings and dynasties than reconstructing Zagwe history. It's obvious that the [[Solomonic dynasty]] probably wasn't at all an accurate designation (but not necessarily that they were related to the Aksumite dynasty), and the existence of Jewish communities in Wogera/Wegera, [[Semien Mountains|Semien]], and [[Dembiya]] isn't at all in doubt. What would be defined as a "Jewish name," Tim Tam? The longer list of eleven rulers are as follows: Mara Takla Haymanot, Tatadim, Jan Siyum, Germa Siyum, Yemrehana Krestos, Qiddus Harbe/Harbay, Gebre Mesqel Lalibela, Na'akweto La'ab, and Yetbarak. All of these names are either Cushitic or Ethiopian Semitic in origin — i.e., there are no biblical names among them. It's true, however, that much of the Christianization and expansion of Monastic communities occured during the early Solomonic dynasty (esp. under [[Amda Seyon I|Amde Tsiyon]], e.g.).

:One portion after another of my contribution, however, wherever it seemed to indicate justification for a perspective other than the Quirin-Kaplan one, was simply eliminated from the article. I again register my complaint at this high-handed procedure. As other contributors to this discussion page have said over the years, an anti-Beta Israel agenda seems to be guiding the editors of this article. But I am too busy to pursue the matter further. I am quite confident that as a new generation of Beta Israel in Israel itself matures and enters the scholarly study of their own history, the rather blatant and strange partisanship presently dominating the Hebrew University account of Ethiopian Jewry will be overthrown and the revisionism, stemming in the first instance from Christian apologetics, and no doubt furthered by the rather far-left Peace Now ideology I noticed dominating the Truman Institute itself and its regular cultural events and presentations, will be discarded. Let me add that I have no doubt at all of the sincere good will and the scholarly standing of Kaplan and the others of his coterie at Hebrew University. I am sure that they believe themselves right. But they do need to give a little more space to other views. Those other views do exist in the scholarly world, are of serious weight and authority, and should not just be dismissed out of hand. [[User:Tim Tam|Tim Tam]] 02:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have no anti-Beta Israel agenda, and I do not see why having an indigenous origin as opposed to being foreigners mixed with the local population can be construed as such. As you can see above, there are legitimate problems with your view. I may have mentioned this earlier, but, as one example, Gudi/Yodit/Isato was never referred to by contemporary accounts as being Jewish. [[Ibn Hawqal]]'s reference to her, and the (probably later addition) mention in the ''History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church'' do not refer to her as Jewish (Ibn Hawqal calls her the "Queen of the [[Habesha|Habasha]]"), though there is no conclusive evidence either way. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles ==

Hello,

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups|WikiProject Ethnic groups]] has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the [[Beta Israel]] article: '''B-Class''', with the following comments (see link to '''ratings summary page''' in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):
*Extremely thorough coverage of topic.
*The History section is unusually long. It would probably be beneficial to break this into subtopics, to aid reader comprehension.
*A very good start on using inline links, Harvard referencing or Cite.php footnotes. However, long stretches of text are not cited. This is a meaningful flaw.

You can give this article (and any other article within the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups|WikiProject]]) a rating, as described below.

:-->''How to assess articles'' 
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the ''class'' parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner '''{{tl|Ethnic groups}}''' that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's '''[[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|assessment system]]''' page. After rating the article, please provide a '''short''' summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's '''ratings summary page.''' A link to this page can be found in the {{tl|Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Assessment|article rating and assessment scheme]]''' for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at [[Template talk:Ethnic groups]]. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups|main discussion board]] for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit [[:Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles]], find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks! --
--[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Is it undisputed that Falasha are Jews ? ==

It is stated in the first sentence that the Falasha "are Jews of Ethiopian origin".
The Israeli regime and orthodox Jews and Zionists may believe this, but what about the other 99.9% of the world? It seems that 0.1% rules Wikipedia.
The Falasha do not have language or culture or religion in common with Jews (but Jews do not have language or culture or religion in common with each other). So why are they "Jewish"? Except for their racial heritage, which some advocates of their "Jewishness" deny is a factor.

--------------------------------------------------------

:To answer your question. The Beta Israel are recognized as Jews by themselves and also by a majority of the other Jewish communities from the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. The issue that they had faced was in terms of their differences in certain legal matters as it pertained to marriages and divorce law. The questions about their heritage mainly began because of the fact that they did not have extensive direct contact with other Jewish communities until about the 1400's CE. Essentially, because there is documentation of them practicing Judaism for more than 600 years as a group they are accepted as Jews. The issues that you see are mainly about their origin prior to that 600 year period. This debate falls into the following categories.

:*The Ethiopian Jews descend from the tribe of Dan, and came to Ethiopia during the 1st Commonwealth of Israel.

:*The Ethiopian Jews are descendents of Habbani Jews (Southern Yemen) who came to the region and married into or converted members of the local population.

:*The Ethiopian Jews are descendents of Christians who took on a more Judaic perspective either through direct or indirect contact with Jews of Southern Egypt or Yemen.

Most of the debates about their pre-600 history revolve around the above points. So they are accepted as being Jewish due to their known and documented history of practicing Judaism. They are recognized by Sephardic sources due to the word of Sephardic rabbis going back to the 1400's. They are recognized by most Ashknenazi authorities based on the ruling of the Cheif Ashkenazi Rabbis. Yet, because of the issues as they pertain to differences in areas of Jewish law like divorce. There are a number of Ethiopian Jews who had to under a "Symbolic Conversion" in order for them to not be separated from other Jewish communities. This is a bit of an over simplification of the issues, but the article has to cover all these issues.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

==Deleted Un-sourced Material About Beta Israel having Hebrew texts==
I deleted the following un-sourced material. Does anyone have a source for this information?

:It appears that following the conquest of the Kingdom of Gondar{{dubious}} in the 17th century, all Jewish holy books were destroyed, and their study forbidden.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} If Hebrew writings were still extant, this is the time when they were definitively lost. However, the Jews persisted in reading what they could, including the "Old Testament" of the Christian scriptures written in the Christian holy tongue Ge'ez. The Jewish monks, in any case, had retained knowledge of Ge'ez from their ancient Christian antecedents. Great care was taken by these monks and priests to eliminate specifically Christian texts, practices and ideas. Thus, ironically, the Christian religious literature was used selectively to provide the continuing foundation for study of the Jewish sources. This helps to account for some of the texts (and practices) used by the Beta Israel that are not found elsewhere amongst Jews.

If someone can provide sources I will put it back into the article.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

== "related groups" info removed from infobox ==

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{tl|Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the '''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#.22related groups.22 info removed from infobox|Ethnic groups talk page]]'''. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

== Prominent Israelis of Ethiopian Jewish background ==

The "Prominent Israelis of Ethiopian Jewish background" should be split into separate articles (assuming most of the unlinked subjects don't already have articles, I haven't checked). I think a list of links to the individual articles would suffice. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 22:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Dear author of Beta Israel Article: Please Pay Attention! ==

Before I go on, I like to point out how it's very ORIENTALIST of the author to write on and on about this community based on debates and books he/she read. I am under the assumption, as is the author, that he/she is intelligent enough to cite the article. However, one question that doesn't seem to occur to this brave Wiki scholar is the possibility of misrepresentation of Ethiopian Jews (be it through the books and his/her approach to the topic). How can a group that is left virtually voiceless, a group of people who are silenced and marginalized by those who know appear to know them better than themselves? Whom have they authorized to be completely stripped down for everyone's inspection and approval? This is a general tendency of European minded sense of agency to speak in behalf of and/or represent a group outside of its own. Dear author, if you haven't read Orientalism by Edward Said, now is the time, although I doubt you will. But surely, you, the author, have no right or authority to write on historical, religious and cultural discourse, especially when Wikipedia is a source of learning for millions and those who read this article will take this as an accurate account.
Needless to say, I hated the article and even more so most of the comments because such mistakes and ignorance are abominations in the era of knowledge and enlightenment. It was irresponsible, considering the comments you've generated through this article! This is unacceptable.
So, PLEASE, call University of Addis Ababa and speak to a scholar, professor, somebody and educate yourself. It seems, from your article that you state what you found in the books (written by Europeans) as a matter of fact, while you ponder the claim of this group, and their history reluctantly. This is the history of my country, and this group is part of people. I don't expect you to whip out your colonial gazers and start dishing out whatever you find in books as God's given word.
So, I wait for your reply stating your authority that qualifies you to write a historical account. Just because you can write a college essay and bibliography, that doesn't mean you can become instant historian. If you don't have any qualifications, then take off the article from this site immediately. I'll arrange for a scholar who can replace your contributions. Thanks. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mishka411|Mishka411]] ([[User talk:Mishka411|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mishka411|contribs]]) 13:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
: Just to clarify, this being a [[wiki]], the article has no single author, and anyone (including yourself) is free to make edits. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the obvious. My point, though, is that this article holds a very orientalizing view of a group and serves as a survey of Beta Israel Ethiopia history with heavy errors. While I don't understand why people who have no authority of the group are editing or writing this article, I object to the idea of my history being written by people who do not know my community or my country outside of western textbooks (which we all know how subjective they are) and google image pics. So, GYROFROG, I hope that clarifies what I wrote. Considering that the Western population knows little about a lot of groups outside of U.S./Europe confine, it's rather dangerous just to "wing" and edit someone's history. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.18.208.195|75.18.208.195]] ([[User talk:75.18.208.195|talk]]) 06:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
: If you are able to identify the errors, then at the very least please identify them for us, or better yet replace them with better information that cites [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Thanks in advance, -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

::I actually sent emails to several Ethiopian Israelis asking them to work on the article. None of them came to contribute or edit the article. One Ethiopian Israeli friend of mine who read the article didn't have a problem with it. Are you an Ethiopian Israel, and if so would you be willing work on the areas you say need to be corrected? Can you also give references of books written by Ethiopian Jews on the topics? For example, one of the areas I felt needed to be worked on was the section about religious traditions.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

== WikiProject Beta Israel ==

Dear contributors,

[[:he:ויקיפדיה:מיזמי ויקיפדיה/יהדות אתיופיה|WikiProject Beta Israel]] has been launched at the [[Hebrew Wikipedia]] nearly a year ago. I am glad to say that my fellows have achieved a significant progress in establishing a free, reliable database about the fascinating heritage and history of the Beta Israel community. Both the English and Hebrew Wikipedia could benefit from this project, as many important resources are only available in either Hebrew or English. [[Kayla]] is one small example for an English article heavily contributed by a Hebrew-only source.

If you are a bilingual English and Hebrew writer, your help could be most valuable. I encourage you to visit the WikiProject page and edit it as you see fit. Best regards, [[User:Lior|Lior]] ([[User talk:Lior|talk]]) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

== To Minilik ==

I am reverting all of your changes from "Beta Israel", the legitimate name of this group, to "Bete Israel". The fact that it is more phonologically correct in Amharic does not change the official narrative on the group. In addition, you profess that it is a "church denomination" that this is in reference to. Rather the opposite - this refers to the historical Ethiopian group that has largely immigrated to Israel.
(BTW, this may be in violation of Original Research, but I've Googled your name. Turns out you really ARE a "church denomination." Please keep your Messianic garbage out of this article.) --[[User:OneTopJob6|OneTopJob6]] ([[User talk:OneTopJob6|talk]]) 04:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read quite a bit on them, and They do not claim to be from the Tribe of Dan, they don't connect their origin o the Lost Tribe myth at all, they believe they came with the Ark (When Varies not all agree on the Menelik myth).

The Idea of them being Danites primarily comes from statement a controversial Medieval traveler made about them. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.131.23.208|69.131.23.208]] ([[User talk:69.131.23.208|talk]]) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

== Integration section ==

This section needs to be enhanced, there is missing a lot of points, such as :
*the differences in theology between orthodoxe and beta israeli and its consequences in the integration process
*role of Kessim in israel. New beta israeli rabbi, having an orthodoxe formation, while some part of the older priests refusing to accept this way of preaching (and rejection of talmud).
*difference between older generations and integrated new generation that have been teach the orthodoxe way etc.
*Cultural troubles, as beta israeli had previously a really religious life but diferent from the teachings of the talmud, lots of tabou, life centered on the tribe. All was contradicted by the way of life of israeli jews.

"Social contact between the Beta Israel and other Ethiopians was limited. It was not because of the laws of Kashrut, since all Ethiopians share the same food taboos. Ethiopian Jews were forbidden to eat the food of non-Jews. The Kessim were more strict about the prohibition against eating food prepared by non-Kessim. Beta Israel who broke these taboos were ostracized and had to undergo a purification process. Purification included fasting for one or more days and ritual purification before entering the village."

Huge diference with israeli jews. The conscequences of this, after settlement in israel should be present in the article. Israel has choose to refuse their traditions and teached the youth beta israeli to follow the orthodoxe traditions, which leads to the gap between generations.

Kessim are not allowed to celebrate weddings (althought some rabbi accept their presence, but their are the only one that can really conclude a wedding). Israel tried to force the beta israeli to a conversion procedure before allowing wedding (just to be sure). It was refused by the beta israeli, as they are jews, and saw that as a rejection of their jew status. It was more easily accepted by Falasha Mura, and they were better integrated. Also, they accepted more easily the orthodoxe teachings and teh talmud, as a huge part of them were not practicing their judaism in Ethiopia (only a small group are still christians). Which is really diferent from the other beta israeli, as they were really religious.

Few new Kessims following the beta israeli traditions, were nominated in israel, but not accepted by rabbi cause they dont follow the talmud teachings.

There was also a protestation in 1996 against racism, after finding that blood given by beta israeli to help hospitals was destroyed without even testing, by fear of aids.

In the young generations, they are different level of integrations. Also, even those who have accept the orthodoxe teachings and are well economically integrated, they do feel they lost something and that they are different : there is a growing social identification centered on their ethiopian origins (rather than when they were in ethiopia, seeing themselves as jews diferent from the ethiopians) and the color of there skin. There is also a growing phenomenon of identification to black americans culture and cultural signs.

I'm really sorry for my poor english, i just would like to point that the article is missing those points (religious integration). Could it be possible someone look for english sources to explore those points and present them in the article, please ? [[User:Lilyu|Lilyu]] ([[User talk:Lilyu|talk]]) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Genetics of the Lost Tribes ==

The genetic evidence presented here sounds very convincing on the surface, but as a previous poster pointed out, it can't rule out the very possible scenario that the Ethiopians began as a Jewish people. In fact, the [[Tribes of Israel]] article includes an interesting quote from [[Tacitus]], that many believed all the Jews were of Ethiopian origin. But suppose for a moment that the Beta Israel truly have closest affinity to ancestral non-Jewish African peoples - even then, I am not sure this data means anything. After all, if these people are actually descendents of the Tribe of Dan, or any other "Lost Tribe", then they could have notable genetic differences from those of the Tribe of Judah.

Which brings me to my question: what is known of the physical similarities and differences of the various Tribes of Israel from ancient times? After all, the story goes that all were slaves in Egypt - maybe one tribe consisted of olive-skinned people from the east, another of dark-skinned people from the south? Each with their own genetic affiliations? Is that plausible or just a crazy idea? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 15:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Olmecs

2008-12-16T04:35:19Z

Peelinglayers: /* Olmec black history */

{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WP Mesoamerica |nested=yes |class=B |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Mexico |nested=yes |class=B}}
}}

{{WPCD}}
{{FAOL|French|fr:Art olmèque}}

{{Archive box
|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1 (May 2005 to 2007)]]
[[/GA1|Olmec Good Article nomination #1]]
}}

== Olmec black history ==

Should be mentioned. Even though many whites oppose this idea, it is worth maerit and has some evidence which should be permited in the article as at the very least as an alternate theory. I'm going to add a bit about it—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Qtang|Qtang]] ([[User talk:Qtang|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Qtang|contribs]]){{#if:13 March 2007| 13 March 2007|}}.
:Reference to the "out of Africa" theory is made in the '''Alternative origin speculations''' section in this article and in a separate article entitled [[Olmec alternative origin speculations]]. You are welcome to add ''referenced'' information to that article. Unreferenced material will be deleted. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:"''Even though many whites oppose this idea...''" What kind of crap is this? Which "whites" oppose the idea? And who do you define as "white" anyway? Listen, whoever you are, in future keep your stupid racist comments to yourself. --[[User:Jquarry|Jquarry]] 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I am not white and i oposse that idea
Mexxxicano 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Olmecs weren't Black Africans; they were Australoid (the same race as the [[Australian Aborigines]] and [[Melanesians]]. [[User:Arnie Gov|Arnie Gov]] 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:It doesn't matter where black people live on this planet. They are still black people. All of black peoples hair isn't kinky like all white peoples hair isn't dead straight. There are even Nubians that can be found with loose cropped hair. Because of their blackness, the Aborigines have faced as much evil and hatred in Australia as black people have in "The Home Of The Brave". Because of your comment I hope that the Australians now realize the resource that they've wasted. However the Olmecs spoke traces of the Mande language which is a West African dialect. Tom 05/30/07

::Have the Afro-centrists gone completely mad? Where do you people stop? Why don't you focus instead on investigating the alleged "noble African" roots of the Venusian and Martian civilizations instead of polluting reasonable articles with blatant lies or relativistic fairy tales. We have to draw the line on this. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Hmmm...let's see, you love Germany, you are interested in ancient civilization, only if it has to do with Europe. Anybody who disagrees with you has a nice and neat derogatory name. You like firearms, want to abolish the UN and love the history of the U.S. Hitler in da house! [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]]) 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone that you don't respect can't tell you anything that will impress you. Afro-centrists have been relegated to this category. So there's a pretty good chance that you're going to ignore this archaeological report. '''www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html'''. You're probably going to claim it to be an afro-centric bunch of garbage even though the majority of the researchers are not black and wrote their findings decades before the term afro-centric was invented. There is no greater evidence of African influence than the heads themselves. Black people are very capable of identifying themselves even if other people are not. You would have as hard a time of convincing me that the Olmecs weren't black as you would in convincing me that I'm not black. If you don't know when you're looking at a black person, then you'll just have to not know. But don't expect black people to join you in not knowing. Tom 04/23/04

:Ah Tom, back again I see. Perhaps you posted the wrong URL, following it one finds not an archaeological report, produced by actual archaeologists, but just another lengthy essay from sometime-contributor here Dr Winters, which we've all been over many times before. As I'm sure you know, Dr Winters is not a million miles away from the afrocentrist camp, and I reckon that he'd readily confirm if asked that no-one in Mesoamerican studies has picked up his novel 'decipherments'. Isn't there anything ''new'' to report? One thing I might agree with you, that the heads constitute the "best evidence" for the African-origins hypothesis. If I were a supporter of that idea, I would find that extremely depressing- after all this time looking, not a single artefact or genuine remains to confirm any connection, at all; just a vague and non-unique resemblance to a cartoon-like conception of what a real African ought to look like. Given the great genetic diversity within Africa, it would be remarkable if you were unable to find at least ''some'' African population who'd resemble any given carved statue of a human face, Olmec or not. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

::The willful ignorance is amazingly palpable! The neo-liberal academic establishment and its relentless and wilfuly blind disciples have made an art out of denial. They will one day convince Africans of their non-Africaness and finally admit any shred of dignity that these people are entitled to, and turn around and tell them...'see, nothing good came out of Africa, and you're not African.' Mr. Wright, your desire to blatantly lie to yourself frightens me. Humans of your ability are capable of the most evil. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.20.195.252|76.20.195.252]] ([[User talk:76.20.195.252|talk]]) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 

:::Well, anonymous critic —or is that Tom again? Either way, I'm always more than happy for my comments here to be scrutinised by others and stand behind what they contain. That's why I sign my name to my posts; it's a pity that for whatever reason you seem not to have the same confidence to do likewise, so that an independent person might properly be able to assess where the true expression of self-deception lies.
:::Anyone is free to search through all my contributions here for comments that could vaguely be interpreted as racist, or that are disparaging of Africans and their achievements — and they will find none. Anonymous carping from the sidelines containing no actual argument or examinable piece of evidence in support contributes nothing, and means nothing, no matter how many loaded terms and empty buzzwords are squeezed into the sentence.
:::This strident repetition of ''ad hominems'' truly seems nothing more than a smokescreen, intended to mask a complete absence of any sense-making, logical or empirically sound arguments to advance. For, if you had them, why are they not being employed?
:::Or for that matter, why do you not turn your attention to documenting the authentic and actual achievements of African peoples, of which there are a great many and which are lamentably under-recorded in wikipedia to date? That would be far more constructive than this blind-alley pursuit.--[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::If my unanimity is such a downer on my argument, here I am. You smoked me out, you brave you! Bush would be mighty proud of you! My anonymous comments were a result of simply being not logged in, not something insidious as you assert. You're still willfuly ignorant at best, and virulently racist at worst. Although correct that there is not as much documentation of the African's past, there is enough to trump your ignorance, thus my assertion of your willful ignorance. Start with Bernal's '''''Black Athena''''' series. The neo-liberal academic establishment has so far refused to acknowledge (in forms of peer reviews) these works, and as such they are considered illegitimate among the believers. That's what I call, having your cake and eating it too. Furthermore, the neo-liberal academic establishment bestows the title of ''The Father of History'' on Herodotus, and call him a liar in the same breath about anything he had to say about the African, because it contradicts the inherent superiority of the Aryan. Voluminous documentation is not evidence of one's truth. So, don't piss on our collective feet and tell us it is raining. [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]]) 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

==B-class==
Why is this article not a GA? --[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde|talk]]) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:I do think that this article could be rated A or Good Article -- it might be Featured with a bit of clean-up -- but no one has bothered to take it thru the process. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think it could be GA with a quite small effort. Why not nominate it?[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·]] [[User talk:Maunus|·ƛ·]] 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Returned to post to this item after a long absence: Well, Maunus and I tried to put it thru the GA process but ended up with a lot of heat and what I considered to be unreasonable demands (including asking "when were the [[radiocarbon]] dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them, and which calibration they used". I spent considerable effort on the process and the article is only marginally better. I fear that there are better uses of my time. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

==Blatant Spam in "Overview" Section==
When did the following get added to the Article?

"...among them San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán,where they learned to teleport, La Venta, where they invented toaster strudel, Tres Zapotes, where they ate the strudel and Laguna de los Cerros, where they all ended up dying."

Very sad the disrespect shown by some. § —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jrbarnett|Jrbarnett]] ([[User talk:Jrbarnett|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jrbarnett|contribs]]) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 

:Gone now. It was a school site registered to the State of Illinois, I expect it to be blocked for a while.--[[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
::72 hour block. The problem is presumably there are good editors there as well! --[[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

==Further Debate on the African Migration Theory==
I reverted Godheval's change as it sounds like [[wp:or]]. If there's a source which supports this feel free to reinsert this, but the paragraph seems to be talking about modern (in the 1940s) Indians. I assume the paragraph was referring large [[Indigenous_peoples_in_Mexico#Demographics|Indian populations in the south]]. In the north, there are more instances of African genes mixed into the population. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:No, it is not original research, it is common sense. At the time of the Olmec, Europeans had yet to introduce enslaved Africans to the Americas. So any appearance of "Africanesque" features on the continent would not be related to this, and must therefore rely on another possibility, such as Africans of some sort making the journey on their own before that. The argument against THAT possibility, as in the article, is that MODERN Amerindians have Africanesque features, under the assumption that they've always had them. But the counter to that is that modern incarnations of African features could have come from the introduction of enslaved Africans to the continent in the 15th and 16th centuries. Therefore, just modern people in the area having African features is in no way a case against African migration in the distant past. It's plainly a weak argument. I'm putting the comments back in.[[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::You misunderstand my main point: if you don't have a [[wp:rs|reliable source]] that you are getting your information from and citing in the article, then you are inserting OR. There are sources which claim that Africans migrated to the Americas long ago, but unless you find sources which discuss this along with the Olmec heads, you are [[wp:syn|synthesizing]] the information (which is also not allowed). We have to be careful in what we place in the articles, otherwise anybody could start putting all sorts of '''opinions''' in the text. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:::And you just completely fail to acknowledge what it is that I'm saying. I AM NOT THE ONE to have put the bit about African Migration theory into the article. It was put in some time ago and has been accepted, as it is well-known idea and argument in the field. My addition was ONLY to point out the flaw in one argument against the African Migration theory. Please try to keep up. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::We're not talking about the "bit about African Migraion theory." We're talking about your "pointing out the flaw in one argument". That is all I removed and that is OR until you find a source that states that. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Please address this issue. "Material that should be removed without discussion includes ... clear examples of original research ..." Cite a source within the hour or remove it. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream", it is not the only theory, and does not explain all the features of all the populations in the Americas. My change to the article was not introducing original research, but was referring to theories already mention IN the article. My addition was merely to demonstrate the flaw in one argument against the African migration theory already mentioned. Before you revert, discuss it here. You are no authority, and are bound by the same rules as the rest of us. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 18:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have restored "mainstream" per your statement above. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:: What is mainstream? People who think one thing and publish a book about it? Or people who others just happen to notice? The way it is worded now makes it sound like all credible Mesoamerican researchers disregard all other theories of migration to the area. This is simply not true. The Bering Strait Migration theory is not necessarily at odds with other theories. If it were true that all credible researchers disregarded other theories, then you would have to cite an awful lot of people - which is why I put the "who" tag on it. So you can either keep that, or it can be changed to "some Mesoamerican researchers". You decide. For now I'm going to change it to "some". [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You can't have it both ways. You say that is the mainstream view, but you don't want the article to say this. Your version is a distortion of the academic consensus. Regardless of what you or I think the Truth might be (something I don't claim to know anyway), Wikipedia does not attempt to find the Truth. Wikipedia only reports what academic consensus states. That's the role of an encyclopedia. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::You make zero sense. PAY ATTENTION. It is you who seems to want it both ways. If you are going to use the term "mainstream", then you need to have MULTIPLE, if not MANY citations to back up that claim. That is why I used the "who?" tag at first. But rather than do that, I put "some researchers", leaving the burden of proving a "mainstream" consensus to anyone who wants to replace that term in the article. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Note that there are ZERO citations for this alleged "mainstream consensus", yet there ARE citations - as of now - for the African origin theory. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::"It is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream."" Do you recall writing this? Citations are needed when a statement is doubted. You apparently don't doubt this statement, so a citation is not required. Also, please stop YELLING. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I also put "mainstream" in quotes to signal the dubiousness of the term. I also go on to say that the Bering Strait theory is not necessarily at odds with any theory of African migration. The two are not mutually exclusive. Bering Strait purports to explain indigenous New World populations. It does not preclude a separate African migration either before or (most likely) afterwards. I apologize for "yelling", but the constant RV'ing was pissing me off. And you say "citations are needed when a statement is doubted"? Uh...citations are needed when a statement is MADE, too, last I checked. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Please check [[Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_is_needed]] again then. Also, your links such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&diff=229279583&oldid=229278974] are highly misleading. That article does not make any reference to the African migration hypothesis. Please revert it so I don't have to. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I did not link it because it mentions the African migration theory. I linked it because it refers to populations of mixed African and indigenous Mesoamerican descent. Look at the text that is linked and it starts to make sense. You know, verification of the intermixing? You really are kind of slow on the draw if I have to spell out every change I make for you.[[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

::This is an old debate, and no new argunments are presented. There is simply no way that this article is going to state anything to the effect that there were an precolumbian african presence - this belongs in the Alternative Origins Speculations article. Not in the serious article about what scholars believe about the Olmecs.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Regardless, the theories exist, and deserve mention - as they have been. This whole RV war between myself and NJGW has less to do with that, and more to do with his misunderstanding of why I added what I did. If the African migration theory is going to be mentioned, and then an argument against it is presented, a counter argument can also be made. It's that simple. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::No it is not. The page is not to be constructed as an argument but as a description of what the scientific consensus about the issue is. The scientific consensus is that the precolumbian african presence theory is a dead horse - theres no need to keep flogging it in article space. Arguments and counter argument belong in the Olme Alternative Origins Speculations article. Its that simple.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:: And yet nowhere in this article are there citations for what the "scientific consensus" even is. No one's flogging a dead horse. I am giving light to theories that exist and are as credible as any other. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is quite clear on what scientific consensus is.So please go give light elsewhere, there is lots of free publishing space. This is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of novel theories. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:And I suppose an encyclopedia is the end-all on what is factual and what is theoretical? That even published encyclopedias only state facts and never theories? What world do you live in where that's true? There is nothing wrong with incorporating valid theories along with the facts. And if the scientific consensus on this particular issue is clearly stated in the article, I certainly cannot find it. Care to point it out for me? You are quite arrogant to think that you can just come in here and change other people's edits with no authority on the subject, especially when those others have provided back-up for their edits. Get over yourself, son. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::There are specific rules about what [[WP:NOT|wikipedia is and isn't]] you are violating about three of them. This article is a colaboration between many previous editors who all have expertise on the subject. We have discussed the african presence theory MANY times and the way it is presented is a result of a consensus of multiple editors - you are the arrogant one waltzing in and trying to revolutionize the view of a field about which obviously have little to no appreciation. Just like you apparently have little or no appreciation for Wkipedias rules or processes. The only thing you will achieve with this kind of agressive POV pushing is a block. My advice is that you read the old discussions VERY thoroughly- and if you have something new to add to those discussions which seems highly unlikely judging from what you have already added then you put it here on the discussion page and IF the consensus of editors agrees that it is important enough to be included then we include it. Not before.
::: I've read the discussions. It's funny how short your memory is, because if you think back, you'd recall us - I mean YOU and I personally - having an argument on this subject before. At the time I just gave up, because I didn't have sources, and didn't care enough to look into them. Imagine my pleasant surprise to find SOME mention of the African origin theory. However, following that bit was an apparent argument against the theory as supported by some random artist's work. My addition was merely to point out the flaw in that argument. Arrogant would've been to delete it altogether, since it is a completely spurious argument. Also, I added one needed citation to support the African origin theory. There is nothing out of order about my addition, and nothing contradictory to wikipedia guidelines, or to the consensus. Do try to read things carefully. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::I am sorry if I hurt your feelings by not remembering its just that I can't really distinguish one POV pusher from the next one.If you find a published source that points out the flaw in the argument then you csn put it in [[Olmec Alternative Origins Speculations]] - not here. If you don't find a published source making this objection then it is indeed Original Research and a violation of policy. Consensus among the editors of this page up to now is that in this article we don't present arguments for or against the African Precolumbian Presence theory, but only what is the current academic consensus: namely that "They Were Not Here Before Columbus" - speculations and arguments go in the other article.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 20:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: You overestimate your importance. But anyway, see below for the answer to this. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

* Saying that "mainstream Mesoamerican scholars now reject this view" is entirely correct. (For that matter I don't know that the word "now" is needed, as it seems to imply there was a time when the situation was otherwise.) Alternative explanations that have become well known in pop culture, even if widely or even universally rejected by scholars, merit mention in the article, but it is dishonest to try to twist wording to suggest that there are only "some" who do not accept them. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] ([[User talk:Infrogmation|talk]]) 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::I patiently await the source for "It should be noted that this view seems to discount the [[Atlantic slave trade|introduction of enslaved Africans]] to the Americas by [[Conquistador|European conquerors]]. Such would explain [[Afro-Latin American|modern manifestations]] of African features in all New World populations, as the transplants intermixed with the native populations, but fails to explain the existence of those same features in the distant past. This discrepancy allows the African migration theory to retain credence." [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: I explained this already. A few times, even. Much like it is taken for granted that the "consensus" goes against the African Origin theory, the "consensus" also states that there was such a thing as the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and that there were instances of intermixing between those transplanted peoples and the native populations. Therefore, to say that the manifestation of African features in modern populations somehow debunks the idea of the African Origin theory of the Olmecs is completely spurious. Are you really not understanding this? [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Source or go home. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, sources please. And make them exceptionally good. Anyway the "indians do/don't look african argument" isn't even supposed to be in this article. It is suppoed to be in the other one. The only thing this article is supposed to say is that the theory is rejected by the scientific community and that no precolumbian african presence has ever been documented in the americas. I don't know where the covarrubias argument which was grantedly weak (since there are so many so much better arguments against it) even came from it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Then delete the argument supported by Miguel Corrubias or whatever tf his name is, and then I have nothing to argue against. I do not NEED a source for the fact that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade occurred, nor do I need a source for the fact that many of those enslaved Africans intermingled with native populations. These things are established historical facts. The SOURCES are in the text itself - which point to the slave trade article and an article on people who are evidence of the aforementioned intermingling. The SOURCES are also in the MAINSTREAM historical record. That being the case, following plain logic, the argument that MODERN manifestations of African features disproves ANY theory of ancient manifestations is completely fallacious. So either remove it, or allow it to be acknowledged that the argument is spurious. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Source that makes the same statement you do in it's entirety or go home. I'm sure we can find better arguments than Covarrubias' but that's so far besides the point that I'm yawning. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Civility works both ways. I just asked Godheval to tone things down ''at your request'', don't you start too. May I suggest to everyone that perhaps dropping this for now, and restarting the discussion in the morning after a nice cup of tea, might be best for all involved? The article will still be here in the morning. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Hm, I didn't realize that wikipedia was composed entirely of verbatim quotes from sources. I always thought that people put things in their own words and then supported them with evidence. You know why I thought that? Because that's what people do. That's also what I did. There is no mental leap required to understand or accept my statements. My statements are a logical procession from the historical record. Let me put it simply for you. Argument: Olmec heads having so-called African features + Modern Mesoamericans having African features = Mesoamericans have always had African features. Flaw 1: Some modern Mesoamericans ARE of African descent, which would explain their features. There is no necessary correlation between their features and any theory on Olmec origin. Who's to even say that they are RELATED to the Olmecs at all? Why is this hard to understand? My next move is to just remove the argument, since it is so obviously flawed, rather than to muddle up the article with a counter-argument. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I'm not here to judge the cited content. I first got to this article following a vandal and kept it watched because it seemed no other eyes were regular visitors. You came in and inserted what appeared to be OR, I asked for a source, you refused to give one. Now we are still waiting for a source. If there are issues with the article's content, I'll let folks more versed with the sources sort it out. This does not give you free license to include your [[wp:syn|evaluations of the facts]]. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:I would support the removale of the argument although for different reasons.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 21:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
: I'm not "evaluating" any facts. First of all, there are virtually no facts when it comes to the Olmec, just varying theories, with a consensus being based on the views of a sizable majority. That consensus does NOT argue against the African origin theory by saying something idiotic like "Modern manifestations of African features in Mesoamerican populations proves that they've always had these features". I'm not even arguing for or against the theory, but against the sheer idiocy of the argument supported by that one artist. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 21:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::This is getting very silly. You can't include your personal speculations for reasons that have already been explained. However, your arguments are irrelevant. There re many isolated tribes that have had abolutely no contact with African immigrants, and which have been photographed for over a century. These features are to be found in them. Features such as wide noses are an evolutionary adaptation determined by climate. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Great! I accept what you say, but the argument in place does NOT mention these facts. My only contention was with the argument that African features in modern Mesoamericans somehow debunks the African Origin theory. It's not so much support for the AOT as it is pointing out how silly that argument is. So if we remove the completely asinine argument, then I'll have nothing to say. Good day! [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm just going to leave it as this: I think the African migration debate deserves a ''mention'' here (with a link to [[models of migration to the New World]] and a statement making clear that this is not a mainstream hypothesis), and some rebuttal wouldn't hurt. A rebuttal to the rebuttal would violate [[wp:undue]] however, as well as the MOS which states debates are not to be given in a back and forth manner. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit:
The flat-faced, thick-lipped characteristics of the heads have caused some to suggest a resemblance to [[Africa]]n facial characteristics. Based on this comparison, Wiercinski argued in 1972 that the Olmecs were Africans who had emigrated to the New World.<ref>Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.</ref> However, this hypothesis is not among [[models of migration to the New World|mainstream models of migration to Mesoamerica]], and scholars offer other possible explanations for the facial features of the colossal heads,<ref name=Haslip-viera1997>{{citation
| author = Haslip-viera, G.; De Montellano, B. O.; Barbour, W.
| year = 1997
| title = Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs
| journal = Current Anthropology
| volume = 38
| issue = 3
| pages = 419–441
| doi = 10.1086/204626
| url = http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/204626
}}</ref> for example, that the heads were carved in this manner due to the shallow space allowed on the basalt boulders. Others note that Olmec art has no relation to African art.<ref name=Hendon2004>{{Citation
| author = Hendon, J. A.; Joyce, R. A.
| title = Mesoamerican Archaeology
| year = 2004
| page = 75
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=gdbR1MdK5gwC&printsec=frontcover&lr=#PPA75,M1
| publisher = Wiley
}}</ref>

:I was under the impression that the pre-Columbian African presence was considered a fringe theory and that fring theories do not belong in a general article. [[User:Kman543210|Kman543210]] ([[User talk:Kman543210|talk]]) 00:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think the present wording needs fixing or expansion. It explicitly mentions the Africa theory, among others. The African and Chinese and other origin speculations are covered in detail at [[Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations]], to which the reader can jump. As stated by Kman above, "pre-Columbian African presence" is a fringe theory and does not belong in a general article per [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. If anyone feels coverage is lacking, they are welcome, and encouraged, to add sourced material discussing "pre-Columbian African presence" at [[Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations]]. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
==weight estimate correction==

I have added a higher weight estimate based on the volume and the density of the Rancho Cobata. Volcanic Basalt is a vey low density stone but not as light as the existing estimate. I have also added distances that they were transported based on the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. This book estimated the stones upto 50 tonnes but I assume he didn't know how low the density of volcanic basalt is. The following site provided the density of basalt:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5461391
"samples over a density range of 1.45 to 2.03 g/cm"
I translated that into 1.9 tons per cubic meter.
Feel free to check it. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:According to a [[WP:NOR|rule of Wikipedia]], we really shouldn't be running our own calculations, particularly something with as much room for error as a colossal head. I mean, how in the world do we estimate its volume -- is it a cube or a sphere?? Sorry, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have seen at least 4 or 5 different estimates for these heads which is why I checked the math. As I said I could cite the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. They estimate it at over 50 tons. It is possible that it is a high density Basalt. The 20 ton estimate is clearly low. Would it be OK to cite both sources and provide a range? Thanks [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 06:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Why, yes, citing two sources would be perfectly fine. It's something I do a lot, particularly since there is often disagreement even among experts. Two estimates can give our readers a nice range and let them also know that there is no one "answer".
:On the other hand, I'm not sure that it makes much difference to our readers whether the weight is 20 tons or 50 tons. To me, both those numbers fall within the "too large to imagine" category. :) Thanks for your work, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at that source and the way it was worded again. It actualy said aproaching 50 tons not over and it discussed Basalt as well as a few other things. I'll try it again with a closer watch on the details. Experiments have sucessfuly moved at least 10 tons and at least shift larger stones. If you think that is to large to imagine take a look at Baalbek. I checked the math on that as well and disputed it in the other direction. That has almost certainly been exagerated. When there is a simple math mistake is there a source that you know of that would fact check it if I find additional mistakes. Or I should say when since there are many that I have seen already. Including many much easier to calculate than the Olmec heads.

Thanks
[[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:As far as reliable sources for weight estimations go, I would think that [[INAH]] could be regarded as authorative. Not least, because they have practical experience in actually shifting the things about the archaeological sites and onto plinths etc for display in the site museums ... ;-)

:The 17 colossal heads vary considerably in size—from abt 1.5 to 3.5 m tall—and hence weight. For eg, the one most recently found (in 1994) came in at 1.8m tall, and 8 tonnes.[http://dti.inah.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1089&Itemid=150]. INAH gives the smallest as weighing abt 6t, up to the largest at abt 50t.[http://www.inah.gob.mx/ZonasArqueologicas/todas/htme/za02503b.html] Hence it would be entirely appte to give a range, since they do in fact vary. Or to put it another way, need to be mindful that there are two reasons for any variance in weight figures - one because the masses of the monuments actually varies by up to an order of magnitude, and two because different sources may use different methods to obtain the weight for any given piece. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 01:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that agrees with the source I cited. a Spanish reference might be helpful to some but er I'm to lazy to learn new languages. Seventy wonders included one that was 4.8 tonnes but the highest one was also 50 tonnes.
[[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:Zacherystaylor, when you add a citation to an existing article, please use the same format as the rest of the article. In this case, you stuck the name of the book in the citation itself, whereas the article was using [[WP:SHORT|shortened notes]], where the citation just refers to the author and the page number (we could also use the page number on your recent adds). Nothing major, but it helps keep Wikipedia looking good, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Added page # and looked at changes you made will copy in future. thanks. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== Removed genetic study ref ==

I removed the following reference to a paper on a HLA gene study, published in ''Tissue Antigens'' journal:
*{{aut|Arnaiz-Villena A, Vargas-Alarcon G, Granados J, Gomez-Casado E, Longas J, Gonzales-Hevilla M, Zuniga J, Salgado N, Hernandez-Pacheco G, Guillen J, Martinez-Laso J.;}} ''[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11144288 HLA genes in Mexican Mazatecans, the peopling of the Americas and the uniqueness of Amerindians.]'' - Bibliographic entry in [[PubMed]].
Firstly, because it does not seem to be used anywhere. Secondly, going only by the abstract on PubMed, I don't think it can be reliably used to demonstrate anything substantial about the preclassic Olmec. AFAIK the paper's authors are Spanish immunologists and geneticists, not Mesoamerican scholars. The paper seems to presume that the modern [[Mazatec]] are Olmec descendants, which while an option is certainly not something Mesoamericanists would be confident of. Or to put it another way, while the study may have something to say about modern indigenous populations, equating "Mazatec" with "Olmec" is not something I've seen well supported in Mesoamericanist literature. One of the paper's main conclusions, namely: "An indirect evidence of Olmec and Mayan relatedness is suggested, further supporting the notion that Olmecs may have been the precursors of Mayans", is an inference that would need qualifications and runs counter to the archaeological evidence.

Maybe if the reference was to be used somewhere, or the full paper obtained, then we could look at rationale for including it. It would be interesting also to see if the paper had been commented upon by any archaeologist, ethnohistorian or linguist.--[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 07:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Notes on recent <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> additions ==

Wandalstouring, I note your recent addition of 46 (count 'em) <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags. I will be looking thru them over the next couple of days. Many of them are fair questions. Some of the ones that appear directly after an existing citation are puzzling but will be thoroughly reviewed.

Some however seem to be a bit outside the scope of this Wikipedia overview article (vs., say, a doctoral thesis). For example:
:*"Please provide in a note complete argumentation why there were rulers (no republic?) full-time priests and shamans (and please tell what's the difference between a priest and a shaman)."
:*"Use a note to provide the argumentation for the centralization theory. Could have other reasons regarding only architecture and sculpture."
:*"Are there more scholars supporting this view? How do you know about the political mechanism from architecture and art? Please provide argumentation"

:*"Please provide arguments why this [ [[slash and burn]] agriculture ] was practised."
:*"When were these [radiocarbon] dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use? "
At 62 Kb, this article is pretty full up and many of these requests for argumentation would either be more appropriate for a sub-article or, in some cases, would be classified as [[WP:OR|original research]]. These overview articles are an attempt to incorporate and inter-relate facts from various sources to paint a broad picture of the subject matter (in this case, of course, the Olmec civilization). In the cases cited above, I believe is it best to provide the facts along with a proper citation and not discuss, for example, the radiocarbon calibration methodology or how archaeologists measure centralization. These are topics for other specialized articles.

Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:I just completed a review of some of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> labels. I provided many citations. I also wanted to comment on the following:

::*<nowiki><ref>Pool, pp. 26-27, provides a great overview of this theory, and says: "The generation of food surpluses is necessary for the development of social and political hierarchies and there is no doubt that high agricultural productivity, combined with the natural abundance of aquatic foods in the Gulf lowlands suppported their growth".</ref> {{fact}} "</nowiki>
:::I want to stay on topic here and not get involved in a discussion of theories of complex society formation. Pool is eminent and his comments are right on target so let's leave it at that.

::*"Much Olmec art is highly stylized and uses an iconography reflective of a religious meaning."{{fact}} !--who says that and what are the arguments?--!
:::Citation provided. Again, I don't think it would benefit us to try to determine why Coe and others believe this. This would be a topic for another article.

::*[Referring to Long Count calendar dates and various stelae with these dates.] {{fact}} !--Who has published this artifact and says that this symbol is on it and has this meaning.--
:::The early stelae containing Long Count dates are completely non-controversial. This is not the article to discuss how archaeologists determined that the shell glyph was zero or how to read Long Count dates. The wikilinks can lead the reader to articles that more fully explain this.

::*"It has been estimated that moving a colossal head required the efforts of 1,500 people for three to four months.<nowiki><ref>Pool, p. 103.</ref>" {{fact}} </nowiki>
:::It's not a theory, but rather an eminent archaeolgist's estimate and the citation was already provided. This sentence provides context for the size and effort and ultimately worth of these heads and gives the reader something they can relate to. I can't see the need for more than that. Again, this is a survey article.

::*"<nowiki>Nonetheless, Olmec society is thought to lack many of the institutions of later civilizations, such as a standing army or priestly caste.<ref>Serra Puche et al., p. 36.</ref>{{fact}}</nowiki>
:::I'm confused since this sentence is already cited, so we know "who supports this view". Regarding the "why", I'm not sure that this survey article shuld be going into this detail.

:Maunus also correctly removed a tag since the citations were already provided and discussed in the article, and I removed the 4 tags detailed in my earlier post in this section for the reasons given (i.e. this is an overview article).

:Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::*This theory that there were shamans AND full-time priests reads like nonsense regarding the archaeological evidence. Such an extraordinary claim must be provided with very good arguments when you mention it. i know American archaeology makes lots of claims that are fringe opinions in European archaeology, so see this as enabling a discussion with sources.

::*Again a claim that can be fringe opinion and is hard to believe and that for this reason needs some more backup.

::*Again a claim that is hard to believe and can be an overrepresentation of a very fringe opinion.

::*There are clear indicators for slash and burn techniques. If you point out in a footnote that they have been found everything is OK.

::All in all, it needs more footnotes with short explanations. I know this is difficult, but you're making a fool of the reader if you present him the results of archaeological research as facts. They are opinions and you have to understand them like they are wrong. That's the basic lesson for every first semester in archaeology. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::*Radiocarbon dates can be calibrated or uncalibrated. And there are several different calibration curves, almost each laboratory having its own. So it's very important to know because uncalibrated samples for example tend to be "older" than calibrated. In this case it can be a margin of 100 years difference. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It is important to specialist readers who can go get the sources themselves. It is not important to the general reader of an encyclopedia. Anyway an error margin of +/- 100 years is very little in relation to a field that has so many questions and so little knowledge as the Olmec area does. I wouldn't even imagine that Diehl or Pool supplies the information of which calibration was used in their non-specialist writings. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I completely agree with Maunus. I looked up my source last night, and it was [[Michael Coe]] who said that the radiocarbon dating had proved that the Olmec pre-dated the Maya. Did he go into detail? Of course not. He listed the dates found (something like 1150 - 450 BCE frm La Venta) but he certainly doesn't say "When these [radiocarbon] dates were taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use". So, should I not use Coe's assertion because he doesn't back it up? That would be totally ludicrous. "Mr. Coe, I'm sorry, you don't provide enough detail so until you do, we just can't use your information".
:::::Alas, there are many more citation requests like this. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::OK, lets put this to rest once and for all. Yes, an archaeologist needs to know if the radiocarbon date is calibrated or uncalibrated, and if calibrated, to what standard correction curve, but the dates are probability distributions within a range (usually to 2 standard deviations) not points in time, and should be reported that way. And yes, for certain points in calibration correction curves, the calibrated versus uncalibrated date-range can differ by hundreds of years. A wikipedia article on an archaeological topic, except one on radiocarbon, does not need to mention this. The question the wikipedia article is asking is, what is the generally accepted dating of Olmec, and the article correctly reports that. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Ethnicity and language tag===
I added ". . . and language. . ." to the first sentence of this section and I again removed its fact tag. The language matter is discussed at length in the rest of the section and the two main theories (Maya and Mixe-Zoquean) are laid out with proper citations. 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]])

:Still it is not sourced that there are multiple theories about the ethnicity. It is sourced that there are theories about their native tongue. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::[[User:Maunus]] changed "ethnicity and language" to "ethno-linguistic affiliation", which I think covers the matter. If not, perhaps we should remove the word "ethnic", although it is my understanding that ethnicity and language were closely related or identical at this time. Maunus?? [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 22:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Just take a look at native speakers of English and you will realize that there can be a heck of a difference. Remove ethnic because the only thing about ethnic is a fringe opinion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No it isn't, none of those studies cited are fringe. Coe is not fringe he was just probably wrong, because he was writing at an early date. Using ethnicity and linguistic affiliation near-synonymously is completely standard practice. A Maya community is a community in which the (main)language used is of the mayan family. You are picking nits that no scholar in the field would even care about. In short you can't expect this article to make distinctions that aren't made in the studies of the topic. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Then please write that the scholar thinks he is talking about ethnicity when he refers to language. In other fields of archaeology you can't seriously publish such an opinion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 06:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::It is not "a scholar" it is an entire academic field of Mesoamericanists. Apart from that I believe you are wrong in your strong assertions about how other fields of archaeology refer to ethnic and linguistic bpoundaries in the remote past.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Language is not the same thing as ethnicity for most contemporary, theoretically-informed archaeology, but its also true that many Mesoamerican archaeologists equate the two. Since its the prevailing standard in the subdiscipline, it has to be acceptable for the article, since to require otherwise would force them to essentially forge a new, unsourced literature for Mesoamerica. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Withdraw Good Article nomination===
I have no more time to work on the Good Article nomination, so I have withdrawn it from the nomination process. Maybe later. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Take your time to work on the article. It has potential, but archaeology isn't as easy as it looks. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::We are not doing archaeology here. The article is supposed to convey to the reader the current status of the Olmec research not pose critical viewpoints on or evaluate that research. An encyclopedic article isn't a scholarly paper and one cannot expect it to have the same standard of argumentation as if it were. It is enough to merely report what others have written of course by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 05:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, I know we aren't allowed to evaluate or criticize. However, you have to understand how an archaeologist came to his conclusion. The "how" is the most important thing and your writing has to reflect why they think this and that. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::No, it doesn't. It is enough to know that an archaeologist wrote the book and then cite his conclusions. Archaeologists writing for general audiences for example when writing for encyclopedias do not go into details about calibrations or ceramic typologies etc. but just gives the conclusions. We can only give the "how" if the source states it specifically and often in non-specialist literature (as for example textbooks) the writer only gives a general idea of the how and doesn't go into the archaeological details. Readers with special knowledge can go to the original sources if they want that. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Completely agree. In several cases, we're being asked to work to a higher standard than Diehl or Pool (again, authors of the two most recent general Olmec books). Too many of the requests above asked that we somehow determine how a scholar arrived at his opinion. Unless the scholar says this (and many don't - see my note about Coe & radiocarbon dates above) we just don't know. An encyclopedia overview article like this should provide information to a '''''general''''' audience. To quote Maunus "It is enough to merely report what others have written . . . by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other." [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, an error margin of 100 years means a lot. That's possibly an archaeologists talking with non-archaeologists. Try Renfrew, '''Archaeology''' for a start on methods. Sorry, I'm usually not the hardest reviewer, but you throroughly mispresent things. I will put an expert needed template on it and see if I can fetch any to help you. I'm too busy myself with several articles and reviews, so I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Of course it would be nice to know the error margin but you are asking about information that isn't in the sources! How can anyone be expected to comply with such a request? I read Renfrews Archaeology ten years ago, at introductory coursr to archaeology, thank you very much, and it is still on my shelf. But this isn't an article about archaeology it is about an historical civilization - archaeological details are not crucial here - what is at issue is whether the article represent the published sources and the scientific consensus, and whether it meets the GA criteria, which I am certain that it does.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Oh and we have two or three resident archaeology proffesors specialising in Mesoamerica that may be able to help us. [[User:Hoopes]], [[User:MESmith]] and [[User:Chunchucmil]]. I suggest we make a call for experts on the Aztlan list as well.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::The statement "I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you" is extremely offensive.
:::::::Even worse, you are missing the point. We are writing an encyclopedia article using Wikipedia principles (which include [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|"verifiability, not truth"]]). We are relying on published and in general tertiary sources, in particular Coe and Diehl and Pool, all of whom are professors of archaeology and without a doubt some of the most pre-eminent authorities on the Olmec. As encyclopedia editors, we ourselves cannot second-guess these academics, attempt to divine how they arrived at their decisions/propositions/opinions/estimates, or otherwise declare that these fellows aren't good enough. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(remove indent) Well a lot has happened since I left these shores. I respect the decision made to remove the nomination, but feel that the reasons were not totally correct. I agree you cannot reference a reference (but a featured article was failed because museums of international status has not referenced their statements - at which point do we arrive at the OR (original reference). This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, giving them the opportunity to research further into any given subject; but being wikipedia all editors have the right to express the direction that they wish to see the article go. Now off to retrain the reprobate archaeologists I spend my days with. Oh Joy! I will close the GA discussion down, but not as a fail obviously as it was withdrawn. Hope to meet you all again at some point. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

==Removed compass section==
I removed the following section from the article:

:Based on his find of an Olmec [[hematite]] artifact in [[Veracruz]], the American astronomer John Carlson has suggested that "the Olmec may have discovered and used the geomagnetic lodestone compass earlier than 1000 BC". If true, this "predates the Chinese discovery of the geomagnetic lodestone compass by more than a millennium".<ref name="John B. Carlson 753">John B. Carlson, “Lodestone Compass: Chinese or Olmec Primacy? Multidisciplinary Analysis of an Olmec Hematite Artifact from San Lorenzo, Veracruz, Mexico”, ''Science'', New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4205 (Sep. 5, 1975), pp. 753-760 (753)</ref> Carlson speculates that the Olmecs may have used similar artifacts as a directional device for astrological or [[geomancy|geomantic]] purposes, or to orientate their temples, the dwellings of the living or the interments of the dead.

:The artifact itself is part of a [[lodestone]] that had been polished into a bar with a groove at one end (that Carlson suggests may have been used for sighting). The artifact now consistently points 35.5 degrees west of north, but may have pointed north-south when whole. It is possible that the artifact was in fact used as some constituent piece of a decorative ornament.<ref>{{cite book|last=Needham|first=Joseph |coauthors=Lu Gwei-Djen|title=Trans-Pacific Echoes and Resonances: Listening Once Again |publisher=World Scientific |date=1985 |pages=21}}</ref> No other similar [[hematite]] artifacts have yet been found.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and this particular 2-paragraph section has been, in my opinion, [[WP:UNDUE|unduly highlighted]]. The only paper written on this discovery is the cited paper by Carlson -- which is now over 30 years old -- and the matter is not even mentioned in Pool or Diehl, the two most recent general Olmec books. To compensate, however, I did slip in a cited mention of the compass in the general summary under '''Notable innovations'''.

Hope this works for you all, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, because one find is no find. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Removed Mokaya section ==

I removed the following recently added paragraph:

:The Olmec culture's roots are thought to lie in the [[Mokaya]] culture of [[Soconusco]] in Pacific [[Chiapas]] and [[Guatemala]]. Here, basic elements include the earliest ceramics, ballcourt, elevated house platforms, and pyramidal mounds.

This is not the consensus or mainstream viewpoint, as I understand it, but rather the theory promoted primarily by John Clark. Others argue for Guerrero, Oaxaca, or Morelos. Pool, p. 18, says that "there is little doubt that the emergence of Olmec culture was primarily a local phenomenon." We can add a paragraph that discusses all these theories, but an unreferenced paragraph devoted solely to a Mokaya origin would promote a narrow viewpoint. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:Use {{tl|cref}} and discuss it in a footnote. You can say in the article that their origin remains disputed. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I think mention of Mokaya is useful in this article nonetheless, & its omission was a good catch by Hoopes. Article would benefit from some some summary/review of early-Formative Mesoamerican cultures in general, to place the Olmec into chronological/crosscultural context. As the general perception that the Olmec were 'first' is a common one, I think we need to address this and remind the reader that both on the Soconusco and in Lower Central America there were hierarchical and monument-building culture-complexes alongside or even predating the Gulf Coast Olmec expansion, and it's not that straightforward. The relationship between Mokaya & Olmec can be qualified, since as you note Madman there have been different proposals put forward. AFIAK there are other researchers besides Clark & Hoopes who propose Soconusco->Gulf Coast influences, and it bears mentioning along with other contemporary ideas on whether or not the Gulf Coast Olmec had beginnings or influences from elsewhere. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==GA1 discussion (transcluded)==
{{Talk:Olmec/GA1}}

== Expert?! ==

I'm puzzled by the call for an "expert" on this article. As an archaeologist who has worked on the early formative away from the Olmec heartland, I think its actually pretty good. I could fault it for a subtle bias to the "mother culture" side of things, but non-specialists won't be interested in that argument being played out on these pages. There's not a lot here to argue with.

I don't see the 46 citation needed tags that Madman reports (so point me to them if they exist), only 5 or so, in almost every case I think the phrase is overreaching and should be removed, rather that footnoted. I'm more than willing to work on the references and editing what's there in the few free moments I get in a day.

There's no need for the "Expert" tag. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I wondered about that myself. If an expert is needed why weren't more details provided about what is wrong? an expert tag might be a good idea with details but arbritary request seems silly. Furthermore it seems like it should be put in the discussion page first unless it is extreme. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with both your assessments, and so I took the liberty of removing the tag.
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&oldid=241845103 Here], Russ, is the version of the article from last Monday with the 46 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags added by Wandalstouring. I have subsequently dug up a number of citations and otherwise, with a bit of help from Maunus, reduced the number to a mere 2. These last two tags tag generalized descriptive sentences that, as you note Russ, could safely be removed. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Thanks Macman2001, for pointing me to the old rev. While wikipedia is never going to be "scholarly" this demand by many editors that every sentence, instead of every group of related concepts, be footnoted,is what keeps many scholars I know from contributing. I don't interpret the demands for GA and sourcing the way these people do. It makes the articles unreadable. I suggest simply pruning the sentences that currently lack attribution to improve the article. If they're important, they can be added back, with attribution, when adequately sourced. For now, all the article needs is tweaking of the grammar. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree, plenty of experts have been involved already, I only left the tag in place as a courtesy to [[User:Wandalstouring]] who put it there.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Would you publish that in an archaeological magazine? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 09:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I am not sure I understand what/whom the question is directed at. If you mean whether the article would be publishable in an archaeological magazine then that is the wrong question. The right question is if it would qualify for GA status according to the GA criterias of wikipedia.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: I agree with Maunus here. That's not the criteria for GA status. However, to answer your question, no I wouldn't publish it in say Archaeology. Its unreadable, in large part because of your insistence on sentence by sentence footnotes, and its written at a somewhat higher intellectual level than a general public piece. It reflects some scholarly bias, but magazine articles often oversimplify issues to make them more readable and tell a compelling, if often not entirely technically correct, story. See any story in Scientific American or New Scientist for example. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::So you agree that it doesn't reflect state of the art science and contains errors and oversimplifications. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 08:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Errors - No, at least not major ones...oversimplifications - yes, and so does any Wikipedia article about a non-trivial subject. You seem to think this is supposed to be a scholarly article; its not. Its supposed to be something accessible to a general audience and suggest further reading if they're interested. As such its going to have to simplify and avoid "hedging" phrases to tell a coherent, compelling story, which is, after all the goal here. Writing a Wikipedia article is a process of compromises on both content and language. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Deep Breath GA Renomination! ==

Dear Editors, I brought up the journey this particular review has taken, [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_withdrawn_Olmec]], and raised my concerns with the second reviewer [[User_talk:Wandalstouring#Olmec_second_reviewer]]. I would like to ask you all to reconsider the GA withdrawal and re-instate the nomination. This does not mean I will do the review on my own, in fact I may specifically ask for another reviewer to bring new thoughts to the process. It also does not mean that I disagree with all the second reviewer brought to your attention. IMHO GAs are not assisted by 46 or how ever many fact tags. A GA is a journey with company. Your thoughts please - there will be work ahead for all. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the offer, Mr. P. After finally just now closing out the last of the 46 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags, I find that I myself no longer have the time (or at present the patience) to devote to trying to get this thru Good Article. This last go-round with Wandalstouring has soured me on the whole GA process: there seems to be a great deal of downside - nasty discussions, complaining, twisting prose into knots to satisfy a random person's viewpoint - and there is no upside that I can see. I'm not complaining about you, Edmund -- I thought our journey was going along well and we were nearing the end of the road. But I myself don't have the energy to go through this a third time with a third person. Sorry, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 14:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===References===
References do not meet the standards of a GA article, especially if there's any hope to make it an FA. Citations should meet [[WP:CITET]] standards at a minimum. Harvard citations would be perfect for the type of references used in this article, and are fairly easy to use. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Could you give an example of what is wrong with the reference standard? That would make it easier to improve.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::At some point in the review I was going to direct you to (for example) [[Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany]] as one way of improving the references and layout. It is though only one way.[[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 11:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It would be more helpful to know what you think is the problem with the references, instead of just knowing that there are other referecing systems that you like better. Apart form the reference system not being fully consistent I don't se the general reference problem with the article.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(remove indent) Apologies, one major difference I was lazily trying to point out is the the "reference in the article" is linked to "author / page number" in notes which is itself linked to the book information listed in the reference section. The references at this moment are not Harvard citations. These are fairly easy to use once one has set up and linked the Bibliography. An easier article (me being lazy again!) to drop into could be [[Bury St. Edmunds witch trials]] which if you edit the page shows a short linked word with page number(ref) leading to notes (which show the ref as per normal) to the Bibliography. I hope this is a bit clearer. Thanks. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The GA criteria does not require anything of the reference system other than a use of inline citations in accordance with [[WP:CITE]]. Citations in footnotes and/or shortened footnotes are acceptable according to that policy.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do like the linking capability you show, Edmund, although it seem to would require rewriting each citation and footnote. In any case, the present reference style, termed [[WP:SHORT|shortened notes]], is a standard and acceptable Wikipedia style and is the ''de facto'' standard for [[WP:MESO|Mesoamerican]] articles. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It doesn't take that much work. And yes GA standards are a bit low. If you want this to ever be an FA, then fixed the references. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If we ever do decide to take the article to FA then we will of course make sure the article suits those criteria. What Madman and I have been objecting to for awhile is that the article entered to be reviewed as a GA and that it has been judged all along by a whole bunch of other criteria than the GA ones.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

==Recent edit==
This edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&curid=77260&diff=243127750&oldid=243107533] by [[User:orangemarlin]] I think is problematic. I think the insistence on a more academic language here obscures the point, namely that we don't know whether the Olmecs was one coherent ethnically monolithic culture or a conglomerate of ethnic groups that shared a basic material culture. I put it here in stead of reverting because my opinion may not be shared by others. Maybe we can reach a better wording together?[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I agree completely. I think it obscures the message. This is not to say that the earlier language was perfect, only better. I will revert. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I concur, although its still awkward. Maybe I'll take a crack at it later. That one sentence gets to the heart of What is Olmec, what are we documenting here? [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::You guys might tolerate poor writing, but I don't. Academic language? WTF? Don't revert again. Discuss it. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, lets discuss. What was there was awkward and did need to be rewritten. What you replaced it with is equally flawed as far as I'm concerned. I don't think either belongs in the article for the following reasons:

:::* both are weak ways to end the article lead.
:::* both are contradicted, in whole or part, by the article content itself, where archaeologists are clearly shown to speculate about the ethnicity, political organization, and language of the Olmec, however ill-founded one may believe the arguments.

:::So I would propose that neither text be incorporated into the article, and that the lead section terminate with the last section of the preceding paragraph. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::That's fine, Russ. I don't think that the paragraph is necessarily contradicted by the article, since the paragraph uses the qualifier "with certainty", and I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty. In any case, I've removed it. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::So, you guys think that you are smarter than me? More knowledgeable? What is it? I disagree, so YOUR decision is to just delete it? Oh well, probably not the worst thing done here.[[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::OrangeMarlin, you should focus on the article instead of personalities. A decision to remove your prose is not an attack on your knowledge or personality, tempting as that might be. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Actually I think it is an important point that so much of what is believed about the Olmec rests on guesswork (qualified guesswork of course but still...). Especially because the layreader would tend to believe that being Olmec is a sort of ancient nationality with an Olmec empire, language and cuisine etc. if we don't specifically state that we have no idea to what degree the "archaeological Olmecs" formed a coherent culture. I think probably Rsheptak would be the right one to phrase it better. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::This was my concern above -- that "I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty." Before something similar was written for the [[Mesoamerican ballgame]] lead, visitors to the article would post "what are the rules?" questions on the Talk page. Russ, what do you say? [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 11:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::As humans we're fond of just-so stories, and archaeology is all about story telling with things. I think putting it there makes the lead weak, but could see including it elsewhere in the article and would take suggestions for another place it might fit. I can try to add something by thursday. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 23:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Olmecs

2008-12-16T04:34:31Z

Peelinglayers: /* Olmec black history */

{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WP Mesoamerica |nested=yes |class=B |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Mexico |nested=yes |class=B}}
}}

{{WPCD}}
{{FAOL|French|fr:Art olmèque}}

{{Archive box
|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1 (May 2005 to 2007)]]
[[/GA1|Olmec Good Article nomination #1]]
}}

== Olmec black history ==

Should be mentioned. Even though many whites oppose this idea, it is worth maerit and has some evidence which should be permited in the article as at the very least as an alternate theory. I'm going to add a bit about it—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Qtang|Qtang]] ([[User talk:Qtang|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Qtang|contribs]]){{#if:13 March 2007| 13 March 2007|}}.
:Reference to the "out of Africa" theory is made in the '''Alternative origin speculations''' section in this article and in a separate article entitled [[Olmec alternative origin speculations]]. You are welcome to add ''referenced'' information to that article. Unreferenced material will be deleted. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:"''Even though many whites oppose this idea...''" What kind of crap is this? Which "whites" oppose the idea? And who do you define as "white" anyway? Listen, whoever you are, in future keep your stupid racist comments to yourself. --[[User:Jquarry|Jquarry]] 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I am not white and i oposse that idea
Mexxxicano 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Olmecs weren't Black Africans; they were Australoid (the same race as the [[Australian Aborigines]] and [[Melanesians]]. [[User:Arnie Gov|Arnie Gov]] 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:It doesn't matter where black people live on this planet. They are still black people. All of black peoples hair isn't kinky like all white peoples hair isn't dead straight. There are even Nubians that can be found with loose cropped hair. Because of their blackness, the Aborigines have faced as much evil and hatred in Australia as black people have in "The Home Of The Brave". Because of your comment I hope that the Australians now realize the resource that they've wasted. However the Olmecs spoke traces of the Mande language which is a West African dialect. Tom 05/30/07

::Have the Afro-centrists gone completely mad? Where do you people stop? Why don't you focus instead on investigating the alleged "noble African" roots of the Venusian and Martian civilizations instead of polluting reasonable articles with blatant lies or relativistic fairy tales. We have to draw the line on this. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Hmmm...let's see, you love Germany, you are interested in ancient civilization, only if it has to do with Europe. Anybody who disagrees with you has a nice and neat derogatory name. You like firearms, want to abolish the UN and love the history of the U.S. Hitler in da house! [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]]) 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone that you don't respect can't tell you anything that will impress you. Afro-centrists have been relegated to this category. So there's a pretty good chance that you're going to ignore this archaeological report. '''www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html'''. You're probably going to claim it to be an afro-centric bunch of garbage even though the majority of the researchers are not black and wrote their findings decades before the term afro-centric was invented. There is no greater evidence of African influence than the heads themselves. Black people are very capable of identifying themselves even if other people are not. You would have as hard a time of convincing me that the Olmecs weren't black as you would in convincing me that I'm not black. If you don't know when you're looking at a black person, then you'll just have to not know. But don't expect black people to join you in not knowing. Tom 04/23/04

:Ah Tom, back again I see. Perhaps you posted the wrong URL, following it one finds not an archaeological report, produced by actual archaeologists, but just another lengthy essay from sometime-contributor here Dr Winters, which we've all been over many times before. As I'm sure you know, Dr Winters is not a million miles away from the afrocentrist camp, and I reckon that he'd readily confirm if asked that no-one in Mesoamerican studies has picked up his novel 'decipherments'. Isn't there anything ''new'' to report? One thing I might agree with you, that the heads constitute the "best evidence" for the African-origins hypothesis. If I were a supporter of that idea, I would find that extremely depressing- after all this time looking, not a single artefact or genuine remains to confirm any connection, at all; just a vague and non-unique resemblance to a cartoon-like conception of what a real African ought to look like. Given the great genetic diversity within Africa, it would be remarkable if you were unable to find at least ''some'' African population who'd resemble any given carved statue of a human face, Olmec or not. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

::The willful ignorance is amazingly palpable! The neo-liberal academic establishment and its relentless and wilfuly blind disciples have made an art out of denial. They will one day convince Africans of their non-Africaness and finally admit any shred of dignity that these people are entitled to, and turn around and tell them...'see, nothing good came out of Africa, and you're not African.' Mr. Wright, your desire to blatantly lie to yourself frightens me. Humans of your ability are capable of the most evil. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.20.195.252|76.20.195.252]] ([[User talk:76.20.195.252|talk]]) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 

:::Well, anonymous critic —or is that Tom again? Either way, I'm always more than happy for my comments here to be scrutinised by others and stand behind what they contain. That's why I sign my name to my posts; it's a pity that for whatever reason you seem not to have the same confidence to do likewise, so that an independent person might properly be able to assess where the true expression of self-deception lies.
:::Anyone is free to search through all my contributions here for comments that could vaguely be interpreted as racist, or that are disparaging of Africans and their achievements — and they will find none. Anonymous carping from the sidelines containing no actual argument or examinable piece of evidence in support contributes nothing, and means nothing, no matter how many loaded terms and empty buzzwords are squeezed into the sentence.
:::This strident repetition of ''ad hominems'' truly seems nothing more than a smokescreen, intended to mask a complete absence of any sense-making, logical or empirically sound arguments to advance. For, if you had them, why are they not being employed?
:::Or for that matter, why do you not turn your attention to documenting the authentic and actual achievements of African peoples, of which there are a great many and which are lamentably under-recorded in wikipedia to date? That would be far more constructive than this blind-alley pursuit.--[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::If my unanimity is such a downer on my argument, here I am. You smoked me out, you brave you! Bush would be mighty proud of you! My anonymous comments were a result of simply being not logged in, not something insidious as you assert. You're still willfuly ignorant at best, and virulently racist at worst. Although correct that there is not as much documentation of the African's past, there is enough to trump your ignorance, thus my assertion of your willful ignorance. Start with Bernal's '''''Black Athena''''' series. The neo-liberal academic establishment has so far refused to acknowledge (in forms of peer reviews) these works, and as such they are considered illegitimate among the believers. That's what I call, having your cake and eating it too. Furthermore, the neo-liberal academic establishment bestows the title of ''The Father of History'' on Herodotus, and call him a liar in the same breath about anything he had to say about the African, because it contradicts the inherent superiority of the Aryan. Voluminous documentation is not evidence of one's truth. So, don't piss on our collective feet and tell us it is raining. [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]]) 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Peelinglayers|contribs]]) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 

==B-class==
Why is this article not a GA? --[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde|talk]]) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:I do think that this article could be rated A or Good Article -- it might be Featured with a bit of clean-up -- but no one has bothered to take it thru the process. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think it could be GA with a quite small effort. Why not nominate it?[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·]] [[User talk:Maunus|·ƛ·]] 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Returned to post to this item after a long absence: Well, Maunus and I tried to put it thru the GA process but ended up with a lot of heat and what I considered to be unreasonable demands (including asking "when were the [[radiocarbon]] dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them, and which calibration they used". I spent considerable effort on the process and the article is only marginally better. I fear that there are better uses of my time. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

==Blatant Spam in "Overview" Section==
When did the following get added to the Article?

"...among them San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán,where they learned to teleport, La Venta, where they invented toaster strudel, Tres Zapotes, where they ate the strudel and Laguna de los Cerros, where they all ended up dying."

Very sad the disrespect shown by some. § —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jrbarnett|Jrbarnett]] ([[User talk:Jrbarnett|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jrbarnett|contribs]]) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 

:Gone now. It was a school site registered to the State of Illinois, I expect it to be blocked for a while.--[[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
::72 hour block. The problem is presumably there are good editors there as well! --[[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

==Further Debate on the African Migration Theory==
I reverted Godheval's change as it sounds like [[wp:or]]. If there's a source which supports this feel free to reinsert this, but the paragraph seems to be talking about modern (in the 1940s) Indians. I assume the paragraph was referring large [[Indigenous_peoples_in_Mexico#Demographics|Indian populations in the south]]. In the north, there are more instances of African genes mixed into the population. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:No, it is not original research, it is common sense. At the time of the Olmec, Europeans had yet to introduce enslaved Africans to the Americas. So any appearance of "Africanesque" features on the continent would not be related to this, and must therefore rely on another possibility, such as Africans of some sort making the journey on their own before that. The argument against THAT possibility, as in the article, is that MODERN Amerindians have Africanesque features, under the assumption that they've always had them. But the counter to that is that modern incarnations of African features could have come from the introduction of enslaved Africans to the continent in the 15th and 16th centuries. Therefore, just modern people in the area having African features is in no way a case against African migration in the distant past. It's plainly a weak argument. I'm putting the comments back in.[[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::You misunderstand my main point: if you don't have a [[wp:rs|reliable source]] that you are getting your information from and citing in the article, then you are inserting OR. There are sources which claim that Africans migrated to the Americas long ago, but unless you find sources which discuss this along with the Olmec heads, you are [[wp:syn|synthesizing]] the information (which is also not allowed). We have to be careful in what we place in the articles, otherwise anybody could start putting all sorts of '''opinions''' in the text. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:::And you just completely fail to acknowledge what it is that I'm saying. I AM NOT THE ONE to have put the bit about African Migration theory into the article. It was put in some time ago and has been accepted, as it is well-known idea and argument in the field. My addition was ONLY to point out the flaw in one argument against the African Migration theory. Please try to keep up. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::We're not talking about the "bit about African Migraion theory." We're talking about your "pointing out the flaw in one argument". That is all I removed and that is OR until you find a source that states that. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Please address this issue. "Material that should be removed without discussion includes ... clear examples of original research ..." Cite a source within the hour or remove it. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream", it is not the only theory, and does not explain all the features of all the populations in the Americas. My change to the article was not introducing original research, but was referring to theories already mention IN the article. My addition was merely to demonstrate the flaw in one argument against the African migration theory already mentioned. Before you revert, discuss it here. You are no authority, and are bound by the same rules as the rest of us. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 18:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have restored "mainstream" per your statement above. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:: What is mainstream? People who think one thing and publish a book about it? Or people who others just happen to notice? The way it is worded now makes it sound like all credible Mesoamerican researchers disregard all other theories of migration to the area. This is simply not true. The Bering Strait Migration theory is not necessarily at odds with other theories. If it were true that all credible researchers disregarded other theories, then you would have to cite an awful lot of people - which is why I put the "who" tag on it. So you can either keep that, or it can be changed to "some Mesoamerican researchers". You decide. For now I'm going to change it to "some". [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You can't have it both ways. You say that is the mainstream view, but you don't want the article to say this. Your version is a distortion of the academic consensus. Regardless of what you or I think the Truth might be (something I don't claim to know anyway), Wikipedia does not attempt to find the Truth. Wikipedia only reports what academic consensus states. That's the role of an encyclopedia. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::You make zero sense. PAY ATTENTION. It is you who seems to want it both ways. If you are going to use the term "mainstream", then you need to have MULTIPLE, if not MANY citations to back up that claim. That is why I used the "who?" tag at first. But rather than do that, I put "some researchers", leaving the burden of proving a "mainstream" consensus to anyone who wants to replace that term in the article. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Note that there are ZERO citations for this alleged "mainstream consensus", yet there ARE citations - as of now - for the African origin theory. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::"It is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream."" Do you recall writing this? Citations are needed when a statement is doubted. You apparently don't doubt this statement, so a citation is not required. Also, please stop YELLING. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I also put "mainstream" in quotes to signal the dubiousness of the term. I also go on to say that the Bering Strait theory is not necessarily at odds with any theory of African migration. The two are not mutually exclusive. Bering Strait purports to explain indigenous New World populations. It does not preclude a separate African migration either before or (most likely) afterwards. I apologize for "yelling", but the constant RV'ing was pissing me off. And you say "citations are needed when a statement is doubted"? Uh...citations are needed when a statement is MADE, too, last I checked. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Please check [[Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_is_needed]] again then. Also, your links such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&diff=229279583&oldid=229278974] are highly misleading. That article does not make any reference to the African migration hypothesis. Please revert it so I don't have to. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I did not link it because it mentions the African migration theory. I linked it because it refers to populations of mixed African and indigenous Mesoamerican descent. Look at the text that is linked and it starts to make sense. You know, verification of the intermixing? You really are kind of slow on the draw if I have to spell out every change I make for you.[[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

::This is an old debate, and no new argunments are presented. There is simply no way that this article is going to state anything to the effect that there were an precolumbian african presence - this belongs in the Alternative Origins Speculations article. Not in the serious article about what scholars believe about the Olmecs.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Regardless, the theories exist, and deserve mention - as they have been. This whole RV war between myself and NJGW has less to do with that, and more to do with his misunderstanding of why I added what I did. If the African migration theory is going to be mentioned, and then an argument against it is presented, a counter argument can also be made. It's that simple. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::No it is not. The page is not to be constructed as an argument but as a description of what the scientific consensus about the issue is. The scientific consensus is that the precolumbian african presence theory is a dead horse - theres no need to keep flogging it in article space. Arguments and counter argument belong in the Olme Alternative Origins Speculations article. Its that simple.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:: And yet nowhere in this article are there citations for what the "scientific consensus" even is. No one's flogging a dead horse. I am giving light to theories that exist and are as credible as any other. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is quite clear on what scientific consensus is.So please go give light elsewhere, there is lots of free publishing space. This is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of novel theories. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:And I suppose an encyclopedia is the end-all on what is factual and what is theoretical? That even published encyclopedias only state facts and never theories? What world do you live in where that's true? There is nothing wrong with incorporating valid theories along with the facts. And if the scientific consensus on this particular issue is clearly stated in the article, I certainly cannot find it. Care to point it out for me? You are quite arrogant to think that you can just come in here and change other people's edits with no authority on the subject, especially when those others have provided back-up for their edits. Get over yourself, son. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::There are specific rules about what [[WP:NOT|wikipedia is and isn't]] you are violating about three of them. This article is a colaboration between many previous editors who all have expertise on the subject. We have discussed the african presence theory MANY times and the way it is presented is a result of a consensus of multiple editors - you are the arrogant one waltzing in and trying to revolutionize the view of a field about which obviously have little to no appreciation. Just like you apparently have little or no appreciation for Wkipedias rules or processes. The only thing you will achieve with this kind of agressive POV pushing is a block. My advice is that you read the old discussions VERY thoroughly- and if you have something new to add to those discussions which seems highly unlikely judging from what you have already added then you put it here on the discussion page and IF the consensus of editors agrees that it is important enough to be included then we include it. Not before.
::: I've read the discussions. It's funny how short your memory is, because if you think back, you'd recall us - I mean YOU and I personally - having an argument on this subject before. At the time I just gave up, because I didn't have sources, and didn't care enough to look into them. Imagine my pleasant surprise to find SOME mention of the African origin theory. However, following that bit was an apparent argument against the theory as supported by some random artist's work. My addition was merely to point out the flaw in that argument. Arrogant would've been to delete it altogether, since it is a completely spurious argument. Also, I added one needed citation to support the African origin theory. There is nothing out of order about my addition, and nothing contradictory to wikipedia guidelines, or to the consensus. Do try to read things carefully. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::I am sorry if I hurt your feelings by not remembering its just that I can't really distinguish one POV pusher from the next one.If you find a published source that points out the flaw in the argument then you csn put it in [[Olmec Alternative Origins Speculations]] - not here. If you don't find a published source making this objection then it is indeed Original Research and a violation of policy. Consensus among the editors of this page up to now is that in this article we don't present arguments for or against the African Precolumbian Presence theory, but only what is the current academic consensus: namely that "They Were Not Here Before Columbus" - speculations and arguments go in the other article.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 20:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: You overestimate your importance. But anyway, see below for the answer to this. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

* Saying that "mainstream Mesoamerican scholars now reject this view" is entirely correct. (For that matter I don't know that the word "now" is needed, as it seems to imply there was a time when the situation was otherwise.) Alternative explanations that have become well known in pop culture, even if widely or even universally rejected by scholars, merit mention in the article, but it is dishonest to try to twist wording to suggest that there are only "some" who do not accept them. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] ([[User talk:Infrogmation|talk]]) 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::I patiently await the source for "It should be noted that this view seems to discount the [[Atlantic slave trade|introduction of enslaved Africans]] to the Americas by [[Conquistador|European conquerors]]. Such would explain [[Afro-Latin American|modern manifestations]] of African features in all New World populations, as the transplants intermixed with the native populations, but fails to explain the existence of those same features in the distant past. This discrepancy allows the African migration theory to retain credence." [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: I explained this already. A few times, even. Much like it is taken for granted that the "consensus" goes against the African Origin theory, the "consensus" also states that there was such a thing as the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and that there were instances of intermixing between those transplanted peoples and the native populations. Therefore, to say that the manifestation of African features in modern populations somehow debunks the idea of the African Origin theory of the Olmecs is completely spurious. Are you really not understanding this? [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Source or go home. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, sources please. And make them exceptionally good. Anyway the "indians do/don't look african argument" isn't even supposed to be in this article. It is suppoed to be in the other one. The only thing this article is supposed to say is that the theory is rejected by the scientific community and that no precolumbian african presence has ever been documented in the americas. I don't know where the covarrubias argument which was grantedly weak (since there are so many so much better arguments against it) even came from it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Then delete the argument supported by Miguel Corrubias or whatever tf his name is, and then I have nothing to argue against. I do not NEED a source for the fact that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade occurred, nor do I need a source for the fact that many of those enslaved Africans intermingled with native populations. These things are established historical facts. The SOURCES are in the text itself - which point to the slave trade article and an article on people who are evidence of the aforementioned intermingling. The SOURCES are also in the MAINSTREAM historical record. That being the case, following plain logic, the argument that MODERN manifestations of African features disproves ANY theory of ancient manifestations is completely fallacious. So either remove it, or allow it to be acknowledged that the argument is spurious. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Source that makes the same statement you do in it's entirety or go home. I'm sure we can find better arguments than Covarrubias' but that's so far besides the point that I'm yawning. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Civility works both ways. I just asked Godheval to tone things down ''at your request'', don't you start too. May I suggest to everyone that perhaps dropping this for now, and restarting the discussion in the morning after a nice cup of tea, might be best for all involved? The article will still be here in the morning. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Hm, I didn't realize that wikipedia was composed entirely of verbatim quotes from sources. I always thought that people put things in their own words and then supported them with evidence. You know why I thought that? Because that's what people do. That's also what I did. There is no mental leap required to understand or accept my statements. My statements are a logical procession from the historical record. Let me put it simply for you. Argument: Olmec heads having so-called African features + Modern Mesoamericans having African features = Mesoamericans have always had African features. Flaw 1: Some modern Mesoamericans ARE of African descent, which would explain their features. There is no necessary correlation between their features and any theory on Olmec origin. Who's to even say that they are RELATED to the Olmecs at all? Why is this hard to understand? My next move is to just remove the argument, since it is so obviously flawed, rather than to muddle up the article with a counter-argument. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I'm not here to judge the cited content. I first got to this article following a vandal and kept it watched because it seemed no other eyes were regular visitors. You came in and inserted what appeared to be OR, I asked for a source, you refused to give one. Now we are still waiting for a source. If there are issues with the article's content, I'll let folks more versed with the sources sort it out. This does not give you free license to include your [[wp:syn|evaluations of the facts]]. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:I would support the removale of the argument although for different reasons.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 21:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
: I'm not "evaluating" any facts. First of all, there are virtually no facts when it comes to the Olmec, just varying theories, with a consensus being based on the views of a sizable majority. That consensus does NOT argue against the African origin theory by saying something idiotic like "Modern manifestations of African features in Mesoamerican populations proves that they've always had these features". I'm not even arguing for or against the theory, but against the sheer idiocy of the argument supported by that one artist. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 21:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::This is getting very silly. You can't include your personal speculations for reasons that have already been explained. However, your arguments are irrelevant. There re many isolated tribes that have had abolutely no contact with African immigrants, and which have been photographed for over a century. These features are to be found in them. Features such as wide noses are an evolutionary adaptation determined by climate. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Great! I accept what you say, but the argument in place does NOT mention these facts. My only contention was with the argument that African features in modern Mesoamericans somehow debunks the African Origin theory. It's not so much support for the AOT as it is pointing out how silly that argument is. So if we remove the completely asinine argument, then I'll have nothing to say. Good day! [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm just going to leave it as this: I think the African migration debate deserves a ''mention'' here (with a link to [[models of migration to the New World]] and a statement making clear that this is not a mainstream hypothesis), and some rebuttal wouldn't hurt. A rebuttal to the rebuttal would violate [[wp:undue]] however, as well as the MOS which states debates are not to be given in a back and forth manner. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit:
The flat-faced, thick-lipped characteristics of the heads have caused some to suggest a resemblance to [[Africa]]n facial characteristics. Based on this comparison, Wiercinski argued in 1972 that the Olmecs were Africans who had emigrated to the New World.<ref>Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.</ref> However, this hypothesis is not among [[models of migration to the New World|mainstream models of migration to Mesoamerica]], and scholars offer other possible explanations for the facial features of the colossal heads,<ref name=Haslip-viera1997>{{citation
| author = Haslip-viera, G.; De Montellano, B. O.; Barbour, W.
| year = 1997
| title = Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs
| journal = Current Anthropology
| volume = 38
| issue = 3
| pages = 419–441
| doi = 10.1086/204626
| url = http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/204626
}}</ref> for example, that the heads were carved in this manner due to the shallow space allowed on the basalt boulders. Others note that Olmec art has no relation to African art.<ref name=Hendon2004>{{Citation
| author = Hendon, J. A.; Joyce, R. A.
| title = Mesoamerican Archaeology
| year = 2004
| page = 75
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=gdbR1MdK5gwC&printsec=frontcover&lr=#PPA75,M1
| publisher = Wiley
}}</ref>

:I was under the impression that the pre-Columbian African presence was considered a fringe theory and that fring theories do not belong in a general article. [[User:Kman543210|Kman543210]] ([[User talk:Kman543210|talk]]) 00:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think the present wording needs fixing or expansion. It explicitly mentions the Africa theory, among others. The African and Chinese and other origin speculations are covered in detail at [[Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations]], to which the reader can jump. As stated by Kman above, "pre-Columbian African presence" is a fringe theory and does not belong in a general article per [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. If anyone feels coverage is lacking, they are welcome, and encouraged, to add sourced material discussing "pre-Columbian African presence" at [[Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations]]. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
==weight estimate correction==

I have added a higher weight estimate based on the volume and the density of the Rancho Cobata. Volcanic Basalt is a vey low density stone but not as light as the existing estimate. I have also added distances that they were transported based on the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. This book estimated the stones upto 50 tonnes but I assume he didn't know how low the density of volcanic basalt is. The following site provided the density of basalt:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5461391
"samples over a density range of 1.45 to 2.03 g/cm"
I translated that into 1.9 tons per cubic meter.
Feel free to check it. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:According to a [[WP:NOR|rule of Wikipedia]], we really shouldn't be running our own calculations, particularly something with as much room for error as a colossal head. I mean, how in the world do we estimate its volume -- is it a cube or a sphere?? Sorry, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have seen at least 4 or 5 different estimates for these heads which is why I checked the math. As I said I could cite the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. They estimate it at over 50 tons. It is possible that it is a high density Basalt. The 20 ton estimate is clearly low. Would it be OK to cite both sources and provide a range? Thanks [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 06:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Why, yes, citing two sources would be perfectly fine. It's something I do a lot, particularly since there is often disagreement even among experts. Two estimates can give our readers a nice range and let them also know that there is no one "answer".
:On the other hand, I'm not sure that it makes much difference to our readers whether the weight is 20 tons or 50 tons. To me, both those numbers fall within the "too large to imagine" category. :) Thanks for your work, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at that source and the way it was worded again. It actualy said aproaching 50 tons not over and it discussed Basalt as well as a few other things. I'll try it again with a closer watch on the details. Experiments have sucessfuly moved at least 10 tons and at least shift larger stones. If you think that is to large to imagine take a look at Baalbek. I checked the math on that as well and disputed it in the other direction. That has almost certainly been exagerated. When there is a simple math mistake is there a source that you know of that would fact check it if I find additional mistakes. Or I should say when since there are many that I have seen already. Including many much easier to calculate than the Olmec heads.

Thanks
[[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:As far as reliable sources for weight estimations go, I would think that [[INAH]] could be regarded as authorative. Not least, because they have practical experience in actually shifting the things about the archaeological sites and onto plinths etc for display in the site museums ... ;-)

:The 17 colossal heads vary considerably in size—from abt 1.5 to 3.5 m tall—and hence weight. For eg, the one most recently found (in 1994) came in at 1.8m tall, and 8 tonnes.[http://dti.inah.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1089&Itemid=150]. INAH gives the smallest as weighing abt 6t, up to the largest at abt 50t.[http://www.inah.gob.mx/ZonasArqueologicas/todas/htme/za02503b.html] Hence it would be entirely appte to give a range, since they do in fact vary. Or to put it another way, need to be mindful that there are two reasons for any variance in weight figures - one because the masses of the monuments actually varies by up to an order of magnitude, and two because different sources may use different methods to obtain the weight for any given piece. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 01:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that agrees with the source I cited. a Spanish reference might be helpful to some but er I'm to lazy to learn new languages. Seventy wonders included one that was 4.8 tonnes but the highest one was also 50 tonnes.
[[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:Zacherystaylor, when you add a citation to an existing article, please use the same format as the rest of the article. In this case, you stuck the name of the book in the citation itself, whereas the article was using [[WP:SHORT|shortened notes]], where the citation just refers to the author and the page number (we could also use the page number on your recent adds). Nothing major, but it helps keep Wikipedia looking good, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Added page # and looked at changes you made will copy in future. thanks. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== Removed genetic study ref ==

I removed the following reference to a paper on a HLA gene study, published in ''Tissue Antigens'' journal:
*{{aut|Arnaiz-Villena A, Vargas-Alarcon G, Granados J, Gomez-Casado E, Longas J, Gonzales-Hevilla M, Zuniga J, Salgado N, Hernandez-Pacheco G, Guillen J, Martinez-Laso J.;}} ''[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11144288 HLA genes in Mexican Mazatecans, the peopling of the Americas and the uniqueness of Amerindians.]'' - Bibliographic entry in [[PubMed]].
Firstly, because it does not seem to be used anywhere. Secondly, going only by the abstract on PubMed, I don't think it can be reliably used to demonstrate anything substantial about the preclassic Olmec. AFAIK the paper's authors are Spanish immunologists and geneticists, not Mesoamerican scholars. The paper seems to presume that the modern [[Mazatec]] are Olmec descendants, which while an option is certainly not something Mesoamericanists would be confident of. Or to put it another way, while the study may have something to say about modern indigenous populations, equating "Mazatec" with "Olmec" is not something I've seen well supported in Mesoamericanist literature. One of the paper's main conclusions, namely: "An indirect evidence of Olmec and Mayan relatedness is suggested, further supporting the notion that Olmecs may have been the precursors of Mayans", is an inference that would need qualifications and runs counter to the archaeological evidence.

Maybe if the reference was to be used somewhere, or the full paper obtained, then we could look at rationale for including it. It would be interesting also to see if the paper had been commented upon by any archaeologist, ethnohistorian or linguist.--[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 07:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Notes on recent <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> additions ==

Wandalstouring, I note your recent addition of 46 (count 'em) <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags. I will be looking thru them over the next couple of days. Many of them are fair questions. Some of the ones that appear directly after an existing citation are puzzling but will be thoroughly reviewed.

Some however seem to be a bit outside the scope of this Wikipedia overview article (vs., say, a doctoral thesis). For example:
:*"Please provide in a note complete argumentation why there were rulers (no republic?) full-time priests and shamans (and please tell what's the difference between a priest and a shaman)."
:*"Use a note to provide the argumentation for the centralization theory. Could have other reasons regarding only architecture and sculpture."
:*"Are there more scholars supporting this view? How do you know about the political mechanism from architecture and art? Please provide argumentation"

:*"Please provide arguments why this [ [[slash and burn]] agriculture ] was practised."
:*"When were these [radiocarbon] dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use? "
At 62 Kb, this article is pretty full up and many of these requests for argumentation would either be more appropriate for a sub-article or, in some cases, would be classified as [[WP:OR|original research]]. These overview articles are an attempt to incorporate and inter-relate facts from various sources to paint a broad picture of the subject matter (in this case, of course, the Olmec civilization). In the cases cited above, I believe is it best to provide the facts along with a proper citation and not discuss, for example, the radiocarbon calibration methodology or how archaeologists measure centralization. These are topics for other specialized articles.

Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:I just completed a review of some of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> labels. I provided many citations. I also wanted to comment on the following:

::*<nowiki><ref>Pool, pp. 26-27, provides a great overview of this theory, and says: "The generation of food surpluses is necessary for the development of social and political hierarchies and there is no doubt that high agricultural productivity, combined with the natural abundance of aquatic foods in the Gulf lowlands suppported their growth".</ref> {{fact}} "</nowiki>
:::I want to stay on topic here and not get involved in a discussion of theories of complex society formation. Pool is eminent and his comments are right on target so let's leave it at that.

::*"Much Olmec art is highly stylized and uses an iconography reflective of a religious meaning."{{fact}} !--who says that and what are the arguments?--!
:::Citation provided. Again, I don't think it would benefit us to try to determine why Coe and others believe this. This would be a topic for another article.

::*[Referring to Long Count calendar dates and various stelae with these dates.] {{fact}} !--Who has published this artifact and says that this symbol is on it and has this meaning.--
:::The early stelae containing Long Count dates are completely non-controversial. This is not the article to discuss how archaeologists determined that the shell glyph was zero or how to read Long Count dates. The wikilinks can lead the reader to articles that more fully explain this.

::*"It has been estimated that moving a colossal head required the efforts of 1,500 people for three to four months.<nowiki><ref>Pool, p. 103.</ref>" {{fact}} </nowiki>
:::It's not a theory, but rather an eminent archaeolgist's estimate and the citation was already provided. This sentence provides context for the size and effort and ultimately worth of these heads and gives the reader something they can relate to. I can't see the need for more than that. Again, this is a survey article.

::*"<nowiki>Nonetheless, Olmec society is thought to lack many of the institutions of later civilizations, such as a standing army or priestly caste.<ref>Serra Puche et al., p. 36.</ref>{{fact}}</nowiki>
:::I'm confused since this sentence is already cited, so we know "who supports this view". Regarding the "why", I'm not sure that this survey article shuld be going into this detail.

:Maunus also correctly removed a tag since the citations were already provided and discussed in the article, and I removed the 4 tags detailed in my earlier post in this section for the reasons given (i.e. this is an overview article).

:Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::*This theory that there were shamans AND full-time priests reads like nonsense regarding the archaeological evidence. Such an extraordinary claim must be provided with very good arguments when you mention it. i know American archaeology makes lots of claims that are fringe opinions in European archaeology, so see this as enabling a discussion with sources.

::*Again a claim that can be fringe opinion and is hard to believe and that for this reason needs some more backup.

::*Again a claim that is hard to believe and can be an overrepresentation of a very fringe opinion.

::*There are clear indicators for slash and burn techniques. If you point out in a footnote that they have been found everything is OK.

::All in all, it needs more footnotes with short explanations. I know this is difficult, but you're making a fool of the reader if you present him the results of archaeological research as facts. They are opinions and you have to understand them like they are wrong. That's the basic lesson for every first semester in archaeology. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::*Radiocarbon dates can be calibrated or uncalibrated. And there are several different calibration curves, almost each laboratory having its own. So it's very important to know because uncalibrated samples for example tend to be "older" than calibrated. In this case it can be a margin of 100 years difference. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It is important to specialist readers who can go get the sources themselves. It is not important to the general reader of an encyclopedia. Anyway an error margin of +/- 100 years is very little in relation to a field that has so many questions and so little knowledge as the Olmec area does. I wouldn't even imagine that Diehl or Pool supplies the information of which calibration was used in their non-specialist writings. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I completely agree with Maunus. I looked up my source last night, and it was [[Michael Coe]] who said that the radiocarbon dating had proved that the Olmec pre-dated the Maya. Did he go into detail? Of course not. He listed the dates found (something like 1150 - 450 BCE frm La Venta) but he certainly doesn't say "When these [radiocarbon] dates were taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use". So, should I not use Coe's assertion because he doesn't back it up? That would be totally ludicrous. "Mr. Coe, I'm sorry, you don't provide enough detail so until you do, we just can't use your information".
:::::Alas, there are many more citation requests like this. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::OK, lets put this to rest once and for all. Yes, an archaeologist needs to know if the radiocarbon date is calibrated or uncalibrated, and if calibrated, to what standard correction curve, but the dates are probability distributions within a range (usually to 2 standard deviations) not points in time, and should be reported that way. And yes, for certain points in calibration correction curves, the calibrated versus uncalibrated date-range can differ by hundreds of years. A wikipedia article on an archaeological topic, except one on radiocarbon, does not need to mention this. The question the wikipedia article is asking is, what is the generally accepted dating of Olmec, and the article correctly reports that. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Ethnicity and language tag===
I added ". . . and language. . ." to the first sentence of this section and I again removed its fact tag. The language matter is discussed at length in the rest of the section and the two main theories (Maya and Mixe-Zoquean) are laid out with proper citations. 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]])

:Still it is not sourced that there are multiple theories about the ethnicity. It is sourced that there are theories about their native tongue. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::[[User:Maunus]] changed "ethnicity and language" to "ethno-linguistic affiliation", which I think covers the matter. If not, perhaps we should remove the word "ethnic", although it is my understanding that ethnicity and language were closely related or identical at this time. Maunus?? [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 22:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Just take a look at native speakers of English and you will realize that there can be a heck of a difference. Remove ethnic because the only thing about ethnic is a fringe opinion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No it isn't, none of those studies cited are fringe. Coe is not fringe he was just probably wrong, because he was writing at an early date. Using ethnicity and linguistic affiliation near-synonymously is completely standard practice. A Maya community is a community in which the (main)language used is of the mayan family. You are picking nits that no scholar in the field would even care about. In short you can't expect this article to make distinctions that aren't made in the studies of the topic. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Then please write that the scholar thinks he is talking about ethnicity when he refers to language. In other fields of archaeology you can't seriously publish such an opinion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 06:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::It is not "a scholar" it is an entire academic field of Mesoamericanists. Apart from that I believe you are wrong in your strong assertions about how other fields of archaeology refer to ethnic and linguistic bpoundaries in the remote past.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Language is not the same thing as ethnicity for most contemporary, theoretically-informed archaeology, but its also true that many Mesoamerican archaeologists equate the two. Since its the prevailing standard in the subdiscipline, it has to be acceptable for the article, since to require otherwise would force them to essentially forge a new, unsourced literature for Mesoamerica. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Withdraw Good Article nomination===
I have no more time to work on the Good Article nomination, so I have withdrawn it from the nomination process. Maybe later. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Take your time to work on the article. It has potential, but archaeology isn't as easy as it looks. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::We are not doing archaeology here. The article is supposed to convey to the reader the current status of the Olmec research not pose critical viewpoints on or evaluate that research. An encyclopedic article isn't a scholarly paper and one cannot expect it to have the same standard of argumentation as if it were. It is enough to merely report what others have written of course by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 05:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, I know we aren't allowed to evaluate or criticize. However, you have to understand how an archaeologist came to his conclusion. The "how" is the most important thing and your writing has to reflect why they think this and that. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::No, it doesn't. It is enough to know that an archaeologist wrote the book and then cite his conclusions. Archaeologists writing for general audiences for example when writing for encyclopedias do not go into details about calibrations or ceramic typologies etc. but just gives the conclusions. We can only give the "how" if the source states it specifically and often in non-specialist literature (as for example textbooks) the writer only gives a general idea of the how and doesn't go into the archaeological details. Readers with special knowledge can go to the original sources if they want that. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Completely agree. In several cases, we're being asked to work to a higher standard than Diehl or Pool (again, authors of the two most recent general Olmec books). Too many of the requests above asked that we somehow determine how a scholar arrived at his opinion. Unless the scholar says this (and many don't - see my note about Coe & radiocarbon dates above) we just don't know. An encyclopedia overview article like this should provide information to a '''''general''''' audience. To quote Maunus "It is enough to merely report what others have written . . . by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other." [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, an error margin of 100 years means a lot. That's possibly an archaeologists talking with non-archaeologists. Try Renfrew, '''Archaeology''' for a start on methods. Sorry, I'm usually not the hardest reviewer, but you throroughly mispresent things. I will put an expert needed template on it and see if I can fetch any to help you. I'm too busy myself with several articles and reviews, so I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Of course it would be nice to know the error margin but you are asking about information that isn't in the sources! How can anyone be expected to comply with such a request? I read Renfrews Archaeology ten years ago, at introductory coursr to archaeology, thank you very much, and it is still on my shelf. But this isn't an article about archaeology it is about an historical civilization - archaeological details are not crucial here - what is at issue is whether the article represent the published sources and the scientific consensus, and whether it meets the GA criteria, which I am certain that it does.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Oh and we have two or three resident archaeology proffesors specialising in Mesoamerica that may be able to help us. [[User:Hoopes]], [[User:MESmith]] and [[User:Chunchucmil]]. I suggest we make a call for experts on the Aztlan list as well.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::The statement "I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you" is extremely offensive.
:::::::Even worse, you are missing the point. We are writing an encyclopedia article using Wikipedia principles (which include [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|"verifiability, not truth"]]). We are relying on published and in general tertiary sources, in particular Coe and Diehl and Pool, all of whom are professors of archaeology and without a doubt some of the most pre-eminent authorities on the Olmec. As encyclopedia editors, we ourselves cannot second-guess these academics, attempt to divine how they arrived at their decisions/propositions/opinions/estimates, or otherwise declare that these fellows aren't good enough. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(remove indent) Well a lot has happened since I left these shores. I respect the decision made to remove the nomination, but feel that the reasons were not totally correct. I agree you cannot reference a reference (but a featured article was failed because museums of international status has not referenced their statements - at which point do we arrive at the OR (original reference). This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, giving them the opportunity to research further into any given subject; but being wikipedia all editors have the right to express the direction that they wish to see the article go. Now off to retrain the reprobate archaeologists I spend my days with. Oh Joy! I will close the GA discussion down, but not as a fail obviously as it was withdrawn. Hope to meet you all again at some point. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

==Removed compass section==
I removed the following section from the article:

:Based on his find of an Olmec [[hematite]] artifact in [[Veracruz]], the American astronomer John Carlson has suggested that "the Olmec may have discovered and used the geomagnetic lodestone compass earlier than 1000 BC". If true, this "predates the Chinese discovery of the geomagnetic lodestone compass by more than a millennium".<ref name="John B. Carlson 753">John B. Carlson, “Lodestone Compass: Chinese or Olmec Primacy? Multidisciplinary Analysis of an Olmec Hematite Artifact from San Lorenzo, Veracruz, Mexico”, ''Science'', New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4205 (Sep. 5, 1975), pp. 753-760 (753)</ref> Carlson speculates that the Olmecs may have used similar artifacts as a directional device for astrological or [[geomancy|geomantic]] purposes, or to orientate their temples, the dwellings of the living or the interments of the dead.

:The artifact itself is part of a [[lodestone]] that had been polished into a bar with a groove at one end (that Carlson suggests may have been used for sighting). The artifact now consistently points 35.5 degrees west of north, but may have pointed north-south when whole. It is possible that the artifact was in fact used as some constituent piece of a decorative ornament.<ref>{{cite book|last=Needham|first=Joseph |coauthors=Lu Gwei-Djen|title=Trans-Pacific Echoes and Resonances: Listening Once Again |publisher=World Scientific |date=1985 |pages=21}}</ref> No other similar [[hematite]] artifacts have yet been found.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and this particular 2-paragraph section has been, in my opinion, [[WP:UNDUE|unduly highlighted]]. The only paper written on this discovery is the cited paper by Carlson -- which is now over 30 years old -- and the matter is not even mentioned in Pool or Diehl, the two most recent general Olmec books. To compensate, however, I did slip in a cited mention of the compass in the general summary under '''Notable innovations'''.

Hope this works for you all, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, because one find is no find. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Removed Mokaya section ==

I removed the following recently added paragraph:

:The Olmec culture's roots are thought to lie in the [[Mokaya]] culture of [[Soconusco]] in Pacific [[Chiapas]] and [[Guatemala]]. Here, basic elements include the earliest ceramics, ballcourt, elevated house platforms, and pyramidal mounds.

This is not the consensus or mainstream viewpoint, as I understand it, but rather the theory promoted primarily by John Clark. Others argue for Guerrero, Oaxaca, or Morelos. Pool, p. 18, says that "there is little doubt that the emergence of Olmec culture was primarily a local phenomenon." We can add a paragraph that discusses all these theories, but an unreferenced paragraph devoted solely to a Mokaya origin would promote a narrow viewpoint. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:Use {{tl|cref}} and discuss it in a footnote. You can say in the article that their origin remains disputed. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I think mention of Mokaya is useful in this article nonetheless, & its omission was a good catch by Hoopes. Article would benefit from some some summary/review of early-Formative Mesoamerican cultures in general, to place the Olmec into chronological/crosscultural context. As the general perception that the Olmec were 'first' is a common one, I think we need to address this and remind the reader that both on the Soconusco and in Lower Central America there were hierarchical and monument-building culture-complexes alongside or even predating the Gulf Coast Olmec expansion, and it's not that straightforward. The relationship between Mokaya & Olmec can be qualified, since as you note Madman there have been different proposals put forward. AFIAK there are other researchers besides Clark & Hoopes who propose Soconusco->Gulf Coast influences, and it bears mentioning along with other contemporary ideas on whether or not the Gulf Coast Olmec had beginnings or influences from elsewhere. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==GA1 discussion (transcluded)==
{{Talk:Olmec/GA1}}

== Expert?! ==

I'm puzzled by the call for an "expert" on this article. As an archaeologist who has worked on the early formative away from the Olmec heartland, I think its actually pretty good. I could fault it for a subtle bias to the "mother culture" side of things, but non-specialists won't be interested in that argument being played out on these pages. There's not a lot here to argue with.

I don't see the 46 citation needed tags that Madman reports (so point me to them if they exist), only 5 or so, in almost every case I think the phrase is overreaching and should be removed, rather that footnoted. I'm more than willing to work on the references and editing what's there in the few free moments I get in a day.

There's no need for the "Expert" tag. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I wondered about that myself. If an expert is needed why weren't more details provided about what is wrong? an expert tag might be a good idea with details but arbritary request seems silly. Furthermore it seems like it should be put in the discussion page first unless it is extreme. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with both your assessments, and so I took the liberty of removing the tag.
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&oldid=241845103 Here], Russ, is the version of the article from last Monday with the 46 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags added by Wandalstouring. I have subsequently dug up a number of citations and otherwise, with a bit of help from Maunus, reduced the number to a mere 2. These last two tags tag generalized descriptive sentences that, as you note Russ, could safely be removed. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Thanks Macman2001, for pointing me to the old rev. While wikipedia is never going to be "scholarly" this demand by many editors that every sentence, instead of every group of related concepts, be footnoted,is what keeps many scholars I know from contributing. I don't interpret the demands for GA and sourcing the way these people do. It makes the articles unreadable. I suggest simply pruning the sentences that currently lack attribution to improve the article. If they're important, they can be added back, with attribution, when adequately sourced. For now, all the article needs is tweaking of the grammar. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree, plenty of experts have been involved already, I only left the tag in place as a courtesy to [[User:Wandalstouring]] who put it there.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Would you publish that in an archaeological magazine? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 09:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I am not sure I understand what/whom the question is directed at. If you mean whether the article would be publishable in an archaeological magazine then that is the wrong question. The right question is if it would qualify for GA status according to the GA criterias of wikipedia.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: I agree with Maunus here. That's not the criteria for GA status. However, to answer your question, no I wouldn't publish it in say Archaeology. Its unreadable, in large part because of your insistence on sentence by sentence footnotes, and its written at a somewhat higher intellectual level than a general public piece. It reflects some scholarly bias, but magazine articles often oversimplify issues to make them more readable and tell a compelling, if often not entirely technically correct, story. See any story in Scientific American or New Scientist for example. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::So you agree that it doesn't reflect state of the art science and contains errors and oversimplifications. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 08:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Errors - No, at least not major ones...oversimplifications - yes, and so does any Wikipedia article about a non-trivial subject. You seem to think this is supposed to be a scholarly article; its not. Its supposed to be something accessible to a general audience and suggest further reading if they're interested. As such its going to have to simplify and avoid "hedging" phrases to tell a coherent, compelling story, which is, after all the goal here. Writing a Wikipedia article is a process of compromises on both content and language. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Deep Breath GA Renomination! ==

Dear Editors, I brought up the journey this particular review has taken, [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_withdrawn_Olmec]], and raised my concerns with the second reviewer [[User_talk:Wandalstouring#Olmec_second_reviewer]]. I would like to ask you all to reconsider the GA withdrawal and re-instate the nomination. This does not mean I will do the review on my own, in fact I may specifically ask for another reviewer to bring new thoughts to the process. It also does not mean that I disagree with all the second reviewer brought to your attention. IMHO GAs are not assisted by 46 or how ever many fact tags. A GA is a journey with company. Your thoughts please - there will be work ahead for all. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the offer, Mr. P. After finally just now closing out the last of the 46 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags, I find that I myself no longer have the time (or at present the patience) to devote to trying to get this thru Good Article. This last go-round with Wandalstouring has soured me on the whole GA process: there seems to be a great deal of downside - nasty discussions, complaining, twisting prose into knots to satisfy a random person's viewpoint - and there is no upside that I can see. I'm not complaining about you, Edmund -- I thought our journey was going along well and we were nearing the end of the road. But I myself don't have the energy to go through this a third time with a third person. Sorry, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 14:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===References===
References do not meet the standards of a GA article, especially if there's any hope to make it an FA. Citations should meet [[WP:CITET]] standards at a minimum. Harvard citations would be perfect for the type of references used in this article, and are fairly easy to use. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Could you give an example of what is wrong with the reference standard? That would make it easier to improve.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::At some point in the review I was going to direct you to (for example) [[Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany]] as one way of improving the references and layout. It is though only one way.[[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 11:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It would be more helpful to know what you think is the problem with the references, instead of just knowing that there are other referecing systems that you like better. Apart form the reference system not being fully consistent I don't se the general reference problem with the article.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(remove indent) Apologies, one major difference I was lazily trying to point out is the the "reference in the article" is linked to "author / page number" in notes which is itself linked to the book information listed in the reference section. The references at this moment are not Harvard citations. These are fairly easy to use once one has set up and linked the Bibliography. An easier article (me being lazy again!) to drop into could be [[Bury St. Edmunds witch trials]] which if you edit the page shows a short linked word with page number(ref) leading to notes (which show the ref as per normal) to the Bibliography. I hope this is a bit clearer. Thanks. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The GA criteria does not require anything of the reference system other than a use of inline citations in accordance with [[WP:CITE]]. Citations in footnotes and/or shortened footnotes are acceptable according to that policy.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do like the linking capability you show, Edmund, although it seem to would require rewriting each citation and footnote. In any case, the present reference style, termed [[WP:SHORT|shortened notes]], is a standard and acceptable Wikipedia style and is the ''de facto'' standard for [[WP:MESO|Mesoamerican]] articles. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It doesn't take that much work. And yes GA standards are a bit low. If you want this to ever be an FA, then fixed the references. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If we ever do decide to take the article to FA then we will of course make sure the article suits those criteria. What Madman and I have been objecting to for awhile is that the article entered to be reviewed as a GA and that it has been judged all along by a whole bunch of other criteria than the GA ones.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

==Recent edit==
This edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&curid=77260&diff=243127750&oldid=243107533] by [[User:orangemarlin]] I think is problematic. I think the insistence on a more academic language here obscures the point, namely that we don't know whether the Olmecs was one coherent ethnically monolithic culture or a conglomerate of ethnic groups that shared a basic material culture. I put it here in stead of reverting because my opinion may not be shared by others. Maybe we can reach a better wording together?[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I agree completely. I think it obscures the message. This is not to say that the earlier language was perfect, only better. I will revert. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I concur, although its still awkward. Maybe I'll take a crack at it later. That one sentence gets to the heart of What is Olmec, what are we documenting here? [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::You guys might tolerate poor writing, but I don't. Academic language? WTF? Don't revert again. Discuss it. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, lets discuss. What was there was awkward and did need to be rewritten. What you replaced it with is equally flawed as far as I'm concerned. I don't think either belongs in the article for the following reasons:

:::* both are weak ways to end the article lead.
:::* both are contradicted, in whole or part, by the article content itself, where archaeologists are clearly shown to speculate about the ethnicity, political organization, and language of the Olmec, however ill-founded one may believe the arguments.

:::So I would propose that neither text be incorporated into the article, and that the lead section terminate with the last section of the preceding paragraph. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::That's fine, Russ. I don't think that the paragraph is necessarily contradicted by the article, since the paragraph uses the qualifier "with certainty", and I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty. In any case, I've removed it. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::So, you guys think that you are smarter than me? More knowledgeable? What is it? I disagree, so YOUR decision is to just delete it? Oh well, probably not the worst thing done here.[[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::OrangeMarlin, you should focus on the article instead of personalities. A decision to remove your prose is not an attack on your knowledge or personality, tempting as that might be. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Actually I think it is an important point that so much of what is believed about the Olmec rests on guesswork (qualified guesswork of course but still...). Especially because the layreader would tend to believe that being Olmec is a sort of ancient nationality with an Olmec empire, language and cuisine etc. if we don't specifically state that we have no idea to what degree the "archaeological Olmecs" formed a coherent culture. I think probably Rsheptak would be the right one to phrase it better. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::This was my concern above -- that "I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty." Before something similar was written for the [[Mesoamerican ballgame]] lead, visitors to the article would post "what are the rules?" questions on the Talk page. Russ, what do you say? [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 11:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::As humans we're fond of just-so stories, and archaeology is all about story telling with things. I think putting it there makes the lead weak, but could see including it elsewhere in the article and would take suggestions for another place it might fit. I can try to add something by thursday. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 23:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Olmecs

2008-12-16T04:31:42Z

Peelinglayers: /* Olmec black history */

{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WP Mesoamerica |nested=yes |class=B |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Mexico |nested=yes |class=B}}
}}

{{WPCD}}
{{FAOL|French|fr:Art olmèque}}

{{Archive box
|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1 (May 2005 to 2007)]]
[[/GA1|Olmec Good Article nomination #1]]
}}

== Olmec black history ==

Should be mentioned. Even though many whites oppose this idea, it is worth maerit and has some evidence which should be permited in the article as at the very least as an alternate theory. I'm going to add a bit about it—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Qtang|Qtang]] ([[User talk:Qtang|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Qtang|contribs]]){{#if:13 March 2007| 13 March 2007|}}.
:Reference to the "out of Africa" theory is made in the '''Alternative origin speculations''' section in this article and in a separate article entitled [[Olmec alternative origin speculations]]. You are welcome to add ''referenced'' information to that article. Unreferenced material will be deleted. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:"''Even though many whites oppose this idea...''" What kind of crap is this? Which "whites" oppose the idea? And who do you define as "white" anyway? Listen, whoever you are, in future keep your stupid racist comments to yourself. --[[User:Jquarry|Jquarry]] 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I am not white and i oposse that idea
Mexxxicano 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Olmecs weren't Black Africans; they were Australoid (the same race as the [[Australian Aborigines]] and [[Melanesians]]. [[User:Arnie Gov|Arnie Gov]] 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:It doesn't matter where black people live on this planet. They are still black people. All of black peoples hair isn't kinky like all white peoples hair isn't dead straight. There are even Nubians that can be found with loose cropped hair. Because of their blackness, the Aborigines have faced as much evil and hatred in Australia as black people have in "The Home Of The Brave". Because of your comment I hope that the Australians now realize the resource that they've wasted. However the Olmecs spoke traces of the Mande language which is a West African dialect. Tom 05/30/07

::Have the Afro-centrists gone completely mad? Where do you people stop? Why don't you focus instead on investigating the alleged "noble African" roots of the Venusian and Martian civilizations instead of polluting reasonable articles with blatant lies or relativistic fairy tales. We have to draw the line on this. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Hmmm...let's see, you love Germany, you are interested in ancient civilization, only if it has to do with Europe. Anybody who disagrees with you has a nice and neat derogatory name. You like firearms, want to abolish the UN and love the history of the U.S. Hitler in da house!

Someone that you don't respect can't tell you anything that will impress you. Afro-centrists have been relegated to this category. So there's a pretty good chance that you're going to ignore this archaeological report. '''www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html'''. You're probably going to claim it to be an afro-centric bunch of garbage even though the majority of the researchers are not black and wrote their findings decades before the term afro-centric was invented. There is no greater evidence of African influence than the heads themselves. Black people are very capable of identifying themselves even if other people are not. You would have as hard a time of convincing me that the Olmecs weren't black as you would in convincing me that I'm not black. If you don't know when you're looking at a black person, then you'll just have to not know. But don't expect black people to join you in not knowing. Tom 04/23/04

:Ah Tom, back again I see. Perhaps you posted the wrong URL, following it one finds not an archaeological report, produced by actual archaeologists, but just another lengthy essay from sometime-contributor here Dr Winters, which we've all been over many times before. As I'm sure you know, Dr Winters is not a million miles away from the afrocentrist camp, and I reckon that he'd readily confirm if asked that no-one in Mesoamerican studies has picked up his novel 'decipherments'. Isn't there anything ''new'' to report? One thing I might agree with you, that the heads constitute the "best evidence" for the African-origins hypothesis. If I were a supporter of that idea, I would find that extremely depressing- after all this time looking, not a single artefact or genuine remains to confirm any connection, at all; just a vague and non-unique resemblance to a cartoon-like conception of what a real African ought to look like. Given the great genetic diversity within Africa, it would be remarkable if you were unable to find at least ''some'' African population who'd resemble any given carved statue of a human face, Olmec or not. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

::The willful ignorance is amazingly palpable! The neo-liberal academic establishment and its relentless and wilfuly blind disciples have made an art out of denial. They will one day convince Africans of their non-Africaness and finally admit any shred of dignity that these people are entitled to, and turn around and tell them...'see, nothing good came out of Africa, and you're not African.' Mr. Wright, your desire to blatantly lie to yourself frightens me. Humans of your ability are capable of the most evil. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.20.195.252|76.20.195.252]] ([[User talk:76.20.195.252|talk]]) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 

:::Well, anonymous critic —or is that Tom again? Either way, I'm always more than happy for my comments here to be scrutinised by others and stand behind what they contain. That's why I sign my name to my posts; it's a pity that for whatever reason you seem not to have the same confidence to do likewise, so that an independent person might properly be able to assess where the true expression of self-deception lies.
:::Anyone is free to search through all my contributions here for comments that could vaguely be interpreted as racist, or that are disparaging of Africans and their achievements — and they will find none. Anonymous carping from the sidelines containing no actual argument or examinable piece of evidence in support contributes nothing, and means nothing, no matter how many loaded terms and empty buzzwords are squeezed into the sentence.
:::This strident repetition of ''ad hominems'' truly seems nothing more than a smokescreen, intended to mask a complete absence of any sense-making, logical or empirically sound arguments to advance. For, if you had them, why are they not being employed?
:::Or for that matter, why do you not turn your attention to documenting the authentic and actual achievements of African peoples, of which there are a great many and which are lamentably under-recorded in wikipedia to date? That would be far more constructive than this blind-alley pursuit.--[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::If my unanimity is such a downer on my argument, here I am. You smoked me out, you brave you! Bush would be mighty proud of you! My anonymous comments were a result of simply being not logged in, not something insidious as you assert. You're still willfuly ignorant at best, and virulently racist at worst. Although correct that there is not as much documentation of the African's past, there is enough to trump your ignorance, thus my assertion of your willful ignorance. Start with Bernal's '''''Black Athena''''' series. The neo-liberal academic establishment has so far refused to acknowledge (in forms of peer reviews) these works, and as such they are considered illegitimate among the believers. That's what I call, having your cake and eating it too. Furthermore, the neo-liberal academic establishment bestows the title of ''The Father of History'' on Herodotus, and call him a liar in the same breath about anything he had to say about the African, because it contradicts the inherent superiority of the Aryan. Voluminous documentation is not evidence of one's truth. So, don't piss on our collective feet and tell us it is raining. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Peelinglayers|contribs]]) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 

==B-class==
Why is this article not a GA? --[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde|talk]]) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:I do think that this article could be rated A or Good Article -- it might be Featured with a bit of clean-up -- but no one has bothered to take it thru the process. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think it could be GA with a quite small effort. Why not nominate it?[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·]] [[User talk:Maunus|·ƛ·]] 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Returned to post to this item after a long absence: Well, Maunus and I tried to put it thru the GA process but ended up with a lot of heat and what I considered to be unreasonable demands (including asking "when were the [[radiocarbon]] dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them, and which calibration they used". I spent considerable effort on the process and the article is only marginally better. I fear that there are better uses of my time. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

==Blatant Spam in "Overview" Section==
When did the following get added to the Article?

"...among them San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán,where they learned to teleport, La Venta, where they invented toaster strudel, Tres Zapotes, where they ate the strudel and Laguna de los Cerros, where they all ended up dying."

Very sad the disrespect shown by some. § —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jrbarnett|Jrbarnett]] ([[User talk:Jrbarnett|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jrbarnett|contribs]]) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 

:Gone now. It was a school site registered to the State of Illinois, I expect it to be blocked for a while.--[[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
::72 hour block. The problem is presumably there are good editors there as well! --[[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

==Further Debate on the African Migration Theory==
I reverted Godheval's change as it sounds like [[wp:or]]. If there's a source which supports this feel free to reinsert this, but the paragraph seems to be talking about modern (in the 1940s) Indians. I assume the paragraph was referring large [[Indigenous_peoples_in_Mexico#Demographics|Indian populations in the south]]. In the north, there are more instances of African genes mixed into the population. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:No, it is not original research, it is common sense. At the time of the Olmec, Europeans had yet to introduce enslaved Africans to the Americas. So any appearance of "Africanesque" features on the continent would not be related to this, and must therefore rely on another possibility, such as Africans of some sort making the journey on their own before that. The argument against THAT possibility, as in the article, is that MODERN Amerindians have Africanesque features, under the assumption that they've always had them. But the counter to that is that modern incarnations of African features could have come from the introduction of enslaved Africans to the continent in the 15th and 16th centuries. Therefore, just modern people in the area having African features is in no way a case against African migration in the distant past. It's plainly a weak argument. I'm putting the comments back in.[[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::You misunderstand my main point: if you don't have a [[wp:rs|reliable source]] that you are getting your information from and citing in the article, then you are inserting OR. There are sources which claim that Africans migrated to the Americas long ago, but unless you find sources which discuss this along with the Olmec heads, you are [[wp:syn|synthesizing]] the information (which is also not allowed). We have to be careful in what we place in the articles, otherwise anybody could start putting all sorts of '''opinions''' in the text. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:::And you just completely fail to acknowledge what it is that I'm saying. I AM NOT THE ONE to have put the bit about African Migration theory into the article. It was put in some time ago and has been accepted, as it is well-known idea and argument in the field. My addition was ONLY to point out the flaw in one argument against the African Migration theory. Please try to keep up. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::We're not talking about the "bit about African Migraion theory." We're talking about your "pointing out the flaw in one argument". That is all I removed and that is OR until you find a source that states that. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Please address this issue. "Material that should be removed without discussion includes ... clear examples of original research ..." Cite a source within the hour or remove it. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream", it is not the only theory, and does not explain all the features of all the populations in the Americas. My change to the article was not introducing original research, but was referring to theories already mention IN the article. My addition was merely to demonstrate the flaw in one argument against the African migration theory already mentioned. Before you revert, discuss it here. You are no authority, and are bound by the same rules as the rest of us. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 18:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have restored "mainstream" per your statement above. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:: What is mainstream? People who think one thing and publish a book about it? Or people who others just happen to notice? The way it is worded now makes it sound like all credible Mesoamerican researchers disregard all other theories of migration to the area. This is simply not true. The Bering Strait Migration theory is not necessarily at odds with other theories. If it were true that all credible researchers disregarded other theories, then you would have to cite an awful lot of people - which is why I put the "who" tag on it. So you can either keep that, or it can be changed to "some Mesoamerican researchers". You decide. For now I'm going to change it to "some". [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You can't have it both ways. You say that is the mainstream view, but you don't want the article to say this. Your version is a distortion of the academic consensus. Regardless of what you or I think the Truth might be (something I don't claim to know anyway), Wikipedia does not attempt to find the Truth. Wikipedia only reports what academic consensus states. That's the role of an encyclopedia. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::You make zero sense. PAY ATTENTION. It is you who seems to want it both ways. If you are going to use the term "mainstream", then you need to have MULTIPLE, if not MANY citations to back up that claim. That is why I used the "who?" tag at first. But rather than do that, I put "some researchers", leaving the burden of proving a "mainstream" consensus to anyone who wants to replace that term in the article. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Note that there are ZERO citations for this alleged "mainstream consensus", yet there ARE citations - as of now - for the African origin theory. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::"It is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream."" Do you recall writing this? Citations are needed when a statement is doubted. You apparently don't doubt this statement, so a citation is not required. Also, please stop YELLING. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I also put "mainstream" in quotes to signal the dubiousness of the term. I also go on to say that the Bering Strait theory is not necessarily at odds with any theory of African migration. The two are not mutually exclusive. Bering Strait purports to explain indigenous New World populations. It does not preclude a separate African migration either before or (most likely) afterwards. I apologize for "yelling", but the constant RV'ing was pissing me off. And you say "citations are needed when a statement is doubted"? Uh...citations are needed when a statement is MADE, too, last I checked. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Please check [[Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_is_needed]] again then. Also, your links such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&diff=229279583&oldid=229278974] are highly misleading. That article does not make any reference to the African migration hypothesis. Please revert it so I don't have to. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I did not link it because it mentions the African migration theory. I linked it because it refers to populations of mixed African and indigenous Mesoamerican descent. Look at the text that is linked and it starts to make sense. You know, verification of the intermixing? You really are kind of slow on the draw if I have to spell out every change I make for you.[[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

::This is an old debate, and no new argunments are presented. There is simply no way that this article is going to state anything to the effect that there were an precolumbian african presence - this belongs in the Alternative Origins Speculations article. Not in the serious article about what scholars believe about the Olmecs.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Regardless, the theories exist, and deserve mention - as they have been. This whole RV war between myself and NJGW has less to do with that, and more to do with his misunderstanding of why I added what I did. If the African migration theory is going to be mentioned, and then an argument against it is presented, a counter argument can also be made. It's that simple. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::No it is not. The page is not to be constructed as an argument but as a description of what the scientific consensus about the issue is. The scientific consensus is that the precolumbian african presence theory is a dead horse - theres no need to keep flogging it in article space. Arguments and counter argument belong in the Olme Alternative Origins Speculations article. Its that simple.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:: And yet nowhere in this article are there citations for what the "scientific consensus" even is. No one's flogging a dead horse. I am giving light to theories that exist and are as credible as any other. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is quite clear on what scientific consensus is.So please go give light elsewhere, there is lots of free publishing space. This is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of novel theories. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:And I suppose an encyclopedia is the end-all on what is factual and what is theoretical? That even published encyclopedias only state facts and never theories? What world do you live in where that's true? There is nothing wrong with incorporating valid theories along with the facts. And if the scientific consensus on this particular issue is clearly stated in the article, I certainly cannot find it. Care to point it out for me? You are quite arrogant to think that you can just come in here and change other people's edits with no authority on the subject, especially when those others have provided back-up for their edits. Get over yourself, son. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::There are specific rules about what [[WP:NOT|wikipedia is and isn't]] you are violating about three of them. This article is a colaboration between many previous editors who all have expertise on the subject. We have discussed the african presence theory MANY times and the way it is presented is a result of a consensus of multiple editors - you are the arrogant one waltzing in and trying to revolutionize the view of a field about which obviously have little to no appreciation. Just like you apparently have little or no appreciation for Wkipedias rules or processes. The only thing you will achieve with this kind of agressive POV pushing is a block. My advice is that you read the old discussions VERY thoroughly- and if you have something new to add to those discussions which seems highly unlikely judging from what you have already added then you put it here on the discussion page and IF the consensus of editors agrees that it is important enough to be included then we include it. Not before.
::: I've read the discussions. It's funny how short your memory is, because if you think back, you'd recall us - I mean YOU and I personally - having an argument on this subject before. At the time I just gave up, because I didn't have sources, and didn't care enough to look into them. Imagine my pleasant surprise to find SOME mention of the African origin theory. However, following that bit was an apparent argument against the theory as supported by some random artist's work. My addition was merely to point out the flaw in that argument. Arrogant would've been to delete it altogether, since it is a completely spurious argument. Also, I added one needed citation to support the African origin theory. There is nothing out of order about my addition, and nothing contradictory to wikipedia guidelines, or to the consensus. Do try to read things carefully. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::I am sorry if I hurt your feelings by not remembering its just that I can't really distinguish one POV pusher from the next one.If you find a published source that points out the flaw in the argument then you csn put it in [[Olmec Alternative Origins Speculations]] - not here. If you don't find a published source making this objection then it is indeed Original Research and a violation of policy. Consensus among the editors of this page up to now is that in this article we don't present arguments for or against the African Precolumbian Presence theory, but only what is the current academic consensus: namely that "They Were Not Here Before Columbus" - speculations and arguments go in the other article.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 20:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: You overestimate your importance. But anyway, see below for the answer to this. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

* Saying that "mainstream Mesoamerican scholars now reject this view" is entirely correct. (For that matter I don't know that the word "now" is needed, as it seems to imply there was a time when the situation was otherwise.) Alternative explanations that have become well known in pop culture, even if widely or even universally rejected by scholars, merit mention in the article, but it is dishonest to try to twist wording to suggest that there are only "some" who do not accept them. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] ([[User talk:Infrogmation|talk]]) 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::I patiently await the source for "It should be noted that this view seems to discount the [[Atlantic slave trade|introduction of enslaved Africans]] to the Americas by [[Conquistador|European conquerors]]. Such would explain [[Afro-Latin American|modern manifestations]] of African features in all New World populations, as the transplants intermixed with the native populations, but fails to explain the existence of those same features in the distant past. This discrepancy allows the African migration theory to retain credence." [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: I explained this already. A few times, even. Much like it is taken for granted that the "consensus" goes against the African Origin theory, the "consensus" also states that there was such a thing as the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and that there were instances of intermixing between those transplanted peoples and the native populations. Therefore, to say that the manifestation of African features in modern populations somehow debunks the idea of the African Origin theory of the Olmecs is completely spurious. Are you really not understanding this? [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Source or go home. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, sources please. And make them exceptionally good. Anyway the "indians do/don't look african argument" isn't even supposed to be in this article. It is suppoed to be in the other one. The only thing this article is supposed to say is that the theory is rejected by the scientific community and that no precolumbian african presence has ever been documented in the americas. I don't know where the covarrubias argument which was grantedly weak (since there are so many so much better arguments against it) even came from it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Then delete the argument supported by Miguel Corrubias or whatever tf his name is, and then I have nothing to argue against. I do not NEED a source for the fact that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade occurred, nor do I need a source for the fact that many of those enslaved Africans intermingled with native populations. These things are established historical facts. The SOURCES are in the text itself - which point to the slave trade article and an article on people who are evidence of the aforementioned intermingling. The SOURCES are also in the MAINSTREAM historical record. That being the case, following plain logic, the argument that MODERN manifestations of African features disproves ANY theory of ancient manifestations is completely fallacious. So either remove it, or allow it to be acknowledged that the argument is spurious. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Source that makes the same statement you do in it's entirety or go home. I'm sure we can find better arguments than Covarrubias' but that's so far besides the point that I'm yawning. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Civility works both ways. I just asked Godheval to tone things down ''at your request'', don't you start too. May I suggest to everyone that perhaps dropping this for now, and restarting the discussion in the morning after a nice cup of tea, might be best for all involved? The article will still be here in the morning. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Hm, I didn't realize that wikipedia was composed entirely of verbatim quotes from sources. I always thought that people put things in their own words and then supported them with evidence. You know why I thought that? Because that's what people do. That's also what I did. There is no mental leap required to understand or accept my statements. My statements are a logical procession from the historical record. Let me put it simply for you. Argument: Olmec heads having so-called African features + Modern Mesoamericans having African features = Mesoamericans have always had African features. Flaw 1: Some modern Mesoamericans ARE of African descent, which would explain their features. There is no necessary correlation between their features and any theory on Olmec origin. Who's to even say that they are RELATED to the Olmecs at all? Why is this hard to understand? My next move is to just remove the argument, since it is so obviously flawed, rather than to muddle up the article with a counter-argument. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I'm not here to judge the cited content. I first got to this article following a vandal and kept it watched because it seemed no other eyes were regular visitors. You came in and inserted what appeared to be OR, I asked for a source, you refused to give one. Now we are still waiting for a source. If there are issues with the article's content, I'll let folks more versed with the sources sort it out. This does not give you free license to include your [[wp:syn|evaluations of the facts]]. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:I would support the removale of the argument although for different reasons.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 21:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
: I'm not "evaluating" any facts. First of all, there are virtually no facts when it comes to the Olmec, just varying theories, with a consensus being based on the views of a sizable majority. That consensus does NOT argue against the African origin theory by saying something idiotic like "Modern manifestations of African features in Mesoamerican populations proves that they've always had these features". I'm not even arguing for or against the theory, but against the sheer idiocy of the argument supported by that one artist. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 21:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::This is getting very silly. You can't include your personal speculations for reasons that have already been explained. However, your arguments are irrelevant. There re many isolated tribes that have had abolutely no contact with African immigrants, and which have been photographed for over a century. These features are to be found in them. Features such as wide noses are an evolutionary adaptation determined by climate. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Great! I accept what you say, but the argument in place does NOT mention these facts. My only contention was with the argument that African features in modern Mesoamericans somehow debunks the African Origin theory. It's not so much support for the AOT as it is pointing out how silly that argument is. So if we remove the completely asinine argument, then I'll have nothing to say. Good day! [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm just going to leave it as this: I think the African migration debate deserves a ''mention'' here (with a link to [[models of migration to the New World]] and a statement making clear that this is not a mainstream hypothesis), and some rebuttal wouldn't hurt. A rebuttal to the rebuttal would violate [[wp:undue]] however, as well as the MOS which states debates are not to be given in a back and forth manner. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit:
The flat-faced, thick-lipped characteristics of the heads have caused some to suggest a resemblance to [[Africa]]n facial characteristics. Based on this comparison, Wiercinski argued in 1972 that the Olmecs were Africans who had emigrated to the New World.<ref>Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.</ref> However, this hypothesis is not among [[models of migration to the New World|mainstream models of migration to Mesoamerica]], and scholars offer other possible explanations for the facial features of the colossal heads,<ref name=Haslip-viera1997>{{citation
| author = Haslip-viera, G.; De Montellano, B. O.; Barbour, W.
| year = 1997
| title = Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs
| journal = Current Anthropology
| volume = 38
| issue = 3
| pages = 419–441
| doi = 10.1086/204626
| url = http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/204626
}}</ref> for example, that the heads were carved in this manner due to the shallow space allowed on the basalt boulders. Others note that Olmec art has no relation to African art.<ref name=Hendon2004>{{Citation
| author = Hendon, J. A.; Joyce, R. A.
| title = Mesoamerican Archaeology
| year = 2004
| page = 75
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=gdbR1MdK5gwC&printsec=frontcover&lr=#PPA75,M1
| publisher = Wiley
}}</ref>

:I was under the impression that the pre-Columbian African presence was considered a fringe theory and that fring theories do not belong in a general article. [[User:Kman543210|Kman543210]] ([[User talk:Kman543210|talk]]) 00:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think the present wording needs fixing or expansion. It explicitly mentions the Africa theory, among others. The African and Chinese and other origin speculations are covered in detail at [[Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations]], to which the reader can jump. As stated by Kman above, "pre-Columbian African presence" is a fringe theory and does not belong in a general article per [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. If anyone feels coverage is lacking, they are welcome, and encouraged, to add sourced material discussing "pre-Columbian African presence" at [[Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations]]. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
==weight estimate correction==

I have added a higher weight estimate based on the volume and the density of the Rancho Cobata. Volcanic Basalt is a vey low density stone but not as light as the existing estimate. I have also added distances that they were transported based on the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. This book estimated the stones upto 50 tonnes but I assume he didn't know how low the density of volcanic basalt is. The following site provided the density of basalt:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5461391
"samples over a density range of 1.45 to 2.03 g/cm"
I translated that into 1.9 tons per cubic meter.
Feel free to check it. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:According to a [[WP:NOR|rule of Wikipedia]], we really shouldn't be running our own calculations, particularly something with as much room for error as a colossal head. I mean, how in the world do we estimate its volume -- is it a cube or a sphere?? Sorry, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have seen at least 4 or 5 different estimates for these heads which is why I checked the math. As I said I could cite the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. They estimate it at over 50 tons. It is possible that it is a high density Basalt. The 20 ton estimate is clearly low. Would it be OK to cite both sources and provide a range? Thanks [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 06:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Why, yes, citing two sources would be perfectly fine. It's something I do a lot, particularly since there is often disagreement even among experts. Two estimates can give our readers a nice range and let them also know that there is no one "answer".
:On the other hand, I'm not sure that it makes much difference to our readers whether the weight is 20 tons or 50 tons. To me, both those numbers fall within the "too large to imagine" category. :) Thanks for your work, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at that source and the way it was worded again. It actualy said aproaching 50 tons not over and it discussed Basalt as well as a few other things. I'll try it again with a closer watch on the details. Experiments have sucessfuly moved at least 10 tons and at least shift larger stones. If you think that is to large to imagine take a look at Baalbek. I checked the math on that as well and disputed it in the other direction. That has almost certainly been exagerated. When there is a simple math mistake is there a source that you know of that would fact check it if I find additional mistakes. Or I should say when since there are many that I have seen already. Including many much easier to calculate than the Olmec heads.

Thanks
[[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:As far as reliable sources for weight estimations go, I would think that [[INAH]] could be regarded as authorative. Not least, because they have practical experience in actually shifting the things about the archaeological sites and onto plinths etc for display in the site museums ... ;-)

:The 17 colossal heads vary considerably in size—from abt 1.5 to 3.5 m tall—and hence weight. For eg, the one most recently found (in 1994) came in at 1.8m tall, and 8 tonnes.[http://dti.inah.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1089&Itemid=150]. INAH gives the smallest as weighing abt 6t, up to the largest at abt 50t.[http://www.inah.gob.mx/ZonasArqueologicas/todas/htme/za02503b.html] Hence it would be entirely appte to give a range, since they do in fact vary. Or to put it another way, need to be mindful that there are two reasons for any variance in weight figures - one because the masses of the monuments actually varies by up to an order of magnitude, and two because different sources may use different methods to obtain the weight for any given piece. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 01:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that agrees with the source I cited. a Spanish reference might be helpful to some but er I'm to lazy to learn new languages. Seventy wonders included one that was 4.8 tonnes but the highest one was also 50 tonnes.
[[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:Zacherystaylor, when you add a citation to an existing article, please use the same format as the rest of the article. In this case, you stuck the name of the book in the citation itself, whereas the article was using [[WP:SHORT|shortened notes]], where the citation just refers to the author and the page number (we could also use the page number on your recent adds). Nothing major, but it helps keep Wikipedia looking good, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Added page # and looked at changes you made will copy in future. thanks. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== Removed genetic study ref ==

I removed the following reference to a paper on a HLA gene study, published in ''Tissue Antigens'' journal:
*{{aut|Arnaiz-Villena A, Vargas-Alarcon G, Granados J, Gomez-Casado E, Longas J, Gonzales-Hevilla M, Zuniga J, Salgado N, Hernandez-Pacheco G, Guillen J, Martinez-Laso J.;}} ''[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11144288 HLA genes in Mexican Mazatecans, the peopling of the Americas and the uniqueness of Amerindians.]'' - Bibliographic entry in [[PubMed]].
Firstly, because it does not seem to be used anywhere. Secondly, going only by the abstract on PubMed, I don't think it can be reliably used to demonstrate anything substantial about the preclassic Olmec. AFAIK the paper's authors are Spanish immunologists and geneticists, not Mesoamerican scholars. The paper seems to presume that the modern [[Mazatec]] are Olmec descendants, which while an option is certainly not something Mesoamericanists would be confident of. Or to put it another way, while the study may have something to say about modern indigenous populations, equating "Mazatec" with "Olmec" is not something I've seen well supported in Mesoamericanist literature. One of the paper's main conclusions, namely: "An indirect evidence of Olmec and Mayan relatedness is suggested, further supporting the notion that Olmecs may have been the precursors of Mayans", is an inference that would need qualifications and runs counter to the archaeological evidence.

Maybe if the reference was to be used somewhere, or the full paper obtained, then we could look at rationale for including it. It would be interesting also to see if the paper had been commented upon by any archaeologist, ethnohistorian or linguist.--[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 07:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Notes on recent <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> additions ==

Wandalstouring, I note your recent addition of 46 (count 'em) <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags. I will be looking thru them over the next couple of days. Many of them are fair questions. Some of the ones that appear directly after an existing citation are puzzling but will be thoroughly reviewed.

Some however seem to be a bit outside the scope of this Wikipedia overview article (vs., say, a doctoral thesis). For example:
:*"Please provide in a note complete argumentation why there were rulers (no republic?) full-time priests and shamans (and please tell what's the difference between a priest and a shaman)."
:*"Use a note to provide the argumentation for the centralization theory. Could have other reasons regarding only architecture and sculpture."
:*"Are there more scholars supporting this view? How do you know about the political mechanism from architecture and art? Please provide argumentation"

:*"Please provide arguments why this [ [[slash and burn]] agriculture ] was practised."
:*"When were these [radiocarbon] dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use? "
At 62 Kb, this article is pretty full up and many of these requests for argumentation would either be more appropriate for a sub-article or, in some cases, would be classified as [[WP:OR|original research]]. These overview articles are an attempt to incorporate and inter-relate facts from various sources to paint a broad picture of the subject matter (in this case, of course, the Olmec civilization). In the cases cited above, I believe is it best to provide the facts along with a proper citation and not discuss, for example, the radiocarbon calibration methodology or how archaeologists measure centralization. These are topics for other specialized articles.

Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:I just completed a review of some of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> labels. I provided many citations. I also wanted to comment on the following:

::*<nowiki><ref>Pool, pp. 26-27, provides a great overview of this theory, and says: "The generation of food surpluses is necessary for the development of social and political hierarchies and there is no doubt that high agricultural productivity, combined with the natural abundance of aquatic foods in the Gulf lowlands suppported their growth".</ref> {{fact}} "</nowiki>
:::I want to stay on topic here and not get involved in a discussion of theories of complex society formation. Pool is eminent and his comments are right on target so let's leave it at that.

::*"Much Olmec art is highly stylized and uses an iconography reflective of a religious meaning."{{fact}} !--who says that and what are the arguments?--!
:::Citation provided. Again, I don't think it would benefit us to try to determine why Coe and others believe this. This would be a topic for another article.

::*[Referring to Long Count calendar dates and various stelae with these dates.] {{fact}} !--Who has published this artifact and says that this symbol is on it and has this meaning.--
:::The early stelae containing Long Count dates are completely non-controversial. This is not the article to discuss how archaeologists determined that the shell glyph was zero or how to read Long Count dates. The wikilinks can lead the reader to articles that more fully explain this.

::*"It has been estimated that moving a colossal head required the efforts of 1,500 people for three to four months.<nowiki><ref>Pool, p. 103.</ref>" {{fact}} </nowiki>
:::It's not a theory, but rather an eminent archaeolgist's estimate and the citation was already provided. This sentence provides context for the size and effort and ultimately worth of these heads and gives the reader something they can relate to. I can't see the need for more than that. Again, this is a survey article.

::*"<nowiki>Nonetheless, Olmec society is thought to lack many of the institutions of later civilizations, such as a standing army or priestly caste.<ref>Serra Puche et al., p. 36.</ref>{{fact}}</nowiki>
:::I'm confused since this sentence is already cited, so we know "who supports this view". Regarding the "why", I'm not sure that this survey article shuld be going into this detail.

:Maunus also correctly removed a tag since the citations were already provided and discussed in the article, and I removed the 4 tags detailed in my earlier post in this section for the reasons given (i.e. this is an overview article).

:Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::*This theory that there were shamans AND full-time priests reads like nonsense regarding the archaeological evidence. Such an extraordinary claim must be provided with very good arguments when you mention it. i know American archaeology makes lots of claims that are fringe opinions in European archaeology, so see this as enabling a discussion with sources.

::*Again a claim that can be fringe opinion and is hard to believe and that for this reason needs some more backup.

::*Again a claim that is hard to believe and can be an overrepresentation of a very fringe opinion.

::*There are clear indicators for slash and burn techniques. If you point out in a footnote that they have been found everything is OK.

::All in all, it needs more footnotes with short explanations. I know this is difficult, but you're making a fool of the reader if you present him the results of archaeological research as facts. They are opinions and you have to understand them like they are wrong. That's the basic lesson for every first semester in archaeology. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::*Radiocarbon dates can be calibrated or uncalibrated. And there are several different calibration curves, almost each laboratory having its own. So it's very important to know because uncalibrated samples for example tend to be "older" than calibrated. In this case it can be a margin of 100 years difference. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It is important to specialist readers who can go get the sources themselves. It is not important to the general reader of an encyclopedia. Anyway an error margin of +/- 100 years is very little in relation to a field that has so many questions and so little knowledge as the Olmec area does. I wouldn't even imagine that Diehl or Pool supplies the information of which calibration was used in their non-specialist writings. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I completely agree with Maunus. I looked up my source last night, and it was [[Michael Coe]] who said that the radiocarbon dating had proved that the Olmec pre-dated the Maya. Did he go into detail? Of course not. He listed the dates found (something like 1150 - 450 BCE frm La Venta) but he certainly doesn't say "When these [radiocarbon] dates were taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use". So, should I not use Coe's assertion because he doesn't back it up? That would be totally ludicrous. "Mr. Coe, I'm sorry, you don't provide enough detail so until you do, we just can't use your information".
:::::Alas, there are many more citation requests like this. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::OK, lets put this to rest once and for all. Yes, an archaeologist needs to know if the radiocarbon date is calibrated or uncalibrated, and if calibrated, to what standard correction curve, but the dates are probability distributions within a range (usually to 2 standard deviations) not points in time, and should be reported that way. And yes, for certain points in calibration correction curves, the calibrated versus uncalibrated date-range can differ by hundreds of years. A wikipedia article on an archaeological topic, except one on radiocarbon, does not need to mention this. The question the wikipedia article is asking is, what is the generally accepted dating of Olmec, and the article correctly reports that. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Ethnicity and language tag===
I added ". . . and language. . ." to the first sentence of this section and I again removed its fact tag. The language matter is discussed at length in the rest of the section and the two main theories (Maya and Mixe-Zoquean) are laid out with proper citations. 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]])

:Still it is not sourced that there are multiple theories about the ethnicity. It is sourced that there are theories about their native tongue. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::[[User:Maunus]] changed "ethnicity and language" to "ethno-linguistic affiliation", which I think covers the matter. If not, perhaps we should remove the word "ethnic", although it is my understanding that ethnicity and language were closely related or identical at this time. Maunus?? [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 22:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Just take a look at native speakers of English and you will realize that there can be a heck of a difference. Remove ethnic because the only thing about ethnic is a fringe opinion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No it isn't, none of those studies cited are fringe. Coe is not fringe he was just probably wrong, because he was writing at an early date. Using ethnicity and linguistic affiliation near-synonymously is completely standard practice. A Maya community is a community in which the (main)language used is of the mayan family. You are picking nits that no scholar in the field would even care about. In short you can't expect this article to make distinctions that aren't made in the studies of the topic. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Then please write that the scholar thinks he is talking about ethnicity when he refers to language. In other fields of archaeology you can't seriously publish such an opinion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 06:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::It is not "a scholar" it is an entire academic field of Mesoamericanists. Apart from that I believe you are wrong in your strong assertions about how other fields of archaeology refer to ethnic and linguistic bpoundaries in the remote past.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Language is not the same thing as ethnicity for most contemporary, theoretically-informed archaeology, but its also true that many Mesoamerican archaeologists equate the two. Since its the prevailing standard in the subdiscipline, it has to be acceptable for the article, since to require otherwise would force them to essentially forge a new, unsourced literature for Mesoamerica. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Withdraw Good Article nomination===
I have no more time to work on the Good Article nomination, so I have withdrawn it from the nomination process. Maybe later. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Take your time to work on the article. It has potential, but archaeology isn't as easy as it looks. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::We are not doing archaeology here. The article is supposed to convey to the reader the current status of the Olmec research not pose critical viewpoints on or evaluate that research. An encyclopedic article isn't a scholarly paper and one cannot expect it to have the same standard of argumentation as if it were. It is enough to merely report what others have written of course by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 05:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, I know we aren't allowed to evaluate or criticize. However, you have to understand how an archaeologist came to his conclusion. The "how" is the most important thing and your writing has to reflect why they think this and that. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::No, it doesn't. It is enough to know that an archaeologist wrote the book and then cite his conclusions. Archaeologists writing for general audiences for example when writing for encyclopedias do not go into details about calibrations or ceramic typologies etc. but just gives the conclusions. We can only give the "how" if the source states it specifically and often in non-specialist literature (as for example textbooks) the writer only gives a general idea of the how and doesn't go into the archaeological details. Readers with special knowledge can go to the original sources if they want that. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Completely agree. In several cases, we're being asked to work to a higher standard than Diehl or Pool (again, authors of the two most recent general Olmec books). Too many of the requests above asked that we somehow determine how a scholar arrived at his opinion. Unless the scholar says this (and many don't - see my note about Coe & radiocarbon dates above) we just don't know. An encyclopedia overview article like this should provide information to a '''''general''''' audience. To quote Maunus "It is enough to merely report what others have written . . . by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other." [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, an error margin of 100 years means a lot. That's possibly an archaeologists talking with non-archaeologists. Try Renfrew, '''Archaeology''' for a start on methods. Sorry, I'm usually not the hardest reviewer, but you throroughly mispresent things. I will put an expert needed template on it and see if I can fetch any to help you. I'm too busy myself with several articles and reviews, so I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Of course it would be nice to know the error margin but you are asking about information that isn't in the sources! How can anyone be expected to comply with such a request? I read Renfrews Archaeology ten years ago, at introductory coursr to archaeology, thank you very much, and it is still on my shelf. But this isn't an article about archaeology it is about an historical civilization - archaeological details are not crucial here - what is at issue is whether the article represent the published sources and the scientific consensus, and whether it meets the GA criteria, which I am certain that it does.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Oh and we have two or three resident archaeology proffesors specialising in Mesoamerica that may be able to help us. [[User:Hoopes]], [[User:MESmith]] and [[User:Chunchucmil]]. I suggest we make a call for experts on the Aztlan list as well.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::The statement "I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you" is extremely offensive.
:::::::Even worse, you are missing the point. We are writing an encyclopedia article using Wikipedia principles (which include [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|"verifiability, not truth"]]). We are relying on published and in general tertiary sources, in particular Coe and Diehl and Pool, all of whom are professors of archaeology and without a doubt some of the most pre-eminent authorities on the Olmec. As encyclopedia editors, we ourselves cannot second-guess these academics, attempt to divine how they arrived at their decisions/propositions/opinions/estimates, or otherwise declare that these fellows aren't good enough. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(remove indent) Well a lot has happened since I left these shores. I respect the decision made to remove the nomination, but feel that the reasons were not totally correct. I agree you cannot reference a reference (but a featured article was failed because museums of international status has not referenced their statements - at which point do we arrive at the OR (original reference). This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, giving them the opportunity to research further into any given subject; but being wikipedia all editors have the right to express the direction that they wish to see the article go. Now off to retrain the reprobate archaeologists I spend my days with. Oh Joy! I will close the GA discussion down, but not as a fail obviously as it was withdrawn. Hope to meet you all again at some point. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

==Removed compass section==
I removed the following section from the article:

:Based on his find of an Olmec [[hematite]] artifact in [[Veracruz]], the American astronomer John Carlson has suggested that "the Olmec may have discovered and used the geomagnetic lodestone compass earlier than 1000 BC". If true, this "predates the Chinese discovery of the geomagnetic lodestone compass by more than a millennium".<ref name="John B. Carlson 753">John B. Carlson, “Lodestone Compass: Chinese or Olmec Primacy? Multidisciplinary Analysis of an Olmec Hematite Artifact from San Lorenzo, Veracruz, Mexico”, ''Science'', New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4205 (Sep. 5, 1975), pp. 753-760 (753)</ref> Carlson speculates that the Olmecs may have used similar artifacts as a directional device for astrological or [[geomancy|geomantic]] purposes, or to orientate their temples, the dwellings of the living or the interments of the dead.

:The artifact itself is part of a [[lodestone]] that had been polished into a bar with a groove at one end (that Carlson suggests may have been used for sighting). The artifact now consistently points 35.5 degrees west of north, but may have pointed north-south when whole. It is possible that the artifact was in fact used as some constituent piece of a decorative ornament.<ref>{{cite book|last=Needham|first=Joseph |coauthors=Lu Gwei-Djen|title=Trans-Pacific Echoes and Resonances: Listening Once Again |publisher=World Scientific |date=1985 |pages=21}}</ref> No other similar [[hematite]] artifacts have yet been found.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and this particular 2-paragraph section has been, in my opinion, [[WP:UNDUE|unduly highlighted]]. The only paper written on this discovery is the cited paper by Carlson -- which is now over 30 years old -- and the matter is not even mentioned in Pool or Diehl, the two most recent general Olmec books. To compensate, however, I did slip in a cited mention of the compass in the general summary under '''Notable innovations'''.

Hope this works for you all, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, because one find is no find. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Removed Mokaya section ==

I removed the following recently added paragraph:

:The Olmec culture's roots are thought to lie in the [[Mokaya]] culture of [[Soconusco]] in Pacific [[Chiapas]] and [[Guatemala]]. Here, basic elements include the earliest ceramics, ballcourt, elevated house platforms, and pyramidal mounds.

This is not the consensus or mainstream viewpoint, as I understand it, but rather the theory promoted primarily by John Clark. Others argue for Guerrero, Oaxaca, or Morelos. Pool, p. 18, says that "there is little doubt that the emergence of Olmec culture was primarily a local phenomenon." We can add a paragraph that discusses all these theories, but an unreferenced paragraph devoted solely to a Mokaya origin would promote a narrow viewpoint. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:Use {{tl|cref}} and discuss it in a footnote. You can say in the article that their origin remains disputed. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I think mention of Mokaya is useful in this article nonetheless, & its omission was a good catch by Hoopes. Article would benefit from some some summary/review of early-Formative Mesoamerican cultures in general, to place the Olmec into chronological/crosscultural context. As the general perception that the Olmec were 'first' is a common one, I think we need to address this and remind the reader that both on the Soconusco and in Lower Central America there were hierarchical and monument-building culture-complexes alongside or even predating the Gulf Coast Olmec expansion, and it's not that straightforward. The relationship between Mokaya & Olmec can be qualified, since as you note Madman there have been different proposals put forward. AFIAK there are other researchers besides Clark & Hoopes who propose Soconusco->Gulf Coast influences, and it bears mentioning along with other contemporary ideas on whether or not the Gulf Coast Olmec had beginnings or influences from elsewhere. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==GA1 discussion (transcluded)==
{{Talk:Olmec/GA1}}

== Expert?! ==

I'm puzzled by the call for an "expert" on this article. As an archaeologist who has worked on the early formative away from the Olmec heartland, I think its actually pretty good. I could fault it for a subtle bias to the "mother culture" side of things, but non-specialists won't be interested in that argument being played out on these pages. There's not a lot here to argue with.

I don't see the 46 citation needed tags that Madman reports (so point me to them if they exist), only 5 or so, in almost every case I think the phrase is overreaching and should be removed, rather that footnoted. I'm more than willing to work on the references and editing what's there in the few free moments I get in a day.

There's no need for the "Expert" tag. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I wondered about that myself. If an expert is needed why weren't more details provided about what is wrong? an expert tag might be a good idea with details but arbritary request seems silly. Furthermore it seems like it should be put in the discussion page first unless it is extreme. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with both your assessments, and so I took the liberty of removing the tag.
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&oldid=241845103 Here], Russ, is the version of the article from last Monday with the 46 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags added by Wandalstouring. I have subsequently dug up a number of citations and otherwise, with a bit of help from Maunus, reduced the number to a mere 2. These last two tags tag generalized descriptive sentences that, as you note Russ, could safely be removed. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Thanks Macman2001, for pointing me to the old rev. While wikipedia is never going to be "scholarly" this demand by many editors that every sentence, instead of every group of related concepts, be footnoted,is what keeps many scholars I know from contributing. I don't interpret the demands for GA and sourcing the way these people do. It makes the articles unreadable. I suggest simply pruning the sentences that currently lack attribution to improve the article. If they're important, they can be added back, with attribution, when adequately sourced. For now, all the article needs is tweaking of the grammar. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree, plenty of experts have been involved already, I only left the tag in place as a courtesy to [[User:Wandalstouring]] who put it there.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Would you publish that in an archaeological magazine? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 09:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I am not sure I understand what/whom the question is directed at. If you mean whether the article would be publishable in an archaeological magazine then that is the wrong question. The right question is if it would qualify for GA status according to the GA criterias of wikipedia.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: I agree with Maunus here. That's not the criteria for GA status. However, to answer your question, no I wouldn't publish it in say Archaeology. Its unreadable, in large part because of your insistence on sentence by sentence footnotes, and its written at a somewhat higher intellectual level than a general public piece. It reflects some scholarly bias, but magazine articles often oversimplify issues to make them more readable and tell a compelling, if often not entirely technically correct, story. See any story in Scientific American or New Scientist for example. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::So you agree that it doesn't reflect state of the art science and contains errors and oversimplifications. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 08:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Errors - No, at least not major ones...oversimplifications - yes, and so does any Wikipedia article about a non-trivial subject. You seem to think this is supposed to be a scholarly article; its not. Its supposed to be something accessible to a general audience and suggest further reading if they're interested. As such its going to have to simplify and avoid "hedging" phrases to tell a coherent, compelling story, which is, after all the goal here. Writing a Wikipedia article is a process of compromises on both content and language. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Deep Breath GA Renomination! ==

Dear Editors, I brought up the journey this particular review has taken, [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_withdrawn_Olmec]], and raised my concerns with the second reviewer [[User_talk:Wandalstouring#Olmec_second_reviewer]]. I would like to ask you all to reconsider the GA withdrawal and re-instate the nomination. This does not mean I will do the review on my own, in fact I may specifically ask for another reviewer to bring new thoughts to the process. It also does not mean that I disagree with all the second reviewer brought to your attention. IMHO GAs are not assisted by 46 or how ever many fact tags. A GA is a journey with company. Your thoughts please - there will be work ahead for all. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the offer, Mr. P. After finally just now closing out the last of the 46 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags, I find that I myself no longer have the time (or at present the patience) to devote to trying to get this thru Good Article. This last go-round with Wandalstouring has soured me on the whole GA process: there seems to be a great deal of downside - nasty discussions, complaining, twisting prose into knots to satisfy a random person's viewpoint - and there is no upside that I can see. I'm not complaining about you, Edmund -- I thought our journey was going along well and we were nearing the end of the road. But I myself don't have the energy to go through this a third time with a third person. Sorry, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 14:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===References===
References do not meet the standards of a GA article, especially if there's any hope to make it an FA. Citations should meet [[WP:CITET]] standards at a minimum. Harvard citations would be perfect for the type of references used in this article, and are fairly easy to use. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Could you give an example of what is wrong with the reference standard? That would make it easier to improve.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::At some point in the review I was going to direct you to (for example) [[Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany]] as one way of improving the references and layout. It is though only one way.[[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 11:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It would be more helpful to know what you think is the problem with the references, instead of just knowing that there are other referecing systems that you like better. Apart form the reference system not being fully consistent I don't se the general reference problem with the article.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(remove indent) Apologies, one major difference I was lazily trying to point out is the the "reference in the article" is linked to "author / page number" in notes which is itself linked to the book information listed in the reference section. The references at this moment are not Harvard citations. These are fairly easy to use once one has set up and linked the Bibliography. An easier article (me being lazy again!) to drop into could be [[Bury St. Edmunds witch trials]] which if you edit the page shows a short linked word with page number(ref) leading to notes (which show the ref as per normal) to the Bibliography. I hope this is a bit clearer. Thanks. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The GA criteria does not require anything of the reference system other than a use of inline citations in accordance with [[WP:CITE]]. Citations in footnotes and/or shortened footnotes are acceptable according to that policy.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do like the linking capability you show, Edmund, although it seem to would require rewriting each citation and footnote. In any case, the present reference style, termed [[WP:SHORT|shortened notes]], is a standard and acceptable Wikipedia style and is the ''de facto'' standard for [[WP:MESO|Mesoamerican]] articles. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It doesn't take that much work. And yes GA standards are a bit low. If you want this to ever be an FA, then fixed the references. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If we ever do decide to take the article to FA then we will of course make sure the article suits those criteria. What Madman and I have been objecting to for awhile is that the article entered to be reviewed as a GA and that it has been judged all along by a whole bunch of other criteria than the GA ones.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

==Recent edit==
This edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&curid=77260&diff=243127750&oldid=243107533] by [[User:orangemarlin]] I think is problematic. I think the insistence on a more academic language here obscures the point, namely that we don't know whether the Olmecs was one coherent ethnically monolithic culture or a conglomerate of ethnic groups that shared a basic material culture. I put it here in stead of reverting because my opinion may not be shared by others. Maybe we can reach a better wording together?[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I agree completely. I think it obscures the message. This is not to say that the earlier language was perfect, only better. I will revert. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I concur, although its still awkward. Maybe I'll take a crack at it later. That one sentence gets to the heart of What is Olmec, what are we documenting here? [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::You guys might tolerate poor writing, but I don't. Academic language? WTF? Don't revert again. Discuss it. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, lets discuss. What was there was awkward and did need to be rewritten. What you replaced it with is equally flawed as far as I'm concerned. I don't think either belongs in the article for the following reasons:

:::* both are weak ways to end the article lead.
:::* both are contradicted, in whole or part, by the article content itself, where archaeologists are clearly shown to speculate about the ethnicity, political organization, and language of the Olmec, however ill-founded one may believe the arguments.

:::So I would propose that neither text be incorporated into the article, and that the lead section terminate with the last section of the preceding paragraph. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::That's fine, Russ. I don't think that the paragraph is necessarily contradicted by the article, since the paragraph uses the qualifier "with certainty", and I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty. In any case, I've removed it. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::So, you guys think that you are smarter than me? More knowledgeable? What is it? I disagree, so YOUR decision is to just delete it? Oh well, probably not the worst thing done here.[[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::OrangeMarlin, you should focus on the article instead of personalities. A decision to remove your prose is not an attack on your knowledge or personality, tempting as that might be. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Actually I think it is an important point that so much of what is believed about the Olmec rests on guesswork (qualified guesswork of course but still...). Especially because the layreader would tend to believe that being Olmec is a sort of ancient nationality with an Olmec empire, language and cuisine etc. if we don't specifically state that we have no idea to what degree the "archaeological Olmecs" formed a coherent culture. I think probably Rsheptak would be the right one to phrase it better. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::This was my concern above -- that "I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty." Before something similar was written for the [[Mesoamerican ballgame]] lead, visitors to the article would post "what are the rules?" questions on the Talk page. Russ, what do you say? [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 11:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::As humans we're fond of just-so stories, and archaeology is all about story telling with things. I think putting it there makes the lead weak, but could see including it elsewhere in the article and would take suggestions for another place it might fit. I can try to add something by thursday. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 23:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Beta Israel

2008-12-16T04:10:52Z

Peelinglayers: /* Somewhat insulting */

{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Ethiopia | nested= yes | class= B | importance= High }}
{{WikiProject Judaism | nested= yes | class= B | importance= high }}
{{Ethnic groups | nested= yes | importance=High | class= B }}
{{WikiProject Jewish history | nested= yes | class= B | importance= high }}}}
}}
{{FAOL|French|fr:Falashas}}
==Position in Israel==

This article does not mention alleged discrimination faced by Beta Israel. Nor does it give any account to their integration into Israeli society or where siginificant commnities are. As far as I recall there are substantial communities in certain suburbs of Tel Aviv.

:I am adding a section about the current situation of the Ethiopian Jews in Israel. I am still tweeking the section so be kind.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer your questions.
Ge'ez as a spoken language:
1. Beta Israel groups are mainly from North Ethiopia from states where Amharic and Tigrigna are spoken. Ge'ez is a designated sacred language used by various groups all over Ethiopia and it isn't used unless one is reading scriptures and/or conducting a church/synagogue ceremony.
2. Beta as opposed to Beit:
It's not a matter of word play to indicate one's regional designation (Ashkenazi, Ethiopian/Mizrahi, Sephardic,etc). Simply, "Beta" is in Ge'ez and is equivalent of Beit in Hebrew and both mean "house [of]".
3. This isn't your question but just to clarify possible misconception created by this article,
"Falasha" is a word that comes from "me-feles", meaning to migrate. The term Falasha was probably given by the group to indicate that some groups within this society are actually migrants (and they acknowledge this history by indicating where they came from), and the term wasn't intended to negate them as this article and some western publications suppose. Falashas do refer to themselves as Falashas. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.18.208.195|75.18.208.195]] ([[User talk:75.18.208.195|talk]]) 06:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 

==Beta Israel speak Geez?==
I thought they spoke a language called Geez?--[[User:Yoshiah ap|Josiah]] 04:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ge'ez is an archaic, ancient language, that is used as a holy language.[[User:Datepalm17|Datepalm17]] 12:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beta Israel? Why not Beit/Beyt (בית ישראל)? Also, here in Israel the "Falash Mura" are called "Flashmura" (פלאשמורה), I think. [[User:Dorfl|Dorfl]] 02:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:(Sorry about delayed reply:) “Beta Israel” (or “Beta Esrael”) because this is the name they identify under. “Bet Yisrael” is also a broader term applicable to just about any Jewish/Israelite group and therefore unusable as a specific term for this group. Also, the forms “Beit” and “Beyt” reflect a specific subset of European (mainly Ashkenazi) Jewish pronunciation which would be problematic even if this problem of ambiguity didn’t exist. -- [[User:Olve|Olve]] 21:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

==DNA/genetic evidence?==

How credible is the "DNA evidence" mentioned here? I've never heard a compelling case for a "Jewish gene," especially considering that many modern Jews are likely to be either the decendents of converts (such as the [[Khazars]]) or the product of centuries of occasional interbreeding with neighboring ''goyim.'' --[[User:Cholling|Cholling]] 23:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:The evidence is quite credible. A "Jewish gene" is not really a scientific concept, but the genetic relationships within and between different populations can be measured. Ashenazi Jews are closely related to Sephardi Jews, and both are closely related to other Middle Eastern populations (and not to European populations). Beta Israel are closely related to other Ethiopians, and not to any of the other groups. Here's a link to one study: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 23:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:: In my opinion, really think it is not a good idea to use the word "gene" if you are not talking about scientific concept. Its also hard to get a definative result using the DNA for such a large group of people, but then again i may be seeing too many detective movies. Anyway, there is a story here of Israel doubling [[Falash Mura]] immigration. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52711-2005Jan31.html?nav=headlines]

:::The question I have on the DNA testing done is in terms of whether the numbers of Ethiopian Jews, constitutes that the entirity of Ethiopian are devoid of the DNA markers found in the Sepharadi, Teimani, Ashkenazi, Lemba, Samaritan, etc. populations '''that were tested'''. I stress the last part, because some of the data I have seen seems to suggest that the people who were tested had the connection, but that some didn't. For example one report I read seemed, and I stress seemd, to suggest more Ashkenazi Levites, had similar DNA to non-Jewish Slavic people and that fewer Sepharadi Levites had similar DNA to the local population in their region. [http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-cohen-levite.html] None of the evidence I have seen so far suggest that all Sephardim, Mizrakhim, Teimainim, Ashkenazim, etc. are conclusively related by the DNA. Most of the information I have seen seems to be on-going in nature. [http://www.math.biu.ac.il/~louzouy/courses/statgen/israel.pdf#search='The%20Y%20Chromosome%20Pool%20of%20Jews%20as']

:::What I mean is the following: most of the DNA research I have seen on the matter shows that 38, 19, etc. Ethiopian Jews were tested. We know that thousands of Ethiopian Jews, and non-Jews immagrated to Israel during Operation Moses and Operation Solomon. We also know that untold numbers of Ethiopian Jews died trying to make their way to Israel and the Sudan. That being said, it would seem that the data at this point points to a number of Ethiopian Jews having no genetic connection to the before listed Jewish communities. I.e. that the men tested do not descend from Ancient Israelites. According to one study I read there seems to have been a connection between certain Yemenite Jewish men that were tested and Ethiopians.[http://www.cmb.usc.edu/people/noahr/libjews.pdf] I state all this to wonder if the wording in this article should be worded to take this into account. The possibility could still remain that the majority of Ethiopian Jews descend from Gerim, which halakhically still makes them descendent of Jews since Gerim who go through a Beith Din are Jews, converted by a minority group of Jews from Yemen or Egypt. That is to say that there could still be a minority with similar Yemenite or Egyptian Jewish genes that simply haven't been tested. I think this is important to recognize or at least look into given that most of the interest in the Beta Israel has been to either disprove they are Jewish or to make them seem inferior to other Jewish communities. I am not saying that this is the case with this article in its current state, but I am wondering if there is a way to word it so that the facts as we currently have them can be more crystal. Regardless, if the Rabbinate recognizes them as Jews then they are Jews. Just some thoughts. I can come up with some wording later tonight and see if it is acceptable. --[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Ancient Felasha? ==

Several seemingly trustworthy websites refer to "Felasha" in the tenth century, such as [http://www.imperialethiopia.org/history2.htm this one]: "The Felasha (Jewish) queen [[Gudit|Yodit]], daughter of the quasi-legendary Gideon, led a destructive expedition against [[Axum]] around 980." Since the Falasha, according to this article, weren't even around in this period, is this just a blatant mistake on their part? - [[User:BanyanTree|BanyanTree]] 17:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From the Ethiopians Gentiles' point of view, "falasha", as a Semitic word root, also means "intruder, foreigner" (פ-ל-ש) which is already close to the meaning of the name.--[[User:Bo Basil|Bo Basil]] 12:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:There's plenty of legend around masquerading as history. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 18:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: Gudit is a semi-legendary personage, whose facts are as mixed with legend as is the case with [[King Arthur]]. (Unlike the case with Arthur, we have a contemporary document that mentions her, so we can be assured she existed.) Experts are divided over whether she was Jewish, pagan, [[Agaw]], or a queen of the Kingdom of [[Damot]] in the south of Ethiopia. But the reference to "Falasha" is anachronistic: I just found a passage today in my research that shows that "Falasha" was not used to refer to these Agaw Jews until the reign of [[Zara Yaqob]]. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 21:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== Rabbonim ==

There is no need to have a long list of Rabbonim who rule one way or another on this article. It suffices to list the most well known and respected posek ruling each way, and to state which view is held by the majority.--[[User:Yoshiah ap|Josiah]] 19:03, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Four of the most respected Rabbis of the late 20th century? I think each of their names should be included. There are many more who have ruled that way, I've restricted myself to just four. As it is, the claim "most" is unclear, unless you included some of the names. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 19:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Josiah, each one deserves to be mentioned. Off the top of my head I cannot state the fine details of each ''psak'', but if ''one'' [[posek]] is mentioned, that does not mean others hold that way. The fact that Rav Waldenberg allows abortion of a known Tay-Sachs fetus does not mean this is followed in practice. Typically, the "majority view" is decided when several poskim arrive at the same conclusion, as has been mentioned on this page. This is more encyclopedic than "most poskim" (which is imprecise). [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|T@lk]] 21:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:In fact, Rav Waldenberg used to be in my list, it was 5 poskim, but I took out one as a compromise. Should I put him back? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 21:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Yes. -- [[User:Olve|Olve]] 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Article ==

An article highly relevant to this page is in Haartez at [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=565262] and also in Forward at [http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=shaviv20050330911] (needs free registration). --[[User:Zero0000|Zero]] 02:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Population figures ==

For years I've been reading much higher figures than those listed in the article. I've changed the figures in accordance with [http://www.shavei.org/article.php?id=413 this article], from http://www.shavei.org/ which, while the organization has a vested interested in this community (and others), is also in a pretty good position to have accurate figures. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] [[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 19:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

== Ethiopian Judaism & Ewostatewos ==

Is the following an accurate paraphrase of Harold Marcus' POV?

: Marcus pinpoints their origins to the persecutions of the sabbatarian movement of Abba Ewostatewos (c. 1273–1352), the remnants of which he believes grew into the Beta Israel of today.

I ask this because the followers of Ewostatewos (who did argue for the observance of a Sabbath on both Saturday & Sunday) were persecuted for a time, but eventually their beliefs were adopted by the Ethiopian Church at a synod in 1450, & are now accepted as mainstream within that belief. (References include Taddesse Tamrat, ''Church and State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527'', and Edward Ullendorff, ''The Ethiopians: An Introduction to Country and People''.) I'd like to think that Marcus is being misunderstood, rather than that he betrayed such a major misunderstanding about the history of Ethiopia.

(FWIW, Paul Henze, in his ''Layers of Time: A History of Ethiopia'' also accepts this hypothesis that the Beta Israel originated from an archaizing movement within Ethiopian Christianity, & refers to James Quirin's work.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 18:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

: '''Update'''. I've found this assertion in Marcus' book (''A History of Ethiopia'' [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994], p. 23). I'll be gentle here, & state that his argument is based on an oversight in his research. The dates above for Ewostatewos' life are close to what Taddesse Tamrat provides in his book: the earliest mention of the Beta Israel I have found is in the ''Glorious Victories'' which reports events in the year 1332 (or 1329, if we follow G.W.B. Huntingford's arguments). For a professed Christian to embrace the Old Testament so violently that he inspires non-members to be even more radical than he (i.e., claim to be Jews) strains one's credulity; maybe if this had been a change that could be shown to have been simmering for a generation or so, this would be plausible.

: Add to this chronological fact the following:
:* One of Ewostatewos' followers settled amongst this group with the intent of missionizing them;
:* Ewostatewos (who was a ''very'' controversial figure during his lifetime) was never accused of Judaizing the faith (which would have been a powerful tool to have refuted his followers);
:* Ewostatewos had little or nothing to do personally with the regions where the Jews are known in the 14th century to have lived;
: and Marcus needs to develop a far more detailed argument than what he has written in his ''History'' to believe his argument.

: This is not to say that this theory is untentable: only Marcus' specific argument is. As a result, I've replaced the text mentioning him with a quotation from Paul B. Henze, who puts forward a similar argument -- but IMHO better -- argument. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== Origins of the Beta Israel ==

There is a serious problem with the interpretation of the Lucotte article and its import into the present context. Luccote performed Y chromosome analysis comparing ethiopian jews to non-jewish ethiopians. What this methodology fails to take into account is the traditions of the ethiopians themselves that holds that the entire population of northern ethiopia was jewish before the arival of christianinity. For a review of this issue see (http://www.13suns.com/EJUDAISM.HTM)
The Beta Israel see themselves as the last remaining followers of an ancient faith. Thus any comparison between "jewish" ethiopians and "non-jewish" ethiopians has to be tempered by that fact. The non-jews are seen as ancient jews who adopted christianinity, and Islam.
The fact is that the issue is confused by the uncertainties and misinterpretation involved. For example the Sephardi and Ashkenazi communities are not isolates. They have had a very intense and continuous interaction with one another. The same goes for most other jewish communities that follow modern Rabbinical judaism. The reality is that any commonalties found among them might, probably did, arise post-exile. The fact the the Beta Israel do not have the exact same profile as Sephardi, Ahkenazi, or Cochin jews for that matters means nothing as there was significant gene flow between these communities even cotinuing to this day. Given the Beta Israel's isolation divergence should be expected.
Most revealing in the Lucotte article is where he explains that
''An important point to consider is the result concerning haplotype VIll, the ancestral haplotype in Jews (Lucotte et al. 1996); this haplotype is present at a frequency of 23.1% in non-Falasha Ethiopians. In fact, the Jewish haplotypes VII and VIII occurred at similarly high frequencies in samples of Lebanese (Santachiara-Benerecetti et al. 1993) and Palestinians (Lucotte, unpublished data, 1997); so it seems more practical, as
proposed by Spurdle and Jenkins (1996), to consider that elevated frequencies of these 2 haplotypes may represent most of the Semitic groups.''
(http://www.ethioguide.com/aa-ethioguide/ethioguide/News_Archive/1299/origin%20of%20falasha_jews122399.htm)
It's not hard to realise that this data only supports the thesis that ealy on there was an influx of immigrants from the syria-palestine region to northern ethiopia bringing with them judaism. The day=ta finds that HVIII, known as the ancestral Jewish Haplotype is found at the level of 23% in "non-jewish ethiopians." This is as high as found among lebanese and palestinians. How could these high rates be explained?
In the end the problem with the entire section on the analysis of genetics of the ethiopians jews is really one conceptual road block. The general perception of a jewish population is an that of isolated pockets of groups seperate from the major population. Such a picture fails in the enthiopian context, where the ancient kingdon in northern ethiopia experienced a large influx of jews, who left their cultural mark on the entire population in the region, and who progressively melded with the local population over a very long time period indeed (800BC). In the Kaplan book cited, he mentions that ethiopian priests claimed that half the population was of jewish extraction during the ancient period. He calls this an "exageration" yet how can we be sure. He also mentions a large number of hebrew and aramaic loan words in the Geez language. How can we explain this. The bible also indicates that "beyond the rivers of ethiopia" there were jews living in acient times. In short eveidence that jewish ethiopians look like, or are similar to non-jewish ethiopians, is not evidence of local origin for ethiopian jews at all. Not in any way shape or form! The only evidence would be that northern ethiopians in general do not show evidence of genetic imput from the near east. In fact the Luccote article shows just the opposite, with ethiopians shown to have the jewish haplotype at high rates indeed. In fact just as high as Lebanese and Palestinians who actually live in the area known to have been the center of ancient jewish kingdoms. In general I fault the entire article for not mentioning the theory, for which there is ample evidence, that the entire population of northern Ethiopia adopted the mosaic faith in ancient times prior to christianity. This is something looked at in the Kaplan book, and in others. Although conclusions might be drawn that the numbers of isrealites living in the area during ancient times was small while others might claim it was larger. Given the scant historical data, and often conflicted information this cannot be kown with certainty. What is known, and agreed to by most scholars is that it was there, i ancient times there was judaism in ethiopia. It had an effect on the ethiopiancoptic church in that this churc is closer to the kosaic faith than any other curch in the world. It is possible that these ancient jews just vanished, and then centuries latters a new, completely different group of jews calling themselves the Beta Israel emerged suddenly. Or it is possible that the Beta Israel are the only in northern ethiopia to remain faithful to the ancient ethiopian/hebrew tradition. —''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:216979|216979]] ([[User talk:216979|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216979|contribs]]) 20:18, 1 October 2005.

:From my understanding there is no evidence for any cultural continuity between those judaised groups in Ethiopia (lake Tana area) and the group that later emerged as the beita israel. In fact all the evidence is to the contrary since all the texts, liturgy etc of the beita israel appear to date no earlier than the 14th century and originate from the ethiopian church. It is also slightly after this that we first begin to hear the term 'Falasha' ( probably meaning 'without land'). This is not to say that the group emerged 'suddenly'. The Falasha probably do have origins from previous judaised groups, however not all these groups emerged as Falashas and not all Falashas emerged from these groups.

:Perhaps there could be something about the biblical references to Beta Israel? Isaiah 11:11 was mentioned shortly, but Acts. 8:27 should be mentioned too. —''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:84.249.236.122|84.249.236.122]] ([[User talk:84.249.236.122|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/84.249.236.122|contribs]]) 00:37, 17 January 2006.

==Beta Ysrael and Ethiopian History==

The deletion from my sections on the "western discovery" od Beta Ysrael, and the role Beta Ysrael plaid in Ethiopian history, I feel considerably lessens the worth of this article.

The claims made about copywrite are not true. The article is based on a compilation of sources drawn from a number of scholarly works prepared for an article on Ancient Biblical History in 2004.

Regards

[[User:John D. Croft|John D. Croft]] 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:I see wording basically equivalent to that of the Virtual Jewish Library (whose copywright status I do not know).

:For instance, from [this section http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejtime.html] of the VJL, I see these copywrite problems. Croft's writing italicized, the VJL's bolded.
::'''1769 — Scottish explorer James Bruce awakens the western world to the existence of the Ethiopian Jews in his travels to discover the source of the Nile. He estimates the Jewish population at 100,000.'''

::''[[Daniel Ben Hamdya]], an Ethiopian Jew, in 1855 independently traveled to Jerusalem to meet with rabbis''

::'''1855 — Daniel Ben Hamdya, an Ethiopian Jew, independently travels to Jerusalem to meet with rabbis.'''

::''followed in [[1864]] by [[Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer]], the Rabbi of Eisenstadt, Germany, publishing a manifesto in the Jewish press calling for the spiritual rescue of Ethiopian Jewry. Three years later Professor [[Joseph Halevy]] is the first European Jew to visit the Beta Yisrael, subsequently becoming an advocate for the community.''

::'''1864 — Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer, the Rabbi of Eisenstadt, Germany, publishes a manifesto in the Jewish press calling for the spiritual rescue of Ethiopian Jewry.

::1867 — Professor Joseph Halevy is the first European Jew to visit the Beta Israel, subsequently becoming an advocate for the community.''' (the next sentence is downright wrong, claiming there are only 35,000 Beta Israel)

:From [elsewhere http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejhist.html] on the site:

::''Little additional contact was made with the community, but in [[1935]] their stability was greatly threatened as the Italian army marched into Ethiopia. Ethiopia's ruler, Emperor [[Haile Selassie]] fled his country and actually took refuge in Jerusalem for a short time. Selassie returned to power in [[1941]], but the situation for the Beta Israel improved little.''

::'''Little additional contact was made with the community, but in 1935 their stability was greatly threatened as the Italian army marched into Ethiopia. Ethiopia's ruler, Emperor Haile Selassie fled his country and actually took refuge in Jerusalem for a short time. Selassie returned to power in 1941, but the situation for the Beta Israel improved little.'''

::''In 1956, Ethiopia and Israel established consular relations, which were improved in 1961 when the two countries established full diplomatic ties. Positive relations between Israel and Ethiopia existed until 1973 when, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, Ethiopia (and 28 African nations) broke diplomatic relations with Israel under the threat of an Arab oil embargo.''

::'''In 1956, Ethiopia and Israel established consular relations, which were improved in 1961 when the two countries established full diplomatic ties. Positive relations between Israel and Ethiopia existed until 1973, when, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, Ethiopia (and 28 African nations) broke diplomatic relations with Israel under the threat of an Arab oil embargo.'''

::''Months later, Emperor Selassie's regime ended in a coup d'etat. Colonel [[Mengistu Haile Mariam]], whose [[Marxist-Leninist]] [[dictatorship]] increased the threat to the Beta Israel, replaced Selassie. During the weeks surrounding Mariam's coup, an estimated 2,500 Jews were killed and 7,000 became homeless.''

::'''Months later, Emperor Selassie's regime ended in a coup d'etat. Selassie was replaced by Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam, whose Marxist-Leninist dictatorship increased the threat to the Beta Israel. During the weeks surrounding Mariam's coup, an estimated 2,500 Jews were killed and 7,000 became homeless.'''

::''Soon Mariam instituted a policy of "villagization": relocating millions of peasant farmers onto state-run cooperatives. This policy greatly harmed the Beta Israel by forcing them to "share" their villages (even though they were denied the right to own the land) with non-Jewish farmers, resulting in increased levels of anti-Semitism throughout the Gondar Province. According to the Ethiopian government, over 30% of the population had been moved from privately owned farms to cooperatives as of 1989.''

::'''Soon Mariam instituted a policy of “villagization,” relocating millions of peasant farmers onto state-run cooperatives which greatly harmed the Beta Israel by forcing them to “share” their villages—though they were denied the right to own the land—with non-Jewish farmers, resulting in increased levels of anti-Semitism throughout the Gondar Province. According to the Ethiopian government, over 30% of the population had been moved from privately owned farms to cooperatives as of 1989.'''

::''After taking office in 1977, Israeli Prime Minister [[Menachem Begin]] was eager to facilitate the rescue of Ethiopia's Jews, and so Israel entered into a period of selling arms to the Mariam government in hopes that Ethiopia would allow Jews to leave for Israel. In 1977, Begin asked President Mengistu to allow 200 Ethiopian Jews to leave for Israel aboard an Israeli military jet that had emptied its military cargo and was returning to Israel. Mariam agreed, and that may have been the precursor to the mass exodus of Operation Moses began.''

::'''After taking office in 1977, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was eager to facilitate the rescue of Ethiopia's Jews, and so Israel entered into a period of selling arms to the Mariam government in hopes that Ethiopia would allow Jews to leave for Israel. In 1977, Begin asked President Mengistu to allow 200 Ethiopian Jews to leave for Israel aboard an Israeli military jet that had emptied its military cargo and was returning to Israel. Mariam agreed, and that may have been the precursor to the mass exodus of Operation Moses began.'''

::''In the early 1980's, Ethiopia forbade the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew. Numerous members of the Beta Israel were imprisoned on fabricated charges of being "Zionist spies," and Jewish religious leaders, Kesim,(sing. Kes) were harassed and monitored by the government.''

::'''In the early 1980's, Ethiopia forbade the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew. Numerous members of the Beta Israel were imprisoned on fabricated charges of being “Zionist spies,” and Jewish religious leaders, ''Kesim'',(sing. ''Kes'') were harassed and monitored by the government.'''

::''The situation remained exceedingly bleak through the early 1980's. Forced [[conscription]] at age 12 took many Jewish boys away from their parents, some never to be heard from again. Additionally, with the constant threat of war, famine, and horrendous health conditions (Ethiopia has one of the world's worst [[infant mortality rates]] and doctor to patient ratios), the Beta Israel's position became more precarious as time progressed.''

::'''The situation remained exceedingly bleak through the early 1980's. Forced conscription at age 12 took many Jewish boys away from their parents, some never to be heard from again. Additionally, with the constant threat of war, famine, and horrendous health conditions (Ethiopia has one of the world's worst infant mortality rates and doctor to patient ratios), the Beta Israel's position became more precarious as time progressed.'''

::''The government began to slightly soften its treatment of the Jews, however, during the mid-1980's when terrible [[famine]]s wreaked havoc on the economy. Ethiopia was forced to ask Western nations for famine relief, including the United States of America and Israel, allowing them both to exert a modicum of pressure for the release of the Beta Israel.''

::'''The government began to slightly soften its treatment of the Jews, however, during the mid-1980's when terrible famines wreaked havoc on the economy. Ethiopia was forced to ask Western nations for famine relief, including the United States of America and Israel, allowing them both to exert a modicum of pressure for the release of the Beta Israel.'''

::''Over 8,000 Beta Israel came to Israel between 1977 and 1984. But these efforts pale in comparison with the modern exodus that took place during 1984's Operation Moses.''

::'''Over 8,000 Beta Israel came to Israel between 1977 and 1984. But these efforts pale in comparison with the modern exodus that took place during 1984's Operation Moses.'''

::''There are 5 principle theories of their origins, not all of them mutually exclusive.

:::''1) They may be descendants of Menelik I, son of King Solomon and Queen Sheba.

:::''2) The Beita Yisrael may be the lost Israelite tribe of Dan.

:::''3) They may be descendants of Ethiopian Christians and pagans who converted to Judaism centuries ago.

:::''4) They may be descendants of Jews who fled Israel for Egypt after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and eventually settled in Ethiopia.'' (Number 5. is his own doing)

::'''Because much of the Beta Israel's history is passed orally from generation to generation, we may never truly know their origins. Four main theories exist concerning the beginnings of the Beta Israel community:

:::'''1) The Beta Israel may be the lost Israelite tribe of Dan.

:::'''2) They may be descendants of Menelik I, son of King Solomon and Queen Sheba.

:::'''3) They may be descendants of Ethiopian Christians and pagans who converted to Judaism centuries ago.

:::'''4) They may be descendants of Jews who fled Israel for Egypt after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and eventually settled in Ethiopia.

:::'''(Excerpted from “Reunify Ethiopian Jewry,” World Union of Jewish Students)'''

:Now here's some stuff from [this http://www.falasha-recordings.co.uk/teachings/ras.html] website (and many others, including [[The History Channel]], with the exact same info and wording, with minor changes).

::''Some scholars place the date of their origin before the 2d century BC, largely because the Beita Yisrael are unfamiliar with either the Babylonian or Palestinian Talmud. The religion of the Beita Yisrael is a modified form of Mosaic Judaism unaffected generally by post-biblical developments. The Beita Yisrael retain animal sacrifice. They celebrate scriptural and nonscriptural feast days, although the latter are not the same as those celebrated by other Jews. One of the Falasha nonscriptural feast days, for example, is the Commemoration of Abraham. Their Sabbath regulations are stringent. They observe biblical dietary laws, but not the postbiblical rabbinic regulations concerning distinctions between meat and dairy foods. Marriage outside the religious community is forbidden. Monogamy is practiced, marriage at a very early age is rare, and high moral standards are maintained.

::''The center of Beita Yisrael religious life is the masjid, or synagogue. The chief functionary in each village is the high priest, who is assisted by lower priests. Falasha monks live alone or in monasteries, isolated from other Beita Yisrael . Rabbis do not exist among the Beita Yisrael.''

::'''Falashas, native Jewish sect of Ethiopia.The origin of the Falashas is unknown. One Falasha tradition claims to trace their ancestry to Menelik, son of King Solomon of Israel and the queen of Sheba. Some scholars place the date of their origin before the 2d century bc, largely because the Falashas are unfamiliar with either the Babylonian or Palestinian Talmud. The Bible of the Falashas is written in an archaic Semitic dialect, known as Gecez, and the Hebrew Scriptures are unknown to them. The name Falasha is Amharic for "exiles" or "landless ones"; the Falashas themselves refer to their sect as Beta Esrael ("House of Israel").

::'''The religion of the Falashas is a modified form of Mosaic Judaism unaffected generally by postbiblical developments. The Falashas retain animal sacrifice. They celebrate scriptural and nonscriptural feast days, although the latter are not the same as those celebrated by other Jewish groups. One of the Falasha nonscriptural feast days, for example, is the Commemoration of Abraham. The Sabbath regulations of the Falashas are stringent. They observe biblical dietary laws, but not the postbiblical rabbinic regulations concerning distinctions between meat and dairy foods. Marriage outside the religious community is forbidden. Monogamy is practiced, marriage at a very early age is rare, and high moral standards are maintained.

::'''The center of Falasha religious life is the masjid, or synagogue. The chief functionary in each village is the high priest, who is assisted by lower priests. Falasha monks live alone or in monasteries, isolated from other Falashas. Rabbis do not exist among the Falashas.'''

:From a ton of sites, again:

::''Other Researchers think some of the defeated Yemenite Jews from the [[Abu Duwas]] Jewish Kingdom came to Ethiopia.''

:The following is taken from [here http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9033614], the Encyclopedia Britannica.

::''From 1980 to 1992 some 45,000 Falasha fled drought- and war-stricken Ethiopia and emigrated to Israel. The number of Falasha remaining in Ethiopia was uncertain, but estimates ranged to only a few thousand. The ongoing absorption of the Falasha community into Israeli society was a source of controversy and ethnic tension in subsequent years.''

:I don't have time to find copywrites for the rest of the material, but you can see that much, if not most of it is word for word for other (copywrited) texts.

== Get rid of the DNA material ==

There is too much material on DNA here. First of all, it isn't important. DNA does not determine whether or not somebody is Jewish. Would an encyclopedia entry on the Irish be devoted to analyzing their Y-Chromosomes and mitochodria, to determine the relative importance of their Norse, Pict, and Celtic bloodlines?

I am very interested in this kind of study, but there is too much of this material on this island. Can we move this DNA material to another page? How about a separate page on Ethiopian Jewish genetic studies, referenced from here?

Many of the people who are devotees of these genetic and quasi-racial studies don't realize how preliminary and sketchy the work they admire is. Responsible human geneticists understand that studies with 38 or 11 individuals who are not randomly selected cannot be interpreted so strongly. However, the average user of this encyclopedia does not know that.

Haplotype analysis, the basis of such ethnic studies, is a cummulative body of knowledge. It depends on identification of sufficient genetic markers to organize individuals into an inverted tree. With such a tiny sample, how did they even know what genetic markers to test for? In these studies, there was insufficient data to create such a tree. A study based on such a tiny number of individuals, either in the Ethiopian Jewish population or in other populations to which they are being compared, is very preliminary. Not until much more data is known can we make such inferences. The comparable studies done with Ashkenazi Jews look at hundreds of individuals, and yet they still have not identified many of the haplotypes.

I have some pictures of Ethiopian Jews in Israel to share here, but there is no place to put them here right now. The Ethiopian Jews are not frozen in time. This article needs material about the modern Ethiopian community in Israel, and the issues that have arisen as they have adjusted to living in a modern, western society? In Israel, young Ethiopian Jews have now grown up speaking Hebrew, and some have graduated from universities and earned advanced degrees. --[[User:Metzenberg|Metzenberg]] 11:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:DNA information is important in this article for the simple reason that some people felt that this group of Ethiopians were in fact not a lost jewish tribe, but were just trying to get into Israel by pretending to be jews. Remember, unlike being a christian or muslim, one can't just make the claim that one is now of the jewish faith by just saying so (or with a fairly simple baptism type ceremony). So if the Falashah's claim to be jewish wasn't true, what would be their reason for emigrating? DNA is at least one possible way of determining the truths of their story. I'm not opining here, just stating why I think this section of the article is important.[[User:Odysseybookshop|Odysseybookshop]] 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

'''Odysseybookshop'''

Please Do separate between word '''"ISRAELITES"''' whom were Genetically blood descendants of Israel/Jacob(i,e BLOOD LINE RACE), and between The word '''"JEW"''' who is any one adhere to the Judaic Faith(i.e RELIGION), That is because GOYIM Ashkenazi and Sephardim Jews around the world BOTH of them Have NO Genetic relation to Semites people let alone genetically blood tie to ancient Hebrew people(whom proven to be Genetically blood ancestors of today Arabs)

[[Special:Contributions/82.5.167.237|82.5.167.237]] ([[User talk:82.5.167.237|talk]]) 18:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*That is incorrect, European Jews are of mixed Middle Eastern/European ancestry. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Somewhat insulting ==

Much of this article seems to push an anti-Beta Israel view. Some specific problems I have are with the Rabbinical views (no Rabbis since the Radbaz are shown supporting the fact that Beta Israel are Jews and yet further up it is indicated that Ovadia Yosef acknowledged there Jewishness. Can he be the only Rabbi with this position? Also, all the Rabbis quoted are ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazis. I'm no expert on halakhic authorities, but wouldn't it be better to have a wider range of Rabbis with a wider range of positions?) Also, I don't see the usefulness of the comparisons in the Henze quotation. Both those examples stayed quite definitely Christian and would never be mistaken for non-Christians. Typically, Christian groups that absorbed enough Jewish elements to be confused with Judaism haven't lasted long (the only other example I can think of is the Skhariya example, and I don't think that lasted more than 30 years.) If, as this article seems to state the Beta Israel stem from rebellious Christians, shouldn't it be explained why they lasted longer than any other such group? Also why is the possibility of Judaism in pre-Christian Ethiopia rejected despite the fact that the Tewahedo Church follows many more seemingly Jewish laws than other well-established Christian group (and how can such conclusions be reached when the historical record of Ethiopia before 1300 is has gaps)? I know it is hard to get answers to these questions (I hope I have time to research some of them this month), but I think it would make a more balanced article. As it is, it is incomprehensible that attacks on the Judaism of the Beta Israel should take up so much of the article, when articles on some groups of Indian Jews whose claim to Judaism is more tenuous have much less space devoted to such attacks.--[[User:Lastexpofan|Lastexpofan]] 08:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Expo Fan. I couldn't agree more. Sephardic rabbinical authorities have been more supportive of the Ethiopian Jews and Beta Israel, perhaps because they knew that the Ethiopian Jews would be likely to reward them with political support in the long run once they all became Israeli voters. All of which illustrates how so-called rabbinical and religious opinion is sometimes merely political posturing. --[[User:Metzenberg|Metzenberg]] 12:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:There's one sentence on Rabbis who suspect their Jewishness, vs. an entire section on the supporting view. I hardly think that's unbalanced. The Ovadia Yosef reference used to be in there, but it was deleted by an anonymous IP editor. I've restored it. As for the rest, Wikipedia quotes [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] on subjects, we don't do our own [[WP:NOR|original research]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

::Speaking of not doing 'our own research', what evidence is this statement qualified by :''Most of the Beta Israel consider the Kebra Negast legend to be a fabrication''? Is there any kind of polling numbers that anyone can provide to support such assertion? I have removed the entire paragraph until it is supported by some sort of evidence. If not, this mere hearsay and should have no place on an information source the claims to be balanced. I agree, this article is blatantly biased against Bete Israel Jews.

::What I intend to do is not what is described in the original research article. I read a recent book on the subject that has a different POV from much of the article. I just don't feel like citing it without checking its sources, since some of it was a bit shaky, so therefore I need time to research, especially since there aren't a whole lot of readily accessible Ethiopian history books.--[[User:Lastexpofan|Lastexpofan]] 07:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Maybe the best way to please all sides in this is to provide more information about the traditions and history of the Beta Israel from their own sources and perspectives. I do agree that this article seems to be bogged down with information trying to prove or disprove the Jewishness of the Beta Israel. One way to balence this is to simply add more information about their community structure and religious life when they were Ethiopia and now that they are in Israel. --[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 15:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Agreed. Encyclopedic coverage of the community can discuss the views of various authorities, but the article should, in the main, discuss the community itself, not outside views regarding the legitimacy of its claims to Jewishness. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|talk]] 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think some of the information I have added in the Religous practices and Ethiopian Jews in Israel today should now satify those who feel to much of the article was about their origins. I will look for some more info about the current situation in Israel.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, author, thanks for sharing "doubious" info on history section before you kindly edited it. And your strong POV still remains from your responses below as "pagans and Jews", commentary of the unlikelihood of Saba's journey to Solomon's Kingdom, etc. What I am concerned about is that this isn't a history to be written by you unless you are an authorized scholar, preferably from Ethiopia, since it would be "kind" to give people to tell their own history. No other nation has the official authority to write the history of U.S. or Israel except for scholars with sufficient expertise. I strongly suggest you take off this article as I am contacting both Wikipedia and scholars in Ethiopia and/or Israel (Falasha) on this issue, in the meantime, I thank you for your attempt to write my history but nontheless I question your authority of writing on this subject, and you also present a one sided point of view on the group. I ask you to remove your article. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.18.208.195|75.18.208.195]] ([[User talk:75.18.208.195|talk]]) 06:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 

==History==
I just did a major rewrite of the history section involving a lot of trimming but also addition of information. The anon who added the information is clearly relatively well-versed in Beta Israel history, but also a bit confused. The [[Zagwe dynasty]] for instance was certainly Christian, for instance. The [[Monolithic church|Rock-hewn churches]] of [[Lalibela]] are a clear testament to that, especially [[Church of St. George, Lalibela|Beta Giyorgis]] (not to mention that basically all of the rulers are celebrated as Saints and Priest-Kings by the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]]). I also removed a lot of dubious information regarding early origins. It's generally believed now that Judaism didn't exist in Ethiopia until Medieval times (certainly by the 13th/14th century, possibly in early medieval times as well). Jacqueline Pirenne's views (certainly not the ''foremost'' scholar on the [[Sabaeans]]) on the possibility of ancient migrations of Jews involving Saba' are unlikely and generally not accepted, especially considering that [[South Arabian alphabet|Epigraphic South Arabian]] is a descendent of [[Proto-Sinaitic]] but not [[Proto-Canaanite]] or [[Phoenician alphabet|Phoenician]] like [[Hebrew alphabet|Hebrew]]. I left some of the theories that sounded more plausible that I didn't know much about wrt their veracity, but added citation tags. I also very much doubt the accuracy of "one million" Jews in Ethiopia in the 17th century. Though certainly present in full-force in [[Gonder]], the capital (itself the 2nd largest city in the world at the time) and surrounding areas, the majority of Ethiopia wasn't home to many Beta Israel, and the population of Ethiopia at the time would have probably been less than 10 million, making the 1 million figure a bit suspect. I would also like to caution against the use of "Jewish," as a general term for the Beta Israel, as there are other Agew groups that have Jewish traditions. I'll be adding more on later history tomorrow. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I am the "anon" contributor whose comments were so tendentiously edited out or recast by the above "editor." Much of what he/she says seems to present a pretty strong POV. In effect, any other point of view is rubbished, either removed from the site or rephrased in such a way as to nullify it. The editing is consistent. For example, I wrote in my contribution the following: "According to probably the leading scholar on the Sabeans, Jacqueline Pirenne, the spread of Sabeans across the Red Sea to Ethiopia began in the 8th or 7th centuries BCE when considerable numbers of Sabeans crossed over to Ethiopia to escape the Assyrians who had already devastated the kingdoms of Israel and Judea, and were extending their raids further south. Jacqueline Pirenne summarizes 30 years of research (cf. Munro-Hay, Aksum, 65) into the Sabeans by adding that a second major wave of Sabeans crossed over in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE to escape Nebuchadnezzar; this wave included Jews fleeing from the Babylonian takeover of Judah too. These Jews and pagans constituted a kind of aristocracy ruling the kingdom of Da’amat in the Tigray area of Ethiopia ( in the northwest near the Red Sea), with their capital at Aksum. She also suggests that some or almost all of these Sabeans and Jews returned to southern Arabia in the succeeding centuries, leaving elements of their civilization firmly imbedded in Ethiopia and maintained by native Ethiopians. This Aksumite culture established itself as the “high culture” of Ethiopia, with a written literature and trade and cultural contacts with the wider world, creating stone buildings, palaces and temples, making it admired by and quite superior to the mostly illiterate pagan tribal cultures around it who had only wood and thatch buildings. These cultural contacts brought constantly renewed encounter with Jews elsewhere in Judah and north and south Arabia, and the literacy and literature of the Jews ended up permeating and changing Sabean and Aksumite cultures and peoples. We have to do with a gradual but effective and widespread conversion of the local peoples to Judaism, around perhaps a core of Jews from abroad. In this way, says Pirenne, we can understand the Jewish influence on Ethiopian culture, and the persistence of the Black Jews in Ethiopia."

:Most of this contribution has been eliminated, and the editor declares ex cathedra that Pirenne is not such an authority on the Aksumite and Sabean cultures as claimed. However, I am not the source of that claim; I merely reproduce what Munro-Hay himself says on this. What this really means is that our editor is of the coterie of revisionist scholars centering at Hebrew University, which has entirely bought into the Quirin thesis about Beta Israel history and origins. No other respectable historical viewpoint therefore can be recognized. This is not the sort of scholarly neutrality we expect from encyclopedia articles, and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Pirenne and Munro-Hay and the many other scholars taking a more positive view of the depth and antiquity of Judaism in Ethiopia should be given a respectful hearing. They are not a small weird group of dissenters. Actually, it is the other way around; the Quirin-Kaplan group are the dissenters, who wish to take over the entire discourse by a forced reading of the whole of Beta Israel history.

::Pirenne was not at all the leading scholar on Sabaeans and Ethiopia. There are a number of leading scholars (Anfray, AJ Drewes, Fattovich, Schneider, etc.), but Pirenne's theory is not at all widespread. It was first proposed in the 1970s I believe, and hasn't gained much support since then. There's absolutely '''no''' evidence of Jewish traits in the Kingdom of [[D`mt]], though there are some gods from the [[Sabaeans|Sabaean]] [[Pantheon (gods)|pantheon]] worshipped. Current dating, moreover, no longer fits with Pirenne's dating. Whereas she would have the first Sabaeans in Yemen beginning around the 6th and 5th century BC, the earliest inscriptions in Yemen are from the 8th century BC (Norbert Nebes, "Epigraphic South Arabian" in von Uhlig, Siegbert, ed. ''Encylopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha''. Weissbaden: Otto Harrassowitz KG, 2005 p.333). The first in Ethiopia are from the 9th century BC, so a migration from Assyria to Ethiopia wouldn't work since the first deportation of Jews was under [[Tiglath-Pileser III]], who ruled in the second half of the 8th century BC. It also doesn't fit with the fact that the Jews were using an alphabet completely different from South Semitic scripts. Moreover, that there were only "wood and thatched buildings" before D`mt is not at all correct. I direct you to Fattovich's "The development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa in ancient and medieval times," which identifies a number of preceding urban complex cultures in the region. Note that Munro-Hay is not an authority on the Beta Israel by any means. His book on Aksum is certainly a masterpiece, but the reviews I've read of his work usually point out the unlikelyness of Pirenne's theories. Furthermore, I am not of the "coterie of revisionist scholars centering at Hebrew University" as you assume, just an informed Ethiopian. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:For example, another section of my contribution that was simply eliminated related to the Ethiopian Christian persecution of Beta Israel down through the ages. It is a part of the Catholic scholar Quirin's case that Jews were not significantly persecuted by the mostly benevolent Ethiopian Christians, and there was nothing like the antisemitism or Judeophobia characteristic of other lands. So the following comment by me was just wiped from the article: "Some of the worst massacres, attacks and forced conversions of the Christian kingdom occurred in the 1400s, for example, under the King Yacob Zara. (He even added the title “Exterminator of the Jews” to his name, and his subjects were required to tie a strip of parchment to their foreheads bearning an inscription expressing their commitment to the Christian faith.)"

::That section was never removed. I couldn't find a source for "King Yacob Zara [sic]" ever claiming that title, nor for the "worst massacres, attacks and forced conversions...occurr[ing] in the 1400s," so I put a citation needed tag on it. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Another portion of the original contribution related to the Jewishness of the Zagwe dynasty. However, our editor assures us that this dynasty was not Jewish at all, and I am just "confused" about it. In that case, so were both Christian and Muslim testimonies of the Middle Ages. Naturally, it has always been in the Christian interest to devalue or dismiss any deep Jewish claim to Ethiopian antiquity. Quirin certainly shows this. Our editor says that a proof of Christian Zagwe rule is the excavated church ruins from that period. But he/she ignores that I did not deny the existence and even flourishing of Christianity during the Zagwe dynasty, since it appears that this Jewish dynasty was quite tolerant not only of Christianity but also of paganism. The founding queen was called Gudit, Judit, and even Esato (Esther), according to the Kebra Negast. These are all clearly Jewish names. However, it is not entirely clear from the Christian chronicles whether she actually was Jewish or pagan (naturally they would try to discredit her Biblical legitimacy, as they would all Jewish resistance), and later scholars have interpreted her in both ways. The names would certainly seem to be Jewish and even to underline her Jewishness. Nevertheless, a decisive proof of her Jewishness, in my view, is the fact that the Zagwe dynasty that stemmed from her kin legitimated itself, and sought to better the claims of Aksumite kings, by claiming to be descended directly from Moses and his Ethiopian wife, even according to the Kebra Negast itself. This geneaological claim indicates her Jewishness. It cannot be mere coincidence that this claim is the same as that we hear from Eldad the Danite in the 9th century, before she existed, and from Beta Israel of more recent date, long after she and her Jewish dynasty have disappeared. Arab historians explicitly affirm that she was a Jewish queen. It is hard to know how much more evidence one needs that she was. Of course, there are modern scholars that still reject these attributions and insist that she was an anti-Christian pagan, or even “Jewish/pagan,” whatever that means (cf. Munro-Hay, Aksum, p. 15; Ullendorf, History of Ethiopia, 61), simply because of the vagueness of the Christian royal chronicles, the Kebra Negast. It is quite possible that some of these sceptical scholars are inclined by their Catholicism (in the case of Jean Doresse and Quirin) or other motives. Tradition says that 11 rulers of the Zagwe dynasty followed after Judith, in the course of some 330 years. According to traditions reported both by Arabs and by early modern European travellors in Ethiopia (e.g., James Bruce, in his 1773 account) some of these rulers were Jews, some were pagans and some were Christian, so the Zagwe dynasty inaugurated by Queen Judith was remarkably tolerant and ecumenical, fitting the Jewish Biblical view that non-Jews can know God too. By the way, Manuel de Almeida wrote in the 1640s regarding this, "There were Jews in Ethiopia from the first. Some of them were converted to the law of Christ Our Lord; others persisted in their blindness and formerly possessed many wide territories, almost the whole Kingdom of Dambea and the provinces of Ogara and Seman. This was when the [Christian] empire was much larger, but since the [pagan and Muslim] Gallas have been pressing in upon them [from the east and south], the Emperors have pressed in upon them [i.e., the Jews to the west?] much more and took Dambea and Ogara from them by force of arms many years ago." In regard to the downfall of the Zagwe dynasty, which I repeat was by all indications a chiefly Jewish dynasty, at least in origin, Christians bitter at the shared rule with infidels nursed dreams of revenge, which were fulfilled when in 1270 the “true Solomonic rule” was “restored” by King Yekuno Amlak. Again according to Stuart Munro-Hay, Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity (1991), however, King Amlak was actually a warlord who could not have been of the direct line of the old Aksumite kings. One further point. I recall when doing research on these questions some twenty years ago at the Truman Center at Hebrew University that I read a scholarly article (no longer remember the author or journal; could have been Pe'amim) on the names of the Zagwe rulers, which argued that these names showed a regular pattern of Jewish, Christian and pagan kings sharing the rule between them. The Zagwe dynasty was truly extraordinarily tolerant, entirely unlike the "Solomonic dynasty" that followed it, and which was dedicated from the start to wiping out Jewish sovereignty and power, and giving no quarter to paganism.

::What "Christian and Muslim testimonies of the Middle Ages" are you referring to that claim the Jewishness of the Zagwe dynasty? There are no such testimonies as far as I am aware. I have no reason to deny any Jewishness of Ethiopia in antiquity; indeed, I used to think it true before I knew much about the matter, but the evidence simply doesn't support such a view. Note that the "excavated church ruins [sic]" (the churches were not excavated, they have been in continuous use and are not at all ruins) are not the only thing that supports the view that the Zagwe were Christian. Most of the kings are worshipped as Saints in the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]], and no sources of the medieval period call the Zagwe Jews. Not being "Israelites" is not the same thing as being Jews. Note that "Gudit" is not a Jewish name, but from an [[Ethiopian Semitic languages|Ethio-Semitic]] word ''gud'' meaning "freak, monster, strange, wonderful" and the name is a "symbolic term connoting masculine powers as well as unsual characteristics (according to Taddesse Tamrat, cited - Knud Tage Andersen, "The Queen of Habasha in Ethiopian History, Tradition and Chronology," ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London'', Vol. 63, No. 1 (2000), p.20.). Note also that "Esato" (better transliterated "Isato") is not the name "Esther" (that is "Aster," a common name in Ethiopia for ''Christians'', I'm not sure as to its popularity among the Beta Israel), but rather connected to the Ethiosemitic word "Isat," meaning "fire," and is connected to the tradition that she burned down Aksum and [[Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion|Aksum Tsiyon]]. "Yodit" does mean "Judith," but it's a name used for Christians in Ethiopia as well, so characterizing her name as "Jewish" is not accurate. A Zagwe claim from Moses makes them no more Jewish than does "[[Solomonic dynasty|Solomonic]]" Emperors' claims of descent from the Jewish [[King Solomon]]. The religion of Gudit is uncertain. Tradition credits her as being Jewish, the account of the interaction of the Church with its counterpart in Egypt indicates that she may have been pagan, but that section is possibly a later addition, and it's even possible that she was originally seen as a legitimate inheritor of the ruling Aksumite dynasty, as Anbessa Widim, a late Aksumite King remembered as such, was ruling ca. 1125-50 (from a contemporary note in a colophon of a Bible by the Patriarch of the time in Ethiopia), yet by this time the Zagwe dynasty must have already been established. I'm not well-versed in [[Eldad Ha-Dani]]'s claims, but apparently (according to Steve Kaplan, whom you of course dismiss, seemingly categorically) his works don't show much knowledge of the area (Ethiopia) from which he purported to have come, and his writing shows absolutely no Ethio-Semitic or Cushitic influence (see also Ullendorf-Beckingham 1982; Morag 1997). What traditions by Arabs are you speaking of that say that some Zagwe were Jewish, and to what era do they date. Can you give me a page number or chapter for Bruce's claim? I've never heard such a claim, but such a late tradition conflicts with earlier, more contemporary data on the dynasty and is more useful in analyzing Ethiopian perceptions of Kings and dynasties than reconstructing Zagwe history. It's obvious that the [[Solomonic dynasty]] probably wasn't at all an accurate designation (but not necessarily that they were related to the Aksumite dynasty), and the existence of Jewish communities in Wogera/Wegera, [[Semien Mountains|Semien]], and [[Dembiya]] isn't at all in doubt. What would be defined as a "Jewish name," Tim Tam? The longer list of eleven rulers are as follows: Mara Takla Haymanot, Tatadim, Jan Siyum, Germa Siyum, Yemrehana Krestos, Qiddus Harbe/Harbay, Gebre Mesqel Lalibela, Na'akweto La'ab, and Yetbarak. All of these names are either Cushitic or Ethiopian Semitic in origin — i.e., there are no biblical names among them. It's true, however, that much of the Christianization and expansion of Monastic communities occured during the early Solomonic dynasty (esp. under [[Amda Seyon I|Amde Tsiyon]], e.g.).

:One portion after another of my contribution, however, wherever it seemed to indicate justification for a perspective other than the Quirin-Kaplan one, was simply eliminated from the article. I again register my complaint at this high-handed procedure. As other contributors to this discussion page have said over the years, an anti-Beta Israel agenda seems to be guiding the editors of this article. But I am too busy to pursue the matter further. I am quite confident that as a new generation of Beta Israel in Israel itself matures and enters the scholarly study of their own history, the rather blatant and strange partisanship presently dominating the Hebrew University account of Ethiopian Jewry will be overthrown and the revisionism, stemming in the first instance from Christian apologetics, and no doubt furthered by the rather far-left Peace Now ideology I noticed dominating the Truman Institute itself and its regular cultural events and presentations, will be discarded. Let me add that I have no doubt at all of the sincere good will and the scholarly standing of Kaplan and the others of his coterie at Hebrew University. I am sure that they believe themselves right. But they do need to give a little more space to other views. Those other views do exist in the scholarly world, are of serious weight and authority, and should not just be dismissed out of hand. [[User:Tim Tam|Tim Tam]] 02:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have no anti-Beta Israel agenda, and I do not see why having an indigenous origin as opposed to being foreigners mixed with the local population can be construed as such. As you can see above, there are legitimate problems with your view. I may have mentioned this earlier, but, as one example, Gudi/Yodit/Isato was never referred to by contemporary accounts as being Jewish. [[Ibn Hawqal]]'s reference to her, and the (probably later addition) mention in the ''History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church'' do not refer to her as Jewish (Ibn Hawqal calls her the "Queen of the [[Habesha|Habasha]]"), though there is no conclusive evidence either way. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles ==

Hello,

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups|WikiProject Ethnic groups]] has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the [[Beta Israel]] article: '''B-Class''', with the following comments (see link to '''ratings summary page''' in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):
*Extremely thorough coverage of topic.
*The History section is unusually long. It would probably be beneficial to break this into subtopics, to aid reader comprehension.
*A very good start on using inline links, Harvard referencing or Cite.php footnotes. However, long stretches of text are not cited. This is a meaningful flaw.

You can give this article (and any other article within the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups|WikiProject]]) a rating, as described below.

:-->''How to assess articles'' 
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the ''class'' parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner '''{{tl|Ethnic groups}}''' that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's '''[[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|assessment system]]''' page. After rating the article, please provide a '''short''' summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's '''ratings summary page.''' A link to this page can be found in the {{tl|Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Assessment|article rating and assessment scheme]]''' for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at [[Template talk:Ethnic groups]]. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups|main discussion board]] for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit [[:Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles]], find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks! --
--[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Is it undisputed that Falasha are Jews ? ==

It is stated in the first sentence that the Falasha "are Jews of Ethiopian origin".
The Israeli regime and orthodox Jews and Zionists may believe this, but what about the other 99.9% of the world? It seems that 0.1% rules Wikipedia.
The Falasha do not have language or culture or religion in common with Jews (but Jews do not have language or culture or religion in common with each other). So why are they "Jewish"? Except for their racial heritage, which some advocates of their "Jewishness" deny is a factor.

--------------------------------------------------------

:To answer your question. The Beta Israel are recognized as Jews by themselves and also by a majority of the other Jewish communities from the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. The issue that they had faced was in terms of their differences in certain legal matters as it pertained to marriages and divorce law. The questions about their heritage mainly began because of the fact that they did not have extensive direct contact with other Jewish communities until about the 1400's CE. Essentially, because there is documentation of them practicing Judaism for more than 600 years as a group they are accepted as Jews. The issues that you see are mainly about their origin prior to that 600 year period. This debate falls into the following categories.

:*The Ethiopian Jews descend from the tribe of Dan, and came to Ethiopia during the 1st Commonwealth of Israel.

:*The Ethiopian Jews are descendents of Habbani Jews (Southern Yemen) who came to the region and married into or converted members of the local population.

:*The Ethiopian Jews are descendents of Christians who took on a more Judaic perspective either through direct or indirect contact with Jews of Southern Egypt or Yemen.

Most of the debates about their pre-600 history revolve around the above points. So they are accepted as being Jewish due to their known and documented history of practicing Judaism. They are recognized by Sephardic sources due to the word of Sephardic rabbis going back to the 1400's. They are recognized by most Ashknenazi authorities based on the ruling of the Cheif Ashkenazi Rabbis. Yet, because of the issues as they pertain to differences in areas of Jewish law like divorce. There are a number of Ethiopian Jews who had to under a "Symbolic Conversion" in order for them to not be separated from other Jewish communities. This is a bit of an over simplification of the issues, but the article has to cover all these issues.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

==Deleted Un-sourced Material About Beta Israel having Hebrew texts==
I deleted the following un-sourced material. Does anyone have a source for this information?

:It appears that following the conquest of the Kingdom of Gondar{{dubious}} in the 17th century, all Jewish holy books were destroyed, and their study forbidden.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} If Hebrew writings were still extant, this is the time when they were definitively lost. However, the Jews persisted in reading what they could, including the "Old Testament" of the Christian scriptures written in the Christian holy tongue Ge'ez. The Jewish monks, in any case, had retained knowledge of Ge'ez from their ancient Christian antecedents. Great care was taken by these monks and priests to eliminate specifically Christian texts, practices and ideas. Thus, ironically, the Christian religious literature was used selectively to provide the continuing foundation for study of the Jewish sources. This helps to account for some of the texts (and practices) used by the Beta Israel that are not found elsewhere amongst Jews.

If someone can provide sources I will put it back into the article.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

== "related groups" info removed from infobox ==

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{tl|Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the '''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#.22related groups.22 info removed from infobox|Ethnic groups talk page]]'''. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

== Prominent Israelis of Ethiopian Jewish background ==

The "Prominent Israelis of Ethiopian Jewish background" should be split into separate articles (assuming most of the unlinked subjects don't already have articles, I haven't checked). I think a list of links to the individual articles would suffice. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 22:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Dear author of Beta Israel Article: Please Pay Attention! ==

Before I go on, I like to point out how it's very ORIENTALIST of the author to write on and on about this community based on debates and books he/she read. I am under the assumption, as is the author, that he/she is intelligent enough to cite the article. However, one question that doesn't seem to occur to this brave Wiki scholar is the possibility of misrepresentation of Ethiopian Jews (be it through the books and his/her approach to the topic). How can a group that is left virtually voiceless, a group of people who are silenced and marginalized by those who know appear to know them better than themselves? Whom have they authorized to be completely stripped down for everyone's inspection and approval? This is a general tendency of European minded sense of agency to speak in behalf of and/or represent a group outside of its own. Dear author, if you haven't read Orientalism by Edward Said, now is the time, although I doubt you will. But surely, you, the author, have no right or authority to write on historical, religious and cultural discourse, especially when Wikipedia is a source of learning for millions and those who read this article will take this as an accurate account.
Needless to say, I hated the article and even more so most of the comments because such mistakes and ignorance are abominations in the era of knowledge and enlightenment. It was irresponsible, considering the comments you've generated through this article! This is unacceptable.
So, PLEASE, call University of Addis Ababa and speak to a scholar, professor, somebody and educate yourself. It seems, from your article that you state what you found in the books (written by Europeans) as a matter of fact, while you ponder the claim of this group, and their history reluctantly. This is the history of my country, and this group is part of people. I don't expect you to whip out your colonial gazers and start dishing out whatever you find in books as God's given word.
So, I wait for your reply stating your authority that qualifies you to write a historical account. Just because you can write a college essay and bibliography, that doesn't mean you can become instant historian. If you don't have any qualifications, then take off the article from this site immediately. I'll arrange for a scholar who can replace your contributions. Thanks. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mishka411|Mishka411]] ([[User talk:Mishka411|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mishka411|contribs]]) 13:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
: Just to clarify, this being a [[wiki]], the article has no single author, and anyone (including yourself) is free to make edits. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the obvious. My point, though, is that this article holds a very orientalizing view of a group and serves as a survey of Beta Israel Ethiopia history with heavy errors. While I don't understand why people who have no authority of the group are editing or writing this article, I object to the idea of my history being written by people who do not know my community or my country outside of western textbooks (which we all know how subjective they are) and google image pics. So, GYROFROG, I hope that clarifies what I wrote. Considering that the Western population knows little about a lot of groups outside of U.S./Europe confine, it's rather dangerous just to "wing" and edit someone's history. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.18.208.195|75.18.208.195]] ([[User talk:75.18.208.195|talk]]) 06:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
: If you are able to identify the errors, then at the very least please identify them for us, or better yet replace them with better information that cites [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Thanks in advance, -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

::I actually sent emails to several Ethiopian Israelis asking them to work on the article. None of them came to contribute or edit the article. One Ethiopian Israeli friend of mine who read the article didn't have a problem with it. Are you an Ethiopian Israel, and if so would you be willing work on the areas you say need to be corrected? Can you also give references of books written by Ethiopian Jews on the topics? For example, one of the areas I felt needed to be worked on was the section about religious traditions.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

== WikiProject Beta Israel ==

Dear contributors,

[[:he:ויקיפדיה:מיזמי ויקיפדיה/יהדות אתיופיה|WikiProject Beta Israel]] has been launched at the [[Hebrew Wikipedia]] nearly a year ago. I am glad to say that my fellows have achieved a significant progress in establishing a free, reliable database about the fascinating heritage and history of the Beta Israel community. Both the English and Hebrew Wikipedia could benefit from this project, as many important resources are only available in either Hebrew or English. [[Kayla]] is one small example for an English article heavily contributed by a Hebrew-only source.

If you are a bilingual English and Hebrew writer, your help could be most valuable. I encourage you to visit the WikiProject page and edit it as you see fit. Best regards, [[User:Lior|Lior]] ([[User talk:Lior|talk]]) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

== To Minilik ==

I am reverting all of your changes from "Beta Israel", the legitimate name of this group, to "Bete Israel". The fact that it is more phonologically correct in Amharic does not change the official narrative on the group. In addition, you profess that it is a "church denomination" that this is in reference to. Rather the opposite - this refers to the historical Ethiopian group that has largely immigrated to Israel.
(BTW, this may be in violation of Original Research, but I've Googled your name. Turns out you really ARE a "church denomination." Please keep your Messianic garbage out of this article.) --[[User:OneTopJob6|OneTopJob6]] ([[User talk:OneTopJob6|talk]]) 04:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read quite a bit on them, and They do not claim to be from the Tribe of Dan, they don't connect their origin o the Lost Tribe myth at all, they believe they came with the Ark (When Varies not all agree on the Menelik myth).

The Idea of them being Danites primarily comes from statement a controversial Medieval traveler made about them. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.131.23.208|69.131.23.208]] ([[User talk:69.131.23.208|talk]]) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

== Integration section ==

This section needs to be enhanced, there is missing a lot of points, such as :
*the differences in theology between orthodoxe and beta israeli and its consequences in the integration process
*role of Kessim in israel. New beta israeli rabbi, having an orthodoxe formation, while some part of the older priests refusing to accept this way of preaching (and rejection of talmud).
*difference between older generations and integrated new generation that have been teach the orthodoxe way etc.
*Cultural troubles, as beta israeli had previously a really religious life but diferent from the teachings of the talmud, lots of tabou, life centered on the tribe. All was contradicted by the way of life of israeli jews.

"Social contact between the Beta Israel and other Ethiopians was limited. It was not because of the laws of Kashrut, since all Ethiopians share the same food taboos. Ethiopian Jews were forbidden to eat the food of non-Jews. The Kessim were more strict about the prohibition against eating food prepared by non-Kessim. Beta Israel who broke these taboos were ostracized and had to undergo a purification process. Purification included fasting for one or more days and ritual purification before entering the village."

Huge diference with israeli jews. The conscequences of this, after settlement in israel should be present in the article. Israel has choose to refuse their traditions and teached the youth beta israeli to follow the orthodoxe traditions, which leads to the gap between generations.

Kessim are not allowed to celebrate weddings (althought some rabbi accept their presence, but their are the only one that can really conclude a wedding). Israel tried to force the beta israeli to a conversion procedure before allowing wedding (just to be sure). It was refused by the beta israeli, as they are jews, and saw that as a rejection of their jew status. It was more easily accepted by Falasha Mura, and they were better integrated. Also, they accepted more easily the orthodoxe teachings and teh talmud, as a huge part of them were not practicing their judaism in Ethiopia (only a small group are still christians). Which is really diferent from the other beta israeli, as they were really religious.

Few new Kessims following the beta israeli traditions, were nominated in israel, but not accepted by rabbi cause they dont follow the talmud teachings.

There was also a protestation in 1996 against racism, after finding that blood given by beta israeli to help hospitals was destroyed without even testing, by fear of aids.

In the young generations, they are different level of integrations. Also, even those who have accept the orthodoxe teachings and are well economically integrated, they do feel they lost something and that they are different : there is a growing social identification centered on their ethiopian origins (rather than when they were in ethiopia, seeing themselves as jews diferent from the ethiopians) and the color of there skin. There is also a growing phenomenon of identification to black americans culture and cultural signs.

I'm really sorry for my poor english, i just would like to point that the article is missing those points (religious integration). Could it be possible someone look for english sources to explore those points and present them in the article, please ? [[User:Lilyu|Lilyu]] ([[User talk:Lilyu|talk]]) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Genetics of the Lost Tribes ==

The genetic evidence presented here sounds very convincing on the surface, but as a previous poster pointed out, it can't rule out the very possible scenario that the Ethiopians began as a Jewish people. In fact, the [[Tribes of Israel]] article includes an interesting quote from [[Tacitus]], that many believed all the Jews were of Ethiopian origin. But suppose for a moment that the Beta Israel truly have closest affinity to ancestral non-Jewish African peoples - even then, I am not sure this data means anything. After all, if these people are actually descendents of the Tribe of Dan, or any other "Lost Tribe", then they could have notable genetic differences from those of the Tribe of Judah.

Which brings me to my question: what is known of the physical similarities and differences of the various Tribes of Israel from ancient times? After all, the story goes that all were slaves in Egypt - maybe one tribe consisted of olive-skinned people from the east, another of dark-skinned people from the south? Each with their own genetic affiliations? Is that plausible or just a crazy idea? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 15:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beta Israel

2008-12-16T04:09:26Z

Peelinglayers:

{{Infobox Ethnic group
|image = [[Image:Falasha gondar injera 2006.jpg|250px|]]
|caption = ''Beta Israel'' making [[injera]] in [[Begemder|Gondar]], in 1996.
|group = Beta Israel
|poptime = '''200,000+''' (estimated)
|popplace =
{{flag|Israel}}: '''127,000''' (estimated)<ref>[http://www.iaej.co.il/pages/media.htm]</ref> 
{{flag|Ethiopia}}: '''22,000 to 50,000''' (estimated)<ref>[http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=96128]</ref><ref>[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1139395370396&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull]</ref><ref>[http://www.ujafedny.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6722&JServSessionIdr011=wv8w6mi3i1.app8a]</ref><ref>[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1:68512863/State+defends+its+treatment+of+Falash+Mura.html?refid=SEO]</ref><ref>[http://www.babaganewz.com/archive/article.cfm?ID=51]</ref>
|langs = Traditionally, [[Kayla language|Kayla]] and [[Qwara language|Qwara]], more recently [[Amharic language|Amharic]]; [[Ge'ez language|Ge'ez]] as a liturgical language and now (in [[Israel]]) [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] as a liturgical and common language
|rels = [[Judaism]]
|related =
* [[Tigray-Tigrinya people|Tigray]]s
* [[Amhara people|Amhara]]s
* [[Qemant]]
* [[Agaw]]
* [[Jew]]s: [[Jews and Judaism in Africa|African Jews]] ([[Qemant]], [[Falash Mura]]), [[Jewish ethnic divisions|other Jewish groups]]
}}
The '''Beta Israel''' ({{lang-he|ביתא ישראל}}: ''Beta Israel'', "House of Israel"; [[Ge'ez language|Ge'ez]]: ቤተ እስራኤል ''Bēta 'Isrā'ēl'', modern ''Bēte 'Isrā'ēl'') is the [[Jew]]ish community originating in [[Ethiopia]] (''[[Biblical Cush]]''), but now most of which lives in [[Israel]]. They are also known as '''Falasha''' (Amharic for "Exiles" or "Strangers") by non-Jewish Ethiopians, but this term is considered [[pejorative]]. Other terms by which the community have been known include the [[Tigrinya language|Tigrinya]] '''[[Kayla language|Kayla]]''' and the Hebrew '''Habashim''', associated with the non-Jewish [[Habesha people]].

Nearly 85% of the Ethiopian Beta Israel community, comprising more than 120,000 people, have emigrated to [[Israel]] under its [[Law of Return]], which gives [[Jews]] and those with Jewish parents or grandparents, and all of their spouses, the right to settle in Israel and obtain citizenship. The Israeli government has mounted rescue operations, most notably during [[Operation Moses]] (1984) and [[Operation Solomon]] (1991), for their migration when civil war and famine threatened populations within Ethiopia. Some immigration has continued up until the present day.

The related '''Falasha Mura''' are the descendants of Beta Israel who converted to [[Christianity]]. Some are returning to the practices of Judaism, living in Falash Mura communities and observing [[halakha]]. Beta Israel spiritual leaders, including [[Chief Kes]] [[Raphael Hadane]] have argued for the acceptance of the Falasha Mura as Jews.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/1342.htm Shas to help speed up Ethiopian Jewry immigration to Israe] ''[[Israel Insider]]''</ref> This claim has been a matter of controversy within Israeli society.<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974474.html Israel is losing its sovereignty] Ha'aretz.</ref><ref>[http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19930888_ITM Israel "can't bring all Ethiopian Jews at once" - foreign minister.] Asia Africa Intelligence Wire (From BBC Monitoring International Reports).</ref><ref>[http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5572893_ITM Israel orchestrates mass exodus of Ethiopians.] Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service.</ref><ref>[http://books.google.ca/books?id=hCUVRBcGYC8C&pg=PA391&lpg=PA391&dq=falashmura+controversy&source=web&ots=CIfBOv_vmY&sig=v5b6unLkFGTFNCylojzlyb0EgVU&hl=en Families Across Frontiers], p. 391, ISBN 9041102396</ref>

==Origins==

===Beta Israel beliefs===
[[Image:V05p329001 Falashas.jpg|thumb|right|275px|The Beta Israel village of [[Balankab]]. From H. A. Stern, ''Wanderings Among the Falashas in Abyssinia'' London, 1862; reprinted in the 1901–6 [[Jewish Encyclopedia]], now in the public domain.]]

The Ethiopian legend described in the ''[[Kebra Negast]]'', or "Book of the Glory of Kings," relates that Ethiopians are descendants of Israelite tribes who came to [[History of Ethiopia|Ethiopia]] with [[Menelik I]], alleged to be the son of King [[Solomon]] and the [[Queen of Sheba]] (or Makeda, in the legend) (see {{bibleverse|1|Kings|10:1-13|HE}} and {{bibleverse|2|Chronicles|9:1-12|HE}}). The legend relates that Menelik, as an adult, returned to his father in Jerusalem, and then resettled in Ethiopia, and that he took with him the [[Ark of the Covenant]]. In the [[Bible]] there is no mention that the Queen of Sheba either married or had any sexual relations with King Solomon; rather, the narrative records that she was impressed with his wealth and wisdom, and they exchanged royal gifts, and then she returned to rule her people in [[Kush]]. However, the "royal gifts" are interpreted by some as sexual contact. The loss of the Ark is also not mentioned in the Bible.

Those who accept the ''Kebra Negast'' believe that the Beta Israel are descended from a battalion of men of Judah that fled southwards down the Arabian coastal lands from [[Judaea]] after the breakup of the [[United Monarchy|united Kingdom of Israel]] into two kingdoms in the 10th century BCE (while King Solomon still reigned over Judah).

Although the ''Kebra Nagast'' and some traditional Ethiopian histories have stated that [[Gudit|Yodit]] (or "Gudit"), a tenth century usurping queen, was Jewish, it's unlikely that this was the case. It is more likely that she was a pagan southerner<ref>Taddesse Tamrat, ''Church and State in Ethiopia: 1270-1527'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp.38-9</ref> or a usurping Christian Aksumite Queen.<ref>Knud Tage Andersen, "The Queen of Habasha in Ethiopian History, Tradition and Chronology," ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London'', Vol. 63, No. 1 (2000), p. 20.</ref>

Other sources tell of many Jews who were brought as prisoners of war from ancient Israel by [[Ptolemy I]] and also settled on the border of his kingdom with [[Nubia]] ([[Sudan]]). Another tradition handed down in the community from father to son asserts that they arrived either via the old district of [[Qwara]] in northwestern Ethiopia, or via the [[Atbara River]], where the [[Nile]] tributaries flow into Sudan. Some accounts even specify the route taken by their forefathers on their way upstream from Egypt.<ref>[http://www.nacoej.org/history.htm]</ref>

===Rabbinical views===

The ninth century Jewish traveler [[Eldad ha-Dani]] claimed the Beta Israel descended from the tribe of Dan, claiming Jewish kingdoms around or in East Africa existed during this time. His writings may represent the first mention of the Beta Israel, but his accuracy is uncertain; scholars point to Eldad's lack of firsthand knowledge of Ethiopia's geography and any Ethiopian language, although he claimed the area as his homeland.<ref>Steven Kaplan, "Eldad Ha-Dani", in Siegbert von Uhlig, ed., ''Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha'' (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005), p.252.</ref>

Rabbi [[Obadiah ben Abraham|Ovadiah Yare of Bertinoro]] wrote in letter from Jerusalem in 1488:
<blockquote>I myself saw two of them in Egypt. They are dark-skinned... and one could not tell whether they keep the teaching of the [[Karaite]]s, or of the Rabbis, for some of their practices resemble the Karaite teaching... but in other things they appear to follow the instruction of the Rabbis; and they say they are related to the tribe of Dan.<ref>Avraham Ya'ari, ''Igrot Eretz Yisrael'', Ramat Gan 1971.</ref></blockquote>

Some [[Judaism|Jewish]] [[halakha|legal]] authorities have also asserted that the Beta Israel are the descendants of the [[tribe of Dan]], one of the [[Ten Lost Tribes]]. In their view, these people established a Jewish kingdom that lasted for hundreds of years. With the rise of [[Christianity]] and later [[Islam]], schisms arose and three kingdoms competed. Eventually, the [[Christian]] and [[Muslim]] Ethiopian kingdoms reduced the Jewish kingdom to a small impoverished section. The earliest authority to rule this way was the [[Radbaz]] (Rabbi [[David ben Zimra]], 1479{{ndash}} 1573). Radbaz explains in a responsum concerning the status of a Beta Israel slave:

<blockquote>But those Jews who come from the land of Cush are without doubt from the tribe of Dan, and since they did not have in their midst sages who were masters of the tradition, they clung to the simple meaning of the Scriptures. If they had been taught, however, they would not be irreverent towards the words of our sages, so their status is comparable to a Jewish infant taken captive by non-Jews … And even if you say that the matter is in doubt, it is a commandment to redeem them.<ref>''Responsum of the Radbaz on the Falasha Slave'', Part 7. No. 5, cited in Corinaldi, 1998: 196.</ref></blockquote>

In 1973 Rabbi [[Ovadia Yosef]], then the Chief Sephardic Rabbi, based on the Radbaz and other accounts, ruled that the Beta Israel were Jews and should be brought to Israel. He was later joined by a number of other authorities who made similar rulings, including the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi.

Other legal authorities, primarily [[Ashkenazim]], have maintained that the Jewishness of the Beta Israel is seriously suspect. Such dissenting authorities include Rabbis [[Moshe Feinstein]], [[Elazar Shach]], [[Yosef Shalom Eliashiv]], and [[Shlomo Zalman Auerbach]].

In either case, some modern rabbinical authorities require the Beta Israel to undergo shortened conversions as a religious precaution. Those who believe this consider the conversion a necessity for an Ethiopian Jew to be accepted within other Jewish communities.

===DNA evidence===
A 1999 study by Lucotte and Smets studied the [[DNA]] of 38 unrelated Beta Israel males living in [[Israel]] and 104 Ethiopians living in regions located north of [[Addis Ababa]] and concluded that "the distinctiveness of the Y-chromosome [[haplotype]] distribution of Beta Israel Jews from conventional Jewish populations and their relatively greater similarity in haplotype profile to non-Jewish Ethiopians are consistent with the view that the Beta Israel people descended from ancient inhabitants of Ethiopia who converted to Judaism."<ref>Lucotte G, Smets P. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10592688?dopt=Abstract "Origins of Falasha Jews studied by haplotypes of the Y chromosome."], ''Human Biology'', 1999 Dec;71(6):989-93.</ref><ref>[http://www.ethioguide.com/aa-ethioguide/ethioguide/News_Archive/1299/origin%20of%20falasha_jews122399.htm]</ref> This study confirmed the findings of a 1991 study by Zoossmann-Disken ''et al''.<ref>Zoossmann-Diskin A, Ticher A, Hakim I, Goldwitch Z, Rubinstein A, Bonne-Tamir B. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2050504?dopt=Abstract "Genetic affinities of Ethiopian Jews."], ''Israel Journal of Medical Sciences'' 1991 May;27(5):245-51.</ref>. A 2000 study by Hammer ''et al'' of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes of Jewish and non-Jewish groups suggested that "paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from [[Europe]], [[North Africa]], and the [[Middle East]] descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population," with the exception of the Beta Israel, who were "affiliated more closely with non-Jewish Ethiopians and other North Africans."<ref> Hammer M. F., Redd A. J., Wood E. T., Bonner M. R., Jarjanazi H., Karafet T., Santachiara-Benerecetti S., Oppenheim A., Jobling M. A., Jenkins T., Ostrer H., Bonné-Tamir B. [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769 "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes"], ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'', June 6, 2000 vol. 97 no. 12 6769-6774.</ref>

A 2001 study by the Department of Biological Sciences at [[Stanford University]] found a possible genetic similarity between 11 Ethiopian Jews and 4 [[Yemenite Jews]] who took part in the testing. The differentiation statistic and genetic distances for the 11 Ethiopian Jews and 4 Yemenite Jews tested were quite low, among the smallest of comparisons involving either of these populations. The 4 Yemenite Jews from this study may be descendants of reverse migrants of African origin who crossed Ethiopia to [[Yemen]]. The study result suggests gene flow between Ethiopia and Yemen as a possible explanation for the closeness. The study also suggests that the gene flow between Ethiopian and Yemenite Jewish populations may not have been direct, but instead could have been between Jewish and non-Jewish populations of both regions.<ref>Rosenberg Noah A.,Woolf Eilon, Pritchard Jonathan K., Schaap Tamar ,Gefel Dov, Shpirer Isaac, Lavi Uri, Bonné-Tamir Batsheva , Hillel Jossi, Feldman Marcus W. *[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=14674 "Distinctive genetic signatures in the Libyan Jews"]'', ''Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A''. 2001 January 30; 98(3): 858–863.</ref>

A 2002 study of [[Mitochondrial DNA]] (which is passed through only maternal lineage to both men and women) by Thomas ''et al'' showed that the most common mtDNA type found among the Ethiopian Jewish sample was present only in [[Somalia]]. This further supported the view that most Ethiopian Jews were of local or Ethiopian origin.<ref>Mark G. Thomas, Michael E. Weale, Abigail L. Jones, Martin Richards, Alice Smith, Nicola Redhead, Antonio Torroni, Rosaria Scozzari, Fiona Gratrix, Ayele Tarekegn, James F. Wilson, Cristian Capelli, Neil Bradman, and David B. Goldstein. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=379128 "Founding Mothers of Jewish Communities: Geographically Separated Jewish Groups Were Independently Founded by Very Few Female Ancestors"], ''Am J Hum Genet''. 2002 June; 70(6): 1411–1420.</ref>

===Scholarly view===
In the past, secular scholars were divided on the origins of the Beta Israel; whether they were the descendants of an Israelite tribe, or converted by Jews living in [[Yemen]], or by the Jewish community in southern Egypt at [[Elephantine]].<ref>For a discussion of this theory, see Edward Ullendorff, ''Ethiopia and the Bible'' (Oxford: University Press for the British Academy, 1968), pp. 16f, 117. According to Ullendorff, individuals who believed in this origin included President [[Yitzhak Ben-Zvi]] of Israel.</ref> In the 1930s Jones and Monro argues that the chief Semitic languages of Ethiopia may suggest an antiquity of Judaism in Ethiopia. "There still remains the curious circumstance that a number of Abyssinian words connected with religion, such as the words for [[Hell]], [[Cult image|idol]], [[Easter]], [[purification]], and [[alms]]{{ndash}} are of [[Hebrew]] origin. These words must have been derived directly from a Jewish source, for the Abyssinian Church knows the scriptures only in a Ge'ez version made from the Septuagint."<ref>A.H.M. Jones and Elizabeth Monroe, ''A History of Ethiopia'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935), p. 40.</ref> Richard Pankhurst summarized the various theories offered about their origins as of 1950 that the first members of this community were
{{quote|(1) converted Agaws, (2) Jewish immigrants who intermarried with Agaws, (3) immigrant Yemeni Arabs who had converted to Judaism, (4) immigrant Yemeni Jews, (5) Jews from Egypt, and (6) successive waves of Yemeni Jews. Traditional Ethiopian savants, on the one hand, have declared that 'We were Jews before we were Christians', while more recent, well-documented, Ethiopian hypotheses, notably by two Ethiopian scholars, Dr Taddesse Tamrat and Dr Getachew Haile... put much greater emphasis on the manner in which Christians over the years converted to the Falasha faith, thus showing that the Falashas were culturally an Ethiopian sect, made up of ethnic Ethiopians.<ref name=Pankhurst-567/>}}

According to Jacqueline Pirenne, numerous [[Sabaeans]] crossed over the [[Red Sea]] to Ethiopia to escape from the Assyrians, who had devastated the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. She further states that a second major wave of Sabaeans crossed over to Ethiopia in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE to escape [[Nebuchadnezzar]]. This wave also included Jews fleeing from the Babylonian takeover of Judah.<ref>Compare Stuart Munro-Hay, ''Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity'' (Edinburgh: University Press, 1991), p. 65</ref> Most historians generally dismiss these theories of an early Jewish presence in Ethiopia in favor of a later [[ethnogenesis]] of the Beta Israel and presence of Judaism among Ethiopians. In 1992 Pankhurst stated "The early origins of the Falashas are shrouded in mystery, and, for lack of documentation, will probably remain so for ever."<ref name=Pankhurst-567>Richard Pankhurst, "The Falashas, or Judaic Ethiopians, in Their Christian Ethiopian Setting", ''African Affairs'', Vol. 91 (October 1992), pp. 567-582 at p. 567</ref>

Modern scholars of Ethiopian history and Ethiopian Jews, such as James Quirin, [[Steve Kaplan]], Kay Shelemay, and Harold Marcus, consider the Beta Israel to be a native group of Ethiopian Christians, who took on Biblical practices, and came to see themselves as Jews. As Paul B. Henze explains:
<blockquote>These groups came into conflict with the military colonies and Christian missions which were the main instruments of the extension southward of the Ethiopian state. They may have been joined by dissidents or rebelling northern Christians who felt their interpretation of ritual, sacred texts and traditions of art represented a more ancient Israelite connection than Orthodox [[Miaphysite]] Christianity itself. The Beta Israel can thus be understood as a manifestation of the kind of rebellious archaism that has often come to the surface in Christianity -- e.g. [[Russian Old Believers]] and [[Germany|German]] [[Old Lutherans]]. Assertion of Jewish derivation, they felt, provided them with a stronger claim to legitimacy than their Christian enemies.<ref>Paul B. Henze. ''Layers of Time''. Palgrave, 2000. p. 55.</ref></blockquote>

==In The Middle Ages==

In 1329, [[Emperor of Ethiopia|Emperor]] [[Amda Seyon I|Amda Seyon]] campaigned in the northwest provinces of [[Semien province|Semien]], [[Wegera]], [[Tselemt province|Tselemt]], and [[Tsegede province|Tsegede]], in which many had been converting to [[Judaism]] and where the [[Beta Israel]] had been gaining prominence.<ref name="PankBord40">Pankhurst, ''Borderlands'', pp. 79.</ref> He sent troops there to fight people "like Jews" ([[Ge'ez language|Ge'ez]] ከመ:አይሁድ ''kama ayhūd'').<ref name="Encyc553">Steven Kaplan, "Betä Əsraʾel", in Siegbert von Uhlig, ed., ''Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: A–C'' (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003), p. 553.</ref>

For the next three centuries, these regions were frequently areas of Beta Israel rebellion against the [[Solomonic dynasty]]. Religion was less important to the Emperors than loyalty, however. Rebellious Beta Israel leaders often formed alliances with other enemies of the Emperor despite their differing faiths.<ref name="Encyc553" /> The late fourteenth century Christian monk [[Qozmos]], for instance, copied the ''Orit'' ([[Old Testament]]) for the Beta Israel communities. He led them against local Christians before being defeated by Emperor [[Dawit I of Ethiopia|Dawit I]].<ref name="Encyc553" /> Likewise, the fifteenth century governor of Tsellemt used both Jewish and Christian troops for his revolt. The first personal campaign against rebelling Beta Israel areas did not come until the reign of Emperor [[Yeshaq I of Ethiopia|Yeshaq]] (r.1414-29). When Yeshaq I defeated the governors of Semien and [[Dembiya]], he began to exert religious pressure. He reduced the Jews' social status below that of Christians. <ref name="Encyc553" /> Yeshaq forced the Jews to convert or lose their land. It would be given away as ''[[rist]]'', a type of land qualification that rendered it forever inheritable by the recipient and not transferrable by the Emperor. Yeshaq decreed, "He who is baptized in the Christian religion may inherit the land of his father, otherwise let him be a ''Falāsī''." This may have been the origin for the term "Falasha" (''falāšā'', "wanderer," or "landless person").<ref name="Encyc553" /> In the 1400s, Emperor [[Zara Yaqob]] carried out some of the worst massacres, attacks and forced conversions of the Christian kingdom. {{Fact|date=February 2007}} Zara Yaqob added the title "Exterminator of the Jews" to his name.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}

Another convert was [[Abba Sabra]] (or Sabriqu) of Madra Kabd near Zeqwala in [[Shewa]], who lived in the fifteenth century. According to Falasha tradition, in which he is a seminal figure, Abba Sabra turned to a life of penance after having committed a murder; one act of this penance was building a church in [[Dankaz]] near [[Gondar]]. Not long afterwards, he "embraced the faith of the Israelites", and converted one of Zara Yaqob's sons, Saga-Amlak, who according to some accounts also converted many other people. Abba Sabra is also remembered for his teaching of the ''Orit'', as well as the laws of purity known in Amharic as ''attenhugn''. He is also believed to have introduced to the Beta Israel [[monasticism|monastic practices]], which became one of its most distinctive practices as a Jewish sect. The influence of converts like Qozmos and Abba Sabra complicates the work of tracing this group's possible heritage from its earliest adherents.<ref>Pankhurst, "The Falasha", p. 569.</ref>

Beta Israel autonomy in Ethiopia ended in 1624, when Emperor [[Susenyos of Ethiopia|Susenyos]] confiscated their lands, sold many people into slavery and forcibly [[baptism|baptized]] others.<ref name="Encyc554">Kaplan,"Betä Əsraʾel",''Aethiopica'' p. 554.</ref> Jewish writings and religious books were burned. The practice of any form of Jewish [[religion]] was forbidden in Ethiopia.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} As a result of this period of oppression, much traditional Jewish culture and practice was lost or changed.

Nonetheless, the Beta Israel community appears to have continued to flourish during this period. The capital of Ethiopia, [[Gondar]], in [[Dembiya]], was surrounded by Beta Israel lands. The Beta Israel served as craftsmen, masons, and carpenters for the Emperors from the sixteenth century onwards. Such roles had been shunned by Ethiopians as lowly and less honorable than farming.<ref name="Encyc554" /> According to contemporary accounts by European visitors: Portuguese merchants and diplomats, French, British and other travellers, the Beta Israel numbered about one million persons in the seventeenth century.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} These accounts also recounted that some knowledge of Hebrew persisted among the people in the seventeenth century. For example, [[Manoel de Almeida]], a Portuguese diplomat and traveller of the day, wrote that:

{{quote|The Falashas or Jews are... of [Arabic] race [and speak] Hebrew, though it is very corrupt. They have their Hebrew Bibles and sing the psalms in their synagogues.<ref>''History of High Ethiopia or Abassia'', trans. and ed. C.F. Beckingham and G.W.B. Huntingford, London: Hakluyt Society, 1954, pp. 54–5</ref> }}

The extent of De Almeida's knowledge is not known. The Beta Israel were not predominantly of the Arabic race, for instance, but he may have meant the term loosely or meant that they also knew Arabic.

The Beta Israel lost their relative economic advantages, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, during the [[Zemene Mesafint]], a period of recurring civil strife. Although the capital was nominally in Gondar during this time period, the decentralization of government and dominance by regional capitals resulted in a decline and exploitation of Beta Israel by local rulers. No longer was there a strong central government interested in and capable of protecting them.<ref name="Encyc554" /> During this period, the Jewish religion was effectively lost for some forty years, before being restored in the 1840s by ''Abba'' [[Widdaye]], the preeminent monk of [[Qwara]].<ref name="Encyc554" />

==Pre-modern and modern contacts with Jews elsewhere==
The earliest surviving testimony to those hidden kingdoms comes from the ninth century. In the last decades of that century, the Jews of Kairowan in Tunisia were visited by a man called Eldad son of Mahli, the Danite. [[Eldad Ha-Dani|Eldad the Danite]], as he is referred to in Jewish histories, said he was the lone survivor of a shipwreck. He claimed to have escaped cannibals and had other fabulous adventures before arriving in Tunisia. He was described as having dark skin and speaking only a strange sort of Hebrew and no Arabic. Eldad the Danite claimed to be a Jew of a pastoralist tribe residing in the land of Havilah beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.

He claimed the tribe was descendants of the tribe of Dan, which had emigrated from Judaea at the time of Jeroboam's accession, after the death of Solomon. He said three other tribes, [[Naphtali]], [[Gad]] and [[Asher]], had joined them in the time of [[Sennacherib]]. He laid waste to the northern kingdom of Israel around 722 B.C. Opposite these tribes lived the Children of Moses, Bnai Mosheh, who came from those Levites who had mutilated the fingers of their right hands rather than sing the songs of Zion by the rivers of Babylon, and chose instead to flee to the south.

Eldad the Danite said the Children of Moses lived beyond a river of grinding stones. They were impossible to visit, except on the sabbath day when the river ceased its grinding. This was a concept strikingly similar to, if not a direct borrowing from, [[Sambation]]. The tribes were pastoralists and mighty warriors. They were ruled together by a king assisted by a learned Torah judge-prophet. They did not know of the [[Talmud]], but had their own traditions written down in Hebrew. Eldad the Danite displayed these to the rabbis of Tunisia and Egypt.

The rabbis corresponded with a Gaon of Sura (in Babylon) and concluded that Eldad the Danite was indeed a Jew. They determined that the differences of his practice from their own were legitimate forms of customary law for the Jews of Havilah. In the early modern period, the variations from Rabbinic law which he practiced and obeyed were still cited by Rabbinic authorities as precedents. The facts that he used only Hebrew in the Muslim world and carried a sacred text written in Hebrew which gave details of ritual and other practices suggested that ancient Ethiopian Jewry knew Hebrew.

In the sixteenth century, the [[Chief Rabbi]] of [[Egypt]], Rabbi [[David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra]] (Radbaz) proclaimed that in terms of [[halakha]] (Jewish legal code), the Ethiopian community was certainly Jewish. During the nineteenth century, the majority of European Jewish authorities openly supported this assertion.

In 1908, the chief rabbis of 45 countries made a joint statement officially declaring that Ethiopian Jews were indeed Jewish. This proclamation was chiefly due to the work of Professor [[Jacques Faitlovitch]], who studied [[Amharic language|Amharic]] and [[Tigrinya language|Tigrinya]] at the [[Ecole des Hautes Etudes]] in [[Paris]] under Professor [[Joseph Halévy]]. Halévy first visited the Ethiopian Jews in 1876. Upon his return to [[Europe]], Halévy published a "[[Kol Korei]]," a cry to the world Jewish community to save the Ethiopian Jews. He formed the organization [[Kol Yisroel Chaverim]] ("All Israel are Friends"), to act as advocates for Ethiopian Jews for years to come.

==Ethiopian enclave==
[[Image:Falash Mura kid.jpg|275px|thumb|left|A child of Beta Israel awaiting to make [[aliyah]] to Israel. Taken in Ethiopia, [[July 17]], [[2005]].]]

{{clearright}}{{Jews and Judaism sidebar|ethnicities}}

One of the earliest dated references to the Beta Israel in Ethiopian literature is in the ''Glorious Victories of [[Amda Seyon I|Amda Seyon]]'', which mentions a revolt in the province of [[Begemder]] by "the renegades who are like Jews" in the year 1332.<ref>Glorious Victories of Amda Seyon I, trans. G.W.B. Huntingford [Oxford: Clarendon Press], p. 61</ref>

The isolation of the Beta Israel was reported by explorer [[James Bruce]], who published his ''Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile'' in [[Edinburgh]] in 1790. In 1860, [[Henry Aaron Stern|Henry Stern]], a [[Jewish]] convert to [[Christianity]], traveled to Ethiopia to attempt to convert the Beta Israel to Christianity.

Many Ethiopian Jews whose ancestors converted to Christianity have been returning to the practice of Judaism. Such people are known as the Falash Mura. They have been admitted to Israel, although not as Jews. The Israeli government can thus set quotas on their immigration and make citizenship dependent on their conversion to Orthodox Judaism. Although no one knows precisely the population of the Falash Mura in Ethiopia, observers believe it is approximately 20,000-26,000 persons. Recently, some reporters and other travelers in remote regions of Ethiopia have noted finding entire villages where people claim they are Jewish or are Falash Mura, that is, Jews who have been practicing Christianity.

In the [[Achefer]] [[woreda]] of the [[Mirab Gojjam Zone]], roughly 1,000-2,000 families of Beta Israel were found. They have not petitioned to immigrate to the Jewish state. There may be other such regions in Ethiopia with significant Jewish enclaves, which would raise the total Jewish population to more than 50,000 people. Israel has approved the immigration of the Falash Mura at 300 per month. The Ethiopian Jewish community and its supporters have petitioned to increase this number to 600 per month to prevent health problems among the Jews waiting to emigrate from Ethiopia.

==Religious traditions==
The holiest work is the [[Torah]] — Orit. All the holy writings, including the Torah, are handwritten on parchment pages that are assembled into a codex. The rest of the Prophets and the Hagiographa are of secondary importance. The language of their holy writings is Ge'ez.

In addition to the Biblical canon, the Beta Israel hold sacred the books of [[Book of Enoch|Enoch]], Jubilees, Baruch and the books of Ezra as well. The basic wording of Beta Israel Biblical writings was passed down through ancient Greek translations like the Septuagint{{Fact|date=August 2007}}, which incorporates some of the Apocrypha.

The Beta Israel possess several other books, including the Arde'et, Acts of Moses, Apocalypse of Gorgorios, Meddrash Abba Elija, and biographies of the nation's forebears: Gadla Adam, Gadla Avraham, Gadla Ishak, Gadla Ya'kov, Gadla Moshe, Gadla Aaron, Nagara Musye, Mota Musye.

[[Image:Women at kotel.jpg|thumb|left|275px|Ethiopian women at the [[Western Wall|Kotel]] in [[Jerusalem]] during Hol HaMoed (the week of) [[Passover]].]]

Leaders of the community consider especially important a book about the [[Shabbat]] and its precepts, ''Te'ezaza Sanbat'' (Precepts of the Sabbath). The leaders of the Beta Israel also read liturgical works, including weekday services, Shabbat and Festival prayers, and various blessings. ''Sefer Cahen'' deals with priestly functions, while ''Sefer Sa'atat'' (Book of the Hours) applies to weekdays and Shabbat. The Beta Israel religious calendar is set according to a treatise known as the ''Abu Shaker'', which was written around 1257 CE. It covered the computation of [[Jewish holidays]] and chronological matters. The ''Abu Shaker'' lists civil and lunar dates for Jewish feasts, including Matqe' (New Year), Soma Ayhud or Badr (Yom Kippur), Masallat (Sucot), Fesh (Passover), and Soma Dehnat (Fast of Salvation) or Soma Aster (Fast of Esther).<ref>Kay Kaufman Shelemay, ''Music, Ritual, and Falasha History,'' Michigan State University Press, 1989, page 45-53</ref>

The Beta Israel have a unique holiday, known as [[Sigd]] on the 29th of Cheshvan. Sigd or [[Seged]] is derived from the Semitic root, meaning "to bow or prostrate oneself." In the past the day was called Mehella. The acts of bowing and supplication are still known as mehella. Sigd celebrates the giving of the Torah and the return from exile in Babylonia to Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah. Beta Israel tradition holds that Sigd commemorates Ezra's proclamation against the Babylonian wives (Ezra 10:10-12). In Ethiopia, the Sigd was celebrated on hilltops outside villages. The location was called by several names, including Ya'arego Dabr (Mountain for making prayers) and in Amharic Yalamana Tarrara (Mountain of Supplication). The [[Kessim]], or elders of the community, drew a parallel between the ritual mountain and Mount Sinai. Another source described Sigd (calling it Amata Saww) as a new-moon holiday, after which the Kessim withdrew for a period of isolation.<ref>Shelemay, ''Music'', page 48.</ref>

Social contact between the Beta Israel and other Ethiopians was limited. It was not because of the laws of [[Kashrut]], since all Ethiopians share the same food taboos. Ethiopian Jews were forbidden to eat the food of non-Jews. The Kessim were more strict about the prohibition against eating food prepared by non-Kessim. Beta Israel who broke these taboos were ostracized and had to undergo a purification process. Purification included fasting for one or more days and ritual purification before entering the village. Unlike other Ethiopians, the Beta Israel do not eat raw meat dishes like [[kitfo]] or [[gored gored]].<ref>Shelemay, ''Music'', page 42</ref>

==Languages==
The Beta Israel once spoke [[Qwara language|Qwara]] and [[Kayla language|Kayla]], closely related [[Cushitic]] languages. Now they speak [[Tigrinya language|Tigrinya]] and [[Amharic language|Amharic]], a [[Semitic language]]. Their liturgical language is [[Ge'ez language|Ge'ez]]. Since the 1950s, they have taught [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] in their schools.

==Israeli intervention==
{| align="right" border="1" cellpadding="3" style="border-collapse:collapse"
|- bgcolor="#cccccc"
|+ Aliyah from Ethiopia compared to the total Aliyah to [[Israel]]<ref>Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, [http://cbs.gov.il/shnaton58/st04_04.pdf '''Immigrants, by Period of Immigration, Country of Birth and Last Country of Residence'''] from the Statistical Abstract of Israel 2007-No.58</ref>
! Years || Ethiopian-born Immigrants || Total Immigration to Israel
|-
| 1948–51 || 10 || 687,624
|-
| 1952–60 || 59 || 297,138
|-
| 1961–71 || 98 || 427,828
|-
| 1972–79 || 306 || 267,580
|-
| 1980–89 || 16,965 || 153,833
|-
| 1990–99 || 39,651 || 956,319
|-
| 2000–04 || 14,859 || 181,505
|-
| 2005 || 3,573 || 21,180
|-
| 2006 || 3,595 || 19,269
|-
|}

{{main|Aliyah from Ethiopia}}

The Israeli government officially accepted the Beta Israel as Jews in 1975, for the purpose of the [[Law of Return]]. Israeli Prime Minister [[Menachem Begin]] obtained clear rulings from Chief Sephardi Rabbi [[Ovadia Yosef]] that they were descendants of the [[Ten Lost Tribes]]. They were, however, required to undergo ''pro forma'' [[Conversion to Judaism|Jewish conversions]], to remove any doubt as to their Jewish status.

Beginning in 1984, the Israeli-led [[Operation Moses]] began transporting Beta Israel to Israel. In 1985 it came to an abrupt halt, leaving many of the Beta Israel still in Ethiopia. It was not until 1990 that the governments of Israel and Ethiopia came to an agreement to allow the remaining Beta Israel a chance to emigrate to Israel. In 1991, the political and economic stability of Ethiopia deteriorated as rebels mounted attacks against and eventually controlled the capital city of [[Addis Ababa]]. Worried about the fate of the Beta Israel during the transition period, the Israeli government along with several private groups prepared to continue covertly with the migration. After [[El Al]] obtained a special provision to fly on [[Shabbat]] (because of the danger to life), on Friday, [[May 24]], [[Operation Solomon]] began. Over the course of 36 hours, a total of 34 [[El Al]] [[airliner|passenger planes]], with their seats removed to maximize passenger capacity, flew 14,325 Beta Israel non-stop to Israel.

==Ethiopian Jews in Israel today==
[[Image:falasha makstyle.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Ethiopian Israeli soldier in [[Nablus]], in 2006, by David Bicchetti]]
[[Image:Rav Getz Synagogue 3 by David Shankbone.jpg|thumb|Left|Many of the Ethiopians are employed in the service sector; (above) two janitors cleaning the [[Warren's Gate|synagogue]] in the [[Western Wall tunnel]].]]

Ethiopian Jews are gradually becoming part of the mainstream Israeli society in religious life, military service (with nearly all males doing national service), education, and politics. Similarly to other groups of immigrant Jews who made [[aliyah]] to Israel, the Ethiopian Jews have faced obstacles in their integration to Israeli society. The Ethiopian Jewish community's internal challenges have been complicated by limited but real racist attitudes on the part of some elements of Israeli society and the official establishment.<ref name="Bookinfo">Onolemhemhen Durrenda Nash, ''The Black Jews of Ethiopia'', Scarecrow Press; Reprint edition 2002, page 40</ref>

One study found that some of the problems with the absorption of the Beta Israel was due to the model of absorption chosen.
{{quote|Planning for the absorption of Jewish immigrants to Israel has been dominated by a procedural approach, which has generally been insensitive to the particular circumstances and needs of minority ethnic groups. This approach has emphasised the ‘national interest’ as defined by the dominant group, namely Ashkenazi Jews who originated in Central Europe. The social and cultural traditions of other groups have been treated as ‘problems’ that need to be overcome, and minimal attention has been given to the processes of adaptation such groups undergo.<ref name="EthnCit">Tovi Fenter, "Ethnicity, Citizenship, Planning and Gender: the case of Ethiopian immigrant women in Israel," ''Gender, Place and Culture'', Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 179, 1998</ref> }}

Most of the 100,000 Ethiopian Jews living in Israel are immigrants and descendants of two main waves, the first in 1984 (about 33,000 people) and the second in 1991 (about 20,000 people). These airlifts were known as [[Operation Moses]] and [[Operation Solomon]], respectively. Civil war and famine in Ethiopia prompted the Israeli government to mount these dramatic rescue operations. The rescues were within the context of Israel's national mission to gather Diaspora Jews and bring them to the Jewish homeland. At the height of the rescue, 19,000 people arrived in Israel from Ethiopia within 24 hours.

Individual Ethiopian Jews had lived in Eretz Yisrael prior to the establishment of the state. A youth group arrived in Israel in the 1950s to undergo training in Hebrew education and returned to Ethiopia to educate young Jews there. Also, Ethiopian Jews had been trickling into Israel prior to the 1970s. The numbers of such Ethiopian immigrants grew after the Israeli government officially recognized them in 1973 as Jews entitled to Israeli citizenship.<ref name="EthnicCit">Fenter, "Ethnicity,", page 181.</ref>

To prepare for the absorption of tens of thousands of Ethiopian Jews, the State of Israel prepared two `Master Plans’ (Ministry of Absorption, 1985, 1991). The first was prepared in 1985, a year after the arrival of the first wave of immigrants. The second updated the first in response to the second wave of immigration in 1991 from Ethiopia. The first Master Plan contained an elaborate and detailed program. It covered issues of housing, education, employment and practical organization, together with policy guidelines regarding specific groups, including women, youths, and single -parent families. Like earlier absorption policies, it adopted a procedural approach which assumed that the immigrants were broadly similar to the existing majority population of Israel. The Plans were, no doubt, created with good intentions and a firm belief in assimilation. As noted in this section, results have been disappointing and suggest that much greater attention needs to be paid to issues of ethnicity.[http://www.tau.ac.il/~tobiws/ethiopian.pdf#search='Ethiopian%20women%20in%20Israel']

According to a November 17th, 1999 [[BBC]] article, a report commissioned by Israel's Ministry of Immigrant Absorption stated that 75% of the 70,000 Ethiopian Jews living in Israel in 1999 could not read or write Hebrew. More than half the population could not hold a simple conversation in the Hebrew language. Unlike Russian immigrants, many of whom arrive with job skills, Ethiopians came from a [[subsistence economy]] and were ill-prepared to work in an industrialized society. Since then much progress has been made. Through military service most Ethiopian Jews have been able to increase their chances for better opportunities.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/524662.stm]. Today most Ethiopian Jews have been for the most part integrated into Israeli society, however a high drop out rate is a problem, although a higher number are now edging towards the higher areas of society.

In September, 2006, the Israeli government's proposed 2007 budget included reducing Ethiopian immigration from 600 persons per month to 150. On the eve of the [[Knesset]] vote, the Prime Minister's office announced that the plan had been dropped. Advocates for the Falash Mura noted that although the quota was set at 600 per month in March, 2005, actual immigration has remained at 300 per month.<ref>
{{cite news
|first=Urile
|last=Heilman
|authorlink=
|author=
|coauthors=
|title=Falash Mura supporters hail vote to keep monthly immigration steady
|url=http://www.jewishledger.com/articles/2006/11/17/news/on_the_cover/news01.txt
|format=
|work=
|publisher=Connecticut Jewish Ledger
|pages=22, 26
|page=
|date=2006-11-17
|accessdate=2006-11-17

}}
</ref>

===Prominent Israelis of Ethiopian Jewish background===
'''[[Qes Adana Takuyo]]''' was born in Seqelt and studied with the Qessim as a child. During the Italian occupation of Ethiopia, he had moved to Ambober where he worked as a farmer. He studied Hebrew briefly in 1955 when an Israeli rabbi taught in Asmara. In 1985 Qes Adana immigrated to Israel along with his wife and eleven children. His oldest son '''Rabbi Josef Adana''', who had immigrated earlier, had become the first Ethiopian Jewish Rabbi.<ref>Shelemay, ''Music'', p. 347.</ref>

In the 1920s, [[Yona Bogale]] was sponsored by [[Jacques Faitlovitch]] to study abroad. He spent two years in British Mandate Palestine, four in Germany, one in Switzerland, and one in France. After returning to Addis Ababa around 1930, he taught in the Faitlovitch school there. During the Italian occupation, he went into hiding and worked as a farmer in Wolleka. After the war Yona Bogale worked for the Ethiopian Ministry of Education for twelve years and then for the Jewish Agency.

Yona Bogale was fluent in [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]], [[English language|English]], and [[German language|German]], as well as [[Amharic language|Amharic]]. He was author of an early Hebrew-Amharic dictionary. He left Ethiopia in late 1979 and immigrated to Israel. Yona was an early proponent of Ethiopian Jews' praying in Hebrew instead of Ge'ez. He believed the latter language was no longer appropriate for those seeking to be part of the modern Jewish world. He felt that Ethiopian Jews should set Hebrew prayers to the traditional Jewish melodies.<ref>Shelemay, ''Music'', pp. 351–2.</ref>

'''[[Rabbi Sharon Shalom]]''' is a lecturer in Jewish ritual and tradition at Bar Ilan University in Israel. He is a counselor for the Ethiopian-Israeli community in the town of Kiryat Gat.<ref>Batsheva Pomerantz, "Ethiopian Israeli rabbi a beacon for his people, Boy’s long, lonely journey leads to fulfillment of dreams," ''The Jewish News Weekly of California'', Friday May 25, 2007.</ref>

'''[[Rabbi Yefet Alemu]]''' was born in 1961 in a small village in Ethiopia. In 1980, he left his village to go to Israel. He was arrested in Addis Ababa and escaped from prison. He arrived in the Gondar region and then set out walking to Sudan. There he met a Jewish Red Cross director who arranged for him to fly on one of the Israeli-organized secret flights to Israel. In Israel he studied and became a nurse.

While continuing to be a believing Jew, Yefet became disillusioned with organized Judaism and the Israeli religious establishment’s insistence on a conversion ceremony for all Ethiopian Jews. Yefet helped organize an Ethiopian protest vigil opposite the Chief Rabbinate building in Jerusalem. At the vigil, he met students from the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies who were studying to be Conservative rabbis. He was confused and surprised to see that they were without beards and without long black coats. The students replied that there was more than one type of rabbi, more than one way of being Jewish. Yefet excitedly embraced this pluralistic approach to Judaism. He was accepted by the Schechter Institute and after 6 years of hard work, he received a BA, MA, and his rabbinical ordination.<ref>Ira Kerem, "DC Community Brings Pesach Seder to 900 Ethiopian Residents of Beit Shemesh," ''The Jewish Agency for Israel'', June 2002</ref>

Ethiopian-Israelis have been participating more in Israeli political life. The [[Atid Ekhad]] party sees itself as the political representative of the community, though other parties include Ethiopian members. In 2006, [[Shas]], a party representing [[Haredi Judaism|ultra-orthodox Jews]] of Sephardic and Middle Eastern background, included an Ethiopian rabbi from [[Beersheba]], in its list for the [[Knesset]] in a conscious attempt to represent diverse geographic and ethnic groups.

'''[[Rabbi Mazor Bayana]]''', rabbi of an Ethiopian community of 10,000 in Beersheba, studied at Yeshivat Porat Yosef, one of the most prestigious Sephardi yeshivot in Israel. Rabbi Bayana, however, did not win a seat in the Knesset.

Shas was not the only party attempting to appeal to the Ethiopian vote. Herut and [[Kadima]] both had Ethiopians on their lists. Shlomo Mula, head of the Jewish Agency's Ethiopian absorption department, was ranked 33 on Kadima's list and Avraham was number three on Herut's list.

'''[[Adisu Massala]]''', of [[Labor (Israel)|Labour]] and later [[One Nation (Israel)|One Nation]], is the first Ethiopian-Israeli to have served in the [[Knesset]].

'''[[Esti Mamo]]''' is an Ethiopian Jewish model. She is one of the first Ethiopian-Israelis to make it into the entertainment industry and is a budding actress. The first Ethiopian-Israeli model was Mazal Pikado in 1990.

'''[[Avraham Negussie]]''' is one of Israel's most prominent Ethiopian Activists and a member of the South Wing to Zion. His struggle, with the support of many other Ethiopian-Israelis has resulted in the Israeli government continuing to bring the last 23,000 Ethiopian Jews from Ethiopia; though the Israeli government has set a quota of 300 Jews per month, half of what they agreed to under pressure from Negussie, NACOEJ and the United Jewish Communities.

Shas's spiritual mentor, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, enthusiastically embraced Ethiopians when they first began immigrating to Israel four decades ago. Despite Rabbi Ovadia's halachic ruling, some refuse to marry Ethiopians without a conversion in accordance with official Chief Rabbinate policy. Only in cities and towns with rabbis that accept Ovadia's ruling or the ruling of Rabbi Shlomo Goren are Ethiopians married without immersion in a ritual bath (mikva) or, for men, ''hatafat dam'', הטפת דם, see [[Brit milah|''brit milah'']]), the symbolic cut to produce a drop of blood instead of circumcision.<ref>[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622564484&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull]</ref>

[[Meskie Shibru-Sivan]] is a female Ethiopian-Israeli actress and vocalist, well known in Israel and beyond for acting on [[theater]] stages, in television programs, movies as well as being an accomplished singer.

[[Baruch Tegegne]], a prodigy of Bogale, was a leader in protests on behalf of Ethiopian Jewry in the 1980s and 1990s.

===Ethiopian Heritage Museum: Rehovot, Israel===
{{main|Ethiopian Heritage Museum}}
A museum highlighting the culture and heritage of the Ethiopian Jewish community is to be built in Rehovot. The museum, planned as a research, interpretive and spiritual center, is the brainchild of Tomer. This is an association of veteran Ethiopian immigrants and former [[Mossad]] agents who participated in the first operations to bring Ethiopian Jews to Israel.

{{quote|The Jews of Ethiopia have a rich cultural heritage, and are the only Jews who strictly kept their [[Judaism]] although they were entirely cut off from the Jewish people," said Tomer chairman Moshe Bar-Yuda. "The museum will present Ethiopian Jewish culture to Israelis who are not familiar enough with it, and also to young Ethiopians who fall between the cracks — on one hand they are not connected to their parents' culture, and on the other, they sometimes find it hard to become part of the dynamic of life in Israel. When they see the ancient culture of their forbears, they will be filled with pride, and it will be easier for them to become part of veteran Israeli society."}}

Plans for the museum, expected to cost some $4.5 million, include a model Ethiopian village, an herb garden, an artificial stream, an amphitheater, classrooms, and a memorial to both Ethiopian Jews who died in Sudan on their way to Israel, and Ethiopian Zionist activists. "We view the conservation of the past as very important and believe the museum will attract young people and adults alike," [[Rehovot]] Mayor Shuki Forer says.

Numerous Ethiopian Jews live in Rehovot and surrounding towns, which is why it was chosen as the site of the museum. The city has set aside 6 dunams (6,000 m²), of land for the museum complex.

{{quote|All 21 members of the Rehovot City Council, both coalition and opposition, voted for the establishment of the center," says Abai Zaudeh, a council member and a member of Tomer's board of directors. "It's the first time they all agree and leave politics behind to focus on the reality that the establishment of the museum will assist the absorption of the Ethiopian community a great deal.}}

One of the museum's founders was [[Baruch Tegegne]], who pioneered escape routes from Ethiopia via Sudan and fought for the right of Jews to emigrate to Israel. Other founders include veteran Ethiopian rights activist [[Babu Yaakov]], a former member of the Ramle City Council, and Shetu Barehon, who worked in the transit camps in Sudan to bring Ethiopian Jews to Israel. A number of Ethiopian Jewish spiritual leaders and rabbis are also working to increase support for the project in the community and the Diaspora.

Bar-Yuda's long association with the Ethiopian Jewish community began in 1958. The Jewish Agency asked him to go to Ethiopia to look for Jews and to reach remote villages. His report, together with a 16th Century ruling by Rabbi [[David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra|David B. Zimra]], known as the Radbaz, was the basis for chief Sephardic rabbi Ovadia Yosef's determination in 1973 that the Jews of Ethiopia were to be considered Jews according to halakha (Jewish religious law).<ref>Ayanawu Farada Sanbetu, [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=599229 "Museum on history of Ethiopian Jewry to be built in Rehovot,"] 19:26 18/07/2005, HAARETZ.com</ref>

==In fiction==
Operation Moses was the subject of an Israeli-French film titled ''Va, Vis et Deviens'' (''[[Go, Live, and Become]]''), directed by Romanian-born [[Radu Mihăileanu]]. The film tells the story of an Ethiopian Christian child whose mother has him pass as Jewish so he can emigrate to Israel and escape the famine looming in Ethiopia. The film was awarded the 2005 Best Film Award at the [[Copenhagen International Film Festival]].

==Photos==
* [http://www.beta-israel.info A collection of images of Beta Israel]
* [http://www.pbase.com/yalop/sigd Ethiopian Jews in the Sigd ceremony]

==See also==
* [[Jews and Judaism in Africa]]
* [[Jews of the Bilad el-Sudan (West Africa)]]
* [[Yemenite Jews]]
* [[Lemba]]
* [[Shlomo Mula]]
* [[Etrog haKuschi]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==Related Sources==
* Kaplan, Steve ''The Beta Israel (Falasha in Ethiopia: from Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century).'' New York University Press, re-issue edition, 1994. ISBN 0-8147-4664-0
* Berhanu, Girma ''Learning In Context (An Ethnographic Investigation of Meditated Learning Experiences Among Ethiopian Jews in Israel).'' Goteborg University Press, 2001. ISBN 91-7346-411-2
* [[Wolf Leslau|Leslau, Wolf]] ''Falasha Anthology'' (Translated from Ethiopic Sources with an introduction by Wolf Leslau). Yale Judaica Series, vol. 6. New Haven & London: Yale University Press 1951. ISBN 0-300-03927-1.
* Lyons, Len. "The Ethiopian Jews of Israel: Personal Stories of Life in the Promised Land." Jewish Lights Publishing. 2007. ISBN_13:978-1-58023-323-1.
* Quirin, James. ''The Evolution of the Ethiopian Jews: A History of the Beta Israel (Falasha) to 1920.'' University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992. ISBN 0-8122-3116-3
* Shelemay, Kay Kaufman. ''Music, Ritual, and Falasha History.'' Michigan State University Press; 1989. ISBN 0-87013-274-1
* Aescoly, A.Z. ''Recueil de textes falachas: introduction textes Ethiopiens'' (edition critique et traduction). Paris: Institut d'ethnologie 1951.
* Aescoly, A.Z. ''Notices sur les Falacha ou juifs d'Abbyssinie, d'apres le journal de voyage d'Antoine d'Abbadie.'' Cashiers d'etdues africaines 2; 1961.
* Neugebauer, Otto. ''Ethiopic Astronomy and Computus.'' Vienna: Verlag der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; 1979.

==External links==
* [http://www.ethiostruggle.com Ethiopian Jews site]
* [http://www.pbase.com/yalop/sigd Collection of photos of Ethiopian Jews celebrating the Sigd Festival in Jerusalem]
* [http://wiserweb.wits.ac.za/PDF%20Files/wirs%20-%20zegeye1.PDF Construction of Beta Israel Identity]
* [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=13&letter=F Jewish Encyclopedia]
* [http://www.bh.org.il/Names/ethiopianames.asp The Jews of Ethiopia and their Names]
* [http://www.iaej.co.il/ Israel Association for Ethiopian Jews]
* [http://www.iaej.co.il/pages/history_exile_%20in_ethiopia.htm Exile in Ethiopia]
* [http://www.ethioguide.com/aa-ethioguide/ethioguide/News_Archive/1299/origin%20of%20falasha_jews122399.htm Abstract of the Lucotte-Smets article.]
* [http://www.worldandi.com/public/1988/April/cl2.cfm Marc Shapiro, "Return of a lost tribe." details the rediscovery of the Falasha.]
* [http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/ejhist.html History of Ethiopian Jews]
*[http://www.tauac.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6169 A New Light for Ethiopian Jews at Tel Aviv University]

{{Africa topic|History of the Jews in}}

[[Category:Beta Israel| ]]

{{link FA|fr}}

[[am:ቤተ እስራኤል]]
[[ar:يهود الفلاشا]]
[[bg:Бета израел]]
[[ca:Falashas]]
[[cs:Židé v Etiopii]]
[[da:Beta Esrael]]
[[de:Äthiopische Juden]]
[[et:Falašid]]
[[es:Beta Israel]]
[[eo:Beta Israel]]
[[fr:Falashas]]
[[it:Falascia]]
[[he:ביתא ישראל]]
[[lad:Beta Israel]]
[[nl:Beta Israël]]
[[pl:Felaszowie]]
[[pt:Beta Israel]]
[[ru:Эфиопские евреи]]
[[fi:Beta Israel]]
[[sv:Beta Israel]]

Talk:Beta Israel

2008-12-16T04:06:28Z

Peelinglayers: /* Somewhat insulting */

{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Ethiopia | nested= yes | class= B | importance= High }}
{{WikiProject Judaism | nested= yes | class= B | importance= high }}
{{Ethnic groups | nested= yes | importance=High | class= B }}
{{WikiProject Jewish history | nested= yes | class= B | importance= high }}}}
}}
{{FAOL|French|fr:Falashas}}
==Position in Israel==

This article does not mention alleged discrimination faced by Beta Israel. Nor does it give any account to their integration into Israeli society or where siginificant commnities are. As far as I recall there are substantial communities in certain suburbs of Tel Aviv.

:I am adding a section about the current situation of the Ethiopian Jews in Israel. I am still tweeking the section so be kind.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer your questions.
Ge'ez as a spoken language:
1. Beta Israel groups are mainly from North Ethiopia from states where Amharic and Tigrigna are spoken. Ge'ez is a designated sacred language used by various groups all over Ethiopia and it isn't used unless one is reading scriptures and/or conducting a church/synagogue ceremony.
2. Beta as opposed to Beit:
It's not a matter of word play to indicate one's regional designation (Ashkenazi, Ethiopian/Mizrahi, Sephardic,etc). Simply, "Beta" is in Ge'ez and is equivalent of Beit in Hebrew and both mean "house [of]".
3. This isn't your question but just to clarify possible misconception created by this article,
"Falasha" is a word that comes from "me-feles", meaning to migrate. The term Falasha was probably given by the group to indicate that some groups within this society are actually migrants (and they acknowledge this history by indicating where they came from), and the term wasn't intended to negate them as this article and some western publications suppose. Falashas do refer to themselves as Falashas. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.18.208.195|75.18.208.195]] ([[User talk:75.18.208.195|talk]]) 06:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 

==Beta Israel speak Geez?==
I thought they spoke a language called Geez?--[[User:Yoshiah ap|Josiah]] 04:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ge'ez is an archaic, ancient language, that is used as a holy language.[[User:Datepalm17|Datepalm17]] 12:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beta Israel? Why not Beit/Beyt (בית ישראל)? Also, here in Israel the "Falash Mura" are called "Flashmura" (פלאשמורה), I think. [[User:Dorfl|Dorfl]] 02:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:(Sorry about delayed reply:) “Beta Israel” (or “Beta Esrael”) because this is the name they identify under. “Bet Yisrael” is also a broader term applicable to just about any Jewish/Israelite group and therefore unusable as a specific term for this group. Also, the forms “Beit” and “Beyt” reflect a specific subset of European (mainly Ashkenazi) Jewish pronunciation which would be problematic even if this problem of ambiguity didn’t exist. -- [[User:Olve|Olve]] 21:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

==DNA/genetic evidence?==

How credible is the "DNA evidence" mentioned here? I've never heard a compelling case for a "Jewish gene," especially considering that many modern Jews are likely to be either the decendents of converts (such as the [[Khazars]]) or the product of centuries of occasional interbreeding with neighboring ''goyim.'' --[[User:Cholling|Cholling]] 23:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:The evidence is quite credible. A "Jewish gene" is not really a scientific concept, but the genetic relationships within and between different populations can be measured. Ashenazi Jews are closely related to Sephardi Jews, and both are closely related to other Middle Eastern populations (and not to European populations). Beta Israel are closely related to other Ethiopians, and not to any of the other groups. Here's a link to one study: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 23:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:: In my opinion, really think it is not a good idea to use the word "gene" if you are not talking about scientific concept. Its also hard to get a definative result using the DNA for such a large group of people, but then again i may be seeing too many detective movies. Anyway, there is a story here of Israel doubling [[Falash Mura]] immigration. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52711-2005Jan31.html?nav=headlines]

:::The question I have on the DNA testing done is in terms of whether the numbers of Ethiopian Jews, constitutes that the entirity of Ethiopian are devoid of the DNA markers found in the Sepharadi, Teimani, Ashkenazi, Lemba, Samaritan, etc. populations '''that were tested'''. I stress the last part, because some of the data I have seen seems to suggest that the people who were tested had the connection, but that some didn't. For example one report I read seemed, and I stress seemd, to suggest more Ashkenazi Levites, had similar DNA to non-Jewish Slavic people and that fewer Sepharadi Levites had similar DNA to the local population in their region. [http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-cohen-levite.html] None of the evidence I have seen so far suggest that all Sephardim, Mizrakhim, Teimainim, Ashkenazim, etc. are conclusively related by the DNA. Most of the information I have seen seems to be on-going in nature. [http://www.math.biu.ac.il/~louzouy/courses/statgen/israel.pdf#search='The%20Y%20Chromosome%20Pool%20of%20Jews%20as']

:::What I mean is the following: most of the DNA research I have seen on the matter shows that 38, 19, etc. Ethiopian Jews were tested. We know that thousands of Ethiopian Jews, and non-Jews immagrated to Israel during Operation Moses and Operation Solomon. We also know that untold numbers of Ethiopian Jews died trying to make their way to Israel and the Sudan. That being said, it would seem that the data at this point points to a number of Ethiopian Jews having no genetic connection to the before listed Jewish communities. I.e. that the men tested do not descend from Ancient Israelites. According to one study I read there seems to have been a connection between certain Yemenite Jewish men that were tested and Ethiopians.[http://www.cmb.usc.edu/people/noahr/libjews.pdf] I state all this to wonder if the wording in this article should be worded to take this into account. The possibility could still remain that the majority of Ethiopian Jews descend from Gerim, which halakhically still makes them descendent of Jews since Gerim who go through a Beith Din are Jews, converted by a minority group of Jews from Yemen or Egypt. That is to say that there could still be a minority with similar Yemenite or Egyptian Jewish genes that simply haven't been tested. I think this is important to recognize or at least look into given that most of the interest in the Beta Israel has been to either disprove they are Jewish or to make them seem inferior to other Jewish communities. I am not saying that this is the case with this article in its current state, but I am wondering if there is a way to word it so that the facts as we currently have them can be more crystal. Regardless, if the Rabbinate recognizes them as Jews then they are Jews. Just some thoughts. I can come up with some wording later tonight and see if it is acceptable. --[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Ancient Felasha? ==

Several seemingly trustworthy websites refer to "Felasha" in the tenth century, such as [http://www.imperialethiopia.org/history2.htm this one]: "The Felasha (Jewish) queen [[Gudit|Yodit]], daughter of the quasi-legendary Gideon, led a destructive expedition against [[Axum]] around 980." Since the Falasha, according to this article, weren't even around in this period, is this just a blatant mistake on their part? - [[User:BanyanTree|BanyanTree]] 17:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From the Ethiopians Gentiles' point of view, "falasha", as a Semitic word root, also means "intruder, foreigner" (פ-ל-ש) which is already close to the meaning of the name.--[[User:Bo Basil|Bo Basil]] 12:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:There's plenty of legend around masquerading as history. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 18:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: Gudit is a semi-legendary personage, whose facts are as mixed with legend as is the case with [[King Arthur]]. (Unlike the case with Arthur, we have a contemporary document that mentions her, so we can be assured she existed.) Experts are divided over whether she was Jewish, pagan, [[Agaw]], or a queen of the Kingdom of [[Damot]] in the south of Ethiopia. But the reference to "Falasha" is anachronistic: I just found a passage today in my research that shows that "Falasha" was not used to refer to these Agaw Jews until the reign of [[Zara Yaqob]]. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 21:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== Rabbonim ==

There is no need to have a long list of Rabbonim who rule one way or another on this article. It suffices to list the most well known and respected posek ruling each way, and to state which view is held by the majority.--[[User:Yoshiah ap|Josiah]] 19:03, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Four of the most respected Rabbis of the late 20th century? I think each of their names should be included. There are many more who have ruled that way, I've restricted myself to just four. As it is, the claim "most" is unclear, unless you included some of the names. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 19:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Josiah, each one deserves to be mentioned. Off the top of my head I cannot state the fine details of each ''psak'', but if ''one'' [[posek]] is mentioned, that does not mean others hold that way. The fact that Rav Waldenberg allows abortion of a known Tay-Sachs fetus does not mean this is followed in practice. Typically, the "majority view" is decided when several poskim arrive at the same conclusion, as has been mentioned on this page. This is more encyclopedic than "most poskim" (which is imprecise). [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|T@lk]] 21:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:In fact, Rav Waldenberg used to be in my list, it was 5 poskim, but I took out one as a compromise. Should I put him back? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 21:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Yes. -- [[User:Olve|Olve]] 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Article ==

An article highly relevant to this page is in Haartez at [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=565262] and also in Forward at [http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=shaviv20050330911] (needs free registration). --[[User:Zero0000|Zero]] 02:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Population figures ==

For years I've been reading much higher figures than those listed in the article. I've changed the figures in accordance with [http://www.shavei.org/article.php?id=413 this article], from http://www.shavei.org/ which, while the organization has a vested interested in this community (and others), is also in a pretty good position to have accurate figures. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] [[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 19:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

== Ethiopian Judaism & Ewostatewos ==

Is the following an accurate paraphrase of Harold Marcus' POV?

: Marcus pinpoints their origins to the persecutions of the sabbatarian movement of Abba Ewostatewos (c. 1273–1352), the remnants of which he believes grew into the Beta Israel of today.

I ask this because the followers of Ewostatewos (who did argue for the observance of a Sabbath on both Saturday & Sunday) were persecuted for a time, but eventually their beliefs were adopted by the Ethiopian Church at a synod in 1450, & are now accepted as mainstream within that belief. (References include Taddesse Tamrat, ''Church and State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527'', and Edward Ullendorff, ''The Ethiopians: An Introduction to Country and People''.) I'd like to think that Marcus is being misunderstood, rather than that he betrayed such a major misunderstanding about the history of Ethiopia.

(FWIW, Paul Henze, in his ''Layers of Time: A History of Ethiopia'' also accepts this hypothesis that the Beta Israel originated from an archaizing movement within Ethiopian Christianity, & refers to James Quirin's work.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 18:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

: '''Update'''. I've found this assertion in Marcus' book (''A History of Ethiopia'' [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994], p. 23). I'll be gentle here, & state that his argument is based on an oversight in his research. The dates above for Ewostatewos' life are close to what Taddesse Tamrat provides in his book: the earliest mention of the Beta Israel I have found is in the ''Glorious Victories'' which reports events in the year 1332 (or 1329, if we follow G.W.B. Huntingford's arguments). For a professed Christian to embrace the Old Testament so violently that he inspires non-members to be even more radical than he (i.e., claim to be Jews) strains one's credulity; maybe if this had been a change that could be shown to have been simmering for a generation or so, this would be plausible.

: Add to this chronological fact the following:
:* One of Ewostatewos' followers settled amongst this group with the intent of missionizing them;
:* Ewostatewos (who was a ''very'' controversial figure during his lifetime) was never accused of Judaizing the faith (which would have been a powerful tool to have refuted his followers);
:* Ewostatewos had little or nothing to do personally with the regions where the Jews are known in the 14th century to have lived;
: and Marcus needs to develop a far more detailed argument than what he has written in his ''History'' to believe his argument.

: This is not to say that this theory is untentable: only Marcus' specific argument is. As a result, I've replaced the text mentioning him with a quotation from Paul B. Henze, who puts forward a similar argument -- but IMHO better -- argument. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== Origins of the Beta Israel ==

There is a serious problem with the interpretation of the Lucotte article and its import into the present context. Luccote performed Y chromosome analysis comparing ethiopian jews to non-jewish ethiopians. What this methodology fails to take into account is the traditions of the ethiopians themselves that holds that the entire population of northern ethiopia was jewish before the arival of christianinity. For a review of this issue see (http://www.13suns.com/EJUDAISM.HTM)
The Beta Israel see themselves as the last remaining followers of an ancient faith. Thus any comparison between "jewish" ethiopians and "non-jewish" ethiopians has to be tempered by that fact. The non-jews are seen as ancient jews who adopted christianinity, and Islam.
The fact is that the issue is confused by the uncertainties and misinterpretation involved. For example the Sephardi and Ashkenazi communities are not isolates. They have had a very intense and continuous interaction with one another. The same goes for most other jewish communities that follow modern Rabbinical judaism. The reality is that any commonalties found among them might, probably did, arise post-exile. The fact the the Beta Israel do not have the exact same profile as Sephardi, Ahkenazi, or Cochin jews for that matters means nothing as there was significant gene flow between these communities even cotinuing to this day. Given the Beta Israel's isolation divergence should be expected.
Most revealing in the Lucotte article is where he explains that
''An important point to consider is the result concerning haplotype VIll, the ancestral haplotype in Jews (Lucotte et al. 1996); this haplotype is present at a frequency of 23.1% in non-Falasha Ethiopians. In fact, the Jewish haplotypes VII and VIII occurred at similarly high frequencies in samples of Lebanese (Santachiara-Benerecetti et al. 1993) and Palestinians (Lucotte, unpublished data, 1997); so it seems more practical, as
proposed by Spurdle and Jenkins (1996), to consider that elevated frequencies of these 2 haplotypes may represent most of the Semitic groups.''
(http://www.ethioguide.com/aa-ethioguide/ethioguide/News_Archive/1299/origin%20of%20falasha_jews122399.htm)
It's not hard to realise that this data only supports the thesis that ealy on there was an influx of immigrants from the syria-palestine region to northern ethiopia bringing with them judaism. The day=ta finds that HVIII, known as the ancestral Jewish Haplotype is found at the level of 23% in "non-jewish ethiopians." This is as high as found among lebanese and palestinians. How could these high rates be explained?
In the end the problem with the entire section on the analysis of genetics of the ethiopians jews is really one conceptual road block. The general perception of a jewish population is an that of isolated pockets of groups seperate from the major population. Such a picture fails in the enthiopian context, where the ancient kingdon in northern ethiopia experienced a large influx of jews, who left their cultural mark on the entire population in the region, and who progressively melded with the local population over a very long time period indeed (800BC). In the Kaplan book cited, he mentions that ethiopian priests claimed that half the population was of jewish extraction during the ancient period. He calls this an "exageration" yet how can we be sure. He also mentions a large number of hebrew and aramaic loan words in the Geez language. How can we explain this. The bible also indicates that "beyond the rivers of ethiopia" there were jews living in acient times. In short eveidence that jewish ethiopians look like, or are similar to non-jewish ethiopians, is not evidence of local origin for ethiopian jews at all. Not in any way shape or form! The only evidence would be that northern ethiopians in general do not show evidence of genetic imput from the near east. In fact the Luccote article shows just the opposite, with ethiopians shown to have the jewish haplotype at high rates indeed. In fact just as high as Lebanese and Palestinians who actually live in the area known to have been the center of ancient jewish kingdoms. In general I fault the entire article for not mentioning the theory, for which there is ample evidence, that the entire population of northern Ethiopia adopted the mosaic faith in ancient times prior to christianity. This is something looked at in the Kaplan book, and in others. Although conclusions might be drawn that the numbers of isrealites living in the area during ancient times was small while others might claim it was larger. Given the scant historical data, and often conflicted information this cannot be kown with certainty. What is known, and agreed to by most scholars is that it was there, i ancient times there was judaism in ethiopia. It had an effect on the ethiopiancoptic church in that this churc is closer to the kosaic faith than any other curch in the world. It is possible that these ancient jews just vanished, and then centuries latters a new, completely different group of jews calling themselves the Beta Israel emerged suddenly. Or it is possible that the Beta Israel are the only in northern ethiopia to remain faithful to the ancient ethiopian/hebrew tradition. —''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:216979|216979]] ([[User talk:216979|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216979|contribs]]) 20:18, 1 October 2005.

:From my understanding there is no evidence for any cultural continuity between those judaised groups in Ethiopia (lake Tana area) and the group that later emerged as the beita israel. In fact all the evidence is to the contrary since all the texts, liturgy etc of the beita israel appear to date no earlier than the 14th century and originate from the ethiopian church. It is also slightly after this that we first begin to hear the term 'Falasha' ( probably meaning 'without land'). This is not to say that the group emerged 'suddenly'. The Falasha probably do have origins from previous judaised groups, however not all these groups emerged as Falashas and not all Falashas emerged from these groups.

:Perhaps there could be something about the biblical references to Beta Israel? Isaiah 11:11 was mentioned shortly, but Acts. 8:27 should be mentioned too. —''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:84.249.236.122|84.249.236.122]] ([[User talk:84.249.236.122|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/84.249.236.122|contribs]]) 00:37, 17 January 2006.

==Beta Ysrael and Ethiopian History==

The deletion from my sections on the "western discovery" od Beta Ysrael, and the role Beta Ysrael plaid in Ethiopian history, I feel considerably lessens the worth of this article.

The claims made about copywrite are not true. The article is based on a compilation of sources drawn from a number of scholarly works prepared for an article on Ancient Biblical History in 2004.

Regards

[[User:John D. Croft|John D. Croft]] 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:I see wording basically equivalent to that of the Virtual Jewish Library (whose copywright status I do not know).

:For instance, from [this section http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejtime.html] of the VJL, I see these copywrite problems. Croft's writing italicized, the VJL's bolded.
::'''1769 — Scottish explorer James Bruce awakens the western world to the existence of the Ethiopian Jews in his travels to discover the source of the Nile. He estimates the Jewish population at 100,000.'''

::''[[Daniel Ben Hamdya]], an Ethiopian Jew, in 1855 independently traveled to Jerusalem to meet with rabbis''

::'''1855 — Daniel Ben Hamdya, an Ethiopian Jew, independently travels to Jerusalem to meet with rabbis.'''

::''followed in [[1864]] by [[Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer]], the Rabbi of Eisenstadt, Germany, publishing a manifesto in the Jewish press calling for the spiritual rescue of Ethiopian Jewry. Three years later Professor [[Joseph Halevy]] is the first European Jew to visit the Beta Yisrael, subsequently becoming an advocate for the community.''

::'''1864 — Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer, the Rabbi of Eisenstadt, Germany, publishes a manifesto in the Jewish press calling for the spiritual rescue of Ethiopian Jewry.

::1867 — Professor Joseph Halevy is the first European Jew to visit the Beta Israel, subsequently becoming an advocate for the community.''' (the next sentence is downright wrong, claiming there are only 35,000 Beta Israel)

:From [elsewhere http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejhist.html] on the site:

::''Little additional contact was made with the community, but in [[1935]] their stability was greatly threatened as the Italian army marched into Ethiopia. Ethiopia's ruler, Emperor [[Haile Selassie]] fled his country and actually took refuge in Jerusalem for a short time. Selassie returned to power in [[1941]], but the situation for the Beta Israel improved little.''

::'''Little additional contact was made with the community, but in 1935 their stability was greatly threatened as the Italian army marched into Ethiopia. Ethiopia's ruler, Emperor Haile Selassie fled his country and actually took refuge in Jerusalem for a short time. Selassie returned to power in 1941, but the situation for the Beta Israel improved little.'''

::''In 1956, Ethiopia and Israel established consular relations, which were improved in 1961 when the two countries established full diplomatic ties. Positive relations between Israel and Ethiopia existed until 1973 when, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, Ethiopia (and 28 African nations) broke diplomatic relations with Israel under the threat of an Arab oil embargo.''

::'''In 1956, Ethiopia and Israel established consular relations, which were improved in 1961 when the two countries established full diplomatic ties. Positive relations between Israel and Ethiopia existed until 1973, when, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, Ethiopia (and 28 African nations) broke diplomatic relations with Israel under the threat of an Arab oil embargo.'''

::''Months later, Emperor Selassie's regime ended in a coup d'etat. Colonel [[Mengistu Haile Mariam]], whose [[Marxist-Leninist]] [[dictatorship]] increased the threat to the Beta Israel, replaced Selassie. During the weeks surrounding Mariam's coup, an estimated 2,500 Jews were killed and 7,000 became homeless.''

::'''Months later, Emperor Selassie's regime ended in a coup d'etat. Selassie was replaced by Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam, whose Marxist-Leninist dictatorship increased the threat to the Beta Israel. During the weeks surrounding Mariam's coup, an estimated 2,500 Jews were killed and 7,000 became homeless.'''

::''Soon Mariam instituted a policy of "villagization": relocating millions of peasant farmers onto state-run cooperatives. This policy greatly harmed the Beta Israel by forcing them to "share" their villages (even though they were denied the right to own the land) with non-Jewish farmers, resulting in increased levels of anti-Semitism throughout the Gondar Province. According to the Ethiopian government, over 30% of the population had been moved from privately owned farms to cooperatives as of 1989.''

::'''Soon Mariam instituted a policy of “villagization,” relocating millions of peasant farmers onto state-run cooperatives which greatly harmed the Beta Israel by forcing them to “share” their villages—though they were denied the right to own the land—with non-Jewish farmers, resulting in increased levels of anti-Semitism throughout the Gondar Province. According to the Ethiopian government, over 30% of the population had been moved from privately owned farms to cooperatives as of 1989.'''

::''After taking office in 1977, Israeli Prime Minister [[Menachem Begin]] was eager to facilitate the rescue of Ethiopia's Jews, and so Israel entered into a period of selling arms to the Mariam government in hopes that Ethiopia would allow Jews to leave for Israel. In 1977, Begin asked President Mengistu to allow 200 Ethiopian Jews to leave for Israel aboard an Israeli military jet that had emptied its military cargo and was returning to Israel. Mariam agreed, and that may have been the precursor to the mass exodus of Operation Moses began.''

::'''After taking office in 1977, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was eager to facilitate the rescue of Ethiopia's Jews, and so Israel entered into a period of selling arms to the Mariam government in hopes that Ethiopia would allow Jews to leave for Israel. In 1977, Begin asked President Mengistu to allow 200 Ethiopian Jews to leave for Israel aboard an Israeli military jet that had emptied its military cargo and was returning to Israel. Mariam agreed, and that may have been the precursor to the mass exodus of Operation Moses began.'''

::''In the early 1980's, Ethiopia forbade the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew. Numerous members of the Beta Israel were imprisoned on fabricated charges of being "Zionist spies," and Jewish religious leaders, Kesim,(sing. Kes) were harassed and monitored by the government.''

::'''In the early 1980's, Ethiopia forbade the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew. Numerous members of the Beta Israel were imprisoned on fabricated charges of being “Zionist spies,” and Jewish religious leaders, ''Kesim'',(sing. ''Kes'') were harassed and monitored by the government.'''

::''The situation remained exceedingly bleak through the early 1980's. Forced [[conscription]] at age 12 took many Jewish boys away from their parents, some never to be heard from again. Additionally, with the constant threat of war, famine, and horrendous health conditions (Ethiopia has one of the world's worst [[infant mortality rates]] and doctor to patient ratios), the Beta Israel's position became more precarious as time progressed.''

::'''The situation remained exceedingly bleak through the early 1980's. Forced conscription at age 12 took many Jewish boys away from their parents, some never to be heard from again. Additionally, with the constant threat of war, famine, and horrendous health conditions (Ethiopia has one of the world's worst infant mortality rates and doctor to patient ratios), the Beta Israel's position became more precarious as time progressed.'''

::''The government began to slightly soften its treatment of the Jews, however, during the mid-1980's when terrible [[famine]]s wreaked havoc on the economy. Ethiopia was forced to ask Western nations for famine relief, including the United States of America and Israel, allowing them both to exert a modicum of pressure for the release of the Beta Israel.''

::'''The government began to slightly soften its treatment of the Jews, however, during the mid-1980's when terrible famines wreaked havoc on the economy. Ethiopia was forced to ask Western nations for famine relief, including the United States of America and Israel, allowing them both to exert a modicum of pressure for the release of the Beta Israel.'''

::''Over 8,000 Beta Israel came to Israel between 1977 and 1984. But these efforts pale in comparison with the modern exodus that took place during 1984's Operation Moses.''

::'''Over 8,000 Beta Israel came to Israel between 1977 and 1984. But these efforts pale in comparison with the modern exodus that took place during 1984's Operation Moses.'''

::''There are 5 principle theories of their origins, not all of them mutually exclusive.

:::''1) They may be descendants of Menelik I, son of King Solomon and Queen Sheba.

:::''2) The Beita Yisrael may be the lost Israelite tribe of Dan.

:::''3) They may be descendants of Ethiopian Christians and pagans who converted to Judaism centuries ago.

:::''4) They may be descendants of Jews who fled Israel for Egypt after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and eventually settled in Ethiopia.'' (Number 5. is his own doing)

::'''Because much of the Beta Israel's history is passed orally from generation to generation, we may never truly know their origins. Four main theories exist concerning the beginnings of the Beta Israel community:

:::'''1) The Beta Israel may be the lost Israelite tribe of Dan.

:::'''2) They may be descendants of Menelik I, son of King Solomon and Queen Sheba.

:::'''3) They may be descendants of Ethiopian Christians and pagans who converted to Judaism centuries ago.

:::'''4) They may be descendants of Jews who fled Israel for Egypt after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and eventually settled in Ethiopia.

:::'''(Excerpted from “Reunify Ethiopian Jewry,” World Union of Jewish Students)'''

:Now here's some stuff from [this http://www.falasha-recordings.co.uk/teachings/ras.html] website (and many others, including [[The History Channel]], with the exact same info and wording, with minor changes).

::''Some scholars place the date of their origin before the 2d century BC, largely because the Beita Yisrael are unfamiliar with either the Babylonian or Palestinian Talmud. The religion of the Beita Yisrael is a modified form of Mosaic Judaism unaffected generally by post-biblical developments. The Beita Yisrael retain animal sacrifice. They celebrate scriptural and nonscriptural feast days, although the latter are not the same as those celebrated by other Jews. One of the Falasha nonscriptural feast days, for example, is the Commemoration of Abraham. Their Sabbath regulations are stringent. They observe biblical dietary laws, but not the postbiblical rabbinic regulations concerning distinctions between meat and dairy foods. Marriage outside the religious community is forbidden. Monogamy is practiced, marriage at a very early age is rare, and high moral standards are maintained.

::''The center of Beita Yisrael religious life is the masjid, or synagogue. The chief functionary in each village is the high priest, who is assisted by lower priests. Falasha monks live alone or in monasteries, isolated from other Beita Yisrael . Rabbis do not exist among the Beita Yisrael.''

::'''Falashas, native Jewish sect of Ethiopia.The origin of the Falashas is unknown. One Falasha tradition claims to trace their ancestry to Menelik, son of King Solomon of Israel and the queen of Sheba. Some scholars place the date of their origin before the 2d century bc, largely because the Falashas are unfamiliar with either the Babylonian or Palestinian Talmud. The Bible of the Falashas is written in an archaic Semitic dialect, known as Gecez, and the Hebrew Scriptures are unknown to them. The name Falasha is Amharic for "exiles" or "landless ones"; the Falashas themselves refer to their sect as Beta Esrael ("House of Israel").

::'''The religion of the Falashas is a modified form of Mosaic Judaism unaffected generally by postbiblical developments. The Falashas retain animal sacrifice. They celebrate scriptural and nonscriptural feast days, although the latter are not the same as those celebrated by other Jewish groups. One of the Falasha nonscriptural feast days, for example, is the Commemoration of Abraham. The Sabbath regulations of the Falashas are stringent. They observe biblical dietary laws, but not the postbiblical rabbinic regulations concerning distinctions between meat and dairy foods. Marriage outside the religious community is forbidden. Monogamy is practiced, marriage at a very early age is rare, and high moral standards are maintained.

::'''The center of Falasha religious life is the masjid, or synagogue. The chief functionary in each village is the high priest, who is assisted by lower priests. Falasha monks live alone or in monasteries, isolated from other Falashas. Rabbis do not exist among the Falashas.'''

:From a ton of sites, again:

::''Other Researchers think some of the defeated Yemenite Jews from the [[Abu Duwas]] Jewish Kingdom came to Ethiopia.''

:The following is taken from [here http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9033614], the Encyclopedia Britannica.

::''From 1980 to 1992 some 45,000 Falasha fled drought- and war-stricken Ethiopia and emigrated to Israel. The number of Falasha remaining in Ethiopia was uncertain, but estimates ranged to only a few thousand. The ongoing absorption of the Falasha community into Israeli society was a source of controversy and ethnic tension in subsequent years.''

:I don't have time to find copywrites for the rest of the material, but you can see that much, if not most of it is word for word for other (copywrited) texts.

== Get rid of the DNA material ==

There is too much material on DNA here. First of all, it isn't important. DNA does not determine whether or not somebody is Jewish. Would an encyclopedia entry on the Irish be devoted to analyzing their Y-Chromosomes and mitochodria, to determine the relative importance of their Norse, Pict, and Celtic bloodlines?

I am very interested in this kind of study, but there is too much of this material on this island. Can we move this DNA material to another page? How about a separate page on Ethiopian Jewish genetic studies, referenced from here?

Many of the people who are devotees of these genetic and quasi-racial studies don't realize how preliminary and sketchy the work they admire is. Responsible human geneticists understand that studies with 38 or 11 individuals who are not randomly selected cannot be interpreted so strongly. However, the average user of this encyclopedia does not know that.

Haplotype analysis, the basis of such ethnic studies, is a cummulative body of knowledge. It depends on identification of sufficient genetic markers to organize individuals into an inverted tree. With such a tiny sample, how did they even know what genetic markers to test for? In these studies, there was insufficient data to create such a tree. A study based on such a tiny number of individuals, either in the Ethiopian Jewish population or in other populations to which they are being compared, is very preliminary. Not until much more data is known can we make such inferences. The comparable studies done with Ashkenazi Jews look at hundreds of individuals, and yet they still have not identified many of the haplotypes.

I have some pictures of Ethiopian Jews in Israel to share here, but there is no place to put them here right now. The Ethiopian Jews are not frozen in time. This article needs material about the modern Ethiopian community in Israel, and the issues that have arisen as they have adjusted to living in a modern, western society? In Israel, young Ethiopian Jews have now grown up speaking Hebrew, and some have graduated from universities and earned advanced degrees. --[[User:Metzenberg|Metzenberg]] 11:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:DNA information is important in this article for the simple reason that some people felt that this group of Ethiopians were in fact not a lost jewish tribe, but were just trying to get into Israel by pretending to be jews. Remember, unlike being a christian or muslim, one can't just make the claim that one is now of the jewish faith by just saying so (or with a fairly simple baptism type ceremony). So if the Falashah's claim to be jewish wasn't true, what would be their reason for emigrating? DNA is at least one possible way of determining the truths of their story. I'm not opining here, just stating why I think this section of the article is important.[[User:Odysseybookshop|Odysseybookshop]] 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

'''Odysseybookshop'''

Please Do separate between word '''"ISRAELITES"''' whom were Genetically blood descendants of Israel/Jacob(i,e BLOOD LINE RACE), and between The word '''"JEW"''' who is any one adhere to the Judaic Faith(i.e RELIGION), That is because GOYIM Ashkenazi and Sephardim Jews around the world BOTH of them Have NO Genetic relation to Semites people let alone genetically blood tie to ancient Hebrew people(whom proven to be Genetically blood ancestors of today Arabs)

[[Special:Contributions/82.5.167.237|82.5.167.237]] ([[User talk:82.5.167.237|talk]]) 18:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*That is incorrect, European Jews are of mixed Middle Eastern/European ancestry. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Somewhat insulting ==

Much of this article seems to push an anti-Beta Israel view. Some specific problems I have are with the Rabbinical views (no Rabbis since the Radbaz are shown supporting the fact that Beta Israel are Jews and yet further up it is indicated that Ovadia Yosef acknowledged there Jewishness. Can he be the only Rabbi with this position? Also, all the Rabbis quoted are ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazis. I'm no expert on halakhic authorities, but wouldn't it be better to have a wider range of Rabbis with a wider range of positions?) Also, I don't see the usefulness of the comparisons in the Henze quotation. Both those examples stayed quite definitely Christian and would never be mistaken for non-Christians. Typically, Christian groups that absorbed enough Jewish elements to be confused with Judaism haven't lasted long (the only other example I can think of is the Skhariya example, and I don't think that lasted more than 30 years.) If, as this article seems to state the Beta Israel stem from rebellious Christians, shouldn't it be explained why they lasted longer than any other such group? Also why is the possibility of Judaism in pre-Christian Ethiopia rejected despite the fact that the Tewahedo Church follows many more seemingly Jewish laws than other well-established Christian group (and how can such conclusions be reached when the historical record of Ethiopia before 1300 is has gaps)? I know it is hard to get answers to these questions (I hope I have time to research some of them this month), but I think it would make a more balanced article. As it is, it is incomprehensible that attacks on the Judaism of the Beta Israel should take up so much of the article, when articles on some groups of Indian Jews whose claim to Judaism is more tenuous have much less space devoted to such attacks.--[[User:Lastexpofan|Lastexpofan]] 08:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Expo Fan. I couldn't agree more. Sephardic rabbinical authorities have been more supportive of the Ethiopian Jews and Beta Israel, perhaps because they knew that the Ethiopian Jews would be likely to reward them with political support in the long run once they all became Israeli voters. All of which illustrates how so-called rabbinical and religious opinion is sometimes merely political posturing. --[[User:Metzenberg|Metzenberg]] 12:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:There's one sentence on Rabbis who suspect their Jewishness, vs. an entire section on the supporting view. I hardly think that's unbalanced. The Ovadia Yosef reference used to be in there, but it was deleted by an anonymous IP editor. I've restored it. As for the rest, Wikipedia quotes [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] on subjects, we don't do our own [[WP:NOR|original research]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

::Speaking of not doing 'our own research', what evidence is this statement qualified by :''Most of the Beta Israel consider the Kebra Negast legend to be a fabrication''? Is there any kind of polling numbers that anyone can provide to support such assertion? I have removed the statement until it is supported by some sort of evidence. If not, this mere heresay and should have no place on an information source the calims to be balanced. I agree, this article is blatantly biased against Bete Israel Jews.

::What I intend to do is not what is described in the original research article. I read a recent book on the subject that has a different POV from much of the article. I just don't feel like citing it without checking its sources, since some of it was a bit shaky, so therefore I need time to research, especially since there aren't a whole lot of readily accessible Ethiopian history books.--[[User:Lastexpofan|Lastexpofan]] 07:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Maybe the best way to please all sides in this is to provide more information about the traditions and history of the Beta Israel from their own sources and perspectives. I do agree that this article seems to be bogged down with information trying to prove or disprove the Jewishness of the Beta Israel. One way to balence this is to simply add more information about their community structure and religious life when they were Ethiopia and now that they are in Israel. --[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 15:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Agreed. Encyclopedic coverage of the community can discuss the views of various authorities, but the article should, in the main, discuss the community itself, not outside views regarding the legitimacy of its claims to Jewishness. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|talk]] 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think some of the information I have added in the Religous practices and Ethiopian Jews in Israel today should now satify those who feel to much of the article was about their origins. I will look for some more info about the current situation in Israel.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, author, thanks for sharing "doubious" info on history section before you kindly edited it. And your strong POV still remains from your responses below as "pagans and Jews", commentary of the unlikelihood of Saba's journey to Solomon's Kingdom, etc. What I am concerned about is that this isn't a history to be written by you unless you are an authorized scholar, preferably from Ethiopia, since it would be "kind" to give people to tell their own history. No other nation has the official authority to write the history of U.S. or Israel except for scholars with sufficient expertise. I strongly suggest you take off this article as I am contacting both Wikipedia and scholars in Ethiopia and/or Israel (Falasha) on this issue, in the meantime, I thank you for your attempt to write my history but nontheless I question your authority of writing on this subject, and you also present a one sided point of view on the group. I ask you to remove your article. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.18.208.195|75.18.208.195]] ([[User talk:75.18.208.195|talk]]) 06:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 

==History==
I just did a major rewrite of the history section involving a lot of trimming but also addition of information. The anon who added the information is clearly relatively well-versed in Beta Israel history, but also a bit confused. The [[Zagwe dynasty]] for instance was certainly Christian, for instance. The [[Monolithic church|Rock-hewn churches]] of [[Lalibela]] are a clear testament to that, especially [[Church of St. George, Lalibela|Beta Giyorgis]] (not to mention that basically all of the rulers are celebrated as Saints and Priest-Kings by the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]]). I also removed a lot of dubious information regarding early origins. It's generally believed now that Judaism didn't exist in Ethiopia until Medieval times (certainly by the 13th/14th century, possibly in early medieval times as well). Jacqueline Pirenne's views (certainly not the ''foremost'' scholar on the [[Sabaeans]]) on the possibility of ancient migrations of Jews involving Saba' are unlikely and generally not accepted, especially considering that [[South Arabian alphabet|Epigraphic South Arabian]] is a descendent of [[Proto-Sinaitic]] but not [[Proto-Canaanite]] or [[Phoenician alphabet|Phoenician]] like [[Hebrew alphabet|Hebrew]]. I left some of the theories that sounded more plausible that I didn't know much about wrt their veracity, but added citation tags. I also very much doubt the accuracy of "one million" Jews in Ethiopia in the 17th century. Though certainly present in full-force in [[Gonder]], the capital (itself the 2nd largest city in the world at the time) and surrounding areas, the majority of Ethiopia wasn't home to many Beta Israel, and the population of Ethiopia at the time would have probably been less than 10 million, making the 1 million figure a bit suspect. I would also like to caution against the use of "Jewish," as a general term for the Beta Israel, as there are other Agew groups that have Jewish traditions. I'll be adding more on later history tomorrow. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I am the "anon" contributor whose comments were so tendentiously edited out or recast by the above "editor." Much of what he/she says seems to present a pretty strong POV. In effect, any other point of view is rubbished, either removed from the site or rephrased in such a way as to nullify it. The editing is consistent. For example, I wrote in my contribution the following: "According to probably the leading scholar on the Sabeans, Jacqueline Pirenne, the spread of Sabeans across the Red Sea to Ethiopia began in the 8th or 7th centuries BCE when considerable numbers of Sabeans crossed over to Ethiopia to escape the Assyrians who had already devastated the kingdoms of Israel and Judea, and were extending their raids further south. Jacqueline Pirenne summarizes 30 years of research (cf. Munro-Hay, Aksum, 65) into the Sabeans by adding that a second major wave of Sabeans crossed over in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE to escape Nebuchadnezzar; this wave included Jews fleeing from the Babylonian takeover of Judah too. These Jews and pagans constituted a kind of aristocracy ruling the kingdom of Da’amat in the Tigray area of Ethiopia ( in the northwest near the Red Sea), with their capital at Aksum. She also suggests that some or almost all of these Sabeans and Jews returned to southern Arabia in the succeeding centuries, leaving elements of their civilization firmly imbedded in Ethiopia and maintained by native Ethiopians. This Aksumite culture established itself as the “high culture” of Ethiopia, with a written literature and trade and cultural contacts with the wider world, creating stone buildings, palaces and temples, making it admired by and quite superior to the mostly illiterate pagan tribal cultures around it who had only wood and thatch buildings. These cultural contacts brought constantly renewed encounter with Jews elsewhere in Judah and north and south Arabia, and the literacy and literature of the Jews ended up permeating and changing Sabean and Aksumite cultures and peoples. We have to do with a gradual but effective and widespread conversion of the local peoples to Judaism, around perhaps a core of Jews from abroad. In this way, says Pirenne, we can understand the Jewish influence on Ethiopian culture, and the persistence of the Black Jews in Ethiopia."

:Most of this contribution has been eliminated, and the editor declares ex cathedra that Pirenne is not such an authority on the Aksumite and Sabean cultures as claimed. However, I am not the source of that claim; I merely reproduce what Munro-Hay himself says on this. What this really means is that our editor is of the coterie of revisionist scholars centering at Hebrew University, which has entirely bought into the Quirin thesis about Beta Israel history and origins. No other respectable historical viewpoint therefore can be recognized. This is not the sort of scholarly neutrality we expect from encyclopedia articles, and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Pirenne and Munro-Hay and the many other scholars taking a more positive view of the depth and antiquity of Judaism in Ethiopia should be given a respectful hearing. They are not a small weird group of dissenters. Actually, it is the other way around; the Quirin-Kaplan group are the dissenters, who wish to take over the entire discourse by a forced reading of the whole of Beta Israel history.

::Pirenne was not at all the leading scholar on Sabaeans and Ethiopia. There are a number of leading scholars (Anfray, AJ Drewes, Fattovich, Schneider, etc.), but Pirenne's theory is not at all widespread. It was first proposed in the 1970s I believe, and hasn't gained much support since then. There's absolutely '''no''' evidence of Jewish traits in the Kingdom of [[D`mt]], though there are some gods from the [[Sabaeans|Sabaean]] [[Pantheon (gods)|pantheon]] worshipped. Current dating, moreover, no longer fits with Pirenne's dating. Whereas she would have the first Sabaeans in Yemen beginning around the 6th and 5th century BC, the earliest inscriptions in Yemen are from the 8th century BC (Norbert Nebes, "Epigraphic South Arabian" in von Uhlig, Siegbert, ed. ''Encylopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha''. Weissbaden: Otto Harrassowitz KG, 2005 p.333). The first in Ethiopia are from the 9th century BC, so a migration from Assyria to Ethiopia wouldn't work since the first deportation of Jews was under [[Tiglath-Pileser III]], who ruled in the second half of the 8th century BC. It also doesn't fit with the fact that the Jews were using an alphabet completely different from South Semitic scripts. Moreover, that there were only "wood and thatched buildings" before D`mt is not at all correct. I direct you to Fattovich's "The development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa in ancient and medieval times," which identifies a number of preceding urban complex cultures in the region. Note that Munro-Hay is not an authority on the Beta Israel by any means. His book on Aksum is certainly a masterpiece, but the reviews I've read of his work usually point out the unlikelyness of Pirenne's theories. Furthermore, I am not of the "coterie of revisionist scholars centering at Hebrew University" as you assume, just an informed Ethiopian. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:For example, another section of my contribution that was simply eliminated related to the Ethiopian Christian persecution of Beta Israel down through the ages. It is a part of the Catholic scholar Quirin's case that Jews were not significantly persecuted by the mostly benevolent Ethiopian Christians, and there was nothing like the antisemitism or Judeophobia characteristic of other lands. So the following comment by me was just wiped from the article: "Some of the worst massacres, attacks and forced conversions of the Christian kingdom occurred in the 1400s, for example, under the King Yacob Zara. (He even added the title “Exterminator of the Jews” to his name, and his subjects were required to tie a strip of parchment to their foreheads bearning an inscription expressing their commitment to the Christian faith.)"

::That section was never removed. I couldn't find a source for "King Yacob Zara [sic]" ever claiming that title, nor for the "worst massacres, attacks and forced conversions...occurr[ing] in the 1400s," so I put a citation needed tag on it. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Another portion of the original contribution related to the Jewishness of the Zagwe dynasty. However, our editor assures us that this dynasty was not Jewish at all, and I am just "confused" about it. In that case, so were both Christian and Muslim testimonies of the Middle Ages. Naturally, it has always been in the Christian interest to devalue or dismiss any deep Jewish claim to Ethiopian antiquity. Quirin certainly shows this. Our editor says that a proof of Christian Zagwe rule is the excavated church ruins from that period. But he/she ignores that I did not deny the existence and even flourishing of Christianity during the Zagwe dynasty, since it appears that this Jewish dynasty was quite tolerant not only of Christianity but also of paganism. The founding queen was called Gudit, Judit, and even Esato (Esther), according to the Kebra Negast. These are all clearly Jewish names. However, it is not entirely clear from the Christian chronicles whether she actually was Jewish or pagan (naturally they would try to discredit her Biblical legitimacy, as they would all Jewish resistance), and later scholars have interpreted her in both ways. The names would certainly seem to be Jewish and even to underline her Jewishness. Nevertheless, a decisive proof of her Jewishness, in my view, is the fact that the Zagwe dynasty that stemmed from her kin legitimated itself, and sought to better the claims of Aksumite kings, by claiming to be descended directly from Moses and his Ethiopian wife, even according to the Kebra Negast itself. This geneaological claim indicates her Jewishness. It cannot be mere coincidence that this claim is the same as that we hear from Eldad the Danite in the 9th century, before she existed, and from Beta Israel of more recent date, long after she and her Jewish dynasty have disappeared. Arab historians explicitly affirm that she was a Jewish queen. It is hard to know how much more evidence one needs that she was. Of course, there are modern scholars that still reject these attributions and insist that she was an anti-Christian pagan, or even “Jewish/pagan,” whatever that means (cf. Munro-Hay, Aksum, p. 15; Ullendorf, History of Ethiopia, 61), simply because of the vagueness of the Christian royal chronicles, the Kebra Negast. It is quite possible that some of these sceptical scholars are inclined by their Catholicism (in the case of Jean Doresse and Quirin) or other motives. Tradition says that 11 rulers of the Zagwe dynasty followed after Judith, in the course of some 330 years. According to traditions reported both by Arabs and by early modern European travellors in Ethiopia (e.g., James Bruce, in his 1773 account) some of these rulers were Jews, some were pagans and some were Christian, so the Zagwe dynasty inaugurated by Queen Judith was remarkably tolerant and ecumenical, fitting the Jewish Biblical view that non-Jews can know God too. By the way, Manuel de Almeida wrote in the 1640s regarding this, "There were Jews in Ethiopia from the first. Some of them were converted to the law of Christ Our Lord; others persisted in their blindness and formerly possessed many wide territories, almost the whole Kingdom of Dambea and the provinces of Ogara and Seman. This was when the [Christian] empire was much larger, but since the [pagan and Muslim] Gallas have been pressing in upon them [from the east and south], the Emperors have pressed in upon them [i.e., the Jews to the west?] much more and took Dambea and Ogara from them by force of arms many years ago." In regard to the downfall of the Zagwe dynasty, which I repeat was by all indications a chiefly Jewish dynasty, at least in origin, Christians bitter at the shared rule with infidels nursed dreams of revenge, which were fulfilled when in 1270 the “true Solomonic rule” was “restored” by King Yekuno Amlak. Again according to Stuart Munro-Hay, Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity (1991), however, King Amlak was actually a warlord who could not have been of the direct line of the old Aksumite kings. One further point. I recall when doing research on these questions some twenty years ago at the Truman Center at Hebrew University that I read a scholarly article (no longer remember the author or journal; could have been Pe'amim) on the names of the Zagwe rulers, which argued that these names showed a regular pattern of Jewish, Christian and pagan kings sharing the rule between them. The Zagwe dynasty was truly extraordinarily tolerant, entirely unlike the "Solomonic dynasty" that followed it, and which was dedicated from the start to wiping out Jewish sovereignty and power, and giving no quarter to paganism.

::What "Christian and Muslim testimonies of the Middle Ages" are you referring to that claim the Jewishness of the Zagwe dynasty? There are no such testimonies as far as I am aware. I have no reason to deny any Jewishness of Ethiopia in antiquity; indeed, I used to think it true before I knew much about the matter, but the evidence simply doesn't support such a view. Note that the "excavated church ruins [sic]" (the churches were not excavated, they have been in continuous use and are not at all ruins) are not the only thing that supports the view that the Zagwe were Christian. Most of the kings are worshipped as Saints in the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]], and no sources of the medieval period call the Zagwe Jews. Not being "Israelites" is not the same thing as being Jews. Note that "Gudit" is not a Jewish name, but from an [[Ethiopian Semitic languages|Ethio-Semitic]] word ''gud'' meaning "freak, monster, strange, wonderful" and the name is a "symbolic term connoting masculine powers as well as unsual characteristics (according to Taddesse Tamrat, cited - Knud Tage Andersen, "The Queen of Habasha in Ethiopian History, Tradition and Chronology," ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London'', Vol. 63, No. 1 (2000), p.20.). Note also that "Esato" (better transliterated "Isato") is not the name "Esther" (that is "Aster," a common name in Ethiopia for ''Christians'', I'm not sure as to its popularity among the Beta Israel), but rather connected to the Ethiosemitic word "Isat," meaning "fire," and is connected to the tradition that she burned down Aksum and [[Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion|Aksum Tsiyon]]. "Yodit" does mean "Judith," but it's a name used for Christians in Ethiopia as well, so characterizing her name as "Jewish" is not accurate. A Zagwe claim from Moses makes them no more Jewish than does "[[Solomonic dynasty|Solomonic]]" Emperors' claims of descent from the Jewish [[King Solomon]]. The religion of Gudit is uncertain. Tradition credits her as being Jewish, the account of the interaction of the Church with its counterpart in Egypt indicates that she may have been pagan, but that section is possibly a later addition, and it's even possible that she was originally seen as a legitimate inheritor of the ruling Aksumite dynasty, as Anbessa Widim, a late Aksumite King remembered as such, was ruling ca. 1125-50 (from a contemporary note in a colophon of a Bible by the Patriarch of the time in Ethiopia), yet by this time the Zagwe dynasty must have already been established. I'm not well-versed in [[Eldad Ha-Dani]]'s claims, but apparently (according to Steve Kaplan, whom you of course dismiss, seemingly categorically) his works don't show much knowledge of the area (Ethiopia) from which he purported to have come, and his writing shows absolutely no Ethio-Semitic or Cushitic influence (see also Ullendorf-Beckingham 1982; Morag 1997). What traditions by Arabs are you speaking of that say that some Zagwe were Jewish, and to what era do they date. Can you give me a page number or chapter for Bruce's claim? I've never heard such a claim, but such a late tradition conflicts with earlier, more contemporary data on the dynasty and is more useful in analyzing Ethiopian perceptions of Kings and dynasties than reconstructing Zagwe history. It's obvious that the [[Solomonic dynasty]] probably wasn't at all an accurate designation (but not necessarily that they were related to the Aksumite dynasty), and the existence of Jewish communities in Wogera/Wegera, [[Semien Mountains|Semien]], and [[Dembiya]] isn't at all in doubt. What would be defined as a "Jewish name," Tim Tam? The longer list of eleven rulers are as follows: Mara Takla Haymanot, Tatadim, Jan Siyum, Germa Siyum, Yemrehana Krestos, Qiddus Harbe/Harbay, Gebre Mesqel Lalibela, Na'akweto La'ab, and Yetbarak. All of these names are either Cushitic or Ethiopian Semitic in origin — i.e., there are no biblical names among them. It's true, however, that much of the Christianization and expansion of Monastic communities occured during the early Solomonic dynasty (esp. under [[Amda Seyon I|Amde Tsiyon]], e.g.).

:One portion after another of my contribution, however, wherever it seemed to indicate justification for a perspective other than the Quirin-Kaplan one, was simply eliminated from the article. I again register my complaint at this high-handed procedure. As other contributors to this discussion page have said over the years, an anti-Beta Israel agenda seems to be guiding the editors of this article. But I am too busy to pursue the matter further. I am quite confident that as a new generation of Beta Israel in Israel itself matures and enters the scholarly study of their own history, the rather blatant and strange partisanship presently dominating the Hebrew University account of Ethiopian Jewry will be overthrown and the revisionism, stemming in the first instance from Christian apologetics, and no doubt furthered by the rather far-left Peace Now ideology I noticed dominating the Truman Institute itself and its regular cultural events and presentations, will be discarded. Let me add that I have no doubt at all of the sincere good will and the scholarly standing of Kaplan and the others of his coterie at Hebrew University. I am sure that they believe themselves right. But they do need to give a little more space to other views. Those other views do exist in the scholarly world, are of serious weight and authority, and should not just be dismissed out of hand. [[User:Tim Tam|Tim Tam]] 02:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have no anti-Beta Israel agenda, and I do not see why having an indigenous origin as opposed to being foreigners mixed with the local population can be construed as such. As you can see above, there are legitimate problems with your view. I may have mentioned this earlier, but, as one example, Gudi/Yodit/Isato was never referred to by contemporary accounts as being Jewish. [[Ibn Hawqal]]'s reference to her, and the (probably later addition) mention in the ''History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church'' do not refer to her as Jewish (Ibn Hawqal calls her the "Queen of the [[Habesha|Habasha]]"), though there is no conclusive evidence either way. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles ==

Hello,

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups|WikiProject Ethnic groups]] has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the [[Beta Israel]] article: '''B-Class''', with the following comments (see link to '''ratings summary page''' in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):
*Extremely thorough coverage of topic.
*The History section is unusually long. It would probably be beneficial to break this into subtopics, to aid reader comprehension.
*A very good start on using inline links, Harvard referencing or Cite.php footnotes. However, long stretches of text are not cited. This is a meaningful flaw.

You can give this article (and any other article within the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups|WikiProject]]) a rating, as described below.

:-->''How to assess articles'' 
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the ''class'' parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner '''{{tl|Ethnic groups}}''' that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's '''[[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|assessment system]]''' page. After rating the article, please provide a '''short''' summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's '''ratings summary page.''' A link to this page can be found in the {{tl|Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Assessment|article rating and assessment scheme]]''' for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at [[Template talk:Ethnic groups]]. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups|main discussion board]] for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit [[:Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles]], find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks! --
--[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Is it undisputed that Falasha are Jews ? ==

It is stated in the first sentence that the Falasha "are Jews of Ethiopian origin".
The Israeli regime and orthodox Jews and Zionists may believe this, but what about the other 99.9% of the world? It seems that 0.1% rules Wikipedia.
The Falasha do not have language or culture or religion in common with Jews (but Jews do not have language or culture or religion in common with each other). So why are they "Jewish"? Except for their racial heritage, which some advocates of their "Jewishness" deny is a factor.

--------------------------------------------------------

:To answer your question. The Beta Israel are recognized as Jews by themselves and also by a majority of the other Jewish communities from the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. The issue that they had faced was in terms of their differences in certain legal matters as it pertained to marriages and divorce law. The questions about their heritage mainly began because of the fact that they did not have extensive direct contact with other Jewish communities until about the 1400's CE. Essentially, because there is documentation of them practicing Judaism for more than 600 years as a group they are accepted as Jews. The issues that you see are mainly about their origin prior to that 600 year period. This debate falls into the following categories.

:*The Ethiopian Jews descend from the tribe of Dan, and came to Ethiopia during the 1st Commonwealth of Israel.

:*The Ethiopian Jews are descendents of Habbani Jews (Southern Yemen) who came to the region and married into or converted members of the local population.

:*The Ethiopian Jews are descendents of Christians who took on a more Judaic perspective either through direct or indirect contact with Jews of Southern Egypt or Yemen.

Most of the debates about their pre-600 history revolve around the above points. So they are accepted as being Jewish due to their known and documented history of practicing Judaism. They are recognized by Sephardic sources due to the word of Sephardic rabbis going back to the 1400's. They are recognized by most Ashknenazi authorities based on the ruling of the Cheif Ashkenazi Rabbis. Yet, because of the issues as they pertain to differences in areas of Jewish law like divorce. There are a number of Ethiopian Jews who had to under a "Symbolic Conversion" in order for them to not be separated from other Jewish communities. This is a bit of an over simplification of the issues, but the article has to cover all these issues.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

==Deleted Un-sourced Material About Beta Israel having Hebrew texts==
I deleted the following un-sourced material. Does anyone have a source for this information?

:It appears that following the conquest of the Kingdom of Gondar{{dubious}} in the 17th century, all Jewish holy books were destroyed, and their study forbidden.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} If Hebrew writings were still extant, this is the time when they were definitively lost. However, the Jews persisted in reading what they could, including the "Old Testament" of the Christian scriptures written in the Christian holy tongue Ge'ez. The Jewish monks, in any case, had retained knowledge of Ge'ez from their ancient Christian antecedents. Great care was taken by these monks and priests to eliminate specifically Christian texts, practices and ideas. Thus, ironically, the Christian religious literature was used selectively to provide the continuing foundation for study of the Jewish sources. This helps to account for some of the texts (and practices) used by the Beta Israel that are not found elsewhere amongst Jews.

If someone can provide sources I will put it back into the article.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

== "related groups" info removed from infobox ==

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{tl|Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the '''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#.22related groups.22 info removed from infobox|Ethnic groups talk page]]'''. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

== Prominent Israelis of Ethiopian Jewish background ==

The "Prominent Israelis of Ethiopian Jewish background" should be split into separate articles (assuming most of the unlinked subjects don't already have articles, I haven't checked). I think a list of links to the individual articles would suffice. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 22:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Dear author of Beta Israel Article: Please Pay Attention! ==

Before I go on, I like to point out how it's very ORIENTALIST of the author to write on and on about this community based on debates and books he/she read. I am under the assumption, as is the author, that he/she is intelligent enough to cite the article. However, one question that doesn't seem to occur to this brave Wiki scholar is the possibility of misrepresentation of Ethiopian Jews (be it through the books and his/her approach to the topic). How can a group that is left virtually voiceless, a group of people who are silenced and marginalized by those who know appear to know them better than themselves? Whom have they authorized to be completely stripped down for everyone's inspection and approval? This is a general tendency of European minded sense of agency to speak in behalf of and/or represent a group outside of its own. Dear author, if you haven't read Orientalism by Edward Said, now is the time, although I doubt you will. But surely, you, the author, have no right or authority to write on historical, religious and cultural discourse, especially when Wikipedia is a source of learning for millions and those who read this article will take this as an accurate account.
Needless to say, I hated the article and even more so most of the comments because such mistakes and ignorance are abominations in the era of knowledge and enlightenment. It was irresponsible, considering the comments you've generated through this article! This is unacceptable.
So, PLEASE, call University of Addis Ababa and speak to a scholar, professor, somebody and educate yourself. It seems, from your article that you state what you found in the books (written by Europeans) as a matter of fact, while you ponder the claim of this group, and their history reluctantly. This is the history of my country, and this group is part of people. I don't expect you to whip out your colonial gazers and start dishing out whatever you find in books as God's given word.
So, I wait for your reply stating your authority that qualifies you to write a historical account. Just because you can write a college essay and bibliography, that doesn't mean you can become instant historian. If you don't have any qualifications, then take off the article from this site immediately. I'll arrange for a scholar who can replace your contributions. Thanks. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mishka411|Mishka411]] ([[User talk:Mishka411|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mishka411|contribs]]) 13:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
: Just to clarify, this being a [[wiki]], the article has no single author, and anyone (including yourself) is free to make edits. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the obvious. My point, though, is that this article holds a very orientalizing view of a group and serves as a survey of Beta Israel Ethiopia history with heavy errors. While I don't understand why people who have no authority of the group are editing or writing this article, I object to the idea of my history being written by people who do not know my community or my country outside of western textbooks (which we all know how subjective they are) and google image pics. So, GYROFROG, I hope that clarifies what I wrote. Considering that the Western population knows little about a lot of groups outside of U.S./Europe confine, it's rather dangerous just to "wing" and edit someone's history. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.18.208.195|75.18.208.195]] ([[User talk:75.18.208.195|talk]]) 06:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
: If you are able to identify the errors, then at the very least please identify them for us, or better yet replace them with better information that cites [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Thanks in advance, -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

::I actually sent emails to several Ethiopian Israelis asking them to work on the article. None of them came to contribute or edit the article. One Ethiopian Israeli friend of mine who read the article didn't have a problem with it. Are you an Ethiopian Israel, and if so would you be willing work on the areas you say need to be corrected? Can you also give references of books written by Ethiopian Jews on the topics? For example, one of the areas I felt needed to be worked on was the section about religious traditions.--[[User:EhavEliyahu|EhavEliyahu]] 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

== WikiProject Beta Israel ==

Dear contributors,

[[:he:ויקיפדיה:מיזמי ויקיפדיה/יהדות אתיופיה|WikiProject Beta Israel]] has been launched at the [[Hebrew Wikipedia]] nearly a year ago. I am glad to say that my fellows have achieved a significant progress in establishing a free, reliable database about the fascinating heritage and history of the Beta Israel community. Both the English and Hebrew Wikipedia could benefit from this project, as many important resources are only available in either Hebrew or English. [[Kayla]] is one small example for an English article heavily contributed by a Hebrew-only source.

If you are a bilingual English and Hebrew writer, your help could be most valuable. I encourage you to visit the WikiProject page and edit it as you see fit. Best regards, [[User:Lior|Lior]] ([[User talk:Lior|talk]]) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

== To Minilik ==

I am reverting all of your changes from "Beta Israel", the legitimate name of this group, to "Bete Israel". The fact that it is more phonologically correct in Amharic does not change the official narrative on the group. In addition, you profess that it is a "church denomination" that this is in reference to. Rather the opposite - this refers to the historical Ethiopian group that has largely immigrated to Israel.
(BTW, this may be in violation of Original Research, but I've Googled your name. Turns out you really ARE a "church denomination." Please keep your Messianic garbage out of this article.) --[[User:OneTopJob6|OneTopJob6]] ([[User talk:OneTopJob6|talk]]) 04:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read quite a bit on them, and They do not claim to be from the Tribe of Dan, they don't connect their origin o the Lost Tribe myth at all, they believe they came with the Ark (When Varies not all agree on the Menelik myth).

The Idea of them being Danites primarily comes from statement a controversial Medieval traveler made about them. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.131.23.208|69.131.23.208]] ([[User talk:69.131.23.208|talk]]) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

== Integration section ==

This section needs to be enhanced, there is missing a lot of points, such as :
*the differences in theology between orthodoxe and beta israeli and its consequences in the integration process
*role of Kessim in israel. New beta israeli rabbi, having an orthodoxe formation, while some part of the older priests refusing to accept this way of preaching (and rejection of talmud).
*difference between older generations and integrated new generation that have been teach the orthodoxe way etc.
*Cultural troubles, as beta israeli had previously a really religious life but diferent from the teachings of the talmud, lots of tabou, life centered on the tribe. All was contradicted by the way of life of israeli jews.

"Social contact between the Beta Israel and other Ethiopians was limited. It was not because of the laws of Kashrut, since all Ethiopians share the same food taboos. Ethiopian Jews were forbidden to eat the food of non-Jews. The Kessim were more strict about the prohibition against eating food prepared by non-Kessim. Beta Israel who broke these taboos were ostracized and had to undergo a purification process. Purification included fasting for one or more days and ritual purification before entering the village."

Huge diference with israeli jews. The conscequences of this, after settlement in israel should be present in the article. Israel has choose to refuse their traditions and teached the youth beta israeli to follow the orthodoxe traditions, which leads to the gap between generations.

Kessim are not allowed to celebrate weddings (althought some rabbi accept their presence, but their are the only one that can really conclude a wedding). Israel tried to force the beta israeli to a conversion procedure before allowing wedding (just to be sure). It was refused by the beta israeli, as they are jews, and saw that as a rejection of their jew status. It was more easily accepted by Falasha Mura, and they were better integrated. Also, they accepted more easily the orthodoxe teachings and teh talmud, as a huge part of them were not practicing their judaism in Ethiopia (only a small group are still christians). Which is really diferent from the other beta israeli, as they were really religious.

Few new Kessims following the beta israeli traditions, were nominated in israel, but not accepted by rabbi cause they dont follow the talmud teachings.

There was also a protestation in 1996 against racism, after finding that blood given by beta israeli to help hospitals was destroyed without even testing, by fear of aids.

In the young generations, they are different level of integrations. Also, even those who have accept the orthodoxe teachings and are well economically integrated, they do feel they lost something and that they are different : there is a growing social identification centered on their ethiopian origins (rather than when they were in ethiopia, seeing themselves as jews diferent from the ethiopians) and the color of there skin. There is also a growing phenomenon of identification to black americans culture and cultural signs.

I'm really sorry for my poor english, i just would like to point that the article is missing those points (religious integration). Could it be possible someone look for english sources to explore those points and present them in the article, please ? [[User:Lilyu|Lilyu]] ([[User talk:Lilyu|talk]]) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Genetics of the Lost Tribes ==

The genetic evidence presented here sounds very convincing on the surface, but as a previous poster pointed out, it can't rule out the very possible scenario that the Ethiopians began as a Jewish people. In fact, the [[Tribes of Israel]] article includes an interesting quote from [[Tacitus]], that many believed all the Jews were of Ethiopian origin. But suppose for a moment that the Beta Israel truly have closest affinity to ancestral non-Jewish African peoples - even then, I am not sure this data means anything. After all, if these people are actually descendents of the Tribe of Dan, or any other "Lost Tribe", then they could have notable genetic differences from those of the Tribe of Judah.

Which brings me to my question: what is known of the physical similarities and differences of the various Tribes of Israel from ancient times? After all, the story goes that all were slaves in Egypt - maybe one tribe consisted of olive-skinned people from the east, another of dark-skinned people from the south? Each with their own genetic affiliations? Is that plausible or just a crazy idea? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 15:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Olmecs

2008-11-29T20:32:44Z

Peelinglayers: /* Olmec black history */

{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WP Mesoamerica |nested=yes |class=B |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Mexico |nested=yes |class=B}}
}}

{{WPCD}}
{{FAOL|French|fr:Art olmèque}}

{{Archive box
|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1 (May 2005 to 2007)]]
[[/GA1|Olmec Good Article nomination #1]]
}}

== Olmec black history ==

Should be mentioned. Even though many whites oppose this idea, it is worth maerit and has some evidence which should be permited in the article as at the very least as an alternate theory. I'm going to add a bit about it—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Qtang|Qtang]] ([[User talk:Qtang|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Qtang|contribs]]){{#if:13 March 2007| 13 March 2007|}}.
:Reference to the "out of Africa" theory is made in the '''Alternative origin speculations''' section in this article and in a separate article entitled [[Olmec alternative origin speculations]]. You are welcome to add ''referenced'' information to that article. Unreferenced material will be deleted. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:"''Even though many whites oppose this idea...''" What kind of crap is this? Which "whites" oppose the idea? And who do you define as "white" anyway? Listen, whoever you are, in future keep your stupid racist comments to yourself. --[[User:Jquarry|Jquarry]] 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I am not white and i oposse that idea
Mexxxicano 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Olmecs weren't Black Africans; they were Australoid (the same race as the [[Australian Aborigines]] and [[Melanesians]]. [[User:Arnie Gov|Arnie Gov]] 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where black people live on this planet. They are still black people. All of black peoples hair isn't kinky like all white peoples hair isn't dead straight. There are even Nubians that can be found with loose cropped hair. Because of their blackness, the Aborigines have faced as much evil and hatred in Australia as black people have in "The Home Of The Brave". Because of your comment I hope that the Australians now realize the resource that they've wasted. However the Olmecs spoke traces of the Mande language which is a West African dialect. Tom 05/30/07

::Have the Afro-centrists gone completely mad? Where do you people stop? Why don't you focus instead on investigating the alleged "noble African" roots of the Venusian and Martian civilizations instead of polluting reasonable articles with blatant lies or relativistic fairy tales. We have to draw the line on this. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone that you don't respect can't tell you anything that will impress you. Afro-centrists have been relegated to this category. So there's a pretty good chance that you're going to ignore this archaeological report. '''www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html'''. You're probably going to claim it to be an afro-centric bunch of garbage even though the majority of the researchers are not black and wrote their findings decades before the term afro-centric was invented. There is no greater evidence of African influence than the heads themselves. Black people are very capable of identifying themselves even if other people are not. You would have as hard a time of convincing me that the Olmecs weren't black as you would in convincing me that I'm not black. If you don't know when you're looking at a black person, then you'll just have to not know. But don't expect black people to join you in not knowing. Tom 04/23/04

:Ah Tom, back again I see. Perhaps you posted the wrong URL, following it one finds not an archaeological report, produced by actual archaeologists, but just another lengthy essay from sometime-contributor here Dr Winters, which we've all been over many times before. As I'm sure you know, Dr Winters is not a million miles away from the afrocentrist camp, and I reckon that he'd readily confirm if asked that no-one in Mesoamerican studies has picked up his novel 'decipherments'. Isn't there anything ''new'' to report? One thing I might agree with you, that the heads constitute the "best evidence" for the African-origins hypothesis. If I were a supporter of that idea, I would find that extremely depressing- after all this time looking, not a single artefact or genuine remains to confirm any connection, at all; just a vague and non-unique resemblance to a cartoon-like conception of what a real African ought to look like. Given the great genetic diversity within Africa, it would be remarkable if you were unable to find at least ''some'' African population who'd resemble any given carved statue of a human face, Olmec or not. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

::The willful ignorance is amazingly palpable! The neo-liberal academic establishment and its relentless and wilfuly blind disciples have made an art out of denial. They will one day convince Africans of their non-Africaness and finally admit any shred of dignity that these people are entitled to, and turn around and tell them...'see, nothing good came out of Africa, and you're not African.' Mr. Wright, your desire to blatantly lie to yourself frightens me. Humans of your ability are capable of the most evil. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.20.195.252|76.20.195.252]] ([[User talk:76.20.195.252|talk]]) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 

:::Well, anonymous critic —or is that Tom again? Either way, I'm always more than happy for my comments here to be scrutinised by others and stand behind what they contain. That's why I sign my name to my posts; it's a pity that for whatever reason you seem not to have the same confidence to do likewise, so that an independent person might properly be able to assess where the true expression of self-deception lies.
:::Anyone is free to search through all my contributions here for comments that could vaguely be interpreted as racist, or that are disparaging of Africans and their achievements — and they will find none. Anonymous carping from the sidelines containing no actual argument or examinable piece of evidence in support contributes nothing, and means nothing, no matter how many loaded terms and empty buzzwords are squeezed into the sentence.
:::This strident repetition of ''ad hominems'' truly seems nothing more than a smokescreen, intended to mask a complete absence of any sense-making, logical or empirically sound arguments to advance. For, if you had them, why are they not being employed?
:::Or for that matter, why do you not turn your attention to documenting the authentic and actual achievements of African peoples, of which there are a great many and which are lamentably under-recorded in wikipedia to date? That would be far more constructive than this blind-alley pursuit.--[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::If my unanimity is such a downer on my argument, here I am. You smoked me out, you brave you! Bush would be mighty proud of you! My anonymous comments were a result of simply being not logged in, not something insidious as you assert. You're still willfuly ignorant at best, and virulently racist at worst. Although correct that there is not as much documentation of the African's past, there is enough to trump your ignorance, thus my assertion of your willful ignorance. Start with Bernal's '''''Black Athena''''' series. The neo-liberal academic establishment has so far refused to acknowledge (in forms of peer reviews) these works, and as such they are considered illegitimate among the believers. That's what I call, having your cake and eating it too. Furthermore, the neo-liberal academic establishment bestows the title of ''The Father of History'' on Herodotus, and call him a liar in the same breath about anything he had to say about the African, because it contradicts the inherent superiority of the Aryan. Voluminous documentation is not evidence of one's truth. So, don't piss on our collective feet and tell us it is raining.

==B-class==
Why is this article not a GA? --[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde|talk]]) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:I do think that this article could be rated A or Good Article -- it might be Featured with a bit of clean-up -- but no one has bothered to take it thru the process. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think it could be GA with a quite small effort. Why not nominate it?[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·]] [[User talk:Maunus|·ƛ·]] 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Returned to post to this item after a long absence: Well, Maunus and I tried to put it thru the GA process but ended up with a lot of heat and what I considered to be unreasonable demands (including asking "when were the [[radiocarbon]] dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them, and which calibration they used". I spent considerable effort on the process and the article is only marginally better. I fear that there are better uses of my time. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

==Blatant Spam in "Overview" Section==
When did the following get added to the Article?

"...among them San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán,where they learned to teleport, La Venta, where they invented toaster strudel, Tres Zapotes, where they ate the strudel and Laguna de los Cerros, where they all ended up dying."

Very sad the disrespect shown by some. § —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jrbarnett|Jrbarnett]] ([[User talk:Jrbarnett|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jrbarnett|contribs]]) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 

:Gone now. It was a school site registered to the State of Illinois, I expect it to be blocked for a while.--[[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
::72 hour block. The problem is presumably there are good editors there as well! --[[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

==Further Debate on the African Migration Theory==
I reverted Godheval's change as it sounds like [[wp:or]]. If there's a source which supports this feel free to reinsert this, but the paragraph seems to be talking about modern (in the 1940s) Indians. I assume the paragraph was referring large [[Indigenous_peoples_in_Mexico#Demographics|Indian populations in the south]]. In the north, there are more instances of African genes mixed into the population. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:No, it is not original research, it is common sense. At the time of the Olmec, Europeans had yet to introduce enslaved Africans to the Americas. So any appearance of "Africanesque" features on the continent would not be related to this, and must therefore rely on another possibility, such as Africans of some sort making the journey on their own before that. The argument against THAT possibility, as in the article, is that MODERN Amerindians have Africanesque features, under the assumption that they've always had them. But the counter to that is that modern incarnations of African features could have come from the introduction of enslaved Africans to the continent in the 15th and 16th centuries. Therefore, just modern people in the area having African features is in no way a case against African migration in the distant past. It's plainly a weak argument. I'm putting the comments back in.[[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::You misunderstand my main point: if you don't have a [[wp:rs|reliable source]] that you are getting your information from and citing in the article, then you are inserting OR. There are sources which claim that Africans migrated to the Americas long ago, but unless you find sources which discuss this along with the Olmec heads, you are [[wp:syn|synthesizing]] the information (which is also not allowed). We have to be careful in what we place in the articles, otherwise anybody could start putting all sorts of '''opinions''' in the text. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:::And you just completely fail to acknowledge what it is that I'm saying. I AM NOT THE ONE to have put the bit about African Migration theory into the article. It was put in some time ago and has been accepted, as it is well-known idea and argument in the field. My addition was ONLY to point out the flaw in one argument against the African Migration theory. Please try to keep up. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::We're not talking about the "bit about African Migraion theory." We're talking about your "pointing out the flaw in one argument". That is all I removed and that is OR until you find a source that states that. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Please address this issue. "Material that should be removed without discussion includes ... clear examples of original research ..." Cite a source within the hour or remove it. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream", it is not the only theory, and does not explain all the features of all the populations in the Americas. My change to the article was not introducing original research, but was referring to theories already mention IN the article. My addition was merely to demonstrate the flaw in one argument against the African migration theory already mentioned. Before you revert, discuss it here. You are no authority, and are bound by the same rules as the rest of us. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 18:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have restored "mainstream" per your statement above. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:: What is mainstream? People who think one thing and publish a book about it? Or people who others just happen to notice? The way it is worded now makes it sound like all credible Mesoamerican researchers disregard all other theories of migration to the area. This is simply not true. The Bering Strait Migration theory is not necessarily at odds with other theories. If it were true that all credible researchers disregarded other theories, then you would have to cite an awful lot of people - which is why I put the "who" tag on it. So you can either keep that, or it can be changed to "some Mesoamerican researchers". You decide. For now I'm going to change it to "some". [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You can't have it both ways. You say that is the mainstream view, but you don't want the article to say this. Your version is a distortion of the academic consensus. Regardless of what you or I think the Truth might be (something I don't claim to know anyway), Wikipedia does not attempt to find the Truth. Wikipedia only reports what academic consensus states. That's the role of an encyclopedia. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::You make zero sense. PAY ATTENTION. It is you who seems to want it both ways. If you are going to use the term "mainstream", then you need to have MULTIPLE, if not MANY citations to back up that claim. That is why I used the "who?" tag at first. But rather than do that, I put "some researchers", leaving the burden of proving a "mainstream" consensus to anyone who wants to replace that term in the article. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Note that there are ZERO citations for this alleged "mainstream consensus", yet there ARE citations - as of now - for the African origin theory. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::"It is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream."" Do you recall writing this? Citations are needed when a statement is doubted. You apparently don't doubt this statement, so a citation is not required. Also, please stop YELLING. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I also put "mainstream" in quotes to signal the dubiousness of the term. I also go on to say that the Bering Strait theory is not necessarily at odds with any theory of African migration. The two are not mutually exclusive. Bering Strait purports to explain indigenous New World populations. It does not preclude a separate African migration either before or (most likely) afterwards. I apologize for "yelling", but the constant RV'ing was pissing me off. And you say "citations are needed when a statement is doubted"? Uh...citations are needed when a statement is MADE, too, last I checked. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Please check [[Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_is_needed]] again then. Also, your links such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&diff=229279583&oldid=229278974] are highly misleading. That article does not make any reference to the African migration hypothesis. Please revert it so I don't have to. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I did not link it because it mentions the African migration theory. I linked it because it refers to populations of mixed African and indigenous Mesoamerican descent. Look at the text that is linked and it starts to make sense. You know, verification of the intermixing? You really are kind of slow on the draw if I have to spell out every change I make for you.[[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

::This is an old debate, and no new argunments are presented. There is simply no way that this article is going to state anything to the effect that there were an precolumbian african presence - this belongs in the Alternative Origins Speculations article. Not in the serious article about what scholars believe about the Olmecs.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Regardless, the theories exist, and deserve mention - as they have been. This whole RV war between myself and NJGW has less to do with that, and more to do with his misunderstanding of why I added what I did. If the African migration theory is going to be mentioned, and then an argument against it is presented, a counter argument can also be made. It's that simple. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::No it is not. The page is not to be constructed as an argument but as a description of what the scientific consensus about the issue is. The scientific consensus is that the precolumbian african presence theory is a dead horse - theres no need to keep flogging it in article space. Arguments and counter argument belong in the Olme Alternative Origins Speculations article. Its that simple.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:: And yet nowhere in this article are there citations for what the "scientific consensus" even is. No one's flogging a dead horse. I am giving light to theories that exist and are as credible as any other. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is quite clear on what scientific consensus is.So please go give light elsewhere, there is lots of free publishing space. This is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of novel theories. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:And I suppose an encyclopedia is the end-all on what is factual and what is theoretical? That even published encyclopedias only state facts and never theories? What world do you live in where that's true? There is nothing wrong with incorporating valid theories along with the facts. And if the scientific consensus on this particular issue is clearly stated in the article, I certainly cannot find it. Care to point it out for me? You are quite arrogant to think that you can just come in here and change other people's edits with no authority on the subject, especially when those others have provided back-up for their edits. Get over yourself, son. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::There are specific rules about what [[WP:NOT|wikipedia is and isn't]] you are violating about three of them. This article is a colaboration between many previous editors who all have expertise on the subject. We have discussed the african presence theory MANY times and the way it is presented is a result of a consensus of multiple editors - you are the arrogant one waltzing in and trying to revolutionize the view of a field about which obviously have little to no appreciation. Just like you apparently have little or no appreciation for Wkipedias rules or processes. The only thing you will achieve with this kind of agressive POV pushing is a block. My advice is that you read the old discussions VERY thoroughly- and if you have something new to add to those discussions which seems highly unlikely judging from what you have already added then you put it here on the discussion page and IF the consensus of editors agrees that it is important enough to be included then we include it. Not before.
::: I've read the discussions. It's funny how short your memory is, because if you think back, you'd recall us - I mean YOU and I personally - having an argument on this subject before. At the time I just gave up, because I didn't have sources, and didn't care enough to look into them. Imagine my pleasant surprise to find SOME mention of the African origin theory. However, following that bit was an apparent argument against the theory as supported by some random artist's work. My addition was merely to point out the flaw in that argument. Arrogant would've been to delete it altogether, since it is a completely spurious argument. Also, I added one needed citation to support the African origin theory. There is nothing out of order about my addition, and nothing contradictory to wikipedia guidelines, or to the consensus. Do try to read things carefully. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::I am sorry if I hurt your feelings by not remembering its just that I can't really distinguish one POV pusher from the next one.If you find a published source that points out the flaw in the argument then you csn put it in [[Olmec Alternative Origins Speculations]] - not here. If you don't find a published source making this objection then it is indeed Original Research and a violation of policy. Consensus among the editors of this page up to now is that in this article we don't present arguments for or against the African Precolumbian Presence theory, but only what is the current academic consensus: namely that "They Were Not Here Before Columbus" - speculations and arguments go in the other article.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 20:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: You overestimate your importance. But anyway, see below for the answer to this. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

* Saying that "mainstream Mesoamerican scholars now reject this view" is entirely correct. (For that matter I don't know that the word "now" is needed, as it seems to imply there was a time when the situation was otherwise.) Alternative explanations that have become well known in pop culture, even if widely or even universally rejected by scholars, merit mention in the article, but it is dishonest to try to twist wording to suggest that there are only "some" who do not accept them. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] ([[User talk:Infrogmation|talk]]) 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::I patiently await the source for "It should be noted that this view seems to discount the [[Atlantic slave trade|introduction of enslaved Africans]] to the Americas by [[Conquistador|European conquerors]]. Such would explain [[Afro-Latin American|modern manifestations]] of African features in all New World populations, as the transplants intermixed with the native populations, but fails to explain the existence of those same features in the distant past. This discrepancy allows the African migration theory to retain credence." [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: I explained this already. A few times, even. Much like it is taken for granted that the "consensus" goes against the African Origin theory, the "consensus" also states that there was such a thing as the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and that there were instances of intermixing between those transplanted peoples and the native populations. Therefore, to say that the manifestation of African features in modern populations somehow debunks the idea of the African Origin theory of the Olmecs is completely spurious. Are you really not understanding this? [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Source or go home. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, sources please. And make them exceptionally good. Anyway the "indians do/don't look african argument" isn't even supposed to be in this article. It is suppoed to be in the other one. The only thing this article is supposed to say is that the theory is rejected by the scientific community and that no precolumbian african presence has ever been documented in the americas. I don't know where the covarrubias argument which was grantedly weak (since there are so many so much better arguments against it) even came from it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Then delete the argument supported by Miguel Corrubias or whatever tf his name is, and then I have nothing to argue against. I do not NEED a source for the fact that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade occurred, nor do I need a source for the fact that many of those enslaved Africans intermingled with native populations. These things are established historical facts. The SOURCES are in the text itself - which point to the slave trade article and an article on people who are evidence of the aforementioned intermingling. The SOURCES are also in the MAINSTREAM historical record. That being the case, following plain logic, the argument that MODERN manifestations of African features disproves ANY theory of ancient manifestations is completely fallacious. So either remove it, or allow it to be acknowledged that the argument is spurious. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Source that makes the same statement you do in it's entirety or go home. I'm sure we can find better arguments than Covarrubias' but that's so far besides the point that I'm yawning. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Civility works both ways. I just asked Godheval to tone things down ''at your request'', don't you start too. May I suggest to everyone that perhaps dropping this for now, and restarting the discussion in the morning after a nice cup of tea, might be best for all involved? The article will still be here in the morning. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Hm, I didn't realize that wikipedia was composed entirely of verbatim quotes from sources. I always thought that people put things in their own words and then supported them with evidence. You know why I thought that? Because that's what people do. That's also what I did. There is no mental leap required to understand or accept my statements. My statements are a logical procession from the historical record. Let me put it simply for you. Argument: Olmec heads having so-called African features + Modern Mesoamericans having African features = Mesoamericans have always had African features. Flaw 1: Some modern Mesoamericans ARE of African descent, which would explain their features. There is no necessary correlation between their features and any theory on Olmec origin. Who's to even say that they are RELATED to the Olmecs at all? Why is this hard to understand? My next move is to just remove the argument, since it is so obviously flawed, rather than to muddle up the article with a counter-argument. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I'm not here to judge the cited content. I first got to this article following a vandal and kept it watched because it seemed no other eyes were regular visitors. You came in and inserted what appeared to be OR, I asked for a source, you refused to give one. Now we are still waiting for a source. If there are issues with the article's content, I'll let folks more versed with the sources sort it out. This does not give you free license to include your [[wp:syn|evaluations of the facts]]. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:I would support the removale of the argument although for different reasons.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 21:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
: I'm not "evaluating" any facts. First of all, there are virtually no facts when it comes to the Olmec, just varying theories, with a consensus being based on the views of a sizable majority. That consensus does NOT argue against the African origin theory by saying something idiotic like "Modern manifestations of African features in Mesoamerican populations proves that they've always had these features". I'm not even arguing for or against the theory, but against the sheer idiocy of the argument supported by that one artist. [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 21:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::This is getting very silly. You can't include your personal speculations for reasons that have already been explained. However, your arguments are irrelevant. There re many isolated tribes that have had abolutely no contact with African immigrants, and which have been photographed for over a century. These features are to be found in them. Features such as wide noses are an evolutionary adaptation determined by climate. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Great! I accept what you say, but the argument in place does NOT mention these facts. My only contention was with the argument that African features in modern Mesoamericans somehow debunks the African Origin theory. It's not so much support for the AOT as it is pointing out how silly that argument is. So if we remove the completely asinine argument, then I'll have nothing to say. Good day! [[User:Godheval|Godheval]] ([[User talk:Godheval|talk]]) 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm just going to leave it as this: I think the African migration debate deserves a ''mention'' here (with a link to [[models of migration to the New World]] and a statement making clear that this is not a mainstream hypothesis), and some rebuttal wouldn't hurt. A rebuttal to the rebuttal would violate [[wp:undue]] however, as well as the MOS which states debates are not to be given in a back and forth manner. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit:
The flat-faced, thick-lipped characteristics of the heads have caused some to suggest a resemblance to [[Africa]]n facial characteristics. Based on this comparison, Wiercinski argued in 1972 that the Olmecs were Africans who had emigrated to the New World.<ref>Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.</ref> However, this hypothesis is not among [[models of migration to the New World|mainstream models of migration to Mesoamerica]], and scholars offer other possible explanations for the facial features of the colossal heads,<ref name=Haslip-viera1997>{{citation
| author = Haslip-viera, G.; De Montellano, B. O.; Barbour, W.
| year = 1997
| title = Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs
| journal = Current Anthropology
| volume = 38
| issue = 3
| pages = 419–441
| doi = 10.1086/204626
| url = http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/204626
}}</ref> for example, that the heads were carved in this manner due to the shallow space allowed on the basalt boulders. Others note that Olmec art has no relation to African art.<ref name=Hendon2004>{{Citation
| author = Hendon, J. A.; Joyce, R. A.
| title = Mesoamerican Archaeology
| year = 2004
| page = 75
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=gdbR1MdK5gwC&printsec=frontcover&lr=#PPA75,M1
| publisher = Wiley
}}</ref>

:I was under the impression that the pre-Columbian African presence was considered a fringe theory and that fring theories do not belong in a general article. [[User:Kman543210|Kman543210]] ([[User talk:Kman543210|talk]]) 00:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think the present wording needs fixing or expansion. It explicitly mentions the Africa theory, among others. The African and Chinese and other origin speculations are covered in detail at [[Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations]], to which the reader can jump. As stated by Kman above, "pre-Columbian African presence" is a fringe theory and does not belong in a general article per [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. If anyone feels coverage is lacking, they are welcome, and encouraged, to add sourced material discussing "pre-Columbian African presence" at [[Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations]]. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
==weight estimate correction==

I have added a higher weight estimate based on the volume and the density of the Rancho Cobata. Volcanic Basalt is a vey low density stone but not as light as the existing estimate. I have also added distances that they were transported based on the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. This book estimated the stones upto 50 tonnes but I assume he didn't know how low the density of volcanic basalt is. The following site provided the density of basalt:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5461391
"samples over a density range of 1.45 to 2.03 g/cm"
I translated that into 1.9 tons per cubic meter.
Feel free to check it. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:According to a [[WP:NOR|rule of Wikipedia]], we really shouldn't be running our own calculations, particularly something with as much room for error as a colossal head. I mean, how in the world do we estimate its volume -- is it a cube or a sphere?? Sorry, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have seen at least 4 or 5 different estimates for these heads which is why I checked the math. As I said I could cite the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. They estimate it at over 50 tons. It is possible that it is a high density Basalt. The 20 ton estimate is clearly low. Would it be OK to cite both sources and provide a range? Thanks [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 06:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Why, yes, citing two sources would be perfectly fine. It's something I do a lot, particularly since there is often disagreement even among experts. Two estimates can give our readers a nice range and let them also know that there is no one "answer".
:On the other hand, I'm not sure that it makes much difference to our readers whether the weight is 20 tons or 50 tons. To me, both those numbers fall within the "too large to imagine" category. :) Thanks for your work, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at that source and the way it was worded again. It actualy said aproaching 50 tons not over and it discussed Basalt as well as a few other things. I'll try it again with a closer watch on the details. Experiments have sucessfuly moved at least 10 tons and at least shift larger stones. If you think that is to large to imagine take a look at Baalbek. I checked the math on that as well and disputed it in the other direction. That has almost certainly been exagerated. When there is a simple math mistake is there a source that you know of that would fact check it if I find additional mistakes. Or I should say when since there are many that I have seen already. Including many much easier to calculate than the Olmec heads.

Thanks
[[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:As far as reliable sources for weight estimations go, I would think that [[INAH]] could be regarded as authorative. Not least, because they have practical experience in actually shifting the things about the archaeological sites and onto plinths etc for display in the site museums ... ;-)

:The 17 colossal heads vary considerably in size—from abt 1.5 to 3.5 m tall—and hence weight. For eg, the one most recently found (in 1994) came in at 1.8m tall, and 8 tonnes.[http://dti.inah.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1089&Itemid=150]. INAH gives the smallest as weighing abt 6t, up to the largest at abt 50t.[http://www.inah.gob.mx/ZonasArqueologicas/todas/htme/za02503b.html] Hence it would be entirely appte to give a range, since they do in fact vary. Or to put it another way, need to be mindful that there are two reasons for any variance in weight figures - one because the masses of the monuments actually varies by up to an order of magnitude, and two because different sources may use different methods to obtain the weight for any given piece. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 01:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that agrees with the source I cited. a Spanish reference might be helpful to some but er I'm to lazy to learn new languages. Seventy wonders included one that was 4.8 tonnes but the highest one was also 50 tonnes.
[[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:Zacherystaylor, when you add a citation to an existing article, please use the same format as the rest of the article. In this case, you stuck the name of the book in the citation itself, whereas the article was using [[WP:SHORT|shortened notes]], where the citation just refers to the author and the page number (we could also use the page number on your recent adds). Nothing major, but it helps keep Wikipedia looking good, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Added page # and looked at changes you made will copy in future. thanks. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== Removed genetic study ref ==

I removed the following reference to a paper on a HLA gene study, published in ''Tissue Antigens'' journal:
*{{aut|Arnaiz-Villena A, Vargas-Alarcon G, Granados J, Gomez-Casado E, Longas J, Gonzales-Hevilla M, Zuniga J, Salgado N, Hernandez-Pacheco G, Guillen J, Martinez-Laso J.;}} ''[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11144288 HLA genes in Mexican Mazatecans, the peopling of the Americas and the uniqueness of Amerindians.]'' - Bibliographic entry in [[PubMed]].
Firstly, because it does not seem to be used anywhere. Secondly, going only by the abstract on PubMed, I don't think it can be reliably used to demonstrate anything substantial about the preclassic Olmec. AFAIK the paper's authors are Spanish immunologists and geneticists, not Mesoamerican scholars. The paper seems to presume that the modern [[Mazatec]] are Olmec descendants, which while an option is certainly not something Mesoamericanists would be confident of. Or to put it another way, while the study may have something to say about modern indigenous populations, equating "Mazatec" with "Olmec" is not something I've seen well supported in Mesoamericanist literature. One of the paper's main conclusions, namely: "An indirect evidence of Olmec and Mayan relatedness is suggested, further supporting the notion that Olmecs may have been the precursors of Mayans", is an inference that would need qualifications and runs counter to the archaeological evidence.

Maybe if the reference was to be used somewhere, or the full paper obtained, then we could look at rationale for including it. It would be interesting also to see if the paper had been commented upon by any archaeologist, ethnohistorian or linguist.--[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 07:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Notes on recent <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> additions ==

Wandalstouring, I note your recent addition of 46 (count 'em) <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags. I will be looking thru them over the next couple of days. Many of them are fair questions. Some of the ones that appear directly after an existing citation are puzzling but will be thoroughly reviewed.

Some however seem to be a bit outside the scope of this Wikipedia overview article (vs., say, a doctoral thesis). For example:
:*"Please provide in a note complete argumentation why there were rulers (no republic?) full-time priests and shamans (and please tell what's the difference between a priest and a shaman)."
:*"Use a note to provide the argumentation for the centralization theory. Could have other reasons regarding only architecture and sculpture."
:*"Are there more scholars supporting this view? How do you know about the political mechanism from architecture and art? Please provide argumentation"

:*"Please provide arguments why this [ [[slash and burn]] agriculture ] was practised."
:*"When were these [radiocarbon] dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use? "
At 62 Kb, this article is pretty full up and many of these requests for argumentation would either be more appropriate for a sub-article or, in some cases, would be classified as [[WP:OR|original research]]. These overview articles are an attempt to incorporate and inter-relate facts from various sources to paint a broad picture of the subject matter (in this case, of course, the Olmec civilization). In the cases cited above, I believe is it best to provide the facts along with a proper citation and not discuss, for example, the radiocarbon calibration methodology or how archaeologists measure centralization. These are topics for other specialized articles.

Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:I just completed a review of some of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> labels. I provided many citations. I also wanted to comment on the following:

::*<nowiki><ref>Pool, pp. 26-27, provides a great overview of this theory, and says: "The generation of food surpluses is necessary for the development of social and political hierarchies and there is no doubt that high agricultural productivity, combined with the natural abundance of aquatic foods in the Gulf lowlands suppported their growth".</ref> {{fact}} "</nowiki>
:::I want to stay on topic here and not get involved in a discussion of theories of complex society formation. Pool is eminent and his comments are right on target so let's leave it at that.

::*"Much Olmec art is highly stylized and uses an iconography reflective of a religious meaning."{{fact}} !--who says that and what are the arguments?--!
:::Citation provided. Again, I don't think it would benefit us to try to determine why Coe and others believe this. This would be a topic for another article.

::*[Referring to Long Count calendar dates and various stelae with these dates.] {{fact}} !--Who has published this artifact and says that this symbol is on it and has this meaning.--
:::The early stelae containing Long Count dates are completely non-controversial. This is not the article to discuss how archaeologists determined that the shell glyph was zero or how to read Long Count dates. The wikilinks can lead the reader to articles that more fully explain this.

::*"It has been estimated that moving a colossal head required the efforts of 1,500 people for three to four months.<nowiki><ref>Pool, p. 103.</ref>" {{fact}} </nowiki>
:::It's not a theory, but rather an eminent archaeolgist's estimate and the citation was already provided. This sentence provides context for the size and effort and ultimately worth of these heads and gives the reader something they can relate to. I can't see the need for more than that. Again, this is a survey article.

::*"<nowiki>Nonetheless, Olmec society is thought to lack many of the institutions of later civilizations, such as a standing army or priestly caste.<ref>Serra Puche et al., p. 36.</ref>{{fact}}</nowiki>
:::I'm confused since this sentence is already cited, so we know "who supports this view". Regarding the "why", I'm not sure that this survey article shuld be going into this detail.

:Maunus also correctly removed a tag since the citations were already provided and discussed in the article, and I removed the 4 tags detailed in my earlier post in this section for the reasons given (i.e. this is an overview article).

:Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::*This theory that there were shamans AND full-time priests reads like nonsense regarding the archaeological evidence. Such an extraordinary claim must be provided with very good arguments when you mention it. i know American archaeology makes lots of claims that are fringe opinions in European archaeology, so see this as enabling a discussion with sources.

::*Again a claim that can be fringe opinion and is hard to believe and that for this reason needs some more backup.

::*Again a claim that is hard to believe and can be an overrepresentation of a very fringe opinion.

::*There are clear indicators for slash and burn techniques. If you point out in a footnote that they have been found everything is OK.

::All in all, it needs more footnotes with short explanations. I know this is difficult, but you're making a fool of the reader if you present him the results of archaeological research as facts. They are opinions and you have to understand them like they are wrong. That's the basic lesson for every first semester in archaeology. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::*Radiocarbon dates can be calibrated or uncalibrated. And there are several different calibration curves, almost each laboratory having its own. So it's very important to know because uncalibrated samples for example tend to be "older" than calibrated. In this case it can be a margin of 100 years difference. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It is important to specialist readers who can go get the sources themselves. It is not important to the general reader of an encyclopedia. Anyway an error margin of +/- 100 years is very little in relation to a field that has so many questions and so little knowledge as the Olmec area does. I wouldn't even imagine that Diehl or Pool supplies the information of which calibration was used in their non-specialist writings. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I completely agree with Maunus. I looked up my source last night, and it was [[Michael Coe]] who said that the radiocarbon dating had proved that the Olmec pre-dated the Maya. Did he go into detail? Of course not. He listed the dates found (something like 1150 - 450 BCE frm La Venta) but he certainly doesn't say "When these [radiocarbon] dates were taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use". So, should I not use Coe's assertion because he doesn't back it up? That would be totally ludicrous. "Mr. Coe, I'm sorry, you don't provide enough detail so until you do, we just can't use your information".
:::::Alas, there are many more citation requests like this. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::OK, lets put this to rest once and for all. Yes, an archaeologist needs to know if the radiocarbon date is calibrated or uncalibrated, and if calibrated, to what standard correction curve, but the dates are probability distributions within a range (usually to 2 standard deviations) not points in time, and should be reported that way. And yes, for certain points in calibration correction curves, the calibrated versus uncalibrated date-range can differ by hundreds of years. A wikipedia article on an archaeological topic, except one on radiocarbon, does not need to mention this. The question the wikipedia article is asking is, what is the generally accepted dating of Olmec, and the article correctly reports that. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Ethnicity and language tag===
I added ". . . and language. . ." to the first sentence of this section and I again removed its fact tag. The language matter is discussed at length in the rest of the section and the two main theories (Maya and Mixe-Zoquean) are laid out with proper citations. 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]])

:Still it is not sourced that there are multiple theories about the ethnicity. It is sourced that there are theories about their native tongue. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::[[User:Maunus]] changed "ethnicity and language" to "ethno-linguistic affiliation", which I think covers the matter. If not, perhaps we should remove the word "ethnic", although it is my understanding that ethnicity and language were closely related or identical at this time. Maunus?? [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 22:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Just take a look at native speakers of English and you will realize that there can be a heck of a difference. Remove ethnic because the only thing about ethnic is a fringe opinion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No it isn't, none of those studies cited are fringe. Coe is not fringe he was just probably wrong, because he was writing at an early date. Using ethnicity and linguistic affiliation near-synonymously is completely standard practice. A Maya community is a community in which the (main)language used is of the mayan family. You are picking nits that no scholar in the field would even care about. In short you can't expect this article to make distinctions that aren't made in the studies of the topic. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Then please write that the scholar thinks he is talking about ethnicity when he refers to language. In other fields of archaeology you can't seriously publish such an opinion. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 06:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::It is not "a scholar" it is an entire academic field of Mesoamericanists. Apart from that I believe you are wrong in your strong assertions about how other fields of archaeology refer to ethnic and linguistic bpoundaries in the remote past.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Language is not the same thing as ethnicity for most contemporary, theoretically-informed archaeology, but its also true that many Mesoamerican archaeologists equate the two. Since its the prevailing standard in the subdiscipline, it has to be acceptable for the article, since to require otherwise would force them to essentially forge a new, unsourced literature for Mesoamerica. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Withdraw Good Article nomination===
I have no more time to work on the Good Article nomination, so I have withdrawn it from the nomination process. Maybe later. Thanks, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Take your time to work on the article. It has potential, but archaeology isn't as easy as it looks. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::We are not doing archaeology here. The article is supposed to convey to the reader the current status of the Olmec research not pose critical viewpoints on or evaluate that research. An encyclopedic article isn't a scholarly paper and one cannot expect it to have the same standard of argumentation as if it were. It is enough to merely report what others have written of course by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 05:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, I know we aren't allowed to evaluate or criticize. However, you have to understand how an archaeologist came to his conclusion. The "how" is the most important thing and your writing has to reflect why they think this and that. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::No, it doesn't. It is enough to know that an archaeologist wrote the book and then cite his conclusions. Archaeologists writing for general audiences for example when writing for encyclopedias do not go into details about calibrations or ceramic typologies etc. but just gives the conclusions. We can only give the "how" if the source states it specifically and often in non-specialist literature (as for example textbooks) the writer only gives a general idea of the how and doesn't go into the archaeological details. Readers with special knowledge can go to the original sources if they want that. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 09:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Completely agree. In several cases, we're being asked to work to a higher standard than Diehl or Pool (again, authors of the two most recent general Olmec books). Too many of the requests above asked that we somehow determine how a scholar arrived at his opinion. Unless the scholar says this (and many don't - see my note about Coe & radiocarbon dates above) we just don't know. An encyclopedia overview article like this should provide information to a '''''general''''' audience. To quote Maunus "It is enough to merely report what others have written . . . by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other." [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, an error margin of 100 years means a lot. That's possibly an archaeologists talking with non-archaeologists. Try Renfrew, '''Archaeology''' for a start on methods. Sorry, I'm usually not the hardest reviewer, but you throroughly mispresent things. I will put an expert needed template on it and see if I can fetch any to help you. I'm too busy myself with several articles and reviews, so I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Of course it would be nice to know the error margin but you are asking about information that isn't in the sources! How can anyone be expected to comply with such a request? I read Renfrews Archaeology ten years ago, at introductory coursr to archaeology, thank you very much, and it is still on my shelf. But this isn't an article about archaeology it is about an historical civilization - archaeological details are not crucial here - what is at issue is whether the article represent the published sources and the scientific consensus, and whether it meets the GA criteria, which I am certain that it does.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Oh and we have two or three resident archaeology proffesors specialising in Mesoamerica that may be able to help us. [[User:Hoopes]], [[User:MESmith]] and [[User:Chunchucmil]]. I suggest we make a call for experts on the Aztlan list as well.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::The statement "I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you" is extremely offensive.
:::::::Even worse, you are missing the point. We are writing an encyclopedia article using Wikipedia principles (which include [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|"verifiability, not truth"]]). We are relying on published and in general tertiary sources, in particular Coe and Diehl and Pool, all of whom are professors of archaeology and without a doubt some of the most pre-eminent authorities on the Olmec. As encyclopedia editors, we ourselves cannot second-guess these academics, attempt to divine how they arrived at their decisions/propositions/opinions/estimates, or otherwise declare that these fellows aren't good enough. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(remove indent) Well a lot has happened since I left these shores. I respect the decision made to remove the nomination, but feel that the reasons were not totally correct. I agree you cannot reference a reference (but a featured article was failed because museums of international status has not referenced their statements - at which point do we arrive at the OR (original reference). This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, giving them the opportunity to research further into any given subject; but being wikipedia all editors have the right to express the direction that they wish to see the article go. Now off to retrain the reprobate archaeologists I spend my days with. Oh Joy! I will close the GA discussion down, but not as a fail obviously as it was withdrawn. Hope to meet you all again at some point. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

==Removed compass section==
I removed the following section from the article:

:Based on his find of an Olmec [[hematite]] artifact in [[Veracruz]], the American astronomer John Carlson has suggested that "the Olmec may have discovered and used the geomagnetic lodestone compass earlier than 1000 BC". If true, this "predates the Chinese discovery of the geomagnetic lodestone compass by more than a millennium".<ref name="John B. Carlson 753">John B. Carlson, “Lodestone Compass: Chinese or Olmec Primacy? Multidisciplinary Analysis of an Olmec Hematite Artifact from San Lorenzo, Veracruz, Mexico”, ''Science'', New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4205 (Sep. 5, 1975), pp. 753-760 (753)</ref> Carlson speculates that the Olmecs may have used similar artifacts as a directional device for astrological or [[geomancy|geomantic]] purposes, or to orientate their temples, the dwellings of the living or the interments of the dead.

:The artifact itself is part of a [[lodestone]] that had been polished into a bar with a groove at one end (that Carlson suggests may have been used for sighting). The artifact now consistently points 35.5 degrees west of north, but may have pointed north-south when whole. It is possible that the artifact was in fact used as some constituent piece of a decorative ornament.<ref>{{cite book|last=Needham|first=Joseph |coauthors=Lu Gwei-Djen|title=Trans-Pacific Echoes and Resonances: Listening Once Again |publisher=World Scientific |date=1985 |pages=21}}</ref> No other similar [[hematite]] artifacts have yet been found.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and this particular 2-paragraph section has been, in my opinion, [[WP:UNDUE|unduly highlighted]]. The only paper written on this discovery is the cited paper by Carlson -- which is now over 30 years old -- and the matter is not even mentioned in Pool or Diehl, the two most recent general Olmec books. To compensate, however, I did slip in a cited mention of the compass in the general summary under '''Notable innovations'''.

Hope this works for you all, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 04:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, because one find is no find. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Removed Mokaya section ==

I removed the following recently added paragraph:

:The Olmec culture's roots are thought to lie in the [[Mokaya]] culture of [[Soconusco]] in Pacific [[Chiapas]] and [[Guatemala]]. Here, basic elements include the earliest ceramics, ballcourt, elevated house platforms, and pyramidal mounds.

This is not the consensus or mainstream viewpoint, as I understand it, but rather the theory promoted primarily by John Clark. Others argue for Guerrero, Oaxaca, or Morelos. Pool, p. 18, says that "there is little doubt that the emergence of Olmec culture was primarily a local phenomenon." We can add a paragraph that discusses all these theories, but an unreferenced paragraph devoted solely to a Mokaya origin would promote a narrow viewpoint. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:Use {{tl|cref}} and discuss it in a footnote. You can say in the article that their origin remains disputed. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 05:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I think mention of Mokaya is useful in this article nonetheless, & its omission was a good catch by Hoopes. Article would benefit from some some summary/review of early-Formative Mesoamerican cultures in general, to place the Olmec into chronological/crosscultural context. As the general perception that the Olmec were 'first' is a common one, I think we need to address this and remind the reader that both on the Soconusco and in Lower Central America there were hierarchical and monument-building culture-complexes alongside or even predating the Gulf Coast Olmec expansion, and it's not that straightforward. The relationship between Mokaya & Olmec can be qualified, since as you note Madman there have been different proposals put forward. AFIAK there are other researchers besides Clark & Hoopes who propose Soconusco->Gulf Coast influences, and it bears mentioning along with other contemporary ideas on whether or not the Gulf Coast Olmec had beginnings or influences from elsewhere. --[[User:CJLL Wright|cjllw]] ʘ ''[[User talk:CJLL Wright|TALK]]'' 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==GA1 discussion (transcluded)==
{{Talk:Olmec/GA1}}

== Expert?! ==

I'm puzzled by the call for an "expert" on this article. As an archaeologist who has worked on the early formative away from the Olmec heartland, I think its actually pretty good. I could fault it for a subtle bias to the "mother culture" side of things, but non-specialists won't be interested in that argument being played out on these pages. There's not a lot here to argue with.

I don't see the 46 citation needed tags that Madman reports (so point me to them if they exist), only 5 or so, in almost every case I think the phrase is overreaching and should be removed, rather that footnoted. I'm more than willing to work on the references and editing what's there in the few free moments I get in a day.

There's no need for the "Expert" tag. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I wondered about that myself. If an expert is needed why weren't more details provided about what is wrong? an expert tag might be a good idea with details but arbritary request seems silly. Furthermore it seems like it should be put in the discussion page first unless it is extreme. [[User:Zacherystaylor|Zacherystaylor]] ([[User talk:Zacherystaylor|talk]]) 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with both your assessments, and so I took the liberty of removing the tag.
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&oldid=241845103 Here], Russ, is the version of the article from last Monday with the 46 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags added by Wandalstouring. I have subsequently dug up a number of citations and otherwise, with a bit of help from Maunus, reduced the number to a mere 2. These last two tags tag generalized descriptive sentences that, as you note Russ, could safely be removed. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Thanks Macman2001, for pointing me to the old rev. While wikipedia is never going to be "scholarly" this demand by many editors that every sentence, instead of every group of related concepts, be footnoted,is what keeps many scholars I know from contributing. I don't interpret the demands for GA and sourcing the way these people do. It makes the articles unreadable. I suggest simply pruning the sentences that currently lack attribution to improve the article. If they're important, they can be added back, with attribution, when adequately sourced. For now, all the article needs is tweaking of the grammar. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree, plenty of experts have been involved already, I only left the tag in place as a courtesy to [[User:Wandalstouring]] who put it there.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Would you publish that in an archaeological magazine? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 09:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I am not sure I understand what/whom the question is directed at. If you mean whether the article would be publishable in an archaeological magazine then that is the wrong question. The right question is if it would qualify for GA status according to the GA criterias of wikipedia.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: I agree with Maunus here. That's not the criteria for GA status. However, to answer your question, no I wouldn't publish it in say Archaeology. Its unreadable, in large part because of your insistence on sentence by sentence footnotes, and its written at a somewhat higher intellectual level than a general public piece. It reflects some scholarly bias, but magazine articles often oversimplify issues to make them more readable and tell a compelling, if often not entirely technically correct, story. See any story in Scientific American or New Scientist for example. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::So you agree that it doesn't reflect state of the art science and contains errors and oversimplifications. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 08:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Errors - No, at least not major ones...oversimplifications - yes, and so does any Wikipedia article about a non-trivial subject. You seem to think this is supposed to be a scholarly article; its not. Its supposed to be something accessible to a general audience and suggest further reading if they're interested. As such its going to have to simplify and avoid "hedging" phrases to tell a coherent, compelling story, which is, after all the goal here. Writing a Wikipedia article is a process of compromises on both content and language. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Deep Breath GA Renomination! ==

Dear Editors, I brought up the journey this particular review has taken, [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_withdrawn_Olmec]], and raised my concerns with the second reviewer [[User_talk:Wandalstouring#Olmec_second_reviewer]]. I would like to ask you all to reconsider the GA withdrawal and re-instate the nomination. This does not mean I will do the review on my own, in fact I may specifically ask for another reviewer to bring new thoughts to the process. It also does not mean that I disagree with all the second reviewer brought to your attention. IMHO GAs are not assisted by 46 or how ever many fact tags. A GA is a journey with company. Your thoughts please - there will be work ahead for all. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the offer, Mr. P. After finally just now closing out the last of the 46 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags, I find that I myself no longer have the time (or at present the patience) to devote to trying to get this thru Good Article. This last go-round with Wandalstouring has soured me on the whole GA process: there seems to be a great deal of downside - nasty discussions, complaining, twisting prose into knots to satisfy a random person's viewpoint - and there is no upside that I can see. I'm not complaining about you, Edmund -- I thought our journey was going along well and we were nearing the end of the road. But I myself don't have the energy to go through this a third time with a third person. Sorry, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 14:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===References===
References do not meet the standards of a GA article, especially if there's any hope to make it an FA. Citations should meet [[WP:CITET]] standards at a minimum. Harvard citations would be perfect for the type of references used in this article, and are fairly easy to use. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Could you give an example of what is wrong with the reference standard? That would make it easier to improve.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::At some point in the review I was going to direct you to (for example) [[Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany]] as one way of improving the references and layout. It is though only one way.[[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 11:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It would be more helpful to know what you think is the problem with the references, instead of just knowing that there are other referecing systems that you like better. Apart form the reference system not being fully consistent I don't se the general reference problem with the article.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(remove indent) Apologies, one major difference I was lazily trying to point out is the the "reference in the article" is linked to "author / page number" in notes which is itself linked to the book information listed in the reference section. The references at this moment are not Harvard citations. These are fairly easy to use once one has set up and linked the Bibliography. An easier article (me being lazy again!) to drop into could be [[Bury St. Edmunds witch trials]] which if you edit the page shows a short linked word with page number(ref) leading to notes (which show the ref as per normal) to the Bibliography. I hope this is a bit clearer. Thanks. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] – [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']] 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The GA criteria does not require anything of the reference system other than a use of inline citations in accordance with [[WP:CITE]]. Citations in footnotes and/or shortened footnotes are acceptable according to that policy.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do like the linking capability you show, Edmund, although it seem to would require rewriting each citation and footnote. In any case, the present reference style, termed [[WP:SHORT|shortened notes]], is a standard and acceptable Wikipedia style and is the ''de facto'' standard for [[WP:MESO|Mesoamerican]] articles. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It doesn't take that much work. And yes GA standards are a bit low. If you want this to ever be an FA, then fixed the references. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If we ever do decide to take the article to FA then we will of course make sure the article suits those criteria. What Madman and I have been objecting to for awhile is that the article entered to be reviewed as a GA and that it has been judged all along by a whole bunch of other criteria than the GA ones.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

==Recent edit==
This edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olmec&curid=77260&diff=243127750&oldid=243107533] by [[User:orangemarlin]] I think is problematic. I think the insistence on a more academic language here obscures the point, namely that we don't know whether the Olmecs was one coherent ethnically monolithic culture or a conglomerate of ethnic groups that shared a basic material culture. I put it here in stead of reverting because my opinion may not be shared by others. Maybe we can reach a better wording together?[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I agree completely. I think it obscures the message. This is not to say that the earlier language was perfect, only better. I will revert. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I concur, although its still awkward. Maybe I'll take a crack at it later. That one sentence gets to the heart of What is Olmec, what are we documenting here? [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::You guys might tolerate poor writing, but I don't. Academic language? WTF? Don't revert again. Discuss it. [[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, lets discuss. What was there was awkward and did need to be rewritten. What you replaced it with is equally flawed as far as I'm concerned. I don't think either belongs in the article for the following reasons:

:::* both are weak ways to end the article lead.
:::* both are contradicted, in whole or part, by the article content itself, where archaeologists are clearly shown to speculate about the ethnicity, political organization, and language of the Olmec, however ill-founded one may believe the arguments.

:::So I would propose that neither text be incorporated into the article, and that the lead section terminate with the last section of the preceding paragraph. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::That's fine, Russ. I don't think that the paragraph is necessarily contradicted by the article, since the paragraph uses the qualifier "with certainty", and I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty. In any case, I've removed it. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::So, you guys think that you are smarter than me? More knowledgeable? What is it? I disagree, so YOUR decision is to just delete it? Oh well, probably not the worst thing done here.[[User:Orangemarlin|'''Orange''''''Marlin''']] [[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]] 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::OrangeMarlin, you should focus on the article instead of personalities. A decision to remove your prose is not an attack on your knowledge or personality, tempting as that might be. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Actually I think it is an important point that so much of what is believed about the Olmec rests on guesswork (qualified guesswork of course but still...). Especially because the layreader would tend to believe that being Olmec is a sort of ancient nationality with an Olmec empire, language and cuisine etc. if we don't specifically state that we have no idea to what degree the "archaeological Olmecs" formed a coherent culture. I think probably Rsheptak would be the right one to phrase it better. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·ƛ·]] 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::This was my concern above -- that "I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty." Before something similar was written for the [[Mesoamerican ballgame]] lead, visitors to the article would post "what are the rules?" questions on the Talk page. Russ, what do you say? [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 11:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::As humans we're fond of just-so stories, and archaeology is all about story telling with things. I think putting it there makes the lead weak, but could see including it elsewhere in the article and would take suggestions for another place it might fit. I can try to add something by thursday. [[User:Rsheptak|Rsheptak]] ([[User talk:Rsheptak|talk]]) 23:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Great Zimbabwe

2008-09-01T20:24:01Z

Peelinglayers: /* Adding politicisation of the site */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Redirect|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Zimbabwe|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|class=B|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{ArchaeologyWikiProject|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{AfricaProject|class=B|nested=yes}}
}}
----
T'would be neat to have an image of Great Zimbabwe...

Contrasting Point of View from an anon contributor:

* ''Ancient Zimbabwean Civilization'' [[http://members.fortunecity.com/dlmcn/anczimb.html]]

== Point of correction ==
Contribution moved here for discussion and source identification. It does sound like article may need to be corrected. [[User:WBardwin|WBardwin]] 05:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
: [Point of correction it is the Ndebele who moved into the country in the 1800 the shona people lived there since the bantu migration.]

== copyright questions regarding last edit ==

The last edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Zimbabwe&diff=22940529&oldid=21414136] seems to come from here[http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Africa/GreatZimbabwe.CP.html] At the bottom of which says "Text copyright 1996-1999 by David W. Koeller. All rights reserved." I'm reverting this until the copyright questions are all sorted out. [[User:Mr. Know-It-All|Mr. Know-It-All]] 23:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

== Bantu ==

I've removed the reference to Bantu, since the use of this unqualified term has uncomfortable resonances for many southern Africans. Also removed the POV reference to Lemba construction, since this is by no means proved, and reference to the Lemba people being a group of the Shona - some Lemba people would probably dispute this. [[User:Humansdorpie|Humansdorpie]] 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Doesn't this lead to a loss of info? I'm completely ignorant about the Lemba people, but could there be some work-around like "possibly the Lemba people", especially with the change to "Shona-speaking", rather than "Shona peoples"?Also there's a definite loss of the ref to other stone cities in southern Africa (us ignorant northerners have usually only heard of Great Zim), so I'll restore that unless you deleted it for a reason? Cheers, [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
:PS Are there ''any'' archaelogists who believe Great Zim was not built by black people? Because the current phrasing introduces some ambiguity re that. Fix? [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
::Very sensible points - thank you. I've reinstated the Lemba info but qualified it. In the following paragraph there is a reference to Caton Thompson conclusively proving that Gt Zim was built by black people, which is accepted today; there is still some debate around '''who''' actually built it and lived there. [[User:Humansdorpie|Humansdorpie]] 10:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
::: :-) [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] 10:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

::Bantu is a valid, scientific term, it is not offensive. I think it is perfectly acceptable to refer to "a Bantu people" or "Bantu languages" etc. The only circumstance in which I think it is inapropriate is when refering to individuals. One would not say "so and so is a Bantu". [[User:Booshank|Booshank]] 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::If people are offended by it, then it's offensive - even when no offence was intended. "Bantu" is a real problem, as it has a neutral linguistic meaning and ethnic meaning within the construct of race, but it's use in South Africa was highly offensive (including some of its supposedly "scientific" uses). So while I agree with East Africans like [[User:Ezeu]], who self-identifies as bantu, in not bowing to the New South African habit of avoiding the word, I also think we should always be aware that for some readers the word can be deeply offensive. Sensitive writing required, to ensure no one is avoidably hurt!
:::My personal belief, by the way, is that eventually the term will be reclaimed in South Africa and lose its offensiveness, but that time is not yet. [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] | [[User talk:JackyR|Talk]] 13:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the Lemba people, might suggest you asking a qualified source that could give you the information. ([[User:NitaReads|NitaReads]] 02:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

== Adding politicisation of the site ==

I've mucked around with the phrasing and organisation to introduce material about the political use of the site. (And to attempt to make it feel less "through the eyes of Europeans", despite the new material...) Several Qs:
* Would new subhead be better as: "Political significance", "Politicisation of the monument", or other?
* The new info does take over the article a bit. It is a major issue wrt Great Zim, but perhaps it would be better in its own article? (But my preference would be to leave it in and expand the whole article if we can.)
Hope I haven't thrown the article too badly out of kilter... [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] 02:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::You should either remove the subpage 'Political implications' or title it aptly 'Racial implications'. Either way, I don't think it adds to the article other than introduce a very common theme of racial bias among European and North American classical historians who have for centuries ''scientifically'' attempted to erase the existence of African civilizations, or at least deny the credit of such civilizations to Africans. The entire continent of Africa is sprinkled with evidence of teaming source of knowledge of all sorts. Thanks to very Eurocentric and rabidly racist classical historians of the 17-20th century Europe, the continent was known primarily as a place teaming with all sorts of exotic life, among them the human animals. The great thing is, we're all becoming conscious of these lies, all of us Africans, Europeans, Asians, Aborigines of all sort.

== Damage to the Great Zimbabwe by exploration ==

My sources are largely from study done in Zimbabwean history and oral tradition. However for a source that can be referenced I have 2 web pages.

http://www.manuampim.com/ZIMBABWE.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/zimbabwe.html

:Aha. And looks like these two websites draw on Garlake's book, so maybe that's another one to try. At some point, I shall try to integrate this more fully into the §s lower down about the "archaelogists" in question. Hope that's OK by you (prob won't happen soon - so much Wiki, so little time...) - and of course you may get there first :-) Thanks again for these links. [[User:JackyR|JackyR]]

== Uncertain reverts ==

I've reverted some anon edits which were probably good faith but lost lots of info and left half-sentences. I'd guess these were supposed to make the article less Eurocentric, which is good, but because they were so poorly done I can't easily make out what the edits should have been, so just reverted. Apologies to that editor: please do have another go - a bit more carefully!

I also cut the following, as it clearly isn't about Great Zim - and I don't know enough to put Stone Zim in context (what is it?where is it?). Again, please do reinstate, with more explanation! Thanks for your patience, [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] 23:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:Another one is Stone Zimbabwe. There is many different stone houses, temples, cemetaries, and stores. It is still active and more stone buildings are being bulit everyday.

== Further reading ==

New formatting is good, but. I'm not happy about Garlake's book being placed under "References". Very precisely, this book has ''not'' been used to write the article – but should be. It is referenced in several of the other sources, and seems to be one of the better publications on the site. To place it under refs is actually misleading, as it may well contradict some of the material in the page. (One day I may even get hold of a copy and revise the article.) So unless I hear otherwise, I shall place it back under "Further reading". [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] | [[User talk:JackyR|Talk]] 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:It was me who tried to reorganize things a bit. I always thought that the references section should hold books that are authorative on the subject. Preferably, those sources should be used to write the article, but I (possibly mistakenly) do not consider that a prerequisite. It seemed cleaner to have a references section with two books instead of having one book in the further reading and another in the references. But reading your post I understand your point too. So feel free to move things back. [[User:Janderk|Janderk]] 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::Oh absolutely, it'll look hideous to have two sections. But alas I think the above concern over-rides. Nice work on the knocking the formatting into shape, tho: I've come across your good work before. Cheers, [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] | [[User talk:JackyR|Talk]] 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== Qs about recent edit ==

Lovely new source, but I have a couple of Qs about the new edits.
#200 miles isn't an area, it's a distance. What did you really mean?
#I wonder if we're becoming muddled between Great Zimbabwe the ''city'' and Great Zimbabwe the ''state'' it controlled. The "ruins" are of the city. Also there are other stone cities in the region from different states.
#The new date of 11th century only refers to certain works in the city. There was continuous occupation and work on the site from 400 AD. (This is kinda important when you get nutters saying the city was built by Portuguese slave traders.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Zimbabwe&diff=next&oldid=52322521]
Try to fix? Cheers, [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] | [[User talk:JackyR|Talk]] 15:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I meant 200 square miles, and it refers to the rough area that remenants of stone structures have been found, the area of influence of the state was much larger (probably about the). The date 11th to 15th centuary refers to the time frame in which the great zimbabwe civilization and culture flourished, and stone structures were built. It is estimated that migrant Bantu speaking farmers have occupied the area starting from 5th century AD. This is similar to saying that the [[edo period]] in Japan lasted from 1603 - 1867 though the ethnic [[Yamato]] have occupied Japan since the [[Jomon]] era.

OK, I'm not really here – wikibreak due to real world stuff - so will have to discuss more when I get back. There are actually stone cities over a much larger area than 200 square miles, so we need to make clear this refers only to this site. And I'm not sure there was a hard line between people occupying the site and huge impressive structures appearing. If we're talking about dates of particular landmark structures, could we make that clear?

Sorry to be so fussy, but unlike the [[Edo period]], which has a written internal history and is probably studied much more by the Japanese than by outsiders, Great Zim has no internal written documents and its history had been appropriated by outsiders and is still on occasion wilfully misrepresented. So the article needs to be written very carefully. [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] | [[User talk:JackyR|Talk]] 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

== Correction using period source ==

In researching this subject, I uncovered that Mauch found the site in the 1700's, predating the claim that it was discovered by Adam Renders in 1868. Gave citation for the edit. Also, the mentioned article, the author clarifies exactly what Mauch thought The Great Zimbabwe was. I updated this in the paragraph following. [[User:Stealthound|Stealthound]] 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:I realized that the source was actually wrong in the date after crossreferencing and corrected accordingly- also added source for Randall-MacIver.[[User:Stealthound|Stealthound]] 06:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== Origin and Meaning of "Zimbabwe" ==

I have added a linguistic analysis of the word "Zimbabwe". I am a Shona speaker. The word has a linguistic origin. Its meaning is easily derivable from a linguistic analysis as is the case with most Shona names, e.g., "Togarepi" is a person's name derived from "togara kupi" meaning "where shall we live?", a rhetorical question. Thus "Zimbabwe" is a direct and unambiguous contraction of the two words: "zimba" (huge house/building) and "bwe" (stone/rock boulder). A house or building is "imba", without physical size connotation. To mean "a very huge house/building", use "zi" to have "zi imba" contracted to "zimba", which a a physical size connotation. In a sentence, you must put "of" between the two words to have "zimba rebwe" (huge house/building of stone boulder. "re" means "of" in the strict context of stone and other special cases. To make them many stones or rocks required to build a house, you use the plural form of "bwe", which is "mabwe" (stones or rocks). "ma" indicates plural in the case of stone/rock. So we can say "zimba remabwe" (huge house/building of stone boulders). Hence "Zimbabwe" simply means "ziimba remabwe" meaning "a very huge house/building built from stone boulders". Pure and simple. Kudakwashe (my name which means: "Kuda" (the will) "kwa" (of the) "She" (Lord!" = "the will of the Lord" ).

I find it rather strange that a whole COUNTRY can be named after ONE stone building! If there was such a great "Shona Empire" then why would a single stone structure in the middle of otherwise wild grassland be such a talking point to everyone for hundreds of miles around?! Could it be that it was built by people from somewhere else for whom stone buildings were/are commonplace? Could it be that the Arabic/Islamic artifacts found near the site(and dated to the height of the slave trade) have some significance? Could "Great Zimbabwe"'s abandonment and the invasion and conquest of the Arabian Peninsula by the Ottoman Empire occuring at the same time be more than just coincidence? Nah, couldn't be that, could it? Blacks are the master race who built Egypt, Greece, the Great Wall of China, and the only truly indigenous people in the whole world, while the inferior White, Hamito-Semitic, East Asian, Indian, Native American, Inuit, and Turko-Mongol races are debased sond of the Devil.........1 March 2007

There is nothing strange about naming a country in any way at all. Besides its not ONE stone building as you seem to think. You will be unreasonable to doubt the existence of the Munhumutapa Empire, a "Shona Empire". Clear evidence is that the Shona constitute 80% of Zimbabwe's population and are found to be majorities in the massive province of Manica as well as other provinces in Mozambique. The Shona are also known to inhabit areas in Zambia and Botswana. Such an extensive occupation of a large part of southern africa by one linguistic group could not be explained and could not have happened without the existence of a once huge and powerful Shona empire. The English occupy a large part of the world today mainly because there was a powerful British Empire to make that possible, ditto for the Shona people in Southern Africa. I draw your attention to the origin of the name America and Colombia, which are based on names of "ONE" individual person each, whose natural lifespan is certainly less than that of a building. Isn't that strange? Rhodesia was based on the name of Cecil John Rhodes, ONE person, isn't that even stranger? If Arabs or some other white race built or even existed at Great Zimbabwe city during its hey-days, how do you explain their disappearance without a single trace, even genetic trace, except a few pieces of plates (China-ware)? Even bones of their dead mysteriously disappeared? Is that the strangest occurence ever to take place in our galaxy? You have no choice but to bow down to reason and accept that the black people, the Shona people, built Great Zimbabwe and conducted trade to acquire the China-ware and other artifacts. However, you are free to engage in imaginary fiction of whites inhabiting Great Zimbabwe but this has no place in serious historical analysis based on evidence on the hard ground at Great Zimbabwe. - SHIKU, mwana wevhu, 15 Mar 2007.

Erm, just because a large number of one group of people inhabit an area doesn't prove anything...."black people" constitute the majority population of the Caribbean, does that mean there was a thriving "black Craibbean" empire, or that they built the Maya nnd Aztec buildings/artifacts? A simple fact of life is that people migrate and settle in new areas. What was once the Indo-European Tocharian state is now simply part of China, what was once a key part of Ancient Greece is now part of Bulgaria? Does that mean that the Bulgars built the Hellenic monuments? In the same way the Shona only migrated into "Zimbabwe" long AFTER the buildings, trading centre had been abandoned by their true builders. The true "imaginary fiction" is of "indigenous Southern African blacks". The only indigenous people at that time were the Khoisan, who the "mighty Shona" massacred in waves of racial genocide, just like Mugabe is doing to other non-Shona groups in Zimbabwe today. Also, if the Shona were so great, why is Zimbabwe such a toiletbowl today?......29 march 2007

Your analysis sounds sensible. However, the facts on the ground at Great Zimbabwe render your general line of reasoning to be inapplicable here. There is no evidence of the Khoisan or the true African indigenous black people. These people are well-known for their art, which was always painted on rocks. Such art does not exist on ALL the rocks and stone boulders at Great Zimbabwe. Isn't that a mystry for a people who have loved art for centuries? Furthermore, excavations at great Zimbabwe demonstrates evidence of a people with a definite culture, religion and economic activities including agriculture, iron and gold mining. Only the Shona people are known to have had and to have matched the socio-economic and political culture at Great Zimbabwe. The Khoisan or so called indigenous black people are known to have led a normadic life of hunting with no tendency to build settlements. Please, note that the current crisis in Zimbabwe is not a Shona vs other racial groups crisis. Also be informed that Mugabe is not targetting other racial groups and excluding Shonas - if at all he is targetting anybody in particular (I would say that he is targetting everybody). Be informed also that Zimbabwe is currently not in any form of racial or tribal disharmony. What we have on the ground right now in Zimbabwe has more to do with issues of governance, rule of law and economic decay, which all have nothing to do with race or tribe. Even the Matebeleland Massacre was more of a creation of politicians than a result of tribal disharmony within the population - it was in fact a manifestations of the animosities between Mugabe and Nkomo more than between Ndebeles and Shonas - the mischief was that these politicians irresponsibly projected this as tribal conflict and attempted to incite tribal hatred which was alien to the ordinary Zimbabwean in the street. There is no genocide in Zimbabwe today and more people have died in Kenya in one month after the 2008 elections than those who died in Zimbabwe in the last ten years. --[[User:Chengwe|Chengwe]] ([[User talk:Chengwe|talk]]) 01:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, "America" is named after Amerigo Vespucci, who is NOT indigenous to the land in question. Using "Rhodesia" as an example just proves you evern further wrong. The British took over other people's land and renamed with one of their words. The same for the Shona. All the name "Zimbabwe" proves is that the Shona are the majority population and control the land NOW. 300 years ago there were no Shona in Zimbabwe. The Native Americans built civilisations in the USA, but today the name "America", the language, control of the land, and the majority population of the USA are "white". In the case of Zimbabwe the Shona didn't even have to cross an ocean, merely to migrate southwards along with all the other tribes. They settled in Zimbabwe, they killed the indigenous Khoisan, and they now control the land. How does that "prove" the existence of a once-great Shona Empire, that there are NO records of in any book, note etc prior to the wave of politically correct late 20th century hysteria?......29 March 2007

== graveyards at Zimbabwe ==

Has anyone discovered ancient graves en masse at Zimbabwe? Surely this would help clarify the origin of the builders and the age of the edifice? El Bab

Of course, graveyards or skeletons were certainly discovered at and around Great Zimbabwe. They were those of black people and discoveries of artefacts in the graves showed beyond doubt that there was no evidence of foreigners or non-Africans. If these graves held proofs of non-African or European or Asian or Islamic origin, the evidence would have been WIDELY PUBLICISED and it would have been common knowledge. This is a case of deliberately hiding the truth about the African origins of Great Zimbabwe. The architecture itself bears witness to African origins and beliefs with nothing to suggest non-African origins. I was at Great Zimbabwe in December 2006 - there is absolutely nothing like is elsewhere. The world or non-Africans should just swallow their supremacist pride and just accept this ancient city's African origin. There is just no choice at all. - Lawford

The exact reverse is true..just as in [[Kennewick Man]] and the numerous Middle-Eastern looking ancient Egyptian and Moorish artifacts/skeletons etc the PC brigade are attemtping to hide true history to risk being seen as "racist" or "white supremacist". If even ONE so-called "African" (by which I assume you mean Black Negroid?) artifact had been found at "Great Zimbabwe" it would have been paraded around the news and "right-on" media ad nauseam. The fact is that "great Zimbabwe", just like Ancient Egypt, Carthage, Mali, and the Moorish Empire were built by Middle Eastern Caucasoids........13 April 2007

Uh yeah, they actually DID find african artifacts, woops. Could you tell me why this arabic colony covered pretty much all of Zimbabwe, likewise still having close cultural connections with the local peoples? I mean MY GOD, why is it so hard to accept that this was an african construction? It came about via contact with the arabs and the like, sure, but PLEASE give me some solid evidence that this was an "arab" colony.

....And now you're saying Mali was an arabic construction. ROFL. Yes. Please explain to me why berbers- primarily tuaregs, who are heavily mixed- comprise only 11% of mali's modern day population. No, wait, just show me PROOF that Mali was predominantly arab. It's insane.

You people are disgusting. Yes, it's just PC propaganda to suggest ANY sort of african achievement, yet it's pure reality to say everything they've done lays at the hands of some god-like arabs who just sailed and marched around africa, propping up civilizations etc. wherever they went. You're scum.

....Let me just sum up the story with Great Zimbabwe now.

I'm not exactly sure how foodcrops were introduced there to support such a population, but now it's near-universally agreed that the Lemba were the real builders, perhaps with involvement from the Shona. Oh, but the lemba have semetic admixture! Many have gone on to interpret the 25-27% levels on their Y chromosome as "proof" of them being mixed, but you have to remember that the y chromosome's DNA makes up only half of a person's total makeup- so, that knocks down the average admixture to 6.5-7%. Woops. And the intrusion of these jewish immigrants came over 2,000 years ago- long before GZ even arose. And there were still people who pushed off this insane idea that GZ was still largely a construct of arabs from the coast, using the local africans as "slave labor", but now we haven't the slightest evidence of this. Not to mention that Sofala, the arab trading post, was very small to begin with, showed no architectural similarities to GZ, and, much like the precursors to the Swahili states, saw local africans move in and settle, mix with the arabs, and gradually usurp them.

Middle Eastern Caucasoids, I think not. Though do tell me how Mali was an arab construct. That's just too funny.

BTW, have you ever actually seen a sideview of Kennewick Man? From the front he looks european, but look at any other view and he just looks bizzare.

== Comment on recent changes ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Zimbabwe&diff=113224045&oldid=113223130 This anon edit] on 7 March removed some material about racist interpretations (which lacked refs); and also changed the sentence
:''Nowadays archaeologists agree that the builders were probably one of the [[Shona]]-speaking people''
to
:''Archaeologists generally agree that the builders were probably the [[Lemba]]''
without offering any support for this strong, very definite statement. In fact, the edit also adds [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html a link] to a site where discussing the Lemba's ancestry, which doesn't support "archeologists agree the Lemba built it" but [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/zimbabwe.html does] support the material about racist interpretations and other tribes claiming the ruins!

On [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Zimbabwe&diff=120314394&oldid=120191969 4 April] I reinstated the original meaning of the passage regarding the Lemba. The same anon reverted my change, describing it as "POV pushing". Given the above, the POV-pushing seems entirely the other way.

Ezeu [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Zimbabwe&diff=120410811&oldid=120404430 has reverted] the anon edit. If anyone disagrees, perhaps they can supply refs and and make their statements in accordance with those refs. Cheers, [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] | [[User talk:JackyR|Talk]] 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

:The anon is certainly trying to push POV. There is little basis for the claims he is trying to make. --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 07:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, the anon reverter appears to be [[User:Ernham]], from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism&diff=next&oldid=98336682 this] edit. He is currently indefinitely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&oldid=121942149#Ban_or_block_of_Ernham banned] from editing due to aggression, POV-pushing and revert wars; he seems to have a particular thing about anti-semitism and German "superiority". So I don't think any of his edits can be considered to be in good faith. [[User:JackyR|JackyR]] | [[User talk:JackyR|Talk]] 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== Gayre's work ==

Come on now... Are we really going to cite the work of [[Robert Gayre]], a well-known member of the [[Racial Preservation Society]] as an expert on this subject? His political motives are so obvious that he can hardly be considered a neutral observer on this issue. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:Gayre's work is an authoritarive classic in this topic. Besides, the other early 20th century people cited were racists too like most people of their generation. Arguments related to the political motives of scientists are irrelevant. For the record, I tried to argue that the political biases of (self-defined) Communists like Noel Ignatiev are too biased in the article about [[white people]] although I wasn't succesful.
:However, unlike the Ignatiev's theories Gayre's theory that the ancestors of [[Lemba]] people built the site is reputable and mainstream.
:See these books:
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Vanished-City-Tudor-Parfitt/dp/0375724540
:Tudor writes: "Among the Lemba, as I was soon to discover, these ideas are axiomatic: once, long ago, there had been a golden age when they had been white, free, rich and long-nosed"
Also: http://www.amazon.com/DNA-Tradition-Genetic-Ancient-Hebrews/dp/1930143893/ref=pd_sim_b_2_img/103-3916711-5488648
http://www.amazon.com/Lemba-Tribe-Israel-Southern-Africa/dp/1868882837/ref=sr_1_3/103-3916711-5488648?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189139785&sr=1-3
:[[User:MoritzB|MoritzB]] 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is widely established that the Shona ancestors are responsible for the great enclosure, but even if the Lemba were responsible even in part, they definitely were never white, that is Eurocentric fringe nonsense that has been discarded years ago.. One modal haplotype says nothing bout their overwhelming relationship with other Bantu Africans. They even speak Bantu (and always have) so any crap about an external origin is original research fringe nonsense, as I just stated. Your obvious racism from the edits you make is disgusting.[[User:Taharqa|Taharqa]] 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:Mainstream geneticists generally agree that the Lemba are of Jewish origin. Otherwise the presence of the Cohanim modal haplotype in the Lemba population cannot be explained.
:http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/302749&erFrom=-7936180669352239357Guest
:"A previous study using Y-chromosome markers suggested both a Bantu and a Semitic contribution to the Lemba gene pool, a suggestion that is not inconsistent with Lemba oral tradition. To provide a more detailed picture of the Lemba paternal genetic heritage, we analyzed 399 Y chromosomes for six microsatellites and six biallelic markers in six populations (Lemba, Bantu, Yemeni-Hadramaut, Yemeni-Sena, Sephardic Jews, and Ashkenazic Jews). The high resolution afforded by the markers shows that Lemba Y chromosomes are clearly divided into Semitic and Bantu clades. Interestingly, one of the Lemba clans carries, at a very high frequency, a particular Y-chromosome type termed the "Cohen modal haplotype," which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin."
:Intermarriage explains their relationship to other black Africans.[[User:MoritzB|MoritzB]] 06:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::Which of course has no relevance whatsoever. The diff you added was to the effect that the Batu had nothing to do with the constructions. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 06:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::No, the Bantu were the laborers who built the constructions according to Gayre.[[User:MoritzB|MoritzB]] 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Ok. How does the quote you provide above relate in any way shape or form to that hypothesis? [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::The Semitic ancestors of the Lemba were leading the construction.[[User:MoritzB|MoritzB]] 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Pascal says, it doesn't matter since the dominant view by the vast majority of archaeologists is that the Shona people are responsible. Any argument by way of the Lemba's origins based on one haplotype (even they they are clearly overwhelmingly African) is irrelevant. Intermarriage from trade with Jews is actually the better explanation and one most used to describe the Lemba situation. The "black Falasha Jews"" of Ethiopia have high frequencies of the same lineages, yet they are Africans. The Lemba claim to have settled in Ethiopia. Who knows; it's all speculation but the dominant view is that the Shona built the great enclosure and that the Lemba didn't, and that the Lemba are and always have been Africans, which is why they speak Bantu and not Afro-Asiatic. MoritzB, your pov-pushing fringe nonsense is overtly apparent, cut it out before you get in trouble.[[User:Taharqa|Taharqa]] 06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:There is undeniable genetic proof of an ancient migration which makes the hypothesis that immigrants built the constructions much more likely. Middle Eastern religions and technology spread to Zimbabwe with those immigrants. [[User:MoritzB|MoritzB]] 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your speculation is never welcome. The genetic testing shows that their Y-Chromosome markers are overwhelmingly Bantu, at around 80%.. Only 20 percent is consistent with with the said admixture. Notwithstanding the the maternal markers show no such thing, suffice to say the the Lemba are entirely less "Jewish" than even the Falasha in Ethiopia. At only 10%.. You can get that from trade.

In any event, it doesn't matter since the predominant, text book view is that Great Zimbabwe was a creation of the iron age societies among the indigenous Shona. There is no evidence whatsoever of a Lemba presence and most definitely not a Jewish one; that's laughably absurd. In summation, the Lemba have always been Bantu and spoke Bantu and there is nothing to suggest otherwise, and they had nothing to do with the great Enclosure at zimbawbwe anyhow since pottery, crafts, artifacts, etc discovered by archaeologists at the site have all identified as belonging to the Shona. This is the data we have on great zimbawbwe and no amount of Eurocentric distortion can obscure the facts, but thanx for sharing your theories with us anyways. Pretty entertaining. :)[[User:Taharqa|Taharqa]] 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

==History lesson from metmuseum==

Stone Ruins

The ruins of this complex of massive stone walls undulate across almost 1,800 acres of present-day southeastern Zimbabwe. Begun during the eleventh century A.D. '''by Bantu-speaking ancestors of the Shona''', Great Zimbabwe was constructed and expanded for more than 300 years in a local style that eschewed rectilinearity for flowing curves. Neither the first nor the last of some 300 similar complexes located on the Zimbabwean plateau, Great Zimbabwe is set apart by the terrific scale of its structure. Its most formidable edifice, commonly referred to as the Great Enclosure, has walls as high as 36 feet extending approximately 820 feet, making it the largest ancient structure south of the Sahara Desert. In the 1800s, European travelers and English colonizers, stunned by Great Zimbabwe's its grandeur and cunning workmanship, attributed the architecture to foreign powers. Such attributions were dismissed when archaeological investigations conducted during the first decades of the twentieth century confirmed both the antiquity of the site and its African origins.

Great Zimbabwe's most enduring and impressive remains are its stone walls. These walls were constructed from granite blocks gathered from the exposed rock of the surrounding hills. Since this rock naturally splits into even slabs and can be broken into portable sizes, it provided a convenient and readily available building resource. All of Great Zimbabwe's walls were fitted without the use of mortar by laying stones one on top of the other, each layer slightly more recessed than the last to produce a stabilizing inward slope. Early examples were coarsely fitted using rough blocks and incorporated features of the landscape such as boulders into the walls. Over the years the technique was refined, and later walls were fitted together closely and evenly over long, serpentine courses to produce remarkably finished surfaces.

Great Zimbabwe's Inhabitants

Little is known about the Bantu-speaking people who built Great Zimbabwe or how their society was organized. The ruling elite appears to have controlled wealth through the management of cattle, which were the staple diet at Great Zimbabwe. At its height, Great Zimbabwe is estimated to have had a population greater than 10,000, although the majority lived at some distance from the large stone buildings. Only 200 to 300 members of the elite classes are thought to have lived within Great Zimbabwe's massive edifices.

The enormous walls are the best-preserved testaments of Great Zimbabwe's past and the largest example of an architectural type seen in archaeological sites throughout the region. The function of these stone walls, however, has often been misinterpreted. At first glance, these massive nonsupportive walls appear purely defensive. But scholars doubt they ever served a martial purpose and have argued instead that cattle and people were valued above land, which was in any event too abundant to be hoarded. The walls are thought to have been a symbolic show of authority, designed to preserve the privacy of royal families and set them apart from and above commoners. It is also important to note that the walls surrounded and later adjoined huts made of daga (mud and thatch), linked with them to form a series of courtyards. Daga was also used to form raised seats in particularly significant courtyards, and was painted to enrich its artistic effect. Since Great Zimbabwe's daga elements have long since eroded, the remaining stone walls provide only partial evidence of the architecture's original appearance.

Soapstone Birds

In addition to architecture, Great Zimbabwe's most famous works of art are the eight birds carved of soapstone that were found in its ruins. The birds surmount columns more than a yard tall and are themselves on average sixteen inches tall. The sculptures combine both human and avian elements, substituting human features like lips for a beak and five-toed feet for claws. Excavated at the turn of the century, it is known that six of the sculptures came from the Eastern Enclosure of the Hill complex, but unfortunately their precise arrangement can only be surmised. Scholars have suggested that the birds served as emblems of royal authority, perhaps representing the ancestors of Great Zimbabwe's rulers. Although their precise significance is still unknown, these sculptures remain powerful symbols of rule in the modern era, adorning the flag of Zimbabwe as national emblems.http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/zimb/hd_zimb.htm[[User:Taharqa|Taharqa]] 06:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

== How is this article factual and impartial? ==

It states matter-of-factly that this was the centre of a great "Empire of Zimbabwe". But no such documentation exits that makes any reference to such a "Great Empire". While it is admirable that people are trying to fight racial prejudice, the facts all very clearly point to "Great Zimbabwe" being an Arab-built slave-trading post. If people wish to celebrate a building that enslaved and dehumanised their ancestors... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.158.152.207|137.158.152.207]] ([[User talk:137.158.152.207|talk]]) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 

Prove it. Let's see your "facts"/counter-evidence. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.52.49.118|96.52.49.118]] ([[User talk:96.52.49.118|talk]]) 04:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Cush (Bible)

2008-08-08T06:26:53Z

Peelinglayers: /* Meaning of 'Cush' */

{{WikiProject Bible}}

There is no second wife of Moses in the Bible. All references to moses' wife is singluar. It is very clear that Tzipporah is the Kushite wife. Any arguement otherwise is illogical. Let me guess, it's hard to believe that Tzipporah was Black?
If not, then pretend Kushite means "white" and re-read the passage. Surely then there is no "question".
Please don't put any more of the anti-black theory into this article.

==Mozes divorced Zipphorah==

The way I read it, Moses sent his wife back to her own family. My Bible (NRSV) reads:

"After Moses had sent away his wife Zipphorah, his father-in-law took her back, along with her two sons." (Exodus 18:2-3)

Then one doesn't hear much about wives for a long time, until Numbers 12:

"While they were at Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had indeed married a Cushite woman); ..." (Numbers 12:1)

But, to be perfectly honest: to me it really doesn't matter whether it is his first wife or second. I read it as a clear sign that there is no difference between the races, and those who judge by the colour of the skin are themselves to be outcast. It is similar to the hadith wherein Muhammad marries a wealthy Meccan girl to a freed black slave. If I remember correctly (anyone knowing where to find this hadith please tell me!) the family of the girl objects, until the Prophet explains that it is really someone's faith that matters - not colour or wealth.

Jacob (Jaap_vanDiggele@hotmail.com)

==Removed sentence==

:''The fact that the [[Afro-Asiatic]] language family, which includes [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]], has been found to have originated in [[Ethiopia]]'' {{Fact|date=April 2008}}, ''provides substantial support to the Old Testament being likely to refer to the literal Ethiopia and its inhabitants.''

First, I don't know that there's any scholarly consensus on this; second, even if it were true, it would refer to events of 5,000 B.C. or earlier, so I don't see how it's too directly relevant to the Bible. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 02:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

==Meaning of 'Cush'==

Cush has had various meanings, principly that it meant "dark" as if referring to an individual with a dark character or dark deeds. Other meanings have been "burnt," "fiery," "impulsive," "forceful," and "chaos." 'Dark' rather than 'black' would be a better meaning. [[User:WiccaIrish|WiccaIrish]] 04:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

:Would you cite your sources? Unfortunately, this sounds a lot like something taken out of a western dictionary that is quite fond of painting eastern peoples with a very wide brush.

==RE: Meaning of 'Cush'==
'Cush' is a Hebrew word that means 'black'. 'Aithiopia' (Ethiopia) in Greek meant 'burnt skin' or 'burnt faces' and referred to the same territory. During ancient times Cush covered present-day Sudan (just north of Ethiopia), the Horn of Africa, as well as parts of southern Saudi Arabia (Yemen, etc). Also, 'Bilad as-sudan' (Arabic for 'Sudan') meant 'land of the blacks'. Enough said. —The preceding comment is by [[User:{{{User|24.218.201.251}}}|{{{User|24.218.201.251}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|24.218.201.251}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{User|24.218.201.251}}}|contribs]]) {{{Time|23:21, 7 May 2006}}}: ''[[Wikipedia:Signatures|Please sign your posts!]]''

:Not quite. Just because these others words mean "black" doesn't make the meaning for "Cush" as "black." -- [[User:WiccaIrish|WiccaIrish]] 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

==Biblical Cush==

This information is absolutely horrible, I can't even edit all of it because I'm sure it would be consider vandalism. There really should be some type of supervision to make the sure the info. is correct because wikipedia has a reputation for being unreliable.

Cush refers to the Nubian civilization. It has NOTHING to do with the modern language family of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia. All Biblical references to "Cushites" and "Ethiopians" are referring to Nubians of upper Egypt. Modern Ethiopia has historically been called Abyssinia and the Axumite empire wasn't even formed until 500 BCE. 'Ethiopian' is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew 'Cushite', it refers to the Egyptian Nubians with dark skin. It certainly has nothing to do with Middle Eastern people.

I cannot stand misinformation. Please, author, edit this. {{unsigned|anonymous IP}}

::Huh?? You are saying that Ancient Cush has nothing to do with the modern ([[Cushitic]] people or language family??? That sounds kind of like the Aryan theories!! Do you have any reliable basis whatsoever for alleging that Ancient Cush has "nothing to do" with the modern Cushitic people or language family?? (Outside of "Aryanist" literature, that is?) Cushitic people language family has EVERYTHING to do with the Ancient Empire of Cush, the connections are reliably drawn going all the way back, and it is only certain neo-revisionists trying to create an imaginary gulf between the two for their own agenda, but anyone who has looked at the actual ancient records knows better! I suppose now you are going to come up with a new original theory that someone else came along and somehow "convinced" the modern Cushites that that was their name! [[User:Codex Sinaiticus|ፈቃደ]] ([[User talk:Codex Sinaiticus|ውይይት]]) 23:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Nutmeg

2008-08-04T14:17:01Z

Peelinglayers: /* Risks and toxicity */

{{WPB|
{{WikiProject Plants |class=C |importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink |class=C |importance=high |herbs=yes |nested=yes}}
{{WP Indonesia |class=C |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject PDD |class=C |nested=yes}}
}}

{{WPCD}}

== Accuracy dispute ==

There doesn't seem to be a reference to the person who supposedly died from nutmeg, is there information about this somewhere else that is reliable? It seems like an autopsy or coroners report could give the cause of death is this was for real... I'd assume just remove the part about someone dying and just leave the known stuff about nutmeg being a mild hallucinogen. Any problems with that? --[[User:Fxer|Fxer]] 17:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I ate nutmeg as sweets (fresh nutmegs put into liquified sugar) almost everyday through my childhood days, and I don't feel anything of this nonsense mentioned in the article. And it's not just 3 grams that people usually sold at the market, but a huge packs of it. It's not addictive in a bad way, it's addictive like I was eating a cheese cake.
--[[User:ephi|ephi]] 14:16, August 8, 2005 (GMT+7)

:::That's original research, thus not an acceptable cite for the article. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

::::I don't think he's proposing to put it in the article, Wyss. He's just questioning the article's accuracy based on his own experience. As for the story, I find it hard to believe that ephi was eating whole nutmegs. I ate 1.5 nutmegs as a 24-year-old, while sober, and became paranoid, dizzy, and hopped-up for 24 hours, with horribly blood-shot eyes, as a result. In retrospect, even the small amount which is commonly used in carrot cake used to make me giddy as a child. Additionally, I read an account somewhere of an 8-year-old who died after eating 2 nutmegs - probably a very rare occurrence, but not surprising that it would happen to somebody. Nutmeg containers should most definitely carry a warning label. [[User:A5|A5]] 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Whenever I've bought powdered nutmeg in Finland the packaging has warned not to eat uncooked or in large doses (it has never actually said how large a dose is too large however) --[[User:Hellahulla|Hellahulla]] 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A whole nutmeg is about 7 grams. Were you having more than one? You may simply not have had enough, or perhaps you metabolized it faster as a child, or simply built up a resistance. I don't think a single personal experience makes that section of the article nonsense. --[[User:TomaydoDemato|TomaydoDemato]] 02:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:By many accounts, even a single nutmeg will not produce any effects in everyone. Also, some people describe the effects as involving profound hallucinations while others describe only subtle effects. From my informal research, I've found that the most common description is "a combination of flu and a marijuana buzz", which I like to think few people would attribute to nutmeg if they overdosed on it accidentally (i.e. through ingestion of food containing nutmeg). Also note that many drugs affect people differently if taken on an empty stomach, if taken all at once, if freshly ground vs. preground, etc. In summary: people who are trying to get high off of nutmeg are going to a) take measures to get the most profound effect, b) take a lot of it, and c) pay attention to the effects. That said, the majority of the sites I'm referring to are completely unsuitable as references on Wikipedia. But as for it's general psychoactivity, it is fairly well documented. [[User:Mistercow|Mistercow]] 20:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

'''References''': It's easy to find references. [[Google Scholar]] is your friend. Here's some stuff I just found using [[Medline]]/[[Pubmed]].

There is a lot of description of psychoses, hallucinations etc induces by nutmeg. Ref. [1] tells about a 16-year old boy, who developped neurological symptoms and certain ECG changed after eating too much nutmeg. In [2], psychiatrists report a similar case, [4] as well. In [3], ER staff is warned to be aware of the possibility of nutmeg poisoning.

But it seems very rare that somebody dies. In [5], a forensic physicians reports about having found myristicin in a deseased as likely cause of death.

I'm not a medical professional, just a scientist in an unrelated field, hence I feel anuble to judge the articles. But the sheer amount of such articles -- I've found tens with abstracts telling about this with just a superficial search -- shows to me that the facts in the article are fully plausible. I suggest removing the dispute box.

[1] McKenna A, Nordt SP, Ryan J.: Active Nutmeg Poisoning. Eur J Emerg Med. '''11''' (2004) 240

[2] Kelly BD, Gavin BE, Clarke M, Lane A, Larkin C.: Nutmeg and psychosis. Schizophr Res. '''60''' (2003) 95

[3] Demetriades AK, Wallman PD, McGuiness A, Gavalas MC. Low cost, high risk: accidental nutmeg intoxication. Emerg Med J. '''22''' (2005) 223

[4] Sangalli BC, Chiang W.Toxicology of nutmeg abuse. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. '''38''' (2000) 671

[5] U. Stein, H. Greyerb and H. Hentschel: Nutmeg (myristicin) poisoning — report on a fatal case and a series of cases recorded by a poison information centre. Forensic Science International '''118''' (2001) 87

[[User:Sanders muc|Simon A.]] 15:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So I've rm'd the dispute tag. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

::I think the fellow way above who is referring to haven eaten ''nutmeg sweets'' is mistaking the fruit or the [[Pericarp]] of the plant that produces nutmeg with the nutmeg itself. In many countries, the pericarp is cooked in sugar syrup and candied. There's very little risk of toxicity or intoxification eaten this way and technically, that's not even eating nutmeg. [[User:Lisapollison|LiPollis]] ([[User talk:Lisapollison|talk]]) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

== History ==

I think the following quote from Regan is fun and should be included: ``You can't have good eggnog without nutmeg.'' [Laughter] And he said, ``You can't have Christmas without eggnog. So, the Soviets and the Cubans were out to steal Christmas.''[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/42884c.htm]

==Vandalism, or just bad writing?==
So, I noticed while reading through this article that, while the piece gives a clear picture of how nutmeg is used in some types of cooking, when one reaches the bit about European cooking, it simply says "In European cooking, balls." I'm not sure if this is meant to mean that nutmeg is somehow used in a ball form in European cooking and the sentence is badly written, or if this is just vandalism. Just wanted to call some attention to it. [[User:69.205.47.112|69.205.47.112]] 21:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:It was vandalism that was reverted more than six hours before your note was posted. You may wish to [[WP:CACHE|refresh your browser cache]]. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Selling hallucinogens in supermarkets...? ==

It seems like there isn't enough evidence to support the reported cases of nutmeg "poisoning" and "psychosis." I personally find it unlikely that if the substance (i.e. ground nutmeg) was so dangerous (dangerous enough to be lethal) it would be sold in supermarkets. I have a jar of the stuff sitting in my spice drawer. Would it kill me if I threw it back like a shot of medicine? Is there anyone willing enough to take a spoonful in the name of science?
I think research needs to be done on this.

::Plenty of 'dangerous' substances can be found in supermarkets. Like bleach, for example. But you're likely limiting the argument to substances which are originally intended for human consumption -- in which case, there are still plenty of examples. Lots of supermarkets around here sell cigarettes, which are meant for human consumption (via smoking). However, chances are you'd die from nicotine poisoning if you ate five of those cigarettes.

::Methinks you'd be amazed at the nasty things one can do with stuff snatched up at the local hypermarket. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I for one have tried and experienced the drug-like effects of nutmeg, with a combination of alcohol and a small dose of marijuana, 4 teaspoons of freshly ground nutmeg knocked me on my ass for the next 16 or so hours, in which i spent sleeping. The following 3 - 4 days were spent in a state of constant dizziness and paranoia. Definately not an experience i would like to repeat. --Kieran 21:25, 6 September 2005 (GMT+12)

yeah i ate only 1 tbs of nutmeg a few hours after consuming psilocybin and it greatly potentiated the effects. -matt

::Uhm, with all due respect that's original research. Anything edited into the article (along the lines of recreational abuse of supermarket purchases or whatever) must be credibly cited from a reliable secondary source. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 15:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

::::here is one http://www.erowid.org/plants/nutmeg/nutmeg_info3.shtml also on a side note, nutmeg is not very pleasurable -matt

I've tried raw nutmeg as well. I've found that the coarseness has an impact on the effect, i.e when ground in a coffee grinder the same amount has a greater impact than chopped by hand. About 2.5 nutmegs chopped by hand will, after an initial mild headache and/or stomachache, produce effect similar to mild to moderate marijuana intoxication. However, the effect do last for about 36 hours which I found disconcerting. On an unrelated note, the reference to the 5 year old fatality is from 1903. If this was really accurate it shouldn't be hard to find something a little more current. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.21.196.64|72.21.196.64]] ([[User talk:72.21.196.64|talk]]) 04:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 

==[[:Category:Psychosis]]==
* Does anyone see any use in having this article part of the [[:Category:Psychosis]] ? I understand that "nutmeg psychosis" is a valid condition, but "nutmeg" itself looks a bit strange sitting among its psychotic siblings. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
** Doesn't make sense to me either. I'll remove the category tag. --[[User:Xyzzyplugh|Xyzzyplugh]] 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

==Drug effects==
Removed this section as it was based largely on an uncorroborated posting by an individual at this [http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=27421 Erowid] page, without medical verification - see disclaimer at the bottom of that page - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 00:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Err... Sorry, I guess? I myself have browsed through the erowid articles for hours at a time, and have tried nutmeg a few times. Shouldn't we have a section about its drug effects other than just the risks? And no, I didn't have medical verification, my bad. Sorry. Still, I didn't say "this was how it always happens" I just said "many claim this" or "many claim that." Well, uncalled for or not I believe we should have a section, whether it is created by me, a medical professional, or an admin. {{unsigned|KnightValor|02:13, May 12, 2006 (UTC)|nested=yes}}

:*This problem is not that a description on nutmeg's halucinagenic effects are inappropriate but that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] requires that all information be verifiable from [[WP:RS|reputable sources]]. As Erowid accepts anonymous contributions it fails to qualify as a reputable source. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:Ah. I see. Sorry to waste your time...
However, we really do need a section about common drug effects. While I hate to ask others to do work for me, I would like to ask any medical professionals with spare time to properly research and document results.

I think this section is important and should be a part of the main in article. It has been well documented that nutmeg has been used by people as a drug for a very long period of time.

:: GOT IT!!! Nutmeg contains 2 psychoactive chemicals "Nutmeg and mace contain two halluncinogenic substances: Myristicin and Elemicin" according to this site (http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/hallucin.html) and when you do a quick google of it there is a wikipage about those substances being in Nutmeg and that they do in fact have psychoactive properties. So we should have a psychoactive section in this article about Nutmeg containing psychoactive chemicals. [[User:RYNORT|RYNORT]] 07:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Negative Effects==
I would like to ask whoever found and added this to the page to include the weights of the specimens. We all know that giving 7.5g to a toddler would have stronger effects than 7.5g to someone who weighs more than 300 pounds. Or am I wrong about this?

== Deadly? ==

Nutmeg is an important and tasty spice in many sweet foods, and I don't think it has ever given me any strange side effects...

You didn't eat enough. Believe me, I experienced the side effects and they weren't too nice [[User:213.219.152.72|213.219.152.72]] 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Experience of a friend ==

If it helps with the betterment of this article, I'd like to share with you that a close friend of mine consumed 5 tablespoons of nutmeg in a glass of root beer to experience the infamous nutmeg 'trip.' Unfortunately, he was under researched on the event. I supervised him for a good portion of the night till he insisted I go home, and he get some sleep. By morning he was seeing distorted images, and felt dizzy and lightheaded. At work later he went completely numb from head to toe and called someone to take him to the hospital. He spent 8 hours in the ER and had a heart rate of 192, and almost went into cardiac arrest. This happened last night and today. T'was a scary happening, and I don't recommend it. [[User:JayPetey|JayPetey]] 07:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:5 ''tablespoons''?? ...he was lucky. But thank you for the story, if it won't help the article ([[WP:NOR]]), at least it will be informative to those who view the talk page. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

== Propaganda ==

Is it just me or is the whole Risks paragraph about "Author and ecopsychologist Paul Devereux"'s little receipe to lucid dreams nothing less than propaganda. I mean, where's the credibility, the reference, the facts? Who is this guy? I mean, I'm sure I could write a paragraph too about a "Mr Zouinzouinpoukpouk who said that using 0.25mg of nutmeg each half an hour, every other day, except during lunar eclipse, can make your brain grow bigger." Hello !!?? And by the way, what in hell name is an ecopsychologist?!

==Risks and toxicity==

This section of the article clearly states that nutmeg contains no MAO inhibitors. I am concerned about the accuracy of this statement becuase other parts of this article state that myristicin is a compound found in nutmeg and the wikipedia article on myristicin states that the compound is a weak MAO inhibitor. Can someone please check other sources and try to resolve this issue. Thank you very much. [[User:Sequoyah|Sequoyah]] 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:For those who say that if nutmeg could be dangerous it would not be sold in supermarkets, just think in coffe. It is not dangerous in small amounts, but it sure is in larger doses.

::This part of the article is very subjective and unsupported. There is a direct refutation of the toxicity of nutmeg to humans. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2046458 This link]has another study document refuting the toxicity of Nutmeg to humans, and also addressing the increased risk of toxicity of nutmeg to other animals, including household pets. At best, the information the author refers to to support his/her assertion that nutmeg is poisonous to children is anecdotal and unsupported. At worst, it is a scare tactic and has no place in wikipedia. Other than the health benefits mentioned in the article, nutmeg is quite possibly an [http://www.raysahelian.com/nutmeg.html aphrodisiac] and can possibly increase libido in humans.

==30g = 6.322tsp==
I changed the teaspoon measurements in the risks and toxicity section in two ways.

Firstly, since the measurements in grams were all rounded to the nearest 5g and given to a single significant figure, it is farcical to give four significant figures for the converted amount. Not just because it's claiming accuracy that just isn't there, but our metabolisms are not all the same to within four significant figures, and I challenge anyone to measure 6.322 teaspoons with normal kitchen equipment.

Secondly, the abbreviation "tsp" is subject to a variety of interpretations, including sources which use "teasp" and "tsp" for teaspoon and tablespoon respectively. Since this is kind of important (we're talking about toxicity here!) I replaced it with the full word. Though, since the teaspoon is not a global measure (US and EU teaspoons are different), I am unsure that teaspoons should even be mentioned here.

I am really unsure whether the weight should be specified in grams for a liquid anyway - should probably be ml instead of g though since it's not water, there won't be a 1:1 relationship.

Parts changed:
6.322 tsp
1.054-4.215 tsp
5.269 tsp

In all cases the amounts were rounded down, which, when speaking of toxicity, is probably a good thing and will help compensate for the fact that EU teaspoons are slightly bigger (5ml instead of 4.93ml)

[Edit - forgot to sign][[User:DewiMorgan|DewiMorgan]] 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just reverted a rather dangerous edit by 12.108.96.165, who changed "6 teaspoons" to "4 tablespoons". There are three measurements for tablespoons, the UK (14.2ml), US (14.7ml) and metric (15ml). Basically, 1 tablespoon = 3 teaspoons. The edit '''doubled''' the apparent "dangerous" amount from 30ml to 60ml.

There could be a reasonable argument for it being changed to "2 tablespoons", since I suspect that would be more accurate to measure with than scooping out six tablespoons. But then, why would anyone want to measure a potentially dangerous dose anyway? And I suspect it's best to use the same units throughout, for easy comparison. The change I reverted shows clearly that not everyone is au fait with teaspoon<>tablespoon conversion.--[[User:DewiMorgan|DewiMorgan]] 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== book about nutmeg ==

The correct title of the book in the references should be: Nathaniel's Nutmeg: Or the True and Incredible Adventures of the Spice Trader who Changed the Course of History by Giles Milton. [[User:Fischergb|Fischergb]] 03:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

==psychoactive properties==

GOT IT!!! Nutmeg contains 2 psychoactive chemicals "Nutmeg and mace contain two halluncinogenic substances: Myristicin and Elemicin" according to this site (http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/hallucin.html) and when you do a quick google of it there is a wikipage about those substances being in Nutmeg and that they do in fact have psychoactive properties. So we should have a psychoactive section in this article about Nutmeg containing psychoactive chemicals.[[User:RYNORT|RYNORT]] 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Do not post recipes for folk remedies==
I just removed some precise instructions for using nutmeg essential oil to treat toothaches, bad breath, muscle aches and childbirth pains. Wikipedia is not a cookbook nor a medical advice site. While people may in fact use Nutmeg essential oil medicinally, it is best to simply refer to the practice and not get so specific. Nutmeg poisoning is a real possible outcome of posting such instructions. In fact, Nutmeg is a known abortificant. I'm sure no wikipedian would want to be responbsible for a lost pregnancy simply because they chose to post some "helpful" instructions on how to help a mother relax before her impending deilvery. So let's be more careful, OK? I'll be trying to beef up some of the references in this article in the next few weeks. Please help me if you can.04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/98.20.119.233|98.20.119.233]] ([[User talk:98.20.119.233|talk]]) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I ditto on the not posting that it can be used as legal halucinogenic, because I tried it and made me totality sick, I am totaly against the knowledge of this article, save some lives and remove it. Thank-you.

Someone who lived from it:)

== Mace ==

I'd really like to see more information on mace here. Does anyone know anything more about it? [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] ([[User talk:Jade Knight|talk]]) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Sleeping effects ==

Why isn't the article mentioning the very obvious effect of causing long periods of sleep? (when used in higher dosage) [[User:Joe0009|Joe0009]] ([[User talk:Joe0009|talk]]) 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Nutmeg

2008-08-04T14:16:34Z

Peelinglayers: /* Risks and toxicity */

{{WPB|
{{WikiProject Plants |class=C |importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink |class=C |importance=high |herbs=yes |nested=yes}}
{{WP Indonesia |class=C |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject PDD |class=C |nested=yes}}
}}

{{WPCD}}

== Accuracy dispute ==

There doesn't seem to be a reference to the person who supposedly died from nutmeg, is there information about this somewhere else that is reliable? It seems like an autopsy or coroners report could give the cause of death is this was for real... I'd assume just remove the part about someone dying and just leave the known stuff about nutmeg being a mild hallucinogen. Any problems with that? --[[User:Fxer|Fxer]] 17:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I ate nutmeg as sweets (fresh nutmegs put into liquified sugar) almost everyday through my childhood days, and I don't feel anything of this nonsense mentioned in the article. And it's not just 3 grams that people usually sold at the market, but a huge packs of it. It's not addictive in a bad way, it's addictive like I was eating a cheese cake.
--[[User:ephi|ephi]] 14:16, August 8, 2005 (GMT+7)

:::That's original research, thus not an acceptable cite for the article. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

::::I don't think he's proposing to put it in the article, Wyss. He's just questioning the article's accuracy based on his own experience. As for the story, I find it hard to believe that ephi was eating whole nutmegs. I ate 1.5 nutmegs as a 24-year-old, while sober, and became paranoid, dizzy, and hopped-up for 24 hours, with horribly blood-shot eyes, as a result. In retrospect, even the small amount which is commonly used in carrot cake used to make me giddy as a child. Additionally, I read an account somewhere of an 8-year-old who died after eating 2 nutmegs - probably a very rare occurrence, but not surprising that it would happen to somebody. Nutmeg containers should most definitely carry a warning label. [[User:A5|A5]] 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Whenever I've bought powdered nutmeg in Finland the packaging has warned not to eat uncooked or in large doses (it has never actually said how large a dose is too large however) --[[User:Hellahulla|Hellahulla]] 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A whole nutmeg is about 7 grams. Were you having more than one? You may simply not have had enough, or perhaps you metabolized it faster as a child, or simply built up a resistance. I don't think a single personal experience makes that section of the article nonsense. --[[User:TomaydoDemato|TomaydoDemato]] 02:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:By many accounts, even a single nutmeg will not produce any effects in everyone. Also, some people describe the effects as involving profound hallucinations while others describe only subtle effects. From my informal research, I've found that the most common description is "a combination of flu and a marijuana buzz", which I like to think few people would attribute to nutmeg if they overdosed on it accidentally (i.e. through ingestion of food containing nutmeg). Also note that many drugs affect people differently if taken on an empty stomach, if taken all at once, if freshly ground vs. preground, etc. In summary: people who are trying to get high off of nutmeg are going to a) take measures to get the most profound effect, b) take a lot of it, and c) pay attention to the effects. That said, the majority of the sites I'm referring to are completely unsuitable as references on Wikipedia. But as for it's general psychoactivity, it is fairly well documented. [[User:Mistercow|Mistercow]] 20:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

'''References''': It's easy to find references. [[Google Scholar]] is your friend. Here's some stuff I just found using [[Medline]]/[[Pubmed]].

There is a lot of description of psychoses, hallucinations etc induces by nutmeg. Ref. [1] tells about a 16-year old boy, who developped neurological symptoms and certain ECG changed after eating too much nutmeg. In [2], psychiatrists report a similar case, [4] as well. In [3], ER staff is warned to be aware of the possibility of nutmeg poisoning.

But it seems very rare that somebody dies. In [5], a forensic physicians reports about having found myristicin in a deseased as likely cause of death.

I'm not a medical professional, just a scientist in an unrelated field, hence I feel anuble to judge the articles. But the sheer amount of such articles -- I've found tens with abstracts telling about this with just a superficial search -- shows to me that the facts in the article are fully plausible. I suggest removing the dispute box.

[1] McKenna A, Nordt SP, Ryan J.: Active Nutmeg Poisoning. Eur J Emerg Med. '''11''' (2004) 240

[2] Kelly BD, Gavin BE, Clarke M, Lane A, Larkin C.: Nutmeg and psychosis. Schizophr Res. '''60''' (2003) 95

[3] Demetriades AK, Wallman PD, McGuiness A, Gavalas MC. Low cost, high risk: accidental nutmeg intoxication. Emerg Med J. '''22''' (2005) 223

[4] Sangalli BC, Chiang W.Toxicology of nutmeg abuse. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. '''38''' (2000) 671

[5] U. Stein, H. Greyerb and H. Hentschel: Nutmeg (myristicin) poisoning — report on a fatal case and a series of cases recorded by a poison information centre. Forensic Science International '''118''' (2001) 87

[[User:Sanders muc|Simon A.]] 15:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So I've rm'd the dispute tag. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

::I think the fellow way above who is referring to haven eaten ''nutmeg sweets'' is mistaking the fruit or the [[Pericarp]] of the plant that produces nutmeg with the nutmeg itself. In many countries, the pericarp is cooked in sugar syrup and candied. There's very little risk of toxicity or intoxification eaten this way and technically, that's not even eating nutmeg. [[User:Lisapollison|LiPollis]] ([[User talk:Lisapollison|talk]]) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

== History ==

I think the following quote from Regan is fun and should be included: ``You can't have good eggnog without nutmeg.'' [Laughter] And he said, ``You can't have Christmas without eggnog. So, the Soviets and the Cubans were out to steal Christmas.''[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/42884c.htm]

==Vandalism, or just bad writing?==
So, I noticed while reading through this article that, while the piece gives a clear picture of how nutmeg is used in some types of cooking, when one reaches the bit about European cooking, it simply says "In European cooking, balls." I'm not sure if this is meant to mean that nutmeg is somehow used in a ball form in European cooking and the sentence is badly written, or if this is just vandalism. Just wanted to call some attention to it. [[User:69.205.47.112|69.205.47.112]] 21:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:It was vandalism that was reverted more than six hours before your note was posted. You may wish to [[WP:CACHE|refresh your browser cache]]. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Selling hallucinogens in supermarkets...? ==

It seems like there isn't enough evidence to support the reported cases of nutmeg "poisoning" and "psychosis." I personally find it unlikely that if the substance (i.e. ground nutmeg) was so dangerous (dangerous enough to be lethal) it would be sold in supermarkets. I have a jar of the stuff sitting in my spice drawer. Would it kill me if I threw it back like a shot of medicine? Is there anyone willing enough to take a spoonful in the name of science?
I think research needs to be done on this.

::Plenty of 'dangerous' substances can be found in supermarkets. Like bleach, for example. But you're likely limiting the argument to substances which are originally intended for human consumption -- in which case, there are still plenty of examples. Lots of supermarkets around here sell cigarettes, which are meant for human consumption (via smoking). However, chances are you'd die from nicotine poisoning if you ate five of those cigarettes.

::Methinks you'd be amazed at the nasty things one can do with stuff snatched up at the local hypermarket. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I for one have tried and experienced the drug-like effects of nutmeg, with a combination of alcohol and a small dose of marijuana, 4 teaspoons of freshly ground nutmeg knocked me on my ass for the next 16 or so hours, in which i spent sleeping. The following 3 - 4 days were spent in a state of constant dizziness and paranoia. Definately not an experience i would like to repeat. --Kieran 21:25, 6 September 2005 (GMT+12)

yeah i ate only 1 tbs of nutmeg a few hours after consuming psilocybin and it greatly potentiated the effects. -matt

::Uhm, with all due respect that's original research. Anything edited into the article (along the lines of recreational abuse of supermarket purchases or whatever) must be credibly cited from a reliable secondary source. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 15:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

::::here is one http://www.erowid.org/plants/nutmeg/nutmeg_info3.shtml also on a side note, nutmeg is not very pleasurable -matt

I've tried raw nutmeg as well. I've found that the coarseness has an impact on the effect, i.e when ground in a coffee grinder the same amount has a greater impact than chopped by hand. About 2.5 nutmegs chopped by hand will, after an initial mild headache and/or stomachache, produce effect similar to mild to moderate marijuana intoxication. However, the effect do last for about 36 hours which I found disconcerting. On an unrelated note, the reference to the 5 year old fatality is from 1903. If this was really accurate it shouldn't be hard to find something a little more current. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.21.196.64|72.21.196.64]] ([[User talk:72.21.196.64|talk]]) 04:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 

==[[:Category:Psychosis]]==
* Does anyone see any use in having this article part of the [[:Category:Psychosis]] ? I understand that "nutmeg psychosis" is a valid condition, but "nutmeg" itself looks a bit strange sitting among its psychotic siblings. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
** Doesn't make sense to me either. I'll remove the category tag. --[[User:Xyzzyplugh|Xyzzyplugh]] 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

==Drug effects==
Removed this section as it was based largely on an uncorroborated posting by an individual at this [http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=27421 Erowid] page, without medical verification - see disclaimer at the bottom of that page - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 00:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Err... Sorry, I guess? I myself have browsed through the erowid articles for hours at a time, and have tried nutmeg a few times. Shouldn't we have a section about its drug effects other than just the risks? And no, I didn't have medical verification, my bad. Sorry. Still, I didn't say "this was how it always happens" I just said "many claim this" or "many claim that." Well, uncalled for or not I believe we should have a section, whether it is created by me, a medical professional, or an admin. {{unsigned|KnightValor|02:13, May 12, 2006 (UTC)|nested=yes}}

:*This problem is not that a description on nutmeg's halucinagenic effects are inappropriate but that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] requires that all information be verifiable from [[WP:RS|reputable sources]]. As Erowid accepts anonymous contributions it fails to qualify as a reputable source. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:Ah. I see. Sorry to waste your time...
However, we really do need a section about common drug effects. While I hate to ask others to do work for me, I would like to ask any medical professionals with spare time to properly research and document results.

I think this section is important and should be a part of the main in article. It has been well documented that nutmeg has been used by people as a drug for a very long period of time.

:: GOT IT!!! Nutmeg contains 2 psychoactive chemicals "Nutmeg and mace contain two halluncinogenic substances: Myristicin and Elemicin" according to this site (http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/hallucin.html) and when you do a quick google of it there is a wikipage about those substances being in Nutmeg and that they do in fact have psychoactive properties. So we should have a psychoactive section in this article about Nutmeg containing psychoactive chemicals. [[User:RYNORT|RYNORT]] 07:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Negative Effects==
I would like to ask whoever found and added this to the page to include the weights of the specimens. We all know that giving 7.5g to a toddler would have stronger effects than 7.5g to someone who weighs more than 300 pounds. Or am I wrong about this?

== Deadly? ==

Nutmeg is an important and tasty spice in many sweet foods, and I don't think it has ever given me any strange side effects...

You didn't eat enough. Believe me, I experienced the side effects and they weren't too nice [[User:213.219.152.72|213.219.152.72]] 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Experience of a friend ==

If it helps with the betterment of this article, I'd like to share with you that a close friend of mine consumed 5 tablespoons of nutmeg in a glass of root beer to experience the infamous nutmeg 'trip.' Unfortunately, he was under researched on the event. I supervised him for a good portion of the night till he insisted I go home, and he get some sleep. By morning he was seeing distorted images, and felt dizzy and lightheaded. At work later he went completely numb from head to toe and called someone to take him to the hospital. He spent 8 hours in the ER and had a heart rate of 192, and almost went into cardiac arrest. This happened last night and today. T'was a scary happening, and I don't recommend it. [[User:JayPetey|JayPetey]] 07:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:5 ''tablespoons''?? ...he was lucky. But thank you for the story, if it won't help the article ([[WP:NOR]]), at least it will be informative to those who view the talk page. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

== Propaganda ==

Is it just me or is the whole Risks paragraph about "Author and ecopsychologist Paul Devereux"'s little receipe to lucid dreams nothing less than propaganda. I mean, where's the credibility, the reference, the facts? Who is this guy? I mean, I'm sure I could write a paragraph too about a "Mr Zouinzouinpoukpouk who said that using 0.25mg of nutmeg each half an hour, every other day, except during lunar eclipse, can make your brain grow bigger." Hello !!?? And by the way, what in hell name is an ecopsychologist?!

==Risks and toxicity==

This section of the article clearly states that nutmeg contains no MAO inhibitors. I am concerned about the accuracy of this statement becuase other parts of this article state that myristicin is a compound found in nutmeg and the wikipedia article on myristicin states that the compound is a weak MAO inhibitor. Can someone please check other sources and try to resolve this issue. Thank you very much. [[User:Sequoyah|Sequoyah]] 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:For those who say that if nutmeg could be dangerous it would not be sold in supermarkets, just think in coffe. It is not dangerous in small amounts, but it sure is in larger doses.

==30g = 6.322tsp==
I changed the teaspoon measurements in the risks and toxicity section in two ways.

Firstly, since the measurements in grams were all rounded to the nearest 5g and given to a single significant figure, it is farcical to give four significant figures for the converted amount. Not just because it's claiming accuracy that just isn't there, but our metabolisms are not all the same to within four significant figures, and I challenge anyone to measure 6.322 teaspoons with normal kitchen equipment.

Secondly, the abbreviation "tsp" is subject to a variety of interpretations, including sources which use "teasp" and "tsp" for teaspoon and tablespoon respectively. Since this is kind of important (we're talking about toxicity here!) I replaced it with the full word. Though, since the teaspoon is not a global measure (US and EU teaspoons are different), I am unsure that teaspoons should even be mentioned here.

I am really unsure whether the weight should be specified in grams for a liquid anyway - should probably be ml instead of g though since it's not water, there won't be a 1:1 relationship.

Parts changed:
6.322 tsp
1.054-4.215 tsp
5.269 tsp

In all cases the amounts were rounded down, which, when speaking of toxicity, is probably a good thing and will help compensate for the fact that EU teaspoons are slightly bigger (5ml instead of 4.93ml)

[Edit - forgot to sign][[User:DewiMorgan|DewiMorgan]] 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just reverted a rather dangerous edit by 12.108.96.165, who changed "6 teaspoons" to "4 tablespoons". There are three measurements for tablespoons, the UK (14.2ml), US (14.7ml) and metric (15ml). Basically, 1 tablespoon = 3 teaspoons. The edit '''doubled''' the apparent "dangerous" amount from 30ml to 60ml.

There could be a reasonable argument for it being changed to "2 tablespoons", since I suspect that would be more accurate to measure with than scooping out six tablespoons. But then, why would anyone want to measure a potentially dangerous dose anyway? And I suspect it's best to use the same units throughout, for easy comparison. The change I reverted shows clearly that not everyone is au fait with teaspoon<>tablespoon conversion.--[[User:DewiMorgan|DewiMorgan]] 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== book about nutmeg ==

The correct title of the book in the references should be: Nathaniel's Nutmeg: Or the True and Incredible Adventures of the Spice Trader who Changed the Course of History by Giles Milton. [[User:Fischergb|Fischergb]] 03:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

==psychoactive properties==

GOT IT!!! Nutmeg contains 2 psychoactive chemicals "Nutmeg and mace contain two halluncinogenic substances: Myristicin and Elemicin" according to this site (http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/hallucin.html) and when you do a quick google of it there is a wikipage about those substances being in Nutmeg and that they do in fact have psychoactive properties. So we should have a psychoactive section in this article about Nutmeg containing psychoactive chemicals.[[User:RYNORT|RYNORT]] 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Do not post recipes for folk remedies==
I just removed some precise instructions for using nutmeg essential oil to treat toothaches, bad breath, muscle aches and childbirth pains. Wikipedia is not a cookbook nor a medical advice site. While people may in fact use Nutmeg essential oil medicinally, it is best to simply refer to the practice and not get so specific. Nutmeg poisoning is a real possible outcome of posting such instructions. In fact, Nutmeg is a known abortificant. I'm sure no wikipedian would want to be responbsible for a lost pregnancy simply because they chose to post some "helpful" instructions on how to help a mother relax before her impending deilvery. So let's be more careful, OK? I'll be trying to beef up some of the references in this article in the next few weeks. Please help me if you can.04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/98.20.119.233|98.20.119.233]] ([[User talk:98.20.119.233|talk]]) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I ditto on the not posting that it can be used as legal halucinogenic, because I tried it and made me totality sick, I am totaly against the knowledge of this article, save some lives and remove it. Thank-you.

Someone who lived from it:)

== Mace ==

I'd really like to see more information on mace here. Does anyone know anything more about it? [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] ([[User talk:Jade Knight|talk]]) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Sleeping effects ==

Why isn't the article mentioning the very obvious effect of causing long periods of sleep? (when used in higher dosage) [[User:Joe0009|Joe0009]] ([[User talk:Joe0009|talk]]) 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Nutmeg

2008-08-04T14:01:41Z

Peelinglayers: /* Risks and toxicity */

Talk:Nutmeg

2008-08-04T14:01:21Z

Peelinglayers: /* Risks and toxicity */

{{WPB|
{{WikiProject Plants |class=C |importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink |class=C |importance=high |herbs=yes |nested=yes}}
{{WP Indonesia |class=C |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject PDD |class=C |nested=yes}}
}}

{{WPCD}}

== Accuracy dispute ==

There doesn't seem to be a reference to the person who supposedly died from nutmeg, is there information about this somewhere else that is reliable? It seems like an autopsy or coroners report could give the cause of death is this was for real... I'd assume just remove the part about someone dying and just leave the known stuff about nutmeg being a mild hallucinogen. Any problems with that? --[[User:Fxer|Fxer]] 17:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I ate nutmeg as sweets (fresh nutmegs put into liquified sugar) almost everyday through my childhood days, and I don't feel anything of this nonsense mentioned in the article. And it's not just 3 grams that people usually sold at the market, but a huge packs of it. It's not addictive in a bad way, it's addictive like I was eating a cheese cake.
--[[User:ephi|ephi]] 14:16, August 8, 2005 (GMT+7)

:::That's original research, thus not an acceptable cite for the article. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

::::I don't think he's proposing to put it in the article, Wyss. He's just questioning the article's accuracy based on his own experience. As for the story, I find it hard to believe that ephi was eating whole nutmegs. I ate 1.5 nutmegs as a 24-year-old, while sober, and became paranoid, dizzy, and hopped-up for 24 hours, with horribly blood-shot eyes, as a result. In retrospect, even the small amount which is commonly used in carrot cake used to make me giddy as a child. Additionally, I read an account somewhere of an 8-year-old who died after eating 2 nutmegs - probably a very rare occurrence, but not surprising that it would happen to somebody. Nutmeg containers should most definitely carry a warning label. [[User:A5|A5]] 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Whenever I've bought powdered nutmeg in Finland the packaging has warned not to eat uncooked or in large doses (it has never actually said how large a dose is too large however) --[[User:Hellahulla|Hellahulla]] 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A whole nutmeg is about 7 grams. Were you having more than one? You may simply not have had enough, or perhaps you metabolized it faster as a child, or simply built up a resistance. I don't think a single personal experience makes that section of the article nonsense. --[[User:TomaydoDemato|TomaydoDemato]] 02:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:By many accounts, even a single nutmeg will not produce any effects in everyone. Also, some people describe the effects as involving profound hallucinations while others describe only subtle effects. From my informal research, I've found that the most common description is "a combination of flu and a marijuana buzz", which I like to think few people would attribute to nutmeg if they overdosed on it accidentally (i.e. through ingestion of food containing nutmeg). Also note that many drugs affect people differently if taken on an empty stomach, if taken all at once, if freshly ground vs. preground, etc. In summary: people who are trying to get high off of nutmeg are going to a) take measures to get the most profound effect, b) take a lot of it, and c) pay attention to the effects. That said, the majority of the sites I'm referring to are completely unsuitable as references on Wikipedia. But as for it's general psychoactivity, it is fairly well documented. [[User:Mistercow|Mistercow]] 20:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

'''References''': It's easy to find references. [[Google Scholar]] is your friend. Here's some stuff I just found using [[Medline]]/[[Pubmed]].

There is a lot of description of psychoses, hallucinations etc induces by nutmeg. Ref. [1] tells about a 16-year old boy, who developped neurological symptoms and certain ECG changed after eating too much nutmeg. In [2], psychiatrists report a similar case, [4] as well. In [3], ER staff is warned to be aware of the possibility of nutmeg poisoning.

But it seems very rare that somebody dies. In [5], a forensic physicians reports about having found myristicin in a deseased as likely cause of death.

I'm not a medical professional, just a scientist in an unrelated field, hence I feel anuble to judge the articles. But the sheer amount of such articles -- I've found tens with abstracts telling about this with just a superficial search -- shows to me that the facts in the article are fully plausible. I suggest removing the dispute box.

[1] McKenna A, Nordt SP, Ryan J.: Active Nutmeg Poisoning. Eur J Emerg Med. '''11''' (2004) 240

[2] Kelly BD, Gavin BE, Clarke M, Lane A, Larkin C.: Nutmeg and psychosis. Schizophr Res. '''60''' (2003) 95

[3] Demetriades AK, Wallman PD, McGuiness A, Gavalas MC. Low cost, high risk: accidental nutmeg intoxication. Emerg Med J. '''22''' (2005) 223

[4] Sangalli BC, Chiang W.Toxicology of nutmeg abuse. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. '''38''' (2000) 671

[5] U. Stein, H. Greyerb and H. Hentschel: Nutmeg (myristicin) poisoning — report on a fatal case and a series of cases recorded by a poison information centre. Forensic Science International '''118''' (2001) 87

[[User:Sanders muc|Simon A.]] 15:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So I've rm'd the dispute tag. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

::I think the fellow way above who is referring to haven eaten ''nutmeg sweets'' is mistaking the fruit or the [[Pericarp]] of the plant that produces nutmeg with the nutmeg itself. In many countries, the pericarp is cooked in sugar syrup and candied. There's very little risk of toxicity or intoxification eaten this way and technically, that's not even eating nutmeg. [[User:Lisapollison|LiPollis]] ([[User talk:Lisapollison|talk]]) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

== History ==

I think the following quote from Regan is fun and should be included: ``You can't have good eggnog without nutmeg.'' [Laughter] And he said, ``You can't have Christmas without eggnog. So, the Soviets and the Cubans were out to steal Christmas.''[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/42884c.htm]

==Vandalism, or just bad writing?==
So, I noticed while reading through this article that, while the piece gives a clear picture of how nutmeg is used in some types of cooking, when one reaches the bit about European cooking, it simply says "In European cooking, balls." I'm not sure if this is meant to mean that nutmeg is somehow used in a ball form in European cooking and the sentence is badly written, or if this is just vandalism. Just wanted to call some attention to it. [[User:69.205.47.112|69.205.47.112]] 21:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:It was vandalism that was reverted more than six hours before your note was posted. You may wish to [[WP:CACHE|refresh your browser cache]]. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Selling hallucinogens in supermarkets...? ==

It seems like there isn't enough evidence to support the reported cases of nutmeg "poisoning" and "psychosis." I personally find it unlikely that if the substance (i.e. ground nutmeg) was so dangerous (dangerous enough to be lethal) it would be sold in supermarkets. I have a jar of the stuff sitting in my spice drawer. Would it kill me if I threw it back like a shot of medicine? Is there anyone willing enough to take a spoonful in the name of science?
I think research needs to be done on this.

::Plenty of 'dangerous' substances can be found in supermarkets. Like bleach, for example. But you're likely limiting the argument to substances which are originally intended for human consumption -- in which case, there are still plenty of examples. Lots of supermarkets around here sell cigarettes, which are meant for human consumption (via smoking). However, chances are you'd die from nicotine poisoning if you ate five of those cigarettes.

::Methinks you'd be amazed at the nasty things one can do with stuff snatched up at the local hypermarket. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I for one have tried and experienced the drug-like effects of nutmeg, with a combination of alcohol and a small dose of marijuana, 4 teaspoons of freshly ground nutmeg knocked me on my ass for the next 16 or so hours, in which i spent sleeping. The following 3 - 4 days were spent in a state of constant dizziness and paranoia. Definately not an experience i would like to repeat. --Kieran 21:25, 6 September 2005 (GMT+12)

yeah i ate only 1 tbs of nutmeg a few hours after consuming psilocybin and it greatly potentiated the effects. -matt

::Uhm, with all due respect that's original research. Anything edited into the article (along the lines of recreational abuse of supermarket purchases or whatever) must be credibly cited from a reliable secondary source. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 15:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

::::here is one http://www.erowid.org/plants/nutmeg/nutmeg_info3.shtml also on a side note, nutmeg is not very pleasurable -matt

I've tried raw nutmeg as well. I've found that the coarseness has an impact on the effect, i.e when ground in a coffee grinder the same amount has a greater impact than chopped by hand. About 2.5 nutmegs chopped by hand will, after an initial mild headache and/or stomachache, produce effect similar to mild to moderate marijuana intoxication. However, the effect do last for about 36 hours which I found disconcerting. On an unrelated note, the reference to the 5 year old fatality is from 1903. If this was really accurate it shouldn't be hard to find something a little more current. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.21.196.64|72.21.196.64]] ([[User talk:72.21.196.64|talk]]) 04:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 

==[[:Category:Psychosis]]==
* Does anyone see any use in having this article part of the [[:Category:Psychosis]] ? I understand that "nutmeg psychosis" is a valid condition, but "nutmeg" itself looks a bit strange sitting among its psychotic siblings. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
** Doesn't make sense to me either. I'll remove the category tag. --[[User:Xyzzyplugh|Xyzzyplugh]] 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

==Drug effects==
Removed this section as it was based largely on an uncorroborated posting by an individual at this [http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=27421 Erowid] page, without medical verification - see disclaimer at the bottom of that page - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 00:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Err... Sorry, I guess? I myself have browsed through the erowid articles for hours at a time, and have tried nutmeg a few times. Shouldn't we have a section about its drug effects other than just the risks? And no, I didn't have medical verification, my bad. Sorry. Still, I didn't say "this was how it always happens" I just said "many claim this" or "many claim that." Well, uncalled for or not I believe we should have a section, whether it is created by me, a medical professional, or an admin. {{unsigned|KnightValor|02:13, May 12, 2006 (UTC)|nested=yes}}

:*This problem is not that a description on nutmeg's halucinagenic effects are inappropriate but that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] requires that all information be verifiable from [[WP:RS|reputable sources]]. As Erowid accepts anonymous contributions it fails to qualify as a reputable source. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:Ah. I see. Sorry to waste your time...
However, we really do need a section about common drug effects. While I hate to ask others to do work for me, I would like to ask any medical professionals with spare time to properly research and document results.

I think this section is important and should be a part of the main in article. It has been well documented that nutmeg has been used by people as a drug for a very long period of time.

:: GOT IT!!! Nutmeg contains 2 psychoactive chemicals "Nutmeg and mace contain two halluncinogenic substances: Myristicin and Elemicin" according to this site (http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/hallucin.html) and when you do a quick google of it there is a wikipage about those substances being in Nutmeg and that they do in fact have psychoactive properties. So we should have a psychoactive section in this article about Nutmeg containing psychoactive chemicals. [[User:RYNORT|RYNORT]] 07:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Negative Effects==
I would like to ask whoever found and added this to the page to include the weights of the specimens. We all know that giving 7.5g to a toddler would have stronger effects than 7.5g to someone who weighs more than 300 pounds. Or am I wrong about this?

== Deadly? ==

Nutmeg is an important and tasty spice in many sweet foods, and I don't think it has ever given me any strange side effects...

You didn't eat enough. Believe me, I experienced the side effects and they weren't too nice [[User:213.219.152.72|213.219.152.72]] 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Experience of a friend ==

If it helps with the betterment of this article, I'd like to share with you that a close friend of mine consumed 5 tablespoons of nutmeg in a glass of root beer to experience the infamous nutmeg 'trip.' Unfortunately, he was under researched on the event. I supervised him for a good portion of the night till he insisted I go home, and he get some sleep. By morning he was seeing distorted images, and felt dizzy and lightheaded. At work later he went completely numb from head to toe and called someone to take him to the hospital. He spent 8 hours in the ER and had a heart rate of 192, and almost went into cardiac arrest. This happened last night and today. T'was a scary happening, and I don't recommend it. [[User:JayPetey|JayPetey]] 07:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:5 ''tablespoons''?? ...he was lucky. But thank you for the story, if it won't help the article ([[WP:NOR]]), at least it will be informative to those who view the talk page. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

== Propaganda ==

Is it just me or is the whole Risks paragraph about "Author and ecopsychologist Paul Devereux"'s little receipe to lucid dreams nothing less than propaganda. I mean, where's the credibility, the reference, the facts? Who is this guy? I mean, I'm sure I could write a paragraph too about a "Mr Zouinzouinpoukpouk who said that using 0.25mg of nutmeg each half an hour, every other day, except during lunar eclipse, can make your brain grow bigger." Hello !!?? And by the way, what in hell name is an ecopsychologist?!

==Risks and toxicity==

This section of the article clearly states that nutmeg contains no MAO inhibitors. I am concerned about the accuracy of this statement becuase other parts of this article state that myristicin is a compound found in nutmeg and the wikipedia article on myristicin states that the compound is a weak MAO inhibitor. Can someone please check other sources and try to resolve this issue. Thank you very much. [[User:Sequoyah|Sequoyah]] 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:For those who say that if nutmeg could be dangerous it would not be sold in supermarkets, just think in coffe. It is not dangerous in small amounts, but it sure is in larger doses.
::This part of the article is very subjective and unsupported. There is a direct refutation of the toxicity of nutmeg to humans. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2046458 This link]has another study document refuting the toxicity of Nutmeg to humans, and also addressing the increased risk of toxicity of nutmeg to other animals, including household pets. At best, the information the author refers to to support his/her assertion that nutmeg is poisonous to children is anecdotal and unsupported. At worst, it is a scare tactic and has no place in wikipedia. Other than the health benefits mentioned in the article, nutmeg is quite possibly an [http://www.raysahelian.com/nutmeg.html aphrodisiac] and can possibly increase libido in humans.

==30g = 6.322tsp==
I changed the teaspoon measurements in the risks and toxicity section in two ways.

Firstly, since the measurements in grams were all rounded to the nearest 5g and given to a single significant figure, it is farcical to give four significant figures for the converted amount. Not just because it's claiming accuracy that just isn't there, but our metabolisms are not all the same to within four significant figures, and I challenge anyone to measure 6.322 teaspoons with normal kitchen equipment.

Secondly, the abbreviation "tsp" is subject to a variety of interpretations, including sources which use "teasp" and "tsp" for teaspoon and tablespoon respectively. Since this is kind of important (we're talking about toxicity here!) I replaced it with the full word. Though, since the teaspoon is not a global measure (US and EU teaspoons are different), I am unsure that teaspoons should even be mentioned here.

I am really unsure whether the weight should be specified in grams for a liquid anyway - should probably be ml instead of g though since it's not water, there won't be a 1:1 relationship.

Parts changed:
6.322 tsp
1.054-4.215 tsp
5.269 tsp

In all cases the amounts were rounded down, which, when speaking of toxicity, is probably a good thing and will help compensate for the fact that EU teaspoons are slightly bigger (5ml instead of 4.93ml)

[Edit - forgot to sign][[User:DewiMorgan|DewiMorgan]] 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just reverted a rather dangerous edit by 12.108.96.165, who changed "6 teaspoons" to "4 tablespoons". There are three measurements for tablespoons, the UK (14.2ml), US (14.7ml) and metric (15ml). Basically, 1 tablespoon = 3 teaspoons. The edit '''doubled''' the apparent "dangerous" amount from 30ml to 60ml.

There could be a reasonable argument for it being changed to "2 tablespoons", since I suspect that would be more accurate to measure with than scooping out six tablespoons. But then, why would anyone want to measure a potentially dangerous dose anyway? And I suspect it's best to use the same units throughout, for easy comparison. The change I reverted shows clearly that not everyone is au fait with teaspoon<>tablespoon conversion.--[[User:DewiMorgan|DewiMorgan]] 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== book about nutmeg ==

The correct title of the book in the references should be: Nathaniel's Nutmeg: Or the True and Incredible Adventures of the Spice Trader who Changed the Course of History by Giles Milton. [[User:Fischergb|Fischergb]] 03:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

==psychoactive properties==

GOT IT!!! Nutmeg contains 2 psychoactive chemicals "Nutmeg and mace contain two halluncinogenic substances: Myristicin and Elemicin" according to this site (http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/hallucin.html) and when you do a quick google of it there is a wikipage about those substances being in Nutmeg and that they do in fact have psychoactive properties. So we should have a psychoactive section in this article about Nutmeg containing psychoactive chemicals.[[User:RYNORT|RYNORT]] 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Do not post recipes for folk remedies==
I just removed some precise instructions for using nutmeg essential oil to treat toothaches, bad breath, muscle aches and childbirth pains. Wikipedia is not a cookbook nor a medical advice site. While people may in fact use Nutmeg essential oil medicinally, it is best to simply refer to the practice and not get so specific. Nutmeg poisoning is a real possible outcome of posting such instructions. In fact, Nutmeg is a known abortificant. I'm sure no wikipedian would want to be responbsible for a lost pregnancy simply because they chose to post some "helpful" instructions on how to help a mother relax before her impending deilvery. So let's be more careful, OK? I'll be trying to beef up some of the references in this article in the next few weeks. Please help me if you can.04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/98.20.119.233|98.20.119.233]] ([[User talk:98.20.119.233|talk]]) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I ditto on the not posting that it can be used as legal halucinogenic, because I tried it and made me totality sick, I am totaly against the knowledge of this article, save some lives and remove it. Thank-you.

Someone who lived from it:)

== Mace ==

I'd really like to see more information on mace here. Does anyone know anything more about it? [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] ([[User talk:Jade Knight|talk]]) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Sleeping effects ==

Why isn't the article mentioning the very obvious effect of causing long periods of sleep? (when used in higher dosage) [[User:Joe0009|Joe0009]] ([[User talk:Joe0009|talk]]) 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Nutmeg

2008-08-04T13:41:21Z

Peelinglayers: /* Risks and toxicity */

{{WPB|
{{WikiProject Plants |class=C |importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink |class=C |importance=high |herbs=yes |nested=yes}}
{{WP Indonesia |class=C |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject PDD |class=C |nested=yes}}
}}

{{WPCD}}

== Accuracy dispute ==

There doesn't seem to be a reference to the person who supposedly died from nutmeg, is there information about this somewhere else that is reliable? It seems like an autopsy or coroners report could give the cause of death is this was for real... I'd assume just remove the part about someone dying and just leave the known stuff about nutmeg being a mild hallucinogen. Any problems with that? --[[User:Fxer|Fxer]] 17:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I ate nutmeg as sweets (fresh nutmegs put into liquified sugar) almost everyday through my childhood days, and I don't feel anything of this nonsense mentioned in the article. And it's not just 3 grams that people usually sold at the market, but a huge packs of it. It's not addictive in a bad way, it's addictive like I was eating a cheese cake.
--[[User:ephi|ephi]] 14:16, August 8, 2005 (GMT+7)

:::That's original research, thus not an acceptable cite for the article. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

::::I don't think he's proposing to put it in the article, Wyss. He's just questioning the article's accuracy based on his own experience. As for the story, I find it hard to believe that ephi was eating whole nutmegs. I ate 1.5 nutmegs as a 24-year-old, while sober, and became paranoid, dizzy, and hopped-up for 24 hours, with horribly blood-shot eyes, as a result. In retrospect, even the small amount which is commonly used in carrot cake used to make me giddy as a child. Additionally, I read an account somewhere of an 8-year-old who died after eating 2 nutmegs - probably a very rare occurrence, but not surprising that it would happen to somebody. Nutmeg containers should most definitely carry a warning label. [[User:A5|A5]] 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::Whenever I've bought powdered nutmeg in Finland the packaging has warned not to eat uncooked or in large doses (it has never actually said how large a dose is too large however) --[[User:Hellahulla|Hellahulla]] 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A whole nutmeg is about 7 grams. Were you having more than one? You may simply not have had enough, or perhaps you metabolized it faster as a child, or simply built up a resistance. I don't think a single personal experience makes that section of the article nonsense. --[[User:TomaydoDemato|TomaydoDemato]] 02:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:By many accounts, even a single nutmeg will not produce any effects in everyone. Also, some people describe the effects as involving profound hallucinations while others describe only subtle effects. From my informal research, I've found that the most common description is "a combination of flu and a marijuana buzz", which I like to think few people would attribute to nutmeg if they overdosed on it accidentally (i.e. through ingestion of food containing nutmeg). Also note that many drugs affect people differently if taken on an empty stomach, if taken all at once, if freshly ground vs. preground, etc. In summary: people who are trying to get high off of nutmeg are going to a) take measures to get the most profound effect, b) take a lot of it, and c) pay attention to the effects. That said, the majority of the sites I'm referring to are completely unsuitable as references on Wikipedia. But as for it's general psychoactivity, it is fairly well documented. [[User:Mistercow|Mistercow]] 20:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

'''References''': It's easy to find references. [[Google Scholar]] is your friend. Here's some stuff I just found using [[Medline]]/[[Pubmed]].

There is a lot of description of psychoses, hallucinations etc induces by nutmeg. Ref. [1] tells about a 16-year old boy, who developped neurological symptoms and certain ECG changed after eating too much nutmeg. In [2], psychiatrists report a similar case, [4] as well. In [3], ER staff is warned to be aware of the possibility of nutmeg poisoning.

But it seems very rare that somebody dies. In [5], a forensic physicians reports about having found myristicin in a deseased as likely cause of death.

I'm not a medical professional, just a scientist in an unrelated field, hence I feel anuble to judge the articles. But the sheer amount of such articles -- I've found tens with abstracts telling about this with just a superficial search -- shows to me that the facts in the article are fully plausible. I suggest removing the dispute box.

[1] McKenna A, Nordt SP, Ryan J.: Active Nutmeg Poisoning. Eur J Emerg Med. '''11''' (2004) 240

[2] Kelly BD, Gavin BE, Clarke M, Lane A, Larkin C.: Nutmeg and psychosis. Schizophr Res. '''60''' (2003) 95

[3] Demetriades AK, Wallman PD, McGuiness A, Gavalas MC. Low cost, high risk: accidental nutmeg intoxication. Emerg Med J. '''22''' (2005) 223

[4] Sangalli BC, Chiang W.Toxicology of nutmeg abuse. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. '''38''' (2000) 671

[5] U. Stein, H. Greyerb and H. Hentschel: Nutmeg (myristicin) poisoning — report on a fatal case and a series of cases recorded by a poison information centre. Forensic Science International '''118''' (2001) 87

[[User:Sanders muc|Simon A.]] 15:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So I've rm'd the dispute tag. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

::I think the fellow way above who is referring to haven eaten ''nutmeg sweets'' is mistaking the fruit or the [[Pericarp]] of the plant that produces nutmeg with the nutmeg itself. In many countries, the pericarp is cooked in sugar syrup and candied. There's very little risk of toxicity or intoxification eaten this way and technically, that's not even eating nutmeg. [[User:Lisapollison|LiPollis]] ([[User talk:Lisapollison|talk]]) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

== History ==

I think the following quote from Regan is fun and should be included: ``You can't have good eggnog without nutmeg.'' [Laughter] And he said, ``You can't have Christmas without eggnog. So, the Soviets and the Cubans were out to steal Christmas.''[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/42884c.htm]

==Vandalism, or just bad writing?==
So, I noticed while reading through this article that, while the piece gives a clear picture of how nutmeg is used in some types of cooking, when one reaches the bit about European cooking, it simply says "In European cooking, balls." I'm not sure if this is meant to mean that nutmeg is somehow used in a ball form in European cooking and the sentence is badly written, or if this is just vandalism. Just wanted to call some attention to it. [[User:69.205.47.112|69.205.47.112]] 21:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:It was vandalism that was reverted more than six hours before your note was posted. You may wish to [[WP:CACHE|refresh your browser cache]]. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Selling hallucinogens in supermarkets...? ==

It seems like there isn't enough evidence to support the reported cases of nutmeg "poisoning" and "psychosis." I personally find it unlikely that if the substance (i.e. ground nutmeg) was so dangerous (dangerous enough to be lethal) it would be sold in supermarkets. I have a jar of the stuff sitting in my spice drawer. Would it kill me if I threw it back like a shot of medicine? Is there anyone willing enough to take a spoonful in the name of science?
I think research needs to be done on this.

::Plenty of 'dangerous' substances can be found in supermarkets. Like bleach, for example. But you're likely limiting the argument to substances which are originally intended for human consumption -- in which case, there are still plenty of examples. Lots of supermarkets around here sell cigarettes, which are meant for human consumption (via smoking). However, chances are you'd die from nicotine poisoning if you ate five of those cigarettes.

::Methinks you'd be amazed at the nasty things one can do with stuff snatched up at the local hypermarket. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I for one have tried and experienced the drug-like effects of nutmeg, with a combination of alcohol and a small dose of marijuana, 4 teaspoons of freshly ground nutmeg knocked me on my ass for the next 16 or so hours, in which i spent sleeping. The following 3 - 4 days were spent in a state of constant dizziness and paranoia. Definately not an experience i would like to repeat. --Kieran 21:25, 6 September 2005 (GMT+12)

yeah i ate only 1 tbs of nutmeg a few hours after consuming psilocybin and it greatly potentiated the effects. -matt

::Uhm, with all due respect that's original research. Anything edited into the article (along the lines of recreational abuse of supermarket purchases or whatever) must be credibly cited from a reliable secondary source. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 15:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

::::here is one http://www.erowid.org/plants/nutmeg/nutmeg_info3.shtml also on a side note, nutmeg is not very pleasurable -matt

I've tried raw nutmeg as well. I've found that the coarseness has an impact on the effect, i.e when ground in a coffee grinder the same amount has a greater impact than chopped by hand. About 2.5 nutmegs chopped by hand will, after an initial mild headache and/or stomachache, produce effect similar to mild to moderate marijuana intoxication. However, the effect do last for about 36 hours which I found disconcerting. On an unrelated note, the reference to the 5 year old fatality is from 1903. If this was really accurate it shouldn't be hard to find something a little more current. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.21.196.64|72.21.196.64]] ([[User talk:72.21.196.64|talk]]) 04:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 

==[[:Category:Psychosis]]==
* Does anyone see any use in having this article part of the [[:Category:Psychosis]] ? I understand that "nutmeg psychosis" is a valid condition, but "nutmeg" itself looks a bit strange sitting among its psychotic siblings. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
** Doesn't make sense to me either. I'll remove the category tag. --[[User:Xyzzyplugh|Xyzzyplugh]] 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

==Drug effects==
Removed this section as it was based largely on an uncorroborated posting by an individual at this [http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=27421 Erowid] page, without medical verification - see disclaimer at the bottom of that page - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 00:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Err... Sorry, I guess? I myself have browsed through the erowid articles for hours at a time, and have tried nutmeg a few times. Shouldn't we have a section about its drug effects other than just the risks? And no, I didn't have medical verification, my bad. Sorry. Still, I didn't say "this was how it always happens" I just said "many claim this" or "many claim that." Well, uncalled for or not I believe we should have a section, whether it is created by me, a medical professional, or an admin. {{unsigned|KnightValor|02:13, May 12, 2006 (UTC)|nested=yes}}

:*This problem is not that a description on nutmeg's halucinagenic effects are inappropriate but that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] requires that all information be verifiable from [[WP:RS|reputable sources]]. As Erowid accepts anonymous contributions it fails to qualify as a reputable source. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:Ah. I see. Sorry to waste your time...
However, we really do need a section about common drug effects. While I hate to ask others to do work for me, I would like to ask any medical professionals with spare time to properly research and document results.

I think this section is important and should be a part of the main in article. It has been well documented that nutmeg has been used by people as a drug for a very long period of time.

:: GOT IT!!! Nutmeg contains 2 psychoactive chemicals "Nutmeg and mace contain two halluncinogenic substances: Myristicin and Elemicin" according to this site (http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/hallucin.html) and when you do a quick google of it there is a wikipage about those substances being in Nutmeg and that they do in fact have psychoactive properties. So we should have a psychoactive section in this article about Nutmeg containing psychoactive chemicals. [[User:RYNORT|RYNORT]] 07:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Negative Effects==
I would like to ask whoever found and added this to the page to include the weights of the specimens. We all know that giving 7.5g to a toddler would have stronger effects than 7.5g to someone who weighs more than 300 pounds. Or am I wrong about this?

== Deadly? ==

Nutmeg is an important and tasty spice in many sweet foods, and I don't think it has ever given me any strange side effects...

You didn't eat enough. Believe me, I experienced the side effects and they weren't too nice [[User:213.219.152.72|213.219.152.72]] 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Experience of a friend ==

If it helps with the betterment of this article, I'd like to share with you that a close friend of mine consumed 5 tablespoons of nutmeg in a glass of root beer to experience the infamous nutmeg 'trip.' Unfortunately, he was under researched on the event. I supervised him for a good portion of the night till he insisted I go home, and he get some sleep. By morning he was seeing distorted images, and felt dizzy and lightheaded. At work later he went completely numb from head to toe and called someone to take him to the hospital. He spent 8 hours in the ER and had a heart rate of 192, and almost went into cardiac arrest. This happened last night and today. T'was a scary happening, and I don't recommend it. [[User:JayPetey|JayPetey]] 07:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:5 ''tablespoons''?? ...he was lucky. But thank you for the story, if it won't help the article ([[WP:NOR]]), at least it will be informative to those who view the talk page. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

== Propaganda ==

Is it just me or is the whole Risks paragraph about "Author and ecopsychologist Paul Devereux"'s little receipe to lucid dreams nothing less than propaganda. I mean, where's the credibility, the reference, the facts? Who is this guy? I mean, I'm sure I could write a paragraph too about a "Mr Zouinzouinpoukpouk who said that using 0.25mg of nutmeg each half an hour, every other day, except during lunar eclipse, can make your brain grow bigger." Hello !!?? And by the way, what in hell name is an ecopsychologist?!

==Risks and toxicity==

This section of the article clearly states that nutmeg contains no MAO inhibitors. I am concerned about the accuracy of this statement becuase other parts of this article state that myristicin is a compound found in nutmeg and the wikipedia article on myristicin states that the compound is a weak MAO inhibitor. Can someone please check other sources and try to resolve this issue. Thank you very much. [[User:Sequoyah|Sequoyah]] 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For those who say that if nutmeg could be dangerous it would not be sold in supermarkets, just think in coffe. It is not dangerous in small amounts, but it sure is in larger doses.
:This part of the article is very subjective and unsupported. There is a direct refutation of the toxicity of nutmeg to humans. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2046458 This link]has another study document refuting the toxicity of Nutmeg to humans, and also addressing the increased risk of toxicity of nutmeg to other animals, including household pets. At best, the information the author refers to to support his/her assertion that nutmeg is poisonous to children is anecdotal and unsupported. At worst, it is a scare tactic and has no place in wikipedia. Other than the health benefits mentioned in the article, nutmeg is quite possibly an [http://www.raysahelian.com/nutmeg.html aphrodisiac] and can possibly increase libido in humans.

==30g = 6.322tsp==
I changed the teaspoon measurements in the risks and toxicity section in two ways.

Firstly, since the measurements in grams were all rounded to the nearest 5g and given to a single significant figure, it is farcical to give four significant figures for the converted amount. Not just because it's claiming accuracy that just isn't there, but our metabolisms are not all the same to within four significant figures, and I challenge anyone to measure 6.322 teaspoons with normal kitchen equipment.

Secondly, the abbreviation "tsp" is subject to a variety of interpretations, including sources which use "teasp" and "tsp" for teaspoon and tablespoon respectively. Since this is kind of important (we're talking about toxicity here!) I replaced it with the full word. Though, since the teaspoon is not a global measure (US and EU teaspoons are different), I am unsure that teaspoons should even be mentioned here.

I am really unsure whether the weight should be specified in grams for a liquid anyway - should probably be ml instead of g though since it's not water, there won't be a 1:1 relationship.

Parts changed:
6.322 tsp
1.054-4.215 tsp
5.269 tsp

In all cases the amounts were rounded down, which, when speaking of toxicity, is probably a good thing and will help compensate for the fact that EU teaspoons are slightly bigger (5ml instead of 4.93ml)

[Edit - forgot to sign][[User:DewiMorgan|DewiMorgan]] 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just reverted a rather dangerous edit by 12.108.96.165, who changed "6 teaspoons" to "4 tablespoons". There are three measurements for tablespoons, the UK (14.2ml), US (14.7ml) and metric (15ml). Basically, 1 tablespoon = 3 teaspoons. The edit '''doubled''' the apparent "dangerous" amount from 30ml to 60ml.

There could be a reasonable argument for it being changed to "2 tablespoons", since I suspect that would be more accurate to measure with than scooping out six tablespoons. But then, why would anyone want to measure a potentially dangerous dose anyway? And I suspect it's best to use the same units throughout, for easy comparison. The change I reverted shows clearly that not everyone is au fait with teaspoon<>tablespoon conversion.--[[User:DewiMorgan|DewiMorgan]] 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== book about nutmeg ==

The correct title of the book in the references should be: Nathaniel's Nutmeg: Or the True and Incredible Adventures of the Spice Trader who Changed the Course of History by Giles Milton. [[User:Fischergb|Fischergb]] 03:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

==psychoactive properties==

GOT IT!!! Nutmeg contains 2 psychoactive chemicals "Nutmeg and mace contain two halluncinogenic substances: Myristicin and Elemicin" according to this site (http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/hallucin.html) and when you do a quick google of it there is a wikipage about those substances being in Nutmeg and that they do in fact have psychoactive properties. So we should have a psychoactive section in this article about Nutmeg containing psychoactive chemicals.[[User:RYNORT|RYNORT]] 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Do not post recipes for folk remedies==
I just removed some precise instructions for using nutmeg essential oil to treat toothaches, bad breath, muscle aches and childbirth pains. Wikipedia is not a cookbook nor a medical advice site. While people may in fact use Nutmeg essential oil medicinally, it is best to simply refer to the practice and not get so specific. Nutmeg poisoning is a real possible outcome of posting such instructions. In fact, Nutmeg is a known abortificant. I'm sure no wikipedian would want to be responbsible for a lost pregnancy simply because they chose to post some "helpful" instructions on how to help a mother relax before her impending deilvery. So let's be more careful, OK? I'll be trying to beef up some of the references in this article in the next few weeks. Please help me if you can.04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/98.20.119.233|98.20.119.233]] ([[User talk:98.20.119.233|talk]]) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I ditto on the not posting that it can be used as legal halucinogenic, because I tried it and made me totality sick, I am totaly against the knowledge of this article, save some lives and remove it. Thank-you.

Someone who lived from it:)

== Mace ==

I'd really like to see more information on mace here. Does anyone know anything more about it? [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] ([[User talk:Jade Knight|talk]]) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Sleeping effects ==

Why isn't the article mentioning the very obvious effect of causing long periods of sleep? (when used in higher dosage) [[User:Joe0009|Joe0009]] ([[User talk:Joe0009|talk]]) 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Abugida

2008-08-04T02:17:14Z

Peelinglayers: /* Abugida in Ge'ez */

{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=B|category=Langlit}}

{{WP Writing systems|class=b|importance=top}}

== Tengwar ==

Are the [[tengwar]] abugidas? -- [[User:Error|Error]]
:They can be, depending on the mode. If you write vowels with dots, they're an abugida. If you write them with separate letters (e.g. mode of Beleriand), they're more alphabet-like (especially if you use separate characters for each vowel rather than a generic vowel character which bears marks). A bit like the difference between Hebrew and Yiddish: both use the same script, but Hebrew uses it as an [[abjad]] (if you ignore ''matres lectionis'') while Yiddish uses it as an alphabet. -- [[User:Pne|pne]] 15:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

== [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abugida|Link suggestions]] ==

An [[User:LinkBot|automated Wikipedia link suggester]] has some possible wiki link suggestions for the [[Abugida]] article, and they have been placed on [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abugida|this page]] for your convenience. ''Tip:'' Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add <nowiki>{{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abugida}}</nowiki> to this page. — [[User:LinkBot|LinkBot]] 10:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== The usage of consonant characters without an inherent vowel in Brahmi scripts ==

As me and Gwalla have both reverted from our respective edits now, I thought it best to bring the matter do discussion.

In my opinion, the formulation that the vowelless characters are used in consonant clusters and syllable-finally is redundant and, more importantly, perhaps unclear to larger audience. I am not familiar with how South Asian scholars describe them, but in an encyclopedic article that isn't important. My point is that saying that they are used in consonant clusters and ''word''-finally, it should be clear and unambiguous to most what is meant, and there is no need to resort to the notion of syllable, which has no clear and universally agreed status even among linguists.

Of course, I am open to correction and clarification of the opposing view, but until then, I hope that passage wouldn't be further edited. ---[[User:Oghmoir|Oghmoir]] 11:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:A consonant cluster is a group of adjacent consonants ''in the same syllable'', like the /st/ in "start" or the /dz/ in "kids". A syllable-final consonant is like the /m/ in "hamburger". Linguists differentiate between them because some languages allow the latter but not the former. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Gwalla|Gwalla]] | [[User talk:Gwalla|Talk]] 01:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::In every discussion on phonology that I have encountered during my linguistics studies, consonant clusters have been defined as any kind of a group of adjacent consonants, regardless of syllable boundaries. For example, the ''The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics'' defines consonant clusters as: "A sequence of consonants before, after, or between vowels. E.g. [str] is a medial consonant cluster in words like ''astray''." Anyway, many linguists would say that the /s/ in "start" and /z/ in "kids" are syllables of their own, because they are higher on the [[sonority hierarchy]], but many wouldn't. ---[[User:Oghmoir|Oghmoir]] 09:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Abugida in Ge'ez ==
Does anyone know the [[Ge'ez]] characters for A-bu-gi-da? Thank you. --[[User:Immanuel Giel|Immanuel Giel]] 14:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Not sure if you're still looking for answers, A-bu-di-da is spelled out in Ge'ez and Amharic in the intro of the page.

== Syllabaries ==
''The obvious contrast is with syllabaries, which have one distinct symbol per possible syllable, and the signs for each syllable have no systematic graphic similarity.''

But Korean [[hangul]] is a syllabary, is it not? And the syllables for (say) ''ka, ki, ku, ke, ko'' are all similar. [[User:Rcaetano|Rcaetano]] 18:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:No, it's an alphabet. --[[User:Immanuel Giel|Immanuel Giel]] 28 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)
::Just that the individual letters are combined in squares, read as syllables.

== Tamil script *not* a true abugida ==
Mainly because it *does* possess pure consonants, marked by a dot on top of the consonant. If there is no contention, I will remove it from the list of "true" abugidas. [[User:Kingsleyj|Kingsleyj]] 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
:This is the case for most Indic and Ethiopic scripts. Tamil does not have letters for plain consonants; for that it needs a diacritic. That's a defining feature of abugidas. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 05:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, [[Ge'ez alphabet|the Ethiopian script]] doesn't have a letter for pure consonants anymore. Formerly, the first form was a pure consonant (when it was an abjad), but the ''sadis'' (sixth) form which can be used for consonants is technically "Cə" rather than an inherent consonant. It can be a consonant in some cases (usually word-final, except sometimes when connected in a phrase), but the basic letter form is for a vowel. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] [[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]] | [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

==Hebrew==
Why classical hebrew is not a abugidas? —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.205.105.82|86.205.105.82]] ([[User talk:86.205.105.82|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.205.105.82|contribs]]) 09:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})
:Wasn't classical Hebrew still an [[abjad]]? I thought that it was all consonants with perhaps diacritics to mark vowels (like Arabic), but not actual modification of the letter forms (or reorientation, etc.). Actually, I guess if the diacritics were necessary in all writing, then it would be an [[abugida]], but since it's extraneous to the writing of Hebrew, then it wouldn't be an [[Abugida]]. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] [[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]] | [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:Hebrew is written with an abjad system. Vowels and consonants are written seperately whereas in an abugida system, basic characters combine both consonant and vowel. In an abugida, it requires a special symbol to remove the vowel inherent in the character. [[User:Interlingua|Interlingua]] 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

== "akshara" ==

"In the family of abugidas known as Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, vowels are indicated by rotation and / or inversion of the akshara. For example, Inuktitut ᐱ pi, ᐳ pu, ᐸ pa; ᑎ ti, ᑐ tu, ᑕ ta."

The word ''akshara'' is used without being defined or linked. [[akshara|Wikipedia's own page]] is not very helpful:

<blockquote>
*in [[Sanskrit grammar]], "[[syllable]]", see [[Shiksha]]
*a [[grapheme]] of script of the [[Brahmic family]].
*in philosophical terms is the opposite of the word ''{{IAST|kṣara}}'' "perishable", a name of [[Brahma]].
</blockquote>

As used in this article, it evidently refers to the abstraction consisting of the shape of a glyph without reference to its orientation: a definition close to but not identical with the second one above. If this definition is standard in some community, it should be
#added to the [[akshara]] article and
#referenced from this page.
If not, it should be either defined here or, better, replaced by an explanation that doesn't require a [[hapax legomenon]].

[[User:Thnidu|Thnidu]] 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Plain "consonant" would be better in this case. --[[User:JWB|JWB]] ([[User talk:JWB|talk]]) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

== Evolution ==
From the article:
:'''"''Evolution'''''
:''As the term alphasyllabary suggests, abugidas have been considered an intermediate step between alphabets and syllabaries."''
The idea that various writing systems fit on a single evolutionary scale (coincidentally with alphabet being on top, nonetheless) seems rather inaccurate. Different writing systems have different strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to one writing system being more "advanced" than the other. Whether a particular writing system is better suitable depends on several factors including phonology. I think syllabics fit Japanese just fine, for example. It's more of an apples vs oranges or spoon vs fork comparison. One didn't necessarily evolve from another, nor is there a particular predetermined evolutionary sequence. For example, [[Pitman shorthand]] is listed as abugida-like despite being derived from the English alphabet. —[[User:Tokek|Tokek]] 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. In any case, there seems to be more of a connection between abjads and abugidas, and between syllabaries and logographic writing systems. I can't think of an abugida that evolved from an alphabet. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·[[User:Ikiroid/Desk|desk]]·[[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|Advise me]])''' 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

== Other use of virama ==

; Description
:''For text information processing on computer, other means of expressing these functions include special conjunct forms in which two or more consonant characters are merged to express a cluster, (...) This expedient is used by ISCII and South Asian scripts of Unicode.''
This says about rendering of [[glyph]]s on the [[information processing]], but doesn't say about ''written'' scripts: the virama [[Character (computing)|character]] for this use won't be visible/writable ''character''. It might be described in [[ISCII]] or [[Unicode#Ligatures]]. --[[User:Hatukanezumi|Hatukanezumi]] 03:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

== Pronunciation ==

How is Abugida pronounced? It is not to be found at webster.com on in my American Heritage dictionary application.

== Asian languages? ==

What about written Japanese such as Hiragana/Katakana? They employ consonants followed by vowels with the exception of the stand-alone "n" sound... are these considered abugidas as well or have I misunderstood the category?

:Hiragana and Katakana are pure [[syllabary|syllabaries]]. They have separate, unrelated characters for each CV (consonant-vowel) combination, whereas abugidas use the same character for each syllable where the consonant is the same, marking the vowel with a diacritic or other means (this makes abugidas sound like alphabets but I'm just trying to make clear how they differ from syllabaries). So when you look at a [[Hiragana]] chart, you'll notice that the characters for ''ki'' and ''ke'', for example, look completely different. But if you look how those same syllables are written in [[Devanagari]], for instance, you'll see that they use the same base character (for the consonant) but a different diacritic (for the vowel). (''ka'' in Devanagari would be written without any diacritics, which makes it an abugida, not an ordinary alphabet.) Hope this helps :) [[User:Oghmoir|Oghmoir]] 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== Semi-syllabaries? ==

From the intro:
:''Others, however, prefer to consider such systems of writing syllabaries, "semi-syllabaries", or "alpha-syllabaries".''

It is not clear what "such" refers to here. What systems are called semi-syllabaries? [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:Abugidas. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Pronunciation ==

Could someone add an IPA pronunciation for this word? I have never heard it spoken and it is so obscure that not a single online dictionary has it. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] ([[User talk:Woodstone|talk]]) 09:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:I haven't been able to find anything. Put the question up on the Ge'ez article. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:In Amharic it's {{IPA|[əbuɡida]}}. Evidently stress is not phonemic. I've always stressed the ''gi,'' but that's just me. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 09:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::Nope, the first vowel is most definitely not ə, in Amharic. It is a, the long a, as in Father. One experience that is worth hearing is an Ethiopian singing the ABC song (the one to the tune of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star) with the Abugida. "Ah, bu, gi, da, hey, wuh, zo... beh, gu, di, ha, wey, zih, zho..." etc. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 11:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:::By the way, in Ge'ez, as noted in the article, the first vowel is ä (not ə, and not a as it is in Amharic either!) [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 11:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Amharic "ä" ''is'' {{IPA|[ə]}} (we don't really know about Ge'ez, of course). Amharic "ə" is {{IPA|[ɨ]}}, not {{IPA|[ə]}}. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

== Ge`ez or Amharic ==

Following the editing disagreement between Kwamikagami and Til Eulenspiegel over the source of the word "abugida", I referred the question to Peter T. Daniels, who replied, "I adopted it (at Wolf Leslau's suggestion) from Ethiopic. It occurs in both Ge`ez and Amharic. Solomonic, no?" He also asked, "Please get them to spell Ge`ez correctly" and mentioned that "shwa is misleading in Ethiopic transcriptions, because it's not a reduced vowel, it's a high central vowel". —[[Special:Contributions/12.109.41.2|12.109.41.2]] ([[User talk:12.109.41.2|talk]]) 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for that!
:We should also ask which syllable is stressed.
:I don't understand what he means by "spell Ge`ez correctly". True, "Gə‘əz" is confusing for someone trained in the IPA, but it ''is'' the standard transliteration. "Ge‘ez" is wrong both in the IPA ''and'' the standard transliteration, so I don't see how it's any more "correct". [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, that's actually the alternative spelling he noted, with the schwa symbols, before his comment about how it can be misleading. I ''think'' he was talking somewhat tongue-in-cheek. There isn't any reason why the English name for a language has to be a transliteration of that language's name for itself at all. [[Special:Contributions/12.109.41.2|12.109.41.2]] ([[User talk:12.109.41.2|talk]]) 19:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::Re stress: "Secondary stress on a-, primary stress on -gi-." Good to know, I'd assumed primary stress was on the -bu-. Probably because it sounded like "boogity". [[Special:Contributions/12.109.41.2|12.109.41.2]] ([[User talk:12.109.41.2|talk]]) 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:::It's really too bad you cannot accept the word of fluent Amharic speakers that there is no such concept as stressed syllables in Amharic, and must turn to those who know zero Amharic, to get a second opinion about the language that is in fact quite incorrect. I can dig up actual quotes from one of the world's foremost Amharic experts, Dr. Amsalu Aklilu, stating there is no such thing as syllabic stress, since you won't believe me. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::::You're off on a tangent. We aren't talking about Amharic. We're talking about the ''English'' word "abugida", written in English letters and spoken with English phonetics by people who are using the word while writing or speaking in English. Amharic speakers are not the authority on how words are pronounced in English. When I use the word "abugida", not to mention the words "Ge'ez" or "Amharic" or "Ethiopia", while speaking English, I will no more avoid stress (or otherwise feign a knowledge of Amharic phonetics) than I will pronounce the word "schwa" as [ʃvɑ] on account of it being borrowed from German or the word "alphabet" as a Greek would say it or the word "abjad" with an Arabic accent. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.34.101.226|68.34.101.226]] ([[User talk:68.34.101.226|talk]]) 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 

::::Til Eulenspiegel, it's not possible to avoid stress in English. If a word comes from a language without stress, such as Japanese or French, we invent the stress placement. The question is where would be best. Daniels' answer happens to match my intuition, but it could easily have been something else. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

== Definition ==

Use of presence of a default inherent vowel as the sole or primary criterion should be deemphasized. Placing vowels relative to a consonant rather than simply as part of a liner sequence is a more basic feature. --[[User:JWB|JWB]] ([[User talk:JWB|talk]]) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

:Agreed. Abugidas are segmental scripts where vowels are obligatory but take second billing. Rather like tone most Roman alphabet adaptations (in Hanyu Pinyin all full tones are written, but 'neutral' tone is not; in Tongyong Pinyin it is the high tone that is not written). [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

:How's that? [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

== Description ==

I'm not sure what to say to edit the "Description" section, other than that I highly disagree with the table with the Features listed for the "Canadian":
* Initial vowel letter(s): Zero consonant >> depending on the consonant, it is either a Zero consonant or Glottal stop
* Absence of vowel sign: Vowel indication obligatory >> ... but not for the Medials ᐧ ᐦ ᓬ ᕒ
* Consonant ligatures: None >> wrong!, ᕓᕕᕗᕙ and ᕞᕠᕤᕦ are ligatures, as with these: ᕿ ᖁ ᖃ ᖏ ᖑ ᖓ ᔉ ᔊ. Also, in NW Ontario, there are the L and R series written with ᓀᓂᓄᓇ with ᓫ or ᕑ above them, which are also ligatures. When we head west to the Athapaskan forms, they are completely full of ligatures!
* Distinct final forms: Western only >> no. ᐤ is a distinct final form found in Cree and Ojibwe in both eastern and western orthographies.
* Final consonant position: Inline, small, raised >> Only true in the Cree-Ojibwe-Inuktitut and Blackfoot forms. In the Athapaskan forms, they're Inline, small, but can be raised, mid-line or lowered, depending on the final.

I tried to edit the table and it just became a mess, so I'm going to let someone who can say this a bit more eloquently do the edits. [[User:CJLippert|CJLippert]] ([[User talk:CJLippert|talk]]) 02:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks, I'll take a look at it. Not sure exactly what your first point means, though. --[[User:JWB|JWB]] ([[User talk:JWB|talk]]) 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

::These points are misleading or wrong.
::*The 'medials' are marginal, at least in Eastern Cree. L & R only occur in English & French loans, and init H only occurs in one native word. In dialects which have L or R, there are separate C series. Normal words rotate the C. But it doesn't matter, because vowel marking is obligatory regardless. You can't leave the V off an init H; if you did, it would be read as a final H.
::*There are no consonant ligatures. ᕿ is not a ligature for /rki/, but a digraph for /qi/. ᕓ is not even a digraph.
::*As there is no initial /w/, it's hard to argue that the final form is distinct from the initial. The ᐤ could just as easily be said to be a diacritic to mark a /u/ diphthong. But that's a minor point and it was okay the way JWB had it.
::*The only Athabaskan final which is not raised, at least in the Unicode fonts, is the mid dot for glottal stop. None are lowered. A comment like we had for final /w/ would be okay here, but either CJ's claim is wrong, or else Unicode got it wrong.
::I also don't understand what is meant by the consonant being zero or a glottal stop depending on the consonant.
::I took out hangul again. We may not state that it's an abugida, but putting it in a table comparing abugidas certainly implies that it is one. The characterization was also wrong: Hangul does not use diacritics to mark vowels, for example, and doesn't have special final C forms. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Adding Latin alphabet to the comparison makes it very clear that not all are necessarily abugidas. Hangul does put vowels in various vowel-specific positions relative to the initial consonant (like the abugidas) and final consonants below everything else (somewhat like the Canadian Syllabic finals that are small, raised versions of the initial consonant signs). Hangul is unique only in not having fixed sizes for each letter but compressing all letters of a syllable to fit in a square block, and some recent Hangul fonts even drop this in favor of fixed-size letters and irregular, variable syllabic blocks, though the blocks themselves are kerned as fixed width not variable width, at least as far as I've seen. --[[User:JWB|JWB]] ([[User talk:JWB|talk]]) 11:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Depending on the dialect, ᐁᐃᐅᐊ is either treated either as the zero-consonant or as a glottal stop as a consonant. If in the initial position, then it is always assumed zero-consonant. For example, in Ojibwe, ᒪᓯᓇᐃᑲᓐ is ''mazina'igan'' and not ''mazinaigan'', but ᐅᐅᐤ is ''o'ow'' and ᐦᐋᐤ is ''haaw'' and not '''aaw''. And yes, UniCode is most definitely wrong in treatment of Canadian syllabics because it unifies all of it into a single block. Yes, Cree-Ojibwe-Inuktitut group can be merged into a unified set, but you can't do that with the Blackfoot group, and the demands of the Athapaskan groups are very different from that of the other two groups. UniCode completely omits the ᓀᓂᓄᓇ with the overscript ᓬ and ᕒ for the Ojibwe (see my [http://weshki.googlepages.com/oj-readme.pdf Freelang Ojibwe readme]). Unicode ignores the Athapaskan finals that are mid-line and low-line positions. However, this is not really UniCode's problem because they just adopted pDam's recommendations, and pDam was focused on Cree with everything else being ancillary. Even the ᕃᕆᕈᕋ, if pDam would have taken the historical context into consideration, would instead have ᕃᕂᕄᕆ; or if the form was of concern ᕂᕆᕈᕋ would have been the preferred order. [[User:CJLippert|CJLippert]] ([[User talk:CJLippert|talk]]) 15:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
::::The ᕓᕕᕗᕙ and ᕞᕠᕤᕦ developed from the rotation of ᕙ and ᕦ, which most definitely are ligatures of the digraphs ᐸᐦ and ᑕᐦ. In the Island Lake dialect of Oji-Cree, they still use ᑌᐦᑎᐦᑐᐦᑕᐦ instead of ᕞᕠᕤᕦ.
::::The Athapaskan groups most definitely do have high-line, mid-line and low-line. For examples online, see Languagegeek's [http://www.languagegeek.com/syl/syllabic_variation.pdf Syllabic Variation] page. [[User:CJLippert|CJLippert]] ([[User talk:CJLippert|talk]]) 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::That's not what we mean by 'ligature' here. We're talking about ligatures being used to indicate the lack of a vowel. ᐸᐦ and ᑕᐦ are simply digraphs calqued from English, and ᕙ and ᕦ are new letters created to replace them. Whether or not the loops in ᕙ and ᕦ derive from the letter ᐦ is perhaps debatable, but in any case is irrelevant, as even if they do, that is a historical detail that has no effect on the functioning of the script. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, the article should use the more specific term [[conjunct consonant]]s meaning ligature specifically to indicate lack of a vowel, rather than "ligature" in general.

I've added information at [[Hangul#Block shape]] on recent Hangul typography emphasizing consistent letter size rather than consistent block size.

I think it is better to focus on living writing systems, and it sounds like Athapaskan syllabics went out of use some time ago. --[[User:JWB|JWB]] ([[User talk:JWB|talk]]) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, but if they are functionally different than living scripts, we should at least make a note of that. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

:The new Korean fonts are weird. I can see why they're not used for full texts. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Aethiopia

2008-04-15T11:47:14Z

Peelinglayers: Additional information to point out the erroneous nature of this stub

I've changed it from being an Africa stub to being a Middle Eastern history stub. Phoenician Ethiopia wasn't in Africa, unless you view modern Israel as being an African country. [[User:M-Henry|M-Henry]] 18:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

: Ok, but wasn't [[Memnon]] a black king of Ethiopia during the Trojan War? [[User:Albmont|Albmont]] 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to say. Some sources say he was black, but other's have him as the son of Tithonus, a Trojan king, Eos, a Titan goddess.
Anyway, it is probable that the Ethiopia mentioned by Homer (Memnon's Ethiopia) is separate from Cepheus' Ethiopia. "Ethiopia" seems to have been used by Greeks of different times for several different lands. Besides, we're not talking about a single moment in history, we're talking about the period of several centuries. [[User:Orecalimo|Orecalimo]] 10:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And the whole matter is further confused by connection of Memnon with the twin statues of Amenhotep III in the Theban necropolis. [[User:Orecalimo|Orecalimo]] 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia Britanica, Comon (the source listed for this article) has no surviving works. I'm having problems understanding how he can be considered a credible (and sole) source for this alternate version of Ethiopia when there is no way to check his work. This idea of the "Phoenician Ethiopia" seems very far-fetched. [[User:Muhrasheed|Muhrasheed]] 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

the ethiopia they mean is ancient sudan and not phoenicia, so unless m-henry or anyone else can provide proof it means phoenicia i will change the article when im next on [[User:Viola76|Viola76]] ([[User talk:Viola76|talk]]) 06:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC) viola76

This article needs a little reworking. Ethiopia (or Aethiopia, or Aithiopia or whatever regional spelling you want to use) different things in different myths (and histories) of the ancient world. In the Andromeda myth, there are different theories as the location of Cepheus and his family. Conon of Samos (Yes, there are surviving works Muhrasheed, but no complete book with an English translation) provided a historical basis of the Andromeda/Perseus legend, basing Cepheus' kingdom around Ioppa (=Joppa, =Jaffa, =Tel Aviv). And there are other theories. What would actually be worthwhile would be to use this page to discuss the different theories and different meanings of Ethiopia in the ancient Roman and Greek sources. I'll make a start on it soon when I have time. [[User:Orecalimo|Orecalimo]] 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Orecalimo

The word Ethiopia can be loosely translated to mean 'people of burnt faces'. This generally refers to dark peoples of the world who in ancient civilizations (and to an extent to this day) live in the area that encompassed Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Australia. If you're really interested in getting to the bottom of this issue, this http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/JGJackson/EthiopiaOriginOfCivilization.html would be a good place to start reading. If not, I guess alternative history that puts the white man on a pedestal will suffice. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Peelinglayers|Peelinglayers]] ([[User talk:Peelinglayers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Peelinglayers|contribs]]) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 

If ancient Ethiopia is modern day Isreal, and its ancient capital, Joppa, modern day Tel Aviv, how do you put in context the wars that have gone on between Ethiopians and Isrealis as recoreded in Hebrew history? These are wars apart from the Isrealis were invovled in with Philistines, so don't attemt to paint the Ethiopians as Philistines.

Talk:Aethiopia

2008-04-02T00:49:04Z

Peelinglayers: Added additional resources that may be of interest to the principal author of this entry.

Cepheus (father of Andromeda)

2008-04-02T00:36:34Z

Peelinglayers: Added Ethiopia next Aethiopia to maintain consistency to the article as Aegyptus was followed by Egypt.

{{Unreferenced|date=February 2007}}
In [[Greek mythology]], '''Cepheus''' was ruler of the Phoenician nation of [[Ethiopia (Mythology)|Aethiopia]], Ethiopia.

Cepheus' parentage is usually given as [[Belus (Egyptian) | Belus]] and [[Achiroe]], making him the brother of [[Danaus]], King of Libya, and [[Aegyptus]], King of Egypt. However, it is not clear if this Cepheus is the same as the more well-known Cepheus, who features in the [[Perseus]] legend as the husband of [[Cassiopeia (mythology)|Cassiopeia]] and father of [[Andromeda (mythology)|Andromeda]], and whose brother [[Phineus]] expected to marry Andromeda. This other Cepheus is given as a son of [[Agenor]] (not the father of [[Cadmus]] and [[Europa (mythology)|Europa]]). The two Aethiopian kings named Cepheus are separated by several generations, and it is not clear if the mythographers intended them to be one and the same person.

The first '''Cepheus''' (son of Belus) has a wife named [[Iope]]. The name Iope looks like a truncated version of Cassiopeia, but it is probably eponymous with the 'Aethiopian' city of Ioppa (=Joppa, later [[Jaffa]]). This Cepheus was possibly the grandfather of the second Cepheus, if Agenor was his son.

The second '''Cepheus''' (son of Agenor), was the husband of Cassiopeia and father of Andromeda.

{{greek-myth-stub}}

[[Category:Greek mythology]]
[[Category:Mythological kings]]

[[br:Kefeüs]]
[[cs:Kéfeus]]
[[de:Kepheus (Äthiopien)]]
[[es:Cefeo]]
[[fr:Céphée (mythologie)]]
[[gl:Cefeo]]
[[ko:케페우스]]
[[it:Cefeo (mitologia)]]
[[nl:Cepheus (mythologie)]]
[[ja:ケーペウス]]
[[pl:Cefeusz (mitologia)]]
[[pt:Cefeu]]
[[fi:Kefeus (Etiopia)]]
[[uk:Кефей]]

Talk:Perpetual peace

2008-01-26T19:28:38Z

Peelinglayers: /* Disputed templates */

{{Philosophy|class=start|importance=|literature=yes|social=yes}}

The German article about the work by Immanuel Kant is [[de:Zum ewigen Frieden|Zum ewigen Frieden]]. Some more English text can be found in an older version of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perpetual_Peace&oldid=20714340 Perpetual '''P'''eace]. -- [[User:Amtiss|Amtiss]], [[User_talk:Amtiss|SNAFU ?]] 16:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

== Against Merger ==

I agree with Ultramarine that 'Perpetual Peace' should refer to Kant's essay primarily, and only secondarily to related concepts. Kant's article deserves an entry in and of itself; discussion of 'World Peace' should be based in part on the 'Perpetual Peace' article.'

== Merger ==
Oppose merger. Perpetual peace is Kant's term and related to his theory. It is not the same as world peace which can have many different causes. It there is a merger, it should be from Perpetual peace to World peace.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 23:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

World Peace was not what Kant was describing in this essay. Kant's Perpetual Peace is more than sunshine and daisies which many people take world peace to mean.

== Disputed templates ==
A brief review shows that the false claims regarding Well's pamphlet are again repeated. Well's was a socialist and despised liberal democracy. None of his arguments are for popular government. [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:'''Lie''' It is in the popular government of the allies that he relies for the perpetuity of the peace. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 01:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
From the last chapter of the book (p. 94) "By means of a propaganda of books, newspaper articles, leaflets, tracts in English, French, German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Italian, Chinese and Japanese we have to spread this idea, repeat this idea, and impose upon this war the idea that this war must end war. We have to create a wide common conception of a re-mapped and pacified Europe, released from the abominable dangers of private trade in armaments, largely disarmed and pledged to mutual protection."
Here is one quote (p. 11-12) "For this is now a war for peace. It aims straight at disarmament. It aims at a settlement that shall stop this sort of thing for ever. Every soldier who fights against Germany is now a crusader against war. This, the greatest of all wars, is not just another war-it is the last war! England, France, Italy, Spain and all the little countries of Europe are heartily sick of war; the Tsar has expressed the passionate hatred for war; the most of Asia is unwarlike; the United States ha no illusions about the war. And never was war a begun so joylessly, and never was war begun with so grim a resolution. In England, France, Belgium, Russia, there is no thought of glory".
On socialism: (p. 58) "And I perceive too, that if presently my banker dissolved into the rest of this dissolving world-a thing I should have thought an unendurable calamity a month ago-I shall laugh and go on . . . Ideas that have ruled life as though they were divine truths are being chased and slaughtered in the streets. The rights of property, for example, the sturdy virtues of individualism, all toleration for the rewards of abstinence, vanished last week suddenly amidst the execrations of mankind upon a hurrying motor-car loaded with packages of sugar and flour. They bolted, leading Socialism and Collectivism in possession. The State takes over flour mills and the supply, not merely for military purposes, but for the general welfare of the community"
Wells was no friend of liberal democracy or free press. He expressed this clearly two years later "Now, however clumsy and confused the diplomacy of these present Allies may be (challenged constantly, as it is, by democracy and hampered by a free, venal and irresponsible Press in at least three of their countries), the necessity they will be under will be so urgent and so evident, that it is impossible to imagine that they will not set up some permanent organ for the direction and co-ordination of their joint international relationships."[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11289/11289-h/11289-h.htm][[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 01:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:This is another straw man. It is possible to support democracy and deplore the actions of the press in war-time; why I believe I was discussing such statements by some poli-sci prof called Rummel quite recently. Nor is it surprising that Wells regarded democracy as one of several necessary points; there's something called Kantian peace theory, which makes the same argument nowadays. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 01:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::Again, you are incorrect. As noted in my quotes, Wells never mention liberal democracy as a cause for perpetual peace. [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Your ability to lift quotes wholly and present them out of context never ceases to amaze me....--[[User:Scaife|Scaife]] [[User_talk:Scaife|(Talk)]] [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] Don't forget [[Hanlon's Razor]] 02:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Please give your supporting quote. My first quote is Wells summary of his position.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That's Wells' summary of ''one'' of his positions.

I decline to quote at length, but he dicusses the peaceable resolve of the Allies on p.14 (all references to NY edition); the fact that this is due to the constrast with the Prussian system of militarization on p. 17-8; the baleful and warlike effect of monarchy on p.56; the liberal peace on pp.66-8; the necessary appearance of a "more democratic, tolerant and cosmopolitan idea of Russia" (p.72) which will dispel the possibility of Russia oppressing Europe (p. 70); the misfortune of having to "reckon not only with peoples but with kings" in the Balkans, for "it is the greeds and vanities of exceptional monarchs [like Napoleon and Frederick the Great] that bring [about] a crisis." (p.95) I'm sure there are more that I've missed. It is truly strange that Ultramarine should not have noticed that Wells hates the Kaiser as much as he does, and for the same reasons. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 02:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:Please quote at length like I do. [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 03:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::I decline to quote passages three pages in length, especially from a printed source. Such demands are also harassment. Go and look up the cited pages. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 03:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I quote at length, you do not.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 04:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::::What is the point of your argument? --[[User:Scaife|Scaife]] [[User_talk:Scaife|(Talk)]] [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] Don't forget [[Hanlon's Razor]] 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine quotes several sentences; what he is demanding is the quotation of several pages. This is a hobby; if Ultramarine offers to pay me for data-entry, that will be another matter. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 18:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:You cite by page. As the book is neither obscure nor hard to obtain, that is sufficient. I commend to Ultramarine (and anyone else interested in checking the citations in detail) a marvelous institution called the [[library]]. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 03:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

'...but several large empires have maintained relative peace in their spheres of influence over extended periods of time. Typical examples are the Roman Empire (see Pax Romana) and the British Empire (see Pax Britannica).' Sort of like the American Empire is maintaining perpetual peace? This statement is factually and intellectually dishonest and should be revised to state the known reality, that empires are inherently opposed to peace.

== Original research ==
"Many would-be world conquerors have promised that their rule would enforce perpetual peace."
*Alexander,
*Augustus,
*Hirohito (shall I go on?)[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]]

"Several religions have prophesied that their divinity would produce perpetual peace at some point in the future."
*Christianity and Shia Islam[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]]

"There are also a number of secular projects for a perpetual peace which employ means more subtle, but perhaps more attainable, than universal empire or even democratic world government."
*Summary of rest of article.[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]]

"If one state can't reach the power to impose peace on the world, perhaps several can. [[Henri IV]] attempted to actually create such a confederation. Others were proposed by [[Charles-Irénée Castel de Saint-Pierre|the abbé de Saint-Pierre]] and [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]]."
*See third link under references, which discusses Saint-Pierre as well as Bentham, Kant and Rousseau. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]]

The author has refused to give sources: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perpetual_peace&diff=42138560&oldid=42138385]. As such, it should be deleted according to [[Wikipedia:Cite Sources]] "What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
*Please read listed sources and even use Google. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::You have given no verifiable sources. Please do.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 03:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
For everything in this section down to Shia Islam, see the relevant articles in the Britannica, or any other encyclopedia. The third statement is a summary of a remainder of the article. The last statement is sourced from the paper by Beck, as [http://rousseaustudies.free.fr/ArticleBeck.htm linked to]. This is harassment. While I would not have responded by an AfD nomination, I can understand Scaife's action. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 03:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::You do not seem understand what cite sources means. Give the exact edition and articles. Remember that you were warned by the arbcom for refusing to give pages numbers and only giving whole books as sources.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 03:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You can't find the Britannica article on Alexander the Great without a page reference? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:[http://www.britannica.com/]--[[User:Scaife|Scaife]] [[User_talk:Scaife|(Talk)]] [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] Don't forget [[Hanlon's Razor]] 04:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::I have looked at the articles and could not find that for example Alexander promised perpetual peace or anything similar. Please quote at length or I must draw conlusions.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::In two minutes you purchased a subscription to the Britannica, looked up and read 5 articles? Impressive. --[[User:Scaife|Scaife]] [[User_talk:Scaife|(Talk)]] [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] Don't forget [[Hanlon's Razor]] 04:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::::You know very little about me. Please answer the question.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::I believe I know plenty. --[[User:Scaife|Scaife]] [[User_talk:Scaife|(Talk)]] [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] Don't forget [[Hanlon's Razor]] 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Please answer the question. [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 11:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Answer what question? All you have made in this thread is demands. --[[User:Scaife|Scaife]] [[User_talk:Scaife|(Talk)]] [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] Don't forget [[Hanlon's Razor]] 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For "Alexander's work as an apostle of world peace" see F. A. Wright: ''Alexander the Great'' p. 241.
*cf. W, Cuppy, ''The Decline and Fall...'' n. 22 to chapter on Alexander, p. 45, 1984 Nonpareil ed.
'''CAH''' Vol VI p. 423-6 (1927 ed.)[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:Good that you admit that Britannica does not contain this. You have no given a source for your other disputed claims.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 13:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, no one admitted any such thing. You should read both your sources and your fellow editors more carefully. The references in the Brittanica article[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-59261] are scattered and sometimes oblique, but [[Diodorus]] is cited (and critiqued), as are Alexander's policies of [[panhellenism]] and Greco-Persian fusion.
::While you are technically within your rights to insist on a specific citation for any fact claimed, no matter how trvial or well known, it does not contribute to a better article when you demand them in peremptory terms for points that are obvious to anyone with even casual knowledge of the field. I would rate the observation that a sane conqueror doesn't intend his empire to fight among itself among such points. It passes my credulity to suppose that you seriously dispute the claim, so if your concern is merely to solidify the references, why couldn't you just say so politely -- or do something cooperative like help? [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 18:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

===Augustus===
*Said so himself. ''[[Monumentum Ancyranum]]'' [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/3*.html 13] and [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/3*.html 26].
*Made it a theme of his propaganda in, ''inter alia'', the [[Ara Pacis]] and [[Vergil]]'s Fourth [[Eclogue]].
*See for more the concluding chapter of [[Ronald Syme]]'s ''Roman Revolution''.
*This is peace through ''conquest'', of course; that's the point of the sentence.[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 16:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

===Hirohito===
*The [[Showa era]] means ''enlightened peace'', on the same theory: after we conquer the world it will be peaceful.
*See the chapter on Japan in [[John Gunther]]'s ''Inside Asia'', which is contemporary.[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 16:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

===Christianity and Judaism===
*See quote from Isaiah, added by Mr. West to this article.[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 16:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

===Shia===
*See the sources to [[Muhammad al-Mahdi]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 16:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

==Wikisource==
Extensive quotations from original sources do not belong in Wikipedia articles. That is what Wikiquote and Wikisource are for. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 16:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher

2006-11-28T18:11:29Z

Peelinglayers: Changed Aswara University to University of Asmara, which is the correct name for the University with an existing link in wiipedia

'''Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher''' (born [[1940]]) is an [[Ethiopia]]n who won the [[Right Livelihood Award]] in [[2000]] "for his exemplary work to safeguard biodiversity and the traditional rights of farmers and communities to their genetic resources."

Tewolde Berhan graduated in 1963 from [[Addis Ababa University]] and received his doctorate from the [[University of Wales]] in 1969. He returned to Addis Ababa University where he served as Dean of the Faculty of Science (1974-78). Other activities include keeper of the National Herbarium (1978-83), the President of [[University of Asmara]] (1983-91) and Director of the Ethiopian Conservation Strategy Secretariat (1991-94). Since then he has been General Manager of the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia, which is effectively that country's Ministry of the Environment.

Tewolde Berhan is also named one of the 2006 winners of the United Nations top environmental prize, [[Champions of the Earth]].

== Quote ==
"I am local, rural, communal. And I find that the whole world is a community. We have made progress in asserting our local community rights globally. We shall continue to do so."
- Tewolde Berhan

==External links==
*[http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=99&cat=&a=294 Big Picture TV] Free video clips of Tewolde Egziabher
*[http://www.rightlivelihood.org/recip/egziabher.htm Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher's biography at the Right Livelihood Award website]

[[Category:Ethiopian academics]]
[[Category:Living people]]

[[de:Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher]]

{{Ethiopia-bio-stub}}

Aswara University

2006-11-28T18:07:39Z

Peelinglayers: Aswara University is actually called University of Asmara, with the following link: http://www.uoa.edu.er/

University of Asmara [[University of Asmara]]