Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

African diaspora Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/12/10. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

going to seek mediation

Taharqa, would you agree to solving this dispute through mediation? I think we could reach compromise. I also think it's good that we'll be following 3RR now. --Urthogie 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I don' mind mediation at all, If we can cooperate we wouldn't need it though, so in essence it is unnecessary. But until then please don't revert changes from the previous, simply add your contributions if you can. Be respectful of other people's contributions, this isn't a demand, but a request. Taharqa 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though you're not listening to my point of view. My edit restores thousands of bytes of text, while yours removes it. If we're trying to encourage a spirit of contribution, rather than removal, the why is yours the default, rather than mine? I am ok with including the sphynx, with includin the external link, with including many things. In fact, there is nothing off the top of my head that I can think of as needing immediate removal. But my default version has more content than yours-- this is a fact. So what is wrong with working off of mine? I will even copy in your sources that are lost, if you find or name any more. Do you have any reply to this kind request, or will you still brand me a "vandal"?--Urthogie 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you can't quote where I directly called you a vandal then this is hot air, I indeed said that you were vandalizing, and if one indeed were then that would by definition make one a vandal for the time being at least.

I replied on your talk page with specific instances in which you have accused me of having "vandal ways" engaging in "vandalism" (like 5 times, really) my "eurocentric ways" being a "troll."

I'm not sure if I agree with this at all, all you need to do is check your reverts in the "diff", you removed many many bytes of information and formatting, the default was before your vandalism, you truly added nothing.. You have to put it in context Urthogie, you removed other people's contributions, and when they revert it back and edit typos, add info, and tidy it up, you still don't acknowledge it and still try and revert a page that was a product of vandalism almost a weak ago, when it's been improved upon since then not to mention that your revert wasn't the default. Not right Urthogie, we have to be fair here, that's all. I have no problem at all with you..Taharqa 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the history shows that you are the one substracting bytes and I'm the one adding them. THerefore, you're removing more than I'm adding. You apparently don't know the definition of vandalism, and you don't seem to understand that constantly repeating this accusation only gets us further from compromise. Lemme guess: you won't apologize for your personal attacks. I don't care. Just focus on the diffs, then. Explain logically how I'm the remover when you're removing more. Better yet, provide a link to the diff where I removed more than you have been removing. If your case holds any water, this diff exists. If it doesn't, you'll have to admit you've been extremely rude, calling me a vandal while removing more than I was.--Urthogie 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Simple, you started it by editing people's contributions out, and you replaced it with basically nothing Urthogie, seriously.. These bytes you're complaining about were mostly blank sections and reformatted, rearranged paragraphs, all of the same information, you contributed nothing and removed a lot. I'm only the most outspoken of the victims but I'm quite sure everyone that has been here agrees Urthogie.. It seemed as if you had control issues, and no one is personally attacking you, I got out of line (but never called you any names) once 2 months ago and apologized, let it go.Taharqa 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still awaiting a diff. If anything you're saying is correct, there should be an electronic record of it. Is it possible, Taharqa, that you're just making a bunch of claims falsely? If not, then where are the diffs? This is like a witchhunt-- you're accusing me of something you can't prove. Where's the diff? Most people feel pretty guilty when they cause so much trouble over something they *can't prove*. This could have been dealt with easily if there weren't the constant claims of "vandalism" obscuring any rational discussion. Then we could have revealed that your charges have absolutely no substance.

Please find one thing I've removed that I haven't explicitly stated I'll add back right away so we can discuss.. I said I'd bring back Punt, and I even pasted that for you on the talk page. I said we'd keep the Sphynx and discuss it. Name on thing.. find one diff?--Urthogie 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you haven't been paying attention, there has been editing done by 2 or 3 others also, in the form of correcting typos, adding minor sources and external links, formatting, and the copious amounts of information over at least a process of the past 4 days, leading up to and proceeding your first revision. It isn't that simple, which is why you yourself should indeed respect other contributors, you're only one person trying to out rule various contributors at different time periods. You steadily ask me for the diffs, which means you're not taking what I say in good faith, therefore contradicting yourself in a hypocritical way, since this is what you preached to me about. You should very well know the impact of your unnecessary and dangerous reverts and the diffs are clear, pay attention to what's in red, and go back a few days and see the differences between then and now..Taharqa 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking what you say in good faith, which is why I am asking for evidence, rather than dismissing it because you can't name a single thing aside from typos which I've removed (except for the Sphynx and Punt, which I've made clear 2/3 times now will be kept for discussion).--Urthogie 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're arguing, frankly, doesn't make any sense in my honest opinion. I can't convince you of something so minor and easily provable when all that you have to do is look, or simply ask "Nkuka", "Muntuwandi", "Louisville", and maybe a few others who have either witnessed the effects of your dangerous reverts, or were actual victims. Anyone can play the skeptical game, I can say no matter what I don't believe you and viceversa, it just turns into an accusation game and into a circular argument, it's like an unintentional trap to keep the argument going when there really is no real argument, the only think left to do is to be reasonable and cooperative, all of us..Taharqa 23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked, and couldn't find a situation where I removed more than I added. I couldn't even find a situation where I removed something and didn't offer to add it back. If you accuse people of vandalism you have to back it up with a diff. Please, provide the diff, if it exists. If you cannot provide the diff, I request that you cease making claims without evidence. You got us both blocked, you called me a vandal, you insulted me. The least you could do is provide evidence that I've removed more than you, or that I have "vandal ways."--Urthogie 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we're not arguing over exact quantity, who removed what, the point is the context, you started off foul by blanking out material, the response was a revert and subsequent edit war because people were honestly fed up with you doing that. No one "removed" anything but you, your demographics entry is even still there, even though your sources are unreliable as they are from a geocities website, are outdated, and not checkable since they only give a last name and a date, but I didn't complain.. We simply reverted or added back our contributions. People are welcome to contribute Urthogie, but it just wasn't fair that you'd remove other people's contributions when you have no reason to at all.. Secondly, if you looked then you would know what I'm talking about, if you don't know what I'm talking about you simply couldn't comprehend what I said or didn't look. I didn't get you blocked, you got your self blocked and insulted everyone who you reverted and blanked out. No one called you any bad names or personally disrespected you. The burden of evidence also has always been on you since you were the one who was reverting, trying to add new things at the expense of the original citations, rewording and reformatting, reverting people's updated edits, etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Burden_of_evidence You never established why the page was/is inadequate with all of those things being removed and blanked out, and why your rough draft, unedited, non-updated replacement of a entirely different page should suffice at the expense of continuous work that has already been done on the article and shouldn't have to be done all over again for the sake of one non-neutral editor...Taharqa 01:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, do not talk about my removals until you show they exist. Where is the diff for the removals? I am assuming good faith, that you are not lying and accusing me of being a vandal for nothing. Would it not be incredibly evil of you to have been accusing me constantly of something which never happened? I think you should feel incredibly guilty for having wasted all this time accusing me of something which never happened. I request that you either stop claiming I've removed something, or show that I have. This is a reasonable request.--Urthogie 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you two seek an outside opinion or request someone help to mediate your differences. Not alot of productive work is being done right now. You're both very commited editors and I hate to see time and effort that could be spent improving wikipedia being used in a tit-for-tat. NeoFreak 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa please sign up for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Ancient_Egypt_and_race

Sorry NeoFreak, the mediation you are asking for is useless. Actually, if Urthogie and Taharqa and all of us do commit to follow what Taharqa wrote before yesterday, there will be no problem at all, but understanding in building the article. Taharqa wrote: "1. Don't remove other people's material unless you address them first, or unless it's truly against policy, and still address it so that we may check and see if it's against policy.Please see WP:V#Burden of evidence NeoFreak 2. Don't reword or rearrange people's contributions unless it is discussed first, or doesn't follow wikipedia guidelines, and in this case it is still to be discussed so people can know what they did wrong and if it actually was wrong.Please see WP:OWN NeoFreak 3. No unreliable sources that only gives a last name of some obscure person you can't do a search on and a date, we need to be able to verify if the source is reliable and if the wording reflects the source and is not OR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources 4. No bias or imposition of opinion by searching high and low (to different websites) to find a source that agrees with you, usually an old one (not updated consensus).^^We should all be fine if we simply follow the rules and respect each other and each other's contributions. Thank you, and Hotep....Taharqa 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)". I would like to ask Urthogie if he agrees with these quotes of Taharqa. Myself, I would like to act according to them. Besides, I am asking Taharqa to apologize in one way or another to Urthogie. I believe he is waiting for a good signal from you. All of us, we do make mistakes, even without knowing! Peace to everybody! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this could be settled here that is always the best option. I'm not asking for anything, I was making a suggestion, the involved parties can just say no because there is nothing binding about this. If everyone can learn to trust each other and tone down the POV a little bit everyone here is smart enough to make progress. Still, it's the tone and attitude here that needs to change before anything else can happen. If the issue isn't resolved then future instances of 3RR, personal attacks or edit warring will result in blocks or restrictions from editing this page and that's why I'm advocating a pre-emptive and moderated mediation. NeoFreak 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luka, I am the one who asked for mediation. I agree with all of those quotes, and I believe Taharqa is saying one thing and doing another.--Urthogie 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to NeoFreak and Urthogie for the answers. Now Taharqa, please, show some elevation of spirit in answering. I appreciate you a lot, and I believe you can be more tactful in the future to avoid misunderstanding. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your maturity and level headed neutrality Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, you have been the voice of reason here so far.. As far as apologizing to Urthogie, I'm not sure, maybe we have to cover the exact details of what was said or done, because I don't feel that I owe him any apology, he is bringing attention to events that happened over a month ago, which I did apologize for and then took a break.. Even then I never disrespected him, only became a bit belligerent due to frustration, and took a break. As for details and aspects of the edit conflicts, yes, I guess we need to discuss that during mediation, which I just agreed to.. I am a firm believer in the opinion though that if Urthogie didn't want it his way or absolutely need to take control of the article, we wouldn't even need it, like he said, he (emphasis added) asked for mediation, obviously because he (emphasis added) isn't satisfied..Taharqa 17:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa I'm a he. Are you a he or a she?--Urthogie 17:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I think I'd have a much better advantage at editing and evading any personal stereotypes or gender based criticisms if I were to keep that information under wraps, simply due to professional purposes, obviously nothing personal..Taharqa 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just guessing you are a she, based on your way of using pronouns.[1]--Urthogie 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Hmm, what a unique observation. Though you can refer to me as he or she, I don't mind either way.Taharqa 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa and Urthogie, things can come back to normal. I am sure you do respect each other. Problems can always be resolved. One of the ways of resolving them is to go back to work. Now we know the rules. Let's impliment them. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting analysis about the subject [2]Louisvillian 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Saying a view "seems outdated"? To who? To Keita and 1 or 2 other researchers? You can't speak for all of Egyptology, without a source that says Egyptology as a whole agrees with Keita's view.--Urthogie 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Egyptologists don't study "race" Urthogie, that's how confused you are.. Somali for example have limited outside genetic influence and these features are noted by anthropologists to have always been present in that region and not due to admixture, the sources are provided, these are outdated concepts in anthropology, stop removing citations please. thank you..

Second, why are we mentioning populations from the horn and to what degree horners are mixed if the article is about Ancient Egypt?

Third, you have a huge problem with misrepresenting and using lousy sources.. You didn't cite not one study from Cavalli-Sforza, you use a secondary translation of Cavalli-Sforza in an 11 year old article about Afrocentrism as a source, but cite no study neither is Cavalli-Sforza quoted or his opinion updated. Then you totally misrepresent what was said and even re word it in your own way..

Source Quote:

Cavalli-Sforza believes that the population of the Horn of Africa is clearly the result of a fusion of black African and non-African elements. The Italian geneticist, a former Princeton professor and one of the authors of the Human Genome Project, is hardly a radical in matters racial. At the same time, he, more than some of his American confrerès, is willing to admit to the infinite variety of human experience and the human hybridity that may have been the past of the race and which may be its future. http://way.net/dissonance/sundiata.html

You write:

Quote:

"The research of the Italian population geneticist Cavalli-Sforza concludes that the population of the Horn of Africa is the result of a fusion between African and non-African elements."

This is what makes me think what you're doing is either dishonest or incompetent (no offense at all) sometimes Urthogie, seriously.. Your unreliable secondary source clearly states that Cavalli-Sforza "believes", "believes" ("believed", since this was 1996) "that the population of the Horn of Africa is clearly the result of a fusion of black African and non-African elements" (in the source' words), you use weasel words like "his research concludes" and almost passes it off as if his research in fact substantiated that to that degree. Why didn't you quote him or cite his studies? I quote an anthropologist, you quote a secondary source, who in turns gives his assessment of Cavalli-Sforza's opinion, and you're complaining?Taharqa 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also , this is not just "Keita disagreeing with him", you simply have a problem with accepting his language and work/conclusions so you single him out as if he's not a part of the majority/anthropological communinity and just some unqualified opinionist who's conclusions are disregarded and not agreed upon in whole. In reality, all he does is repeat updated consensus or give his qualified interpretation on updated studies.. I can use a different quote and another source if you're biased against Keita as a professional, I just felt that in this context he exemplified today's research best, here's a quote from an actual study that gets to the point too..

Quote: "The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis" - Quintana-Murci et al. 1999

^This studiy cites even more people to back up their results, it is consensus, period.

But I corrected the wording on both parts then to reflect what is actually said..

Quote:

"Italian population geneticist Cavalli-Sforza was said to have believed that populations in the Horn of Africa are the result of a fusion between African and non-African elements.^[1]

However, due to recent data such theories nowadays are generally disputed, a newer approach can be summed up in the words of bioanthropologist Dr. S.O.Y Keita. ."

^Instead of saying that his view is "outdated" (which it is, but whatever)..

And I replaced the word 'conclude' with 'Believed' in the statement about Cavalli-Sforza since it was mis-leading, also reworded it to reflect the fact that an opinion was expressed in the third person, the source is unreliable anyways imho, it looks like it was just pulled somewhere off the internet with out checking its validity, how do we even know what Cavalli-Sforza thought, and what does he think now and what research has he done to support that claim to represent all Horners? Also if you're going to tag the entire article and not just the one section please explain what facts are disputed and by whom?Taharqa 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in content disputes until mediation is done. I will have you know that it is my right to put the totallydisputed tag on the page so long as we have a disagreement over NPOV and accuracy. You are not allowed to remove this tag if there is an ongoing conflict.--Urthogie 05:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to common courtesy we're to give you time to explain what your problem is, but if it's up there for too long with out explanation we have all the right to take it off as it litters the article and hinders progress for no reason, but you're right, I should of just given you time to explain what your problem with the entire article is, and not just a certain section. As far as NPOV, what problem do you have the the factual accuracy of the article as the tag implies, "totally disputed"? Do you have an explanation for the tag being there?Taharqa 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also how long are we supposed to wait for mediation, who's time are we own, I agreed 2 days ago? You really seem to be the only one constantly complaining and are the source of much contention here and obviously in other articles. It's not fair imo that you'd be doing this and refusing to talk to people about it, putting up tags with no explanation and asking people to wait on you.. Are you sure that you don't want to just take a break from editing for a while, cool off? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN Taharqa 05:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is way too long

Who agrees?Taharqa 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The introduction is too long. I said this months ago, but there were no reactions. The introduction must briefly present the main lines of the article, and at best without making quotations. Besides, while inviting you to get quickly reconciled with Urthogie, I confess that I admire your way of reasoning and doing thinks. You rewrote what I said about the melanin test by Chekh Anta Diop. I found it interesting and objective, since you respected the source. Your presence here, Taharqa, has been beneficial to the improvement of the article which for long remained very poor. It is not yet perfect, but at least nice to read. Your knowledge of African History, both ancient and modern, is very wide. This article will surely continue to reflect this knowledge. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 12:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Thanx a lot Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, I try.. And yes, I've recognized this for a while also and it would be a major improvement to condense the intro, as it should be short and concise. I'm simply waiting for Urthogie to come around so I can get his opinion, so that we may move forward with out incident. The article is at a halt right now because of Urthogie's lack of satisfaction, but we need to some how get around that, what do you say Urthogie? Can we move on?Taharqa 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support changing the article while we are awaiting mediation. I also insist that you stop removing the totallydisputed tag when the page is totallydisputed. It is against wikipedia policy to remove this tag when there is a disagreement. Your edit summary was "No reason given for tag". Are you seriously denying that we don't have disagreements over accuracy and NPOV on this talk page? Just scroll up.--Urthogie 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, be patient and don't worry. Accept what Urthogie is asking you. We need healing here before moving forward. I am confident, things are going to get better. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back my additions and kept all of Taharqa and Luka's additions. Because Taharqa is editing the page I suppose I have to edit as well. Lastly, I have kept the tag at the top, to indicate our disagreement to readers.--Urthogie 17:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^^Ok, that's good, but you should of been done that! Also, you removed and rearranged a lot of material so I reverted it, but I will re add what you added, just not at the expense of everyone else. Then we can talk about your sources and what I don't agree with.Taharqa 17:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Taharqa, can you list for me the parts of the page we disagree on before you revert my compromise edit? Please just replace those sections with your material rather than revert, and we can mark those sections as totallydisputed until we resolve this conflict. So basically what I'm saying is don't revert but replace sections you disagree on.--Urthogie 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie, I was just re adding all of your sections, please give me time before you act so hastily and I'll be happy to discuss it, please Urthogie, please. You claimed to have removed nothing but you changed a lot. But still, I'm not removing anything of yours, one second, it's being added and you tell me what you think.Taharqa 18:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please just avoid reverting the whole thing at once. Just replace section by section, ok?--Urthogie 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discussing sources/sections

^All of your contributions are re added Urthogie, it seems that your contributions were very minor and the only differences between the revisions is that yours has more blank sections and there's some slightly different wording, mainly in the demographics section.. I'd like to touch upon the demographic section with you first and now if you don't mind.Taharqa 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's go difference by difference then. I ask that we don't skip ahead and that we go in linear order.

"However, according to Egyptologists Frank Yurco the Egyptians did not think of "race" as we do it the modern sense of the word"

Why "however"? People say "however" when a sentence disagrees with the previous one, but this one agrees with the previous one.
Yurco says Egyptians did not think of race at all: "the Egyptians were not race conscious."-
You said that you want to shorten the lead. If that's the case, why include specific quotes that just repeat points already there?--Urthogie 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in order..

That was not an intentional revision, it's due the the action of reverting, you updated the language somewhat late during the conflict and it was over looked. I have no problem with this as the wording reflects the sources. We can add that back with out a problem..Taharqa 18:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the best would be to remove Yurco since he is redundant with the previous sentence. No need for a lengthy lead, as you said.--Urthogie 18:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "The ancient Egyptians were not race conscious-- they considered themselves part of a distinct ethnicity, separate from their neighbors."--Urthogie 18:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree and do you agree with the edit I just made?

Quote: Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct ethnicity, separate from their neighbors, but had no consciousness of "race" as it is used in modern terms.. The only reason Yurco was ever mentioned is because at first the word ethnicity said "race"..Taharqa 18:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with the basic meaning, I will make a small grammatical fix and we'll move on to the next difference between our diffs.--Urthogie 18:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your revision basically says the same thing, but would it provide better clarification to end on the note of "race" in reference to them not applying our modern ideas into their beliefs? Edit: Okay..Taharqa 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make any change you like to it, I doubt we will disagree on it except in regards to style.--Urthogie 18:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PerfectTaharqa 18:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However, there is still disagreement over the degree of outside demographic influence on these African settlers."

This sentence makes it seem like there is only disagreement over demographic influence on the very first African settlers of Egypt. There is also disagreement over demographic influence throughout ancient egyptian history. This is why I think it would be better to simply say "on the ancient Egyptians." What do you think?--Urthogie 18:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I kind of agree, I didn't even write that. Though it needs to be cited, the source of the disagreement, who's disagreeing about what in 2007? Is there conflicting research concerning up to date studies and views of the 21rst century, is it really a debate or have conclusions been made? Also I'm not sure of anyone who inquires or debates about any substantial demographic changes in Egypt through the Dynastic, so the debate really is emphasized on the early settlers, maybe you should change it to Early settlers instead of "African', which is redundant...Taharqa 18:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However, there is still disagreement over the various outside demographic influences that acted on the ancient Egyptian population throughout its history" How do you like that?--Urthogie 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Ok, that'll do, I still don't believe that this was Keita's point but it does reflect what was said, I can't even check the other source or any quotes from them, but it's alright, no real complaint here..... Although I have a problem with the word "still" since these sources are over 10 years old..Taharqa 18:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact nature and extent of any foreign influence on the Egyptian Nile Valley that resulted from demographic effects such as migration and trade is still being researched to this day.

^Don't like how this is worded, "til this day", again, the sources are old, what source backs the claim that this is being researched "til this day"?Taharqa 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) A couple thoughts on that sentence:[reply]

This rules out the possibility of war having a demographic effect as far as rape and captured slaves.
From what I know of population genetics it's possible to determine the demographic effects on a population, but extremely difficult to detect exactly what types of demographic forces caused those effects, so maybe we shouldn't be specifying, especially in the lead.
Isn't this sentence extremely redundant with the previous one, which already indicates there is disagreement about these issues? Why not just remove it, to shorten the lead?--Urthogie 18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The exact nature and extent of any foreign influence on the Egyptian Nile Valley that resulted from demographic effects such as migration and trade has always been a hot topic of debate among anthropologists ??

And again, I don't think there's ever been any studies exactly pin pointing the affects and to what extent affects were in Egypt concerning demographic shifts, all Keita said was that they have of had Near Eastern influence "over time", which can most certainly mean the modern era and including the Arab invasion, seems a bit redundant to use him and that vague quote as a source, you don't think?Taharqa 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence is redundant. What do you think it adds that the previous sentence doesn't make clear?--Urthogie 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of now I only have a problem with the unintentional representation of the sources, the second sentence is redundant and can be removed.. But about the above one, who's this..

Redford, Egypt, Israel, p. 17.

^What exactly do they say and you don't feel as if that statement misrepresents what Keita actually said?Taharqa 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

"The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time" - Keita

^It says nothing through out its history, he only says some Near Eastern affinity through the passage of time, which means when? And where's the source of disagreement?Taharqa 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redundant sentence, but kepts its sources. Egypt, Israel talks about predynastic Mesopotamian demographic influences. Even if that source alone is not enough to show you there is disagreement over demographic influences, the other sources should suffice to convince you this is an area of ongoing research and disagreement. All of these sources agree that Egypt is of East African origin-- the debate is over various predynastic and dynastic demographic influences.--Urthogie 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How old is the Israel source, besides I'm under the impression that it isn't an updated opinion since it's old and it depended on the Dynastic race theory.. Do you have a quote and date from them? Also who is Redford, an anthropologist, does he cite one? These sources are too vague imo, what data is there to support Redford's opinion and what exactly is said, where'd you get the source? Is it reliable and are you sure that you used Keita in context, was that his point?Taharqa 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty confident Redford denies the Dynastic Race theory because I got it from the article dynastic race theory where it is used as a source for someone who disagree with dynastic race theory but says there was some degree of demographic influence ("However, Scholars still note that while the Dynastic Race Theory is probably fallacious, the evidence upon which it was based does still indicate significant predynastic Mesopotamian influence."). We can remove it if you like, because the other sources say the same thing. The reason Keita is sourced is to show that there are a variety of views on the demographic influences-- Keita is one of many views, was the point here.--Urthogie 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^In that case I demand that you not use him as a source since you used it in an opposite manner of where you got it.. Also you're wording it from information that you got from wikipedia and didn't read Redford your self. Also, even they say nothing of "demographic influence from any "outsiders", this is what they say..

"and the changes which did happen during the Naqada periods happened over significant amounts of time"

^They don't say anything about if it was due to ethnic or foreign "admixture", increase in social complexity, nothing.. No mention of Demographic influence or disagreement, the source is misrepresented.

Also what does this 10 year old Bosch, E study on modern Egyptians have to do with demographic effects on predynastic ord dynastic Egyptians? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199706/ai_n8769532

And I'm honestly annoyed with you going to google books and typing in search results then using them as a reliable source..

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt

Besides the fact that no one here is anthropologis, nor do they cite one or even argue that there was demographic changes in Ancient Egypt.. I request that you reevaluate and remove these sources.Taharqa 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: The reason Keita is sourced is to show that there are a variety of views on the demographic influences-- Keita is one of many views, was the point here

Keita is one of many views? Frankly this is nothing more than your opinion, Keita is a scientist, not a culturalist, his views are restricted to scientific scrutiny, you're confused.. You haven't provided one scientist who disagrees with him, this is why what you're saying is confusing, you keep separating Keita as a minority simply because you may not agree with his language or you simply don't understand his research. It's good to have your own point of view, but your point of view doesn't affect research and scientific consensus.Taharqa 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove redford per your request, but I must defend these other sources. Bosch for example, is still a usable source because Keita 1995 is a usable source. Being 10 years old isn't that bad, really. I believe the sources that remain are scientists, so what's the problem exactly? I feel as though you're basically saying: "There is no uncertainty concerning demographics. All is known. There is no debate."--Urthogie 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could solve this whole dillema by saying "researched" instead of "disagreed" or "debated".--Urthogie 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^^No, that isn't the problem, the sources are misrepresented..

You're not listening unfortunately Urthogie.. Where does Bosch make the claims in the statement, he's studying Modern Egyptians.. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199706/ai_n8769532

^Or can you please read this and give me an over view of what was said about Dynastic and predynastic Ancient Egyptians?Taharqa 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Little is known about human population movements during the North African Upper Paleolithic. Neolithic populations diffused into the region from the east, where they contributed to the rise of the Egyptian kingdom (McEvedy 1980). In the west new production techniques appear to be associated with elements of a previous culture: the Capsian (7000-5000 B.c.) (Desanges 1990). The amount and geographic range of gene flow, if any, associated with the appearance of Neolithic populations is highly controversial. "

Does that suffice for an answer? Bosch is not discussing modern Egyptians, but rather the population history of North Africa. Also, based on checking up on Redford, I must insist that he is a reliable source, too.--Urthogie 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you already agreed to remove Redford because you don't know who he is, haven't read his work, and took him from a page that used him to argue the exact opposite point of what you're making.. We don't need any wishy washy behavior right now, we're dong good so far..

^Bosch isn't reliable to get the last say or an equal say because it's a ten year old interpretation and he shows no data to back the claim, but only uses another source who probably claimed it in 1980, but this wasn't even the point of his article anyways. He said during the Neolithic, populations from the East contributed to the rise of the Egyptian kingdom. You'd have to acknowledge that this is but one man's 10 year old opinion and not pass it off as a disagreement between today's anthropologists, this is not today's consensus and the majority believe the Egyptians to have come from the SouthWest and South.. This contradicts another wikipedia article and this one, along with mainstream consensus today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples#The_Sahara_and_the_Sudan_in_Nile_Valley_peopling

^You should really read this article..Taharqa 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald B. Redford, for the record, is pretty much the most important Egyptologist in the western hemishpere. What he writes is this – The dynastic race theory is moribund, however the data which first supported it still supports Predynastic contact and cultural trade with Mesopotamia, including some amount of migration. Thanatosimii 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redford is a good source. A very good one. I mistakenly said he might not have been because I didn't know about him.
A 10 year old source is usable. That's why we include Keita 1995.
It is not merely an "opinion", but a claim in a scientific paper.
You are not allowed to rule out a source because you don't agree with it.--Urthogie 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if Redford is a good source, go back and read what I said about you misrepresenting what was said and how it isn't reliable since you didn't quote from him but re worded a wikipedia statement that was arguing the opposing view.

And again, what the heck is this? http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt#PPA642,M1

C'mon with the google books, search function stuff, that is crappy scholarship and unencyclopedic (no offense, didn't know how else to say it).. In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that this is a misrepresentation? Two editors believe he should stay, and you have given no compelling reason to the contrary.
What matters is what source is used, not how they are retrieved.--Urthogie 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll askmy questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question about Borsch by pasting the quote. I also addressed Redford, as did another editor. Which source has not been answered?--Urthogie 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^You didn't address either one of those and wikipedia articles are not to contradict themselves, again, read that article I posted..

Concerning the google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you what Borsch said by quoting him. Two editors have told you what Redford says. Your only complaint about the google link is how I retrieved it-- you've raised no content issue with it.--Urthogie 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor said it isn't right to post and make statements about things you don't read, so you're wrong.. Also, again..

Concerning the google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redford is qualified because he is one of the most prominent Egyptologists. Borsch is qualified because he is a scientist studying north african demographic history.--20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^It doesn't matter, Borsch presented an old view which contradicts today's scholarship, did you read the wiki article I posted that it contradicts?

Also, again, Redford never said what you're making him say, can you quote him? No, so let it go, you're misrepresenting.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt#PPA642,M1 ^^^Concerning the google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say? Taharqa 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that this is consensus view and that it contradics old sources like Borsch's opinion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples#The_Sahara_and_the_Sudan_in_Nile_Valley_peopling Taharqa 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wikipedia article is not a source, Taharqa. You've gone out of your way to even doctor the page number of the source to try to disqualify a respected Egyptologist as contradictory. Concede the point and we can move on to the next difference.--Urthogie 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^It is a rule that wikipedia articles must not contradict each other, which is the point.. What do Egyptologists have to do with studying race also Urthogie?Taharqa 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such rule about pages not contradicting. It's best if they don't contradict, but there is no rule against it. (You have not shown that there is a contradiction, by the way.) Egyptologists who comment on the origins, genetics, cranial clustering, demographic influences, population history, and in some cases "race" of ancient Egyptians have plenty to do with studying their "race".--Urthogie 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so you'd rather have the articles contradict each other for the sake of who knows? It's still loaded with weasel words since this is only one opinion and you pass it off as "there's still disagreement", the word "still" doesn't apply here either.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt#PPA642,M1 ^^^Concerning the google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Borsch wrote on the demographic effects is pasted above for you to read. Why Redford and Borsch and others are qualified to comment has been answered as well. Asking questions a lot doesn't change this.--Urthogie 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^no one is talking about those other unreliable sources.. Pay attention..

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt#PPA642,M1 ^^^Concerning this (right here man) google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Redford source, pay attention

This is what's written on the Dynastic Race page..

The Dynastic Race Theory is no longer the dominant thesis in the field of Predyanstic Archaeology, and has been largely replaced by the theory that Egypt was a Hydraulic empire, on the grounds that such contacts are much older than the Naqada II period

Source used: Redford, Donald B., Egypt, Israel, and Canaan in Ancient Times (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 13.

Ancient Egypt and race However, there is still disagreement over the various outside demographic influences that acted on the ancient Egyptian population throughout its history

Source used: Redford.. Unacceptable and sloppy.. You can't even summarize Redford's opinhion, you're going completely off another article that argues an opposing updated view.. I see that you're the one who also took pains to add the little addition to the page also when the consensus was out before you came to that article..Taharqa 20:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source used is page 17 Taharqa, not 13. Revert yourself.--Urthogie 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^What is said on page 13, can you tell me? Did he change his mind on page 13? Did you read it? Who are you getting your info from, you're obviously misrepresenting sources..Taharqa 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. The hydraulic empire hypothesis does not rule out predynastic mesopotamian demographic influence. There's no "changing of mind" required. All you've done is doctored the page number in the source.--Urthogie 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're creating conflicting opinions where none exists, taharqa. I agree that Urthogie should probably read it before citing it, however his citation is not incorrect. The Dynastic Race theory is a theory of Statecraft, not racial origin. The two statements are not in contradiction. Thanatosimii 20:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you have no idea what you're talking about, the Dynastic Race was supposedly a race of people who supposedly conquered the native agricultural settlers.. There is a clear contradiction, and since Urthogie should read it before posting it, there's n dispute.^You didn't address either one of those and wikipedia articles are not to contradict themselves, again, read that article I posted.. Taharqa 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatosimii is saying that dynastic race theory was a racial hypothesis, but hydraulic empire was not. It is possible to believe in the hydraulic empire and also believe that there was a mesopotamian demographic influence. Like he said, you're raising a contradiction where none exists. One might also ask why you doctored the page number if you're so right!--Urthogie 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can "believe" what you want, but this isn't what Redford said.. And Thanatosimii is simply confused on what the Dynastic Race was, no need to lean on that one comment, the contradiction is obvious..Taharqa 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Redford. The Dynastic Race Theory is a theory about Statecraft. Race is tertiary to it. Please stop informing people that they have no idea what they're talking about. Thanatosimii 20:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Give me a source that states this or your opinion isn't worth anything..

Quote: "The Dynastic Race Theory was the earliest thesis to attempt to explain how predynastic Egypt developed into the Pharonic monarchy. It argued that the presence of many Mesopotamian influences in Egypt during the late predynastic period and the apparently foreign graves in the Naqada II burials indicated an invasion of Mesopotamians into Upper Egypt, who then conquered both Upper and Lower Egypt and founded the First Dynasty"

Population replacement, look up the word demic diffusion..

"the Naqada II period had a large degree of continuity (biological term) with the Naqada I period,[2] and the changes which did happen during the Naqada periods happened over significant amounts of time"Taharqa 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the Dynastic Race theory doesn't exactly prove your point. We already see that it's rejected by Redford in favor of the hydraulic empire, so it's basically a non sequitor. Are you aware that its possible to accept part of a theory, and disregard most of it? This is how science develops. Stop accusing people of holding "beliefs"-- the discussion is over the sources, not anyone's beliefs.--Urthogie 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Redford say what you claim, how does he support part of your belief? Can you quote him or cite him maybe?Taharqa 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you shut the hell up about my fucking "beliefs"? The cite is page 17. Thanatosimii, can you quote the text for us? {I find it strange that you are so not wanting this to be true that you believe editors who have read a book are actually lying)--Urthogie 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^The only thing that I know is that you used a source you never read, which is always bad. Thanatosimii, if the Dynastic Race isn't about "race" as you personally claim, then why is it in an article about race?Taharqa 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatosimii said that "race was tertiary to it." Don't misquote him.--Urthogie 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's wrong and has no source or point..Taharqa 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, unlike you, he's read the book. Calling him "wrong" at this point is childish. What's "wrong" is doctoring sources to push your point.--Urthogie 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Firstly, I never said that he was wrong about anything he claims to have read, I said he's wrong about the Dynastic Race theory, he has a limited view of what it actually was... At least I read my sources, which is why your personal accusations don't affect me and obviously this is more the case with you. Again, you didn't read him and therefore it is unreliable since we don't even know what Redford said besides what's reported in the Dynastic race article, where does he say that scholars take pains to say that the theory still holds weight? That is sloppy.. Thanatosimii still hasn't offered us anything but opinion, he has no source or argument, neither does he/she know what we're really talking about here.. People are twisting definition, making unsupported claims, typing in search results and google and trying to pass it off as encyclopedic scholarship, won't work..Taharqa 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"wrong" is doctoring sources to push your point

^The only one who uses Weasel words is you, you honestly haven't provided one viable source since you've been editing this article.. L Nkuka admits that the article improved when I came. I'm simply trying to limit inexperienced ramblings (usually contributed by yourself) from entering the article. It's more than obvious that I know more about the subject than you, which means little, but also means what it means. We'll continue this later though, I have to get ready an event.. Hotep.. Taharqa 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you shut the hell up about my fucking "beliefs"? The cite is page 17

what exactly is said on page 17?

And Hahaha, why did I just notice this? Someone lacks discipline and education, lol.. This is bad right here, you set us back months.. Anyways, be back later..Taharqa 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To straigten this out. The dynastic race theory is a theory of Statecraft. That's why it says "The Dynastic Race Theory was the earliest thesis to attempt to explain how predynastic Egypt developed into the Pharonic monarchy." The race of the Pharaoh and his courtiers and nobles is the secondary Issue - it postulates that statecraft was an importation from Sumer, and the nobles were basically sumerians. Overall race, as in the race of the entire egyptian people, is a tertiary matter. I have only ever found one source, an early 1900's artical by Petrie, which claimed that the Egyptians as a whole were a crossbreed of the native Badarian civilization, Dynastic race, and a number of other material cultures. This theory has, along wih the entire Dynastic race, been thrown out as not viable, because as more digs were conducted, it appears that the material culture of the Naqada I civilzation was more advanced than previously believed, and the Naqada II civilization appears to be a natural progression, not an external importation. However, it remains the fact that some of the evidence for the Dynastic Race theory cannot be explained without contact and trade with Sumer. Redford goes on about this for several pages of his book. Finally he concludes that, specifically due to the near spontanious apperance of Recessed brick archetecture, some (probably exremely small) amount of actual migration of artisans did have to occur. Honestly, I'm not sure where either of you are going with this, since being an issue of statecraft, it doesn't have a lot to do with the race of the Egyptians at large, however I'm setting the record straight. This is what the dynastic race theory states, and this is what you'll find if you read the writings of the original proponents, and that is what Redford has to say about the matter. Thanatosimii 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this will help explain the confusion here. Redford, in his book, isn't arguing, he's discussing. He isn't stacking a bunch of facts together to try to get everyone to see his view, but he's talking about the topics. In your original objection, Taharqa, you objected to one book saying both "The Dynastic Race Theory is no longer the dominant thesis in the field of Predyanstic Archaeology, and has been largely replaced by the theory that Egypt was a Hydraulic empire, on the grounds that such contacts are much older than the Naqada II period" and "However, there is still disagreement over the various outside demographic influences that acted on the ancient Egyptian population throughout its history" both being in the same book, as if they contradict each other. You said that they contradicted and couldn't sum up Redford's opinion. Well, the solution is that neither is Redford's opinion. They are both theories which Redford admits are argued about in circles of Egyptology. He, personally, doesn't like the hydraulic theory, but it doesn't change the fact that the hydraulic theory is dominant. His personal opinion is that there is currently no acceptable theory of statecraft. He disregards the dynastic race, however he accepts that some culture and a few people moved out of Sumer, and that Egyptologists still argue about how much this actually changed Egypt.
Thinking like this is what is needed if you want this article fixed. It has to be a discussion of the views, not a persuasive document. Currently, you're both writing it like two opposing views writing one thesis paper, trying to add things that fit your view and remove things that fit the other. This is an Encyclopedia, not your dissertation. Thanatosimii 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^You have to understand though, that discussing this only hinders progress and when the "Dynastic Race" is referred to in this article, it's to emphasize a theory that postulated a separate 'race' for Dynastic Egyptians, since this article is about 'race', putting any emphasize on material culture is redundant.. Even the way you explain it, which I appreciate does not contradict consensus view in Anthropology, that there was no dynastic race, since there was continuity reported by all of today's bioanthropologists who have studied Egyptian remains. Any aspects of foreign material culture can develop through trade, but even then you admit that the consensus view is that it's not generally accepted since Naqada was more advanced culturally than previous though, further discrediting the theory from a cultural perspective. Therefore, why should it get the last word in the header as if there's still heated debate over it in 2007 and what do "Egyptologists" have to do with the study of "race", can they be cited as disagreeing with bioanthropologists about population change anyways? No one minds different views, just trying to reflect the reality of the situation and avoid weasel words that don't.. My 2 cents, be back later on or tomorrow.. Hotep, thanx for participating and explaining what you meant, glad you weren't just here to give your opinion and leave.Taharqa 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I partially agree that the Dynastic Race theory doesn't have a lot of business being here. However, concerning what Egyptologists have to do with the study of race, as I brought up before (it may have been archived without being seen, it's no longer on this page), "race" is no longer viewed as a matter of physical anthropology but as a social construct, and as a cultural matter, it falls mostly under the domain of Egyptology. As to their area of origin, while physical anthropology was once thought to help, it appears from most sources, ranging from Egyptological works to my old Anthropology textbook, that things like craniometry, etc, are now looked on with scholarly disfavour. On the other hand, studies of the material culture have been shown in the past to locate geographic origin of a people group, and this also is under the domain of Egyptology. Archaology, linguistics, and cultural anthropology are used to determine area of origin more often than one might think.
(honestly, why are you all so hostile to each other? I remember getting my head bit off towards the beginning of my interloping here, but you all have been nice enough to me recently. Cheers) Thanatosimii 00:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I partially agree that the Dynastic Race theory doesn't have a lot of business being here.

^Okay, well not to be rude, but this is the only thing that concerns me then, everything else is cordial conversation.Taharqa 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

continued discussion

Taharqa, your new edit made it seem like demographic effects were only on "early settlers". Resarch is done on the demographic effects throughout ancient Egyptian history, not just the beginning. I'm also interested in why you removed Redford even after having him explained to you. If you'd just let this go we can move on to the next difference.

As a sidenote, I've done made the following non-controversial changes:

small change to summarize the lead in regards to cranial results... I think it unnecessary to cite each source one by one for that.
Remove sforza's opinion on the horn of africa, since egypt is not in the horn of africa.
Put origins before clusters, because thats a more logical ordering to hear where they came from before you discuss where they cluster.
Removed sources which didn't deal with Origins from the Origins sections.
Put tags on disputed sections so we don't need one big tag at the top, and its more specific this way.

Lastly, if we are going to trust each other you have to promise not to doctor any more sources. Here is an offering of peace... I found sources which you might like:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a739340293~db=all
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v64n4/980585/980585.text.html?erFrom=1885573797367605857Guest
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BTOBtgo1LtMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=Cavalli-Sforza+1994&ots=T_wOvG2uMp&sig=aWcGfxybitCPs_7mI8V1H3AVRC4#PPA163,M1 (Cavalli-Sforza agrees with the Land of Punt demonstrating a connection to Sudan on page 163)

--Urthogie 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not to be the one who keeps piping up with minor factual concerns, but it might be good to get a solid source for that line, "The Egyptians considered The Land of Punt as being their ancestral homeland." I can't help but doubt this, since I've never found any such idea in Egyptological articles/papers/books concerning punt, and that claim definitly falls within the Egyptological domain. Also, the Egyptians had numerous creation myths, all of which state they were created in Egypt. Certain cities had regular theological fights, it seems, over which city and which God was the site of creation and creator. None of those myths, to my knowledge, mention Punt. So, checking that out with a good citation might be wise. Thanatosimii 04:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the land of Punt has about as much scientific significance as the next religious story (very little).--Urthogie 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To straigten this out. The dynastic race theory is a theory of Statecraft. That's why it says "The Dynastic Race Theory was the earliest thesis to attempt to explain how predynastic Egypt developed into the Pharonic monarchy." The race of the Pharaoh and his courtiers and nobles is the secondary Issue - it postulates that statecraft was an importation from Sumer, and the nobles were basically sumerians. Overall race, as in the race of the entire egyptian people, is a tertiary matter". If Thanatosimii has done a good summary, then once more Urthogie must forget looking towards Asia and Sumer in particular to explain the race of the ancient Egyptians. This theory rules out that the Sumerians affected the race of the entire population of Egypt which was indigenous to Africa. And recent scholarship shows that Egypt is the first state in the world, not Sumer. Actually, if there has been a possible political influence, it can only be reasonable for Egyptians colonising the Sumerians who were still in darkness. 3125: Egptian first dynasty. At the same period, one speaks about "periodo protodinastico" in Mesopotamia. (La storia. 1 Dalla preistoria all'antico Egitto, Mondadori, 2007, pp. 615, 733). I remember, in the past, Urthogie posted a book speaking about a Sumerian king colonising Egypt. Science does not go in that direction. Besides, the Egyptians ignore those Mesopotamian origins. The Egyptian language speaks about Nubia as the land of the beginning: "Khent", and Nubians are "Khentiu" or "Khentiu Hen-nefer" (W. Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, New York, 1978, p. 554). I confirm that the article improved a lot since the coming of Taharqa. This doesn't mean that Urthogie or others have done nothing. Only that Taharqa contributed with very wide and sound knowledge of ancient African History. It is clear from his numerous interventions. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in race, please stop making up my views as I find it rude. My view is that they clustered in between the neighboring populations, and had demographic influences from Mesopoatmia and Nubia. Thanks, --Urthogie 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still a few problems, Luka. First, the Dynastic race theory doesn't rule out that Sumerians affected race, it just basically ignores it... most of the time. A few scholars have actually argued that the race of Egypt was changed by Sumerian invaders, however these theories have been basically thrown out... including with the Dynastic race theory. So, talking about the Dynastic Race theory any more isn't really relevant. As for your source putting the Egyptian Dynastic during the Sumerian protodynastic... well, I know nothing about the credentials of that author, but he or she is flying in the face of all standard Egyptological opinion, and shouldn't be considered the mainstream.
Second, you quoted a book written by Wallis Budge nearly 100 years ago (1978 is the last copyright, not the time of authorship) as a source. Suffice it to say, Budge is considered pretty worthless as a source these days. The fourth day of my first Hieroglyphics course, I was told by my professor, "you now know more hieroglyphics than Budge." Granted, it was a little tongue-in-cheek, but that sentement pervades Egyptology. Examine here [3] if you will, and you will find that Budge has been basically denounced by the British Museum. And, strictly speaking, an interpretation of a dictionary definition, even if the source were reputable, would be a violation of WP:NOR. You need to stick to clear and explicit sources. Remember, wikipedia is not a thesis paper, and you need to take less liberties with your sources. Seek things explicit. Thanatosimii 22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatosimii, you studied the Egyptian language yet you do not know that Egypt is the oldest state in the world. You are rejecting Budge because he wrote 100 ago. You are also rejecting a book a written in 2007 because you don't know the author. Strange! Urthogie does not believe in race but he is editing an article on "racial caracteristics of the ancient Egyptians" or on "ancient Egypt and race". Both of you look very strange! You better put Egypt in Europe, America or Asia to be in peace! Egypt is in Africa, it is an African civilisation. Africa is the home of Black people. Egypt is the first civilisation in the world. Egytians are indigenous Africans. In history, one says that "the absence of proof is a proof of absence". Urthogie, stop your obsession or produce a single proof of the Mesopotamian influence in Egypt at an early stage. Up to now you have failed to produce even one. White people entered Africa during the second millenium BC: The peole of the sea and the Hyksos. Meanwhile, in ancient time, Europe, America and Asia have produced nothing comparable to ancient Egypt. Why could White people produce in Africa what they did not do in their respective homelands? What are we working for? Let's work for truth! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would respect what I actually write and not twist my statements with straw men. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I know what I'm talking about, and your sources are wrong. Egypt is not the oldest state in the world, this is simply the case. Read any legitimate history book in the world, and it will tell you the same thing. Sumer's civilization is a few hundred years older. I rejected it because it didn't square with the mainstream and used a patently false date for the foundation of the Dynastic. I rejected Budge because Budge is notoriously worthless, and denounced by his own old Job! I did not reject what you took out of Budge, however I will not believe it until I examine it personally, since Budge flagrantly ignored the development of the German lexicography which has been recongized as the correct reading since the 1910's. I find it strange that for someone who insists he has plentiful knowledge of Africa, you do not know even the most basic of basic facts about Egyptian history properly. You need to sit down and read some general texts, and pay more attention to actual scholars. Thanatosimii 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luka, there is a rule at Wikipedia called Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You cause stress for other users when you don't follow it. Also, no one calls Mesopotamians "white" as far as I know.--Urthogie 01:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, thanx for your intervention..

Quote: Um, not to be the one who keeps piping up with minor factual concerns, but it might be good to get a solid source for that line, "The Egyptians considered The Land of Punt as being their ancestral homeland." I can't help but doubt this, since I've never found any such idea in Egyptological articles/papers/books concerning punt, and that claim definitly falls within the Egyptological domain

^This is starting to get insane.. Look, the sources were provided at the bottom, and if you knew how to even read Mdu Ntr(Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs), then you'd know that it's in the name its self anyways! All Egyptologists know this..

Punt, or Pwenet: "country of the first existence"

Land of the Gods = "Ta Netjer" and has nothing to do with the East, that's absurd.. I don't know what people said 20 years ago, but today's consensus is clear, just read it in an encyclopedia or go to the wikipedia page, or answers.com encyclopedia britannica, or just read any book.Taharqa 16:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie, your links say nothing about Demohgraphic effects in ancient Egypt, you posted an abstract that studied gene flow in Nubia between Sub-Saharan and North Africa for crying our loud, they found a south-north clinal variation, what does that have to do with demographic effects on Ancient Egypt from Mesopotamia? LOL, wow, they don't even tell what Markers the Nubians had, 39% were common in Sub-Sahara, the rest was probably common in NorthEast Africa, point?Taharqa 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, the burden is on you to provide a reliable source which supports the land of punt being seen as an ancestral home. If it's common knowledge, you shouldn't have a very hard time. Thanks, --Urthogie 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, I do not know how to interact with you if you cannot accept even this one thing: I know what I am talking about; what you have been providing is incorrect, plain and simple. Provide Reliable Sources if you wish to contest this. Thanatosimii 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^The source is cited in the section, this is why it's hard to understand what the complaint is..

J.H. Breasted, A History Of Egypt, Part 1, pp274-277

^Or simply pick up any dictionary on Mdu Ntr and see how punt is translated.. Again, Punt - "country of the first existence"(The Columbia Encyclopedia, Edition 6, 2000 p31655.).. Luka provided another peer-reviewed source also and that content from the source has yet to have been disputed, Ad Hominems aren't welcome...Taharqa 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is from 1905.
Please quote the Encyclopedia.
We asked Luka to translate his source since it is not in English. He is yet to do this.--Urthogie 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Logical fallacy.. Appeal to novelty - The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a logical fallacy in which someone prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern. In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument isn't in itself a valid argument to solve it. The fallacy may take two forms: Overestimating the new and modern, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be best-case, and underestimating status quo, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be worst-case.

2. "Assume Good Faith".. In the mean while I'll get around to it if I must, you're suspiciously asking me to quote every source (a lot of which I have) though so it'll take a while to dig everything back up....

3. Understandable there, but Luka's source was only supportive of what was already provided, there's no real dependency on it, though it would be helpful.Taharqa 23:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to point 1, it's not illogical to appeal to novelty, considering that studies in 1905 had none of the results we have had since the 1970's (meaning most of them). In regards to point 2, I'm asking you to quote because of how you handled the art quotation. In regards to point 3, that depends on if you're correct about point 2.--Urthogie 23:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is an appeal to novelty, and there's no source of disagreement in 1970 anyways.. You have failed to find someone who criticized his translation along with providing a different one. 100 years ago Ancient Egyptian was the same language.

2. Assume Good faith like I said, I'm not lying to you..

3. I am correct and you shouldn't question it unless you have sources of disagreement or simply do not trust me or the source..Taharqa 00:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Egyptian language doesn't change but hieroglyph translations/interpretations do. Please quote the 1905 source, by the way.
I don't think you're lying, although I think you may be mistaken.--Urthogie 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^On what basis? Anyways, I offered a compromise below..Taharqa 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the authoritative dictionaries of Egyptian do not contain this definition. This is why I say, "I know what I'm talking about." I have "picked up any dictionary of" Egyptian and found no such translation or even cognates for pwnt. I picked up the two best ones in particular: Faulkner's concise dictionary, and the Berlin dictionary. To make statements of undisputed fact you need agreement within Egyptology, and the only sources provided are all... far from mainstream. That doesn't necesarraly mean they're wrong, but you can't cite them as if they're the final authority on what the word is. Breasted is rather out of date, and Luka's source is from someone in Diop's school of thought – not that that makes them wrong, just not mainstream enough to speak authoritativly. Per Undue Weight in WP:NPOV, it should be easily demonstrable from many, many sources across the board, not just one or two. Thanatosimii 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^This is a claim made by you, how can we verify what's authoritive, what isn't, and what isn't in there, and how does that make a translation or opinion by other Egyptologists not reliable? We can't rely on your opinion on who you personally think is authorative, again, these are Ad Hominems and you've said nothing about my compromise.. What is Diop's school of thought anyways and do you have a source which states he belongs to Diop's school of thought? And how does this school of thought make the source unreliable? Seems like your own POV being imposed on these sources, we need verification, not your opinion.Taharqa 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is actually on you Taharqa, since the text in question is written by you, and has been here for weeks, and since you have been unable to defend it against these criticisms, we are supposed to err on the side of not violating Wikipedia:NPOV among other policies.--Urthogie 01:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Luka either said the source was from someone of Diop's school, or one of links provided said so. Further, stop misrepresenting what I said. I explicitly wrote "not that that makes them wrong, just not mainstream enough to speak authoritativly." I did not say this school of thought was not reliable, I said it was not mainstream. There is a vast difference. And no, it's not my opinions on what sources are reliable that I'm presenting, it's the simple fact that those two encyclopedias are used with more frequency in Egyptological works than any others, and thus must be considered the mainstream. You have not presented however what the Undue Weight clause requires. "simply pick up any dictionary on Mdu Ntr and see how punt is translated." Exactly. If we do look up how pwnt is translated in any Egyptian dictionary, we should find them to all say somthing about this translation, or at least the great majority of them, if we want to make this a statement of fact. You have yet to provide even one lexicon which gives this translation. Thanatosimii 01:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is actually on you Taharqa, since the text in question is written by you, and has been here for weeks, and since you have been unable to defend it against these criticisms, we are supposed to err on the side of not violating Wikipedia:NPOV among other policie

And I provided a source and asked you to give me some more time to provide the quote and if not, then to use Moussa and attribute the comment to him, I made that compromise already..Taharqa 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that Moussa is a good source once translated. But that still can't be stated as mainstream or vaguely as "some", you know?--Urthogie 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^You have no say so in who is and isn't mainstream, especially in the interest of international scholars who you barely read about, "some" scholars as in it' been said by more than two persons.. Didn't you see my compromise anyways, way do you stray away from what I said as if you simply want to keep an argument going.. And I translated it in the Punt section, he says the same thing I've been telling was being said about Punt.Taharqa 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

land of punt

I can't find a source which says the Egyptians view it as their ancestral home. From Cavalli-Svorra:

That it was viewed as their ancestral home is not established. Correct me if I'm wrong. I may well be.--Urthogie 20:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most common opinion that I've heard flung around Egyptology is that it was called "god's land" because it was located to the east (this is clearly the opinion which places Punt to the east of Cush in Somalia, and not south in southern Sudan), and the sun (god) rose in the east. I really don't buy this conclusion either. I'll go look it up the next time I'm at the library. Thanatosimii 22:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? What kind of revisionist scholarship is this? Thanatosimii are you sure you're being honest? Every source in the entire Egyptological world places punt south of Egypt on the west side of the red sea because of the African fauna, plants, incense, pictures of Giraffes, etc, were all found in the tombs displaying the expedition to Punt, most scholars take it to be in East Africa, it's pretty Unanimous at that. Either way your personal unsourced disagreement is no basis for removal, maybe you need to read into it more people I guess, this is common knowledge.Taharqa 16:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, the burden is on you to provide a reliable source which supports the land of punt being seen as an ancestral home. If it's common knowledge, you shouldn't have a very hard time. Thanks, --Urthogie 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, understand this one thing. I am not here to advocate somthing. You apparently are, but in the rest of wikipedia, we don't work that way. I did not comment here for the sake of advocating that position; I was explaining some Egyptological opinions on the topic. I don't understand what your problem is, since we appear to be in agreement here!
Quote me, "this is clearly the opinion which places Punt to the east of Cush in Somalia"
Quote you, "source in the entire Egyptological world places punt south of Egypt on the west side of the red sea"
These statements are in agreement! You're behaving as if you aren't even paying attention to what I write. Thanatosimii 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently are

^No personal attacks or accusations please.. Anyways.. You confused me with this whole "east" towards the rising sun God Ra stuff which was redundant and has no bearing on Punt, and Somalia was barely east but slightly to the southeast of Cush, East of Cush is towards the red sea either in the eastern desert or past the red sea in Arabia, so it seemed that your comment was a bit off.. Yes, there is minor disagreement on whether it was in Somalia, Northern Ethiopia, Eritrea, Southern Sudan, or all of the above, but the point is that it was in East Africa, and the sources are cited, no need to disagree with what is written since the sources are cited, that's just disagreeing with the source.Taharqa 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is disagreement, though, in regards to whether they regarded it as their ancestral homeland. I don't see how two sources-- Diop and Diop's assistant professor, can make this view of Egyptology suddenly accepted.--Urthogie 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Ok, point out a source that says there's disagreement, as you claim.. And please no Ad Hominems especially in the case of PHD professors..Taharqa 23:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here contact with Egypt and Sudan was early: Egyptians called Ethiopia the Land of Punt ("of God") because a source of the Nile was there.[4]

This is an article on population history. which discusses Punt. Nowhere do they claim anything about Punt being regarded as the original homeland. Why don't they mention this theory? Because only two people hold it.--Urthogie

^But where does it disagree with the other sources which clearly state that Punt was considered an ancestral homeland and that it's translated as such? It isn't a theory at all, I provided sources, now provide one that disagrees and we can evaluate this further. Punt again does not mean land of the Gods, that's Ta Netjer, another reference to the same place. The fact that one person fails to mention something doesn't make it a source of disagreement..Taharqa 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of whether something is presented as consensus isn't whether noone disagrees with it, but rather that a lot of people agree with hit. Otherwise, anyone with a theory which hasn't been addressed would be "mainstream." So far you have the Godfather of Afrocentrism and his assistant professor (assuming Luka has not quoted out of context). are you seriously suggesting that this constitutes consensus? is it not slightly strange that one of the biggest problems in egyptology has been "answered" by two guys, and everyone else has not even mentioned them for it? i highly doubt that there view has anything resembling consensus. Could you site a modern, mainstream source that is not affiliated with Diop, and quote it?--Urthogie 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your attacks are called Ad Hominems, and if you've found no scholars who dispute his claim, then your opinion is just your own POV (if you disagree) and has no bearing on the reliability of the PHD peer reviewed source, as if his credibility is tainted simply because he knows Diop, which is a major fallacy and violation. And again.. The fact that one person fails to mention something doesn't make it a source of disagreement, no one is disagreeing with him or the sources I provided so far, so I feel that your argument is fruitless unless you come up with a valid source of direct disagreement, otherwise you'll feel that you're free to criticize sources from your own logic, which you definitely cannot.Taharqa 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, how about we simply state who holds this theory and leave it at that? Once Luka translates those paragraphs, we'll use them as sources, and state that Diop and Aboubacry Moussa Lam hold this theory. (PS you seem to not know what an ad hominem is)--Urthogie 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to not know what an ad hominem is Wrong Urthogie..

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument..

^You're attacking Diop and Moussa (for no reason really) and not the argument..

^And I doubt that would be in good taste, because Diop isn't cited and again, I also have it sourced.. We can compromise and say many or some scholars believe punt to be Egypt's ancestral homeland (instead of stating it as fact) as it was referred to as the first country of the Gods/ancestors..

Pwonit ("Punt")- "Egyptian" The country of the first existence/The first country Encyclopdia Britannica, American Heritage Dictionary, EWB

Also see Budge(some say he's outdated, but I've seen no different translation for the word), Moussa, and Gamal Nkrumah(The antecedents of Axum)..Taharqa 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Budge the guy that Thanatosimii explicitly remarked is not used as a source because of errors? Thanatosimii even provided a source for how Budge's work is rejected, if I remember correctly.
Please quote the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Also, please specify which year of Brittanica you're referring to.
Diop and Moussa can't be used until translated. I am not "attacking" them or their credibility. In fact, I would always be for removing any claim of "consensus" on the basis of two people who work together, regardless of how respected they are.
For these reasons, "some" is not alright, because I'm not sure it's more than two guys who work together.
So far, even if Diop and Moussa do hold this view of Punt, they are not enough to constitute "mainstream", and it should be specified that its them who believe this, not mainstream Egyptology, per Wikipedia:NPOV, specifically undue weight clause.
I have not made an ad hominem attack because I have not attacked you as an individual.--Urthogie 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. You made it against them, as Ad Hominems, it doesn't have to be towards me..

2. Thanatosimii needs to provide sources of what he's talking about specifically, but Budge wasn't used anyways..

3. No one brought Diop up except you.. Moussa isn't the only one who holds this view..

4. The Brittanica is from 2000, and I'll quote it when I find it, I have to go through a whole bunch of notes.. If I can't find it in the next day or two, then we can go ahead and translate it, and attribute it to Moussa..Taharqa 01:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided Ample sources. Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur. There is a limit to how long people will tolerate asking for sources when ample sources have been provided time and time again. Thanatosimii 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far there are zero quoted sources, and a couple possible ones.--Urthogie 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^@Thanatosimii I don't remember you providing anything besides your opinion and demands for what you think is a better source.. @Urthogie, I made a compromise already and asked you to give me a day or two to produce the quotes, if not, I'll translate Moussa myself and attribute it to him..Taharqa 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

k.--Urthogie 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faulkner. A Concise Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian. Griffith Institute. Under pwnt: "The land of Punt." Period, no translation. Worterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprachen Under pwnt: Name of Land near the Red Sea, no translation. If you are going to assert that every Egyptologist knows that pwnt means land of the first beginning, or that any dictionary of mdw-ntr is going to have that translation, judging by what I see, you're incorrect. Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. Thanatosimii 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^To say that it's an "extraordinary" claim comes from your own personal skepticism and has nothing at all to do with the word its self.. You've given me no source of disagreement and I can't rely on you as a source, I've done my part and translated Moussa, have provided other sources, etc, but that's null and void, I have already compromised. Yet and still your rhetoric is useless when you don't practice what you preach, especially in the Dynastic Race article and when it concerned this article, so I'll say the same thing, extraordinary claims (saying that scholars still "take pains" to not dismiss it fully because of evidence on which it was based) requires Extraordinary evidence since every other book and scholar I've came across considers any "Dynastic Race Theory" a totally dead issue (Also see Ian Shaw, Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt[which is actually a more updated source of disagreement with what you claimed Redford to have said, which I'm skeptical of, and which I can actually use as a source, as you have no source for Punt, just opinions])..Taharqa 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot continue to attribute everything I say to me. I have done my part to provide sources. Your compromise means nothing until you retract your extraordinary claims about how everyone knows this translation, and it's found in any lexicon, despite the fact that I've soundly disproven it. Thanatosimii 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I attribute it to what you say since I have no means of verifying it, if I'm to trust you, you're to trust me, what kind of lop-sided trust game are we playing? You people demand quotes for my claims, but Im not allowed to do the same? Hypocritical if that's the case. Again, I've done my part to provide sources, your opinion means nothing until you retract your extraordinary (Dynastic race) claims about how everyone knows that its still debated, and it's found in any book, despite the fact that I've soundly disproven it. And you have soundly disproven nothing, you've posted nothing at all that anyone can verify nor have you posted any source of disagreement, and you also quote me out of context in order to make your arguments sound strong, which they are definitely not (intentionally or not)... So your rhetoric holds no weight at all, I'm truly not going to entertain opinion anymore, I need links, quotes, and sources, I've done all of that, so I'm through bickering about POV..Taharqa 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

letter to the editor not a reliable source

I removed the letter to the editor. letters to editors are not considered reliable.--Urthogie 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What letter, be more specific, and why are your sources reliable and that not anyways? As a mater of fact if you're talking about Domino's letter, he's an orthodontist and it pertains to this subject from when he tested the Sphinx, it's reliable.Taharqa 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think a letter to the editor is a reliable source? Could you please cite an example of where a scholar has ever cited letters to editors?--Urthogie 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a overview of an actual study by Domingo I believe if you're referring to the Sphinx study. The question really seems to be how is Domingo not qualified? His findings are widely published and peer-reviewed..Taharqa 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the letter does he indicate that he's summarizing his study?--Urthogie 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says it in the quote, but if you insist that it isn't reliable (in which I strongly disagree), then here's the actual NY Times publication of the results. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D7163DF93BA25754C0A964958260 Taharqa 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. He's not summarizing a study by Domingo-- he's mentioning it, then giving his view on it. When has a scholar giving his view in a letter to the editor ever been referenced by any scholar?--Urthogie 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever, eventually if there's still a problem we can replace it with the original publication in which I've just provided above you in the form of a link.Taharqa 23:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You linked me to the new york times letter to the editor. Please link me to the study which comes to the same conclusions as this letter?--Urthogie 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I don't feel that I have to since it's an over view of the study sent by Peck (SHELDON PECK Newton, Mass., July 3, 1992) to the New York times who confirmed the study himself after doing his own, and this has been widely published, Definitely a reliable source.. Taharqa 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can cite the study, then, if you like, as its conclusions are peer reviewed. what a scholar says in a letter to the editor is not peer reviewed, and is therefore not a reliable source for science. since the section on the sphinx is already pretty good, what's so bad about losing this measly, unreliable source? it makes the case for the sphinx look desperate and cherry-picked, anyways.--Urthogie 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions of Sheldon Peck(orthodontist):

"From the right lateral tracing of the statue's worn profile a pattern of bimaxillary prognathism is clearly detectable. This is an anatomical condition of forward development in both jaws, more frequently found in people of African ancestry than in those from Asian or Indo-European stock.."Taharqa 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the study itself, not a description of it in an unscientific venue.--Urthogie 23:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me how the conclusions of an Orthodontist in a nationally published and peer-reviewed paper is not reliable, then we'll consider your unreasonable demands.Taharqa 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, a nationally published and peer-reviewed paper is reliable. That's why I'm asking for such a source, rather than a letter to the editor dealing with it in the New York Times. Is there some reason we can't use the study's abstract?--Urthogie 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "Letters to the editor - reliable?" [5] "Frank Domingo / New York Times" [6]and "Deliberate disinformation about Frank Domingo / New York Times" [7] Thanks. CoYep 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Please read before going around blanking stuff out, we're all in the middle of a compromise, common courtesy would help.. You would of seen that the original (not secondary) source from the NY Times is provided above you, me and Urthogie already agreed that maybe the secondary source is in bad taste and we were still discussing Peck...

To Urthogie, there's no need for an abstract, all reliable, nationally published sources don't come in the form of an abstract..Taharqa 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the person/anonymous IP address, please discuss your changes and do not blank for no reason out of common courtesy, discuss your concerns in the talk page please.Taharqa 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I insist you use the abstract. Using letters of editors is not scholarly or reliable, even if those letters are written by scholars.--Urthogie 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^What you insist doesn't reflect the rules of wikipedia at all, it's a peer-reviewed publication from an expert.. Please don't try and add your own extra rules to wikipedia..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

^The statements explain exactly what the source is also, please, please do not do this.. Before you revert can you go seek a neutral third opinion please, that's only fair..Taharqa 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

letters to editors are reliable sources for scientific studies?--Urthogie 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^That's a reductionist view of what the article is and sees to reduce the value of his conclusion which was nationally publicized and subject to any potential scrutiny, it isn't a "letter", it's a national publication of the results from a scientist in the NY Times in the form of what you'd call a letter, but no where in the publication does it reduce it to that mere level. The NY Times is a very respected publisher, which accepts critical responses(peer reviewed), in which there were none.. No wikipedia rules are violated, it's a matter of POV which is why I suggested if it really bothers you to seek a third opinion instead of blanking it out, which isn't fair since people wouldn't be satisfied with that..Taharqa 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have found a study by now, in this time you spent arguing.--Urthogie 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^It's an unnecessary demand(no rules are broken), you could of gave up on arguing, why not seek a neutral third opinion, I'm confident that they'd agree with what I'm saying..?Taharqa 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user who rarely edits this page went out of their way to cite how your source is not reliable and goes against precedent in the interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That is a third opinion.--Urthogie 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he and I were heavily involved in editing this page a while ago (about a year ago). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^That's because there was a different source and it was secondary, I linked the primary source, can you add it back now and get a neutral third opinion? This is being unreasonable, you didn't even take into consideration what I said..Taharqa 02:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to self revert, but then I checked the page history and the source provided is still a NY times letter to editor: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D7163DF93BA25754C0A964958260.--Urthogie 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^That isn't the point, the point is that no rules are broken and nothing in the rules state that it's an unreliable source since it's by a peer-reviewed authority. No different than the website pages you use from authorities and quoting them for reference. Again, the language in the section explains what it is exactly, it is represented for what it is.. Since no violations occurred, this is POV, which is why a third opinion should be in order, not you blanking things out, that is beyond unfair and of course I'm not reverting anything anymore, we have to stick by these rules, which is why I'm pleading with you to consider... Think about it, I'll be back later to further discuss other issues, please don't blank anything else out in the meanwhile unless it violates a rule or unless it's discussed, I'm asking, not demanding.Taharqa 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times isn't peer reviewed. It's not at all scholarly to quote a letter to an editor. If the study exists, quote it. Why fight so hard for this basically irrelevant issue?--Urthogie 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be familiar with the NY Times, but I requested a third opinion and my points still stands about what I stated above you..Taharqa 03:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the neutral observer, this is what the entry consisted of..

In 1992, the New York Times published a letter to the editor submitted by then Harvard professor of Orthodontics Sheldon Peck in which he commented a study of the Giza sphinx conducted by New York City Police Department senior forensics artist Frank Domingo. Wrote Peck:

The analytical techniques…Detective Frank Domingo used on facial photographs are not unlike methods orthodontists and surgeons use to study facial disfigurements. From the right lateral tracing of the statue's worn profile a pattern of bimaxilliary prognathism is clearly detectable. This is an anatomical condition of forward development in both jaws, more frequently found in people of African ancestry than in those from Asian or Indo-European stock. [8]

The Domingo study is also presented in this documentary called "Mystery Of The Sphinx" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-723622967698524727&q=Mystery+of+the+Sphinx&hl=en

Also found a direct source for the published results of Domingo's study..

For Sgt. Domingo's findings, see West, Serpent in the Sky (1993), pp. 230-232." There should be no problem now imho.... Taharqa 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

"Are letters to the editor reliable?" Not always. Some sources are always reliable, such as an article in Nature. No sources are never reliable though, because given the right author and context, they might have some value.
In this case, the author is a (then) Harvard professor. A Harvard professor can be considered an expert in the field of study he teaches. That is reliable per WP:RS. Claims of false authorship could indeed be made, but remember that the same can be said about the personal correspondence of Albert Einstein or all works of Herodotus. I think we can safely assume that in 1992, prof. Peck would surely have noticed if someone wrote a letter to the Times using his name. At least as safely as we can assume the authorship of 99.9% of the works written before 1800.
The context here is clear, and is not an obstruction for calling the resource reliable. The statement made was within the field of study of prof. Peck, and he was clearly writing about the race of the sphinx.

From the above, I believe this particular letter to the editor to be a reliable source.
However, that does not mean I agree with this edit. The sentence there incorrectly attributes the conclusion written by prof. Peck to Domingo. It should be attributed to prof. Peck.
Removing everything, like the current article has done, is not good either.

--User:Krator (t c) 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion: I agree that the letter to the editor is not a reliable source (oh the crackpot things people write to newspapers). However, with the citations provided of the underlying research, I see no problem with leaving the info in, just changing the citation. Pastordavid 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, writing at the same time, I see. --User:Krator (t c) 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neither study in origins section deals with "origins"

State formation refers to statecraft, not genetic origin/ancestry. I moved the studies to clusters.--Urthogie 01:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, again you don't understand genetics at all, it's almost humorous, but it isn't.Taharqa 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a quote from the studies to prove me wrong.
Please avoid the personal comments.--Urthogie 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist...

(2004)

The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population

(2007)

The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process

Hopefully this should be the end of that..Taharqa 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those quotes indicates origins. For example, state formation being indigenous doesn't indicate origins, it only indicates that the state was formed indigenously, not where the people have ancestry. Same with the first quote-- it doesn't say anything about the ancestry of the ancient Egyptians, rather it just refers to the ancient Egyptians themselves as an "ancestral population", meaning "ancient Egyptians" who are ancestral to modern Egyptians.--Urthogie 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Well this is a matter of POV and/or mis-interpretation, I feel that it clearly does indicate origins, one needs only to look up the definition of indigenous.. She wasn't studying the "state", she was studying the people and that's how she came to that conclusion..

Indigenous - Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.

Also you're twisting what is said in the 2004 study on mtdna, it says that neighboring populations further influenced the Gurna, of whom in their ancestral state were postulated to be more similar to other M1 bearers, namely East African M1 bearers in Ethiopia/Eritrea, since they share closest ancestral relationships with them. This is clearly statedTaharqa 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indigenous does mean originating in that area. That's why I was pointing out that the source said that state formation was an indigenous process, but not that the original settlers of Egypt were from North East Africa. Also, this isn't a matter of POV, but rather the two of us calmly discussing a source. Please don't accuse me of POV as it constitutes assuming bad faith.--Urthogie 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Ok well I accuse you of mis-interpreting then, and did not hold you in bad faith, only suggested that your POV on what indigenous meant was different than the dictionary definition.Taharqa 23:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've made clear that I have the same definition as you, can you address my reply?--Urthogie 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from me: She wasn't studying the "state", she was studying the people and that's how she came to that conclusion of who built the state. Obviously indigenous people since that is who she studied (people) and what was concluded..

Indigenous meaning they didn't come from somewhere else, the area in which they were found is where they originated, self-explanatory.. And that just happens to be NorthEast Africa, we can take that for granted as common sense (I'm in no way directing this at you as sarcasm btw).Taharqa 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote says state formation. You're not allowed to interpret the quote like this.--Urthogie 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you get a third opinion then and they'll explain to you how wrong and illogical any contrary interpretation would be, since she studied "people" and not material culture..Taharqa 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know she studied people, but that quote is not about the people's origins but rather how their state was originally formed.--Urthogie 01:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^No, it was about the people that formed it, read the whole study please.. Again, if you still have a problem with it, consult a third opinion..Taharqa 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

structuring

I merged the body plans, crania, and demographics sections, because they all deal with the same problems, so it makes no sense to separate them. I've also separated Art and Mummies from the research sections, because neither of these two are research of ancient Egyptian "race" as a whole. Lastly, I merged stuff relating to skin color and body plans to an appearance section which Taharqa should have no problem with when she sees it.--Urthogie 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree that maybe these should be mergedTaharqa 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, because this was the most important change to me.--Urthogie 17:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as long as nothing is changed in the process before discussing, I personally have no objection..Taharqa 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed modern egyptian study

The halotypes study was of modern Egypt. This article is about ancient Egypt not modern.--Urthogie 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Taharqa, who added it, intentionally removed the mention of arabs having that halotype: "Haplotype V is common in Berbers and has a low frequency outside Africa." (Arabs have it too!) It doesn't matter though, because this study should be removed anyways as it deals with modern egyptians not ancient.--Urthogie 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reason to remove that at all, added back, this is a horrible excuse. I didn't intentionally do anything, if you knew how to read English the source perfectly explains that Haploid V is more prevalent in North Africa and spread to Arabia later, it's a North Africa Haploid, mostly in Berbers, you don't even know what you're talking about.. Learn more about anthropology before you make embarrassing accusations that make you seem uneducated. Actually read the sources.. This is ridiculous.. Sources test Modern Egyptians to indicate origins and it is explained that V, XI, and IV are all African genes that merge into an African PN2 Clade, Egyptians show ancestral ties to Africa because of this, don't blame me because you don't understand anything..Taharqa 16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in that study that it indicates something about ancient Egyptians? Please quote.--Urthogie 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All over the study, simply read the study, you just got through saying the article was a quote farm, should I really have to go back and quote it if you haven't read it? I mean I will out of courtesy if you insist, let me know..Taharqa 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the whole thing and couldn't find where it mentions its significance to the "race" of ancient Egyptians.--Urthogie 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Obviously you didn't read the whole thing then, give me one second.Taharqa 23:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that I read the whole thing and made a mistake. I look forward to being proven wrong.--Urthogie 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Exactly, or you may have a hard time interpreting the data, which I took into consideration..

Citation#39

The frequency is moderately high in pygmies (66%) and is at intermediate levels in Khoisan (41%) and in Egypt (53%). The frequency of Yap element is significantly lower (4%-11%) in Europeans and is absent in Asian and Oceanian populations (i.e., India, China, and Papua New Guinea). (See Pg7)

Citation#40 - interpreting results from underhill study and discussing his own..

The M2 lineage is mainly found primarily in ‘‘eastern,’’ ‘‘sub-Saharan,’’ and sub-equatorial African groups, those with the highest frequency of the ‘‘Broad’’ trend physiognomy, but found also in notable frequencies in Nubia and Upper Egypt, as indicated by the RFLP TaqI 49a, f variant IV (see Lucotte and Mercier, 2003; Al-Zahery et al. 2003 for equivalences of markers), which is affiliated with it.

This region also maps the core distribution of the Afro-Asiatic language family in Africa. The 215/M35 subclade has been further characterized with biallelic markers,and found to have a group of daughter lineages of unique interest in Africa: M81 primarily found among Amazigh (Berber) speakers; and M78 found in East Africa and the Nile Valley among modern Egyptians (see the data in Underhill et al., 2001; Bosch et al., 2001; Cruciani et al., 2004; Luis et al., 2004;Semino et al., 2004; and in Lucotte et al., 2003, for TaqI p49a, f RFLP haplotypes V and XI which in Africa also signify M35/215). These data, considered together, make it possible to see these groups as being coextensive with each other, and therefore allow the extension and revision of Hiernaux’s evolutionary model to include a range of ancestral supra-Saharan peoplesorthe majorcomponent in theirmale lineages. The idea of linking these populations from east Africa to Morocco, and postulating an African origin for them, is not new (see Angel and Kelley, 1986), but now receives lineage genetic support.

A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004) This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions based on current data (Underhill, 2001)."Taharqa 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. You've almost convinced me. If (Angel and Kelley, 1986) mentions ancient Egypt as having African origins, then you'll have convinced me that this study is truly indicating African origins for ancient Egypt. If (Angel and Kelley, 1986) doesn't say that, then I feel that you are over interpreting this study, which "gives lineage support" for the findings of Angel and Kelley 1986.--Urthogie 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're going too far now, you'll have to take that up with the scientists who published this study and quoted them, I honestly did my part..Taharqa 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not going too far, because nowhere does the study state that ancient Egypt is one of those populations that are united phenotypically with the rest of Africa. It says "numerous", not all. To show that their is lineage support for viewing Egypt in this sense would require more than your own "interpretation."--Urthogie 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I re-read it, and it does provide lineage support for ancient Egypt's African origins. My apologies. I have one request for how this is cited in the article though. It's important that we state there is "lineage support" but not that it has been demonstrated or that it has been concluded. --Urthogie 00:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Actually it has been concluded since DNA is very conclusive, but I do appreciate you coming to terms on that, I could of actually explained it more but I didn't have time to go over it verbatim..Taharqa 18:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has support, which is not the same thing as concluding, right?--Urthogie 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, DNA is conclusive..Taharqa 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source say so? If not, then why are you sharing your personal opinion?--Urthogie 02:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^What, is it really my opinion that DNA is conclusive, these scientists are actually the ones who said these were African haplotypes, not me.. You're trying to impose your own opinion and incorrect interpretation, which is not allowed.. Taharqa 03:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing unnecesary blockquote

Except in the case of primary sources, I think it's best if we summarize the scientific studies. Anyone disagree? That's what I've been editing.--Urthogie 02:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree and advise you to not remove sources and citations that help bring home a point of the study.. Makes no sense that you'd remove anything..Taharqa 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several users have pointed out that this article was a quote farm. It seems best for us to summarize the blockquotes, I think. What do you think is lost by the summaries, specifically?--Urthogie 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, we'd have to go over them one by one and figure out what's appropriate, I'm not sure I remember "several users" even commenting in here though.Taharqa 22:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's just two users, including me. But can you specify what you think is lost by summarizing them? After all, the style guideline is to avoid quoting verbatim except where absolutely necessary. Also I agree with the other user (Thanatosimii) who pointed out that the blockquote style makes the article appear like a back and forth POV battle rather than an informative source.--Urthogie 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I already explained to him though why it seems as if it's going back and fourth, because of the lack of emphasis on empirical science in the article, which has improved, but is still an issue..Taharqa 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the article be just as good and follow the Wikipedia style guidelines if we summarize the blockquotes?--Urthogie 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^In some cases, no..Taharqa 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

remove out of context quote

Taharqa added this quote to the body plans section:

"This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation."

This was deceptive, as can be seen from the full quote, which deals with art objects:

"Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans."

How is that body plans? That is not only OR, but also completely deceptive. I'm going to assume good faith here, and assume that it was not an intentional dishonesty. I removed it.--Urthogie 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^This wasn't even in the body plans section, you're so way off it's amazing, looking for an excuse to remove things, this is such an incompetent mistake...Taharqa 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was in the clusters and clines section. Why would you put art in the clusters and clines section?
Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--Urthogie 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the good faith stuff, you're making too many mistakes to be going on an editing removal rampage like this, I should report you again since this isn't working, or go to the arbitration comity...Taharqa 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're not allowed to forget "the good faith stuff." Please answer point 1.--Urthogie 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I forgot it.. I don't agree that you're neutral and this is based on factual evidence that overrides "assumption" since I'm familiar with you. So the good faith thing is null and void, we can still work peacefully, but if you keep removing and vandalizing you will be reported once more, I don't care who gets blocked, at least it will be better for everyone else.Taharqa 17:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore your childish personal comments. Back to the subject of the content: If you can't remember why you added it, would you be against removing it from this section?--Urthogie 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no art in the cluster and clines section..Taharqa 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there is. The quote:

"This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation."

..actually describes art, not actual ancient Egyptians, if you look at the source.--Urthogie 22:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^No, he's specifically referring to East Africans in general, art was not the major content of the discussion, but a byproduct and that was his response to people who comment on art as if it's reliable. This is a bioanthropologist commenting on human anatomy, not art work, which I though was obvious..

Anatomy - The bodily structure of a plant or an animal (not art or statues) or of any of its parts.Taharqa 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong:

"Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans."

A statuary is a sculpture, not an animal.--Urthogie 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to quote him in context and in full though Urthogie..

"Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans(not various East African art). This East African anatomy(human anatomy), once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," (art can't be mixed with different races) is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation. Taharqa 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the anatomy of statuaries is part of the range of indigenous African variation. That's art, not clusters and clines.--Urthogie 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^That makes no sense, maybe you should read it over.. Statuaries can't be "Mixed with different races", it's beyond obvious that he's referring to people.. How about getting a third opinion?Taharqa 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is referring to people- East African people, who look like Egyptian art. remind me, how is this clusters, and not art?--Urthogie 02:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's talking about people, what does an article about Afrocentrism that mentions an alleged opinion of Cavalli-Sforza have to do with clusters?Taharqa 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't agree with your removals

So I added them back, now discuss..Taharqa 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K. We'll discuss and I won't revert. Please avoid the personal comments and assume good faith while we discuss.--Urthogie 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please work together

I'm going to continue to monitor this page. Editors that can't stay off each other's throats long enough to for the mediation to go through I will refer for blocks. I'm going to start posting warnings on editors talk pages so please stay civil. NeoFreak 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this motion. I don't think much can get accomplished when she's openly stated that she plans to forget Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--Urthogie 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I do too as long as it goes both ways, if not it's useless, I just see a lot of double standards.Taharqa 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have cursed at you, though. I feel you provoked me by talking about my so-called beliefs rather than the actual article, but I'm sorry for over reacting. I won't do it again, if it offended you. Either way, actions of the past give neither of us a license to make personal attacks or assume bad faith in the present.--Urthogie 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punt

File:Punt khoisan.jpg

Queen of punt with steatopygia

"Taharqa, the burden is on you to provide a source which supports the land of punt being seen as an ancestral home. If it's common knowledge, you shouldn't have a very hard time. Thanks, --Urthogie 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)". Aboubacry Moussa Lam wrote: "En effet, en plus des considérations évoquées plus haut, il y a que Pount serait plus proche du pulaar mbunndi qui signifie exactement la "terre originelle". Nous savons que le pays de Pount étaient considéré par les Egyptiens comme la terre du sud: tA xnty = en pulaar to ngenndi qui est équivalent de mbunndi" (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, De l'origine égyptienne des Peuls, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1993, p. 345). In a more recent book, Lam quoted Cheikh Anta Diop: "(...) si l'on interroge les populations de l'Afrique du Sud, elles répondent qu'elles viennent du nord; celles du Golf du Bénin viendraient du nord-est. Dans l'Antiquité les Ethiopiens se disaient autochtones, nés du sol. Les Egyptiens se considéraient comme originaires du sud, de la Nubie (Soudan, Khartoum, pays de leurs ancêtres: le pays de Pount). La Nubie est l'Ethiopie des anciens" (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997, p. 49). Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is Aboubacry Moussa Lam a phd of, and is that source peer-reviewed?--Urthogie 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^The source is in the name, and also is provided already in the citation, you have no argument.. Also yes, his source is also peer-reviewed..Taharqa 19:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is Aboubacry Moussa Lam a phd of?
which journal, panel, or organization was it peer reviewed by?
This is not an argument. I'm asking questions so I can verify that the source is reliable. --Urthogie 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the two books I quoted I have these informations: "De nationalité sénégalaise, Aboubacry Moussa Lam est docteur d'Etat ès Lettres. Il a reçu sa formation d'historien et d'égyptologue à l'Université de Dakar (aujourd'hui Université Cheikh Anta Diop) et à celle de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV). Disciple de Cheikh Anta Diop dont il fut l'assistant entre 1981 et 1986, il consacre l'essentiel de ses activités d'enseignement et de recherche aux relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire. Aboubacry Moussa Lam est actuellement maître de conférences au département d'histoire de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar" (From the back of the book of 1993). "Professeur titulaire au Département d'histoire de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Aboubacry Moussa Lam, sur les traces de Cheikh Anta Diop, consacre l'essentiel de ses activités d'enseignement et de recherche aux relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire. Il collabore à ANKH, revue d'Egyptologie et des Civilisations africaines" (From the back of the book of 1997). More about Lam http://www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=826 Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so he was assistant professor to Diop. Good.

which journal, panel, or organization was the source peer reviewed by? --Urthogie 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, additionally, translate. This is the English Wikipedia; editors here are not expected to read french. Thanatosimii 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://translate.google.com/translate_t seems to translate it pretty clearly.--Urthogie 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie, notice that Lam is not only a PhD. He is docteur d'Etat, beyond the French "doctorat de troisième cycle". Now he is a full teacher or a full professor. On those two books of Lam, one can read http://www.shenoc.com/l'origine%20des%20peuls.htm , http://www.menaibuc.com/article.php3?id_article=39 , http://www.africultures.com/index.asp?menu=revue_affiche_article&no=274 , http://www.menaibuc.com/article.php3?id_article=148 Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which journal, panel, or organization was the source peer reviewed by?--Urthogie 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie, "Africulture" is a revue. Maybe you ignore that. The first book of Lam, "De l'origine égyptienne des Peuls" is a doctoral thesis. When you were asking for the PhD, I think you knew well the weight of a thesis. It is a scientific work, defended before a jury. It is not a simple paper like many sources I see here posted by...? Show respect for Lam before I began interrogating people you are quoting to know if they own a PhD of... If they have the intellectual level of Lam. Of cause, you can ask questions on authors, but this must be applied to all of them! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks good as far as peer review then. Could you please translate it into english (not just the sentences, but the paragraphs, to give context). Thank you,--Urthogie 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Muntuwandi for the picture showing people from Punt. Why do they look Egyptians? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please translate it into english (not just the sentences, but the paragraphs, to give context). Thank you, --Urthogie 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Thank you for the picture.. Oh, and I think I translated it, tell me if I got two or three words wrong Luka, I know that the totality of it is right.. It seems that he translates it the exact same way I've always seen it translated, (In English, Country of the first Existence/the first country[of the Gods/ancestors])..

Moussa Lam writes: pulaar mbunndi qui signifie exactement la "terre originelle" = that means exactly it "original earth"

Moussa Lam writes again: "Les Egyptiens se considéraient comme originaires du sud" = The Egyptians considered themselves as natives of the southTaharqa 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please continue discussion before editing

Please reply to the discussions before continuing to edit. Otherwise I'll just revert to my version. --Urthogie 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also disagreement over the extent of natural selection that the ancient Egyptian population underwent throughout its history.

^Source? If not it is to be considered OR...

I'll add a source today.--Urthogie 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And The above writings of Strabo and Arrian were drawn from the earlier accounts of Nearchus

^Since when and says who? What did these people say? Taharqa 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add this. Put a fact template next to it for now.--Urthogie 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to other discussions or I'll revert back to before you reverted.--Urthogie 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So can we remove it since it isn't sourced and you didn't add it?Taharqa 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put a fact template on it. are you really arguing that they know the exact degree of selection?
Please reply to other discussions or I'll revert back to before you reverted. --Urthogie 20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I simply tried to add something new and for no reason you want to over shadow and revert over it with an uncited comment, that isn't fair. Why are you bullying the page? And looking around for a source for a claim you thought up is original research, you'll just be looking for anyne who agrees with you.. That's making your own statements through someone else..Taharqa 20:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being coherent, sorry.--Urthogie 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, it is customary to stick a {{citationneeded}} tag on the end of statements that need citations, and not delete them immediatly. It helps other editors who may not be around at the moment fix their own work. Thanatosimii 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Urthogie, if you didn't understand it wasn't my fault.. This is OR, period..Thanatosimii, I'd rather not engage with you(at least for now, I need a break from you), because you're not being neutral imo, all of your replies are focused at me for some odd reason..Taharqa 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why/how is it OR? It seems like it's just unsourced and will be sourced soon.--Urthogie 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, don't eliminate people from the discussion. Try to answer objectively, even briefly. You have, I guess, the necessary intellectual elevation to satisfy people of any intellectual origin. So, try to answer to Thanatosimii. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^See, this guy is the most sensible person I've encountered in a while.. You convinced me, I just didn't feel he was being neutral but I shouldn't just brush him off, you're right, no excuses for that.

Quote: Taharqa, it is customary to stick a {{citationneeded}} tag on the end of statements that need citations, and not delete them immediatly. It helps other editors who may not be around at the moment fix their own work.

^I'm not sure how this comment pertains to me given the fact that I said it was OR, it wasn't a simple matter of an unsourced statement, it's been sitting there unsourced for a long time and every time something happened Urthogie reverted it back. Now he's talking about searching high and low to find any source that supports his predetermined claim, which is OR..Taharqa 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A long time"? It's only been there 1 to 2 days.--Urthogie 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR Urthogie..Taharqa 22:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment pertained because your claim of OR appears to be based on a misunderstanding of OR and citations. It is perfectly letigimate for someone else to look for sources which cite somthing another editor added to the article in good faith. But as to why I'm coming down hard on you, that should be obvious. I object to factual inaccuracies, you respond by accusing me of either intellectual dishonisty or stupidity, and you wonder why I'm miffed? Thanatosimii 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^The key word here is "seemed", it doesn't matter what it seemed like, I know what original research is, and that's original research. Tell me how not, when you post something that supports what you want it to or something you dug up yourself that isn't supported it's original research. I specifically remember him adding that along time ago before you ever commented here. I never said you were "coming down hard on me", that's laughable, it's more of an annoyance. You haven't pointed out one factual inaccuracy that I personally contributed so I see this as harassment unless you can bring some substance here and not just accusations and sourceless opinions.Taharqa 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you, you're constantly accusing me! All I am doing is pointing out when things in the article are incorrect, and when I do so, you throw hissy-fits! Opinions? That sounds familiar! I've raised numerous issues of fact based on sources I have quoted. I don't even have that responsability, I'm just trying to be helpful. Yours is the obligation to cite. Thanatosimii 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I know what original research is, and that's original research." Argument from personal incredulity.--Urthogie 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I've heard it all now, yea right, that doesn't apply here.. All I said is that I know what Original research was and that's what you're doing by posting your own unsourced claims and giving them priority and erasing everyone elses.Taharqa 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "everyone else" do you mean...you?--Urthogie 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^So it's okay that you remove my PHD cited contributions in favor of your unsourced rhetoric? And yes, everyone, ask around..Taharqa 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

punt image seems to be OR to include

Taharqa, does any source reference this image in regards to ancient egypt and race?--Urthogie 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Taharqa 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been published that this punt queen relates to ancient egypt and race, then?--Urthogie 23:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I'm sorry but you went overboard with that..Taharqa 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question please. Users have to discuss their edits if they're challenged.--Urthogie 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have to give them reasonable time to answer.. It isn't Original Research, you need to tell me how if that's your claim, which is absurd.Taharqa 23:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's OR because this image is not mentioned by any source in relation to this subject. Do you agree that it's not mentioned by any source in relation to this subject?--Urthogie 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me to a quote from the OR page which states that images relevant to the section can be counted as OR?.. Or for the fun of it, images period?.Taharqa 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa is right, Urthogie, OR doesn't apply to images. Relevance applies to Images, and that image is relevant to Punt. However, Punt still needs a mainline Egyptological source stating that the Egyptians believed themselves to have come from punt, or the whole section needs to be cut out. Thanatosimii 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even matter whether I'm right about OR because the image isn't Wikipedia:Fair use for this page:

This image represents a two-dimensional work of art, such as a drawing, painting, print, or similar creation. The copyright for this image is likely owned by either the artist who created it, the individual who commissioned the work, or their legal heirs. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of artworks:

for purposes of critical commentary on:
- the specific work in question,
- the artistic genre or technique employed in the artwork, or
- the artistic school or tradition to which the artist is associated,
as applied within the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers located in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Any other use of this image, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, could potentially constitute a copyright infringement. For further information, please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on non-free content.
Fair use

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

Case closed.--Urthogie 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... that picture is over 3000 years old. It's public domain. Thanatosimii 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as a photo of an image is it PD though?--Urthogie 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to a legal case... bridgeman vrs some art library or somthing like that... faithful representations of 2 dimentional art are public domain. But that brings me to somthing else I was going to bring up that I just noticed, it's been edited just a little. If it were cropped, it would be a faithful representation. As it is, they technically could claim that they own the creative color around the edge of the image. Thanatosimii 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the shadow.--Urthogie 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a silly thing to get bent out of shape by, but the rules are the rules. If the image is to stay, it needs to be replaced by a cropped version without Touregypt's (the source's) additions. Thanatosimii 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to include it we'll have to keep the text on Punt, which hasn't been decided because it hasn't been translated by Luka yet.--Urthogie 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you switch the argument from OR to something else? C'mon! This is insane, you just don't want the photo up there, it's a photo from Hatshepsut's tomb in west Thebes, by courtesy of tour Egypt. I'm not at all aware of what they added(if they did add anything, which I can't tell) but the argument here is weak and petty.. We'll just leave it be until someone crops and replaces it if it bothers you, no big deal..Taharqa 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are touregypt's additions anyways? Can someone point them out, I've seen the picture many places and it looks exactly the same, it's a wide-spread photo.Taharqa 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's used elsewhere it should be removed until cropped.--Urthogie 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Don't just take my word for it.. I only generalized as saying that I see it a lot and that doesn't mean that the ones I saw came from touregypt as a source, and why does it need to be cropped? As of now I'm not convinced and don't agree that it needs to be removed, no one explained why.. There's no evidence that I see of it being edited (not saying there isn't, I just don't see it)..Taharqa 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the border is their copyrighted work.--Urthogie 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^How? How do you know they changed it and how can you prove what you're saying? As far as see it right now, it's PD..Taharqa 02:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been cropped... should be fine now. Thanatosimii 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Thanx Thanatosimii, you really are a reasonable person, appreciated.Taharqa 05:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please discuss issues before reverting

Please discuss under the corresponding talk page sections before reverting. I have temporarily added Punt so that we can discuss it. Thank you.--Urthogie 14:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the punt picture has been cropped, secondly, there's no reason to move things around imo, especially when not discussing why before or after..

Urthogie wrote:

please discuss issues before reverting

^Maybe you should take your own advise, no?Taharqa 17:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice for both of you. You're both looking at serious long term blocks if you don't change your editing style and stop the edit warring. If you read the 3rr rules carefully, you'll see that you aren't actually entitled to 3 reverts, that's just the most you can get away with. Even one revert could be judged to be disruptive, if it's a blanket revert without talk page consensus. Both of you have the potential to be very valuable editors on wikipedia, so I don't want to see you both lost because of disruptive editing. Two things that you can try, which might calm things down here.

1) It helps to learn that the universe won't blow up if the page is in the "wrong" version for a few hours. Slow down your pace of editing. Pick up some totally uncontroversial side-projects and try to get one up to GA at least. It helps to relieve [9].
2) The article still sounds persuasive. Commit yourselves to making this article encyclopedic. Physical anthropologists believe that this topic is "clearly" their domain, since it's "obviously" a matter of biology. Egyptologists belive that this topic is "clearly" their domain, since it's "obviously" about a cultural phenominon. You see, you're never going to be able to talk about "the truth" here, since obviously there's no agreement on truth. An encyclopedic article would deal only with what people believe about this topic and why. As long as you keep desiring that a reader walk away from this article believing what you believe, you can't have any sucess here. Thanatosimii 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Agreed, do you personally disagree with my revert though? I feel that it was fine as it was (at this stage) and stood for five days, and it seems as soon as Urthogie gets unblocked he reverts it to how he wans it, which I don't find fair, so I reverted it back to how it was and asked for him to discuss, which he did not. It's hard to compromise when someone is being controlling. I also agree that the article has a persuasive tone, though this would not be necessary if so many various opinions, especially from egyptological sources weren't expressed imo. I'd rather go with the empirical science of the matter, no need for persuasion when we can simply post the most current data and anthropological interpretation of it. It should also be important that we avoid misinterpreting the research and rewording statements to support pre-conceived POVs, quotes would be useful in that case. This is the type of scholarship we should strive for imo.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples Taharqa 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I haven't observed anything too problematic yet, however I'm just saying that you'll both need to be careful if you want to avoid more incidents. And as to the persuasive concerns, the problem with sticking with empirical science is twofold. First, Race is no longer viewed as a matter of science, but as a cultural phenomenon. This makes a biological study of Race rather obsolete. Second, so long as this article contains things that Egyptolgoists do consider "theirs," so to speak, Egyptologoy needs to be consulted. Matters like art and the meaning of km.t clearly do fall under a cultural-linguistic expert's domain. And, like it or not, since afrocentrism has historically accused the mainstream Egyptological opinion of academic dishonisty, Egyptology is kinda inexorably attached to this topic. Thanatosimii 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I have a different view in that anthropology has the last word on what "race" is, biology period is a scientific subject, again, refer to the model article I provided and read the intro for some perspective on what I'm saying. So if it concerns biological concepts (or lack there of) of race (not social concepts of race, since current social definitions vary and don't apply to Ancient times), it is definitely fully with in the realm of Anthropology since cultural Egyptologists cite anthropologists when it concerns "Egypt and race", an Egyptologist cannot out rule an anthropologist. As far as things like Km.t(which isn't a big issue imo), art work, Afrocentrism, yes, that falls in the realm of Egyptology, yet to be fair to Afrocentrism, experts on Afrocentrism should have the last say on what exactly these accusations are/were, then Egyptologists can answer as to whether they are valid or not.Taharqa 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert back for now, but Taharqa can you reply on those sections?--Urthogie 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^For now? So are you planning on continuing to revert? And yes, I can reply to your concerns, when ever you address them..Taharqa 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue discussion in those unfinished talk page sections above.--Urthogie 21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^Ok, well address a concern, I have none other than constant reverts.. What would you like to discuss and where? You're being a little vague..Taharqa 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page sections 8 to 14.--Urthogie 22:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa, the only problem is that physical anthropologists and scientists and biologists do not themselves say that they have the capacity to define things as race. Race is simply no longer viewed as biological, but as a cultural phenomenon. Thanatosimii 01:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can still define clusters and clines, as well as the origins of the ancient Egyptians, which are of interest to the article.--Urthogie 01:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in an article about origins, but strictly speaking, not the modern nor ancient understanding of race. However, in the study of origins, material culture is what I have always seen defended as the most weighty source. Thanatosimii 01:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can still define clusters and clines, as well as the origins of the ancient Egyptians, which are of interest to the article

^I actually agree with Urthogie here, there's no use making an article about "race" or biogeographical origins(which doesn't necessarily equate to "race") if anthropologists or bio-scientists aren't the primary authority.. Egyptologists are authorities on Ancient Egyptian history and material culture, which this article is not generally about.Taharqa 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, physical anthropologists deny that they themselves even have any authority anymore, that being the problem. They deny that race is biological at all, but rather, they call it a cultural construction. As such, it falls under the authority of cultural anthropolgists, and cultural anthropology is actually a significant field of study of certain branches of Egyptology. This doesn't stop certain physical anthropologists from doing it, thus a discussion of Physical Anthropolgical Racial designation of Ancient Egypt is indeed notable, however the physical anthropologists who do do these studies are so inexorably attached to the Egyptology-Afrocentrism controversy, that it's impossible to have a neutral article on this topic without a fair (and, granted, limited) representation of why Egyptologists don't assent to their results. Thanatosimii 19:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical anthropologists deny the existence of race, but not the idea of genetic modalities associated with geographical origins, that tend to cluster at bottlenecks and on sides of population barriers.--Urthogie 01:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... that still means that material doesn't belong in an article about Ancient Egypt and a cultural construct. Thanatosimii 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, I am a bit queasy about this article title. Perhaps we could solve these issue with several splits:

and merge other stuff to existing articles such as:

How would that be?--Urthogie 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about biogeographical origins of Ancient Egyptians, same thing, just with out the connotation of any blanket racial terms.Taharqa 01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would still only cover origins, and nothing about clusters, demographic effects, appearence etc. So I think a split might be necessary to keep the titles encyclopedic, and to cover everything we want to.--Urthogie 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of any demographic effects is subjective and depends on when any of them occurred and if they are even actually reported biologically, but the other point I agree with..Taharqa 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say about demographic effects is correct, the article will eventually come to reflect that if it is edited in line with policies. Do you basically agree with the splits I've suggested?--Urthogie 02:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't veer from what it is about now, which is biological origins and the biogeographical context of the ancient Egyptians. If there were any demographic effects during the classical period of Egypt that can be confirmed biologically, they will be eventually mentioned in that context.. As for the sections, they all seem good except, Ancient Egyptian state formation, change that to biogeographical Origins of Ancient Egyptians, Race in Egyptology is irrelevant and merely trivial, less than scholarly, *Egypt in Afrocentrism and

Myths about ancient Egypt are also a bit too trivia and invites bickering..Taharqa 03:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Professor Ibrahim Sundiata: "Afrocentrism: The Argument We're Really Having"

[ArgumentHaving-1] Professor Ibrahim Sundiata: "Afrocentrism: The Argument We're Really Having"

[1]

going to seek mediation

More factual accuracy problems...

NPOV

The intro is way too long

discussing sources/sections

The Redford source, pay attention

continued discussion

land of punt

letter to the editor not a reliable source

Third Opinion

neither study in origins section deals with "origins"

structuring

removed modern egyptian study

removing unnecesary blockquote

remove out of context quote

don't agree with your removals

Please work together

Punt

please continue discussion before editing

punt image seems to be OR to include

please discuss issues before reverting