Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

^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)

1. The first source is from 1905.
2. Please quote the Encyclopedia.
3. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

^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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

^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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

^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)

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.[2]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

^@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)

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

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)

^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)

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)

^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 demand quotes from my sources, 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 "scholars take pains" to still debate the validity of it, and it's found in any book, despite the fact that I've soundly disproven it(actually it has been discredited, that's way your new claim that you say is from Redford who discredits it himself is extraordinary). 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)

What on earth do you think the Berlin dictionary and Faulkners dictionary are? Waste paper? Sources! Sources I have given three times, and quoted for you as well! Sources that directy disprove your claim that I can go to any dictionary and find your definition. You essentially accused me of being a total idiot, and I am within my rights to insist that you retract your implications that I know nothing. And for the life of me, if you would stop conflating the Dynastic Race Theory and predynastic mesopotamian contact, you would understand how it is that Redford makes his claims. You could try reading the book! Until you do, I do not see how you can presume to judge what he does and does not say. You will now stop telling me that I have not given you sources. Thanatosimii 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, Thanatosimii has given you full quotes. Your only recourse at this point is to accuse him of fabricating quotes. Why do that?--Urthogie 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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=9E0CE1D7163DF93BA25754C0A964958260Taharqa 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

^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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

See "Letters to the editor - reliable?" [3] "Frank Domingo / New York Times" [4]and "Deliberate disinformation about Frank Domingo / New York Times" [5] Thanks. CoYep 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

^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)

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)

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)

^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)

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

^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)

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

^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)

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)

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)

^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)

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)

^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)

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)

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)

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. [6]

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)

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)

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)

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

"From the above, I believe this particular letter to the editor to be a reliable source."

"Removing everything, like the current article has done, is not good either".

"However, with the citations provided of the underlying research, I see no problem with leaving the info in, just changing the citation"

^Two outside and neutral opinions, great!

Thank you so much guys, this is the voice of reason. I also feel that it isn't misrepresented in any way and about Peck(besides the last edit pointed out which is fixed), it is specifically mentioned that he's responding to a study by Domingo and giving his own conclusion/expert opinion, but of course you guys are right that it shouldn't be represented as coming from Domingo himself, because it's from Peck. This is where the confusion kicked in I guess, but the source wasn't misrepresented in the wording(as was pointed out above), I'll be sure to keep the wording accurate and keep it reflective of what it's actually about(which I feel has been done anyways and Urthogie was just confused).. Thanx again..Taharqa 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Where is the source for the assertion that Peck is a (then) Harvard professor? The provided link only states that he is a "orthodontist". (Google it, and you will find at least 6 Sheldon Peck's who are orthodontists - it's even possible that there are even more Sheldon Peck's who don't have a website, or retired by now - how do you know which one wrote the letter 15 years ago?)
2. Anthropology is NOT the field of study of an orthodontist and an orthodontist is NOT an expert in Anthropology.
3. The letter to the editor was published in the OpEd section which publishes all kind of reader opinions, and not facts or credible published materials with a reliable publication process
4. Someone please check out the article Peck is referring to (The Case of the Missing Pharo" by John Anthony West published in the New York Times OpEd section June 27, 1992), and be so kind and point out the "facial photographs" Peck is talking about (there are none, only a drawn sketch!)
5. Race can't be determined by measuring the facial angle, jaw structure or prognathism, these are 19th century methods, today regarded as inadequate and considered outdated pseudoscience. But even IF these kind of skeletal studies would be a valid tool to determine someones "race", no "expert" would analyse a skull structure without a skull or prognathism without a jaw. It's just as ridiculous and most amateurish to diagnose prognathism without x-rays.
6. Domingo never made any conclusions or even observations about "race" nor about alleged "anatomical conditions found in people of African ancestry" or "prognathism" or similar nonsense. Not in the NY Times article, not in "Mystery Of The Sphinx", not in West's "Serpent in the Sky". All he did was comparing the face on a statue of Chephren at a museum in Cairo with the face of the Sphinx to determine if they are the same person
7. The assertion that "the Sphinx has a distinctive "African," "Nubian," or "Negroid" aspect" is the conclusion of Schoch, not of Domingo. But Schoch also states that the Sphinx head was recarved and that "there is no way now to determine what the original head of the Great Sphinx looked like".
8. Neither Schoch nor West trace ancient Egypt back to Africans. Schoch states that ancient Egypt was not build by Africans but by a "lost master culture" which were a "Post-Ice Age Diaspora from the Orient" and who "brought with them their knowledge and form of government", and West claims that the Sphinx was built by "survivors from Atlantis in 10500 BC". Are we going to include this kind of stuff into the article as well?

The bottom line is, that additional to the fact that letters to the editor are absolutely not reliable sources (at least we can agree on this one), this kind of unscientific, amateurish "opinion" is not the kind of material appropriate for an encyclopedic article.CoYep 12:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"However, with the citations provided of the underlying research, I see no problem with leaving the info in, just changing the citation"

There is no such underlying citation for this. It is only a letter to the editor, which is referenced at times by Afrocentrists. Where is the study?--Urthogie 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Coyep, please don't come here trying to oer rule everyone's opinion and twist their words, they both voted stay, so did I, so did Luka.. Two neutral opinions and two opinions of people who contribute.. Stop your disruptive behavior, no rules are broken and your POV doesn't over rule anyone elses, especially neutral parties.

Luka writes: "I can't understand why Urthogie is constantly removing the letter by a Harvard professor of Orthodontics Sheldon Peck to the editor of the New York Times in which he commented on a study of the Giza sphinx. A letter can be taken seriously in science if written with the intention of making a scientific contribution. That's what happened with Champollion and his letter to Mr Dacier in 1822 where he showed that he can read hieroglyphs. This letter is considered as a scientific document."Taharqa 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Voting is part of discussion, not the final decision. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Urthogie 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^As long as you don't blank it until then, fine.. Again, I think it's racist and/or prejudice/biased to keep bringing up Afrocentrists where they don't apply..Taharqa 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Afrocentrists do apply, because this letter to the editor is frequently quote farmed by them.
• Even if they didn't apply, its not racist to bring them up-- rather it would be called a mistake.--Urthogie 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is bias against Afrocentrism, nothing more or less and I don't have to entertain that.. If it's a mistake, racism, and/or prejudice/Bias, I don't know, but it's one of them, which I will no longer entertain.Taharqa 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting the users who made the comments here to come back and comment again.--Urthogie 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^They've spoken already, if you need them, message them.. They only came to give a third opinion, not argue endlessly.Taharqa 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I'll ask for them to come back, because we still don't have consensus.--Urthogie 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^You're the odd man out.Taharqa 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually CoYep agrees with me, and those who commented are yet to reply. This doesn't even resemble consensus.--Urthogie 19:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is, since the person who added it, me, Luka, Louisville, the third and fourth opinion all agreed and explained why, Coyep didn't as he disagreed with the secondary source, we all agreed to the first.Taharqa 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

^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)

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)

^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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

^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)

The quote says "state" explicitly. You are the one claiming its referring to genetic origins as opposed to statecraft. I will get a third opinion, but first can you show why you think "ancestral population" refers to the ancestor of ancient Egyptians, rather than meaning "ancient Egyptians", as in ancestors of modern Egyptians. --Urthogie 16:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^"The quote says "state" explicitly. You are the one claiming its referring to genetic origins as opposed to statecraft"

Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the evidence for migration over the period of the development of social hierarchy and the Egyptian state. Craniometric variation, based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal components analysis, discriminant function analysis, and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests. 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.

^It's always good to read these things yourself first though so people don't have to go through all of this meaningless work to convince one person of the obvious...

"ancestral population" refers to the ancestor of ancient Egyptians, rather than meaning "ancient Egyptians"

^^You're not allowed to interpret the data in your own way.. He says nothing of the like, just that M1 was their natural state of origin and they have close relationships with East Africa. They say the current(another word for Modern, look it up) state of the population is due to influence from other neighboring regions on the ancestral population.Taharqa 17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• "suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process" does not mean "suggesting that the genetic origins of the ancient Egyptians are indigenous." The results merely indicate that the early predynastic Egyptian population had few demographic effects on it during the process of state formation. And also, you can form a theory of state formation largely on the basis of observed genetic/demographic effects. So pointing out that its the people's demographic/genetic history being used for evidence, doesn't mean that the conclusion is on the genetic origins of those people. . You are the one interpreting this, I am merely quoting it and pointing out that it refers to state formation.
• I'm not "interpreting", I'm merely asking what specifically he means by "ancestral population." You are yet to answer this question with a clarifying quote.--Urthogie 17:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't quote anything, again..

Urthogie writes: You are the one claiming its referring to genetic origins as opposed to statecraft

The study: "Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying "craniometric variation"(not statecraft, you put words in her mouth)

Conclusion based on her genetic studies: "state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous(look up the word indigenous again) process"

(2004) "The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population."(look up the word ancestral)Taharqa 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're ignoring my main point. Yes, the study as a whole was mainly about genetic origins, but that specific claim talks about the state, not genetic origin.--Urthogie 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point is null and void since you're completely wrong as the study is about "genetic diversity" inferred from "craniometric variation". You can choose to hang on to "state formation" as you will, but anyone who reads the study, sees that the person conducting it is a bioanthropologist studying skeletal remains, you'll see that you're wrong.. It's about biogeographical origins and population relationships. Please seek a third opinion if you disagree and simply read the study...Taharqa 20:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose that's necessary on every issue, then...--Urthogie 15:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when one party isn't being unreasonable or uncompromising and won't read the data themselves, maybe they need more than one person to do it for them.Taharqa 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how I am "interpreting" though? I do not want to do anything but quote the study. You are the one interpreting it, no?--Urthogie 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^Well the quotes are there and they answered your question, the only reason the convo is still going is because you want to "interpret" the quotes in a different way other than literally.Taharqa 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation, oh wait, I mean quote is that "lineage support" is provided. That's a quote. Nowhere, however, is there a quote for "concluded."--Urthogie 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^Where does that quote fit in, you're not allowed to take two words out of context and make that an argument for taking out a peer-reviewed study. "lineage support" = greater support to an argument outside of DNA studies, like archaeological, cultural, linguistics arguments, etc., they have lineage support for those arguments(of the same premise) now. Lineage meaning DNA, DNA = conclusive, meaning now their argument is concrete, which is why this was stated with enthusiasm if you'd check the tone of the author.. You picking your way through terminology and misinterpreting it or arguing with how I do has no bearing on the way it was stated and in what context, or if that was the conclusion of the study. I quoted to you and summed up what the study was about, now I even explained to you what those two out of context words were in reference to, I think it's about time that you read the two studies now or let it go.Taharqa 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you learn genetics or population history where you were taught that an analysis of DNA samples concludes the genetic origins of a people? This is blatantly false.--Urthogie 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.Taharqa 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

^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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

^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)

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

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

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

^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)

This study doesn't say the results conclude African origins-- they say they "support" that theory. Do you disagree with this? If so, please quote this study to prove me wrong.--Urthogie 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^Yes, I disagree with your interpretation fully, you're playing with two or three words and try to give them your own meaning in your own context, again, I can only go over the same thing so much and this is in the Clusters and clines section, not origins, stop imposing your own words on the study to obscure it.. They indicate definite ancestral connections from the genes they posses.. Taharqa 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quoting the study-- I say there is "lineage support" because it says "lineage support." You, however, regard support as conclusive.--Urthogie 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^You're being selective on what you quote which had nothing to do with the conclusions of the study..Taharqa 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing this any further, it's a huge waste of time,one only needs to read and use common sense, it's not even a matter of POV...Taharqa 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to discuss it if you want your version kept.--Urthogie 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true since you don't own the article and are the only one disputing this after it's been here for weeks and you haven't even read it.... And again.. If it gets down to two editors and one still doesn't agree, it's advised that we seek a third opinion. I do not have to discuss anything for all eternity and argue in circles.Taharqa 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You do have to discuss it until there is consensus.--Urthogie 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^No I do not if it is only down to two editors who can't compromise, you're advised to seek a third opinion..Taharqa 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion is an optional mechanism for getting.. a third opinion. That doesn't mean you can stop discussing because a third opinion hasn't been reached yet.--Urthogie 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^Show me a rule that says that if you're not willing to see eye to eye that I have to discuss and try to convince you for all eternity, and what rule states that you (or me) can take control of the article if I refuse to discuss and you refuse to seek a third opinion?Taharqa 17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that general consensus is required to keep a given edit.--Urthogie 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

General consensus has been shown in the authority and collaborative correspondence of these sources and common knowledge and acceptability of DNA being conclusive. Any interpretation to the contrary is your own opinion which you personalize and twist to try and impose on the article, which is OR..Taharqa 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean saying you're right, it means having general agreement with other editors following discussion. You don't have that base covered yet, in regards to this issue.--Urthogie 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for what? You're talking in circles now, no one is qualified to over rule the sources with their own POV, you'd have to prove that the source is misrepresented or unreliable, which you haven't done, nor do you have consensus on your baseless disputes filled with your own POV, OR, and resentment to the idea that Ancient Egypt was an African civilization.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources (You have no basis for removal, just petty disputes.. These things do not give you an argument and I've covered what I've needed as I've provided quotes and put out links with an accompanying interpretation that you don't except even with out reading or understanding the literature. But whatever you say.Taharqa 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

^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)

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)

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

Please elaborate why you think we need to violate style guidelines to have a good page. Specifically, can you describe why we are incapable of summarizing these blockquotes?--Urthogie 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^I said in some cases, no..Taharqa 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I asked you to elaborate why this is one of those special cases.--Urthogie 16:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^The cases where elaboration is needed to clarify.Taharqa 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... you have to discuss, don't you understand this? You can't just say "I'm right, and I don't need to elaborate."--Urthogie 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If it gets down to two editors and one still doesn't agree, it's advised that we seek a third opinion. I do not have to discuss anything for all eternity and argue in circles.Taharqa 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean fourth opinion. The third one disagrees with you.--Urthogie 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^There is no third opinion, no one has joined this discussion, you can't rely on something someone else said along time ago especially since it was vague and didn't address certain content.Taharqa 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll get a third opinion when I get a chance.--Urthogie 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^Good.. And it would be great if they'd also address which statements would benefit from a blockquote, and which ones wouldn't.Taharqa 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

^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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

^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)

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)

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)

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)

^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)

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)

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)

please don't try and change the subject (start a new talk page section for sforza if you need to.) He's saying that East African people look like Egyptian art in regards to body plans. You are yet to explain how this belongs in clusters and clines. Thank you, --Urthogie 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I already told you, it was a rebuttal to the supposed claim of Cavalli-Sforza, as long as the statement from Cavalli-Sforza is there, then that statement is appropriate and I'm not going to keep repeating this, he was talking about East African people and the article was about Egypt's biological relationships, not art, I refuse to let you pay attention only to one little reference on art and try to apply it to that quote, get a third opinion, I'm not going over this verbatim for days.Taharqa 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

whether or not its a rebuttal to Sforza is irrelevant-- it doesn't belong in the clusters and clines section because it is referring to East African people looking like Egyptian statues. no third opinion is needed, i would hope-- surely you recognize that sections are limited by their titles, and an observation about art doesn't belong in a section on population history and genetics, right? (as a sidenote, sforza isn't even mentioned in this paragraph.)--Urthogie 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not allow you to twist what is said and if you continue to misrepresent simple words and rearrange context then obviously we do need a third opinion. Urthogi wrote: "as a sidenote, sforza isn't even mentioned in this paragraph"

You should pay more attention instead of arguing blind..

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 elementsTaharqa 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing this any further, it's a huge waste of time,one only needs to read and use common sense, it's not even a matter of POV...Taharqa 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually support removing this sentence about Sforza and also removing this out of context quote.--Urthogie 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I proposed that a while ago, and I think a third opinion came in and agreed....Taharqa 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So we don't disagree on this section, then?--Urthogie 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^I removed it yesterday, yes..Taharqa 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

don't agree with your removals

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

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)

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)

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)

^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)

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)

Punt

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)

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

^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)

1. what is Aboubacry Moussa Lam a phd of?
2. which journal, panel, or organization was it peer reviewed by?
3. 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)]

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)

Taharqa, your translations are good! They convey the same meaning or idea than what you knew before: "Country of the First Existence". Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I ask that you translate the paragraphs, Luka-- so we can see the context. when taharqa's quote on art was given without context, it made it look like it wasn't about art. So I'd like to see you translate the paragraph, since as english speakers we have no other way of knowing the context.--Urthogie 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Got rid of the statement, tired of defending it... You can if you want Luka..Taharqa 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

see below-- we should remove all of Punt since this is the only claim making it relevant to the subject of race.--Urthogie 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Race doesn't exist and it mentions appearance. And it seems that Luka added the statement back, since he provided the source I have to back him on that. The source he provided in the quote translated does not mention Diop. Any mention of Diop is redundant and to be discarded as it doesn't reflect the source..Taharqa 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

^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)

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

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

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)

^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)

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)

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

^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)

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

^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)

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)

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_researchTaharqa 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

^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)

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

^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)

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

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

Myths section

Is all of the Exra-terrestrial, Cleopatra, and Napoleon stuff truly necessary as it pertains to the article? Seems very redundant and trivial, not to mention unencyclopedic.. Please discuss.Taharqa 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as this article is inexorably connected to afrocentrism, it belongs here. Thanatosimii 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)]]

^The only thing that connects the article to Afrocentrism is the sections Urthogie made, so what you're saying holds no weight imo..Taharqa 05:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they hqve to be removed. They add nothing, only confusion to the matter here in discussion. They are very peripheral. Meanwhile, I can't understand why Urthogie is constantly removing the letter by a Harvard professor of Orthodontics Sheldon Peck to the editor of the New York Times in which he commented on a study of the Giza sphinx. A letter can be taken seriously in science if written with the intention of making a scientific contribution. That's what happened with Champollion and his letter to Mr Dacier in 1822 where he showed that he can read hieroglyphs. This letter is considered as a scientific document. Finally, I don't know if Thanatosimii knows really what Afrocentricity or Afrocentrism is about. Egypt is an African civilization. Outside of an Afrocentric reading, one cannot understand African civilizations. I am sorry for Thanatosimii. If he is not an African, he can still learn about African cultures from inside before adressing African issues. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

^This is my view exactly, it contributes nothing whatsoever to the article and answers no questions, we learn nothing. It's extremely trivial and belongs in a tabloid, not a wiki article.. As far as the Peck letter, you expressed what I did not, even though the third and fourth opinions agree also anyways, it is always refreshing to get another view saying the same thing, but in more eloquent terms. As far as Afrocentrism, a lot of people have no idea what it's about and simply assumes from slap stick journalism from different opposing authors that it is some type of ideology built for the self esteem of Africans/African descendants, when the opposite is true. You have crack pots in every discipline in which the mainstream may not agree with, but that isn't Afrocentricity, Afrocentricity is simply African centered study. People who go out of there way to claim other civilizations/cultures like say, Olmec America or predynastic China as African, are indeed on the realm of absurd, given the lack of evidence, but whenever it concerns Africa and genuine evidence is presented with rebuttals of older racialist theories that sprung from the roots of colonialism, it doesn't belong in that category, that is Afrocentrism. It's basically a discipline used to restore and guard the legacy of indigenous African culture. The connotation it sometimes holds is due in part to Eurocentrism and misguided academics. Your input is always helpful and enlightening Luka.. Hopefully Urthogie can respond as to why we need all of these myths cluttering the article..Taharqa 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

1) For pity sake, this is the last time I will say this, both of you. Stop making judgements about my intelligence/understanding of issues based on whether I agree with you or not.
2) Afrocentricity, now, is coming with an African worldview and bias. Eurocentricity is coming with a European bias and worldview. To say that Egypt must be viewed through African lenses is in violation of NPOV. (Furthermore, "Africa" is a European cultural construct as well. The fact that a bunch of old white guys drew a line on a map is a bad reason to catagorize anything.)

a) This article, for all its attempts to be about some objective racial catagories, has yet to show notability apart from Afrocentrism.

b) Accordingly, historical undisputed errors in Nile Valley Afrocentrism belong.

3) Those myths are noteable. If they don't belong in an article about the Race of the Ancient Egyptians, where would they belong? Thanatosimii 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, we couldn't care less about hearing your uninformed personal opinions and no, these "Myths" are not notable as it is hard to differentiate between fact and fiction since no one has done a DNA test on Cleopatra(who was not an Egyptian) and Extra-terrestrials have nothing to do with the article, nor can we even prove that they exist. The fact that Egypt is in Africa and people study it in an African context is not Afrocentric, nor are you qualified to define Afrocentric or Eurocentric, these are your POVs which again, we don't need here. Every trivial thing on this page was written by Urthogie, all of the recent empirical research was put up by me or Luka among others, so if you're calling Urthogie Afrocentric or claim the he has caused parts of the article to not show "notability" apart from "Afrocentrism"(how ever you may personally define it, which is irrelevant), it has nothing at all to do with who you're directing your comments to, maybe you should check the "history". Seeing as how you also try and undermine the worldly definition of "Africa", which is tectonically separated from Eurasia, and the fact that the term is useful to bio and geo scientists who pin point "African DNA"(variants which arose in Africa) and an "African land mass", means nothing again and is just your view which has nothing to do with practical life..You're obscuring every issue on here, and I have no idea why and don't care since it doesn't concern the article. So far you've done nothing to improve the situation at all but your opinions have become a hassle that we have to deal with accordingly, I have contributed greatly and so has Luka and Urthogie(in his own ways).... Personal/reactionary opinions that have little to do with the article will not be entertained..Taharqa 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

4) calling my statements "opinions" is not going to change the fact that they are wikipedia policy. Notability and NPOV are objective standards which you are proposing violating. Thanatosimii 04:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^I haven't proposed to violate anything, you're imposing rules that don't even apply here and creating/applying definitions to things that aren't relevant to the subject in which you want to attribute them, this type of trickery and seeming bias to keep irrelevant material on the page will not work. Removing those sub-sections violates not one rule, I've looked over them. Again, waiting on a reply from Urthogie and disregarding irrelevant POV..Taharqa 05:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii, for a better understanding of what Afrocentricity is about, this link might be useful http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/vol37/issue3/. Actually, Africa is not an empty land where anybody can come to do or say anything he wants! If we are really searching for truth about (an) African civilization(s) or culture(s), we have to learn from, to listen to Africans. There is no way around. Other civilizations ask for the same "centric" attention. Indeed, Africa is not an exception. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, and here, though I am well aware that each and every nationalist is just screaming to get centric attention, none of them are allowed to have it, never. Centric = pov = not on wikipedia. And taharqa, as I have said, calling my statements names does not change the fact that they are all true. Notability states these myths are noteable, inasmuch as there exist enough sources to write encyclopedically on them, so where do they go other than this article? Thanatosimii 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the offtopic tag? The myths are completely on topic because they are myths related to race and ancient Egypt. Thank you, --Urthogie 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian, Extra-terrestrials aren't Egyptian, and mentioning Napoleon is redundant imo.. What does the section contribute? Seriously?Taharqa 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a myth that Cleopatra was Egyptian and black. There is a myth that the first egyptians were not of the human race. And mentioning the Napoleon myth isn't redundant. This section contributes to public knowledge by making people aware of myths. It is also sourced to mainstream sources, and presented in a neutral way. --Urthogie 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, there is also a myth that the Egyptians, these native Africans, were White or mixed race. Do we have to mention it in this section on myths? Lusala lu ne Nkuka--195.110.156.38 17:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No it is not neutral because you're calling them myths when we can't differentiate between fact and fiction.. Cleopatra isn't Egyptian so what does she have to do with an article on Egypt and race, extraterrestrials is just ridiculous, we learn nothing from this, imo it's the most useless section..Taharqa 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Luka wrote: Urthogie, there is also a myth that the Egyptians, these native Africans, were White or mixed race. Do we have to mention it in this section on myths?

^Actually, to his credit he did make brief mention of that also at the bottom.. I wouldn't say the section is bias, only redundant and unencyclopedic.. Your source for the rapper Nas is also unreliable Urthogie and if I remember the song correctly, he didn't attribute it to Napoleon and actually got the legend wrong..Taharqa 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And taharqa, as I have said, calling my statements names does not change the fact that they are all true. Notability states these myths are noteable, inasmuch as there exist enough sources to write encyclopedically on them, so where do they go other than this article?

^A lot of what you comment on, including this is fruitless due to the fact that you only come here basically to accuse me of Afrocentrism(like you're doing now), which is disgusting and personal, not to mention wrong.. You hold no one here in good faith so I have no idea why you even comment instead of simply reporting us. Again, what you're saying does not apply and the tags stay until the issue is resolved since the opinion of more than 1 editor feels that the section is useless and unenclyclopedic.Taharqa 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So help me if you don't stop accusing me. I have never accused you of editing from an afrocentric perspective. Luka clearly has admitted as much, but I am discussing this under no impressions from you. However, the objective nature of the material you are adding has never been found in any context apart from Afrocentrism, therefore it is inappropriate to write an article that deals with it such. Non-afrocentrist study of Ancient Egyptian Race is of dubious notability, and it is your business to establish it. Thanatosimii 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

^I can link you to the last dispute resolution where you accused me of providing Afrocentric arguments, but that's personal, so we won't discuss it, I believe you if you say that wasn't your intention(to accuse me of bias). But please, in the future don't make it seem as if you're on a personal crusade against what I'm doing, I'm truly and undeniably trying to establish truth into the article and leave my opinion out of it, my opinions stay on this page, and even then, I don't address them in length and stick to the research. Again, I have no idea what your definition of "Afrocentric is so there is no way for me to address your concerns, you're also being vague since I'm not sure which section besides Urgothie's that deals directly with Afrocentrism has to do with Afrocentrism. The only thing that I've contributed is research, I'm not into the cultural aspects really, that's why I'm so devoted to this page because I know a lot about this subject and know the who is who when it comes to the research of it. I have not contributed neither my opinion, nor the opinion from an afrocentric perspective, I highly doubt any of these researchers are "Afrocentric". So you know, I did not add the Km.t section and the only trivial sub-section I added was on Punt, which we were going over not that long ago. Everything from Clines and Clusters to Diop's melanin tests(who indeed may have been an Afrocentric, but that had nothing to do with his research conclusions which were repeatable, and I even noted criticism), I had mostly to do with, it should be obvious that I'm not bias and I don't believe Urthogie is either most of the time. I just don't see your point about Afrocentrism and what it has to do with the bioanthropological scientific data I provided, since you keep directing your comments at me. I never had a problem with you, it only seems that you're on my case for things I don't do or don't think and may have been confused. Everything done here is literally disputed in some way and I really want to put an end to that so the article can go somewhere. Also the Afrocentrism section isn't disputed, we're discussing the Myths section (extra-terrestrials, Cleopatra, Napoleon, etc.).. Afrocentrism has its own blank section..Taharqa 04:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already answered this issue:

• The Cleopatra myth claims Cleopatra was black and Egyptian
• The Napoleon myth holds that Napoleon tried to hide the "race" of the sphynx.
• The extraterrestrial myth asserts that egyptians are not of the human race.--Urthogie 15:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1."Black" is a social term, therefore cannot be debunked as a "myth".. 2. Do you have a primary source for who perpetuated that 'myth" and if it is really a "myth" that has been debunked since all of this is hearsay? 3. Extraterrestrial myths have nothing to do with Ancient Egypt and 'race'Taharqa 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Scholars explicitly make clear that applying the social term "black" to Cleopatra is incorrect.
2. Sources which establish the existence and notability of these myths are provided in the references.
3. Yes they do, because they assert that ancient Egyptians are not of the human race. In addition, this myth is brought up in the context of discussing ancient Egypt and race (see D'Souza article).--Urthogie 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^1. No one is qualified to define a non-existent term and where it should apply, as "Black" shouldn't be applied to Nigerians either, no one is literally "Black" and there is only one human race.

2. But do they describe it as a Myth that she was "Black", and which source debunks this "myth"?

3. "Race" as a social concept applies to groups of humans, not a "human race', as humans are a species. Alien beings and UFOs do not fit into the social stratum of "race" politics so why should they apply here?Taharqa 17:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. If you think Lefkowitz and others are wrong about saying Cleopatra was not "black" then thats your opinion. They're scholars writing reliable source, you're an amateur interpreting them.
2. Yes, they do. The title of the chapter by Lefkowitz which deals with Cleopatra is called Myths of African Origins.
3. Most broadly, in a social context, "The term race describes populations or groups of people distinguished by different sets of characteristics, and beliefs about common ancestry." Even if you disagree with this definition of race, the fact is that D'Souza, a mainstream writer, mentions the myth of the Egyptians not having been part of the human race in the context of this subject. So, once again, you're an interpreter, and he's a political writer discussing the myths of Afrocentrists.--Urthogie 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I didn't give an opinion first of all, but if Lefkowitz never used the word "Black", and you did then that's weasel wording and if Lefkowitz believes in a "Black" race, then she is at odds with most of the scientific community. Her own social definition is irrelevant as it is subjective. Calling me an ametur is a personal attack and Ad Hominem, I will report you if you continue. Thank you.

2. Where do they mention "race" or "Blackness"? You weaseled out of my question..

3. Another Ad Hominem, last warning.. The fact of the matter s that "race" doesn't exist and extraterrestrials were not Egyptians, so any mention of them in this context is ridiculously redundant imo..Taharqa 19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Whether you think Lefkowitz is at odds with the scientific community or not is irrelevant.
2. The sources make explicitly clear she wasn't "black" and wasn't "Egyptian" and didn't have "African origins." I will paste them, if you like, but I doubt that would stop your opposition to this source, simply because you are trying very hard on several levels to keep it out.
3. Sorry, it's not an ad hominem, simply because it is relevant that you are an amateur and these are reliable sources. If I was sidetracking the conversation to needlessly insult you, that would be ad hominem. However, it is completely relevant to the conversation that you are an amateur and therefore don't fall under Wikipedia:Relaible sources. If that doesn't feel good, then I'm sorry.--Urthogie 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. You can claim that it's irrelevant, but your claims have nothing at all to do with reality as of now and I reiterate my point..

2. Again, say that she wasn't Egyptian, but the word "Black" is a relative social concept which has no bearing on ancient people and is disregarded scientifically. Your sources are not reliable as it concerns "race", since "race" is subjective and not guided by social constraints or classicists such as Lefkowitz, etc.. And everyone has African origins.

3. How does that apply here, you cannot asses if I am an amateur or not since I haven't told you and you're giving personal opinions on what you think about me, insulating that I'm not allowed to discuss or interpret sources, but you are. It is irrelevant(since I never used myself as a source), personal, and a cop-out. I am telling you that these are not reliable sources for that claim (of "race") and the whole section is redundant..Taharqa 20:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, whether or not you think Lefkowitz and other scholars who have debunked these myths are wrong to use the word "black" in doing so is irrelevant, the policy at wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.--Urthogie 01:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentric sources

I started this section to address an issue.Taharqa 06:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Providing afrocentric sources and being afrocentric are utterly different. I am not trying to establish truth and falsehood on some grand level, I'm just trying to make sure this article obeys the rules. The fact of the matter is that Afrocentric sources simply cannot be used as "the truth" in this article, that's profound POV violation. Now, the argument I'm making, which you aren't getting is this. The sources, all of them, which you have been providing, all come out of some heritage of Afrocentrism. Accordingly, you cannot establish that this page is notable, thus worthy of existance whatsoever, apart from afrocentrism. Since therefore, Afrocentrism has to be attached to this article, you need to contain the myths, which are notable within the scope of Afrocentrism and race of the Egyptians. I understand that I'm not always being clear here, so do you understand at all what I'm trying to say? Thanatosimii 04:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I honestly don't understand because you haven't cited one example of a source being "Afrocentric" that I provided, not one.. Where, which one? Are they Afrocentrics? Are they scientists, do they give off an Afrocentric tone? What are you talking about, please elaborate on which source? All of the sources provided by me are peer-reviewed scientific studies from scientists who couldn't care less about Eurocentrism or Afrocentrism, please give an example. Which source? Are you suggesting that if a scientist studies skeletal remains and finds that they are coextensive with other remains found with in the geographical confines of Africa, that's Afrocentric? Please elaborate? How many conclusions can there be and doesn't empirical and repeatable research have no bearing on opinion or POV? What is your definition of Afrocentric? Please give me an example, you haven't gave one, you keep making unsubstantiated claims. Are you really allowed to impose that label on scientists/researchers who have no involvement in any political debates? You're saying a lot, but at the same time not saying much..Taharqa 05:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We can go over this.. Sources provided by me(more or less), in which the vast majority doesn't fit the definition of "Afrocentric" in any way that I've heard it..

Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 25-27(Christopher Ehret)

http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa

July, Robert, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, Charles Scribners and Sons, New York, p. 60-61

Encyclopedia Britannica, macropedia, 1984 ed, "Nilotic Sudan, History Of", p. 108

http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html

Diop 1973: "Pigmentation of the ancient Egyptians: Test by melanin analysis(Maybe you can make a case for this, but like I said, the fact that Diop was "Afrocentric" has nothing to do with the results and I even noted criticism of his results and gave it priority)

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northeast_african_analysis.pdf

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Edition 6, 2000 p31655.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748828

Shaw & Nicholson, op. cit., p.232

Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a - Book XIV, p. 317 Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII, para 16 (23)

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/15A1*.html

Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963) The Languages of Africa. International journal of American linguistics, 29, 1, part 2

American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/haplotypes_in_egypt.pdf

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0511_050511_kingtutface_2.html

[Hammer, M. et al. 1997.]

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/who_were_egyptian.pdf

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D7163DF93BA25754C0A964958260

http://u.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,211~23523~2921859,00.html (you can make a case for this as well, yet it was relevant to that section because of noted criticism as part of the Tut controversy)

^Now,

Quote: Providing afrocentric sources and being afrocentric are utterly different

You also wrote: "The sources, all of them, which you have been providing, all come out of some heritage of Afrocentrism"

^This claim in particular truly bothers me and I'm pleading with you to verify this claim or explain how is it humanly possible that you can feel that way. It's one of the most unfounded statements made imo since I've been here..

^What is a "heritage of Afrocentrism? Which sources are "Afrocentric"? Please do explain which ones and how? Please comment on the sources/researchers themselves and how your claim is undeniably substantiated. And again, the Afrocentrism section isn't in dispute right now, we're discussing these so-called "myths", and are you saying if I remove those two sources that I identified then your point is null and void? And given those two sources only do you even have a point?(No sarcasm/antagonism whatsoever in that question). In response to your claim, I'm also willing to seek a third opinion to comment directly on these sources and ask if they're "Afrocentric" as you claim, in the meantime, again, please, please do elaborate..Taharqa 05:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The specific concern is not a matter of POV so much, but in particular, notibility, or perhaps even the "not an indiscriminate collection of information" clause in WP:NOT. This page is filled with afrocentrist authors in its citations. Lam. Diop. Keita. This doesn't necesarraly make them either right or wrong, but it does mean that we have to present them within their contexts. As such, you cannot have an article devoid of discussion of how Afrocentrism plays into all this. To what extent it really does, I'm not even sure, but since this page cites those three, it obviously does to some extent.
This is where notability plays in. We write in wikipedia about what other people write about. I can find dozens of vague overviews of Egypt, Race, and Afrocentrism all treated together, but no general overviews about Egypt and Race apart from afrocentrism. This doesn't mean that such studies don't exist (I'm sure many of the ones you've given have little to do with the controversy), however to prove that what you want to write about is not merely an indiscriminant collection of information (one of the things wikipedia is not), the notability of the whole field of study should be established. You need to establish that the article you propose to have written here, being based solely upon scientific studies with no connexion to the Afrocentrist controversy, is not in fact a new or non-notable manner of organization. Someone has to have organized it this way before. The litany of things you want to touch on needs to fall all under the same Aegis somewhere else, before we can organize it that way here.
Thus returning to the point of keeping these myths. I am under the impression, based upon what you have provided and not provided, that this topic cannot be adressed apart from discussing the afrocentrist position and remain notable. Accordingly, the material contained in those myths belongs somewhere, and are most at home in this article or in a daughter article caused by breaking this one up into more managable parts... which might not actually be all that bad of a solution.
There was an edit conflict, so I'll answer your second question here more explicitly. Heritage of Afrocentrism refers to when the argument or author holds to and promotes the belief that Egypt should be viewed through an African lense, as opposed to merely being viewed with the naked eye and no preconceptions. The claim I made was in specific reference to all the sources you had provided to me in our discussions. You have defended to me at length one Lam, who is entitled to hold his or her beliefs, but this does not change the fact that the views presented are typical afrocentrist arguments and are not accepted by Egyptology, in particular, one phrase added to the article claiming that "blacks" is a literal translation of km.t (actually, it should be km.w. km.t is a singular feminine). As to your other sources, if you want me to go over them too, I first find somthing fishy in the quotations of ancient authors which you have provided. Granted, the sources themselves have no bias, but the way in which they are being interpreted is typical afrocentrism. As to all the homestead/wysinger articles, the mere fact that they're grouped together around a page [7] shows that they are at least used by afrocentrism, which I feel justifies my statement that these two topics are not seperable. Thanatosimii 06:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it is difficult to respond thoughtfully to the concerns of another editor when they raise numerous objections all at once. I can't respond if you write me a book. Thanatosimii 06:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me on that km.t one. It appears it was luka (or some other IP adress only user) who added that one. I'm still not big on this Lam fellow; where it is he gets his stuff I cannot seem to find, only strong indications to the contrary. Thanatosimii 07:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/blackegypt101.html

^This page is not referenced as a source, why link that?... No where in the article... Every other source links to either a PDF from a mainstream peer reviewed study/professional overview, or a mainstream book/encyclopedia entry and you must address the source, which you are not doing. You have no basis for your claims of Afrocentrism and loosely trying to tie them together by making original or personal claims that you've seen an "Afrocentric person use the study" before is unacceptable, since they are all open to the public and can be used by Eurocentrics, Afrocentrics, racists, nationalists, regular people, researchers, teachers, doctors, whoever! Your argument makes no sense to me at all..

First of all, it is borderline racism to consider Keita Afrocentric simply because he's of African descent, you can and will not impose that label on him, obviously you're not familiar with his studies/wprk and he is cited by numerous other bioanthropologists and researchers and it is insulting to him and me that you label him as such. I did not provide the Lam source, and Diop is the only exception which I have already explained.. I'll quote you once more..

"The sources, all of them, which you have been providing, all come out of some heritage of Afrocentrism"

^Substantiate this claim and give me a source which states that Keita is Afrocentric and not just your unfounded POV because he happens to be of African descent, giving you an opportunity to undermine his work because of his ethnicity, which is not allowed and will not occur here as it is pure slander! I've never heard him ever called that by a non-racist and I'm dead serious, though I'm not accusing you of anything but you are definitely not aware of who S.O.Y Keita is. The Ancient Writers were definitely not Afrocentric and it is not interpreted in anyway, only presented from different points of view to be neutral, which is like saying those who doubt Herodotus is Eurocentric, these are truly your POVs, I don't understand why you're trying to pass it off as fact and impose some rule that doesn't apply... Again, Lam was not a source provided by me, nor did I defend him solely as an authority, but the view its self. I went over Diop, now if these are the only examples, where's the rest of your argument? I don't need these baseless accusations of my contributions, I've fetched a third opinion, this undermining of sources I can't tolerate and it's a full attack and obfuscation of the entire article, I seriously can't believe what I'm reading. We need an outside and neutral opinion badly right now..Taharqa 07:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keita isn't an Afrocentric but a mainstream scientist whom Afrocentric authors often cite, as his research supports the conceppt of a black Egypt. This does not make him any more Afrocentric than authors like Brace are Eurocentric because their works are often cited by White Nationalists (not to put WNs and Afrocentrics on the same level, but I'm comparing the fringe element of Afrocentrism here, since there's nothing wrong with viewing AE in an African context; if this is the way you were using the term "Afrocentric" then there should be no problem in the use of those sources). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Afrocentric authors have been desperately twisting and misrepresenting Keita's research to give the impression that he "supports the concept of a black Egypt." Keita himself, a respected anthropologist, would not embarrass himself publicly by proclaiming or implying such amateurish nonsense. — Zerida 08:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Keita doesn't support a 'black', 'White', 'Brown', 'yellow', or 'Red' Egypt, he doesn't support any race concept, period. Anyone who applies race concepts to Keita's work is misrepresenting him, same with Brace' older work as it concerns "Eurocentrics", which Yom pointed out.Taharqa 19:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion (2)

In General

The Third Opinion request mentioned a dispute over the authority of sources. The answer is simple: a source has sufficient authority to be included in Wikipedia when the criteria in WP:RS are met. In this case, most sources are scholars, which is enough for inclusion within Wikipedia per WP:RS. Only when sufficient bias exists, a source could be excluded per WP:NPOV. Afrocentrism would amount to sufficient bias in the case of this article.

Some sources are clearly written from a point of view. A while back, I wrote a Third Opinion related to an ancient dispute between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Both sides cited scholars clearly identifying themselves as Shi'a or Sunni. None of the sources above identified themselves as afrocentrist, however. The question is how one can name and classify sources as afrocentrist.

Classifying things as belonging to a certain group is something Wikipedia does not do. It is original research. Wikipedia merely repeats classifications other people made, and requires reliable sources before doing that. Therefore, one will have to find a source stating the other source is afrocentrist, before writing that the other is afrocentrist. This applies as well to the decision making process, when deciding to include a source or not. Just stating “This page is filled with afrocentrist authors in its citations. Lam. Diop. Keita.” does not make Lam, Diop, or Keita an afrocentrist source. I was not able to find anyone attributing afrocentrism to either of these on the world wide web. This makes the claim not common knowledge, and therefore it should be attributed.

Not citing a source when making allegations of afrocentrism is a violation of a lot of Wikipedia policies. Making a selection of sources that suit one's POV when writing an article violates WP:NPOV. Classifying an author of a book as belonging to a certain group is original research, and possibly violates WP:BLP. The latter policy is one of the strictest on Wikipedia, a close second to WP:OFFICE.

Summarized, to remove a source from this article on grounds of afrocentrism, one has to cite another source stating that the former is afrocentrist.

Other arguments

While the above addresses the issue displayed in the request for Third Opinion, a number of other arguments were displayed in this section. I will address someof them, and rebut and agree where necessary. These are in chronological order.

• Notability - This is where notability plays in. We write in Wikipedia about what other people write about. - This is a well funded point, but several counterexamples in Wikipedia have made it to Featured article status. Wikipedia can arrange related sourced information. See for example List of notable brain tumour patients, a featured list. I dare to state that no one has tied all of these people together before. Wikipedia is a collection of information, and things like the section structure and order of paragraphs will always be new. Furthermore, notability is not at issue here. The dailynews.com article together with Lucotte and Mercier's study is enough to establish notability per WP:N – the subject of the race of the ancient Egyptians has been mentioned by multiple independent reliable sources in a non trivial manner.

• Egypt and Race cannot be set apart from Afrocentrism - Heritage of Afrocentrism refers to when the argument or author holds to and promotes the belief that Egypt should be viewed through an African lense, as opposed to merely being viewed with the naked eye and no preconceptions. - All of the sources above do not describe themselves as afrocentrist. No sources could be found describing all of these scholars as afrocentrist. Anyone could, for example, allege that all sources on the article on Judaism have been forged by the Zionist Occupation Government. One could even persist in a neutrality tag being placed on the article, but in the end, without any reliable source backing up that statement, it will probably be regarded as false.
• Reliable, non-afrocentric sources are cited out of context - Afrocentric authors have been desperately twisting and misrepresenting Keita's research [..] - I am not an expert on this subject, but if this is true, it should be changed. I could, however, find no instances in the article where Keita was cited in a way where the facts could not be easily checked. I encourage the editors of this article to use the quote function of the cite book template to provide the source-checking reader with a relevant quote of the book cited.

I hope this helped solve part of the dispute.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! This is what I've been so desperately trying to say, but couldn't.. I feel that you basically summed it up and as far as I'm concerned yes, I feel you did help a lot to solve that part of the issue.. I think Thanatosimii was just confused..Taharqa 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

punt again

See this diff by Taharqa: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egypt_and_race&diff=131567065&oldid=131562903

She removed the mention of the view that Punt was the original land of the Egyptians. What reason is there to keep Punt at all, now, then? It clearly has no relevance to "ancient egypt and race" now.--Urthogie 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, what went wrong? the following version is good: "Revision as of 16:07, 17 May 2007 (edit)

Urthogie (Talk | contribs)". Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But who removed the picture of Puntites? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What went wrong is that I'm not getting any support and I have to defend that one statement all by my self and he's putting up tags and including Diop's name and I'm not going to edit war. No one is helping with the problem so I can't do anything..

And Urthogie removed it Luka, can you add this back to Ancient Egyptian view? He's being disruptive by doing this.. Edit: nevermind, I added it back..

File:Punt khoisan.jpg

Queen of punt with steatopygia

Punt, was an ancient land south of Egypt accessible by way of the Red Sea. Its exact location has not been identified, but it is thought to have been somewhere in eastern Africa, probably including northern Ethiopia, Eritrea, and east-northeast Sudan (southern Beja lands). Temple reliefs at Deir el Bahari in W Thebes depict an Egyptian expedition to Punt in the reign of Hatshepsut. The Egyptians depicted Puntites to be very similar in appearance to themselves.

Luka added the statement back and since he provided the source I have to back him, please do not resort to mentioning Diop as he's not in the source provided, so any mention of him is to be discarded and seen as disruptive since this isn't what was written or reflected..Taharqa 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Even without the citation of Punt being the origin of the ancient Egyptians, its mention is important, as the Puntites were portrayed very similarly to the ancient Egyptians, as you can read in the maatkare website. Also, here's a more respectible citation from K. A. Kitchen:

The brown-red skin of some Puntites, who are portrayed as much like the Egyptians,

He doesn't seem to be up to date on recent genetics, however, as he continues:

no more proves that Puntites lived in Arabia than it proves that the Egyptians did. Not all East African peoples are, or were, negroid; the Somalis, for example, are not.

He's clearly comparing the portrayal of Ancient Egyptians to that of Puntites and specifically that of East Africans like Somalis and Ethiopians. I can provide other sources as well, if needed. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

^Thanx for that Yom! Lovely contribution..Taharqa 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up?

I did some minor cleaning and grammatical corrections/self edits, removed a few block quotes that I added, and added the necessary information for the DRT section.. Only things I removed was the tag at the top and added a more elaborate one in its place, and the secondary source about Nas, which is unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

^Now can we begin to clean up the intro and expansion tags after this dispute resolution Urthogie? I'm willing to compromise, even if you don't agree with the edits I just made. We need to get this article on track, seriously.. Of course we need to still go over disputes(real ones, not misinterpretation of studies that drag on for no reason), but let's hurry up please..Taharqa 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mixed race theory as a myth

"Urthogie, there is also a myth that the Egyptians, these native Africans, were White or mixed race. Do we have to mention it in this section on myths?". That's what I wrote earlier. If it is true that "Egypt as a White society" figures in the section on myths, "Egypt as a mixed race society" does not. Taharqa has shown from a wide literature that "Egypt is a multi ethnic indigenous African made society". This is confirmed in a book published recently by a French specialist of Africa: "Envisagée comme étant d'origine essentiellement proche orientale, sinon méditerranéenne, la civilisation égyptienne a montré avec éclat ses sources africaines méridionales" (Bernard Nantet, Dictionnaire de l'Afrique. Histoire, Civilisation, Actualité, Paris: Larousse, 2006, p. 104). He wrote: "Ses sources méridionales africaines (its southern African origins)". Having said this, I am asking to Urthogie if we can mention in the section on myths the theory of "Egypt being a mixed race society". I know that he likes this theory, but for the sake of being objective, do we have to mention it? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa and you find this to be a myth, but plenty of scholars don't. So no.--Urthogie 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your plenty of scholars and you are spreading myths. It has to be mentioned there. Did you read well Bernard Nantet? His book is of 2006, and he speaks about the sourthen origins of the ancient Egyptians, contrasting this with the ancient view according to which ancient Egyptians were mainly from Asia! Your myth has to be put at its right place.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bioanthropologists do not believe in race period, let alone a "mixed-race", and many anthropologists report lack of demographic effects and subsequent continuity, meaning whatever was in place from the beginning, was the same through out the dynastic.. That's why anthropologists go by clusters..Taharqa 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Luka, you're accusing me of spreading myths? Some of the major Afrocentric authors have even made clear they want to create myths for their people. I'm here to provide mainstream sources, not to spread myths. If you want to call those mainstream sources myths, then go ahead.--Urthogie 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You've provided very few "mainstream" sources imo, you mostly type in word phrases in google and go from there..Taharqa 19:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes,to counterbalance. If there were a storm front editor here I'd be using your Afrocentric list to balance things out towards the mainstream.--Urthogie 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of your disgusting personal attacks as not one source I've provided is "afrocentric" and only a racist mind would conjure up such a way to undermine any data which places Egypt in the same space as "Africans". This has been discussed here and what you're doing is a major violation of wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_ancient_Egypt#Afrocentric_sources.. Resorting to OR isn't a sign that you know what you're doing here and you will be reported for your disruptive behavior. I'll disregard that comment as racism as it is baseless and reactionary. It's funny that you don't look at your google scholarship as Eurocentrism desperately trying to counterbalance conclusions that you don't accept due to personal idealisms that go along with that way of thinking.Taharqa 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa: "I'm sick of your personal attacks...PS you're a racist." LOL! By your logic, by the way, you're racist for using a list of Afrocentric sources, no?--Urthogie 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If there were a storm front editor here

^For all I know, you are from stormfront..

^Anyways, what's racist is calling them "Afrocentric" (non-creatively copying Thanatosimii's failed approach even though his opinion on that got shut down rather quickly, seeing as how neither you or him responded to the criticism of such claims) as your personal way to twist what you don't accept and rely on google searches and biased geocities websites for all of your information.. This is a lazy way for any layman opposer to obscure any supposed "Africanity" in Egypt by digging up 20 year old sources that selectively agree with parts of his/her predefined premise and impose them onto an article while calling all updated and conclusive data that doesn't agree with you, "Afrocentric". Ha! Indeed, none of the sources are afrocentric and all are highly respected and at the top of their field.. You disagree with all third opinions(being non-cooperative), oppose any and everything that connects Egypt to Africa(where it has been for years), undermine its sources(POV), produce none of your own(OR), and drag around complaining/nit picking all the time(the problem isn't the sources). I don't know why, but I can imagine. lol! Your POV shall be disregarded from here on out, you've exposed your obvious bias when you claimed that you only search google to counter balance other claims, which is Original Research and will be acknowledged as such..Taharqa 21:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Kmt

"You have defended to me at length one Lam, who is entitled to hold his or her beliefs, but this does not change the fact that the views presented are typical afrocentrist arguments and are not accepted by Egyptology, in particular, one phrase added to the article claiming that "blacks" is a literal translation of km.t (actually, it should be km.w. km.t is a singular feminine)". Thanatosimii, you wrote this today against Taharqa. Actually it is against me. I am the one who contributed on Kmt. If I say you don't know the Egyptian language, you will say I am juging you. Now I am asking you to go to Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, 2002, p. 286 and see carefully what he says about Kmt. Then come back to report here. If you have enough time, you can also go to Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 2001, § 77. 3-4, § 510. 2. I am willing to know about your findings. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Kmt is not the people term, Kmw is. See Faulkner's; you seem to have the page number handy. Kmt would be a singular feminine (with people determinitives, though no such forms exist). It could be a feminine collective, if such a form (with people determinitives, not the city determinitive) existed and only if the form Kmw did not. Kmt with the land determinitive, now, from context, is a term denoting country, not a people group, and if this Lam is in fact arguing that Kmt proper can be translated "blacks," i.e. a people group, he or she is overlooking the most essential facts of Egyptian linguistics. Simply sticking a determinitive on the end will not change kmt from "blacks" to "land of the blacks," either; the form for that would be kmtyt, with people determinitives and plural strokes, and no such forms exist. The source for this is the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, volume 1, page 29. Thanatosimii 05:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, suffice it to say you've driven my wikistress to crash-and-burn levels, so don't be expecting to see me around here or on much of wikipedia at all for the forseeable future. Thanatosimii 05:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you sticking to your if? Open Faulkner and Gardiner, and see what is written on the pages I indicated you! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 06:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. And I just told you why your interpretation of them is wrong. With a source, mind you. Thanatosimii 06:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying, Thanatosimii, to write an Encyclopedia using another Encyclopedia as your best autority? Interesting methodology! Please, go to Faulkner and Gardiner! Have you ever met them? For now, I have to assume that you are doing Egyptology with an Encyclopedia as a textbook. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a relaible source, Luka.--Urthogie 15:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but Thanatosimii is not coherent. In the past, he asked me to avoid quoting dictionaries; to quote mainly explicit texts. Now, he is resting upon an encyclopedia! Do you find it normal Urthogie? Let him go and read Faulkner as well as Gardiner. He will surely learn more about mdw nTr, this ancient African language. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't use an encyclopedia for the article, but rather to explain how your interpretation was wrong.--Urthogie 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a grammar or a specialised dictionary. Are you lazy or afraid of reading Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian and Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar? Maybe both of you have never seen these two books or heard of them? Thanatosimii is coming here with his if. Who needs his if? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Thanatosimii for the stress I caused you to feel. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving

This page was moved today, shortly before I came here to write a Third Opinion, from a request at 3O. Because I wanted to archive the talk page before writing a Third Opinion, I moved all the archives of the talk pages to new and proper titles. Now, the page has moved back again (!). I would like to ask every involved parties to state their arguments below.

Note: writing 'the move didn't have consensus' is tempting and can be expected. Doing this is not useful. What are the arguments for keeping the current title of the page? No consensus exists just because a number of people feels like it, valid arguments must exist.

Now, I will return to writing that Third Opinion on the Afrocentrism of Sources section. --User:Krator (t c) 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

--User:Krator (t c) 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My simple argument is that a user came in here without having edited the page even onced, and made a move without consensus, adding stress to the editing environment.--Urthogie 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: writing 'the move didn't have consensus' is tempting and can be expected. Doing this is not useful. What are the arguments for keeping the current title of the page? No consensus exists just because a number of people feels like it, valid arguments must exist. About halfway with the Third Opinion. --User:Krator (t c) 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument is that we don't have consensus for a change yet... this issue is already being discussed as far as proposed moves, scroll up to see.--Urthogie 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Krator, we currently are having formal mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ancient Egypt and race. You are welcome to join in, and become a party to the discussions there if you wish. To do so you will need to sign on as a party, agree to the mediation, and agree to me as the mediator. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neh, I am just here from WP:3O. I do get annoyed when trying to get someone not to do something, then seeing that exact thing happening just moments thereafter. Good luck with the mediation. --User:Krator (t c) 14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa read this before editing

Don't revert completely... I have installed the section headings we agree on for research, so at worst just cut and paste the content, rather than changing the article structure we agree on. Thanks, --Urthogie 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You are being extremely controlling of the article even though we're still in dispute resolution and you continue to edit the article and disregard all third and fourth opinions and other people's edits. This is original research and being disruptive Urthogie.. Taharqa 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, I wasn't trying to be disruptive but rather to fix the structure as we both agreed. I made explicitly clear that you could replace my content for now if you disagreed with it, I only ask that you allow us to implement the structure we agreed upon.--Urthogie 15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We did not agree on your so-called "structure".Taharqa 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're being pointlessly contrarian. You did agree to the structure.[8] You disagreed only to the content, which I made clear here you could replace without fear of reversion. If you want the article to progress further, it make sense to revert to my version and then replace the sections you disagree with... why stomp on an olive branch?--Urthogie 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^You said we should merge the sections, which is quite easy as all you have to do is move the sections all under the same name, but you didn't do that.. I wrote..

"No problem, as long as nothing is changed in the process before discussing, I personally have no objection"

^You tried to change and reword a lot, which is OR...Taharqa 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"as long as nothing is changed in the process before discussing." this is wikipedia, every article is constantly changing. rarely have i ever said to you "just make this change both of us agree on and you can keep your content and i wont revert that." and yet you're seemingly sacrificing this opportunity to be contrarian. why? why when I've said nothing has to be changed aside from the structure. Do you not have your own interests in mind, or what?--Urthogie 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The personal accusations must stop.. Apparently you're not understanding me, you changed things and misrepresented things that I did not agree with. You are not consensus on how fast you feel the article should go or where it should go, you're sacrificing other's contributions with your own OR which is against the rules and non-courteous.Taharqa 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so basically you're saying you want to keep my structure, but your content, right?--Urthogie 19:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^No, I didn't like your structure because of the way it misrepresented content(intentionally or not).. Taharqa 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this from Urthogie?

Urthogie, it might be you who wrote this: "The demographic effects on ancient Egypt came both from neighboring Mesopotamia to the north[33] and Nubia and Sudan to the south.[citation needed]". To sustain your belief of a Mesopotamian origin of the ancient Egyptians, you quoted the following study: "Hum Biol. 1997 Jun;69(3):295-311. Related Articles, Links

Population history of north Africa: evidence from classical genetic markers.

Bosch E, Calafell F, Perez-Lezaun A, Comas D, Mateu E, Bertranpetit J.

Laboratori d'Antropologia, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.

After an intensive bibliographic search, we compiled all the available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations and synthesized the data in an attempt to reconstruct the populations' demographic history using two complementary methods: (1) principal components analysis and (2) genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. In both analyses the main feature of the genetic landscape in northern Africa is an east-west pattern of variation pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Moreover, Libya and Egypt show the smallest genetic distances with the European populations, including the Iberian Peninsula. The most plausible interpretation of these results is that, although demic diffusion during the Neolithic could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe by a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, a Mesolithic (or older) differentiation of the populations in the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand the genetic picture. The most isolated groups (Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers) were the most differentiated and, although no clear structure can be discerned among the different Arab- and Berber-speaking groups, Arab speakers as a whole are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. By contrast, the genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small.

PIP: An extensive bibliographic search was conducted to compile all available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations. The data were then synthesized to reconstruct the population's demographic history using principal components analysis and genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. Both analyses identified an east-west pattern of genetic variation in northern Africa pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, but a Mesolithic or older differentiation of the populations into the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand this genetic picture. Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers, the most isolated groups, were the most differentiated, while Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small." I am sorry Urthogie, in this study I don't see any support for your belief. You are cheating us quoting studies which have nothing to do with what you are puting forward in the page. I will feel obliged to check all your contributions. To begin with, please remove from the page your ungrounded hypothesis. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

^I reverted him, that was original research.. The study is a test on Modern Egyptians and Lybians and tells us where they plot in the neighbor-joining trees, almost tells us nothing about the ancient Egyptians and their origins. The data its self doesn't support anything other than the fact that today's Egyptian population is diverse and a lot of them plot towards Mid-Easterners, etc, but nothing on Mesopotamia having demographic effects on Egypt ever, let alone during the classical period. We went over this type of thing a while back when someone posted a graph.. There are many more interpretive models for the peopling of northeast Africa, and indeed, this study doesn't even say what Urthogie wants it to, or what he claimed it to sayTaharqa 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can provide quotes if you want me to. By the way, the article is not on modern egyptians, but on the "Population history of North Africa." Note that the quotes I've pasted below deal explicitly with ancient Egypt (paleolithic/neolithic) not modern Egypt. Your misunderstandings may derive from you guys reading only the abstract, not the full article. Here are quotes from the full article:

• "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... The amount and geographic range of gene flow, if any, associated with the appearance of Neolithic populations is highly controversial."
• "Therefore population replacement during the Neolithic from the Levant could explain the genetic similarity between Libya, Egypt, and the European populations."

Thanks, --Urthogie 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^This does nothing but postulate possibilities, says nothing about Ancient Egypt either as the study was done on Modern Egyptians to make inquiries on the past, which again, tells us nothing at all in the form of raw data on ancient egyptians, culture, or "race".. He didn't report anything, only gave his opinion on possibilities and this does not qualify as a "study" on demographic effects through Egypt's history and when they occurred.. He also notes that any guesses were controversial, plus this is 10 years old. You're misrepresenting his study and trying to place it next to actual studies that studied demographic effects and found none, and reported it, studies from this century and this year actually.. This is OR...Taharqa 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, but rather a study. If you disagree with the study's methodology or how it came to its conclusions, that has no bearing on whether its cited, because you are not a reliable source for deciding whether a study of North African population history was correctly conducted. It's also interesting that you complain about this study being 10 years old, considering that you have cited Keita 1995, and even cited people from 1915.--Urthogie 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say, and just because it's a study about Modern Egyptians doesn't mean it gets priority over studies on Ancient Egyptians and trying to make it priority or giving it authority to argue against current data on Ancient remains and conclusions is OR.. Again, this is about Modern Egyptians and postulates possibilities for their current structure, but is not repeatable science and doesn't give us any conclusion, but only speculations from one out of millions of suggestions which you're being selective on choosing and trying to pass it off as a demographics study so that's OR no matter how you put it or try and reduce it. He even suggests that there could of been no gene flow at all, he's only guessing and giving possible scenarios, and more updated studies and different genes/population assessments have been elaborated on since 1997.Taharqa 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't get "priority" over other population history studies of ancient Egypt/north africa. It's used like a source like the rest of them.
• "but is not repeatable science and doesn't give us any conclusion" Correction, it is reputable/repeatable science, because it is a peer-reviewed mainstream scientific source on the subject. If you disagree with that, feel free to write in complaint to the scientific journal it was published in.
• "He's only guessing." First off, it's not a "he", its several people who conducted this study. If you want to say they're guessing, that's up to you, but they did write a scientific study and we are therefore allowed to quote them.
• In regards to the claims of this study being controversial, there is no reason we can't say this in the article-- after all, it's a difficult subject with a lot of holes in our knowledge. It seems like you're more intent on censoring this source, though, than adding that qualifier.--Urthogie 16:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. You tried at first to end this obscure 10 year old overview as the last say in the face of copious amounts of research done before that study and 10 years since then. It is not a demographics study so should not have the last word in a demographics section, as they even admit to this type of guess work as being controversial and suggested the possibility that there was no gene flow at all, definitely not conclusive as actual collaborative demographic studies..

2. Yes, it is peer-reviewed, but the bits and pieces you pick from it to support your OR is not, to say that there is argument of demographics effects in Egypt based on this is intellectually dis-honest as you try and pass off a few suggestions as being a source of demographic effects, when they gave more then one conflicting scenario, it is obviously them postulating scientifically but not proposing definitely based on their own data.

3. They're guessing for the reason I showed above, you're misrepresenting the study as they don't even imply that this is a demographics study. We're allowed to quote them, but not out of context and totally misrepresenting them..

4. All I know is that the study says its self that the conflicting theories they present were controversial, meaning not conclusive and not an empirical demographic study, like looking for continuity/change..Taharqa 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It's not "guesswork." That's your opinion, and offering alternate theories is called scientific integrity, not "guesswork."
2. OR doesn't mean selecting certain quotes. Please read Wikipedia:Original research, it deals with using inappropriate sources, or the synthesis of one source with another, not with selecting relevant quotes from one single reliable and relevant source.
3. This is a study of population history which deals with the demographic and genetic history of North Africa, dealing with ancient Egypt specifically at several points quoted. It is relevant to the genetics and demographics section of the article.
4. Presenting conflicting theories and identifying ones views as controversial is not "guesswork", but scientific integrity. If you insist on noting the alternative theories mentioned, I have nothing http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_bold.png

Bold textagainst that. What I'm against is your effort to censor this study by any means possible.--Urthogie 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm only going by the quotes, say what you want, but this is your POV.. They obviously stated that these theories were controversial and there was a chance the no gene flow happened at all during the proposed time period. Also this isn't a direct study about Ancient Egypt, but of North Africa, this is OR that you're trying to apply to the article. Wikipedia:Original research

2. This isn't what I said..

"is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished , arguments, concepts, statements, or theories."

^Many of your statements are presented dishonestly and doesn't reflect the source as you seek to give it priority over conclusive work and data on the very issue..

"It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position"

^The section is about demographic effects, your sources do not refute or support any position, but your statement does..

"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"

^They don't focus on Egypt or Ancient Egypt specifically, yet you fit them into that context and put things in your own words to support your position..

3. No it is not as it doesn't deal with Ancient Egypt specifically and generalizes North Africa through guess work based on present data from Modern populations, yet you apply it to "Ancient Egypt and Race", which is Original Research, you're trying violate the rules Urthogie.. The study isn't a demographic analysis of Ancient Egypt and the other studies actually are, not to mention current and up to date and conclusive but not suggestive...

4. No one is trying to censor anything, I only demand that you not insist on making it priority over the other studies as you've been insisting on doing, and restating the study to mean something it doesn't.. Actually reading it again he says nothing about Ancient Egypt at all, and actually says that there could of been differentiation in the mesolithic, with limited gene flow after that. This is indeed based on guess work since he him self gives conflicting scenarios and his own opinion on what's plausible. However, an opinion from 1997 about possibilities does not over shadow later work done on the ground. Also again, the study is about Northern Africa, not ancient Egypt specifically.. Your version in representing the study as priority and empirical or all authoritative is OR.Taharqa 19:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the theory is controversial (as are other ones). This is grounds for discussing several theories, not for censorship.
• A population history study of North Africa is a usable source for the population history of ancient Egypt for the same reason a book on dogs is a usable source for dalmations. I went out of my way to pick quotes which expliticly mention ancient Egypt, just as I would go out of my way to find quotes on dalmations from a dog book if I were editing an article on dalmations.
• How am I making it a "priority" over other studies? We don't even give it a block quote. I just want to cite it, like we would cite any other reliable study on this subject. I am not suggesting we allow any source to be "overshadowed." This 1997 source, as well as other more recent sources should be given each their own due weight per Wikipedia:NPOV.--Urthogie 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. No one proposed censorship and if you can't quote where I proposed such a thing, please refrian from making baseless accusations. The "theory" is controversial because it is but one of many, and not even a "theory" by definition, but a suggestion, a 10 year old suggestion of possibility.

2. Your dalmations analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since dog experts study dog, this study wasn't on Ancient Egypt and Race, or demographic effects in Ancient Egypt during the classical or predynastic. Nor is it a demographic study nor can it over rule conclusive studies on this very specific matter by way of guess work 10 years ago. It deserves mention for the same reason opposing theories are always brought up, to give opposing views, but as the data stands today, break throughs and conclusions from scientists have actually been made and declared and this doesn't over shadow that.

3. In your last revision you chose to undermine the recent anthropological work by using a guess work study which is ten years older and declare that "more work needs to be done", but more work has been done and was presented, but you wanted to overshadow it with more outdated assumptions(which doesn't make them wrong, but can't defend its self since it isn't updated)..Taharqa 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't care what you call it, whether its "possibility" or "suggestion" or "claim" or "theory." Its a relaible source, and the quote can be used. 10 years? As I said before you're only bringing up the time issue on sources you don't like otherwise.
• Sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. "this study was on Ancient Egypt and Race." Huh?
• "It deserves mention for the same reason opposing theories are always brought up, to give opposing views, but as the data stands today, break throughs and conclusions from scientists have actually been made and declared and this doesn't over shadow that." I didn't say it overshadowed that. How can you simultaneously declare "it deserves mention" and at the same time request it be removed from the article. Which one is it?
• More work does need to be done in this area. However, it is ridiculous to claim that using a study from 1997 somehow "undermines" or "overshadows" current research simply because its referenced. Scientists reference old studies all the time, as early as the 1980's in a lot of cases.--Urthogie 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't care what you care about, it's a reliable suggestive source, but it isn't conclusive so keep it in that space as it should not overshadow the conclusive studies.. These are Straw Man arguments and your personal attacks are pathetic..

2. I meant to say that it wasn't..

3. No one requested that it be removed, this is another straw man..

4. Ok, and your opinion about more work needing to be done to verify recent data is OR and should be disregarded as your opinion in not accepting the current data..Taharqa 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Taharqa, good points. I'm starting to see that we can compromise. I have the following issues with the current configuration, though:

1. It is OR to summarize the three studies as a new, solid, "theory." They are seperate articles which don't mention one another. This problem does not apply to the so-called "older theory" because Bosch actually cites Newman.
2. It is POV and OR to present a 10 year old study as discredited and non-mainstream without any sources which say that.
3. It is bad style, and has the effect of POV that the "new theory" is mentioned both at the beginning and the end of the section, when it should only be articulated once, to avoid redundancy
4. It is ridiculously POV and OR to say "(SeeDynastic Race Theory)." This is not the dynastic race theory, it is a theory of demographic influence.

Aside from addressing these points, could you answer this question: If I get two more recent sources written in the last 5 years which indicate significant near east demographic influence on ancient Egypt, would you be willing to reconsider the current emphasis of that section on Keita's views and views similar to Keita? Thank you for discussing, --Urthogie 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It is not OR which is a blanket term that you throw around too much, they are all mainstream updated studies, peer-reviewed and accepted, that comes to the same conclusions through repeatable scientific efforts. It isn't a "theory", these are studies with conclusions and there are plenty more.. Egyptology and Anthropology agrees on that consensus, your POV cannot undermine scientific results in that you feel more work should be done and that we should disregard these results as conclusive...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

2. No one says that it is "discredited or non-mainstream", these are your words, not mine.. Again.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

3. The first reference to the "mainstream and accepted conclusion", was an extra addition by you, not me..

4. It is not OR to put (See Dynastic Race Theory) as it elaborates on how these theories are out of favor in the mainstream.

5. You searching high and low for a source that says "significant near eastern influence" is OR.. If they aren't anthropologists or geneticists(someone reliable) who have studied ancient Egypt then they are unreliable, if you find results that conflict with Keita, Irish, Zakrzewski, Robins, Boyce, Brace(2006), Yurco, and Ehret's (and other people, including the people they cite) findings, please present them, but it would only be fair to mention it for what it is, "a conflicting study" which of course will be considered, but the fact that you need to look high and low for it seems like OR.. I haven't seen them out there, so good luck.. Obviously these are not "Keita's views"(They are scientists), Keita isn't the only person cited in the article, there are many collaborative sources that are all mainstream which report these same data.. Thank youTaharqa 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Senu" case

Urthogie, I read attentively the article you mentioned as supporting a "mixed race theory" : "Analyses of mummies, based on either CT scans or melanin tests have come up with a variety of results, some reporting "mixed racial characteristics",[16] While others reporting "Negroid affinities."[17]". From this, one can believe that there is a study concluding that the Egyptians were from a mixed race society. Reading the article, I descovered that it is not the case. At the best it is an hypothesis: "3. Soft Tissues and Egyptology It is important to consider the background history of “Senu”, race and Egyptology to reconstruct the soft tissues such as nose, lips, and ears as well as other details such as skin color. Presumptions were made on “Senu” based on the Egyptological assumption that he came from the south and may be a royal family related to soldiery with administrant titled Achu. His race can be presumed as a mixture of racial types, including negroid, Mediterranean and European. Important features are decided as almond-shaped eyes, wing of nose to be wide, thick lips, and dark to reddish brown skin color. From the presumptions above, artistic decisions were made to add details to the basic skin surface. Additionally, “Senu” is anatomically presumed to be a male and age in his middle age. From this estimate, the basic skin surface is manually deformed to reflect the age as an artistic decision." From this text, Urthogie, one cannot say that Senu was a mixed race. Scientists are just saying that "His race can be presumed as a mixture of racial types, including negroid, Mediterranean and European" (They don't even speak about Mesopotamia, but they mention the south). So they are not drawing a conclusion from their study. They are presuming. Diop did something different with the melanin test. Diop saw from analysies in laboratory that the quantity of melanin in the skins of the Egyptians is too much, thus incompatible with the idea of the Egyptians having white skin. Let's be serious Urthogie. You are bringing texts which are not backing your theories. I want other people to verify what I understood from the study about "Senu". Meanwhile I am asking Urthogie to find another text to back his affirmation or, else, to abandon this affirmation for the sake of being objective. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We went over this as well and that's why Senu was removed, because these are forensic artists, but bioanthropologist consider "race" as an unreliable concept as was noted by the third opinion, it diminishes the value of the cluster and cline approach. "race" is a social construct and doesn't apply to ancient skeletons. They're attributing certain features to outside influence, which limits the diversity in and between populations of the same so-called "race".. That's also why studying individuals also presents a huge problem.. See Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions About Human Variation, Frank L'Engle_Williams, Robert L. Belcher, George J. Armelago's, Current Anthropology. (2005) http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/forensic.pdfTaharqa 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We removed Senu. I'm not interested in discussing Senu because he's no longer part of the article. Feel free to have any opinion of that study that you like.--Urthogie 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^Actually you still use him as a source in the intro, but since it isn't disputed,....Taharqa 16:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to remove Senu from the beginning in my version, I believe. (had i noticed, i would have) I support removing him from the intro now too, of course.--Urthogie 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Luka seems to be arguing against the idea that "Egyptians had white skin." No one on this talk page believes that. Why argue against such a straw man?--Urthogie 16:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^I believe he's simply arguing that they were African and not influenced by "non-Africans" with lighter skin.Taharqa 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

surely they were influenced to some degree, even if it was minor. that's what our whole disagreement is about. scientists like keita argue that there was an insignificant effect from the near east. no scientist argues that there was no effect whatsoever.--Urthogie 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning a sprinkle from here and a sprinkle from there is redundant and doesn't compromise continuity until centuries or thousands of years later obviously. 2% doesn't outweigh the other 98%, that's why many scholars like Keita, Zakrzewski, Irish, Boyce, etc.. all report that Egyptians were for the "most part" or 'mainly' indigenous to cover their butts, just in case there was a sprinkle of influence that they couldn't identify, but their emphasis is on the fact that the data shows the vast majority of them to be indigenous.Taharqa 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it "sprinkles." Your view is based on the list of sources that you use.--Urthogie 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^If you have no legitimate sources that contradict the ones already in the article directly, then your personal opinion or "what you consider" doesn't matter as it concerns the article or what the studies reflect, "sprinkle" was only my own terminology to describe what was and is reported, it is not a word that was imposed into the article.. Disagree as you will, but sources would be nice with less emphasis on OR.

Actually, one such source is being discussed above, and you are trying as hard as you can to keep it out of the article.--Urthogie 18:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks or accusations please.Taharqa 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a personal attack is. A personal attack is when you comment on the person's attributes, rather than their actions. We are allowed to criticize actions.--Urthogie 19:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're accusing me of trying to keep a study out of the article and this has no basis in fact and has nothing to do with what we were discussing here, and is a personal attack, refrain from doing this please.Taharqa 19:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But you are trying to keep that study out, and its relevant because you're strangely claiming no such studies have been provided.--Urthogie 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote:But you are trying to keep that study out

^No I am not

Now, no unsupported accusations please..Taharqa 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So you dont mind if we include the study?--Urthogie 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is already added, that's why your complaints are confusing..Taharqa 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is there, my mistake, but in a POV way, presenting it as unaccepted and replaced.--Urthogie 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^You're changing your argument, it is just a theory (that argues possible differentiation and limited gene flow afterwards) that plays the background with other theories, then there are results and conclusive repeatable studies and claims(which are presented in the foreground)., We went through this.Taharqa 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt, the first state in the world

Thanatosimii, while verifying the quotations made by Urthogie, I found one which has nothing to do with the subject raised by Urthogie, namely that the Egyptians considered themselves different from their neighbours. Fortunately, this quotation mentions that Egypt is the first state in the world, thus before Sumer (which might also belong to the Black world). Urthogie knew this text which is from him. But he said nothing to you who was negating the anteriority of Egypt on the political scene. "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)" Now Thanatosimii, you can learn more about the History of Egypt, this African state which is the first state in the whole world. "The Civilization Of Ancient Egypt By Paul Johnson. Published 1999 HarperCollins History / General History 240 pages ISBN 0060194340 A leading historian and bestselling author re-creates the growth, decline, and legacy of 3,000 Years of Egyptian civilization with an authoritative text splendidly illustrated with 150 illustrations in full color.Ancient Egypt, with its legacy of pyramids, pharaohs and sphinxes, is a land of power and mystery to the modern world. In The Civilization of Ancient Egypt Paul Johnson explores the growth and decline of a culture that survived for 3,000 years and maintained a purity of style that rivals all others. Johnson's study looks in detail at the state, religion, culture and geographical setting and how they combined in this unusually enduring civilization. From the beginning of Egyptian culture to the rediscovery of the pharaohs, the book covers the totalitarian theocra-cy, the empire of the Nile, the structure of dynastic Egypt, the dynastic way of death, hieroglyphs, the anatomy of preperspective art and, finally, the decline and fall of the pharaohs, Johnson seeks, through an exciting combination of images and analysis, to discover the causes behind the collapse of this, great civilization while celebrating the extra-ordinary legacy it has left behind.Paul Johnson on Ancient Egypt and the Egyptians"Egypt was not only the first state, it was the first country.... The dura-bility of the state which thus evolved was ensured by the overwhelming simplicity and power of its central institution, the theocratic monarchy." "The Egyptians did not share the Babylonian passion for astrology, but they used the stars as one of many guides to behavior. No Egyptian believed in a free exercise of will in important decisions: he always looked for an omen or a prophecy or an oracle." "The development of hieroglyphics mirrors and epitomizes the history of Egyptian civilization. . . . No one outside Egypt understood it and even within Egypt it was the exclusive working tool of the ruling and priestly classes. The great mass of Egyptians were condemned to illiteracy by the complexities (and also the beauties) of the Egyptian written language.""The affection the Egyptians were not. ashamed to display towards their children was related to the high status women enjoyed in Egyptian society.""If we can understand Egyptian art we can go a long way towards grasping the very spirit and outlook on life, of this gifted people, so remote in time. The dynamic of their civilization seems to have been a passionate love of order (maat to them), by which they sought to give to human activities and creations the same regularity as their landscape, their great river, their sun-cycle and their immutable seasons." Will you continue, Thanatosimii, to hide yourself after raising questions? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii is obviously confused in making that statement since most learned scholars will tell you that "Sumer" was not a unified state but a loose confederation of nomes that composed what some scholars believe to be the first "civilization", while others disagree. There is no disputing however, that Egypt was the first state/country/unified Kingdom(maybe with the exception of Ta-Seti in Northern Sudan).. Also Sumerians did not speak Semitic(they spoke a language isolate) and like their Elamite counter parts, were probably related to Dravidians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language http://ezinearticles.com/?Tracing-the-Origin-of-Ancient-Sumerians&id=311587Taharqa 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not spend the last three years studying this in university to be patronized. Don't accept what I say on face value because of it, don't think I want you to assume that I'm right, but I will not be patronized and I will not have you giving me disrespect that I am undeserving of. I do not need to read basic texts to learn about your "obvious" truths when no such mentions exist of this data in any of the sources I have poured myself over for endless hours upon days of study, be they the most simple generalized histories or the most specific publications yet. Neither do I believe I must always be right on everything, but I am not ignorant. Your statements are flying in the face of the formost Egyptologists and academic presses on earth, so don't attack me if I don't accept them. As I said before, your behavior is appalingly incivil and I will not abide it further. Farewell, I won't be bothering you again. This is a textbook example of how not to treat another editor. Thanatosimii 05:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is debated whether Egypt was the first state. I read in some sources that it was Nubia first, and in others from that I read Egypt was first. Also, Luka, you're being incredible obnoxious, accusing Thanatosimii of "hiding."--Urthogie 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, the facts stand that it is common consensus that Egypt was the first unified nation as there is no evidence whatsoever for a unified nation at sumer in 3,000 B.C, only in Northern Sudan do we find evidence for an older Monarchy in history(See Bruce Willams, etc.) Luka was essentially right..Taharqa 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether he's "right" or not has no bearing on the page, it's a petty dialectic.--Urthogie 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^That's your opinion, but since Luka made this post I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith, that it actually is related to the page.Taharqa 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not erase my entries Urthogie please..Taharqa 16:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

^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_peoplesTaharqa 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

^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)

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

^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)

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

^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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Genetics of the ancient Egyptians
• Population history of ancient Egypt
• Ancient Egyptian state formation
• Appearance of the ancient Egyptians
• Race in Egyptology
• Egypt in Afrocentrism
• Myths about ancient Egypt

and merge other stuff to existing articles such as:

• Ancient Egyptian language
• Great Sphinx of Giza
• King Tut
• Origin of Nilotic peoples

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm willing to forget about creating Race in Egyptology-- after all, that subject is only notable in the context of Afrocentric critique. However, it seems to me like Myths about ancient Egypt would be a great article that could contribute to this encyclopedia, similar to HIV and AIDS misconceptions. Also, it's important that we have seperate articles for Ancient Egyptian state formation vs. (something like) Origins of the ancient Egyptians-- after all, they refer to two different questions, even if they are related. Lastly, Egypt in Afrocentrism is a logical extension of the Afrocentrism article, so it seems to be a good idea to cover this specfic facet of Afrocentrism more in detph.--Urthogie 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

after all, that subject is only notable in the context of Afrocentric critique

^No it isn't, neither Egyptologist nor Afrocentric are qualified to speak on race unless the Afrocentric is a bioanthropologist.

State formation, what does that mean, can you define what you mean by that? Just say the peopling of Ancient Egypt, Egypt in Afrocentrism has nothing to do with this article though.. As a matter of fact, I don't agree with you drastically changing anything, I think the article is fine with out the trivial stuff and left with the empirical research..Taharqa 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

State formation refers to how the Egyptian state/government was formed, rather than peopling of Egypt. Does that clarify? Also, I don't think this article's title is "fine."--Urthogie 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're grossly misinterpreting the study.. Get a third opinion if you're still unsatisfied with what I'm explaining to you..Taharqa 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making a claim about that study... that argument is seperate from this, and is found on a seperate talk page section. Are you actually claiming that origins and state formation are the same thing. Don't you recognize that people don't immediately form a state once they inhabit Egypt? How can you not recognize they are seperate things?--Urthogie 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^If you'd just read the study your self you'd save your self the hassle of straining your self since all of her studies concern skeletal remains and assessing claims of biological continuity or "race" change in the specimens around the time of state formation, since the skeletal remains were the same and no "race" change or significant difference was shown through out time among populations in Egypt, she declared that state formation was an indigenous process, meaning lack of out side genetic input and the people who formed the state were indigenous to that region and not to say, "Mesopotamia" or something...Taharqa 16:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, the study is being talked about in a seperate section. I am not talking about it here. Please reply to what I said:

Are you actually claiming that origins and state formation are the same thing? Don't you recognize that people don't immediately form a state once they inhabit Egypt? How can you not recognize they are seperate things?

Thanks, --Urthogie 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^Her samples go back much earlier then dynastic times and during them, she doesn't simply concentrate on the period of state formation but assesses older and well into classical times remains, establishing the Badari as the indigenous proto-type Egyptian, and she concluded continuity from there.. Again, look up the word indigenous, pay attention to the fact that the study concerns the biological nature and geographic origins and relatedness of people, and if these indigenous people maintained their bio-ethnic identity through the process of state formation and kept it afterwards(in the face of possible admixture with foreigners), and she concluded yes, with limited outside admixture from foreigners. Thanx.. http://wysinger.homestead.com/zakrzewski_2007.pdfTaharqa 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lemme just ask a simple question: do you think the way the ancient Egyptian state was formed and the genetic origins/population history of the ancient Egyptians are the same thing. Note: I'm not asking if they're related, but rather if they're the same thing. I'm just trying to clarify this so we avoid a pointless argument. Thanks, --Urthogie 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^Yes, since the most effective and widely used way to study local population/genetics history/origins of an ancient civilization long gone is by craniofacial and skeletal comparisons, along with other disciplines since DNA at that stage is almost useless to test and timing mutations/diffusion by DNA is always difficult and controversial... It is essentially the same thing and is what's been done in that study...Taharqa 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can you explain to me why it follows from "most effective and widely used way to study local population/genetics history/origins of an ancient civilization long gone [being] craniofacial and skeletal comparisons, along with other disciplines since DNA" that state formation and genetic origins/population history are the same thing? I'm asking this not to be rude, but rather to avoid being rude and not understanding your view. thank you, --Urthogie 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(2007) "Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations

They're the same thing in that they asses the same thing using different methods while one method tends to me more effective in a certain atmosphere, the other method more effective in others.Taharqa 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The formation of the Egyptian state and the origins of the Egyptians are not "methods" or "assessments"-- they are subjects. Perhaps you didn't read me clearly. If I'm wrong, and you did read me clearly, pelase explain why you're referring to these things as methods or assessments. Thank you, --Urthogie 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You've only confused yourself Urthogie, I've explained to you clearly why it is the same thing, your POV however, does not need to be discussed and will not make it into or effect the article as it is Original Research and against policy..Taharqa 19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please just answer my question so I can understand the way you see this. If I'm merely confusing myself, then I suppose I'm human and making a mistake. Instead of being presumptous and overly defensive, perhaps you could answer my previous question respectfully. Understand that we're merely having a miscommunication, which is expected over the internet. I know I may not be conveying tone correctly, but I truly am not meaning to be hostile here whatsoever. That is why I am asserting nothing, and only asking to get a better understanding of your view. Thanks, Urthogie 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you review the literature and go over what we've went over thus far since you seemed to not listen when I explained to you the first time, nor are you accepting the quotes literally at face value, even when you have a chance to verify by just reviewing the literature. And I have no "view", I was simply trying to explain to you in layman's terms what the studies say and providing quotes..Taharqa 19:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it seems like I haven't listened because we're miscommunicating. Could you please clarify what you said. Specifically, could you address my comment on what you said here:

The formation of the Egyptian state and the origins of the Egyptians are not "methods" or "assessments"-- they are subjects. Perhaps you didn't read me clearly. If I'm wrong, and you did read me clearly, pelase explain why you're referring to these things as methods or assessments.

Answering this question would help a lot. You have to consider that one of us is miscommunicating here and it might be you, so maybe you could just answer this and we could sort the miscommunication out. Thanks, --Urthogie 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The miscommunication comes from you not comprehending what I said, so I'll say it once more..

"Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations(Emphasis on what's in bold)..

They're the same thing in that they asses the same thing(that being genetic make-up/origins) using different methods(craniometric variation vs. Modern DNA testing) while one method tends to me more effective in a certain atmosphere, the other method more effective in others.. Assessing state formation for this particular study was a byproduct of her assessment of "Genetic diversity".. Her specialty as a bioanthropologist is to study biological variation and biological origins of humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_anthropologyTaharqa 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But my question wasn't if "Genetic diversity" and "craniometric variation" were the same thing, Taharqa! It was if state formation and genetic origins are the same thing!--Urthogie 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^It does not matter and that question is loaded..

Assessing state formation for this particular study was a byproduct of her assessment of "Genetic diversity".. Her specialty as a bioanthropologist is to study biological variation and biological origins of humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_anthropologyTaharqa 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a loaded question? Specifically what does it presuppose? I swear I'm not presupposing anything in asking that, I don't see how its loaded...--Urthogie 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

reply to luka

"The peopling of northern Africa appears to be conditioned by the barriers imposed to the north by the Mediterranean Sea and to the south by the Sahara Desert, which constrains human movement to an east-west direction". Urthogie, the Sahara has not been always a desert. It is actually the desertification which pushed people in west-est direction. All the contrary of what the article is saying. You better watch the 1st of 4 videos by Basil Davidson http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are saying the study is wrong. I disagree with you, but neither of our opinions matter because we are not reliable sources. However, I will nonetheless reply to you in regards to the sahara desert:

1. After 6000 BC, the Sahara was dried out. It is therefore valid to say (as the study does) that the Sahara presented a significant population barrier as far as seperating the Northern Africans from the Southern ones since 6000 BC.
2. Even if the Sahara Desert wasn't much of a barrier from 8000 to 6000 BC, that doesn't contradict the study, which claims significant near east demographic influences, not near east origins.--Urthogie 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you watch the 1st video? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No such study says anything about any Barrier or Significant influence from the near east Urthogie, enough with the Original Research! The Sahara has been wet for thousands of years and when it began to dry, many Saharans are said to have settled the Nile Valley, along with native Nile Valley people, etc.. Later on during Egypt's classical period, there was no barrier up and down the Nile, but there was one in the North called the desert.Taharqa 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, original research is a policy for editing, and it doesn't apply to human discussions, lol! Anyways, check this source out: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/Fezzan/fezzan_palaeoclim.html

• "The wet episode described above was interrupted by century-scale arid episode sometime around 8 ka"

• "There is widespread evidence that the onset of the hyper-arid conditions that characterise the Sahara today occurred at around 5 ka (Nicholson and Flohn, 1980; Claussen et al, 1999; Cremaschi et al., 1999)."

Thanks, --Urthogie 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, did you watch the 1st video of Davidson? How do you react to it? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It crashed my FireFox but I'll watch in internet explorer when I get a chance.--Urthogie 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You DL the videos from here actually.. http://www.lincoln.edu/history/his307/

^5 thousand years ago? What's the point and what does that have to do with the article or the near east?Taharqa 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The question was about population barriers. Sahara was one at various stretches throughout history, as the study correctly notes.--Urthogie 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything, the Sahara extends across all of North Africa, it was a barrier for those coming in North, West, East, or South, with the exception of the Nile.. A Barrier doesn't mean confinement though, and most of the population migration into Egypt was during the period that the Sahara was wet according to most studies.. This has nothing to do with the article so I'd rather shy away from discussing this thoughTaharqa 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• "A Barrier doesn't mean confinement though." Never said it did.
• "This has nothing to do with the article so I'd rather shy away from discussing this though." My thoughts exactly.--Urthogie 20:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To Urthogie

Urthogie, stop your provocative behaviour. Instead of reverting, try to contribute. I don't have to ask you the reason why you reverted my last contribution on "Eurocentrism of Egyptology". Everything I wrote was documented. Just stop your joke. It doesn't please me. And if you continue being disruptive, I should report you. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 08:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)