Talk:Population history of Egypt

Older sources need review

I think this is generally good practice in any case, but finding that the claims for a possible Nubian origin for the Egyptian pharaonic monarchy seem to have been rejected not just in 1996 (and in fact earlier which is why the 1996 sources makes it clear that it isn't just Wegner rejecting it) but we also have a 2020 source makes it even more important. Have I missed something? If I have, the point is still valid. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller The 2020 (Gatto) sources states that William's views have been misunderstood and suggests that the Nubian origin of pharaonic Egyptian culture remaind a possibility, even if it seemed "inconceivable" to some scholars with recent evidence. I'm not sure what your point exactly is ?. The 1996 and 2020 seem to make contradictory points as the former states this hypothesis was rejected whilst the 2020 source states this hypothesis has been reconsidered in light of recent excavations in Upper Egypt. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This has been taken way out of context. Gatto is actually saying that the idea of Nubia being the location of the rise of the Egyptian monarchy has been ditched, because more recently evidence has been found in Egypt which shows that the monarchy arose in Egypt, and long before the Qustul dates. Nonetheless, the Qustul tombs were also quite impressive - although they were unique in Nubia and not part of any Nubian architectural or funerary tradition. See [1]. The apparent problem stems from taking isolated sentences out of context to support a POV. Gatto goes on to explain just how different the Nubian A-Group was from the Egyptians. This issue of including sentences stating that something "remains a possibility" is not useful to the encyclopedia, it merely pushes a non-mainstream POV, and it contributes enormously to the bloating of the article. Wdford (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's why I had to add more text. There are other sources saying Williams was rejected, and it's possible he says something about it in his 1986 article which I can't access. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Kush Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization By László Török[2]

"The development of rulership in the Middle Nile Region was viewed until recently from the aspect of superficial comparison with the development of the Egyptian state. Due to a lack of detailed research, general studies of the early forms of the state are largely silent on Nubia. Finds made during the UNESCO Campaign at a terminal A-Group (before 2900 BC) cemetery at Qustul123 prompted B.B. Williams to suggest that the pharaohs of the Egyptian Dynasty “0” buried at Abydos were ideological and cultural heirs and perhaps even descendants of the rulers buried at Qustul and thus the final unification of Egypt and pharaonic kingship could look back to Nubian origins.124 Though this theory' is now directly contradicted by the discovery at Abydos of a royal burial that predates Qustul,125 there can be no doubt that the development of early state forms in Nubia took a similar

119 For the Lower Nubian evidence cf. Firth 1912 Cemeteries 69, 72, 76; Firth 1915 Cemeteries 94, 108; Firth 1927 Cemetery 130; Emery Kinvan 1935 Cemeteries 154, 167, 168, 177, 181, 189, 201, 203; Williams 1992 145fT.

120 Yellin 1995a 24511'.

121 Literary Ostracon Deir el Medina 1072, Zibelius 1994 4f.

122 For the case of Egypt cf. G. Pinch: Votive Offerings to Hathor. Oxford 1993; Kemp 1995.

12 ! B.B. Williams: The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition 111. 1. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L. Chicago 1986.

124 B.B. Williams: The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia. Archaeology 33 (1980) 14-21; id.: Forebears of Menes in Nubia: Myth or Reality? JNES 46 (1987) 15-26.

125 W. Kaiser: Zum veranderten Bild von der Entstehung des gesamtagyptischen Staates. MDAIK 46 (1990) 263-299; and cf. W.Y. Adams: Doubts about the Cist Pharaohs. JXE.S 44 (1985) 185-192; O’Connor 1993 20ff." Doug Weller talk 19:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug WellerThanks, I wanted those additional information. 'm familiar with some of the sources, I cited two articles from Williams including his rebuttal about misrepresentation. However, in which article/publication does William admit that he was wrong ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought I saw something about this sourced to his 1986 article. I said that above. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford You have been warned beforehand about the accusatory language and suggestions of bad faith. The full sentence and link from Gatto has been cited and the original enquiry was directed at Doug Weller. The sentence has not been taken of out context, in fact the entire page is accessible and that statement is especially relevant to the discussion on Qutsul hypothesis. The discussion of differences between Nubian and Egyptian material culture does not mean that they did not have a common substraum. Gatto's position on the Qutsul hypothesis is clearly stated and available for users to access. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as how William's theory has been directly contradicted by the discovery at Abydos of a royal burial that predates Qustul, should this waffling paragraph even be in the article? Doesn't using Gatto's ambiguous sentence instead of the more explicit sentence from Török (or any of the other rebuttals) seem a bit "unhelpful"? Wdford (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gatto provides the latest evidence (2020) hence why she was cited and she states explicitly that recent discoveries in Upper Egypt has enabled the Qutusul hypothesis to be reconsidered. Also, Gatto is an authoritative source and should be featured.WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hm, we seem to have very different opinions about what she is saying. I simply can't interpret it the way you are doing. I think she is referring to the discovery in Abydos, which of course is in Upper Egypt. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gatto is stating that the Williams hypothesis has been debunked by the latest finds at Abydos. This is obvious in that the latest finds at Abydos to which she refers, show that Williams was mistaken, and that the Egyptian monarchy originated at Abydos not Qustul. There is no conflicting evidence, and not does Gatto make any such inference. This was sourced in detail at Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Your insistence on retaining a misleading sentence is clear evidence of your POV. This paragraph needs to be reduced to a simple statement that clearly states the true position. Wdford (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller@Wdford I read her chapter from the introduction until conclusion and her discussion centres on the complexity and variability in the Nubian region. Her page on page 127 makes it clear her views on the Qutsul hypoothesis and the views of other scholars in the past who dismissed it. As stated previously, other users can read the passage. How is that sentence misleading ?. @Doug Weller originally quoted her and provided the source because of its relevance to the Qutsul hypothesis. Are you claiming that he is misleading and providing evidence of his POV. I have only included the full sentence since it seemed confusing on her actual position. Perhaps, you are demonstrating your POV hence your reluctance to accept the evidence provided in this article across the various fields. I have stated if you could provide countervailing evidence in the discussion above and to make revisions, yet you have done neither. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller How is the interpretation different, she states explicitly "Whatever the claim, the (for some scholars) inconceivable idea of a primary role for Nubia in the rise of the Egyptian monarchy has been reconsidered after more recent finds in Upper Egypt dating back to the Naqada I period the early manifestations of elite iconography". How is this out of context or pushing a POV ?. You provided this information. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

When Gatto says "reconsidered" she means Williams theory has been rejected, not that the rejection has been rejected. This is obvious from the full context, and from all the other sources. I pointed you to all the many sources on the point at Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I'm sure you are well aware of them. Doug provided another one a few minutes ago, namely Török. Your pretense that there are no sources disagreeing with your false interpretation is tendentious. Your persistence in flogging this false interpretation is tendentious. Your issuing of "warnings" to people who disagree with you is tendentious too. I will correct the article, using the many sources that are clear and not ambiguous. Wdford (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford No she is explicitly clear and refering to "some scholars" who viewed the "primary role for Nubia" as inconceivable as being reconsidered. She in fact states that Williams has been misunderstood. How is that "obvious" ?. Gatto is the most recent source and conducted excavations in a separate study which has the currently oldest evidence of Egyptian pharonic iconography. The other sources are older than the Gatto source and some before her recent excavations in the Aswan region. I'm not issuing "warnings", you are making accusations of bad faith. I have already corrected the article with an abundance of sources across this article and related articles. I have referenced all the cited scholars above on their view of AE origins and its biogeographical/cultural evolution. You have been an editor since 2007 and never changed the title in that sub-section on biogeographical origins until the recent inclusion of overwhelming evidence, then you wished the title and evidence removed. You have projected accusations of bad faith because you cannot provide countervailing levels of evidence. Those sources are related to the Qutsul hypothesis specifically, but you haven't provided any other information in the previous sub-section above. Gatto has been selected by @Doug Weller and her statement is clear. In fact, provide countervailing statements from that chapter written by Gatto before you make emotionally-charged language and assertions about false interpretations. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gatto's statement is very clear - however she means the opposite of what you claim that she means. Wdford (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@@Wdford No, the statement is self-evident and I have cited the sentence, the paragraph and the entire chapter in summary. You are misinterpretating the source and projecting that behaviour onto others. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You quoted Gatto yourself on this very thread, as stating that "Whatever the claim, the (for some scholars) inconceivable idea of a primary role for Nubia in the rise of the Egyptian monarchy has been reconsidered after more recent finds in Upper Egypt dating back to the Naqada I period the early manifestations of elite iconography". Gatto is thus stating explicitly that the "more recent finds" show the "elite iconography" dates back to Naqada I at Abydos, whereas Williams was looking at Naqada III artefacts found at Qustul. Gatto is clearly saying that the evidence shows Williams was wrong. What other possible interpretation could there be? Any continued insistence on an alternative interpretation is tendentious. Please stop this. Wdford (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You are again not clearly reading the statement correctly. I will outline this simply in short statements below.

1) She states that some scholars viewed it as inconceivable that Nubia had a primary role in the Egyptian monarchy.

2)This view (in reference to these scholars) has been reconsidered after recent finds in Upper Egypt dating back to Naqada I.

That is very clear. She is not criticising Williams himself in that sentence but the views of some scholars that did not think it was conceivable of a Nubian origin, because of the recent finds in a close, geographical region (Upper Egypt). You are not presenting the information correctly, hence why these recent corrections are needed. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

To weigh in, I believe Gatto's statement is very relevant and quite clear, that it represents a great and interesting addition to the article and should definitely remain in it. In my honest opinion, the essence of what makes Qutsul and the A-Group culture particularly interesting and relevant is not necessarily its possible determining role as the chief origin of pharaonic civilization (although it is definitely referenced and also has relevance). Why Gatto and other statements about Qutsul and the A-Group generally are interesting (at least with respect to the article) is because of the contribution of Qutsul and the A-Group to pharaonic civilization and its (as far as I can tell) undisputed pharaonic character (as evidenced in iconography). The section reflects contributions to the population history of Egypt, and it seems very appropriate to include Lower Nubia's contribution which does not seem controversial (unlike the extent of the contribution). I also recommend the Michinori (2000) which provides a good overview of the topic. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Gatto is saying that William's idea of a primary role for Nubia in the foundation of the Egyptian monarchy is being rejected because it has since been proved that the Egyptian monarchy was already in existence in Abydos much earlier. This view is also supported by the other sources. You are continuing to bee tendentious. Wdford (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford You again repeat emotionally charged language. The discussion is in relation to Gatto as the latest source. Gatto never uses the word "rejected" and she discuses the views of "some scholars" in that specific sentence. Qutsul has been underwater since 1966 whereas Abydos has had ongoing excavations over the past decades. Clearly, the scale of archaeological excavations would be weighted towards the latter. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena I agree but this user has been making accusatory statements and disputes the factual evidence. He just repeats assertions and emotionally-charged language without civility. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel that if it is felt that Gatto's statement can be interpreted in various ways, she can simply be cited in the article directly, as she was previously. I strongly support keeping Gatto and other references to Qutsul and the A-Group into the section. Editors may choose to exhibit behavior that does not seem appropriate to other editors. It's my belief that regardless of behaviors they observe from others, editors should always strive to demonstrate exemplary behavior, and focus any and all comments on content. With regards to content, if it becomes an issue to keep (well referenced) content which some consider very relevant and important to the article, there are means of achieving the most desirable outcome beyond simple editing. To expand on achieving outcomes beyond editing, there is relevant information on the topic here WP:RCD. Also, when editing on the platform consensus is favored (it means that if a viewpoint is held by a minority, e.g., a single editor, then the direction of the more numerous editors should prevail). In my opinion, resolving which content should be included by seeking to include most content should be preferred over omitting well referenced content (which can reflect attempts to conceal information which one finds inconvenient). Care should also be taken to avoid WP:VOTESTACKING which is not appropriate.

@WikiUser4020 in the present case, I or others (incuding yourself) can review which content was removed and which I or others feel should be kept. Honestly, I feel like references to Qutsul and the A-Group were all very relevant and informative. I really quite enjoyed the Michinori (2000) paper. Not to play the non-discrete race card but his views seemed very relevant and I think it would be very racist to omit his views because he is Japanese. Maybe the content on Qutsul and the A-Group could be more synthesized. At the very least in my opinion actual references should be kept to the benefit of readers. If there remains strong opposition to the content(s), then perhaps the situation is best resolved through other means. If statements are well sourced and evidently relevant I tend to believe it would be quite likely to end up included regardless of strong opinions. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena Could you expand on the last sentence in reference to the means of achieving this beyond simple editing ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger NzakimuenaThat is an accurate summary of the problem, especially the last sentence about the omission of well-referenced content. There is no such thing as playing "the race card" in my POV, the point just reflects the historical and contemporary reality of race and under-representation in wider society. Wikipedia has itself been criticised for racial bias in coverage and sought to diversify its editor base, I think this is especially pertinent in relation to topics such as African history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_WikipediaWikiUser4020 (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean by "the historical and contemporary reality of race". Do you agree that "Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning."? Doug Weller talk 10:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Yes, of course racial concepts do not have a biological and scientific basis. However, racism is a societal and global phenomena which pervades across all institutions and disciplines of society. Please, read in case that is not clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out previously, and particularly in the context of the article which is concerned with populations, it should be emphasized that non-discrete biogeographical categorizations based on phenotype and which are readily observable, are an objective reality. In summary, supervised categorization into non-discrete human groups has been observed to correspond roughly with unsupervised categorization of genetic ancestry. Therefore, it reflects objective reality which is why it can also be inferred by both humans and machines. The "social construct" rhetoric completely falls apart along with not having "an inherent physical or biological meaning" when considering that a machine model of race or ethnicity classification performs inference successfully based on visual information. The physical and biological meaning is empirically inherent.

As pertains to Gatto's quotation (and A. Parrot comment below), I have the book and read the whole chapter. Objectively, when Gatto says that the inconceivable (for some scholars) primary role of Nubia was reconsidered, she means reconsidered in the context of recent finds in Upper Egypt dating to earlier times. She does not mean reconsidered in support of a primary role of Nubia, and her statements are consistent with other works. Importantly, the rest of the chapter is largely in-line with Michinori (2000), i.e., the A-Group and ancient Egypt have contemporaneity, common roots, and interaction, that it is in a way pointless to keep discussing whether the sites in the First Cataract are to be defined as Egyptians or Nubians. As attested by the material culture, they are part of the Naqada cultural system, but (at least part of) the population living there had a Nubian heritage and The farther from the core of the Naqada culture, the more Nubian identity was retained by local communities. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Doug asked about the Gatto quotation at the WikiProject Ancient Egypt talk page, so I read through most of the rest of Gatto's chapter (the Google Books preview omits a couple of pages but lets me read the rest). In its context, Wdford's interpretation of the quotation seems to be correct. A. Parrot (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yurco

Hi Doug. The paragraph about Yurco in the poorly named "Material culture and Archaeological data" section is mentioning a lot about his perceptions of physical features, but this section is meant to be about cultural "evidence". It seems that the only line here on cultural affinities is the sentence about "shared the same culture in the predynastic period, and used the same pharaonic political structure [in later centuries]." I'm thinking this paragraph should be drastically trimmed? Wdford (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford Yurco is an authoritative source and it was agreed that the highest quality sources be referenced. You complained about the sub title recently and offered no proposals on a alternative titles. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The Yurco content here is off-topic. As an alternative title -"Cultural affinities". Wdford (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Yurco is authoritative and definitely the first two sentences should remain, as they are relevant to the population's culture, and how archaeological data reflects the population's history. It seems like there might be an intent to edit referenced statements relating to Nubia's contribution to Egyptian historical population out of the article, which should be discouraged. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena I share the same view exactly. That title proposed by Wdford is clearly "poorly named" and basic. I strongly oppose that Yurco should be trimmed down as he is an authoritative source and that proposed title be included. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yet another show of lack of good faith. This is sad and makes collegial discussion impossible. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Why was hasn't this been directed at Wdford, he made the initial personal attacks and numerous comments about POV, false interpretations, referred to my title originally as "poorly named". I attempted to show civility (see thread above) and made warnings about his language but as @C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena has acknowledged that Wdford's comments and emotive language have made collaboration increasingly difficult. You should have intervened once Wdford started resorting to accusatory language and suggestions of bad faith. WikiUser4020 (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Calling your title "poorly named" is a comment on the title, not you, a distinction that has been made many times. You and Wdford don't get along, eg your comment above "He just repeats assertions and emotionally-charged language without civility." That doesn't show civility and as someone who was blocked for personal attacks you might want to be more careful. I'm sure there are lots of things I should have done, but I don't have the time to devote to this topic that you do so don't always pay attention. I will note that the suggestion that anyone might do "votestacking" shows a potential lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I renamed the title as per Wdford's request. It is clearly a personal attack on my editing as he has made numerous remarks claiming I made "false interpretations", presenting my "POV" and stated I played the "race card" in a previous thread on the AE race controversy talk section.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy You have been a Wikipedia editor for 15 years and monitored the editing of the AE race controversy and related pages over a decade. I have checked the archives. You clearly have the time to do basic checks on the exchange of language and I made repeated warnings above Wdford's accusatory language. This is a short-term contribution for me and then I will no longer be active on Wikipedia. WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I resent spending time on these articles. Since my diagnosis of bowel cancer and liver cancer (and since my bowel cancer operation lymph nodes as well), I've cut my watchlist heavily trying to cut down on the time I spend on Wikipedia. But as you say, I've invested time in these articles. But I'm not going to respond to everything and I've seen you misinterpret at least one source. Saying Wdford's made "false interpretations" isn't the case for this talk page, he and I both agree your interpretation of Gatto is wrong. That sort of comment is not a personal attack. It looks to me as though you've been presenting your pov, that's not a sin unless it affects your editing and I am concernced that it might. You accused Wdford of "clear stance against Wokeism etc)" at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy {more than once} and at the same talk page kept talking about his tirades (yes, he used the word also, but you used it repeatedly). It's time for everyone to drop this sort of behaviour. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I did not accuse Wdford of taking a stance against wokeism. Those were his original words, but he re-edited his words and changed it from "Wokeism" to say "popular Afrocentrism" as @Generalrelative reprimanded him, and requested he change his terminology, if you had read the correspondence carefully. Wdford and "Yourself"may disagree but @C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena had a differing view as did I on Gatto's statement. I have presented ample evidence in my short duration as editor. I am deeply concerned with the current editing and this relates back to the wider issue of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia. The fact, various articles on this topic, of African history, had to be revised extensively due to the omission of evidence and lack of balance reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a public source of information. I agree that civility should be key but if a specific editor continues with emotive language, accusatory languge and neglects to present countervailing evidence then group discussion remains static and circular. I have stated this beforehand. To be clear, that is not a personal attack but I am raising serious and deep concerns over the coverage of this topic.

In fact, I'll give some examples:

AE race controversy article page: This article had a single, study from 2017 with a limited sample size in bold with the caption title: "Near-Eastern genetic affinity of Egyptian mummies" and featured a fairly dated, sentence from Bernard R. Ortiz De Montellano in 1993 in the introductory paragraph to present a conclusive view on the debate. I had to raise this as misleading content and the article was subsequently revised with notable sub-sections included.

Cheikh Anta Diop article page: This article had descriptions of him as "deeply controversial", although the cited source never stated that and omitted academics who had constructive appraisals of his work, which presented a heavily skewed view of his historical work.

UNESCO History of Africa article page: The reception section for Volume 1 and 2 did not feature other scholars such as Christopher Ehret and Adeline Apena. The former had a critical view on the over-representation of non-African scholars in the book series and Apena criticised UNESCO scholars in the "Peopling of Egypt" debate for not accepting that the Ancient Egyptians would have been the same as dark-skinned Africans with cultural similarities. However, without the inclusion of their reviewed content, one could be given a misleading view. Additional content is being added to the reception sub-sections for series 4, 5 and 8.

WikiUser4020 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Damn, I searched for "General Relative", my bad. Sloppy of me. I'm sure that a lot of article on African history have suffered from racial or Eurocentric bias, not necessarily because of any editors here but because that's a historical problem with scholarship. Wdford's altering of his words meant I missed it, and that really should have been struck through as there had clearly been replies. But pushing an Afrocentric pov, a ppv which I think Belanger might admit to having and is his right, doesn't help. You seem to be suggesting that other than you and Belanger, the rest of us are not following NPOV. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I did not make that suggestion that the rest of the editors are not following NPOV. I stated Belanger and myself had a different view to Wdford and yourself on the Gatto quote. That does not mean one is misinterpreting but has a difference of opinion. I did state previously in the article edit section, that the statement was ambigious without the full sentence and even then there was still dispute over her exact view on this. It is better in that case, to leave the quote out and move on to reviewing other material. Essentially, I just want a conclusive and final review of this article that all can agree is satisfactory and then proceed forward. WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If I'm being completely honest, at least for my part it doesn't seem very necessary to apply ideological labels or discuss assumed intents. Also frankly, I believe exchanges between differing views can be very valuable, sometimes more so than between agreeing views. If I may, I prefer to assume good faith and discuss content. I like the way Gatto is represented in the article currently with the quotes. It appears to me to be a very relevant source to the section and article and I support maintaining the reference. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena Perhaps Gatto could be featured in the Qustul article. That article page is out of date and she is the latest source. Could that possibly be a compromise ?. I'm just aware that other editors on here will contest your proposal Belanger. WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t use this talk page to discuss other articles. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Siobhan Shinn

Why is she be included among the "highest" rated sources ?. She is a PhD student in archaeology. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I added to the statement a bit to help avoid ambiguity. I think it could be considered interesting to some. I personally don't really have any reservations about it being kept or removed at others' discretion. I leave it at your and others' discretion to keep or remove based on your criteria. I understand your concern (even if I tend to favor keeping content as mentioned). @Wdford maybe it seems less relevant, and I just want to add that I found the fractal reference in the article in particular super cool. I actually searched images of Egyptian architecture after I saw it (I never thought of them as fractals) and it made me want to read more about it. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena Thanks for contributing on that but the consensus was to feature the highest rated sources and this is a PhD student with a limited history of publications. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The definition of "highest rated sources" was never finalised, but it seems to have been interpreted quite generously. There is even a paragraph included about the pyramids having been designed according to African fractals, although this is not mainstream scholarship by any means. This book was published by a reputable scholarly publisher, it comprises papers presented at a recent conference in this exact topic and hosted by a major university, and the papers were vetted for inclusion by two editors who are both experts in the fields of study represented here. Fractals? Seriously? Wdford (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford I needed to know the rationale behind her inclusion. Belanger has reviewed it and provided further context. Eglash is a esteemed professor at the University of Michigan. This is pertinent to the sub-section on culture. I don't see how it is not mainstream, as cultural affinities to Sub-Saharan regions have been acknowledged by other scholars such as Smith, Wilkinson and Yurco. However, considering we have included Shinn then I think we can permit Eglash. WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Excessive citations cleanup tag, July 2024

The article is beleagured by many examples of citation overkill (WP:CITEKILL). There are indeed instances where excessive citations are needed to support controversial statements about living people, but none of the article's claims seem to require heavy amounts of support, and the article's readability is really suffering. Looking at the talk page, I imagine there are motivational reasons behind this, and I am reticent to become involved in detangling them at the current moment, especially when considering that the article is being actively edited; perhaps one of the active editors can go some way to address this. Neatly95 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)