Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

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 Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.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_research Taharqa 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:

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

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

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

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

To the uploader:

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

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

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

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)

Scholars explicitly make clear that applying the social term "black" to Cleopatra is incorrect.
Sources which establish the existence and notability of these myths are provided in the references.
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)

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.
Yes, they do. The title of the chapter by Lefkowitz which deals with Cleopatra is called Myths of African Origins.
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)

Whether you think Lefkowitz is at odds with the scientific community or not is irrelevant.
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.
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)

^Yes, and if there's no way to verify who and who is not "Black", and if "Black" is a term defined by the layman with "race" being defined by anthropologists, then lady Lefkowitz isn't reliable for such a claim, simply as that. The only thing he can be counted on saying is that Cleo's family was mostly of Greco origin, which I agree with but sh has no bearing on defining "race", your attempt to exalt her to that authority is OR..Taharqa 17:03, 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

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 [1] 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).^[1] 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.^[2]^[3]

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.[2] 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)

It's not "guesswork." That's your opinion, and offering alternate theories is called scientific integrity, not "guesswork."
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.
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.
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 against 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:

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.
It is POV and OR to present a 10 year old study as discredited and non-mainstream without any sources which say that.
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
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.pdf Taharqa 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 Taharqa 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 [3].
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_peoples Taharqa 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:

and merge other stuff to existing articles such as:

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.pdf Taharqa 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_anthropology Taharqa 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_anthropology Taharqa 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)

Taharqa: You refused to answer Urthogie's question and that is somewhat perplexing considering the amount of time you spent avoiding the question. The question does not appear loaded. Rather, it appears you claim it to be loaded as you want to avoid answering the quesiton. Your answer must contradict your opinion. In a productive debate, you cannot ammend your answer, or play dumb and NEVER answer the question, to avoid defeating your position.

^ [4]
^ The Columbia Encyclopedia, Edition 6, 2000 p31655.
^ Shaw & Nicholson, op. cit., p.232

[1] [4]

[2] The Columbia Encyclopedia, Edition 6, 2000 p31655.

[3] Shaw & Nicholson, op. cit., p.232

[1]

[2]

[3]