Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

continued discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Um, not to be the one who keeps piping up with minor factual concerns, but it might be good to get a solid source for that line, "The Egyptians considered The Land of Punt as being their ancestral homeland." I can't help but doubt this, since I've never found any such idea in Egyptological articles/papers/books concerning punt, and that claim definitly falls within the Egyptological domain. Also, the Egyptians had numerous creation myths, all of which state they were created in Egypt. Certain cities had regular theological fights, it seems, over which city and which God was the site of creation and creator. None of those myths, to my knowledge, mention Punt. So, checking that out with a good citation might be wise. Thanatosimii 04:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the land of Punt has about as much scientific significance as the next religious story (very little).--Urthogie 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't believe in race, please stop making up my views as I find it rude. My view is that they clustered in between the neighboring populations, and had demographic influences from Mesopoatmia and Nubia. Thanks, --Urthogie 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Still a few problems, Luka. First, the Dynastic race theory doesn't rule out that Sumerians affected race, it just basically ignores it... most of the time. A few scholars have actually argued that the race of Egypt was changed by Sumerian invaders, however these theories have been basically thrown out... including with the Dynastic race theory. So, talking about the Dynastic Race theory any more isn't really relevant. As for your source putting the Egyptian Dynastic during the Sumerian protodynastic... well, I know nothing about the credentials of that author, but he or she is flying in the face of all standard Egyptological opinion, and shouldn't be considered the mainstream.
Second, you quoted a book written by Wallis Budge nearly 100 years ago (1978 is the last copyright, not the time of authorship) as a source. Suffice it to say, Budge is considered pretty worthless as a source these days. The fourth day of my first Hieroglyphics course, I was told by my professor, "you now know more hieroglyphics than Budge." Granted, it was a little tongue-in-cheek, but that sentement pervades Egyptology. Examine here [1] if you will, and you will find that Budge has been basically denounced by the British Museum. And, strictly speaking, an interpretation of a dictionary definition, even if the source were reputable, would be a violation of WP:NOR. You need to stick to clear and explicit sources. Remember, wikipedia is not a thesis paper, and you need to take less liberties with your sources. Seek things explicit. Thanatosimii 22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanatosimii, you studied the Egyptian language yet you do not know that Egypt is the oldest state in the world. You are rejecting Budge because he wrote 100 ago. You are also rejecting a book a written in 2007 because you don't know the author. Strange! Urthogie does not believe in race but he is editing an article on "racial caracteristics of the ancient Egyptians" or on "ancient Egypt and race". Both of you look very strange! You better put Egypt in Europe, America or Asia to be in peace! Egypt is in Africa, it is an African civilisation. Africa is the home of Black people. Egypt is the first civilisation in the world. Egytians are indigenous Africans. In history, one says that "the absence of proof is a proof of absence". Urthogie, stop your obsession or produce a single proof of the Mesopotamian influence in Egypt at an early stage. Up to now you have failed to produce even one. White people entered Africa during the second millenium BC: The peole of the sea and the Hyksos. Meanwhile, in ancient time, Europe, America and Asia have produced nothing comparable to ancient Egypt. Why could White people produce in Africa what they did not do in their respective homelands? What are we working for? Let's work for truth! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I wish you would respect what I actually write and not twist my statements with straw men. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I know what I'm talking about, and your sources are wrong. Egypt is not the oldest state in the world, this is simply the case. Read any legitimate history book in the world, and it will tell you the same thing. Sumer's civilization is a few hundred years older. I rejected it because it didn't square with the mainstream and used a patently false date for the foundation of the Dynastic. I rejected Budge because Budge is notoriously worthless, and denounced by his own old Job! I did not reject what you took out of Budge, however I will not believe it until I examine it personally, since Budge flagrantly ignored the development of the German lexicography which has been recongized as the correct reading since the 1910's. I find it strange that for someone who insists he has plentiful knowledge of Africa, you do not know even the most basic of basic facts about Egyptian history properly. You need to sit down and read some general texts, and pay more attention to actual scholars. Thanatosimii 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Luka, there is a rule at Wikipedia called Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You cause stress for other users when you don't follow it. Also, no one calls Mesopotamians "white" as far as I know.--Urthogie 01:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The burden of proof is actually on you Taharqa, since the text in question is written by you, and has been here for weeks, and since you have been unable to defend it against these criticisms, we are supposed to err on the side of not violating Wikipedia:NPOV among other policies.--Urthogie 01:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, Luka either said the source was from someone of Diop's school, or one of links provided said so. Further, stop misrepresenting what I said. I explicitly wrote "not that that makes them wrong, just not mainstream enough to speak authoritativly." I did not say this school of thought was not reliable, I said it was not mainstream. There is a vast difference. And no, it's not my opinions on what sources are reliable that I'm presenting, it's the simple fact that those two encyclopedias are used with more frequency in Egyptological works than any others, and thus must be considered the mainstream. You have not presented however what the Undue Weight clause requires. "simply pick up any dictionary on Mdu Ntr and see how punt is translated." Exactly. If we do look up how pwnt is translated in any Egyptian dictionary, we should find them to all say somthing about this translation, or at least the great majority of them, if we want to make this a statement of fact. You have yet to provide even one lexicon which gives this translation. Thanatosimii 01:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Egypt history belongs only to the Egyptian and not to African American. Egyptians are north African and not west African. Some people are using fake pictures to support their claims. Also, the article didn’t show any Egyptian mummy pictures because it doesn’t fit right with their claims. Despite all the scientific facts some people are trying to hijack our history by using false facts. Most of Egypt wars were in the Middle East and not Africa. Egypt history belongs only to the Egyptian and not to African American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RAMmummy.jpg --ThutmoseIII 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

God, why is this the only picture flaunted by Eurocentrics? It's like your only argument for the entire civilization's history and I have addressed Ramses myself here. Everyone in here isn't African-American, so that's a personal attack on an entire culture, and secondly, "Nubia" is in Northern Africa and the biggest point is that the first settlers of the Nile Valley came from the south. No one says that they're directly related to west Africans(maybe by common Neolithic ancestry) but that they're related to those closest to them and where they came from, like Nubians, Somali, and Ethiopians.. To say that "Most of Egypt was in the Middle East" is the most fabricated lie in history and can be considered as discredited pseudo-science and distortion since there is nothing that separates Egypt from Africa at all and it fits comfortable within the well defined continental geography. All of it is connected geologically by the Great Rift Valley, unlike Asia and the narrow strip leading into the levant served as a barrier to invasion from the North. Migration patterns indicate that the ancients came from the southwest and south, following the Nile river(why don't you check the sources and external/internal links instead of spouting off?!). "Middle East is a modern political term which has no definitive value in nomenclature, and according to so many anthropological and cultural studies, the AEs were not related to them! The Egyptians themselves even painted themselves much darker and similar in appearance to Somali people of ancient Punt, which is noted.. Stop going off on a tangent, you have refuted nothing and your original research will not be taken into consideration, your bias has no basis in fact..Taharqa 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

land of punt

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


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

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

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

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

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

You apparently are

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

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

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

Here contact with Egypt and Sudan was early: Egyptians called Ethiopia the Land of Punt ("of God") because a source of the Nile was there.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

letter to the editor not a reliable source

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

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

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

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

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

It says it in the quote, but if you insist that it isn't reliable (in which I strongly disagree), then here's the actual NY Times publication of the results. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D7163DF93BA25754C0A964958260Taharqa 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions of Sheldon Peck(orthodontist):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A user who rarely edits this page went out of their way to cite how your source is not reliable and goes against precedent in the interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That is a third opinion.--Urthogie 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he and I were heavily involved in editing this page a while ago (about a year ago). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The analytical techniques…Detective Frank Domingo used on facial photographs are not unlike methods orthodontists and surgeons use to study facial disfigurements. From the right lateral tracing of the statue's worn profile a pattern of bimaxilliary prognathism is clearly detectable. This is an anatomical condition of forward development in both jaws, more frequently found in people of African ancestry than in those from Asian or Indo-European stock. [6]


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

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

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

Third Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^Two outside and neutral opinions, great!

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Opinion: I cannot see any possible way in which this letter to the editor could be considered a scholarly source. To the person who refers to the NYT as a "peer reviewed" publication, I implore you to look up the definition of "peer reviewed." Go ahead, do it. You apparently have no conception of how genuine scholarship actually works, and, frankly, it's frightening that someone of such obvious ignorance bears so much influence over the content of this article. The peer review process is meant to subject an expert scholar's work to the criticisms of other experts in the field. (Trust me. I know. I'm the editor of a peer-reviewed journal.) Unless the NYT has taken to hiring orthodontists as OpEditors, then claiming that this letter was subjected to some sort of peer review process is blatantly false. Silly, really.

Further, using some random newspaper letter rather than the actual study in question (if we can even call it a 'study,' of which I'm not confident) smacks of cherry picking. What possible reason could there be for excluding the study but including the letter? It simply makes no sense. Is the study out of print? Was it even published at all? If so, was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? For all we know, it was published on the back page of NYPD Magazine. A little research reveals that this Frank Domingo fellow was a police sketch artist. Now, I'm no anthropologist, but something tells me that a sketch artist may not be the best source when it comes to determining the "race" or "ethnicity" of the Sphinx (which, let's face it, is a ridiculous exercise in the first place). There is a name for this sort of thing; it's called making an appeal to false authority. Philozine 21:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually you're extremely ignorant of Frank Domingo's work and your tone automatically renders you untrustworthy as your claim of him is a blatant lie. He is a "forensic sketch artist", the most qualified to do so. His study was published in West, Serpent in the Sky (1993), pp. 230-232, which is something that you would have noticed if you weren't so busy chasing ad hominem arguments, personally attacking me with claims of "ignorance", which is seemingly easily reversed(I've already posted this). "Peer reviewed" it was, it was actually peer reviewed by Dr. Mark Lehner! He did not dispute the findings however, but merely defended his own previous work which seemed to be his biggest concern, to save face. In reference to the NY Times letter, I stated that the NY Times its self and things submitted with in were open to peer review, this is a straw man to the core. The only one that has exhibited any perceived ignorance per se is definitely you as you definitely aren't in the least familiar with what was being discussed. Thanks anyways and next time don't embarrass yourself by using snide tones, especially when you're hopelessly lost and wrong. And quite the opposite, I'm glad that someone so ignorant actually has very little to do with the article as we've been fighting to eliminate this type of distortion and rhetoric for a long time..Taharqa 21:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

neither study in origins section deals with "origins"

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

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

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

If you insist...

(2004)

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

(2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the evidence for migration over the period of the development of social hierarchy and the Egyptian state. Craniometric variation, based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal components analysis, discriminant function analysis, and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests. The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process.

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

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

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

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

You didn't quote anything, again..

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

structuring

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

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

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

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

removed modern egyptian study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Citation#39

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

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

The M2 lineage is mainly found primarily in ‘‘eastern,’’ ‘‘sub-Saharan,’’ and sub-equatorial African groups, those with the highest frequency of the ‘‘Broad’’ trend physiognomy, but found also in notable frequencies in Nubia and Upper Egypt, as indicated by the RFLP TaqI 49a, f variant IV (see Lucotte and Mercier, 2003; Al-Zahery et al. 2003 for equivalences of markers), which is affiliated with it.
This region also maps the core distribution of the Afro-Asiatic language family in Africa. The 215/M35 subclade has been further characterized with biallelic markers,and found to have a group of daughter lineages of unique interest in Africa: M81 primarily found among Amazigh (Berber) speakers; and M78 found in East Africa and the Nile Valley among modern Egyptians (see the data in Underhill et al., 2001; Bosch et al., 2001; Cruciani et al., 2004; Luis et al., 2004;Semino et al., 2004; and in Lucotte et al., 2003, for TaqI p49a, f RFLP haplotypes V and XI which in Africa also signify M35/215). These data, considered together, make it possible to see these groups as being coextensive with each other, and therefore allow the extension and revision of Hiernaux’s evolutionary model to include a range of ancestral supra-Saharan peoplesorthe majorcomponent in theirmale lineages. The idea of linking these populations from east Africa to Morocco, and postulating an African origin for them, is not new (see Angel and Kelley, 1986), but now receives lineage genetic support.
A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004) This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions based on current data (Underhill, 2001)."Taharqa 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. You've almost convinced me. If (Angel and Kelley, 1986) mentions ancient Egypt as having African origins, then you'll have convinced me that this study is truly indicating African origins for ancient Egypt. If (Angel and Kelley, 1986) doesn't say that, then I feel that you are over interpreting this study, which "gives lineage support" for the findings of Angel and Kelley 1986.--Urthogie 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually, I'm not going too far, because nowhere does the study state that ancient Egypt is one of those populations that are united phenotypically with the rest of Africa. It says "numerous", not all. To show that their is lineage support for viewing Egypt in this sense would require more than your own "interpretation."--Urthogie 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, I re-read it, and it does provide lineage support for ancient Egypt's African origins. My apologies. I have one request for how this is cited in the article though. It's important that we state there is "lineage support" but not that it has been demonstrated or that it has been concluded. --Urthogie 00:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

removing unnecesary blockquote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

remove out of context quote

Taharqa added this quote to the body plans section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes, there is. The quote:
"This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation."
..actually describes art, not actual ancient Egyptians, if you look at the source.--Urthogie 22:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Wrong:

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

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

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

"Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans(not various East African art). This East African anatomy(human anatomy), once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," (art can't be mixed with different races) is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation. Taharqa 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the anatomy of statuaries is part of the range of indigenous African variation. That's art, not clusters and clines.--Urthogie 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should pay more attention instead of arguing blind..

Italian population geneticist Cavalli-Sforza was said to have believed that populations in the Horn of Africa are the result of a fusion between African and non-African elementsTaharqa 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

don't agree with your removals

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

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

Please work together

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

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

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

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

Punt

Queen of punt with steatopygia

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

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

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

  1. what is Aboubacry Moussa Lam a phd of?
  2. which journal, panel, or organization was it peer reviewed by?
  3. This is not an argument. I'm asking questions so I can verify that the source is reliable. --Urthogie 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
From the two books I quoted I have these informations: "De nationalité sénégalaise, Aboubacry Moussa Lam est docteur d'Etat ès Lettres. Il a reçu sa formation d'historien et d'égyptologue à l'Université de Dakar (aujourd'hui Université Cheikh Anta Diop) et à celle de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV). Disciple de Cheikh Anta Diop dont il fut l'assistant entre 1981 et 1986, il consacre l'essentiel de ses activités d'enseignement et de recherche aux relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire. Aboubacry Moussa Lam est actuellement maître de conférences au département d'histoire de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar" (From the back of the book of 1993). "Professeur titulaire au Département d'histoire de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Aboubacry Moussa Lam, sur les traces de Cheikh Anta Diop, consacre l'essentiel de ses activités d'enseignement et de recherche aux relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire. Il collabore à ANKH, revue d'Egyptologie et des Civilisations africaines" (From the back of the book of 1997). More about Lam http://www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=826 Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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


Please, additionally, translate. This is the English Wikipedia; editors here are not expected to read french. Thanatosimii 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
http://translate.google.com/translate_t seems to translate it pretty clearly.--Urthogie 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Urthogie, notice that Lam is not only a PhD. He is docteur d'Etat, beyond the French "doctorat de troisième cycle". Now he is a full teacher or a full professor. On those two books of Lam, one can read http://www.shenoc.com/l'origine%20des%20peuls.htm , http://www.menaibuc.com/article.php3?id_article=39 , http://www.africultures.com/index.asp?menu=revue_affiche_article&no=274 , http://www.menaibuc.com/article.php3?id_article=148 Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • which journal, panel, or organization was the source peer reviewed by?--Urthogie 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Ok, looks good as far as peer review then. Could you please translate it into english (not just the sentences, but the paragraphs, to give context). Thank you,--Urthogie 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Muntuwandi for the picture showing people from Punt. Why do they look Egyptians? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please translate it into english (not just the sentences, but the paragraphs, to give context). Thank you, --Urthogie 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)]

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

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

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

Taharqa, your translations are good! They convey the same meaning or idea than what you knew before: "Country of the First Existence". Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I ask that you translate the paragraphs, Luka-- so we can see the context. when taharqa's quote on art was given without context, it made it look like it wasn't about art. So I'd like to see you translate the paragraph, since as english speakers we have no other way of knowing the context.--Urthogie 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

please continue discussion before editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't add this. Put a fact template next to it for now.--Urthogie 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Please reply to other discussions or I'll revert back to before you reverted.--Urthogie 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

You're not being coherent, sorry.--Urthogie 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Taharqa, it is customary to stick a {{citationneeded}} tag on the end of statements that need citations, and not delete them immediatly. It helps other editors who may not be around at the moment fix their own work. Thanatosimii 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Why/how is it OR? It seems like it's just unsourced and will be sourced soon.--Urthogie 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Taharqa, don't eliminate people from the discussion. Try to answer objectively, even briefly. You have, I guess, the necessary intellectual elevation to satisfy people of any intellectual origin. So, try to answer to Thanatosimii. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not accusing you, you're constantly accusing me! All I am doing is pointing out when things in the article are incorrect, and when I do so, you throw hissy-fits! Opinions? That sounds familiar! I've raised numerous issues of fact based on sources I have quoted. I don't even have that responsability, I'm just trying to be helpful. Yours is the obligation to cite. Thanatosimii 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"I know what original research is, and that's original research." Argument from personal incredulity.--Urthogie 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_of_ancient_Egyptians/Archive_8&oldid=1137110639"