![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
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:
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)
"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)
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, 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. 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)
^On what basis? Anyways, I offered a compromise below..
Taharqa
19:30, 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 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)
^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)
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)
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, 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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
It says it in the quote, but if you insist that it isn't reliable (in which I strongly disagree), then here's the actual NY Times publication of the results. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D7163DF93BA25754C0A964958260 Taharqa 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
^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)
^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)
^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)
^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)
^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)
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)
-- 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)
"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)
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"
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)
^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)
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)
^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)
^You're the odd man out. Taharqa 19:43, 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)
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)
If you insist...
(2004)
(2007)
Hopefully this should be the end of that.. Taharqa 22:23, 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 stated Taharqa 23:23, 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)
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)
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)
^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"
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)
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)
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)
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)
^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)
^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)
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)
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 merged Taharqa 16:34, 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)
The halotypes study was of modern Egypt. This article is about ancient Egypt not modern.-- Urthogie 01:54, 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)
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)
^Obviously you didn't read the whole thing then, give me one second. Taharqa 23:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
^Exactly, or you may have a hard time interpreting the data, which I took into consideration..
Citation#39
Citation#40 - interpreting results from underhill study and discussing his own..
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 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)
No, DNA is conclusive.. Taharqa 01:39, 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)
^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)
^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)
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)
^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)
^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)
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 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)
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)
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)
^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)
^In some cases, no.. Taharqa 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
^I said in some cases, no.. Taharqa 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
^The cases where elaboration is needed to clarify. Taharqa 17:27, 17 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)
^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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
There is no art in the cluster and clines section.. Taharqa 22:11, 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:
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..
^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)
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)
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)
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 elements Taharqa 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 proposed that a while ago, and I think a third opinion came in and agreed.... Taharqa 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
^I removed it yesterday, yes..
Taharqa
16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So I added them back, now discuss.. Taharqa 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
^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)
Ok, so he was assistant professor to Diop. Good.
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)
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 south Taharqa 23:21, 8 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)
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 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...
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)
So can we remove it since it isn't sourced and you didn't add it? Taharqa 20:39, 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)
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)
^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)
OR Urthogie.. Taharqa 22:41, 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'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)
^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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
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:
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)
"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)
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, 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. 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)
^On what basis? Anyways, I offered a compromise below..
Taharqa
19:30, 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 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)
^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)
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)
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, 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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
It says it in the quote, but if you insist that it isn't reliable (in which I strongly disagree), then here's the actual NY Times publication of the results. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D7163DF93BA25754C0A964958260 Taharqa 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
^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)
^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)
^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)
^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)
^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)
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)
-- 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)
"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)
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"
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)
^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)
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)
^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)
^You're the odd man out. Taharqa 19:43, 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)
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)
If you insist...
(2004)
(2007)
Hopefully this should be the end of that.. Taharqa 22:23, 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 stated Taharqa 23:23, 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)
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)
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)
^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"
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)
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)
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)
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)
^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)
^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)
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)
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 merged Taharqa 16:34, 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)
The halotypes study was of modern Egypt. This article is about ancient Egypt not modern.-- Urthogie 01:54, 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)
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)
^Obviously you didn't read the whole thing then, give me one second. Taharqa 23:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
^Exactly, or you may have a hard time interpreting the data, which I took into consideration..
Citation#39
Citation#40 - interpreting results from underhill study and discussing his own..
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 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)
No, DNA is conclusive.. Taharqa 01:39, 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)
^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)
^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)
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)
^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)
^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)
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 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)
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)
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)
^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)
^In some cases, no.. Taharqa 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
^I said in some cases, no.. Taharqa 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
^The cases where elaboration is needed to clarify. Taharqa 17:27, 17 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)
^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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
There is no art in the cluster and clines section.. Taharqa 22:11, 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:
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..
^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)
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)
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)
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 elements Taharqa 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 proposed that a while ago, and I think a third opinion came in and agreed.... Taharqa 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
^I removed it yesterday, yes..
Taharqa
16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So I added them back, now discuss.. Taharqa 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
^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)
Ok, so he was assistant professor to Diop. Good.
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)
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 south Taharqa 23:21, 8 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)
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 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...
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)
So can we remove it since it isn't sourced and you didn't add it? Taharqa 20:39, 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)
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)
^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)
OR Urthogie.. Taharqa 22:41, 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'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)
^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)