Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 7

This line
"Others contend however, that there indeed was an ancient population of dark skinned, wholly haired people residing in Colchis, asserting that they were left there by the armies of Sesostris after initial campaigns in the region." I have no idea how this got there, however we do all realize that we're dealing with a myth here, right? There never was a sesostris, and the Senusrets whom the myth appears based upon never set foot anywhere near Colchis, let alone campaign there. For that matter, there is significant debate as to if they ever set foot in the levant at all. Thanatosimii 02:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanatosimii, do you really know ancient African History? I believe not! What is a myth? A myth is an interpretation. But the fact upon which the myth is based is of cause a reality. The reality is that there was a colony of Black people in Colchis. Herodotus is not the only witness of this Black presence. Did Egyptians go beyond the boders of their country up to Asia and south Europe? Yes, mainly during the New Kindgom. The Black presence in Colchis is out of doubt. What is disputed is the name of the Egyptian king of that period. That's all. Colchis is today Abkhazia in Georgia. The Abkhazian Historian and scholar Dimitri Gulia showed that Abkhazian language and culture are similar to the Sotho (Bantu of southern Africa). You can read this information in the article by Lily Golden / The African Presence in Russia. We are everywhere, pp. 69-89 in a book by GNAMMANKOU Dieudonné, (sous la direction de) Pouchkine et le monde noir. Mon Afrique / My Africa Paris, Présence Africaine, 1999 - 278 p. - 23 x 15 cm http://www.choosit.org/cgi-bin/choosit3/choosit_ac.cgi?user=UJELLAA&nla=1&cart_id=&ref=11024&sousref=11024. How is that the Abkhazian language and culture lean towards Africa? So we are again forced to come back to ancient History. Learn more, Thanatosimii, about ancient African History, then your myth will vanish by itself. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 10:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nkuka, the main point was that people described a seemingly African or "Ethiopian" presence there, it's not so much about the Sesostris myth.. I can reword it so it doesn't sound so in general, like the "some contend" quote.. Either way Herodotus still said that the Egyptians were "Black-Skinned" (not dark-skinned) and woolly haired, which is the object of the entry. I'll deal with the Sesostris matter though by bettering the tone of that passage you quoted to avoid any more addresses to it.Taharqa 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly reworded version..

"Other ancient writers testify however, that there indeed was an ancient population of dark skinned, woolly haired people residing in Colchis, giving at least some support to Herodotus' claim that they were left there by the armies of the legendary Sesostris after initial campaigns in the region"

^This seems a bit more careful in its wording, not to imply that Sesostris was 100% real and not to imply that many scholars argue that, just that ancient writers backed up what Herodotus described, lending at least some support to his ancient theory/claims. Again, Sesotris isn't the main object of the entry at all anyways.Taharqa 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nkuka, that was entierly Incivil and inappropriate. How dare you decree how much a person knows and does not know about a topic based on whether or not he agrees with you?! I came here to point out this one fact, "There never was a sesostris, and the Senusrets whom the myth appears based upon never set foot anywhere near Colchis, let alone campaign there." Every word I wrote there is undeniable fact. I try to contradict one word of your precious propoganda on a technicality and you go off like a bunch of powder kegs! Hmph. Thanatosimii 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, Thanatosimii, if I did not get your point! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Any noticeable changes to the article must be discussed first
^^^In other words, this goes for everyone

1. Don't remove other people's material unless you address them first, or unless it's truly against policy, and still address it so that we may check and see if it's against policy.
 * Please see WP:V NeoFreak

2. Don't reword or rearrange people's contributions unless it is discussed first, or doesn't follow wikipedia guidelines, and in this case it is still to be discussed so people can know what they did wrong and if it actually was wrong.
 * Please see WP:OWN NeoFreak

3. No unreliable sources that only gives a last name of some obscure person you can't do a search on and a date, we need to be able to verify if the source is reliable and if the wording reflects the source and is not OR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

4. No bias or imposition of opinion by searching high and low (to different websites) to find a source that agrees with you, usually an old one (not updated consensus).

^^We should all be fine if we simply follow the rules and respect each other and each other's contributions. Thank you, and Hotep....Taharqa 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While I'm sure that seems like a good idea at first your first two suggestions do not agree with policy. Also see WP:Be bold NeoFreak 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

^I'm not sure if you interpreted the first two correctly or not or understood the intentions, but there was nothing I said that disagreed with policy; it's apparent that you know the rules but the last link you posted has a quote that I've been preaching for eons.

"it is important that contributors not edit recklessly"

Period.. Just don't crap all over other people's work, there's nothing wrong with requesting a little respect for one's contributions and showing everyone some ground rules to prevent any mis-communications. You can update the page as fastly and quickly as you need, but I suggest that you discuss before or after you remove anything (other's cited contributions) in order to attain order in this particular article. We're not robots who "only" work directly by well-defined rules, we extend the rules and try and communicate also, talk. This is what I suggested, if it isn't "against" the rules it isn't a problem. At the end of the day, you don't have to abide by these suggestions if they aren't required, but then again, if you haven't been invested in the article and have already been working together on it with other editors it's common courtesy to at least acknowledge suggested methods of operation.Taharqa 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You seemed to be under the impression that people need to talk you through all their edits and/or seek your permission to alter your contributions which is not the case. I wouldn't ever argue that communication between editors is important, it's vital, but I don't want anyone to have the impression that they need permission to make changes that are already congruent with policy. This page has a history of edit wars and POV pushing and I just didn't want any editors to feel bullied into not making good edits. I hope that clears up my position on what I thought was your position. :) NeoFreak 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all Neo, please, please, pretty please do not quote me out of context. If I never said that any one needs to talk to me personally please don't accuse me of implying it. What you may consider a "good edit" at the expense of other edits may not be seen so in the eyes of others. Again, from what you posted.

2. "Since working on an article does not entitle you to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors"

^Communicate!

I'm not sure how this, WP:V, your response to number 1 had anything to do with what I said, but ok.Taharqa 19:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of what the policy says and it works both ways. There is a very small group of editors that work on this page and you and they have been involved in repeated edit wars and other unacceptable behavior which has resulted in the temp blocking of you and others. I can't read your mind but I responded to was the impression I got from your post, if I misunderstood you please forgive me. NeoFreak 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

^Seriously, your exaggerated claims are probably based on stopping by here once or twice to respond to complaints, there have been no "repeated edit wars" as you claim, the first instance of it that I can remember was about 3 days ago, unless you remember something that I don't. I'm also not sure what the "other unacceptable behavior" prior to the most recent conflict was either, but maybe you just needed to make your point more powerful. Also I do forgive you for assuming things that weren't implied, that is a very frustrating thing at times to say the least. Thank you.Taharqa 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's that attitude that gets you in trouble. This article is on my watchlist and has been for some months. If you review the edit history you will find changes I made here and was involved in its AfD discussion before you registered an account. I left this page because I had alot of other things to deal with and couldn't play referee here as well. I'm not going to get into an argument with you. You've said what you have to say and I've said what I have to say. If there is anything else that you would like to discuss that doesn't pertain directly to the content of the article feel free to hit me up on my talk page. NeoFreak 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on my attitude has no bearing on if I am to follow all of the wikipedia guidelines in the near future and remain a cooperating contributor to the article. You have no right to come in here after all of these weeks and months and impose your opinion about me on here based on some recent conflict and how I address your confrontation (since I'm not being disrespectful or personal). I'm still not aware of any contributions from you but I'd never accuse you of lying. I only responded to your addressing me, that's it, no argument involved. You address me and I'll tell you if I agree or disagree, simple. I don't need to go to your talkpage.Taharqa 19:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I have the right, that's just silly. Also, you do need to take this kind of things to user talk pages as this page is for the discussion of the article and its contents. Barring a change of direction here this will be the last comment I leave here, again please use user talk pages for interaction about anything other than article content. NeoFreak 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you have the right to do what ever you want, it doesn't mean that you are right, so how much is it worth? If you wanted to engage in discussion in the talk page, you should of never replied to me here, and indeed this is about the my topic since this discussion leads back to the topic that I personally made, in an unbroken chain. It's about what we can and cannot do to the article, you're the one who went off on a tangent, so I'm glad that you now desist with the irrelevant discussion.Taharqa 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * NeoFreak, what do you want really? Do you want to remove people's contributions without discussing the matter or to reword people's phrases without expressing your intention? Look. Somebody did not understand something about the Colchis. Instead of rewording or suppressing the sentence, he came here to discuss the thing. That is a good attitude. It is not asking for permission, but entering into dialogue, interacting politely with others. Of cause, if someone wants to add something, no need of discussing it before in this page. Did I understand you well, Taharqa? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

^You understood what I said perfectly, and the example of the guy who just came in the room and addressed a problem he had with a quote (instead of rewording of removing first) was a perfect example. You see that the problem was immediately addressed and fixed. That's just called courtesy and cooperation.

Personally I feel Neo's main motivation was just to challenge somebody and flex some type of authority, but this is just my opinion based on the fact that there was no point to what he said. As far as the suggested ground rules I layed, there is no argument against them, these are to be set in place to prevent things like what happened the other day.Taharqa 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

going to seek mediation
Taharqa, would you agree to solving this dispute through mediation? I think we could reach compromise. I also think it's good that we'll be following 3RR now. --Urthogie 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

^I don' mind mediation at all, If we can cooperate we wouldn't need it though, so in essence it is unnecessary. But until then please don't revert changes from the previous, simply add your contributions if you can. Be respectful of other people's contributions, this isn't a demand, but a request. Taharqa 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel as though you're not listening to my point of view. My edit restores thousands of bytes of text, while yours removes it.  If we're trying to encourage a spirit of contribution, rather than removal, the why is yours the default, rather than mine?  I am ok with including the sphynx, with includin the external link, with including many things.  In fact, there is nothing off the top of my head that I can think of as needing immediate removal. But my default version has more content than yours-- this is a fact.  So what is wrong with working off of mine?  I will even copy in your sources that are lost, if you find or name any more.  Do you have any reply to this kind request, or will you still brand me a "vandal"?--Urthogie 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you can't quote where I directly called you a vandal then this is hot air, I indeed said that you were vandalizing, and if one indeed were then that would by definition make one a vandal for the time being at least.
 * I replied on your talk page with specific instances in which you have accused me of having "vandal ways" engaging in "vandalism" (like 5 times, really) my "eurocentric ways" being a "troll."

I'm not sure if I agree with this at all, all you need to do is check your reverts in the "diff", you removed many many bytes of information and formatting, the default was before your vandalism, you truly added nothing.. You have to put it in context Urthogie, you removed other people's contributions, and when they revert it back and edit typos, add info, and tidy it up, you still don't acknowledge it and still try and revert a page that was a product of vandalism almost a weak ago, when it's been improved upon since then not to mention that your revert wasn't the default. Not right Urthogie, we have to be fair here, that's all. I have no problem at all with you..Taharqa 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the history shows that you are the one substracting bytes and I'm the one adding them. THerefore, you're removing more than I'm adding.  You apparently don't know the definition of vandalism, and you don't seem to understand that constantly repeating this accusation only gets us further from compromise.  Lemme guess: you won't apologize for your personal attacks.  I don't care.  Just focus on the diffs, then.  Explain logically how I'm the remover when you're removing more.  Better yet, provide a link to the diff where I removed more than you have been removing.  If your case holds any water, this diff exists.  If it doesn't, you'll have to admit you've been extremely rude, calling me a vandal while removing more than I was.--Urthogie 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

^Simple, you started it by editing people's contributions out, and you replaced it with basically nothing Urthogie, seriously.. These bytes you're complaining about were mostly blank sections and reformatted, rearranged paragraphs, all of the same information, you contributed nothing and removed a lot. I'm only the most outspoken of the victims but I'm quite sure everyone that has been here agrees Urthogie.. It seemed as if you had control issues, and no one is personally attacking you, I got out of line (but never called you any names) once 2 months ago and apologized, let it go.Taharqa 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still awaiting a diff. If anything you're saying is correct, there should be an electronic record of it.  Is it possible, Taharqa, that you're just making a bunch of claims falsely?  If not, then where are the diffs?  This is like a witchhunt-- you're accusing me of something you can't prove.  Where's the diff?  Most people feel pretty guilty when they cause so much trouble over something they *can't prove*.  This could have been dealt with easily if there weren't the constant claims of "vandalism" obscuring any rational discussion.  Then we could have revealed that your charges have absolutely no substance.


 * Please find one thing I've removed that I haven't explicitly stated I'll add back right away so we can discuss.. I said I'd bring back Punt, and I even pasted that for you on the talk page. I said we'd keep the Sphynx and discuss it.  Name on thing.. find one diff?--Urthogie 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you haven't been paying attention, there has been editing done by 2 or 3 others also, in the form of correcting typos, adding minor sources and external links, formatting, and the copious amounts of information over at least a process of the past 4 days, leading up to and proceeding your first revision. It isn't that simple, which is why you yourself should indeed respect other contributors, you're only one person trying to out rule various contributors at different time periods. You steadily ask me for the diffs, which means you're not taking what I say in good faith, therefore contradicting yourself in a hypocritical way, since this is what you preached to me about. You should very well know the impact of your unnecessary and dangerous reverts and the diffs are clear, pay attention to what's in red, and go back a few days and see the differences between then and now..Taharqa 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am taking what you say in good faith, which is why I am asking for evidence, rather than dismissing it because you can't name a single thing aside from typos which I've removed (except for the Sphynx and Punt, which I've made clear 2/3 times now will be kept for discussion).--Urthogie 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What you're arguing, frankly, doesn't make any sense in my honest opinion. I can't convince you of something so minor and easily provable when all that you have to do is look, or simply ask "Nkuka", "Muntuwandi", "Louisville", and maybe a few others who have either witnessed the effects of your dangerous reverts, or were actual victims. Anyone can play the skeptical game, I can say no matter what I don't believe you and viceversa, it just turns into an accusation game and into a circular argument, it's like an unintentional trap to keep the argument going when there really is no real argument, the only think left to do is to be reasonable and cooperative, all of us..Taharqa 23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have looked, and couldn't find a situation where I removed more than I added. I couldn't even find a situation where I removed something and didn't offer to add it back.  If you accuse people of vandalism you have to back it up with a diff.  Please, provide the diff, if it exists.  If you cannot provide the diff, I request that you cease making claims without evidence.  You got us both blocked, you called me a vandal, you insulted me.  The least you could do is provide evidence that I've removed more than you, or that I have "vandal ways."--Urthogie 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, we're not arguing over exact quantity, who removed what, the point is the context, you started off foul by blanking out material, the response was a revert and subsequent edit war because people were honestly fed up with you doing that. No one "removed" anything but you, your demographics entry is even still there, even though your sources are unreliable as they are from a geocities website, are outdated, and not checkable since they only give a last name and a date, but I didn't complain.. We simply reverted or added back our contributions. People are welcome to contribute Urthogie, but it just wasn't fair that you'd remove other people's contributions when you have no reason to at all.. Secondly, if you looked then you would know what I'm talking about, if you don't know what I'm talking about you simply couldn't comprehend what I said or didn't look. I didn't get you blocked, you got your self blocked and insulted everyone who you reverted and blanked out. No one called you any bad names or personally disrespected you. The burden of evidence also has always been on you since you were the one who was reverting, trying to add new things at the expense of the original citations, rewording and reformatting, reverting people's updated edits, etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Burden_of_evidence You never established why the page was/is inadequate with all of those things being removed and blanked out, and why your rough draft, unedited, non-updated replacement of a entirely different page should suffice at the expense of continuous work that has already been done on the article and shouldn't have to be done all over again for the sake of one non-neutral editor...Taharqa 01:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, do not talk about my removals until you show they exist. Where is the diff for the removals?  I am assuming good faith, that you are not lying and accusing me of being a vandal for nothing.  Would it not be incredibly evil of you to have been accusing me constantly of something which never happened?  I think you should feel incredibly guilty for having wasted all this time accusing me of something which never happened.  I request that you either stop claiming I've removed something, or show that I have.  This is a reasonable request.--Urthogie 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you two seek an outside opinion or request someone help to mediate your differences. Not alot of productive work is being done right now. You're both very commited editors and I hate to see time and effort that could be spent improving wikipedia being used in a tit-for-tat. NeoFreak 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa please sign up for mediation at Requests_for_mediation/Ancient_Egypt_and_race
 * Sorry NeoFreak, the mediation you are asking for is useless. Actually, if Urthogie and Taharqa and all of us do commit to follow what Taharqa wrote before yesterday, there will be no problem at all, but understanding in building the article. Taharqa wrote: "1. Don't remove other people's material unless you address them first, or unless it's truly against policy, and still address it so that we may check and see if it's against policy.Please see WP:V#Burden of evidence NeoFreak 2. Don't reword or rearrange people's contributions unless it is discussed first, or doesn't follow wikipedia guidelines, and in this case it is still to be discussed so people can know what they did wrong and if it actually was wrong.Please see WP:OWN NeoFreak 3. No unreliable sources that only gives a last name of some obscure person you can't do a search on and a date, we need to be able to verify if the source is reliable and if the wording reflects the source and is not OR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources 4. No bias or imposition of opinion by searching high and low (to different websites) to find a source that agrees with you, usually an old one (not updated consensus).^^We should all be fine if we simply follow the rules and respect each other and each other's contributions. Thank you, and Hotep....Taharqa 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)". I would like to ask Urthogie if he agrees with these quotes of Taharqa. Myself, I would like to act according to them. Besides, I am asking Taharqa to apologize in one way or another to Urthogie. I believe he is waiting for a good signal from you. All of us, we do make mistakes, even without knowing! Peace to everybody! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If this could be settled here that is always the best option. I'm not asking for anything, I was making a suggestion, the involved parties can just say no because there is nothing binding about this. If everyone can learn to trust each other and tone down the POV a little bit everyone here is smart enough to make progress. Still, it's the tone and attitude here that needs to change before anything else can happen. If the issue isn't resolved then future instances of 3RR, personal attacks or edit warring will result in blocks or restrictions from editing this page and that's why I'm advocating a pre-emptive and moderated mediation. NeoFreak 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Luka, I am the one who asked for mediation. I agree with all of those quotes, and I believe Taharqa is saying one thing and doing another.--Urthogie 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you to NeoFreak and Urthogie for the answers. Now Taharqa, please, show some elevation of spirit in answering. I appreciate you a lot, and I believe you can be more tactful in the future to avoid misunderstanding. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for your maturity and level headed neutrality Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, you have been the voice of reason here so far.. As far as apologizing to Urthogie, I'm not sure, maybe we have to cover the exact details of what was said or done, because I don't feel that I owe him any apology, he is bringing attention to events that happened over a month ago, which I did apologize for and then took a break.. Even then I never disrespected him, only became a bit belligerent due to frustration, and took a break. As for details and aspects of the edit conflicts, yes, I guess we need to discuss that during mediation, which I just agreed to.. I am a firm believer in the opinion though that if Urthogie didn't want it his way or absolutely need to take control of the article, we wouldn't even need it, like he said, he (emphasis added) asked for mediation, obviously because he (emphasis added) isn't satisfied..Taharqa 17:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa I'm a he. Are you a he or a she?--Urthogie 17:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

^I think I'd have a much better advantage at editing and evading any personal stereotypes or gender based criticisms if I were to keep that information under wraps, simply due to professional purposes, obviously nothing personal..Taharqa 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just guessing you are a she, based on your way of using pronouns.--Urthogie 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

^Hmm, what a unique observation. Though you can refer to me as he or she, I don't mind either way.Taharqa 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa and Urthogie, things can come back to normal. I am sure you do respect each other. Problems can always be resolved. One of the ways of resolving them is to go back to work. Now we know the rules. Let's impliment them. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting analysis about the subject Louisvillian 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

More factual accuracy problems...
Two more problems. You need citations and elaboration under "Kmt" and "Art and architecture." On kmt, the whole "black land" / "Black people" debate needs flushing out, as well as the egyptological opinion on which way the grammar works (a good source for this would be "Race" in the oxford encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt"). On art, the statement that it isn't a very reliable doesn't seem to square with just about any sources I read. Just last night I heard Dr. Lanny Bell from Brown speaking, and he said patanly that Egyptian art is idealized, but still basically supposed to be realistic.

I'm not trying to start some huge conflict here, so don't blow up at me once again, however the current paragraphs are vague and unhelpful, and need to have reliable Egyptological sources back them up. Thanatosimii 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

^I'm honestly not sure at all what your complaint is, we can take care of it but what you're saying is ambiguous.

1. The Km.t section doesn't go into detail about any debate, and I know, the egyptological opinion is just that, an opinion, we only know what the word means, which is Black (person, place, or thing), most Egyptologist for what ever reason feel it's a reference to soil, though literally the word its self describes a place (not thing).. Maybe you're right, I'd appreciate it if you can contribute the Oxford source, I'm not exactly sure of the contents of that source, what's their take?

2. About "Art and architecture", what you're saying is ambiguous and you seem to be contradicting your self honestly. When it comes to Egyptian language and Km.t, we don't need an Egyptological opinion to back it up, but when it comes to facial observations and comments about "race" we do? That's backwards to me, why would an orthodontist (who's included in one of the citations) need a second opinion from an Egyptologist about his work? That's his specialty, this comment doesn't make sense honestly, the article concerns race, not simply Egyptian culture (what Egyptologists specialize in). Others were historical observations from renowned historians, one who lived in a time before Egyptology was even a discipline (de Volney).. Not sure where you're going with this...Taharqa 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, can we agree to stop editing until medition is resolved? That way we will not edit war.-- Urthogie 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

^Why would you suggest that and not take your own advice? I had to undo your dangerous removal of sourced material just now that you did with out reason.Taharqa 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... you do need current, up to date egyptological opinions for everything under the scope of egyptology. That's my point. Art and language both need to have comments from Egyptology. About kmt, my point is that 1) the issue is insufficiently flushed out for a layperson to understand the relevance, and 2) real Egyptological comments on this construction should be consulted. Egyptology is basically a combination of half archaeoloy and half linguistics; they're the most scholarly source, and should be consulted on matters of the Egyptian language. My point on Art is that Egyptology should be consulted there too. All the Egyptologists I've ever run across start with the presupposition that the art is at least partially realistic (though idealized) so long as it conforms to the norm. The sentance in that section outright contradicts this, and I think some source should be provided for it. On a side note, the prevolence of anthropolgical sources here worries me. Race, in it's modern understanding, is a cultural and social construct, not based on physical anthropology. Thus it falls more under the domain of mainstream egyptology, more than under the domain of anthropological studies. It is for this reason that in most Egypological tretises (the few which even consider this topic relevant) people like Keita, Diop, or Bernal, all are usually given backhanded complements – thanks for pointing out to a bunch of old white guys that Egypt does actually have some african connexions which they wouldn't have been aware of otherwise, however roundly dismissed overall for basing their conclusions on what they consider to be an outdated and colonial mentality about race. Thanatosimii 18:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanatosimii, it is good to be clear while writing for a large group. Now you seem to be clearer than last time. It is true that the section language is not yet good. I want to contribute to it, but I am busy with other urgent problems. About art, you are saying something interesting. I think you can contribute directly in the article. And if somebody does not agree with you, a discussion could then be opened. So please, contribute with sources directly to the article. We will read and appreciate. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Saying a view "seems outdated"? To who? To Keita and 1 or 2 other researchers? You can't speak for all of Egyptology, without a source that says Egyptology as a whole agrees with Keita's view.--Urthogie 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Egyptologists don't study "race" Urthogie, that's how confused you are.. Somali for example have limited outside genetic influence and these features are noted by anthropologists to have always been present in that region and not due to admixture, the sources are provided, these are outdated concepts in anthropology, stop removing citations please. thank you..

Second, why are we mentioning populations from the horn and to what degree horners are mixed if the article is about Ancient Egypt?

Third, you have a huge problem with misrepresenting and using lousy sources.. You didn't cite not one study from Cavalli-Sforza, you use a secondary translation of Cavalli-Sforza in an 11 year old article about Afrocentrism as a source, but cite no study neither is Cavalli-Sforza quoted or his opinion updated. Then you totally misrepresent what was said and even re word it in your own way..

Source Quote:

'''Cavalli-Sforza believes that the population of the Horn of Africa is clearly the result of a fusion of black African and non-African elements. The Italian geneticist, a former Princeton professor and one of the authors of the Human Genome Project, is hardly a radical in matters racial. At the same time, he, more than some of his American confrerès, is willing to admit to the infinite variety of human experience and the human hybridity that may have been the past of the race and which may be its future.''' http://way.net/dissonance/sundiata.html

You write:

Quote:

"The research of the Italian population geneticist Cavalli-Sforza concludes that the population of the Horn of Africa is the result of a fusion between African and non-African elements."

This is what makes me think what you're doing is either dishonest or incompetent (no offense at all) sometimes Urthogie, seriously.. Your unreliable secondary source clearly states that Cavalli-Sforza "believes", "believes" ("believed", since this was 1996) "that the population of the Horn of Africa is clearly the result of a fusion of black African and non-African elements" (in the source' words), you use weasel words like "his research concludes" and almost passes it off as if his research in fact substantiated that to that degree. Why didn't you quote him or cite his studies? I quote an anthropologist, you quote a secondary source, who in turns gives his assessment of Cavalli-Sforza's opinion, and you're complaining?Taharqa 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is not just "Keita disagreeing with him", you simply have a problem with accepting his language and work/conclusions so you single him out as if he's not a part of the majority/anthropological communinity and just some unqualified opinionist who's conclusions are disregarded and not agreed upon in whole. In reality, all he does is repeat updated consensus or give his qualified interpretation on updated studies.. I can use a different quote and another source if you're biased against Keita as a professional, I just felt that in this context he exemplified today's research best, here's a quote from an actual study that gets to the point too..

Quote: "The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis" - Quintana-Murci et al. 1999

^This studiy cites even more people to back up their results, it is consensus, period.

But I corrected the wording on both parts then to reflect what is actually said..

Quote:

"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.

However, due to recent data such theories nowadays are generally disputed, a newer approach can be summed up in the words of bioanthropologist Dr. S.O.Y Keita. ."

^Instead of saying that his view is "outdated" (which it is, but whatever)..

And I replaced the word 'conclude' with 'Believed' in the statement about Cavalli-Sforza since it was mis-leading, also reworded it to reflect the fact that an opinion was expressed in the third person, the source is unreliable anyways imho, it looks like it was just pulled somewhere off the internet with out checking its validity, how do we even know what Cavalli-Sforza thought, and what does he think now and what research has he done to support that claim to represent all Horners? Also if you're going to tag the entire article and not just the one section please explain what facts are disputed and by whom?Taharqa 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in content disputes until mediation is done. I will have you know that it is my right to put the totallydisputed tag on the page so long as we have a disagreement over NPOV and accuracy.  You are not allowed to remove this tag if there is an ongoing conflict.--Urthogie 05:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well according to common courtesy we're to give you time to explain what your problem is, but if it's up there for too long with out explanation we have all the right to take it off as it litters the article and hinders progress for no reason, but you're right, I should of just given you time to explain what your problem with the entire article is, and not just a certain section. As far as NPOV, what problem do you have the the factual accuracy of the article as the tag implies, "totally disputed"? Do you have an explanation for the tag being there?Taharqa 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also how long are we supposed to wait for mediation, who's time are we own, I agreed 2 days ago? You really seem to be the only one constantly complaining and are the source of much contention here and obviously in other articles. It's not fair imo that you'd be doing this and refusing to talk to people about it, putting up tags with no explanation and asking people to wait on you.. Are you sure that you don't want to just take a break from editing for a while, cool off? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWNTaharqa 05:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro is way too long
Who agrees?Taharqa 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right. The introduction is too long. I said this months ago, but there were no reactions. The introduction must briefly present the main lines of the article, and at best without making quotations. Besides, while inviting you to get quickly reconciled with Urthogie, I confess that I admire your way of reasoning and doing thinks. You rewrote what I said about the melanin test by Chekh Anta Diop. I found it interesting and objective, since you respected the source. Your presence here, Taharqa, has been beneficial to the improvement of the article which for long remained very poor. It is not yet perfect, but at least nice to read. Your knowledge of African History, both ancient and modern, is very wide. This article will surely continue to reflect this knowledge. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 12:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^Thanx a lot Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, I try.. And yes, I've recognized this for a while also and it would be a major improvement to condense the intro, as it should be short and concise. I'm simply waiting for Urthogie to come around so I can get his opinion, so that we may move forward with out incident. The article is at a halt right now because of Urthogie's lack of satisfaction, but we need to some how get around that, what do you say Urthogie? Can we move on?Taharqa 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not support changing the article while we are awaiting mediation. I also insist that you stop removing the totallydisputed tag when the page is totallydisputed.  It is against wikipedia policy to remove this tag when there is a disagreement.  Your edit summary was "No reason given for tag".  Are you seriously denying that we don't have disagreements over accuracy and NPOV on this talk page?  Just scroll up.--Urthogie 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, be patient and don't worry. Accept what Urthogie is asking you. We need healing here before moving forward. I am confident, things are going to get better. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added back my additions and kept all of Taharqa and Luka's additions. Because Taharqa is editing the page I suppose I have to edit as well. Lastly, I have kept the tag at the top, to indicate our disagreement to readers.--Urthogie 17:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^^Ok, that's good, but you should of been done that! Also, you removed and rearranged a lot of material so I reverted it, but I will re add what you added, just not at the expense of everyone else. Then we can talk about your sources and what I don't agree with.Taharqa 17:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, Taharqa, can you list for me the parts of the page we disagree on before you revert my compromise edit? Please just replace those sections with your material rather than revert, and we can mark those sections as totallydisputed until we resolve this conflict.  So basically what I'm saying is don't revert but replace sections you disagree on.--Urthogie 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, I was just re adding all of your sections, please give me time before you act so hastily and I'll be happy to discuss it, please Urthogie, please. You claimed to have removed nothing but you changed a lot. But still, I'm not removing anything of yours, one second, it's being added and you tell me what you think.Taharqa 18:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, please just avoid reverting the whole thing at once. Just replace section by section, ok?--Urthogie 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

discussing sources/sections
^All of your contributions are re added Urthogie, it seems that your contributions were very minor and the only differences between the revisions is that yours has more blank sections and there's some slightly different wording, mainly in the demographics section.. I'd like to touch upon the demographic section with you first and now if you don't mind.Taharqa 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok let's go difference by difference then. I ask that we don't skip ahead and that we go in linear order.


 * "However, according to Egyptologists Frank Yurco the Egyptians did not think of "race" as we do it the modern sense of the word"
 * Why "however"? People say "however" when a sentence disagrees with the previous one, but this one agrees with the previous one.
 * Yurco says Egyptians did not think of race at all: "the Egyptians were not race conscious."-
 * You said that you want to shorten the lead. If that's the case, why include specific quotes that just repeat points already there?--Urthogie 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in order..

That was not an intentional revision, it's due the the action of reverting, you updated the language somewhat late during the conflict and it was over looked. I have no problem with this as the wording reflects the sources. We can add that back with out a problem..Taharqa 18:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the best would be to remove Yurco since he is redundant with the previous sentence. No need for a lengthy lead, as you said.--Urthogie 18:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about: "The ancient Egyptians were not race conscious-- they considered themselves part of a distinct ethnicity, separate from their neighbors."--Urthogie 18:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree and do you agree with the edit I just made?

Quote: Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct ethnicity, separate from their neighbors, but had no consciousness of "race" as it is used in modern terms.. The only reason Yurco was ever mentioned is because at first the word ethnicity said "race"..Taharqa 18:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with the basic meaning, I will make a small grammatical fix and we'll move on to the next difference between our diffs.--Urthogie 18:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe your revision basically says the same thing, but would it provide better clarification to end on the note of "race" in reference to them not applying our modern ideas into their beliefs? Edit: Okay..Taharqa 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Make any change you like to it, I doubt we will disagree on it except in regards to style.--Urthogie 18:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PerfectTaharqa 18:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "However, there is still disagreement over the degree of outside demographic influence on these African settlers."
 * This sentence makes it seem like there is only disagreement over demographic influence on the very first African settlers of Egypt. There is also disagreement over demographic influence throughout ancient egyptian history.  This is why I think it would be better to simply say "on the ancient Egyptians."  What do you think?--Urthogie 18:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^I kind of agree, I didn't even write that. Though it needs to be cited, the source of the disagreement, who's disagreeing about what in 2007? Is there conflicting research concerning up to date studies and views of the 21rst century, is it really a debate or have conclusions been made? Also I'm not sure of anyone who inquires or debates about any substantial demographic changes in Egypt through the Dynastic, so the debate really is emphasized on the early settlers, maybe you should change it to Early settlers instead of "African', which is redundant...Taharqa 18:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "However, there is still disagreement over the various outside demographic influences that acted on the ancient Egyptian population throughout its history" How do you like that?--Urthogie 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^Ok, that'll do, I still don't believe that this was Keita's point but it does reflect what was said, I can't even check the other source or any quotes from them, but it's alright, no real complaint here..... Although I have a problem with the word "still" since these sources are over 10 years old..Taharqa 18:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The exact nature and extent of any foreign influence on the Egyptian Nile Valley that resulted from demographic effects such as migration and trade is still being researched to this day.

^Don't like how this is worded, "til this day", again, the sources are old, what source backs the claim that this is being researched "til this day"?Taharqa 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) A couple thoughts on that sentence:
 * This rules out the possibility of war having a demographic effect as far as rape and captured slaves.
 * From what I know of population genetics it's possible to determine the demographic effects on a population, but extremely difficult to detect exactly what types of demographic forces caused those effects, so maybe we shouldn't be specifying, especially in the lead.
 * Isn't this sentence extremely redundant with the previous one, which already indicates there is disagreement about these issues? Why not just remove it, to shorten the lead?--Urthogie 18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit: The exact nature and extent of any foreign influence on the Egyptian Nile Valley that resulted from demographic effects such as migration and trade has always been a hot topic of debate among anthropologists ??

And again, I don't think there's ever been any studies exactly pin pointing the affects and to what extent affects were in Egypt concerning demographic shifts, all Keita said was that they have of had Near Eastern influence "over time", which can most certainly mean the modern era and including the Arab invasion, seems a bit redundant to use him and that vague quote as a source, you don't think?Taharqa 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence is redundant. What do you think it adds that the previous sentence doesn't make clear?--Urthogie 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As of now I only have a problem with the unintentional representation of the sources, the second sentence is redundant and can be removed.. But about the above one, who's this..

Redford, Egypt, Israel, p. 17.

^What exactly do they say and you don't feel as if that statement misrepresents what Keita actually said?Taharqa 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

"The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time" - Keita

^It says nothing through out its history, he only says some Near Eastern affinity through the passage of time, which means when? And where's the source of disagreement?Taharqa 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the redundant sentence, but kepts its sources. Egypt, Israel talks about predynastic Mesopotamian demographic influences. Even if that source alone is not enough to show you there is disagreement over demographic influences, the other sources should suffice to convince you this is an area of ongoing research and disagreement. All of these sources agree that Egypt is of East African origin-- the debate is over various predynastic and dynastic demographic influences.--Urthogie 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How old is the Israel source, besides I'm under the impression that it isn't an updated opinion since it's old and it depended on the Dynastic race theory.. Do you have a quote and date from them? Also who is Redford, an anthropologist, does he cite one? These sources are too vague imo, what data is there to support Redford's opinion and what exactly is said, where'd you get the source? Is it reliable and are you sure that you used Keita in context, was that his point?Taharqa 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pretty confident Redford denies the Dynastic Race theory because I got it from the article dynastic race theory where it is used as a source for someone who disagree with dynastic race theory but says there was some degree of demographic influence ("However, Scholars still note that while the Dynastic Race Theory is probably fallacious, the evidence upon which it was based does still indicate significant predynastic Mesopotamian influence."). We can remove it if you like, because the other sources say the same thing.  The reason Keita is sourced is to show that there are a variety of views on the demographic influences-- Keita is one of many views, was the point here.--Urthogie 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^In that case I demand that you not use him as a source since you used it in an opposite manner of where you got it.. Also you're wording it from information that you got from wikipedia and didn't read Redford your self. Also, even they say nothing of "demographic influence from any "outsiders", this is what they say..

"and the changes which did happen during the Naqada periods happened over significant amounts of time"

^They don't say anything about if it was due to ethnic or foreign "admixture", increase in social complexity, nothing.. No mention of Demographic influence or disagreement, the source is misrepresented.

Also what does this 10 year old Bosch, E study on modern Egyptians have to do with demographic effects on predynastic ord dynastic Egyptians? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199706/ai_n8769532

And I'm honestly annoyed with you going to google books and typing in search results then using them as a reliable source..

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt

Besides the fact that no one here is anthropologis, nor do they cite one or even argue that there was demographic changes in Ancient Egypt.. I request that you reevaluate and remove these sources.Taharqa 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: The reason Keita is sourced is to show that there are a variety of views on the demographic influences-- Keita is one of many views, was the point here

Keita is one of many views? Frankly this is nothing more than your opinion, Keita is a scientist, not a culturalist, his views are restricted to scientific scrutiny, you're confused.. You haven't provided one scientist who disagrees with him, this is why what you're saying is confusing, you keep separating Keita as a minority simply because you may not agree with his language or you simply don't understand his research. It's good to have your own point of view, but your point of view doesn't affect research and scientific consensus.Taharqa 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll remove redford per your request, but I must defend these other sources. Bosch for example, is still a usable source because Keita 1995 is a usable source.  Being 10 years old isn't that bad, really.  I believe the sources that remain are scientists, so what's the problem exactly?  I feel as though you're basically saying: "There is no uncertainty concerning demographics.  All is known.  There is no debate."--Urthogie 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could solve this whole dillema by saying "researched" instead of "disagreed" or "debated".--Urthogie 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^^No, that isn't the problem, the sources are misrepresented..

You're not listening unfortunately Urthogie.. Where does Bosch make the claims in the statement, he's studying Modern Egyptians.. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199706/ai_n8769532

^Or can you please read this and give me an over view of what was said about Dynastic and predynastic Ancient Egyptians?Taharqa 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Little is known about human population movements during the North African Upper Paleolithic. Neolithic populations diffused into the region from the east, where they contributed to the rise of the Egyptian kingdom (McEvedy 1980). In the west new production techniques appear to be associated with elements of a previous culture: the Capsian (7000-5000 B.c.) (Desanges 1990). The amount and geographic range of gene flow, if any, associated with the appearance of Neolithic populations is highly controversial. "

Does that suffice for an answer? Bosch is not discussing modern Egyptians, but rather the population history of North Africa. Also, based on checking up on Redford, I must insist that he is a reliable source, too.--Urthogie 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you already agreed to remove Redford because you don't know who he is, haven't read his work, and took him from a page that used him to argue the exact opposite point of what you're making.. We don't need any wishy washy behavior right now, we're dong good so far..

^Bosch isn't reliable to get the last say or an equal say because it's a ten year old interpretation and he shows no data to back the claim, but only uses another source who probably claimed it in 1980, but this wasn't even the point of his article anyways. He said during the Neolithic, populations from the East contributed to the rise of the Egyptian kingdom. You'd have to acknowledge that this is but one man's 10 year old opinion and not pass it off as a disagreement between today's anthropologists, this is not today's consensus and the majority believe the Egyptians to have come from the SouthWest and South.. This contradicts another wikipedia article and this one, along with mainstream consensus today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples#The_Sahara_and_the_Sudan_in_Nile_Valley_peopling

^You should really read this article..Taharqa 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Donald B. Redford, for the record, is pretty much the most important Egyptologist in the western hemishpere. What he writes is this – The dynastic race theory is moribund, however the data which first supported it still supports Predynastic contact and cultural trade with Mesopotamia, including some amount of migration. Thanatosimii 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Redford is a good source. A very good one.  I mistakenly said he might not have been because I didn't know about him.
 * A 10 year old source is usable. That's why we include Keita 1995.
 * It is not merely an "opinion", but a claim in a scientific paper.
 * You are not allowed to rule out a source because you don't agree with it.--Urthogie 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if Redford is a good source, go back and read what I said about you misrepresenting what was said and how it isn't reliable since you didn't quote from him but re worded a wikipedia statement that was arguing the opposing view.

And again, what the heck is this? http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt#PPA642,M1

C'mon with the google books, search function stuff, that is crappy scholarship and unencyclopedic (no offense, didn't know how else to say it).. In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that this is a misrepresentation? Two editors believe he should stay, and you have given no compelling reason to the contrary.
 * What matters is what source is used, not how they are retrieved.--Urthogie 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll askmy questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I answered your question about Borsch by pasting the quote. I also addressed Redford, as did another editor.  Which source has not been answered?--Urthogie 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^You didn't address either one of those and wikipedia articles are not to contradict themselves, again, read that article I posted..

Concerning the google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I told you what Borsch said by quoting him. Two editors have told you what Redford says.  Your only complaint about the google link is how I retrieved it-- you've raised no content issue with it.--Urthogie 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The other editor said it isn't right to post and make statements about things you don't read, so you're wrong.. Also, again..

Concerning the google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Redford is qualified because he is one of the most prominent Egyptologists. Borsch is qualified because he is a scientist studying north african demographic history.--20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^It doesn't matter, Borsch presented an old view which contradicts today's scholarship, did you read the wiki article I posted that it contradicts?

Also, again, Redford never said what you're making him say, can you quote him? No, so let it go, you're misrepresenting.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt#PPA642,M1 ^^^Concerning the google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say? Taharqa 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Do you deny that this is consensus view and that it contradics old sources like Borsch's opinion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples#The_Sahara_and_the_Sudan_in_Nile_Valley_peoplingTaharqa 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A wikipedia article is not a source, Taharqa. You've gone out of your way to even doctor the page number of the source to try to disqualify a respected Egyptologist as contradictory.  Concede the point and we can move on to the next difference.--Urthogie 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^It is a rule that wikipedia articles must not contradict each other, which is the point.. What do Egyptologists have to do with studying race also Urthogie?Taharqa 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such rule about pages not contradicting. It's best if they don't contradict, but there is no rule against it.  (You have not shown that there is a contradiction, by the way.)  Egyptologists who comment on the origins, genetics, cranial clustering, demographic influences, population history, and in some cases "race" of ancient Egyptians have plenty to do with studying their "race".--Urthogie 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, so you'd rather have the articles contradict each other for the sake of who knows? It's still loaded with weasel words since this is only one opinion and you pass it off as "there's still disagreement", the word "still" doesn't apply here either.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt#PPA642,M1 ^^^Concerning the google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What Borsch wrote on the demographic effects is pasted above for you to read. Why Redford and Borsch and others are qualified to comment has been answered as well.  Asking questions a lot doesn't change this.--Urthogie 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^no one is talking about those other unreliable sources.. Pay attention..

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cgVxI84MOKYC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=3b10JnbXyLRw77eWrB-wr7iieIw&dq=mesopotamian+influence+demographic+egypt#PPA642,M1 ^^^Concerning this (right here man) google link..

I'll ask my questions until you answer them..

In what way are these people qualified to comment on Demographic effects and what did they say?Taharqa 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Redford source, pay attention
This is what's written on the Dynastic Race page..

The Dynastic Race Theory is no longer the dominant thesis in the field of Predyanstic Archaeology, and has been largely replaced by the theory that Egypt was a Hydraulic empire, on the grounds that such contacts are much older than the Naqada II period

Source used: Redford, Donald B., Egypt, Israel, and Canaan in Ancient Times (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 13.

Ancient Egypt and race  However, there is still disagreement over the various outside demographic influences that acted on the ancient Egyptian population throughout its history

Source used: Redford.. Unacceptable and sloppy.. You can't even summarize Redford's opinhion, you're going completely off another article that argues an opposing updated view.. I see that you're the one who also took pains to add the little addition to the page also when the consensus was out before you came to that article..Taharqa 20:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Source used is page 17 Taharqa, not 13. Revert yourself.--Urthogie 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^What is said on page 13, can you tell me? Did he change his mind on page 13? Did you read it? Who are you getting your info from, you're obviously misrepresenting sources..Taharqa 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No I'm not. The hydraulic empire hypothesis does not rule out predynastic mesopotamian demographic influence.  There's no "changing of mind" required.  All you've done is doctored the page number in the source.--Urthogie 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're creating conflicting opinions where none exists, taharqa. I agree that Urthogie should probably read it before citing it, however his citation is not incorrect. The Dynastic Race theory is a theory of Statecraft, not racial origin. The two statements are not in contradiction. Thanatosimii 20:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have no idea what you're talking about, the Dynastic Race was supposedly a race of people who supposedly conquered the native agricultural settlers.. There is a clear contradiction, and since Urthogie should read it before posting it, there's n dispute.^You didn't address either one of those and wikipedia articles are not to contradict themselves, again, read that article I posted.. Taharqa 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanatosimii is saying that dynastic race theory was a racial hypothesis, but hydraulic empire was not. It is possible to believe in the hydraulic empire and also believe that there was a mesopotamian demographic influence.  Like he said, you're raising a contradiction where none exists.  One might also ask why you doctored the page number if you're so right!--Urthogie 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You can "believe" what you want, but this isn't what Redford said.. And Thanatosimii is simply confused on what the Dynastic Race was, no need to lean on that one comment, the contradiction is obvious..Taharqa 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Redford. The Dynastic Race Theory is a theory about Statecraft. Race is tertiary to it. Please stop informing people that they have no idea what they're talking about. Thanatosimii 20:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^Give me a source that states this or your opinion isn't worth anything..

Quote: "The Dynastic Race Theory was the earliest thesis to attempt to explain how predynastic Egypt developed into the Pharonic monarchy. It argued that the presence of many Mesopotamian influences in Egypt during the late predynastic period and the apparently foreign graves in the Naqada II burials indicated an invasion of Mesopotamians into Upper Egypt, who then conquered both Upper and Lower Egypt and founded the First Dynasty"

Population replacement, look up the word demic diffusion..

"the Naqada II period had a large degree of continuity (biological term) with the Naqada I period,[2] and the changes which did happen during the Naqada periods happened over significant amounts of time"Taharqa 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Quoting the Dynastic Race theory doesn't exactly prove your point. We already see that it's rejected by Redford in favor of the hydraulic empire, so it's basically a non sequitor.  Are you aware that its possible to accept part of a theory, and disregard most of it?  This is how science develops.  Stop accusing people of holding "beliefs"-- the discussion is over the sources, not anyone's beliefs.--Urthogie 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does Redford say what you claim, how does he support part of your belief? Can you quote him or cite him maybe?Taharqa 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you shut the hell up about my fucking "beliefs"? The cite is page 17.  Thanatosimii, can you quote the text for us? {I find it strange that you are so not wanting this to be true that you believe editors who have read a book are actually lying)--Urthogie 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^The only thing that I know is that you used a source you never read, which is always bad. Thanatosimii, if the Dynastic Race isn't about "race" as you personally claim, then why is it in an article about race?Taharqa 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanatosimii said that "race was tertiary to it." Don't misquote him.--Urthogie 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well he's wrong and has no source or point..Taharqa 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, unlike you, he's read the book. Calling him "wrong" at this point is childish.  What's "wrong" is doctoring sources to push your point.--Urthogie 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^Firstly, I never said that he was wrong about anything he claims to have read, I said he's wrong about the Dynastic Race theory, he has a limited view of what it actually was... At least I read my sources, which is why your personal accusations don't affect me and obviously this is more the case with you. Again, you didn't read him and therefore it is unreliable since we don't even know what Redford said besides what's reported in the Dynastic race article, where does he say that scholars take pains to say that the theory still holds weight? That is sloppy.. Thanatosimii still hasn't offered us anything but opinion, he has no source or argument, neither does he/she know what we're really talking about here.. People are twisting definition, making unsupported claims, typing in search results and google and trying to pass it off as encyclopedic scholarship, won't work..Taharqa 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"wrong" is doctoring sources to push your point

^The only one who uses Weasel words is you, you honestly haven't provided one viable source since you've been editing this article.. L Nkuka admits that the article improved when I came. I'm simply trying to limit inexperienced ramblings (usually contributed by yourself) from entering the article. It's more than obvious that I know more about the subject than you, which means little, but also means what it means. We'll continue this later though, I have to get ready an event.. Hotep.. Taharqa 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Can you shut the hell up about my fucking "beliefs"? The cite is page 17'''

what exactly is said on page 17?

And Hahaha, why did I just notice this? Someone lacks discipline and education, lol.. This is bad right here, you set us back months.. Anyways, be back later..Taharqa 21:17, 5 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. I have only ever found one source, an early 1900's artical by Petrie, which claimed that the Egyptians as a whole were a crossbreed of the native Badarian civilization, Dynastic race, and a number of other material cultures. This theory has, along wih the entire Dynastic race, been thrown out as not viable, because as more digs were conducted, it appears that the material culture of the Naqada I civilzation was more advanced than previously believed, and the Naqada II civilization appears to be a natural progression, not an external importation. However, it remains the fact that some of the evidence for the Dynastic Race theory cannot be explained without contact and trade with Sumer. Redford goes on about this for several pages of his book. Finally he concludes that, specifically due to the near spontanious apperance of Recessed brick archetecture, some (probably exremely small) amount of actual migration of artisans did have to occur. Honestly, I'm not sure where either of you are going with this, since being an issue of statecraft, it doesn't have a lot to do with the race of the Egyptians at large, however I'm setting the record straight. This is what the dynastic race theory states, and this is what you'll find if you read the writings of the original proponents, and that is what Redford has to say about the matter. Thanatosimii 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this will help explain the confusion here. Redford, in his book, isn't arguing, he's discussing. He isn't stacking a bunch of facts together to try to get everyone to see his view, but he's talking about the topics. In your original objection, Taharqa, you objected to one book saying both "The Dynastic Race Theory is no longer the dominant thesis in the field of Predyanstic Archaeology, and has been largely replaced by the theory that Egypt was a Hydraulic empire, on the grounds that such contacts are much older than the Naqada II period" and "However, there is still disagreement over the various outside demographic influences that acted on the ancient Egyptian population throughout its history" both being in the same book, as if they contradict each other. You said that they contradicted and couldn't sum up Redford's opinion. Well, the solution is that neither is Redford's opinion. They are both theories which Redford admits are argued about in circles of Egyptology. He, personally, doesn't like the hydraulic theory, but it doesn't change the fact that the hydraulic theory is dominant. His personal opinion is that there is currently no acceptable theory of statecraft. He disregards the dynastic race, however he accepts that some culture and a few people moved out of Sumer, and that Egyptologists still argue about how much this actually changed Egypt. Thinking like this is what is needed if you want this article fixed. It has to be a discussion of the views, not a persuasive document. Currently, you're both writing it like two opposing views writing one thesis paper, trying to add things that fit your view and remove things that fit the other. This is an Encyclopedia, not your dissertation. Thanatosimii 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

^You have to understand though, that discussing this only hinders progress and when the "Dynastic Race" is referred to in this article, it's to emphasize a theory that postulated a separate 'race' for Dynastic Egyptians, since this article is about 'race', putting any emphasize on material culture is redundant.. Even the way you explain it, which I appreciate does not contradict consensus view in Anthropology, that there was no dynastic race, since there was continuity reported by all of today's bioanthropologists who have studied Egyptian remains. Any aspects of foreign material culture can develop through trade, but even then you admit that the consensus view is that it's not generally accepted since Naqada was more advanced culturally than previous though, further discrediting the theory from a cultural perspective. Therefore, why should it get the last word in the header as if there's still heated debate over it in 2007 and what do "Egyptologists" have to do with the study of "race", can they be cited as disagreeing with bioanthropologists about population change anyways? No one minds different views, just trying to reflect the reality of the situation and avoid weasel words that don't.. My 2 cents, be back later on or tomorrow.. Hotep, thanx for participating and explaining what you meant, glad you weren't just here to give your opinion and leave.Taharqa 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I partially agree that the Dynastic Race theory doesn't have a lot of business being here. However, concerning what Egyptologists have to do with the study of race, as I brought up before (it may have been archived without being seen, it's no longer on this page), "race" is no longer viewed as a matter of physical anthropology but as a social construct, and as a cultural matter, it falls mostly under the domain of Egyptology. As to their area of origin, while physical anthropology was once thought to help, it appears from most sources, ranging from Egyptological works to my old Anthropology textbook, that things like craniometry, etc, are now looked on with scholarly disfavour. On the other hand, studies of the material culture have been shown in the past to locate geographic origin of a people group, and this also is under the domain of Egyptology. Archaology, linguistics, and cultural anthropology are used to determine area of origin more often than one might think. (honestly, why are you all so hostile to each other? I remember getting my head bit off towards the beginning of my interloping here, but you all have been nice enough to me recently. Cheers) Thanatosimii 00:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I partially agree that the Dynastic Race theory doesn't have a lot of business being here.

^Okay, well not to be rude, but this is the only thing that concerns me then, everything else is cordial conversation.Taharqa 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)