Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 4

message: Since there was still some ongoing editing (albiet among adminstrators) I've lifted the protection.  If anyone edit wars any further, leave a note on my talk page and you'll get see a block for disruption quick-smart. - brenneman 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection lifted 

message: Nebakneil, resurfacing to work his bogus double game with "other" accounts, alleges that the S. Keita reference casts no doubt on use of catch-all categories like Mediterranean or Middle Eastern to define racial categories. Passages used by Keita were quoted in full earlier. Nebakneil removed them. Now he develops a mysterious memory lapse and says that the reference really don't say what they said earlier. What a dumb game. No one is being fooled. He can use tags or "good cop, bad cop" routines under "other" user accounts, but his game is growing stale. Can't you people be more creative? Very well, here are the quotations again. Its just a simple matter of copy and paste. The old version is on hard disk. Once again, the BS, obstructionist, tag splashing approach being used by certain people is being exposed. If we are going to play at an "academic" approach, then I too must reevaluate the use of the King Tut picture per Wikipedia guidelines, as other editors will no doubt do. 
Nebakneil removed the quotes below earlier. Now he says they really didn't say what they said earlier :)lol - people please- give me some better comedy ...
::"The territorial map in Keita (1988) shows the late dynastic northern Egyptian "E" series to be similar to a subset of Middle Eastern crania. Harris and Weeks (19731, imply that Old Kingdom Giza crania were more like Nubians. The previous work for the Maghreb and Nile Valley suggests the presence of notable variability.. Overall the crania were seen as Mediterranean," "Semitic," "Negroid," hybrid, some composition of these, and/or a hybrid between these groups.. Skeletally "Negroid" cannot be restricted to a monotypic extreme concept (Rightmire, 1975, 1977). Coon et al. (1950) note groups who have almost stereotypical tropical African soft part characteristics coupled with "Mediterranean" bony cranio-facial form, but they do not report the reverse.. Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been “lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers. Randall-MacIver (1901) concludes that the predynastic people were “a blending in various proportions of Semite and Negro.” Myers (in Pearson et al., 1902-31, describes morphological variability in predynastic crania as ranging from “Negroid to “Mediterranean,” to argue against claims of homogeneity determined by metric analysis...""Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)
"Nebakneil" also claims that quotations from mainstream scholar Yurco "POV". Duh. His tactics is to put tags by everything in an attempt to get what he doesn't like removed. His bogus AFD request was in similar vein
It is obvious that scholars have differng points of view. is there any scholar that doesn't have one? The proper Wikipedia approach is comparing Yurco to ANOTHER scholar so an objective comparison can be made. But Nebakneil and his "other" accounts remember, removed such comparions. Now, piously, he laments about "POV" by some scholars, after earlier removing the comparisons. lol.. Doesn't this BS approach get tiring for you people? comedy people, comedy, gimme a better routine..
:::: ***END OF TODAY'S LESSON*** Enriquecardova 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keita reference

message: This picture[] says it all.
Egyptians characterized Negroes as another race, different than themselves. See Book of Gates.
Even sillier and more pathetic is the claim that the AEs were somehow "ancestors" of American blacks.SveinForkbeard 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This "controversy" was over thousands of years ago. Egyptians were NOT black. 

message: "And 40% of Ethiopians are Arab genetically. Minorcorrections"
"Hahaha, any evidence (reliable sources, not thread posts in forums about skyscrapers)? I didn't think so (see Semino et al 2004 and Kivisild et al 2004 for Ethiopian and Arab DNA). Yom" 
"Maternally, Ethiopian genes are entirely of local origin. Yom"
Yom is exposed by his barefaced lies. He says that his studies say Ehtiopian maternal genes don't have Caucasoid admixture. Kivisild 
Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general. 
What kind of deception is Yom operating under here? Since Yom has now been exposed for his lies, can we say Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.207.195.254.202 19:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon editor, as I warned you here, you can disagree with another person without calling him a liar. Because you have accused Yom of being a liar (with the exact same childish language) & this is considered a personal attack, consider this your last warning: if you call him a liar again, you may be blocked from editting Wikipedia. -- llywrch 21:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lies exposed

message: Enough. I've seen a lot of personal attacks, things like accusing others of being "liars", unfounded sockpuppeting jabs, and debate over the controversy itself. I was going to remove these as personal attacks, but it would take me quite a while, and would probably start a useless edit war. In the interest of policy, and of keeping this page relevant to article improvement, I would like to propose the following guidelines for this page for all editors:
* This is a talk page for improving the ARTICLE, not a page where we argue over ancient Egyptians and their ethnicity.
* Stop throwing accusations of sockpuppetry around. Unless you have a checkuser confirmation, don't bring it up. This isn't the place.
* Stop calling others "liars"
* Stop accusing other editors of having POV issues. For example, I don't have a POV, having absolutely no interest in race issues. Some or most of the editors here might have a POV, but we have to AGF and assume that they are keeping it under control. I really don't see much POV pushing from either side happening here, and I think the article as it stands now is rather neutral.
Some of this is already policy, some of it isn't. But can all sides agree, from this point forward, to uphold these and discuss the article, not arguing over the merits of its topic? --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding personal attacks 

message: Ok, first off none of the notable sources in this section are afrocentrists.  Secondly, its original research to claim their work is afrocentric.  Thirdly, its original research to even claim that the afrocentric "argument" has any place in science whatsoever.  Science simply produces theories.  If some famous afrocentrist says that science has made afrocentric conclusions, we can quote them as saying that in a section called "Opinions", or something along those lines.  The current content should be dispersed to other sections.  I've placed an original research template on it, and I think it should be moved to other sections.  I plan on keeping it there until this issue is discussed and a resolution is reached.--Urthogie 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the content should be in the article, but the section definitely shouldnt.  Do you see how it is a blatant original research to call these arguments afrocentric?  And that blanking is better than possibly lying to people and giving them original research?  Why don't we move the content to this talk page for a while and plan where to put it, rather than giving people original research?--Urthogie 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point DC.  I reverted your edits wholesale because I felt they made the entire article focus around afrocentric opinions which come secondary to an actual discussion of the science and facts.  The opinions of afrocentrists and eurocentrists surely are notable, but not as notable as the research itself.  I reverted your edits because they made huge changes to the article that should be discussed on the talk page first.  We would have an easier time compromising if you reverted it to the pre-"big change" version, and discussed it here.  As far as the "afrocentric arguments", my problem is not with the content, so much as the fact that it's grouped together in the way it is-- a synthesis that is clearly original research.  Would you oppose integrating it into other sections?  If not, why?--Urthogie 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Apologetics for a black dynastic Egypt". That sentence in the heading. Most of these people (perhaps all) are not apologetics, many of them are scientific studies which clarify a certain point which most scientists would say doesn't deductively prove anything about the race of ancient egyptians. For example, a study that shows some element of human geography that lends possibility to the afrocentrist view wasn't necessarily conducted by scholars who think Egypt was black. It's original research to say their findings are apologetic. In many cases, this is even a blatant lie to say so.--Urthogie 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My alternate suggestion is a restructuring of the article based on the research, rather than the current organization, which is based on opinions-- be it afrocentrists versus eurocentrists or apologetics versus non apologetics.  Why not remove this heading "Apologetics for a black dynastic Egypt" and discuss all sides of the evidence as far as the egyptian art, people, and the discussion of the sphynx and other architecture?--Urthogie 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I'll make a couple small big changes in restructuring and you can revert me at any point if you want to discuss a change.  I promise I won't revert back if you'll discuss.  Oh, and I'll make sure to keep the stormfront out-- I'm Jewish :)--Urthogie 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  afrocentric arguments? 

message: Letters to newspapers, comments on blogs, etc. are not notable unless the person themself is notable in the given field.  Otherwise, only the content of the publication is considered notable.--Urthogie 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the discussion: "Schoch and Peck are not qualified to make opinions about race of ancient peoples. Qualified experts would include Anthropologists, Archaeologists and Egyptologists."  This is correct.  It's just a professor extending his field where he's not authoritative.  An orthodontist commenting on this subject is like a professor of pediatrics commenting on the evolution of neoteny.--Urthogie 01:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm ok with mentioning it as a ref, but including the whole letter is excessive, and is an extremely minor point.  Does any serious scholar really say, "hey, lets print out this letter to the editor from an orthodontist!"  No, because orthodontics is the study of how to put in braces and correct teeth, and the guy is stretching his field.  But I'll compromise, I"ll mention that its been pointed out.  But including the whole letter is ridiculous, and also in bad style as it takes voice away from the article.--Urthogie 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY times letter to the editor is not reliable source 

message: This article appears to have been written by someone too leery/PC to make any clear, definitive conclusions. The author of this article toys around with defining/refuting the concept of "race" rather than making any distinctions. Furthermore, this article actually appears to give credence to the possibility that Egyptians were black- a foolish idea that is already beyond refutation. Also not show is the picture of Ramses II's mummy (http://www.geocities.com/enbp/eg_pics.html), which has Mediterranean features. --Pewpewlazers 07:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the article deals primarily with how the ancient Egyptians viewed themselves, and not how modern people view them relative to current reality. In effect, the article completely side-steps it's title- not only by undermining the solid concept of race (not abandoned by a majority of scientists), but by making race a complete non-issue. --Pewpewlazers 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The unscientific, afrocentric original research and lack of balance you observe is definitely there.  Please add sources to this article, and I will help you in the process if you follow the Wikipedia policies.--Urthogie 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is useless 

message: Apparently, there is at least one editor who seems confused about the nature of POV and NPOV.  I've replaced the inappropriate NPOV tags with "balance" tags.  deeceevoice 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the anon who removed the balance tags.  I have no problem with em, its just tags.--Urthogie 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV confusion

message: ===What I removed===
===Why I removed it===
*This is a faulty usage of the Brittanica passage.  The passage only states that there was an early movement northward, it doesn't state that it was the only movement into ancient Egypt, as the text would suggest.
*The Brittanica source is from 1974, and is as a result really outdated.  (If you think date doesn't matter, take a look at some shit from the early 1900's and late 1800's and compare it to the mid 1900's)
*Even if the above issues weren't irredeemable problems, which they are, the above text claims, using weasel words, that Ethiopia was thought to be the location of Punt.  This is one man's view on a problem that is, as of yet, unsolved in Egyptology.  The strongest hypothesis is that it is somewhere south of Nubia.  
*I'd like to see a reliable, scientific source that says the Egyptians thought they originated in Punt.  I can't find such a source, but maybe it exists and im just being ignorant here.  The sources I've looked at (which are mainstream and credible) say that ancienct Egyptians saw themselves as being created by Gods in Egypt 
*This is not central to my reasons for removal, but I must ask: Why was this earlier categorized as an "Afrocentric argument"?  It's not disputed by modern science that Egypt had descendents of sub-saharan africans throughout its society.  It's also not very disputed that the sub-saharan african presence diminished and mixed as a result of wars, trading, being colonized with/by peoples north of egypt.  What afrocentrists argue, that simply isn't true-- is that the ancient egyptian civilization was originally all a migration from sub-saharan africans, and wasn't mixed with those from the fertile crescent (and perhaps other places).  The ancient egyptian civilization, with its pyramids and art, was mixed.  Hunter gatherers from the south may have likely come before hunter gatherers from the north-- but this is not the question of the article.  The question of the article is the Egyptians.  And the egyptians were mixed.
===Discuss===
I'll keep it removed until you prove that these problems either don't exist or aren't significant enough to warrant removal.  Please don't revert until you've attempted to discuss this.--Urthogie 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did supply reasons, in the above section "Why I removed it."  Your personal opinion is in fact addressed in that section as well. --Urthogie 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed claim that Punt was where egyptians traced their origin to 

message: I'll keep it removed until you prove that these problems either don't exist or aren't significant enough to warrant removal.  Please don't revert until you've attempted to discuss this.--Urthogie 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did supply reasons, in the above section "Why I removed it."  Your personal opinion is in fact addressed in that section as well. --Urthogie 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss

message: Racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians.  If its controversial, that can be stated.  It just seems to me like theres more to it than controversy-- there's also uncontroversial research performed all the time.--Urthogie 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikipedia should a location for definitive, concise answers. Doooo it.--Pewpewlazers 10:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move 

message: ===What I removed===
A wall relief of Puntite royalty reveals a dark-brown-skinned king and queen, the latter exhibiting the characteristic attributes of a Khoisan woman.  Commerce existed between Egypt and Punt, with Egyptian royalty mounting expeditions to what they regarded as their ancestral home.  Among the items they brought back were whole trees of myrrh and other species, aromatic woods, incense, leopards, monkeys, ivory, ebony, panther hides, cinnamon, and gum.
===Why I removed it===
*What proof is there that Egypts "regarded Punt as their ancestral home"?  This seems to go against severa sources Ive read.
*It's original research to include this in the article unless its been said by a given mainstream scientists to be relevant to the issue of race of ancient egyptians.  No original research means editors can't decide whether something related is truly relevant-- they need a source confirming this.--Urthogie 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A pic is worth a thousand words. Muntuwandi 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, a thousand words on the subject of Punt.  This article is about Egypt, and there is as of yet no proof added on the page that the Egyptians regarded Punt as their ancestral home.--Urthogie 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed content 

message: *What proof is there that Egypts "regarded Punt as their ancestral home"?  This seems to go against severa sources Ive read.
*It's original research to include this in the article unless its been said by a given mainstream scientists to be relevant to the issue of race of ancient egyptians.  No original research means editors can't decide whether something related is truly relevant-- they need a source confirming this.--Urthogie 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A pic is worth a thousand words. Muntuwandi 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, a thousand words on the subject of Punt.  This article is about Egypt, and there is as of yet no proof added on the page that the Egyptians regarded Punt as their ancestral home.--Urthogie 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I removed it

message: It's OR to include this in a section called "Research" if noone has actually researched this and linked it to the race of ancient egyptians.  It could still be included in the afrocentrism section, though, even if it isn't formally researched.  DC, anyone else, do you know of any reason why its not original research to include this in a section called "Research"?  Thanks, --Urthogie 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  great sphynx of giza -- Original Research? 

message: *Section explaining dolichocephalism
*Section explaing prognathism
Not sure if I spelled these right, --Urthogie 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sections to add to background 

message: *This article on the French Wikipedia has a lot of good content worth integrating.--Urthogie 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  french wikipedia article worth looking at 

message: ::The talk page is not a discussion forum. Please take this argument to the proper place. This is for discussing the article. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is relevant as edits will emerge if he proves that his presented evidence is notable, scientific, and sourced. (in fact I plan on adding many of the things he's discussing)--Urthogie 01:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page not a discussion forum

message: It's been pointed out that our timeline is basically limited to the dynastic Egyptians.  Should we formalize this limitation, and make it clear in the lead that the article only deals with those Egyptians who actually had a sedentary civilization, or actually break it by including info on pre-dynastic egypt?  It seems to me like what afrocentrists, eurocentrists, and even scientists are mainly concerned about as far as race in egypt was dynastic egypt.  However, the afrocentrists might also be gleeful to learn that the early pre-dynastic Egyptians would likely be considered black today.  So what are the thoughts on this?--Urthogie 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline