Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 8

message: Taharqa, your new edit made it seem like demographic effects were only on "early settlers".  Resarch is done on the demographic effects throughout ancient Egyptian history, not just the beginning.  I'm also interested in why you removed Redford even after having him explained to you.  If you'd just let this go we can move on to the next difference.
As a sidenote, I've done made the following non-controversial changes:
*small change to summarize the lead in regards to cranial results... I think it unnecessary to cite each source one by one for that.
*Remove sforza's opinion on the horn of africa, since egypt is not in the horn of africa.
*Put origins before clusters, because thats a more logical ordering to hear where they came from before you discuss where they cluster.
*Removed sources which didn't deal with Origins from the Origins sections.
*Put tags on disputed sections so we don't need one big tag at the top, and its more specific this way.
Lastly, if we are going to trust each other you have to promise not to doctor any more sources.  Here is an offering of peace... I found sources which you might like:
*http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a739340293~db=all
*http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v64n4/980585/980585.text.html?erFrom=1885573797367605857Guest 
*http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BTOBtgo1LtMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=Cavalli-Sforza+1994&ots=T_wOvG2uMp&sig=aWcGfxybitCPs_7mI8V1H3AVRC4#PPA163,M1 (Cavalli-Sforza agrees with the Land of Punt demonstrating a connection to Sudan on page 163)
--Urthogie 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, not to be the one who keeps piping up with minor factual concerns, but it might be good to get a solid source for that line, "The Egyptians considered The Land of Punt as being their ancestral homeland." I can't help but doubt this, since I've never found any such idea in Egyptological articles/papers/books concerning punt, and that claim definitly falls within the Egyptological domain. Also, the Egyptians had numerous creation myths, all of which state they were created in Egypt. Certain cities had regular theological fights, it seems, over which city and which God was the site of creation and creator. None of those myths, to my knowledge, mention Punt. So, checking that out with a good citation might be wise. Thanatosimii 04:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the land of Punt has about as much scientific significance as the next religious story (very little).--Urthogie 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe in race, please stop making up my views as I find it rude.  My view is that they clustered in between the neighboring populations, and had demographic influences from Mesopoatmia and Nubia.  Thanks, --Urthogie 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Still a few problems, Luka. First, the Dynastic race theory doesn't rule out that Sumerians affected race, it just basically ignores it... most of the time. A few scholars have actually argued that the race of Egypt was changed by Sumerian invaders, however these theories have been basically thrown out... including with the Dynastic race theory. So, talking about the Dynastic Race theory any more isn't really relevant. As for your source putting the Egyptian Dynastic during the Sumerian protodynastic... well, I know nothing about the credentials of that author, but he or she is flying in the face of all standard Egyptological opinion, and shouldn't be considered the mainstream.Second, you quoted a book written by Wallis Budge nearly 100 years ago (1978 is the last copyright, not the time of authorship) as a source. Suffice it to say, Budge is considered pretty worthless as a source these days. The fourth day of my first Hieroglyphics course, I was told by my professor, "you now know more hieroglyphics than Budge." Granted, it was a little tongue-in-cheek, but that sentement pervades Egyptology. Examine here  if you will, and you will find that Budge has been basically denounced by the British Museum. And, strictly speaking, an interpretation of a dictionary definition, even if the source were reputable, would be a violation of WP:NOR. You need to stick to clear and explicit sources. Remember, wikipedia is not a thesis paper, and you need to take less liberties with your sources. Seek things explicit. Thanatosimii 22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanatosimii, you studied the Egyptian language yet you do not know that Egypt is the oldest state in the world. You are rejecting Budge because he wrote 100 ago. You are also rejecting a book a written in 2007 because you don't know the author. Strange! Urthogie does not believe in race but he is editing an article on "racial caracteristics of the ancient Egyptians" or on "ancient Egypt and race". Both of you look very strange! You better put Egypt in Europe, America or Asia to be in peace! Egypt is in Africa, it is an African civilisation. Africa is the home of Black people. Egypt is the first civilisation in the world. Egytians are indigenous Africans. In history, one says that "the absence of proof is a proof of absence". Urthogie, stop your obsession or produce a single proof of the Mesopotamian influence in Egypt at an early stage. Up to now you have failed to produce even one. White people entered Africa during the second millenium BC: The peole of the sea and the Hyksos. Meanwhile, in ancient time, Europe, America and Asia have produced nothing comparable to ancient Egypt. Why could White people produce in Africa what they did not do in their respective homelands? What are we working for? Let's work for truth! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you would respect what I actually write and not twist my statements with straw men. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I know what I'm talking about, and your sources are wrong. Egypt is not the oldest state in the world, this is simply the case. Read any legitimate history book in the world, and it will tell you the same thing. Sumer's civilization is a few hundred years older. I rejected it because it didn't square with the mainstream and used a patently false date for the foundation of the Dynastic. I rejected Budge because Budge is notoriously worthless, and denounced by his own old Job! I did not reject what you took out of Budge, however I will not believe it until I examine it personally, since Budge flagrantly ignored the development of the German lexicography which has been recongized as the correct reading since the 1910's. I find it strange that for someone who insists he has plentiful knowledge of Africa, you do not know even the most basic of basic facts about Egyptian history properly. You need to sit down and read some general texts, and pay more attention to actual scholars. Thanatosimii 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Luka, there is a rule at Wikipedia called Wikipedia:Assume good faith.  You cause stress for other users when you don't follow it.  Also, no one calls Mesopotamians "white" as far as I know.--Urthogie 01:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Taharqa, the burden is on you to provide a reliable source which supports the land of punt being seen as an ancestral home.  If it's common knowledge, you shouldn't have a very hard time.  Thanks, --Urthogie 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the authoritative dictionaries of Egyptian do not contain this definition. This is why I say, "I know what I'm talking about." I have "picked up any dictionary of" Egyptian and found no such translation or even cognates for pwnt. I picked up the two best ones in particular: Faulkner's concise dictionary, and the Berlin dictionary. To make statements of undisputed fact you need agreement within Egyptology, and the only sources provided are all... far from mainstream. That doesn't necesarraly mean they're wrong, but you can't cite them as if they're the final authority on what the word is. Breasted is rather out of date, and Luka's source is from someone in Diop's school of thought – not that that makes them wrong, just not mainstream enough to speak authoritativly. Per Undue Weight in WP:NPOV, it should be easily demonstrable from many, many sources across the board, not just one or two. Thanatosimii 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I can't find a source which says the Egyptians view it as their ancestral home.  From Cavalli-Svorra:
That it was viewed as their ancestral home is not established.  Correct me if I'm wrong. I may well be.--Urthogie 20:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most common opinion that I've heard flung around Egyptology is that it was called "god's land" because it was located to the east (this is clearly the opinion which places Punt to the east of Cush in Somalia, and not south in southern Sudan), and the sun (god) rose in the east. I really don't buy this conclusion either. I'll go look it up the next time I'm at the library. Thanatosimii 22:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: As a compromise, how about we simply state who holds this theory and leave it at that? Once Luka translates those paragraphs, we'll use them as sources, and state that Diop and Aboubacry Moussa Lam hold this theory.  (PS you seem to not know what an ad hominem is)--Urthogie 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided Ample sources. Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur. There is a limit to how long people will tolerate asking for sources when ample sources have been provided time and time again. Thanatosimii 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: k.--Urthogie 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot continue to attribute everything I say to me. I have done my part to provide sources. Your compromise means nothing until you retract your extraordinary claims about how everyone knows this translation, and it's found in any lexicon, despite the fact that I've soundly disproven it. Thanatosimii 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I removed the letter to the editor.  letters to editors are not considered reliable.--Urthogie 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you think a letter to the editor is a reliable source?  Could you please cite an example of where a scholar has ever cited letters to editors?--Urthogie 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: Actually CoYep agrees with me, and those who commented are yet to reply.  This doesn't even resemble consensus.--Urthogie 19:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  letter to the editor not a reliable source 

message: *"Are letters to the editor reliable?" Not always. Some sources are always reliable, such as an article in Nature. No sources are never reliable though, because given the right author and context, they might have some value.
*In this case, the author is a (then) Harvard professor. A Harvard professor can be considered an expert in the field of study he teaches. That is reliable per WP:RS. Claims of false authorship could indeed be made, but remember that the same can be said about the personal correspondence of Albert Einstein or all works of Herodotus. I think we can safely assume that in 1992, prof. Peck would surely have noticed if someone wrote a letter to the Times using his name. At least as safely as we can assume the authorship of 99.9% of the works written before 1800.
*The context here is clear, and is not an obstruction for calling the resource reliable. The statement made was within the field of study of prof. Peck, and he was clearly writing about the race of the sphinx.
*From the above, I believe this particular letter to the editor to be a reliable source.
*However, that does not mean I agree with this edit. The sentence there incorrectly attributes the conclusion written by prof. Peck to Domingo. It should be attributed to prof. Peck.
*Removing everything, like the current article has done, is not good either.
--User:Krator (t c) 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, writing at the same time, I see. --User:Krator (t c) 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: I merged the body plans, crania, and demographics sections, because they all deal with the same problems, so it makes no sense to separate them.  I've also separated Art and Mummies from the research sections, because neither of these two are research of ancient Egyptian "race" as a whole.  Lastly, I merged stuff relating to skin color and body plans to an appearance section which Taharqa should have no problem with when she sees it.--Urthogie 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, because this was the most important change to me.--Urthogie 17:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: structuring 

message: Except in the case of primary sources, I think it's best if we summarize the scientific studies.  Anyone disagree?  That's what I've been editing.--Urthogie 02:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several users have pointed out that this article was a quote farm.  It seems best for us to summarize the blockquotes, I think.  What do you think is lost by the summaries, specifically?--Urthogie 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: So I added them back, now discuss..Taharqa 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K.  We'll discuss and I won't revert. Please avoid the personal comments and assume good faith while we discuss.--Urthogie 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't agree with your removals 

message: I'm going to continue to monitor this page. Editors that can't stay off each other's throats long enough to for the mediation to go through I will refer for blocks. I'm going to start posting warnings on editors talk pages so please stay civil. NeoFreak 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't have cursed at you, though.  I feel you provoked me by talking about my so-called beliefs rather than the actual article, but I'm sorry for over reacting.  I won't do it again, if it offended you.  Either way, actions of the past give neither of us a license to make personal attacks or assume bad faith in the present.--Urthogie 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please work together 

message: "Taharqa, the burden is on you to provide a source which supports the land of punt being seen as an ancestral home. If it's common knowledge, you shouldn't have a very hard time. Thanks, --Urthogie 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what is Aboubacry Moussa Lam a phd of, and is that source peer-reviewed?--Urthogie 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the two books I quoted I have these informations: "De nationalité sénégalaise, Aboubacry Moussa Lam est docteur d'Etat ès Lettres. Il a reçu sa formation d'historien et d'égyptologue à l'Université de Dakar (aujourd'hui Université Cheikh Anta Diop) et à celle de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV). Disciple de Cheikh Anta Diop dont il fut l'assistant entre 1981 et 1986, il consacre l'essentiel de ses activités d'enseignement et de recherche aux relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire. Aboubacry Moussa Lam est actuellement maître de conférences au département d'histoire de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar" (From the back of the book of 1993). "Professeur titulaire au Département d'histoire de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Aboubacry Moussa Lam, sur les traces de Cheikh Anta Diop, consacre l'essentiel de ses activités d'enseignement et de recherche aux relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire. Il collabore à ANKH, revue d'Egyptologie et des Civilisations africaines" (From the back of the book of 1997). More about Lam http://www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=826 Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Please reply to the discussions before continuing to edit.  Otherwise I'll just revert to my version. --Urthogie 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add a source today.--Urthogie 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't add this.  Put a fact template next to it for now.--Urthogie 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please reply to other discussions or I'll revert back to before you reverted.--Urthogie 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're not being coherent, sorry.--Urthogie 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Taharqa, it is customary to stick a  tag on the end of statements that need citations, and not delete them immediatly. It helps other editors who may not be around at the moment fix their own work. Thanatosimii 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: My comment pertained because your claim of OR appears to be based on a misunderstanding of OR and citations. It is perfectly letigimate for someone else to look for sources which cite somthing another editor added to the article in good faith. But as to why I'm coming down hard on you, that should be obvious. I object to factual inaccuracies, you respond by accusing me of either intellectual dishonisty or stupidity, and you wonder why I'm miffed? Thanatosimii 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not accusing you, you're constantly accusing me! All I am doing is pointing out when things in the article are incorrect, and when I do so, you throw hissy-fits! Opinions? That sounds familiar! I've raised numerous issues of fact based on sources I have quoted. I don't even have that responsability, I'm just trying to be helpful. Yours is the obligation to cite. Thanatosimii 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "I know what original research is, and that's original research." Argument from personal incredulity.--Urthogie 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By "everyone else" do you mean...you?--Urthogie 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please continue discussion before editing