Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 7

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This line 

message: ^^^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#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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Any noticeable changes to the article must be discussed first 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  More factual accuracy problems... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Who agrees?Taharqa 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Ok, please just avoid reverting the whole thing at once.  Just replace section by section, ok?--Urthogie 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro is way too long 

message: 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)
replies: text: Source used is page 17 Taharqa, not 13.  Revert yourself.--Urthogie 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Thanatosimii said that "race was tertiary to it." Don't misquote him.--Urthogie 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Redford source, pay attention