Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 6

message: Like the myth that African-American slaves had pyramids in Egypt and such.  You hear this a lot from some wacko academics.--Urthogie 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urthogie, can you be more explicit? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Becuase these wacky myths are introduced by some notable academics like the one who says the Greeks were as black as Egyptians.--Urthogie 15:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urthogie, why don't you update your knowledge on Ancient Civilizations? You are making fun of African American academics who say that "the Greeks were as Black as the Egyptians". Good! Maybe you mean that the Greeks were more Black because according to you Egyptians were not very Black. Are you aware of a study published in 2001 by people we cannot easily call "Afrocentrists" which reveals "the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x ? This study gives reason to ancient myths of "African origin of the Greeks". What about the relationship between the African Americans and the ancient Egyptians? Ancient Egytpians migrated towards the south and the west of the African continent after the Persian invasion of Egypt in the 6th century BCE. These Egyptians are the founders of Africans Kingdoms and Empires from which between the 15th and the 19th centuries Africans were taken by Europeans to be brought to America as slaves. African Americans are full and authentic heirs of the ancient Egyptians. You can read the Senegalese Historian Aboubacry Moussa Lam to know more on that subject  http://www.kametrenaissance.com/Lam-Page.html Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Eurocentrist myths should also be added to the discredited hypotheses section, along with afrocentrist ones.--Urthogie 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  we should cover afrocentrist myths 

message: Urthogie, did you try to remove something I put in the "External links"? Please, avoid doing that next time without justification. Myself, I don't remove your contributions. You have also to respect other people's contributions. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them because they are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  It's wikipedia policy to remove such links.--Urthogie 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urthogie, who are you to make such judgements that my materials are not reliable sources? You are not even an African! Besides, you don't really look scientific in your statements which usually make me laugh. I am sorry for saying that. Do you think that you know Africa better than I who is an African and who spend time researching on my history? If you want to spread ignorance, you better research in matters involving your own Asian culture. As an African, I have the right to inform people about my ancestors using and indicating well known historians like Basil Davidson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Davidson and Cheikh Anta Diop http://www.ankhonline.com/cheikh.ht. Once more, stop your acts of vandalism which are impeding readers to learn the truth from / for themselves. You look really impolite, Urthogie. Viola76 and others left this forum because of your bad caracter. You seem to ignore basic rules of "the ethic of the discussion". Or maybe you want me to destroy all your contributions which are not even updated? I remember, in the past Taharqa initiated a section with your name to call your attention to be more accurate. That section desepeared. Who removed it and why? You are incredible. How and why did you get interested in other people's history? Mystery! Stop this joke. Respect people if you want to be respected. If you want to remove something, come first to discuss it here to avoid a war of vandalism. Now the "false picture" which has to be removed came back. I have the impression that is your work. You must be very jealous of African people because Egypt is in Africa and not in Asia or in Europe or in America. Aren't you? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  Also, Africa is a continent, not a nation-state.--Urthogie 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't removing the source to be rude, but just because of the policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--Urthogie 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knowing your past contradictions and limitations, I am quite sure you did not even understand those rules you are speaking about. I read them and they do not support what you are doing. It is you who have to read them carefully. Incredible Urthogie! How can strangers be "fanatic" of an African Civilisation to distort its facts! That's strange! Are you ashamed of your own Culture to get interested to Africa? It is well known that ignorance like hiding itself behind rules to steal time and to distract those who want to advance knowledge. Viola76 noticed this speciality of you in the past. And if you don't improve your behaviour which is impolite, you are going to have problems here with other people. Now, can you tell me who removed the section "Urthogie" written by Taharqa where your ignorance was put into light? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Urthogie, I am sorry for doing that, but I just began removing your contributions as you are not respecting mine. This is only the begining if you don't change your hostile behaviour towards an African in a subject touching an African Civilisation. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to follow policies, even if you disagree with people.  I've pointed you to policy pages, but you are not editing based on policies... you're editing based on spite because you think I hate African people or something.--Urthogie 22:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you summarise those policies here? Cheikh Anta Diop and Basil Davidson know better about ancient Egypt than people you are quoting. Please tell me what you have against Diop and Davidson. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy on reliable sources is to avoid non-notable publication forums, such as Internet Forums.--Urthogie 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions to Urthogie

message: Taharqa, people leaving the Sahara occupied later both West Africa and Egypt. That is what you said, and you are right. Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Amadou Ampateba defend this thesis. Aboubacry Moussa Lam studied recently the question of the origins of the West Africans. Both archeological evidences and oral traditions indicate the Nil Valley. There are many reasons to suggest that after the fall of the Egyptian Empire, mainly during to the Persian invasion, people from Egypt joined their "cousins" in other parts of Africa includind West Africa. African Kingdoms starded after their arrival, they are copies of the Egyptian state. Taharqa, read Aboubacry Moussa Lam "De l'origine égyptienne des Peuls" http://www.menaibuc.com/article.php3?id_article=39, "Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire"  http://www.amazon.fr/chemins-Nil-relations-ancienne-lAfrique/dp/2708706322/ref=sr_1_1/403-6655534-4675637?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176110493&sr=1-1, and "Le Sahara ou la vallée du Nil" http://www.amazon.fr/Sahara-Ou-Vallee-Nil/dp/2911372425/ref=sr_1_5/403-6655534-4675637?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176110493&sr=1-5  . This subject is very important to understand why African Americans are heirs of the ancient Egyptians. Urthogie should read Aboubacry Moussa Lam as well to update his knowledge about Africa. By the way, I would like to remind Urthogie that Greeks are from Black African origin  http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x . This thesis is well documented. African American academics are right in making this point. Myths are on your Eurocentric side when it comes to Africa. In matters dealing with Africa, it is normal to do an Afrocentric discours. Neutrality is not synonymous with objectivity. We must be objective in science, not neutral. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy Taharqa that you saw and read the abstract about the Black African origin of the Greeks. It is a reality, not an hypothesis. Now you are transformed. There are many things to reveal on Black Africa and World History, colonialism and imperialism had covered. Urthogie as well must give his opinion about that, because he is the man who is denying the Black African backgroung of the Greeks. Only ignorant people can continue to deny this fact known already through ancient myths and now confirmed by genetics. Implications are great. People who used, for anything, to belittle the Black race are shaking. Urthogie, did you read the abstract about the Greeks I posted earlier? What do you thing about that in all objectivity? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sahara and Egypt

message: Okay Urgothie, I see where all of this mixed-race nonsense comes from, it comes from the supposed contradiction between the 1993 Brace study (which reported relationships with Europeans) and Keita's study which reported similarities to East Africans. Well the Brace study has been discredited, and you'd know that if you had really checked the sources and read Keita's study, which was in direct response to Brace's study to check its validity. 
Brace's study has faced some criticism, however. It had a greater number of samples from Europe and each sample represented a specific ethnic group, whereas his samples from the "sub-Saharan" region were very small and were not specific, since each sample represented a country . Doing this exaggerated Europe's cranio-facial diversity to be greater than that of sub-Sahara, even though African populations possess far greater biodiversity and sub-Saharan African is much more vast, with thousands of ethnic groups. Even India, which has hundreds of ethnic groups was represented by just one plot on his map. Further, the samples that Brace chose to represent Sub-Sahara consisted of those peoples who represent the stereotypical "true-negroid" look with broad features even though there are populations in Sub-Sahara that do not have such features. The result was that Egyptians as well as Nubians and even Somalians clustered closer to Europe because of certain similarities, while Melanesians and Australian aborigines clustered closely to the sub-Saharan sample because of certain similarities shared between them.
http://en.allexperts.com/e/c/co/controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_ancient_egyptians.htm
You write:
However, older studies that used similar methods of crania analysis have concluded that ancient dynastic Egyptian crania show no ties whatsoever to sub-Saharan Africa, and instead show significant ties to the European Neolithic, North Africa, and modern Europe.
In the 2005 study, Keita writes:
:One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the Nile Valley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf
So your quote basically misrepresented the conclusions and Brace' study is considered misleading, even by fellow bioanthropologists for the reasons stated above.. So I added wording to the misleading statement that dynastic Egyptians were found to relate more closely to Europeans than other Africans, which isn't true. AEs were closer to people of the Sudan (Nubia) and Somalis more than they were to Europeans since they were in the "primary cluster", and Europeans in the secondary. I added the relevant info..
"However, older studies that use similar methods of crania analysis have concluded that ancient dynastic Egyptian crania show no ties whatsoever to sub-Saharan Africa, and instead show significant ties to the European Neolithic, North Africa, and modern Europe.  Though this study has been highly criticized due to limited sample selection, and under closer scrutiny results found that they clustered primarily with people of ancient Sudan and recent Somalia, Somali people of whom are Sub-Saharan African, which undermines these claims."
^I didn't erase anything, what's in bold is what I added.. If you're interested in all of the most recent peer reviewed, validated studies concerning Egypt, I suggest you check here Urgothie.
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.htmlTaharqa 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is not a place for criticisms, only for summarizing research.  Feel free to add info on criticisms in the research section, or to add more research summary to the lead.  Allexperts.com, by the way, is just a cache of wikipedia from a year ago.--Urthogie 03:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And you say I'm not being reasonable?? I'm editing along policies described in Wikipedia:Lead.  A detailed criticism of findings is fit for the article, not the lead.  You need to calm down and discuss this based on Wikipedia policies, rather than your view of the truth.  Also, you did in fact use allexperts as a source.  How about you reflect on how you're coming into this a bit too angry, considering the mistake you just made it might occur to you that you're not perfect in your reasoning and that you need to reference policies when making arguments.  Also, please note that the Keita study you showed here says nothing against the current sentence in the article.  epipalaeolithic came way before dynastic, last time I checked.  Chill the hell out, you're completely pissed off and you need to start being reasonable.   And like I said, feel free to add criticisms to the article, or to summarize Keita's research in the lead.  Criticisms of others' research though does not fit in the lead.  The lead is not for a detailed discussion of sources, per Wikipedia:Lead it is only meant to be a summary.--Urthogie 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I do see your point.  Could we compromise on modifying the sentence to somehow say it's been criticized?  The sentence you added is kind of silly... I mean everyone knows that clustering with North Africa means... clustering with North Africa.  Why must this be mentioned in the lead?  Can't you just add it to the research section, and we'll modify this sentence slightly?--Urthogie 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made slight modifications based on your suggestions.  How is this for a compromise?  (See page)--Urthogie 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Brace Study

message: Hair color can rarely be determined, based in mummies. The hair of Ramses the Great was dyed to make him more youthful in appearance, which means red hair was common to some degree in Egypt.
^This is the biggest most uninformed lie I've seen in the history of Egyptology, no body, I mean not even the people at stormfront believes this and they know that red hair would of been extremely rare in Egypt (as it even is today), this is a load. That only indicates that Ramses dyed his hair, please stop posting crap in the article whoever wrote this, provide a source!Taharqa 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hair section hasn't been contributed to by anyone but some anonymous editor.  Please work on it.--Urthogie 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair?

message: I needed them for reference, whoever erased the entire page can you revert it back? There was a lot of useful information and links through out the discussion. I need access to the archive.Taharqa 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no clue... they were red links and I remove them.  Just use page history for now.--Urthogie 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where'd the other threads go?

message: The article:
*Even though Tarqah is now gone, I will still add her sources to the various article sections and to the lead, and consider every rational comment she adds.
*I will improve the lead to mention the views of ancient historians.
*I will add a section on Hair.
*I will improve the section on kmt to use sources. I will also add more on language.
*I will add the Sphynx's nubian appearence to the art and architecture section, per Nkuka Luka's comments.
*I will improve and build up the Background section.
*I will improve and expand upon the discarded hypotheses section.
*I will make various style changes to make the article look better.
*I will clean up and double check references.
*I will submit the article for scientific peer review once it has the acceptance of the editors on this talk page.
For all of this to be accomplished, the following will be required on the talk page:
*No more personal attacks, per Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
*We should avoid conflicting over two issues at once.
*We should argue against arguments, not editors.
*We should keep this a relatively non-stressful experience, and leave our prejudices at the door.
Thank you,--Urthogie 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a couple of comments on the future of this page 

message: Taharqa must come back. He is a powerful thinker and contributor. We all make mistakes. Urthogie in this must recognize that he pushes people to the extreme. Myself I am sorry to Urthogie for the pain I caused to him, but he has to know that he takes initiative contrary to the consensus, like the coming back of the picture of the tomb of Seti I which was removed after a consultation being an artistic rendering. I have more access to French and Italian litteratures. Tahaqa to English. I am more a Historian, Taharqa a Scientist. He must come back. I cannot fully trust Urthogie, because he changes too quickly his mood. Now, for example, he looks like the owner of the article. Is this normal? In the past, Taharqa admired him calling him a sensitive man. But what now? Taharqa must come back. Urthorgie, like anybody who "knows" Egypt can contribute. But, Taharqa, not only knows Egypt, but he is also an African. This is a great advantage, because he feels things from inside, Egypt being an African Civilization. Taharqa, I am not happy with your silence. Please say something, something positive, meaning you are coming back. Could you begin contributing with the Sphinx? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though my mood changes, it never gets to the point where I call people stupid and incapable of discussion.  I will only agree to continue working with Taharqa if rules of discussion are laid out.--Urthogie 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you to both Taharqa and Urthogie. Muntuwandi is discreet, but present. Thank you also to him! There are still many things to do to improve this article. A bit of patience to each one of us will be for sure of great help! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reclaiming Taharqa

message: *Paul Johnson, the Civilization of Ancient Egypt:
They a metal rare in the Old assumed they had always inhabited the Nile valley as a distinctive race... (page 10)
*Frank Yurco:
As these examples illustrate, Egypt's relations with its neighbors were based upon political concerns; ethnicity had only a coincidental, secondary role, and from all the evidence extant, the Egyptians were not race conscious...
*The image the 4 races of the world, even if you think it is an inaccurate drawing, really did represent the idea that the Egyptians were a race of the world, and Nubiabns were another, and Semites another, etc.
Thanks, --Urthogie 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more an issue of finding better sources.  These ones aren't perfect, but it's basically a verifiable fact like you said that they weren't race conscious.--Urthogie 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Egyptians thinking of themselves as distinct

message: Taharqa, in the past, there was "a section" (?), I don't remember well, on the Sphinx. I would like the Sphinx coming back because many writers commented about it as unveiling (or indicative of ) the race of the original (before the invation of the Semitic and Indo-European speaking peoples) Egyptians. The section "Art and architecture" might have a contribution on the Sphinx and, why not on those pictures we were debating (how much they can help determine the race of the ancient Egyptians). Please Taharqa, can you help writing this section? Thank you for the initial informations you found for the section "Ancient History". Very nice and instructive indeed! Urthogie, I think, will not disagree on the coming back of the Sphinx. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 06:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the sphynx should be added to the art an architecture section.--Urthogie 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Taharqa, can you find informations in English about the commentaries of D. Vivant Denon on the Sphinx of Guizeh to be added to the article? He was an artist. He took part in the expedition of Bonaparte to Egypt and, once there, made a design of the Sphinx. Here are some informations in French http://www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=155. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Urthogie, if you know views stating that the Sphinx is not made out of a Black African background, please bring them to the article. Myself I have to confess that I haven't met them yet. Of cause, your contribution is also expected. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the sphynx looks black to me.  But rulers are oten portrayed in several colors, from brown to black to green.--Urthogie 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: From the right lateral tracing of the statue's worn profile a pattern of bimaxilliary prognathism is clearly detectable. This is an anatomical condition of forward development in both jaws, more frequently found in people of African ancestry than in those from Asian or Indo-European stock. Taharqa 05:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A letter to the editor is not a usable source.--Urthogie 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sphinx

message: How about we add a section on race of slaves and prisoners.  It seems like they came in all sorts of colors from both north and south.--Urthogie 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are those slaves and prisoners Egyptians to be dealt with in this article? According to me, such a section will bring confusions! I don't see the link between race and slavery, or between race and punishment. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the thing is they're not Egyptians but we can clear up some of the portrayals.  The connection between race is just to show that they were of all races.--Urthogie 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not a good idea. The article is not on races, but on the race of the ancient Egyptians. It is better to focus on the subject. Let's wait for the suggestions of other contributors. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the slaves were in Egypt so it kind of seems relevant.--Urthogie 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested section 

message: 
^What's the problem with this section?Taharqa 05:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.--Urthogie 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diop's Melanin tests 

message: Taharqa, there was no source provided for Afrocentric criticism except this: http://u.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,211~23523~2921859,00.html . Dead link.  Need a source for that paragraph.  Thank you, --Urthogie 20:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't bring it back till you've addressed this.--Urthogie 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Where in that article is the Afrocentric criticism claimed in the article?  Also, please move the broader discussion of the limits of research to another section, as this section should only cover stuff specific to King Tut.--Urthogie 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's good info but could you put it in a higher up section somewhere? It's not just specific to King tut.  I'll check out the link.--Urthogie 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If it relates to Senu as well why is it under King Tut?--Urthogie 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It goes against style guidelines.  I'm just sayin though.--Urthogie 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right.  My mistake.  Hadn't noticed you changed it. --Urthogie 22:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed criticism paragraph 

message: Some the photos of Senusret III  shown here appear quite african.  I am looking for a free image to use.Muntuwandi 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A source is required who makes this comment to include him in the article.  Otherwise it's OR.--Urthogie 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, don't go ahead until the "race" or appearence of the image is mentioned by a source, similar to the Sphynx or Nefertiti, which are both mentioned in reference to race.--Urthogie 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urthogie, as far as I can understand, the race of Nefertiti or the appearance of the Sphinx are not mentioned by your "sources". Can you show me how they are mentioned? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Senusret III

message: We've been arguing a lot, Taharqa, so let's first lay out what we agree on:
* That Egypt was originally inhabited by nomads from Africa.
* That the ancient Egyptian crania cluster with Sudanese and Nubians more so than they do with Europeans.
* That the ancient Egyptian crania cluster with Southwest Asians more so than they do with Europeans.
* That the ancient Egyptian crania cluster more with Southwest Asians than sub-Saharan Africans cluster with Southwest Asians.
* That there are severaly difficulties with cranial analysis, and that there is therefore some room to Odisagree among both scientists and those who read them.
We disagree in regards to:
* Whether the idea of "africanity" is a valid one
* Where exactly ancient Egyptians cluster genetically, cranially, etc. in regards to neighboring populations both North and South.
We both think that one another's opinions on these questions aren't within the bounds of the research (or perhaps even common sense) on the issue.  We will have to agree to disagree, and I suggest we avoid long dialectical arguments.  
In regards to Senu, the third opinion that I asked for came here and agreed with me that the paragraph constituted original research.  I therefore suggest that we remove this paragraph from Senu's section.
:Please take another look at what I wrote. I agreed with you that the paragraph was OR, but I also contended that the entire Senu section was not based on a reliable source, and should be removed entirely. If you disagree with my analysis, please note it in the section "remove OR"; I would be happy to discuss this further. --AndyR 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave a comment there.  You missed out on a key point in suggesting it be removed.--Urthogie 17:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Africoid is a scientific fossil. Noone calls anything Africoid today.--Urthogie 15:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what we agree on, and some stuff about the article 

message: Here are my suggestions/plans:
*We should use Wikipedia:Harvard referencing, to clean up our references.  This means we will have to expand this Bibliography section.  I have already begun this as you can see.
*We still have many stubs, some not even having any content whatsoever.  Taharqa, you will have to write the Afrocentrist section if you want it to be good.  I can't be expected to explain their views very well, we agree on that.
*We should include some of the useful stuff referenced at this site: http://www.geocities.com/enbp/.  Of course, we won't use the website as a source, but it is a good launching point for finding further sources/information.  It also has several good images.
*We need to eliminate long quotes where possible, and convert them into prose.  This should be easier since we will be using Harvard style, which allows us to just say...New studies have found X. (Author, 1999a)....without having to quote them in full every time.--Urthogie 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the site is stupid in that the author references studies of modern egyptians several times, like (Di Rienzo, A., et al.  1994).  He says that shows egyptians are not genetically as similar to Africans as Sardinians, but fails to mention its modern not ancient egyptians being studied.  Nonetheless, despite its bias, it does represent some sources I hadn't read before that are relevant for this article.  I'm making sure not to use this biased source, just using it as a jumping off point.--Urthogie 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The article's title is Ancient egypt and race, not Ancient egypt and race research.  This means we have to cover all angles.  There's nothing wrong with this.--Urthogie 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  further development of the articles 

message: Please discuss why all of these sections are needed Urthogie, and your obscure quote from Keita for Near Eastern influence will not suffice, it is not put into context and misrepresents Keita's study and conclusion in that particular study. And stop erasing my contributions and replacing them with yoursTaharqa 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're removing several sources.  Please justify these removals.  For example, you replaced Svorra's views on ancient Egypt with his views on modern Egypt.  Why?  And why remove the sections on demographic influence, which I plan to grow very much?  Please justify before revert, per our earlier agreement.--Urthogie 23:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just asking why you're removing my sources.  Please supply a reason before you revert.--Urthogie 23:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll add them when I get the chance.  Please help by adding them.--Urthogie 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, please reply before removals.--Urthogie 00:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: hmm.. good point about me splitting it up too much.  it seems like its impossible to discuss demographic influences without discussing them all together.  I'll merge them.--Urthogie 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I think the demographic influences section is pretty neutral now.--Urthogie 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything in the section is sourced...--Urthogie 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please quote which line is not sourced.  I want to see it, truly.--Urthogie 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many sections

message: You've erased so many of my contributions and switched so many things around, i insist that you revert everything and discuss this first, you didn't even discuss it before you made all of these changes. You erased various amounts of sourced material put in context, why are you rampaging?Taharqa 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing against you adding content, but you are the one who is removing what I add.  For example, you removed about a fourth of the article here: .  Feel free to add, but do not remove sourced material without a damn good reason.--Urthogie 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think Egyptians believed in race...and you can go ahead and add the Yurco quote back, I just thought it was redundant, since we already made clear what he said in other ways in the lead. Perhaps it would fit better in the Ancient Egyptian view section? What else do you want brought back?  We don't disagree as much as you think... it'd help if you'd stop blanking parts of the article without reason though, especially considering i support most of your additions.--Urthogie 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think Egyptians believed in race...and you can go ahead and add the Yurco quote back, I just thought it was redundant, since we already made clear what he said in other ways in the lead. Perhaps it would fit better in the Ancient Egyptian view section? What else do you want brought back?  We don't disagree as much as you think... it'd help if you'd stop blanking parts of the article without reason though, especially considering i support most of your additions.--Urthogie 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert back all of my contributions please

message: Was the bust of Cleopatra made by (an) Egyptian artist(s) to be put / mentioned in the section "Art and architecture"? I don't understand the meaning of this initiative. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleopatra

message: Again, I made many edits and I need you to address this one by one, thank you.Taharqa 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I will continue to change the whole page because you removed so much at once.  Before long we will have complete consensus on what this page should look like though, so don't worry if there's back and forth.--Urthogie 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Every policy I've broken you've broken as well-- for example 3RR we break every single day that we edit.  Reporting me would get you reported as well.  Seems kind of pointless to get us both blocked for weeks.  It's not like you can remove a bunch of stuff several times, and I can't.  That's a double standard.  The sooner we get consensus the sooner this shit will end, so don't worry about it.  We'll reach compromise.--Urthogie 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You won't get anything done without compromise but an edit war.  The page will just deteriorate because of your refusal.--Urthogie 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taharqa, please try to compromise with Urthogie. But, Urthogie, I know you well! You removed my contributions from the "External links" to prevent people having access to the videos of Basil Davidson on ancient Egypt and to an article of Cheikh Anta Diop on the same subject. Let me not speak about the section "Sphinx" restaured by Muntuwandi, if I remember well, you removed. You said that there was a consensus. There was not. You made an interpretation in a sense of a consensus to satisfy your desires. Actually I am planing to bring back the videos of Basil Davidson and the article of Cheikh Anta Diop in the "External links". I want also to know what other contributors think about restoring the section on the Sphinx. This is a very important peace of art which stands at the beginning of the Egyptian History (Old Kingdom) and which has been discussed a lot by great writers in reference to the racial caracteristics of the Egyptians. It cannot just be reduced to a very little comment as it is now. It can be treated in a section a part from the section "Art and architecture". We will see if this time Urthogie is willing to collaborate to the improvement of the article. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, add back the external links.. just get Taharqa to stop being so hot headed.--Urthogie 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop reverting the entire page Urthogie 

message: Could Muntuwandi or Taharqa restore the Sphinx section? For historical reasons, the Sphinx deserves an entire section. I think Urthogie will this time understand the need for this important section which was removed days ago. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mainly a contribution by Muntuwandi. I was just trying to rescue it without success. It was gone! Is this time the best for its return? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well if you restore it along with removing my contributions, then nothing will be accomplished.--Urthogie 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sphinx

message: Taharqa, any section you want added can be added back.  I can even add it for you.  However, first you must stop being a baby.  It is babyish and immature to talk about "its too late" to compromise because you feel slighted.  I am tired of hearing your incessant whining about "vandalism."  Do you even know what vandalism is?  It means replacing the page with curse words and such.  This is an insult to the work I've done for this page, to say I am defacing it, when I'm actually adding sources to it, and working to compromise.
Also, stop threatening to get me blocked.  First off, that threat is empty because you have violated the 3RR rule just as much as me (as well as made personal attacks, which I haven't done), so there's no point in both of us getting blocked because we can work this out if you'll stop being so immature about it.  Secondly, it makes it impossible to work with you when you rely on rudeness and nothing gets done.
So, like I said, name any section and I'll add it back myself.  But remember the golden rule-- treat others as you would like to be treated.  Do not remove things that I have added, if you don't want your content removed.
The Sphynx, Yurco, all of them will be brought back if you will stop removing my content.  Agreed? --Urthogie 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're breaking it too.  I don't care, but at least admit this isn't one sided.  You call me delusional but you are the only person I know who thinks a two-way feud is one way.  If you want your contributions kept, don't remove mine.--Urthogie
However you want to call it, There's witnesses here that will testify to the fact that you do this all of the time by blanking out cited sources, I'm only restoring it and trying to start from scratch and you keep reverting the original material. We can't let that slide, I'm willing to start from scratch and address everything one by one, but you only want to control and vandalize the article, so be it.Taharqa 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Simply add what you need one by one with out changing or removing anything"  That's what I've been asking you to do all day.--Urthogie 22:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  trying for a compromise