Talk:Origin of the Nilotic peoples

message: If there is "original research" claimed in the article will someone please specify where and when this "original research" appears? Please provide section, topic and reference to validate this claim. Waziri 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: original research

message: You are invited to add relevant articles and short summaries as per the ancient Egyptians to this page at your convenience: Genetics of the Ancient World following the existing format. Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New article: [[Genetics of the Ancient World]] - Invitation to add content about ancient Egyptians, etc

message: The tone of this is completely inappropriate: reads like an , which we don't permit. It's also basically all orginal synthesis. I'm tempted to redirect the lot to Race of ancient Egyptians unless it's cleaned up reasonably soon. And, it's way too long and at the very least needs drastic cutting. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally disagree. It explores many different approaches of various scholars and covers ground not covered in the Egy Race article, (which also exceeds size guidelines) and the authors cited directly relate and explicity reach the same conclusions based on their research. As for length, most such topics on Wikipedia are long articles. That is normal with such articles. See for example: Race (classification of human beings). Since you have not provided any references or examples showing where for example authors such as Keita, Templeton, et al disagree, or are not related, or where the opposing models of other theories are wrong, an arbitrary redirect is inappropriate. The correct Wikipedia approach is to examine each issue, and let us both have detailed analysis point by point and see what consensus can be reached. If anything the article may need to be expanded with more research. It is actually some 30K smaller than the Race (classification of human beings) article which should also be looked at. More analysis may actually be needed. Palookajim (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, redirected. This is the problem: you're not allowed to "explore" or "analyse" anything on Wikipedia: that's original synthesis. Which is what this article/essay was. It was good original synthesis, but still impermissible. Further, it also violated this little policy, large chunks looking to be nothing more than Afrocentrist advocacy. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually exploration and anaylsis is a big part of what encyclopedia's do. Why have Wikipedia otherwise? Palookajim (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To report on the exploration and analysis of others, actually. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ouch 

message: Do not arbitrarily redirect this page because you do not like the content. Discuss the issues first and provide detailed examples and evidence to back up any claims. That is the Wikepedia way, not arbitrary removal of content you don't like or hiding behind administrative procedures and tags. Arbitrary redirect reversed and will be reversed in the future. This is a second request for proper adherence to the Wikipedia approach. Palookajim (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it's ok. the article just needs massive cleanup and refactoring, but I am sure it contains valuable content. Note how we do not even have an article on Nilotic peoples (redirects to Nilotic languages). In view of this, the presence of a massive, argumentative "origins" article (an article on an ethnic group so for not covered, at all, on Wikipedia) is a red flag raiser. Palookajim, you are welcome to help clean up this problem. If you refuse to help, I do not think it is for you to complain if people resort to a minimal solution. Either way, no hurry, there is no deadline. --dab (𒁳) 16:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Totally disagree. And any arbitrary removal of content or redirects will be simply reversed. Let's save the Admins unnecessary work. Palookajim (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbachmann and I are both admins. And we are saying this content is not acceptable and will be fixed, one way or another. Please stop lawyering. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am perfectly willing to discuss all issues in detail. Let us lay the evidence and references side and side and have a robust debate then. However the quick, arbitrary redirects tells me that removal of certain research content is the primary motivation behind all this. Various users mentioned have been involved in numerous controversies on similar topics, and their ideological stands are pretty clear, again raising certain questions as to motivation. An independent Arbitration may thus be necessary, involving neutral administators, as we proceed. It makes little difference to me. I don't see the need for any "massive refactoring" at all. That sounds like just another pretext. But if you have added research or arguments to bring to the table, by all means, the proper Wikipedia approach is to discuss them in detail and reach consensus, not engage in arbitrary redirects. As for stylistic tone and content like that taken out in the intro, some of that is fine. I have no problem at all for example with the blurb that the article addresses the "Nile Valley" peoples. That area includes parts of the Sudan, Nubia, the Sahara etc.. Some authors use the term "Nilotic" to mean the same thing, but this is the sort of reasonable edit I have no problem with. However, more substantive content or changes need detailed dicussion per Wikipedia guidelines. Arbitrary actions of whatever sort will be reverted especially since neutrality is now an issue. I am open to reasonable edits as to style and tone. I am sure we can all be accomodated with such, and reach a modus vivendi. If you want to tag it too, I am willing to leave that for the moment. Substantive content however needs indepth examination. In fact, more may need to be added to the article as you and various others present your scholarly documentation. Palookajim (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're still not getting it. I have no scholarly material to present. I have no criticisms of your sources whatsoever. I'm sure they are top-class. The problem is in the way you have used these sources, which violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. You're either willfully ignoring the problems this essay has, or just can't see them. No, that's wrong: it's a fine essay, just not an encyclopaedia article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that blanket assessment. Each item of contention should be examined point by point, arguments pro and con examined, and consensus reached on fine-tuning various areas. Essentially you are saying you know very little about the subject matter. As for spliting or merging the article I don't agree with that either. All arguments should be examined in detail, and fine tuning take place. If anything a strong case might be argued that the other pages you mention can themselves be merged elsewhere. On new articles, the proposed Genetical Change in Africa article is a huge topic-  much broader than this one, and would include discussion of evolution, theories of migration out of Africa or Back to Africa etc.. That is way bigger than say the political debates of Afrocentrism or arguments over King Tut's picture, or the narrow slice of anthropology in this page. Such an article would need a different focus, with heavy emphasis on the evolutionary aspects. There are several books on the topic out there. It could also be argued that examining genetical change in the continent as a whole is linked to an understanding of how complex diseases evolved, with implications for modern day models and treatments. Why for example does sickle-cell disease appear not only in Africa but in Greece and Italy as well? What is the evolutionary story? Is it all environmental, or is gene flow between Africa and Europe involved, or both? There is plenty of information to go around for several articles without trying to gut or remove this one arbitrarily. There is no need for any rush. There is plenty of time for fine-tuning as people bring their information forward. There is no deadline as another user says above. Palookajim (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: page redirect