Talk:Origin of the Nilotic peoples

article

This article looks at the peopling and origins of the Nile Valley populations and scholarly anthropological and archealogical views on their origins and movements. Scholars have used many different methods and concepts, and these are presented. It does not deal with popular controversies such as Neferti's skin color, or issues such as the influence of ancient Nile Valley populations on Greece, nor does it deal with the history of ancient Egypt. The reader is directed to other Wikipedia articles for those topics. Scholarly research and its different approaches, with documented findings, not popular speculation, is the main focus of the article, which falls within the anthropology group of Wikipedia articles.

Do you mean this scientific parody seriously? My article about Nilotes was erased one year ago, because it was "original research", but this article is not even able to give an idea about the anthropological and genetic differences among people in the Nile Valley (Egyptians, Nubians/Cushites and Nilotes). Not surprisingly, it uses outdated science produced by renowned PC stars 10-15 years ago. It also uses a misleading title, because the term "Nilotic peoples" is traditionally used for Nilotes from the Upper Nile. Centrum99 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No reply? So you really intend to let this article as it is - in such a primitive form? Why don't you at least list the traditional anthropological division of populations in East Africa - Nilotes, Ethiopids, Mediterranoid Caucasians? Why don't you at least list some basic overview of haplogroup composition in this region? For example, 78% E3b1 in Somalis, 50-60% E3b1 in Ethiopians, but only 17,5% E3b1 in Sudanese - a striking paradox when one takes 42,5% A3b2 in Sudanese (and 27% A3b2 in Nilotic Maasai) into account. Which means that Nilotes (A3b2) and Ethiopids (E3b1) are two populations, whose divergence goes more than 100 000 years far into the past. Not speaking about this joke:

Other researchers however such as Lewontin using the same analysis point out that the genetic affinities attributable to race only make up 6-10% of variant analysis. This is a threshold well below that used to analyze lineages in other species, leading many researches to question the validity of race as a biological construct.

Those 6-10% are entirely sufficient for racial classification both in humans and animals.

http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

Naturally, this is only valid, when one doesn't quote studies, whose authors compare apples with bananas (autosomal Fst with mitochondrial Fst). And furthermore, these numbers are only averages and don't tell the whole picture. In fact, Fst values between human "racial clusters" can reach values exceeding 0.40 (Africans x Australian Aborigines). In general, the article is based on obsolete studies that were debunked by modern clustering studies starting in 2002.

If I don't see any replies to my critics within several months, I will take it as your incapability to adapt to scientific progress and I will rewrite the whole article on my own. 82.100.61.114 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article as originally written, it actually takes up a number of differences between the referenced peoples. The mainstream consensus is that the Niloites were a generally unified population. That is the view of respected mainstream scholar Frank Yurco who is quoted at length on this. It is also the view of modern scholars mapping the human geonome like S. Keita, who is also quoted and referenced at length, including his own DNA studies. In fact Keita is seen as something of a conservative in various parts because his data contradicts some of the more radical theories. And the traditional divisions are discussed. Indeed much new mainstream scholarship shows some old categories like Mediterranean, or the traditional definitions you mention to be problematic. The 6-10% attributable to race- About 6 others mentioned say that this too is problematic, including Alan Templeton who is quoted. Also studies as recently as 2005 are referenced.

Also note that the web link you post actually supports what Lenotwin is saying, and the Fst analysis is itself open to question based on the categories being defined. As noted in the article, many "race" studies have been challenged as establishing categories in advance, then sorting the data into these predefined categories rather than letting the data speak for themselves. Another criticism is what markers people are using for analysis. Is the use of A versus the use of X appropriate and reasonable in terms of defining race? Many mainstream scholars question the picking and choosing of particular items to analyze. The list can go on and on, and can be applied across the board to several Wikipedia articles.

You yourself say one of the reasons your prior article was deleted was that it was seen as original research. The same problem will occur again. Now arguments can go back and forth but what you say above makes it seem as if you will be pushing an already deleted POV theory or series of theories, and various edits suggesting a dual population & other views will be seen in that light. I think that would be unproductive for this article, and is not much real advantage to you. What would be much more productive is if you restart another article, using the page you link to as a basis. It is better to start fresh, where you can develop all the related ideas.

As long as it is reasonable, I would not challenge it but would help you defend it against deletions, etc.. I think this this is a much more productive route to go- a range of scholarship across articles. With a new article you can meet the criticisms others have raised and that in itself would make it balanced and of notable value. I think peaceful co-existence is a more productive way to go by far.

There is a 2007 reference that sums up a lot of the current research

Zakrzewski, S.R. (2007). "Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132 (4): 501-509.  Expressenvelope (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The article started to go in the right direction, but it still contains obsolete pieces of info, not speaking about many suspicious paragraphs looking like a cheap Afrocentric piffle. Unfortunately, I currently have a lot of work with other things, so I can't devote my time to improving this article. 82.100.61.114 (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

original research

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)

New article: Genetics of the Ancient World - Invitation to add content about ancient Egyptians, etc

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)

Ouch

The tone of this is completely inappropriate: reads like an {{essay-entry}}, 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)

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)

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)

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)

To report on the exploration and analysis of others, actually. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

page redirect

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)

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)

Alternatively, if you want to preserve your essay as-is, you may consider moving it to wikibooks. In any case, this isn't Wikipedia material. dab (𒁳) 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A suggestion

The article is nice in many ways but indeed rather long and un-encyclopaedic. An article about X should give the latest consensus about X, and not a study of the history of thinking about X. HOWEVER, there is nothing stopping someone writing an article about the history of thinking on this subject, because it is an important and interesting subject. So my proposal is that the article should be shortened, with the discussion about obsolete or discredited ideas moving to an article on that subject specifically. Obviously this would be linked, and indeed another problem with the present article is that it links to virtually no other ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with fine-tuning the article but the rush to move it, split it or merge it seems like a pretext for other things. As for shortening the article, that is something that can be done with a lot of articles such as Race (classification of human beings) not only this one. I am open to all reasonable edits, provided they are grounded in the scholarship of the field, and are not attempting to gut the article. All the topics mentioned keep cropping up again and again by researchers in the field, hence they are summarized on the page. Language, dna, forensic studies, migration, the sahara, etc. etc. all are standard stuff among researchers. The list can go on and on. Various shortenings must thus be logically argued and based on the scholarship in the field, not a slash and burn approach. On links with other pages, I agree with you there, and there is plenty of time to look at and fine-tune various aspects. Palookajim (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the logic is very simply:

• Subject X goes into one article.
• History of debate about Subject X, goes into another.

It just seems the only logical way to make this an article which will not draw complaints. Personally I think it would be a shame to loose some of the discussion of this article, but editors would currently be fully in their rights to delete large chunks of it and neither of us can really stop that. You don't get to own an Wikipedia article just by writing a lot, even if what you write is of the best possible quality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

True, that is one way to look at it, but having the history of a debate on the subject, along with current info on the subject is also a pretty standard way to organize things in academic literature. It can go both ways. In fact several of the articles referenced do just that. Any editor of course can change anything, and that is fine. I would also change back any unreasonable or unjustified removals or actions, specifying my reasons for doing so. I think there are some editors that want content to build up other articles they have in mind. I would recommend that they borrow whatever they need and build separately rather than trying to reorganize everything across the board. There is plenty of room for everyone, and plenty of time to fine tune rather than quickly rushing to merge, redirect or split. Palookajim (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, having some reference to the history of the debate is quite orthodox, but what we have here is an article which goes a lot further - it seems to be mainly about the history of the debates. What would be typically done in such cases is that a shortened version of the history discussion would be left on this article, with links to offshoot articles. This is all just a suggestion after having looked at the article and then seen the discussions on the discussion page. It is all very to say that you are prepared to revert people if they change the article, but what if you could come up with a solution that made them happy?----Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

While I oppose any quick rush to merge, split or remove sections wholesale, I am open to any constructive changes or proposals rooted in logical reasoning and the mainstream literature, and have already made several suggestions above. And I would not quite call the article a history of debates. It simply reflects the nature of the field. While there is consensus among mainstream anthropologists on certain things, there is wide debate on other issues. It is just the nature of the beast, as even the most cursory acquaintance with the mainstream literature will confirm. My recommendation is to put aside sweeping changes for now. Those who want content for other articles should simply borrow what they need and then add in other research. There is room for everyone without wholesale changes.Palookajim (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely at least some of the old theories you've recounted are long dead?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As stated in their old original form, but according to several current writers, the root issues remain, sometimes under new labels. Methodologies for example remain a big area of debate. Many current mainstream scholars reference previous scholarship in the field in some detail.Palookajim (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)