Talk:Population history of Egypt
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Population history of Egypt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 20 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Inclusion of Siobhan Shinn
[edit]Why is she be included among the "highest" rated sources ?. She is a PhD student in archaeology. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I added to the statement a bit to help avoid ambiguity. I think it could be considered interesting to some. I personally don't really have any reservations about it being kept or removed at others' discretion. I leave it at your and others' discretion to keep or remove based on your criteria. I understand your concern (even if I tend to favor keeping content as mentioned). @Wdford maybe it seems less relevant, and I just want to add that I found the fractal reference in the article in particular super cool. I actually searched images of Egyptian architecture after I saw it (I never thought of them as fractals) and it made me want to read more about it. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena Thanks for contributing on that but the consensus was to feature the highest rated sources and this is a PhD student with a limited history of publications. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- The definition of "highest rated sources" was never finalised, but it seems to have been interpreted quite generously. There is even a paragraph included about the pyramids having been designed according to African fractals, although this is not mainstream scholarship by any means. This book was published by a reputable scholarly publisher, it comprises papers presented at a recent conference in this exact topic and hosted by a major university, and the papers were vetted for inclusion by two editors who are both experts in the fields of study represented here. Fractals? Seriously? Wdford (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Wdford I needed to know the rationale behind her inclusion. Belanger has reviewed it and provided further context. Eglash is a esteemed professor at the University of Michigan. This is pertinent to the sub-section on culture. I don't see how it is not mainstream, as cultural affinities to Sub-Saharan regions have been acknowledged by other scholars such as Smith, Wilkinson and Yurco. However, considering we have included Shinn then I think we can permit Eglash. WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- The definition of "highest rated sources" was never finalised, but it seems to have been interpreted quite generously. There is even a paragraph included about the pyramids having been designed according to African fractals, although this is not mainstream scholarship by any means. This book was published by a reputable scholarly publisher, it comprises papers presented at a recent conference in this exact topic and hosted by a major university, and the papers were vetted for inclusion by two editors who are both experts in the fields of study represented here. Fractals? Seriously? Wdford (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Excessive citations cleanup tag, July 2024
[edit]The article is beleagured by many examples of citation overkill (WP:CITEKILL). There are indeed instances where excessive citations are needed to support controversial statements about living people, but none of the article's claims seem to require heavy amounts of support, and the article's readability is really suffering. Looking at the talk page, I imagine there are motivational reasons behind this, and I am reticent to become involved in detangling them at the current moment, especially when considering that the article is being actively edited; perhaps one of the active editors can go some way to address this. Neatly95 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There is an issue with EgyptMENA. This user has been arbitrarily removing reliable sources and content that has existed in the page for over a year.
All of the sources featured in the main page are from reliable sources (professional historians, anthropologists and academics. This page highlights the population history of Egypt and does not exclude multidisciplinary approaches. Any content that is contentious should be discussed and raised via talk page. Assuming the content is reliable then it should be given entry but weighed i.e. not receive undue weight depending on the subject matter.
Content cannot be unilaterally removed depending on personal predilections as it can easily lead to a selective view in which articles has notable omissions which presents a misleading view of the population history for general readership. Hence, any content that is removed should be reviewed/discussed per user consensus.
Dealmeida87 has also been notified and shared similar sentiments on abrupt removal without justified grounds. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- With all due respect but historians, anthropologists and academics who are not geneticists are not reliable sources on criticizing peer-reviewed genetic studies published in well-respected journals. Keita and Ehret have/had ideological conflict of interest with the results of those DNA studies. Their inputs are already in the entry under other sections, which I have not removed, but they should not be under the DNA section. EgyptMENA (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- @EgyptMENA This is personal assertion. You are claiming that Keita and Ehret have "ideological views" when they are simply criticising the DNA studies on legitimate grounds based on the methodology and sampling approach (limited sample sizes, comparative groups, over-generalisations) . There is no reason why they should not be included, especially as genetics has to be reviewed with other forms of data (archaeological, historical, linguistic and anthropology) to examine the population history of Egypt from a multidisciplinary perspective. This is a personal assertion and there is no need to omit information from wider readership. There were also other content deleted from other studies.WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Okay I am not going to argue. I am not deleting their input but it needs to be put into context of other anthropological and genetic studies, which I believe is fair enough. EgyptMENA (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- @EgyptMENA In that case, those views can have their own sub-section under the DNA studies perhaps something along the lines of multidisciplinary interpretations. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I fully agree with the considerations made by WikiUser4020. I would also add that studies of limb proportions continue to be widely used in mainstream science to investigate population affinities and phenotypic affinities, so I consider their exclusion to be completely arbitrary and unacceptable. Therefore, I understand that the content of the article should return to what it was before the edits made by the neophyte user EgyptMENA.Constructive contributions are always welcome on Wikipedia, arbitrary deletions are not. Dealmeida87 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I support Dealmeida87's view on this. Content should be included as along it is from a reliable published source. This has been the consensual approach for editing the articles. That said, in future, all publications should be given relative weight and reviewed via talk section if it becomes an area of contention. WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I fully agree with the considerations made by WikiUser4020. I would also add that studies of limb proportions continue to be widely used in mainstream science to investigate population affinities and phenotypic affinities, so I consider their exclusion to be completely arbitrary and unacceptable. Therefore, I understand that the content of the article should return to what it was before the edits made by the neophyte user EgyptMENA.Constructive contributions are always welcome on Wikipedia, arbitrary deletions are not. Dealmeida87 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- @EgyptMENA In that case, those views can have their own sub-section under the DNA studies perhaps something along the lines of multidisciplinary interpretations. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Okay I am not going to argue. I am not deleting their input but it needs to be put into context of other anthropological and genetic studies, which I believe is fair enough. EgyptMENA (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- @EgyptMENA This is personal assertion. You are claiming that Keita and Ehret have "ideological views" when they are simply criticising the DNA studies on legitimate grounds based on the methodology and sampling approach (limited sample sizes, comparative groups, over-generalisations) . There is no reason why they should not be included, especially as genetics has to be reviewed with other forms of data (archaeological, historical, linguistic and anthropology) to examine the population history of Egypt from a multidisciplinary perspective. This is a personal assertion and there is no need to omit information from wider readership. There were also other content deleted from other studies.WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- C-Class Egypt articles
- High-importance Egypt articles
- WikiProject Egypt articles
- C-Class Ancient Egypt articles
- High-importance Ancient Egypt articles
- C-Class Africa articles
- Top-importance Africa articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- C-Class geography articles
- Mid-importance geography articles
- WikiProject Geography articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- C-Class history articles
- High-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles