...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Bogus Wikipedia moles exposed and debunked
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] ^^Fair enough. I agree that people should understand the data, if they are going to use it. Agreed that people should go to the actual studies and read them, and get the qualifications and different levels of meaning. <b>If Egyptians have a recenet ethnogenesis based on the mixture of Different African groups there ARE no "Egyptians" proper where a distinction could be made between them and Sudanese that far back.</b> ^^A good point. CErtain would be "Egyptian nativists" are too often trying to posture as if ancient Egyptians sprung up out of thin air- from anything but "Africans." Anywhere else is acceptable- "MEditerranean", "Middle East", Europe. That different AFRICAN groups WITHIN Africa make up the ancient Egytians is something that debunks would be "nativists" and is truer to history than their "Africa-free" claims. <b>You go to google and look for something and it leads you back to Egyptseach where something is being quoted. That is not good. Or it leads you back to some website with 1000 quotes... </b> ^^This is not necessarily a bad thing. Wikipedia is the number one result in Google worldwide on the average. This means that any distorted or bogus evidence on WIkipedia is the primary result people will initially see. SOme never go beyond that. If ES results with verifiable citations anyone can check are coming up first before Wikipedia, it could thus be said that is an excellent thing. It means that the falsifiers and their admin collaborators have utterly failed, and a more balanced picture of Nile Valley and African biohistorical diversity is being placed on the table, worldwide. <b>"Louisville Slugger" is a perfect example. Cant comment on him personally but his methods of spamming and profanity only exist to get him booted and banned from every website available. There is a certain what to say things and it gets to a point where you cannot just say whatever you want to say, any way you want to say it. If a geneticist or anthropologist was familiar with the posts and content of "Louisville Slugger" what do you think would happen if he sent them an email asking for clarification on a specific point? [Frown] Do you think he represents the best and brightest?</b> After looking at the battles and opponents The SLugger has faced, it could be argued he should be commended. Outnumbered by multiple racists who are themselves hurling insults and profanity, The SLugger has fought on vigorously, hitting hard at all comers, who in several instances vacated the field in defeat. The fact that The Slugger has been banned from a number of forums I would say is a badge of honor. They can't deal with the hard data he brings to bear, so they attempt to rig the game using "administrative" means. Same cynical tactics used on Wikipedia with collaborating admins sandbagging legitimate edits and editors. But the ES search results shows that these tactics have failed. And the approach one would use in writing a scholar versus confronting racists on Anthroscape would obviously be different. I would say we need The SLugger's hard, aggressive approach. It is like old time NFL cornerback Fred "the Hammer" Williamson. Go into his backfield, and there would be a price to pay. It should be unmistakeable that those who want a more balanced picture of African bio-history including that of the Nile Valley are unimpressed and unintimidated by Eurocentrism or certain modern Egyptian nativist claims. We don't need their approval, or permission. We don't automatically accept their models. They have to prove themselves. We have our own thing going- our own base, consistent with the facts, and are ready and able to take on all comers to the contrary. Like the old Shakespeare quote from King John says: [i]"Come the three corners of the world in arms, and we shall shock them.."[/i] <b>But I will say we should not be doing Data Dumps. Sure we can do it but it is not the "Best Answer". It allows readers to cheat. It also allows them to accumulate numbers and facts they may no know the true meaning of. PLUS it gives easy access to the Euroclowns......there are some facts they dont even DESERVE to known. With data dumps the students NEVER become teachers. Notice how the "third generation" of Egyptsearch users never really branched out? They are being handicapped.</b> Sure it allows SOME people to not read the actual studies, but on the flip side it makes it easy for interested people to actually locate the information and verify it. It works both ways. ANd precise citations and quotes are critical to highlighting and exposing distortions and falsehoods. Numerous bogus claims about Egyptians for example have been exposed by quoting precisely from Barry Kemp, SMith, Trinkhaus etc where they show that even northern Egyptians in various eras show clear tropical African limb proportion patterns. Precise citations and quotes remove ambiguity about who said what, and force people to clarify their thinking and chain of logic and evidence. Data dumps also are sometimes a necessary counter response to "burial" tactics used by trolls- massive numbers of multiple new threads rehashing the debunked arguments, hoping to bury real evidence. The distortions and falsehoods so easily spun in past years are no longer tenable, thanks to hard-coded citations. In addition, there is a good deal of popular denial or distortion of the reality of Egypt's African heritage. Just making an argument is a weak approach. Hard citations and quotes have to be laid down, removing all doubt, and embarrasing the deniers, and enhancing credibility. If anything I would say we need even more citations and quotes to be distributed even more widely. Even today for example, one can observe numerous black history month initiatives where supporting info has not progressed beyond Diop 1974- CIvilization or Barbarbism.. Much current data confirms Diop but some also contradicts him. People need to update their information. I would say we need EVEN MORE ease of access not less. About 20% of the citations and quotes in the "master listing" above I typed by hand, poring thru GOogleBooks, and locked PDF articles that did not allow text harvesting. The rest is pdf articles that allowed text excerpts to be copied and stuff posted by editors on ES. This information needs to be out there- made easily accessible. And so it has. <b>Multiple approaches- same objective</b> Bottom line- I would say a mix of approaches are needed- your softer approach where information is husbanded and more summarized, and an aggressive full-access citation base where data is harvested from inaccessible sources and distributed to the masses. Both can co-exist. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3