-7

This label

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

was attached to this answer reflected at revisions as

Notice added Citation needed by T.E.D.♦

Directly asked T.E.D.♦ at comments what specific citations they were requesting, to which question have not received any response.

Subsequently edited answer to include citations and kindly asked for the "add citations" label to be removed from the answer. Have not received any response and the label is still attached to the answer.

Citations have been added to the answer. Kindly remove the "add citations" label from the answer.

  • @MarkC.Wallace What happened to your posted answer to the question? – guest271314 Aug 5 '18 at 20:46
11

I've read though your answer and I can see a number of points that - in my opinion - clearly justify the post notice. I'm not saying the examples here are exhaustive, but they should help clarify the problem.


Firstly, it is not at all clear from your answer why you think that the date of printing the modern Bible has anything to do with the date that the Book of Ezekiel was written, or its historical veracity.

It is even less clear to me why you think the story of Noah and the flood has anything at all to do with this question.

From the context, I suspect that the point you are trying to make is simply that the Bible is, at best, an unreliable historical source.

If that is the case, then I'd suggest that you simply say so and pick one of the many available reliable sources to cite and support your case. If your point is supposed to be something different, then I'd suggest that this part of your answer probably needs to be re-written with clear and reliable sources that support the point you are trying to make.


We then come to some rather more specific and problematic cases.

Your claim that

"The Ancient Egyptian civilization is at least 25,000 years old, as reflected in the procession of the equinoxes encoded into the so-called "Giza complex", where the Great Pyramid of Khufu still stands"

is entirely unsupported by the sources that you cite. As far as I can see, not one of your 3 sources actually makes that claim.

[As an aside, I'd generally recommend that if you're going to cite multiple sources in that way, you should at least do your readers the courtesy of placing them on seperate lines, so that it is easy to see they are, actually, seperate sources.]

In fact, the Ancient Egyptian civilisation is generally accepted to have originated in the Neolithic with the Faiyum A culture in Lower Egypt (with evidence dating back to about 6000 BCE), and the Badari culture, which has given us the earliest evidence of agriculture and permanent settlement in Upper Egypt dating to around 5000 BCE. These were followed by the more-familiar Naqada cultures.

If you wish to make the claim that "The Ancient Egyptian civilization is at least 25,000 years old", you are going to need to support that claim with some fairly solid evidence. As it stands you have presented no such evidence. A citation of some sort (preferably something reliable) is therefore required for this assertion.


You then state that:

"At some point western academia states that those original African people mated with the different species Neanderthal, and Denisovan."

However, you don't cite a source for this claim. Again, this is a problem.

Now, I'm fully aware of the current debate about whether Neanderthals should be considered a sub-species of Homo Sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, or an entirely separate species, Homo neanderthalensis. I'm not at all sure that everyone who visits this site and reads your answer will also share that awareness.

That debate is ongoing and as yet is not settled, so if you wish to make this claim then you are going to have to back it up with evidence.


[In fact, those who wish to argue that they are separate species face a problem in that, part of the definition of a species is that:

"... organisms within a species produce fertile offspring".

Since we now have DNA evidence that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did in fact produce fertile offspring (even if that turns out to have been limited to the female line), that means that they must have been the same species by the current definition of the term "species".

Now, it may well be that the definition of species actually needs to be refined in the light of new evidence from sources like DNA. Eventually, it may come down to a simple matter of semantics, but in any event, the debate is ongoing. What is clear is that the new evidence is revealing a more nuanced reality through the research efforts of modern western academia and modern western science.]


I was under the impression that we had dealt with the claims that you make about DNA evidence and Ramesses III in my answer to your previous question.

In short, the article by David Sepuya Kalanzi does not accurately reflect the report by DNA Tribes. What they actually said in their Digest, dated 1 February 2013, was:

These results indicate that both Ramesses III and Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer) shared an ancestral component with present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This preliminary analysis based on eight STR markers does not identify the percentages of Sub-Saharan African ancestry for these ancient individuals. This preliminary analysis also does not exclude additional ancestral components (such as Near Eastern or Mediterranean related components) for these ancient pharaonic Egyptians.

In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years.

Now, the post notice states,

Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here.

  • my emphasis

In this context, the source used by a journalist will always be considered to be more reliable than any article they write. Given my answer to your previous question, it might be considered disingenuous at best to cite the same (unreliable) source here in the same context.

In fact, the latest DNA analysis that I'm aware of (involving 166 samples from 151 mummified individuals), which provides:

"the first reliable data set obtained from ancient Egyptians using high-throughput DNA sequencing methods and assessing the authenticity of the retrieved ancient DNA via characteristic nucleotide misincorporation patterns and statistical contamination tests to ensure the ancient origin of [the] data"

found that the ancient Egyptians actually most closely resembled ancient and modern Near Eastern and European populations, especially those in the Levant.

Now, this is entirely consistent with the claims made in the actual report from DNA Tribes, given the caveats I quoted above, but would seem to make a complete nonsense of the article that you have cited as your source. Again, a reliable citation would be required to support your claim.


There are also some other less-glaring instances that, in my opinion, would benefit from additional (reliable) citations - more for the benefit of those less familiar with the subject than because the points are particularly contentious. However, in my experience instances like these would not usually result in the answer being flagged by our users, and so receiving a post notice from a moderator.

I hope you find this feedback helpful.


Perhaps your question does raise one important point though. It is possible that the wording of the post notice should be made more clear. Maybe the final sentence should read something like:

"Unsourced material, or assertions supported by only unreliable or dubious sources, may be disputed or deleted".

Do you think that would be an improvement?

-10

I've read though your answer and I can see a number of points that - in my opinion - clearly justify the post notice. I'm not saying the examples here are exhaustive, but they should help clarify the problem.

There is no "problem" with the original answer. Reasoning: The "problem" is with the biases of the moderators who evidently think they are tenured professors at a college, users are their students, and answers are to be graded by them. Moderators are just people with ideas, the same as any other person.

Firstly, it is not at all clear from your answer why you think that the date of printing the modern Bible has anything to do with the date that the Book of Ezekiel was written, or its historical veracity.

It is even less clear to me why you think the story of Noah and the flood has anything at all to do with this question.

From the context, I suspect that the point you are trying to make is simply that the Bible is, at best, an unreliable historical source.

If that is the case, then I'd suggest that you simply say so and pick one of the many available reliable sources to cite and support your case. If your point is supposed to be something different, then I'd suggest that this part of your answer probably needs to be re-written with clear and reliable sources that support the point you are trying to make.

The Bible is mythology, fables, and cult stories created for political purposes, see Original Torah: The Political Intent of the Bible's Writers by S. David Sterling

of Abraham, Rebecca, Jacob, and Leah in Hebron originated as cult sites of Canaanite gods and goddesses

The Bible is not a historical document, period. The Bible, including all of its content is completely historically worthless, without exception. Reasoning: The story of Noah's Flood is completely inconsistent and irreconcilable with the actual historical record left by the African Ancient Egyptians. The Temple of Seti I at Abydos proves that the unbroken lines of "kings" of Ancient Egypt spans before, during and after the fable of the flood of Noah.

We then come to some rather more specific and problematic cases.

Your claim that

"The Ancient Egyptian civilization is at least 25,000 years old, as reflected in the procession of the equinoxes encoded into the so-called "Giza complex", where the Great Pyramid of Khufu still stands"

is entirely unsupported by the sources that you cite. As far as I can see, not one of your 3 sources actually makes that claim.

As far as you can see is not the entirety of what is capable of being seen by others. You can be myopic in your perception, which you have been in your answer to this question.

The first humans did not know how long a solar year was until the first solar year that they observed completed. The same reasoning applies to procession of the equinoxes being encoded into the so-called "Giza complex".

That is, the only way for the African Ancient Egyptians to accurately or approximately calculate the procession of the equinoxes, or the Great Year, is the have actually have observed the entire cycle.

Since there has been confusion as to the reasoning for drawing the above conclusion, to avoid such confusion, attribute that portion of this answer to this user: guest271314.

[As an aside, I'd generally recommend that if you're going to cite multiple sources in that way, you should at least do your readers the courtesy of placing them on seperate lines, so that it is easy to see they are, actually, seperate sources.]

A comma or semi-colon suffices to separate sources.

In fact, the Ancient Egyptian civilisation is generally accepted to have originated in the Neolithic with the Faiyum A culture in Lower Egypt (with evidence dating back to about 6000 BCE), and the Badari culture, which has given us the earliest evidence of agriculture and permanent settlement in Upper Egypt dating to around 5000 BCE. These were followed by the more-familiar Naqada cultures.

If you wish to make the claim that "The Ancient Egyptian civilization is at least 25,000 years old", you are going to need to support that claim with some fairly solid evidence. As it stands you have presented no such evidence. A citation of some sort (preferably something reliable) is therefore required for this assertion.

"genreally accepted" does not preclude the possibility that what is "generally accepted" is simply inaccurate; wrong; or intentionally misleading misinformation.

In this case, the above simple reasoning establishes the fact that one cannot accurately or approximately calculate the procession of the equinoxes without actually observing the complete cycle of the procession of the equinoxes at least once: approximately 26,000 years.

You then state that:

"At some point western academia states that those original African people mated with the different species Neanderthal, and Denisovan."

However, you don't cite a source for this claim. Again, this is a problem.

Since western academia states that all human life originated in Africa, those first humans who traveled "out of Africa" were still indigenous Africans, and remained so. That is, until they mated with another species. Else, those original humans, and indeed, all humans today are all still African.

Now, I'm fully aware of the current debate about whether Neanderthals should be considered a sub-species of Homo Sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, or an entirely separate species, Homo neanderthalensis. I'm not at all sure that everyone who visits this site and reads your answer will also share that awareness.

That debate is ongoing and as yet is not settled, so if you wish to make this claim then you are going to have to back it up with evidence.

[In fact, those who wish to argue that they are separate species face a problem in that, part of the definition of a species is that:

"... organisms within a species produce fertile offspring".

Since we now have DNA evidence that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did in fact produce fertile offspring (even if that turns out to have been limited to the female line), that means that they must have been the same species by the current definition of the term "species".

Now, it may well be that the definition of species actually needs to be refined in the light of new evidence from sources like DNA. Eventually, it may come down to a simple matter of semantics, but in any event, the debate is ongoing. What is clear is that the new evidence is revealing a more nuanced reality through the research efforts of modern western academia and modern western science.]

We do not need to and are not required to wait for other scholars to settle their debate to draw our own conclusions from the available facts. Again, those who are still engaged in their "debate" are just people with ideas. All humans are just people with ideas. Western academias ideas are of not more or less value than the ideas of people who refute western academic ideas - without waiting for those western academics to settle their internal debates.

I was under the impression that we had dealt with the claims that you make about DNA evidence and Ramesses III in my answer to your previous question.

In short, the article by David Sepuya Kalanzi does not accurately reflect the report by DNA Tribes. What they actually said in their Digest, dated 1 February 2013, was:

These results indicate that both Ramesses III and Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer) shared an ancestral component with present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This preliminary analysis based on eight STR markers does not identify the percentages of Sub-Saharan African ancestry for these ancient individuals. This preliminary analysis also does not exclude additional ancestral components (such as Near Eastern or Mediterranean related components) for these ancient pharaonic Egyptians.

In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years.

No impression was given that the African Ancient Egyptians did not have their origin in sub-Saharan Africa.

Genetic Analysis

Geographical analysis of Ramesses III and Unknown Man E (possibly Ramesses’ son Pentawer) was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on eight tested loci.9,10 Results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 2-3.

Discussion: Results in Table 1 indicate that the autosomal STR profiles for both Ramesses and Unknown Man E are most frequent in present day regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and also found in Near Eastern regions at lower frequencies.

Among present day world populations, Ramesses III’s autosomal STR profile is most frequent in the African Great Lakes region, where it is approximately 335.1 times as frequent as in the world as a whole (see Table 1 and Figure 2). Unknown Man E’s autosomal STR profile is most frequent in the Southern Africa region, where it is approximately 134.6 times as frequent as in the world as whole (see Table 1 and Figure 3). Both autosomal STR profiles are also found in the Levantine region that includes populations of present day Egypt, but are substantially more frequent in regions of Sub-Saharan Africa (see Table 1). Specifically, both of these ancient individuals inherited the alleles D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7, which are found throughout Sub-Saharan Africa but are comparatively rare or absent in other regions of the world. These African related alleles are different from the African related alleles identified for the previously studied Amarna period mummies (D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).11 This provides independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different pharaonic families of New Kingdom Egypt.

Though Ramses DNA only reflects their DNA, not the actual origin of the Nile Valley culture.

Now, the post notice states,

Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here.

  • my emphasis In this context, the source used by a journalist will always be considered to be more reliable than any article they write. Given my answer to your previous question, it might be considered disingenuous at best to cite the same (unreliable) source here in the same context.

In fact, the latest DNA analysis that I'm aware of (involving 166 samples from 151 mummified individuals), which provides:

"the first reliable data set obtained from ancient Egyptians using high-throughput DNA sequencing methods and assessing the authenticity of the retrieved ancient DNA via characteristic nucleotide misincorporation patterns and statistical contamination tests to ensure the ancient origin of [the] data"

found that the ancient Egyptians actually most closely resembled ancient and modern Near Eastern and European populations, especially those in the Levant.

Now, this is entirely consistent with the claims made in the actual report from DNA Tribes, given the caveats I quoted above, but would seem to make a complete nonsense of the article that you have cited as your source. Again, a reliable citation would be required to support your claim.

The culture and deities of the African Ancient Egyptians reflect an sub-Saharan origin which spread down north from up south, not up south from down north.

If there is a scholarly disagreement as to the facts and interpretation relevant to the DNA analysis, then so be it. The study of history is rife with disagreement and different interpretation of facts. No one is under the compulsion to accept your interpretation of facts. Especially when your interpretation is being construed here as inherently biased towards a non-sub-Sarahan origin of the African Ancient Egyptians, or the view that people need to "wait" for some other group of people to "settle" their own disagreements; and to be direct, your analysis of the available data relevant to the subject matter is substantially incorrect and historically inaccurate.

There are also some other less-glaring instances that, in my opinion, would benefit from additional (reliable) citations - more for the benefit of those less familiar with the subject than because the points are particularly contentious. However, in my experience instances like these would not usually result in the answer being flagged by our users, and so receiving a post notice from a moderator.

I hope you find this feedback helpful.

No, your feedback is not helpful relevant to the defacing label you and the group of users and moderators who have decided to pursue your agenda of defacing users' posts with ridiculous defacing labels. Just stop doing it.

Perhaps your question does raise one important point though. It is possible that the wording of the post notice should be made more clear. Maybe the final sentence should read something like:

"Unsourced material, or assertions supported by only unreliable or dubious sources, may be disputed or deleted".

Do you think that would be an improvement?

The defacing label should be immediately removed from this users' answer and not be used at all in the future. An inherently flawed and horrible idea, as detailed here, cannot be improved. The idea to deface users' answers with a so-called "notice" should be abandoned completely.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .