Talk:Badarian culture

Ref 5 link does not connect to assertions contained in wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.182.59 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Keita and Badarians

Like most of Keita’s work, his position on Badarians has been disproven. 69.156.36.187 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

2020 Godde

The link to the study does not lead to a pdf that is accesible. LouisBStevenson (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@LouisBStevenson The article is available on research gate and is also cited in a secondary source cited by the Crawford paper (2021). I will include him as a secondary source for Godde. Please do not hastily delete information which have been properly cited. This raises the question of why the Hanihara (2003) and Blueze (2014) are included in this article when neither of the studies features Badarian samples or comment on their anthropological remains. Please provide an explanation as these studies are not directly relevant and should either be moved to other articles or need to be deleted. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No the link does not lead to an available full text pdf, because it has to be demanded. Provide a link with an available PDF, free and immediate or I will remove your link again and again. LouisBStevenson (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@LouisBStevenson The link does not need an available full text pdf as long as the reference/citation is provided and accessible online. However, if you continue with the disruptive editing and removing content then this will be escalated to other users. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@LouisBStevenson Another issue is your description of the sources. You mischaracterised the Irish et al (2007) paper and stated they criticised the methodology of Keita which was never stated in the actual paper. The Hanihara (2000) paper referenced makes no explicit discussion to the craniofacial relations between Badarian and other African population across any of the several metrics listed. You merely added your own personal interpretation of the table data which is not stated by the authors. http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf. I will include the full context of the Strouhal paper which references 1970s anthropological studies and the dated terminology i.e. "Caucasoids" or "Negroid". WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who has used debunked sources by SOY Keita, an afrocentrist. You seem to do this more often, also on other pages.

The mukherjee paper from 55 is debunked and should never be referenced. You also used a paper by Keita which did not include north africans, which you then removed. Careful.

I included the papers because it is important to note that the badarians were not "tropical africans", and that their limb length of ancient egyptians was NOT tropical, they were NOT negroid, and it is important to state this. LouisBStevenson (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And of course you failed to mention the fact that the whole tropical body plan thing could be due to nubian immigration later on, which I had to add. LouisBStevenson (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The reason I want full pdf access is to check whether your assertions are correct and complete. LouisBStevenson (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Your personal views are clear. The Godde is properly cited and features an accompanying source which restates the same point. Hence, if you continue to remove the text then I will escalate this issue and your account may be blocked for disruptive editing. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And if you keep removing edits I will have your account blocked for disruptive editing and trying to shoehorn afrocentric viewpoints (Keita) into the mix, something for which you have been criticized by other users on the ancient egypt race controversy page. You are warned. LouisBStevenson (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Keita is a mainstream source and your views on Afrocentrism show that your edits are motivated by a personal POV rather than any constructive attempt to improve the quality of the public encyclopedia. I have already contacted other users so this issue should be resolved soon. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The 2003 paper makes it clear that the samples from the Badarians until the Middle Kingdom had tropical body plan and uses that exact language. The author suggest an increase over time may be due to Nubian migration not that the reason the earliest Badarian samples had tropical body plans was due to Nubians. I added the caveat that those sample were small which is the key highlight in the conclusion.Please read the information carefully before mischaracterizing the source information. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)