Talk:Origins of the Hyksos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

"However, it may be that Manetho’s account, as quoted by Josephus, is simply a garbled Egyptian tradition. It should never be forgotten that the recording of history in Egypt, as in many Near Eastern lands, was inseparably linked with its priesthood, under whose tutelage the scribes were trained. So it would not be unusual if, in an effort to rewrite history, the scribes and priests invented some propagandistic explanation to account for the utter failure of the Egyptian gods to prevent the disaster that the Hebrew god brought upon Egypt and its people. In the pages of history, even recent history, there are many examples of such gross misrepresentation—the oppressed are depicted as the oppressors, and innocent victims as dangerous and cruel aggressors." Um, what? Propaganda for the Abrahamic god is not NPOV. I'm removing this.

[edit] Why there are two differente sections for "Hebrews" and "Asiatic Semities"???

There is no justification for it. If the Hyksos were Canaanites they are also Hebrews-that is, they assimilated into the Jews, nobody argue about it, except to fringe sites and etc. The only question is whether the Canaanites are ancient Hebrews-and that what those who claim Hyksos to be Canaanites argue, or else, the Hyksos are Hebrews who later entered into Israel (then Canaan) and fully mingled with the local Canaanites (who converted to Judaism) later on.--Gilisa (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] no, its obvious Hyksos is linked with Hayk and Hayasa of Armenians  ?????

Does anyone have a clue what this IP editor is trying to say? One name is a personal name, the other that of a kingdom, is he putting them together to get 'Hyksos'? And I don't think he has read the source since he doesn't seem to know where the authors wrote what they wrote and I doubt also that he knows exactly what they wrote. I will continue to revert this.Doug Weller (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this IP editor needs to be reported for disruptive editing as he doesn't respond when problems with his edit are pointed out.Doug Weller (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He repeatedly refers to this same source to support whatever pet theory he has just made up. The source does not even have "(aka Aryan)" in the title, but he's been calling it that for over a year. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And he still hasn't found out where it comes from? Anyway, he won't be back here for a while hopefully.Doug Weller (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's from Scientific American, March 1990. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason it seems to have been picked up by Armenian nationalists, who like to put it online and highlight passages about Armenian, as though it implies that the language has some unique significance [1]. All these versions have an identical scanning error ('fumed out' for 'turned out'). Needless to say it never says anything whatever about the Hyksos. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it took me just a few seconds to locate the source. I worry that people do put in references they've never seen, often copying them from somewhere lese on Wikipedia. Deleting anything referenced without a page number is tempting at times.Doug Weller (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's a Richardson, TX IP blathering about ancient Armenia, just revert on sight without further ado (Ararat arev). dab (𒁳) 11:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)