Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 13

message: Wikidudeman, Basil Davidson is a great and respected historian. He wrote extensively on Africa. Egypt is an African civilisation. It is not an exception as Hawass thinks. Davidson studied Egypt as any African civilisation. You are refusing to accept his views. That's your problem. But the man is a great historian. He is expressing views already expressed by Jean-Francois Champollion, the father of Egyptology, in his book Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens: "Egypt beginnings are in the south". Besides, I can give a long list of authors refuting the african ethnicity of the Egyptians and another long list of authors saying that Egyptians are indigenous Africans (a euphemism for Blacks). There are not even Mediterranean people. This will go against their mythology because they considered the sea as belonging to Seth while they belonged to Osiris and Isis who are Nubian gods. Here again the video made by Basil Davidson Kemet - Black Civilization. Please, follow carefully this video. Egypt did not erupt by chance. It has a long history behind it. Basil Davidson helps understand that. Surely he has his place in the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basil Davidson is not more reliable than someone like Hawass. Davidson has no credentials in studying Egypt. He is not an Egyptologist. He has no long history studying Egypt or it's history. He's simply an author who has written about Africa. To say that his views are on par with those of Hawass is very wrong, not to mention trumping them. TO cite him over or even alongside someone like Hawass would be a clear violation of WP:Fringe. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basil Davidson 

message: Let us try to resolve the disputes so we can avoid this protection business. I propose having a for and against sections for fairness. One section should be for black egypt and another section with counter views. In this way we will not go around removing each others edits. As long as the citations are reliably sourced and relevant to the article, we shouldn't remove edits.Muntuwandi 22:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Firstly, Giving equal weight to the contention that Egyptians were "black" would be in violation of WP:Weight. Secondly, segregating them into separate sections in this sort of article would be unrealistic and would cause it to be unreadable. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is not giving weight to an argument. Simply reorganizing some of the material so that the arguments for and against are clearly articulated. Then readers can decide for themselves which argument they feel has credibility. What is happening now is that when some adds some material, immediately afterwards a counter argument is added. This haphazardness results in the article being disorganized and contributes to edit wars. If we clearly state that this section of the article presents a "black" argument, and this section presents a "non black" argument, then there will be less controversy. Muntuwandi 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this article (as it stands) gives extensive undue weight to fringe beliefs opposed to the beliefs of most of the experts. This article is extremely inflated with fringe views and all of the actual scientific evidence or historical evidence clarifying the race of the ancient Egyptians is totally missing. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That suggestion was completely ludacris. Making a main section for "black egypt", and then "counter views" in another section, as if black egypt is actually a scientifically correct theory in neutral terms. As Wikidudeman states, there is a total lack and need of the right references and real historic and scientific evidence. I tried to add some of it, but it got deleted by some afrocentric editor, that clearly violated the 3rr rule, the WP:Words to avoid rule and some parts of WP:Point in his aggressive and vandalistic way to keep reverting my edits without proper argumentation, then add his own original research and afrocentric POV. This articles main problem is the disruptive editing by afrocentric borderline-vandalists, which has caused the article to be protected god-knows-how-many-times, which they, on the contrary, have abused and exploited tactically, so that the article would remain vandalized with their invoked POV due to protection caused by them. Another manipulation is the accusation of others breaking the 3rr rule, while breaking it in notorious capacities themselves. I cannot believe editors like User:Taharqa havent been blocked ages ago.  SenseOnes 05:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is a total lack of such evidence, then how come we have an article. Muntuwandi 03:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's been warred over nonstop by afrocentrics? Egyegy 04:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the content meets the standard of verifiability and WP:RS. Muntuwandi 04:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Verifiabillity is not the main problem. Sources that support afrocentric views are being cited (or afrocentric parts of exact sources are being quoted) rather then eurocentric views. There are tons of original research, uncited text and generalizations and violations of WP:Words to avoid (like: "Stormfront is a racist, neo-nazi community", "No respectable person supports the view that the ancient egyptians were partly white" etc), and the same editors keep violating WP:3rr. The article is clearly biased, and only a person trying to invoke a specific POV would deny it. SenseOnes 04:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I advocate clearly dilineating the arguments. This is actually beneficial to those editors who feel the article is too afrocentric. By doing so, such edits would have an established section dedicated to countering Afrocentric views. But if the Afrocentric views meet RS, then they shouldn't be removed. This is why I had initially suggested adding the term "controversy" to the title. To let everyone know that there are divergent philosophies on the racial nature of the Egyptians. Muntuwandi 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even a theoretical afrocentric section has to follow the rules. SenseOnes 06:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So we shouldn't mention the views at all regardless of their relevancy? Wikidudeman (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Scholarship and (to some extent) notability are of equal, if not greater importance than relevance. Not all relevant views are notable or scholarly, and don't necessarily belong on wikipedia, especially if the particular view is not scholarly. Extremist and questionable sources shouldn't be used at all per WP:V. Yahel Guhan 02:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it shouldn't. It is a FA, it is highly notable, and there are plenty of scholarly academic views on the topic. Yahel Guhan 02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, There are plenty of Scholarly and academic views "about" Intelligent Design but they don't support the idea that Intelligent Design is legitimate. There are also plenty of academic views on the idea that Egypt was a "Nordic empire" however those scholarly views don't actually support the contention. So if I can find scholarly views discussing the idea that Ancient Egyptians were "white", can it be used in the article? Wikidudeman (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sure. But stormfront isn't scholarly, so for now, I am removing it. Yahel Guhan 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected again 

message: (Copied mostly from above) The first step for improving the article is giving it a proper name.  User:Zerida states that this article includes "modern racial perceptions" and their relations to Ancient Egypt. This doesn't mean that the title "Race of Ancient Egyptians" would be inappropriate since such info could fit into an article with that name just as well. Currently this article's name is not appropriate considering it's topic. Let's not get into debates on the facts here but rather stick to one single subject at a time and right now it's the name of the article. This articles topic (as everyone agrees) is the Race of the Ancient Egyptians. As such this article should be named accordingly, I.E. it should be named "Race of Ancient Egyptians" or something very similar. The fact that such an article would contain information on how modern Caucasians might have projected their perceptions onto antiquity doesn't mean such a name wouldn't be fitting. Please add input so that we can settle this prior to moving onto other issues. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name at the moment is of minor importance. I am more concerned about the content which is leading to frequent edit wars and frequent protection of the article. This is the most important issue. Muntuwandi 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We must start somewhere and this is where I think we need to start. Many of the disputes stem from misunderstanding what this article is actually even about and thus it's name is very important. It should be renamed to Race of Ancient Egyptians to better reflect it's actual topic. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. We need to get consensus on this prior to moving forward with other disputed aspects of this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The name of the article is just fine. Why change it to Race of Ancient Egyptians? Since the "RACE" has changed over time. As there were many occupations that changed the "race" of the people by interbreeding, etc. African, Roman, Greek, Arabs, etc. There is no one race of ancient peoples. Some are Nubians, Ethiopian, etc., or are mixed, some are Arabs and mixed. Some believe ancient Egyptians are a distinct race. Some believe they are from outerspace! There is a modern debate on who where the ancient Egyptians. Also the Afrocentric views are now surfacing. One or the other does not mean the other did not exist. The article was named before  as "Race and ancient Egyptian controversies", or something similar, before it was moved here. So now another name is introduced. Why not go back to the controversy, as there are such controversies over the race of ancient Egyptians, as evident on this talk page. The subject is controversial, and is prone to edit wars, and editors wanting yet again change the name of the article. sigh How many times are we going to go through this? A name change is not going to stop the edit wars, as it's been tried numerous times before. Jeeny 04:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are discussing there are exactly the questions the article should deal with, which is why the name should be Race of Ancient Egyptians. SenseOnes 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The population of Egypt has changed over time. The Race of the ANCIENT Egyptians is what it was. Since it's a historical aspect, the topic of this article isn't the Race of Egyptians today. The TOPIC of this article is the Race OF the Ancient Egyptians. That means that the article discusses the race that the Ancient egyptians were. Thus, As SensesOne and I have said, The name needs to be Race of Ancient Egyptians. That's the topic of this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Article (Please discuss until settled) 

message: Nothing is happening at the moment, and it wont be long before its October the 2nd. One suggestion was to split the article up, one section with afrocentric-based research, and one with all opposition to that. I am generally opposed to that idea, and would rather that we made the article more NPOV in general, and cited the relevant sources with the one requirement of the cited sources being based on respectable, reliable and acknowledged egyptologists research, and in cases of controversial theories simply presenting the evidence in its own category (example: nordic egypt) even if the advocates of it are controversial. If everyone are against this, I am willing to help with the other idea that was proposed anyway. If anyone has other (perhaps better) suggestions please post them so we can find out where to go from here. SenseOnes 08:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. One of the main problems is that the major contributors of this article seem not to be contributing to the discussions. I hope they aren't waiting for the protection to be released so they can continue edit warring again. I might have to get the page protected for a week or so longer until we can start discussing things again. Unprotecting it tomorrow and allowing the edit warrs to continue wouldn't make any sense. We've accomplished nothing since it's protection as most of the editors have not been discussing it. We need to start with agreeing on the name of the article. We've already agreed on the topic and now the name needs to be decided. Then we need to start working on the article in general from top to bottom, basically initially getting consensus on how it's layout will be. A total rewrite is in order IMO and the only way that can succeed is if we all work together on it. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me mention that I would not be opposed to having various sections explaining various hypothesis or ideas about the race of the Ancient Egyptians. One on "Nordic" egypt, One on "Black" egypt, Etc, Etc. As long as they follow WP:WEIGHT and are offered in a context of NPOV. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Muntuwandi to divide the sections of the article in Black Egypt and non-Black Egypt (White and Yellow and "Egyptian"). In that way, there will be less problems.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I say Race of Ancient Egyptians like you proposed, for a more specific title. The current title is too unspecific and only creates more confusion. SenseOnes 14:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This title: Race of Ancient Egyptians is short and clear. We can take it. And regarding the presentation of the article, I side with Muntuwandi.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solutions to reach consensus 

message: Intro
Brief discussion of "Race" and how it could be applied to Ancient Egyptians
Elaboration on the Scientific consensus views of Egyptologists and Geneticists.
Elaboration on other views including Afrocentric views and White Supremacist views.
----
Comments on my version go here:
I think this is by far the simplest version. With a number of subsections like the last part states, for various controversies and views (nordic egypt, nubian egypt, and so on) it would without a doubt represent the most simple way to make this article NPOV and yet cover the needed subjects. I suggest other editors take a look at it and compare it with the other proposals, and consider which version is the most effective. SenseOnes 09:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikidudemans proposed format

message: * Brief intro of controversy
* Very brief discussion on modern theories of race and how it relates to both modern and ancient egypt
Origins
*Scientific facts on origins, and population historical facts
*Black or Afrocentric interpretation on origin
*Non-Afrocentric interpretation on origin
Skin color
*Summary of egyptian portrayals of skin color
*Black or Afrocentric interpretation of skin color
*Non-Afrocentric interpretation of skin color
Language
*Black interpretation, afro-asiatic, kmt etc
*Non-black interpretation
Crania
*Black interpretation
*Non-black interpretation
Genetics
*Black interpretation
*Non black interpretation
Mummy reconstructions
*Black interpretation
*Non black interpretation, hawass etc
The great sphinx
*Black interpretation
*Non black interpretation
Allegations of Racial bias in Egyptology
Other theories.
I would like to see separate subsections for each argument, In that way if anyone wishing to add information can do so under the appropriate heading. This will avoid the situation where editors try to make counter edits immediately at the end of someone else's statement. this results in an incoherent article. We can therefore give both sides an opportunity to express their views. Muntuwandi 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which should be given more weight? The contention that Egyptians were "Black" or the contention that they were not? Wikidudeman (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A neutral position should be taken. If we give weight to a black egypt, edit wars will arise. If we give weight to a non-black egypt, edit wars will arise too. Muntuwandi 02:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just popping my head in at this point, but "brief" as per the discussion on modern theories of race is unrealistic. Bearing in mind the nature of Wikipedia we should not attempt to be brief, particularly in an effort to "tone down" or "gloss over" parts of an article. However the lead itself should be succinct, and an outline of what is to come in the article. Pedro :  Chat   07:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can take the plan proposed by Muntuwandi. Then, we will rearrange the existing material accordingly.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should the contention that Egyptians were "black" be given as much weight as the contention that they were not? Are both views equal in the eyes of experts? Is the scientific and historical consensus that both beliefs are equal? If not then giving them equal weight would violate WP:WEIGHT. So which view enjoys more support among scientists and historians? The idea that Ancient Egyptians were black or that they were not black? Wikidudeman (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we follow the plan proposed by Muntuwandi, the question of weight is useless. We will only have to report what experts said about the subject, respecting the different subsections. But if you insist, Wikidudeman, about weight, I will have to say this: the idea that the Egyptians were Blacks must have more weight. First, because the father of Egyptology, Jean-Francois Champollion, favoured this hypothesis. In its Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens published in 1828 [New edition Elibron Classics], he said (the translation is mine): "He (the historian) has indeed to ask himself if the civilisation of Thebes went upwards following the Nile, the population which forms the Egyptian nation coming from Asia, or if that civilisation, coming from the south and going donwards following the sacred river, did not establish itself first in Nubia, then in the region south of Thebaid, and if, going bit by bit towards the north, it did not finaly, helped by the efforts of the river, push back the water of the sea, and conquer for agriculture the plain next to Asia. With this new hypothesis, the Egyptians will appear to be a race peculiar to Africa, peculiar to this old part of the world which shows everywhere signs of fatigue. / The physical constitution, the customs, the uses and the social organisation of the Egyptians, had, in the past, only weak analogies with the natural and political state of the people of West Asia, their closest neigbhors. Finaly, the Egyptian language had nothing in common, in its constitution, with Asian languages (...). From these two facts one can conclude in favor of the second hypothesis, the African origin of the ancient Egyptians. Indeed, everything seems to show us that the Egyptians constitute a population totally alien to the Asian continent (...). It is on a high point, in a country not covered entirely by flooding that was the first establishment of the Egyptians; and in that perspective Nubia , or better Ethiopia, were the advantadged regions" (pp. 455-457). Concerning the Egyptian language, the Grammarian Alan Gardiner proved Champollion right when he wrote: "Egyptian differs from all the Semitic tongues a good deal more than any one of them differs from any other, and at least until its relationship to the African languages is more closely defined, Egyptian must certainly be classified as standing outside the Semitic group" (Egyptian grammar, Oxford, Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 2001 [third edition], p. 3). One of the most recent synthesis regarding this issue of the origins of the Egyptians can be found in Bernard Nantet, Dictionnaire de l'Afrique, Histoire, Civilisation, Actualité, Paris, Larousse, 2006. In the entry Egypt, one can read (the translation is mine): "The history of ancient Egypt, in particular predynastic, was, from the years 1950, subject to a great debate. Thought to be essentially from the Middle-East, if not from the Mediterranean region, the Egyptian civilisation has clearly shown its Southen African origins" (p. 104).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't where we argue about whether Ancient Egyptians were "black" or not. We're talking about weight right now. Jean-François Champollion did his work right when Egyptology was just starting in the early 19th century. Are you really going to say that the views he held 200 years ago are relevant to todays scientific and historical consensus? Wikidudeman (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you did not read well my argument. Those who like Erman, Maspero and Breasted contradicted Champollion on the issue of the origins of the ancient Egyptians are now found wrong. I quoted Gardiner (2001) and Nantet (2006). The later adds: "research in climatology and archeological findings made in Soudan and in the rest of the continent have shown the identity and the continuity between the Sahara and the beginning of pastoralism in the Nile valley (...). In this region, kingdoms linked to Egypt by common references began to separate from each other due to the progress of the desertification cataract after cataract (Kerma, Napata, Meroe)" (p. 105). Don't you see, that Champollion (you like refering to Egyptology. And Champollion is actually the father of Egyptology!) is proven right? Besides, Egypt has always looked black up ot the 19th century. In such a way that the view that Egyptians were not Blacks is suspected by Egyptologists like Lam of being a falsification. Basil Davidson, you dislike, thinks likewise. From Antiquity (Greece, the Biblical world) up to the time of the 19th century, Egyptians were just Blacks. We have to question the reason why the have been whitened. I have an amount of literature about that. Damiano Maurizio-Appia, an Italian Egyptologist said that this happened because of a racist mentality which flourished in Egyptology through the works of Egyptologists of Anglo-Saxon orientation who thought that any significant civilisation in the world must have been a creation of the White race (please read Egitto e Nubia). No facts to sustain this view of White Egypt. It is an empty claim. Only ideology and philosophy. As Muntuwandi stated, there is no need of giving more weight to one or another of the tradition, but to report in a neutral way all of them. But, if you want to give more weight to one of them, you will find yourself forced, if you respect facts, to give priority or more weight to Black Egypt. It is the most enduring tradition. Once more, I agree with the plan proposed by Muntuwandi. All the arguments surrounding the race of the ancient Egyptians can easily fit there.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The people indigenous to Africa being Black (Champollion speaks of a race peculiar to Africa), the Nordic is in the non-Black. Actually, this non-Black can be divided in White, Yellow or mix of races! I have no problem with that. The most important thing for me is a clear division of subsections. Muntuwandi advocates for that and with reason.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it might sound absurd to say that Egyptians were "Nordic" however if you advocate equal weight to all views then that view must also be given equal weight. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So the only alternatives are that Ancient Egyptians are the same as Egyptians are today or they were "black"? Wikidudeman (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those are the main arguments. Though Hawass did say that the ancient egyptians were not black and they were not arabs. According to him they were a completely separate race. Muntuwandi 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is it that when we're discussing an aspect of how the article should be formatted everyone attempts to try to continue making a long argument for the "blackness" of Ancient Egyptians? Wikidudeman (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it's due to the fact that you seem to be shifting back and forth as far as your standpoints. In one sentence you say that it makes no sense to say Ancient Egyptians were "black" and in the next you reference people who called them "super-negroids", whatever that even means. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muntuwandi

message: *Intro
Describes content or background of the topic being discussed. I feel the current into is appropriate, probably can be condensed a bit.
*Define race
^Self-explanatory
*Origins
Highly relevant, so this is to cover the dominant hypotheses as to the origins of the ancient egyptians, and the evidence involved..
One sub-section of physical remains or genetics, another on material culture
* Demographics
What influences from outside effected the population structure, or was influence minimal? To what extend did they do this, what biological history do Egyptians share with other groups?
* Skeletal data
* Crania
Cranial studies, their methodologies and flaws. We need to cover the results and the implications..
* Body Plans
Same as crania.. Describe their importance in population biology, cover results, relationships, and implications.
* Language
Along the lines of culture, but different. Describe their importance in tracing population movements, the common interpretations, origins of the ancient Egyptian language, related groups who speak similar languages, its implications.
* Diop's melanin test
^Merely because it's the only one to have been performed, where results were reported. Discuss flaws, criticism, methodology, implications.
* Accounts by ancient writers
Lay out various accounts and their interpretations upon seeing them, modern interpretation, and anthropological view on the effectiveness of associating ancient accounts with concepts of "race" or "ethnicity"..
Everything else seems fine to me.. The Sphinx can follow a similar format to ancient writers, discarded hypotheses is self-explanatory, and so is the tut and controversy section..Taharqa 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that make him an Egyptologist? Wikidudeman (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been unable to find a source for that. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That says he "studied" Egytpology, Not that that he received a PHD in Egyptology. By profession he's not an egyptologist and simply studying egyptology in college doesn't make him an expert or even a reliable source on it. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a different link from what you initially posted. However the fact that he did his dissertation on the idea that Ancient Egyptians were black (which was originally rejected) doesn't make him an Egyptologist. How many peer Reviewed studies has he published concerning Egyptology? How many exhibitions has he lead that have lead to new discoveries? Simply studying Egyptology in college and doing a dissertation on an aspect of Egypt doesn't make someone a reliable resource on Egyptology. I know many people who have studied Egyptology in college but I wouldn't call any of them reliable resources on Egyptology to be used as sources for an encyclopedia! Wikidudeman (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just trying to get an idea of his credibility as a source. Could you provide some links to the published peer reviewed studies that he has done concerning Egyptology specifically? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taharqa

message: the protection is expiring tonight so we need to work on a consensus for the format of the article, otherwise it will quickly be protected again. Muntuwandi 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing will be resolved by tonight. It will take a few weeks. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is unprotected. Well at the least we should make some progress on the format. Muntuwandi 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: According to me, we can begin rearranging the article following the plan done by Muntuwandi. But we have to replace Black by African as Taharqa put it. We can write the article in a more neutral way. Not only Afrocentrists speak about the Egyptians being indigenous. In fact the best Egyptologists from Champollion agree with the ancient Writers that the Egyptians were Africans coming from the south. The dictionary of African civilisations of Bernard Nantet (2006) states the same thing: the Egyptians are Africans. Separating things according to schools will help avoiding conflicts. Wikidudeman can contribute where he wants with sound arguments. It is time to work positively. The new title is good. We agreed on that already.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Afrocentrists actually do claim that Ancient Egyptians were "Black", not simply African.  Wikidudeman (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Black" is an ambiguous term. I agree however that the article needs to say what some afrocentricists say about them and thus mention it, however as long as it's in a NPOV manner not written like an essay as it seems to be now. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Many modern Egyptians (northern or southern) would be classified as black by today's Western standards. That does not actually make Egyptians in general "black". In addition, ancient Egyptians would not have described themselves as black unless they clearly physically/phenotypically looked black, as explained by Yurco in the message I posted a few days ago. — Zerida 02:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the point of this spoof? Anyway, it doesn't changes what he actually said. Egyegy 04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unprotection 

message: I was concerned about the citation, since I could not read anywhere what Zerida had quoted. Muntuwandi 04:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you need to access the study to read it. The full citation, which, like most citations in the article, is available under the Bibliography section, is Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson (1993). Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31. — Zerida 04:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a subscription to read the article. In any case this is about an incident that occurred in the US recently. It has little bearing on the race of the ancient egyptians. There have been several protests by african american groups whenever there is an egypt exhibition. Must we list them all. Muntuwandi 04:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The study is mentioned several times throughout the article. Every anthropological study in the article requires access. And it's certainly far more relevant than the 19th century travelogues. — Zerida 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Inproper to use subscription only sites for citations. Also I belive you are trying to make a point adding this information. Not nice. Jeeny 04:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's rather amusing to describe it as such when it is from a notable anthropological study and quite relevant to the topic. After all, Hawass is quoted making a similar statement. It's also not correct, since this is the version to which we both agreed . This should have never gotten caught up in that last dispute. — Zerida 05:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can create a section that has modern egyptian views of the Ancient egyptians. Muntuwandi 05:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that part used to be in the section "Modern Egypian reaction". We can restore that, though I don't know how much detail you'd like. This part is particularly relevant because it's from one of the anthropological studies cited in the article. — Zerida 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  10 years from now the ramses exhibit fiasco will be forgotten news. But what I do feel is important is some mention of what modern egyptians feel about this controversy. Also what modern black egyptians think as well. Muntuwandi 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is clear that most editors will not agree to removing the other sections, and that is why I included the Egyptian one for balance. It sounds like you both agree, however, to restore that part, but add it in its own section? The quote by the Egyptian attaché is not simply about Ramesis, it's an indication of how Egyptians view the controversy. You can add other quotes if there are others. — Zerida 05:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Academic view" is simply the "Alleged whitening" section, which is in the article. The "Ancient Egyptian view" -- is this the one about Punt? Don't forget that I never objected to retaining any section, as long as each one is balanced. — Zerida 05:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Manu Ampim. This article gives a good critique of the reconstructions of King Tut. Each reconstruction does indeed produce a different looking face. Muntuwandi 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ramses 

message: Okay, even though discussion was still pending, I see where Egyegy added it and can assume good faith since it actually would be for balance as it is directly beneath a section which covers another view (that section in question needs a bit of refining, like a name change, etc., but we'll cover that). I have no problem with that, only the random, out-of-context entires that seem more along the lines of forced pov.. Context is everything... Hopefully we can move on to other concerns now, wherever applicable..Taharqa 06:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian view 

message: I'd just like to note that there seems to be a bit of cherry picking and weaseling going on with that section, in efforts to undermine its conclusions, by emphasizing a distinction noted with the Sphinx and Khafre, who it was supposed to represent. However, it is misguided and misrepresents the views of Schoch, Dowell, and colleges concerned as it is out of context. So much emphasis on Khafre, when the section concerns the sphinx, would warrant further elaboration then. Biological anthropologist, Dr. Colette M. Dowell (National Museum of Anthropology, Merida, Yucatan) sees the Sphinx physiognomy as being indicative of modern Upper Egyptians more so than Arab northerners, and she attributes this to a higher degree of African ancestry, in which she says represents both the sphinx and early Egyptians... She is a direct associate of Schoch.. Perceived differences between Khafre and the Sphinx in question are unsubstantial, since it has nothing to do with their premise or the data in question relevant to the section, so I don't understand the emphasis on such selective quoting..Taharqa 07:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biological anthropologist, Dr. Colette M. Dowell... Um, she is certainly *not* a "biological anthropologist" ! Here is more background information on this interesting lady . Schoch is also not an anthropologist. I'd love to know, however, how Dowell managed to get a picture of a naked Upper Egyptian woman. — Zerida 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sphinx again 

message: All. Please let's not have anyone end up with a 3RR warning on their page or worse over this. And let's see if we can continue to use the talk page as before. The history of reversions this morning (UTC) was not good. I will protect the page (again) if it carries on. Pedro :  Chat   09:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're uninvolved with the debate so please don't hesitate to protect the article if it continues.  Wikidudeman (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Waring Again 

message: the article is slowly beginning to look half civilized. I still object to the prominent mention of a "controversy" in the lead, when there is in fact no such controversy in Egyptology. The intro should summarize the anthropological findings, and then take brief note of the Afrocentrist circus surrounding the question. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to start improving the article from the lead down to best reflect the whole situation. I hope I don't get reverted. Please keep a watchful eye to make sure whatever I change is properly formatted, etc. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidudeman, be very careful in doing what you are planning to do!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunatly, not. But we have to trust each other.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not reverting anything. I'm just improving the article as I see fit. I post anything here that I think is controversial prior to changing it. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  slow improvement 

message: Can someone please post the links to the following sources:
*Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza. 1994, The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
*[Hammer, M. et al. 1997.]
*Keita SOY and Rick A. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544
*S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87: 245-254 (1992)
*Toby Wilkinson. Early Dynastic Egypt, 2001, Routledge, pp. 15
* Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 15-26
Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what links? Most of these won't be available online. The first one has "look inside" at amazon , as does Wilkinson . The Soy-Kittles paper is at jstor.org . But I suppose you can use google as well as I can. --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to some of those articles. If anyone does please E-mail them. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source requests 

message: This statement:
"In comparison to the 2005 reconstruction, the earlier 2002 Discovery Channel reconstruction showed a darker skin tone, among other differences."
is original research. The link provided shows an image of a reconstruction of King Tut and nowhere does it state that his skontone is "darker" than other reconstructions. While it might seem obvious that his skintone is indeed darker, This could be due to many things including background, lighting, the way the image was produced, etc, etc. To interpret any differences not stated in the source cited would be a clear example of WP:NOR. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's one reporters opinion. Which means we could say that "Some have interpreted the Discovery reconstruction as having "Negroid features". Wikidudeman (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't say the reconstruction absolutely has specific features just because a few sources say so. We can only say that "Some people say it has N features." WP:AGF doesn't include sources. I assume that whomever added this did so in good faith, however I disagree that it was appropriate to do so. WP:AGF doesn't mean you must assume someone is right or something is true, It only means that you need to assume that another editors actions were done in "good faith", I.E. with the intent to improve the article. I do this. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Most physical anthropologists believe that the Ancient Egyptians belonged to that same Mediterranean branch
of the white race to which the Berbers, Arabs, Hebrews and other neighbouring
peoples belonged. Their chief reasons for believing so are as follows:
(I) The vast majority of modern Egyptians belong to this Mediterranean
sub-race.
(2) In their tomb and temple frescoes, the Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves
as ruddy or white but their Nubian slaves as brown or black.
(3) Ancient Greek writers like Herodotus and Strabo describe the Egyptians as
differing from Greeks in customs only, unlike the Ethiopians, whom they
describe as differing from Greeks in physiognomy as well.
(The Religion of the Yoruba in Relation to the Religion of Ancient Egypt
Olumide Lucas 
Review author[s]: R. W. Wescott 
The Journal of African History, Vol. 2, No. 2. (1961), pp. 311-321.)
http://www.jstor.org/view/00218537/ap010004/01a00110/0
:This information should be added to the article. MoritzB 12:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E-mail me the PDF to that article. I don't have access. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: MoritzB, is Wescott an Egyptologist? He does not even know Herodotus well. If the Egyptians looked like the Greecs in physionomy, the Colchis could have not been a problem to them, because tey would look like the Greecs. But it was not the case. Actually, like Aristotle, Herodotus does not make difference between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians when speaking of their physionomy. All of them are said to be black (melas, melanos). In book 2, 104, this blackness (melas, melanos) is applied to Colchis and to Egyptians by Herodotus, and in book 3, 101, this blackness (melas, melanos) is applied to Indians who live far fron the Persians and to Ethiopians. In Herodotus, Greecs are not black (melas, melanos). Colchis, Egyptians, Indians who live far from the Persians and Ethiopians are. You can easily check what I am telling you, because I gave you the references.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The view of mainstream physical anthropologists 

message: How is it that this IP is not yet joining the discussions? Why is he continuing to hide himself? He seems to be very disruptive. He is lacking total respect for other editors!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 05:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that you are allowed to continue your Afrocentrist mythologizing on Wikipedia? Please desist from your POV attempt to rewrite history and total disrespect for other contributors. Be civil and cooperate. 203.109.33.35 06:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taharaqa is removing my discussions of the issues and has engaged in revert warring to undo all of my contributions. He also keeps deleting large chunks of the article to maintain POV ownership of the article. Let's reach consensus here not to remove anything because it's very disruptive and I was almost blocked. Do not remove something to maintain a POV, this is against Wikipedia. 203.109.33.35 07:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you deleting huge parts of the article after you agreed on a consensus? That was disruptive. Egyegy 07:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am lost? Dude, you are unbelievable!!! How many times have different people here tried to reach a compromise with you, get a consensus, just so you can turn around and revert it? This is you deleting a lot stuff that you agreed on  and it isn't the first time. Enough is enough. Egyegy 08:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There have been here a long discussion to try finding a compromise. Egyegy did not show up. Maybe he was very busy. At least Taharqa, along with Wikidudeman and Muntuwandi, made his contribution. He deserves respect for that active participation. He did not hid himself like the anonymous IP who was totally absent from the discussion initiated by Wikidudeman, and which helped to have a new plan. He just came to disrupt! Knowing that this is a sensitive subject, why does he not use the talk page to initiate discussions before making changes?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP 205.212.72.174 

message: So I'd like to at least form a consensus for changes by way of admin, just write whether you agree or not to each change..
Removal of the "White Egypt" section, which even Egyegy felt was an inappropriate inclusion and is misrepresented....Taharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck is "EVEN Egyegy felt was inappropriate" supposed to mean? I am Upper Egyptian for God's sake!! Even though most Upper Egyptians are not black, they're not white either . That section though has some nonsense about Ancient Egypt being ethnically European. Egyegy 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How about you stop attacking me for no reason and assume good faith for a change? You asked for an opinion and I gave you my honest one. Egyegy 09:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm lucky? I'm shocked you haven't been blocked for your last disruption despite this very clear warning  and your tag teaming with Jeeny and Lusala Luka. I've been watching this article for a long time and will continue to edit it whether you like it or not. Egyegy 09:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added reasons. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In accordance with current protection 

message: @ Wikidudeman
The new intro is solid and is well written, I must say. I have one request.. It seems that you've sufficiently and neutrally covered aspects of a section that was in dispute, that would be the "ancient writers section".. I recommend you go ahead and just remove that section since it is very subjective and you've given a great over view of it in the introduction. Thanx..Taharqa 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No can do. The introduction is actually a "Summary" of the article as a whole. I'm moving down from the intro and will improve the article little by little. We can't have something in the intro if it doesn't exist in the article itself. I will however drastically improve that section soon. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a direct link to that Keita source? Wikidudeman (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a book by someone named Theodore Celenko. I'm asking for the link to the actual paper published by Keita. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's in the first sentence of the article. ➳ Quin 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the paper exist though? If Keita wrote it then it should exist as an independent paper, separate from a book by someone else. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Who brought this picture again? It was removed a year ago. There are people who do not follow well the discussion of this article. The famous "1820 drawing of a fresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting from left: Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, and Egyptian" is not a picture, but a modern rendering. Not being authentic, it has to be removed from the article as agreed upon in the past.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it. I disagree. The image is relevant even if it's a modern rendering. The image is very exemplary of Egyptians perspectives of differences between themselves and others. It's not meant to be some sort of scientific piece or anything like that. Just an image showing how Egyptians saw themselves compared to others. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is full of Afrocentrist myths because it's being edited by Taharaqa, who is a paragon of afrocentrism mythology and pseudo-science. This is an absurd article. Now, I do not mean to be rude, but I'm sorry to say, I am surprised he is allowed to spread these myths. No wonder wikipedia is no longer taken seriously by many people outside it. Please desist from playing the race card online in order for you to push your POV wishful thinking and accept history and reality. Spurious sources from myth makers will not suffice in the real world! please be civil reason and try to cooperate. 203.109.33.35 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs a main image and that one is very descriptive and relevant. Please upload the actual image if you have it. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If anyone checks history of article, you appear to be controlling this article as though you owned it. Be reasonable and cooperate. 203.109.33.35 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one doesn't show any differences though. They are all the same. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikidudeman, as I told you that image is a modern drawing, a Copy of some figures from the  Seti I tomb by Minutoli in 1820. The photograph is at the left side and in bad shape. I don't know what was in the mind of Minutoli when he made it. But it is not authentic, because not Egyptian.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually upon looking at this link I can see that the 1820 drawing is quite accurate. Even down to the skintones depicted of nubians and Egyptians. The fact that it's a drawing of the scene opposed to a picture itself doesn't seem very relevant as it's quite depicting of the scene itself. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidudeman, we better take the picture even if it is not in good shape than a modern drawing. How can you be sure of his accuracy of this drawing? The commentary speaks "possible". Drawings are subjective. They depend heavily on the spirit of the drawer. How can you ignore that? Actually the skin of the Egyptian is not in question. Many Blacks, in Nubia, in Kemet or today in Africa, have brown complexion. Besides, many Egyptians are dark. We see that in the picture which is in good condition, just down the first picture. Its drawing is at its right side. One sees two dark Egyptians. This is a picture. Why don't we take it?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We are not sure of the accuracy of the rendition as the commentary says: "possible"!. We can take the rendition of the second picture. Both are in good shape. But you feel maybe a bit shaken because the Egyptians are shown to be dark like the Nubians. One needs a bit of courage and objectivity when one deals with this kind of stuff! Browness is not stranger to Nubians. One cannot oppose Nubians and Egyptians in terms of brown (Egyptians ) and dark (Nubians). This just fantasy. Please, visit The Tomb of Huy--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image posted on Geocities, this image is the original one that the artist used to draw in 1820. That's the wall painting. The 1820 drawing of it would thus be justifiable to use. I'm afraid I don't understand the objections to using it. The fact that it was done in 1820 really shouldn't be relevant, nor should the fact that it's a drawing of the original painting. No one is saying that it's somehow 100% accurate however that's all explained on the caption. All in all it's a good photograph showing what Egyptians thought of other peoples compared to themselves. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify. :Image:Egyptians BOG.jpg is not suitable since it shows only Ancient Egyptians themselves, however since this article is discussing the "race" of Ancient egyptians, an image showing how the Ancient Egyptians saw themselves compared to other peoples is more relevant. :Image:From Giovanni Battista Belzoni- Egyptian race portrayed in the Book of Gates.jpg would be good except for the fact that it's source is not provided and it could be deleted soon. This means that :Image:Egyptian races.jpg is the best choice since it's free and shows how Egyptians saw themselves compared to other peoples and is thus more relevant to the topic of the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why don't we take the picture of the tomb of Ramesses or the drawing made of it? The picture is in good shape, and one can notice easily than with the picture of the tomb of Seti, how the drawing is accurate.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What picture are you referring to? Please link it. Concerning the image I'm supporting, How is an image simply showing random Ancient Egyptians more relevant to an article about the RACE of Ancient Egyptians? The image showing how Ancient Egyptians saw themselves compared to other peoples is clearly more relevant in an article about the race of Ancient Egyptians. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: An image showing ONLY the ancient Egyptians wouldn't really be as relevant as we're discussing the race of the ancient Egyptians and thus an image showing them COMPARING themselves to other peoples is much much more relevant. You may not understand my not compromising, however it's a yes or no issue. Either the image stays or it goes. I think it should stay. I don't understand your reasoning though. You state that it's not relevant because it's a drawing? Well you endorse other drawings. What's specifically wrong with this one? As far as Prior consensus. Consensus can change. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How is it inaccurate just because it's old? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing from the tomb of Seti? 

message: Seeing the debate over the use of images within the article, I have just uploaded a few I took while at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston to Wikimedia Commons that may be useful. They all depict captives and are from the palace of the 20th dynasty pharaoh Ramesses III:
- depiction of a pair of Nubians: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-DepictingNubians-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
- depiction of a Philistine and an Amorite: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-DepictingPhilistineAndAmorite-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png 
- depiction of a Syrian and a Hittite: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-DepictingSyrianAndHittite-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
- all three sets of images compiled into one image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-NubiansPhilistineAmoriteSyrianAndHittite-Compilation-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
There are other images on Wikimedia Commons (from the same era) which could be of use:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypte_louvre_119_ennemi.jpg 
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypte_louvre_120_asiatique.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypte_louvre_121_ennemi.jpg. 
Captmondo 01:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further pictures that may be of use