Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 14

message: The reason I bring this up is because I see this dispute on whether or not the Egyptians were "black" (which is a fallacious, Eurocentric concept) as a ploy. It is apparent to point out that this is a political debate that has nothing to do with science, even when/if Egyptologists argue about it (which they hardly do). Using the word "black" as a label for any population group from Nigeria to southern India is a misnomer. It is easy to see that once the arbitrarily defined barrier that comprises distinct "races" is collapsed, one can immediately lay out a coherent case which makes sense... This is what we're clear on:
* AE are not shown to have come from anywhere other than the Nile valley and/or early Sahara. Not Europe, not Southwest Asia, not West Africa.. These are the words of Yurco, Keita, Boyce, Ehret, Zakrzewski, Wilkinson, Shaw, and countless others aside from Basil Davidson..
* People indigenous to this area, have been found to be overwhelmingly indigenous, hence, no indication of invaders from the near east or Europe. We know that near easterners and Europeans are indigenous to the near east and Europe, and not the Nile valley. They (AEs) possessed southern haplotypes shared with Saharo-tropical africans that have been in place since first dynasty times. Again, these genes have a much higher frequency in Africa than anywhere else and are mostly only shared among other Africans.
* To emphasize that point, I will refer back to Zakrzewski and Keita. Keita notes a tropical morphology among the Egyptians, consistent with tropical africans. Zakrzewski confirmed the results in 2003. Keita stresses the implication that a tropical body is a reaction to heat stresses from tropical environments and differs drastically from different climactic belts, hence, the AE were not cold adapted Europeans (in his words, more or less).. According to Hiernaux, those most frequently seen with this body type are Nilotes of the Nile valley or east Africans from the horn..
* Keita reports continuity between Badari, Naqada, and first dynasty crania from Abydos (seat of the founding dynasty), and found them all to cluster closest with Kerma Nubian crania, while the Badari even overlapped Kenyan and Bushman groups..
* Studying crania from these same periods, Zakrzewski found continuity stretching into the early dynastic and also noted a relationship between Badari and later Egyptian groups.. 
* Chris Ehret of course places the Egyptian language to the south
Yurco emphatically refers to Egyptians as Africans, closely related to Nubians, Somali, and other Nile valley peoples.
Trigger refers to them all as African who need not be arbitrarily defined or seperated
The data and consensus seems to suggest that they were Africans.. Since race is a fallacious concept, it is clear that arguments by way of racial identity will remain cyclic, when what is of value is that the AEs were biologically and culturally African.. Taharqa 19:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be arguing the same things over and over at every chance you get. Could you summarize the following into 2 or 3 sentences? You continue to say that "Ancient Egyptians were black" yet you also say that "race is a fallacious concept" and ""black" as a label for any population group from Nigeria to southern India is a misnomer". So I don't know what you're trying to say. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's forget about my comments. Elaborate in 2 or 3 sentences what you're saying. Summarize it for me. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Then what point would it be to use old references to the supposed race of the Great Sphinx as modern for instance? Right now as the article stands, It seems like a long essay using weak arguments to support the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were "Black". That's how the article reads. Sort of like an essay opposed to an encyclopedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is having the section formed in a way that is using centuries old opinions as somehow contemporary or modern. The entire section fails to provide context. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  appart from a few minor attempts at restoration, the great sphinx is essentially the way it has been for the last thousands of years. Since it is a monument, there can be no genetic tests on it. what I am getting at is that with regards to the sphinx even historical accounts have some credibility. But nevertheless recent scholars have expressed the same thoughts. Muntuwandi 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were the Egyptians black, white, or indigenous Africans? 

message: Wikidudeman, have a look at this: Physionomie de l'Egyptien Ancien. In the Foreign "races" from Ramesses III, Egyptians are said to be Nubians by some commentators, because these Egyptians are dark!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptians and foreigners in the tomb of Ramesses III 

message: * Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?
I'm concerned because the article is in bad shape and needs improving. 
* What content is disputed?
Generally it's not the content itself that is disputed but the way it's presented and worded. Many sections need rewritten and better presented.
* How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise
Don't make edits that you think are controversial until you get consensus on talk page. If you think an edit might be reverted, Don't make it. Discuss it first.
* Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..
Revert them once. Leave note on their talk page. If they revert again then don't revert back, simply try to get them to discuss their edits. If they fail to discuss them then revert their edits and report them to WP:AIAV. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikidudemans answers

message: I think like Wikidudeman. I will add trust or good faith.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

message: * Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?
I would like to see an article that is the reflection of the truth.
* What content is disputed?
Material that is "Afrocentric" is disputed. Material that is anti-Afrocentric is also disputed.  This is what is causing edit wars
* How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise
The only way this article can ever achieve some stability is if both sides of the debates are given a voice. I don't know what race the Egyptians were for sure, though my personal opinion leans toward a black/African egypt. I am also pretty sure that Egyptology in the past and present has been affected by racial bias and the African presence in Egypt has been understated. However I am not in favour of deleting anti-Afrocentric material if it is relevant or reliably sourced. The only way the article can have any credibility is if it gives an opportunity to dissenting views. My suggestion remains the same, to have distinct "for" and "against" sections of a black african egypt. The "Africanists" can edit the "for" section, and the non-africanists can edit the "against" section without deleting each others' material. The only checks that we need to make on all sections should be reliability, relevance and verifiability.
* Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..
To be taken seriously they need to earn credibility. 
Muntuwandi 05:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muntuwandi

message: * Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?
I seek to repel abuse and encourage accurate information. Of course with the prevailing views of politics, but this is what I'd like to mainly limit and such articles while having it reflect genuinely verified research from empirical data, variability of opinion notwithstanding. In such an article, I'd also like to prevent undue weight given to obscure authors in order to push a view or refute another. 
* What content is disputed?
Similarly to wikidudeman, I'm not so much concerned with the "content" per se since no one as of yet has been able to offer a formidable rebuttal to the peer reviewed or reference material cited, only that such data isn't subject to distortion or rejected by emotionally invested editors with a point to prove. That is honestly not aimed at any one in particular, though it has been noted..
* How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise
I'd think that me and Zerida's earlier compromise (before things got out of hand again) was a decent one. To simply remove material that is so hotly disputed that edit wars seem inevitable. Though if we'd all practice restraint (including myself), that wouldn't be necessary.
* Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..
This is honestly what I have trouble with dealing with and it was more of a personal question. I appreciate your answer wikidudeman, and admit that it is something that I need to work on as it has been hard in the past. Even as applied to resident editors who don't make much of an effort to communicate rationally on the talk page.
Taharqa 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taharqa

message: Statue of Khafra vs the Sphinx
Unlike the giant Sphinx which has been constantly weathered and eroded for centuries, this statue of Khafra was recovered and dates to between 2558 BC and 2532 BC. This statue (and practically all others) has little or no Negroid craniofacial features whatsoever and does not have the so-called "protruding jaws" of the Sphinx. I think we need to bear in mind also that pictographs and statues of Pharoahs and other ancient Egyptians (all which show a predominantly North African appearance in cranio-facial features, rather than sub-saharan African) are more accurate depictions than some giant half-human, half-lion statue exposed to the elements.
(Many scholars debate whether the Sphinx was built at the time of Khafre, including Robert M. Schoch who has stated that the sphinx has a distinctive "African," "Nubian," or "Negroid" aspect which is lacking in the face of Khafre.The great sphinx controversy)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epf (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you are dealing with the paragon of all Afrocentric mythology. The study about body proportions is being Afrocentrically manipulated to distort the facts... What we see is: "Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population.... The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations." There was LATER mixing in the southern area of Upper Egypt with Nubians that led to this body proportion, that's all. Most indigenous Egyptians were not affected by this. This needs to be corrected in the article. 80.58.205.49 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khafra 

message: Please see Please see User talk:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft for further discussions on the progress of this article. Any opinions on that draft should be expressed there, not here. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please see [[User talk:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft]] 

message: This talk page contains a tremendous amount of original research, which I hope you all know may and will absolutely not be included in the article. Not only the facts but the conclusions drawn from them need to have been previously covered by reliable sources to be eligible for inclusion in the article. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions. If the preceding statement sounds unfamiliar to you, please read Wikipedia:No original research, especially the part about synthesis, very carefully. Thank you. Picaroon (t) 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There definetly is a tendency to regard original research acceptable in this article. In some cases I think its hard to avoid, but you are absolutely correct, it has to be removed. SenseOnes 08:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research - just a reminder 

message: The web page cited as footnote 48 refers to the wrong paper  as (Diop 1977 without a full bibliographic citation). The primary source for Diop's claims about a melanin test is Diop, C. A. 1973. “Pigmentation des anciens Egyptiens. Test par la Mélanine,” Bulletin de l’IFAN, XXXV, B: 515-531.Itzcoatl 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is currently protected due to disputes about its content. Therefore, could I ask that a couple more editors post here whether they would agree that this change is uncontroversial and beneficial to the article, since I do not know much about this topic and cannot judge the reliability of the sources cited. Tra (Talk) 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  diop melanin test 

message: how on earth would it be a "pov fork" to treat Afrocentrism at Afrocentrism, as Afrocentrism, and Egyptology at Egyptology as Egyptology?? What is against policy is, much rather, the constant attempt to pass Afrocenrism for Egyptology and vice versa. This needs to stop. dab (𒁳) 12:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, saying that, when speaking of the Ancient Egyptians, that if one concludes they might have been black (or that some of them were, at least)it's Afrocentrism, and if one concludes they were White or Middle Eastern it is genuine Egyptology, that is definitely a POV fork. Both opinions belong in the same article.--Ramdrake 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's nonsense. nobody even says they were "White", the entire "black or white" non-issue belongs on Afrocentrism, while serious discussion of population history belong on the Egyptological article. We don't separate between "pro-white" vs. "pro-black" sources, we distiuish academic WP:RS, dividing Egyptology (Yurco, Budge, Hawass) from African American Studies (Lefkowitz, Asante) and Afrocentrist ramblings (Diop). Saying Egyptology and African American Studies are two unrelated subjects does not qualify as "pov-fork". dab (𒁳) 14:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbachmann, ancient Egypt is an African civilization. Thus, Egyptology, the science that studies ancient Egypt, like Nubology, Congology, Lubology, etc., is just part of Africology (African Studies). --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dbachmann, you come across as trying to say that culturally, Egypt is Mediterranean, but not African, while the logical stance would seem to me that it is in fact part of both. In this context, you cannot dissociate Egypt from its African roots, no more than you could say it was a typical African civilization, given its numerous contacts throughout the Mediterranean Sea. In that sense, trying to drive a wedge between Egyptology (especially classical Egyptology) and the African part of the nature of Egypt seems like a futile, POV-ridden attempt.--Ramdrake 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbachmann, I am almost sure that you don't know well the Egyptian civilisation. Please read Jean-François Champollion, the father of Egyptology, especially his book Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens. Is Egypt an African civilization in cultural sense? Yes, says Serge Sauneron, a French Egyptologist who was director of the Institut d'archéologie français du Caire from 1969 to 1976. Is the Egyptian civilisation a Mediterranean civilization? No, says Sauneron. So you see, an Egyptologist contradicts you. Here is in French something from him. If you don't understand French, I can later translate for you: "Nous aimons parler de "civilisation méditerranéenne", et y inclure tout ce qui s'est fait de beau ou de grand à proximité de cette mer. Mais lorsque le Nil, par ses sept embouchures, se déverse en elle, il laisse loin derrière lui toute la civilization égyptienne dans ce qu'elle a de plus original... Pour la Phénicie, Carthage, la Grèce ou Rome, la Méditerranée est une voie de liaison, de rapports humains, d'échanges commerciaux, de conquêtes; un peu le centre commun d'un monde qui s'observe d'une rive à l'autre. Pour l'Egypte, elle marque au contraire la limite d'un monde - d'un monde africain; aussi les révélations d'Ogotemmêli, ou la "la philosophie bantoue" apportent-elles de précieux éléments qui nous aident à mieux comprendre certains aspects de la pensée religieuse égyptienne: mais nous ne devrons rien attendre, dans ce domaine, ou fort peu de chose, de la lecture de Platon..." (Serge Sauneron, Les prêtres de l'ancienne Egypte, Paris, édition du Seuil, 1998, pp. 10-11). This sentence is important: "elle (la Méditerranée) marque au contraire la limite d'un monde - d'un monde africain (on the contrary, it (the Mediterranean sea) marks the limit of a world -of an African world)". So, Dbachmann, instead of insulting people, in particular African Americans, try to learn more about ancient Egypt, one of the oldest African civilizations - in the geographical and cultural sense. Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Studies vs Egyptology? 

message: There was a dispute at the draft page, mainly between me and Egyegy about Mostafa Hefny's inclusion in Egyptian views. It is based on the article cited here, called Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification.. He did a google search and claims that Mostafa, although an Egyptian whose family is native to the area around Aswan since ancient times, is Nubian by ethnicity and therefore has no say so in the section entitled 'Egyptian View", even though Hefny is an Egyptian. This is similar to an African American not being able to represent the view of Americans. Not to mention that the article is about Ancient Egypt, while modern Egypt (which the article is not about anyways) its self has no one single ethnicity that defines modern Egypt, so why exclude particular ones?Taharqa 01:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly not like an African American not being able to represent the view of Americans, it's more like an African American trying to represent the view of Hispanic Americans just because both groups have Americans citizenship. They are two different ethnicities just like the Egyptians and the Nubians, even though the Nubians don't have their own independent country and so must carry Egyptian and Sudanese citizenship. The article is about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians themselves, not the ancient Nubians, ancient Berbers who were present in ancient Egypt too, so modern Nubians, Berbers and other ethnic minorities in Egypt do not represent ethnic Egyptians themselves. Egyegy 01:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Mostafa Hefny himself identifies as a Nubian like I proved on the draft talk page, so you original research is irrelevant. Your tone toward the Nubians also smacks of colonialist mentality, which is typical of afrocentrics, that denies the Nubians the right to define themselves how they want, independently from Egyptians. The Nubians have been fighting to do that for a long time because they are proud of their unique culture, even though a lot of them speak Arabic now. Stop imposing your warped racialist views on them. He's a Nubian, get over it. Egyegy 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Taharqa try to keep your racist colonialism to yourself, this is a respectable encyclopedia. The man says he is a proud black African not Egyptian, and is proud of his black (meaning non-Egyptian) heritage. He never once calls himself Egyptian despite the cnn article that describes him as an Egyptian citizen, though that part is true. Stop trying to fit him into your afrocentric bubble world like you're desperately trying to do with the ancient Egyptians. Egyegy 04:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ThutmoseIII, do you have some formation in Egyptology? Please, refrain from spreading ignorance about Nubians. Nubia is the origin of the Egyptian civilization. For a better understanding of this issue, read the father of Egyptology Jean-François Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, pp. 455-460. Nubia stands at the beginning of the Egyptian civilization. Read Alan Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, p. 594: "Ta Seti, Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt; Styw Nubians". If Nubia is the Ist administrative region of Upper Egypt, this means it is of all Egypt. Because, Upper Egypt preceded Lower Egypt which was covered with water during a long period of time. Even in Lower Egypt, the Ist nome, White Walls, stands in the south, or just in the middle between Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. We have to deal with ancient Egypt scientifically, not politically.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 12:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostafa Hefny and Egyptian view 

message: I can see this is going nowhere. Your draft page still cannot make up its mind what it is about. The intro admits that "especially within  Afrocentristc circles. The debate over the racial characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians usually occurs outside the field of Egyptology today", but then the article goes on pretending it is discussing Egyptology. This will not do. It is pointless to fiddle with particular phrasings as long as the very scope of this article isn't established. Make it either ostensibly about Afrocentrism, or ostensibly about Egyptology and we can begin fixing it. Lusala and Taharqa are quite obviously trying to prevent such clarification. Unless you back down and agree to follow Wikipedia policy, this article will see no land. After all this time, may I suggest we file an arbitration case on it? I really see no other way forward. --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need for arbitration, especially since a RFC or mediation hasn't occurred. Arbitrations are also for user conduct, not content issues. You haven't even contributed to the draft yet. If you see problems with it then please improve it. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "useless and repetitive" - lol, you must know all about that I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration? 

message: The page is currently unprotected and I've implemented the draft improvments that we've been working on. If anyone wants to improve it, please do. However do not edit war or else it will be protected again. Forget the 3rr rule, follow the 1rr rule. Don't revert something more than once per day unless it's blatant vandalism. If you revert it and it's reverted back then discuss it. Don't keep reverting. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Are we back to edit warring. Let us exercise some restraint in editing this article. Muntuwandi 05:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Taharqa will ever be able to "restrain" himself from editwarring on this article. He has made a career of it ever since his very first edit. Egyegy 05:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just stop reverting. Please stick to 1 revert per day. That's it. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is Taharqa will never ever respect the 1 revert a day rule, he will just take advantage of everyone who is behaving so he can continue make blanket reverts then make up hot air excuses. That's not fair and needs to be dealt with. Can anyone imagine this article without Taharqa? I can't bec that's the sole reason he's on wikipedia, but if I did imagine it, the article would be a lot more stable than not. The problem on this article has been always Taharqa, not that the subject is so controversial that we can't keep decent article for long. Egyegy 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Taharqa agrees to 1revert per day then will you? Wikidudeman (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Taharqa has agreed to 1 revert per day. Do you? Egyegy? Wikidudeman (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is him agreeing to a 1 revert per day rule? All I read is a bunch of gobledygook dancing around the issue without committing to anything. You have to understand that some of us have experience with Tahraqa's tactics for a long time. He'll wait for a while then start editwarring and making huge changes without consensus. Obviously I won't revert if he doesn't revert me like he keeps doing, so let's see how long he can keep it up. Egyegy 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he's just said that he agreed already to the rules drawn out (one of which was 1revert per day). Wikidudeman (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit wars

message: I'll try to find a copy to verify the quote since taharqa refuses to post the full statements. Egyegy 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ancient egypt magazine 

message: If we're going to have external links then we need to use only the most reputable, reliable and relevant links. I don't think that the current link meets this critera. I was unable to find many good external links previously. All external links should follow WP:EL. I don't believe that the Google video does. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidudeman, who does not use google? And Basil Davidson is a good historian who wrote extensively on African related subjects. Egypt is one of the African civilizations! Basil Davidson is better than this Yaacov Shavit who wrote stupidity on the color of the Egyptians and Ethiopians according to Herodotus. But he is still there in the article. I don't see your problem.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a google video, firstly. They are generally discouraged for several reasons. Firstly, the copyright status of them is unknown. If the video is copyrighted (which it almost defiantly is) then we can't use it. See WP:EL. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you might be right. But let's wait and see if somebody else knows another site where to find to same link which according to me is very relevant to the subject. It offers a good summary of the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: User:Dbachmann, I don't believe a split is necessary and I saw no discussion of it on the talk page. The article actually doesn't even mention much about Afrocentric views. Splitting it would make absolutely no sense. How would that be done? What would we move to Afrocentrism? I see nothing that could possibly be moved there and removed from the current article. Also, The article presents all relevant views per their weight. We can't just remove all mentions of Afrocentric beliefs about the race of ancient Egyptians from the article if it's relevant to the topic. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you "saw no discussion of it on the talk page"? Then you must not have looked very hard. I am sorry, but it is simply not negotiable that we cannot conflate two completely unrelated topics, Wikipedia is not a platform where you can roll your own ideology. --dab (𒁳) 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only recently came to the article. Any of those discussions must have been archived. The information on King tut, Diop and Cleopatra are all relevant to the article. We can't just remove relevant information because it's afrocentric in nature. We must present all relevant info per WP:Weight. Getting rid of all of it and moving it to another article will do nothing but remove relevant info from the Race of Ancient Egyptians article. Moreover, There is no consensus for a split. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: how about this section, right above? --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it? it doesn't answer my objections to the split. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Diop and is irrelevant to Egyptology. Afrocentrist criticism regarding Cleopatra, the Sphinx, kemet, Tutankhamun etc. is irrelevant. Unless there is a debate in peer-reviewed  Egyptological literature, it's not an issue here and belongs on Afrocentrism. WP:UNDUE is precisely the key: Afrocentrism is of no consequence whatsoever to Egyptology, it's a topic of US American sociology, period.  --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about the topic of Egyptology in genral, It's about the topic of the Race of the ancient Egyptians. Since that is the case, even fringe views concerning that topic must be mentioned if they are relevant. WP:UNDUE simply states that an article must not give "undue weight" to fringe views, not that it must totally ignore them. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dbachmann can contribute in the way of improving the article. There was a work on a draft some weeks ago. Did he show up? Now, we have to look forward, not backward! The tag is senseless.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any consensus at all for a split? I see none. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbachmann, you are now provoking trouble in the article. Cheikh Anta Diop is a Scholar, an Egyptologist. The results of the studies on the mummies were presented at the Egyptological Cairo Conference in 1974. Do you know something about this conference? Maybe not! What is wrong about Kemet? Try to participate more positively to the building up of the article. Otherwise, you better write on Asia without quoting Asiatics and Asiatic points of view and call it doing science, or you better write on Europe without quoting Europeans and European points of view and call it doing science.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: there is no need to split the article, work on the content may be required but splitting will not resolve any disputes. Muntuwandi 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: At present we have some consensus on the content. This is the longest the article has gone without edit wars or protection in several months. The article still needs some work though. Much of the problem is the quality of the sources not the quality of the article. Muntuwandi 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The section on the way the Ancient Egyptians perceived themselves in relation to other peoples is VERY relevant to what their racial characteristics were. The language section deals with the possible relatedness of Ancient Egyptians via language to other peoples. The Mummy reconstructions were done to determine the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians and is thus also very relevant. This article actually contains very few quotes and is not a "cut and paste" of anything. Deleting relevant material simply won't work. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1)A section on the way ancient Egyptians perceived themselves is relevant. This section, however, is mainly composed of the opinions of modern Egyptians, which is irrelevant. And the little information which should remain needs to be put into its academic context. (2) Language can be used as corroborating evidence in a scholar's theory regarding the main subject, and only deserves to be mentioned where this is in fact the case. (3) Some of the information under mummy reconstructions is useful, but the section on the squabble surrounding Tut's face is not. (4) As far as quotes go: My comment was that there should be more quotes and/or transparent references and less of these so-called 'editorial summaries' which, in some cases, patently distort and misrepresent the actual conclusions drawn by the authors cited. (5) Deleting irrelevant material is always a good policy. :) Varoon Arya 11:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles shouldn't contain too many direct quotes, but SHOULD summarize the sources. If you think some of the summaries don't fit the sources then please fix them. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The article should not be split. I removed the tag. ~Jeeny (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, and for the record: I still think splitting this article amounts to creating a POV fork, and so far nothing that's been said here has convinced me otherwise. Classifying certain theories as "Afrocentrism" or"Egyptology" depending on what is being proposed, and regardless of the qualifications of each proponent is very much a POV fork, IMO.--Ramdrake 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: I suggest dab to be blocked. He is changing by force the form and the content of the article obtained through consensus days ago. He is being disrespectful to people. Wikidudeman did a good job here because he tried to bring views together. A working on a draft was proposed. dab was invisible. Now he comes bringing disorder. He must comply and agree to contribute more positively to improve the content of the article. For now, the article seems to be semi-protected. But dab has to be reverted as soon as possible. He cannot impose himself on a consensus where all of us made concessions.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't know about a block, but Dab is certainly disruptive and seems to think he is the ultimate authority on these subjects. I don't know how do deal with such personalities. From his own user page: "In most cases where fruitful collaboration breaks down, except for patent silliness, at least one party is strongly motivated either by an irrational sentiment of either religion, nationalism, or, psychologically probably related, the cranky (nerdy, ADHD[5]) mind caught in pseudoscience" ~Jeeny (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, that is your POV that they are fringe views. Do you not understand that things and views change over-time? Also, please don't blindly revert my edits. I spent a lot of time formatting the images. Also, do not threaten me or others with bans and arbitration, that is disruptive. Thanks. ~Jeeny (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can you show a minimum of good faith and stay on topic for one minute? good. Now, if it is my "pov" that these are fringe views, that's no problem then, is it? WP:RS says the burden is on you to establish the validity of views you want to discuss, by citing peer-reviewed academic literature. This is all I am asking. Discuss this topic by clinging to peer-reviewed literature. I will of course continue to  point out non-academic sources as non-academic sources and ask for their removal.  Happy editing and thankyou. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many that you call "fringe theories" that actually do source to peer-reviewed academic literature. Although, I haven't gone through all of them...yet...so instead I'll say some do. I agree that if statements made don't follow WP:RS then they should be removed. But, again, views change over-time because of new technology and findings, and just because they do not follow that which has been the "standard" for years... does not mean they do not meet RS policy. The Earth was flat for many years, too. ;p ~Jeeny (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab, The only problem is that there is totally no consensus for a split. You keep adding the tags back despite lack of consensus. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also chime in: Dab seems to be insisting that his view is the correct one against consensus. When asked to back up his claims that alternate views are fringe and/or irrelevant to the point of not deserving inclusion, he challenges back by saying it is others who should prove their views aren't fringe. He also says policy trumps consensus, and that his opinion is the one which respects policy, even after numerous editors point out to him that his suggestion is the one which is in direct violation of policy (POV-fork). I believe this is blatant tendentious and disruptive editing, and nothing else. If Dab wants to start his own article, with his own kind of truth, I say let him try, but don't let him destroy the consensus that's been achieved here.--Ramdrake 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the afrocentric views are fringe. That's not the problem, they are relevant. Dab however seems to be endorsing moving most of the info to another page which won't work. I'm all for condensing the info, but moving relevant info somewhere else won't work. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are somewhat relevant. There is however the official policy of WP:Undue weight to consider. That policy would seem to indicate that the majority of the admittedly fringe theories should not receive disproportionate weight in the central article on a subject. The title and apparent leading subject of this article are such as to indicate that this article discusses the race of Ancient Egyptians per se, not the various theories about the subject. As such, I can and do think that the content related to existing, admittedly fringe, theories should not receive particularly great emphasis within this article itself. This is not to say that the content cannot be placed somewhere. However, particularly as the majority of the content in question is in fact sourced by individuals whose qualifications regarding this subject are apparently poor, I think that such content should probably be only included here in summary form, and the majority of it, which does not directly relate to the factual race of the Ancient Egyptians but rather to poorly qualified opinions by non-experts, should not be included here, but rather placed in a separate article. Articles relating to the modern concept of Afrocentricism, which seem to be where most of these sources are closely related to, seems to me to be probably the best location for the bulk of such content. John Carter 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be noted that consensus, according to policy, can change. Not saying that it necessarily will in this case, just mentioning something that might wind up mattering. In that case, then what needs to be worked out, to everyone's satisfaction, is what the explicit subject of this article is. Is the subjet what the reliable sources on the subject say about the ethnicity, or race, of the ancient Egyptians, or is it about what the recent arguments or discussions about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians? If it is about the latter, then I would think that changing the title to Controversy regarding the race of Ancient Egyptians or something similar and the introduction to reflect that change might be in order. However, there does seem to be some disagreement about what the specific focus of this article is. Resolving that would seem to be the first consideration regarding this article, as the bulk of the existing discussion seems to hinge on that. And I do believe that attempting to make the article cover both the reliable sources' opinion and the currently popular discussion does seem to be bordering on conflation, which is against policy in several ways. John Carter 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is dab bringing disorder?