Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Draft

message: This is a rewrite of the "ethnicity" section in the Great Sphinx of Giza article.
It attempts to address:
1. the ethinicity of the sphinx
2. why it's important
3. why it's not mainstream
in the most objective, verifiable, wiki way possible. Altarbo 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: - "the exploitation of Africa, the trans-Atlantic slave trade and racial discrimination." to 
"exploitation of Africa and African peoples" 
The original phrase reads oddly.  I think "exploitation" should be changed to "colonization" or "the slave trade and racial disrimination" should be changed to "African peoples".  I went with the shorter alternative, because it's more of an introductory sentence.  It should flow into the rest of the section.
-"black Africans" to "Sub-Saharan Africans"
This was just for verifiability.Altarbo 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on Possibly Controversial Changes 

message: The sources being used here, Schoch and Domingo, are not reliable. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Beware false authority
*Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. As mentioned above, none of the sources are Egyptologists, archaeologists or anthropologists. They are not accredited to evaluate Egyptian statues in a professional manner.
*Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence
Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.
* Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
* Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
* Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a  conspiracy to silence them.
Issues to look out for
*Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? 
Self-published sources
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
-- Stbalbach 13:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

message: "Obviously, the most important, critical information/central point of the entire section is precisely that. As such, that information belongs at the head of the section."
No it's not obvious.  I would like you to explain why it's important.  Why should the article talk about things in an order other than the way they happened?  Why should we start off with "Modern people categorize the sphinx as a member of a group they made up long after the sphinx had been constructed."  
You know Cyrus the Great acted a lot like a good christian.  Maybe I should go put "Modern people think Cyrus acted like a good christian," on the Cyrus page?  (<- How is what you're doing different than that?)Altarbo 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deeceevoice, Why? 

message: The draft article has been moved out of the main namespace to Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Rough draft. Khatru2 02:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note