Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 16

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taxico/drafts/Egypt
It has some sources we might want to check out. futurebird 12:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is terrible! Of cause, these people have some nice pieces there. But instead of creating confusions, there could have joined the main article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's creator, Taxico, has been inactive since March. That might have something to do with the recently found draft. It might be a good idea to see how, if at all, they could be merged though. John Carter 20:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Taharqa was surely speaking about the article Origin of the Nilotic peoples.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft I found 

message: Just a question.  This is the longest I have seen the discusion page void of rampant deletions.  I have have been reading for about two months now.  Bango though, that is a feat on this discusion page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.131.239 (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is the discusion page protected also? 

message: Confucius say when all your sources of wisdom come from one source "Shomarka O.Y. Keita"something not right
--Mikmik2953 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmmmm 

message: Why is there the "white" supremist tearjerking sympathy and "ooh that bad white man" term solelly uttilized?  There are many "white" people that hold that "interesting" belief that are not white supremists.  The sole association of one with the other is inappropreate, and should be listed ALSO with the eurosentric beliefs.  After all no association of any of the afrocentric beliefs (a wholey inappropreate term due to africa being a geographically scientific term in my opinion) with "black" supremists or "black" power groups.  In so far as I have seen.--207.14.131.239 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I regret to say I really haven't a clue what you're saying. Maybe you could be a bit clearer? John Carter 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll try to take a shot at answering: the hypothesis of Ancient Egyptians as a people descended from Scandinavian (or Northern European) stock is a hypothesis with very few adherents (possibly because of its highly anachronistic nature), and is rather typical of the discourse of, indeed, white supremacist works, such as "March of the Titans". If you have reliable sources that these theories are seriously entertained in circles outside of these, please bring them to this talk page for discussion.--Ramdrake 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I got much of that. The question that we're facing regarding that subject is WP:Undue weight. While the sources are probably notable, the degree of attention and credit the idea is given will also be factors in the discussion. The so called "Afrocentric" ideas have been given a lot of attention lately, which qualifies them as significant enough for specific attention. The question here would be how much space in the article to give this theory, and which article to place that content in. It is possible that maybe the Hamitic article, or some other article, might be a better place for such content. I don't know. What would need to be established would be the current view of the theory, and/or how many people hold it now. John Carter 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I would say that "Afrocentric" hypotheses are given more weight than "Nordic" hypotheses here because the "Afrocentric" hypotheses have adherents with some credible scientific background, whereas I don't think the same can be said of the "Nordic" hypothesis. Besides, it's a bit of a false dichotomy, as the "Afrocentric" and "Nordic" hypotheses are only two of several hypotheses to explain the origins of the Ancient Egyptian people; there are others. NPOV does not require that all viewpoints be given equal attention; it only requires that each viewpoint be given attention commensurate with its importance "in the real world".--Ramdrake 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that can include even "non-scientific" importance as well. I know locally where I live these theories are discussed regularly. Several people support it, others oppose it. But the amount of attention they receive has to be factored in as well, and right now the "Afrocentric" theories receive a lot of attention. That might change if and when the amount of attention it receives changes, but we can't write the article to abide by terms we don't know yet. John Carter 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. This would be why the "creation vs evolution" debate has at least three key articles: one Creation-evolution controversy for those who want to know about the controversy per se, the Evolution article for those who want to know about the canonical scientific theory, and the Creationism article for those who want to know about the religious aspect of the controversy. If there was enough material in this article to split it three ways, I could recommend that something like that be done so as to be fair for everyone; however, with only 36kb of prose, I don't see that this would do much of anything except yield three stub-quality articles. However, there is the added difficulty that I seem to perceive that some positions in the debate which are ascribed to "Afrocentrists" in fact come from recognized researchers who have some credibility within the sphere of Egyptology, so while the debate is in good part outside the sphere of Egyptlolgy, I don't perceive it as being altogether out of it.--Ramdrake 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, please present references that warrant the hypothesis that "Nordic Egypt" is much more widespread, and we may review this position.--Ramdrake 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just present whatever references you have and we'll see.--Ramdrake 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Also, please note that no one but admins can edit the article right now, and that it's probably the case that any proposed addition will require some display of consensus. I don't myself oppose adding content such as you propose, but we would need to see some references and a draft of the proposed addition before we could request one of the admins to add it. John Carter 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, please see what you can find. However, AFAIK, "Nordic Egypt" refers to the hypothesis of Egypt having first been colonized by invaders coming from the Scandinavian regions, more or less.--Ramdrake 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I acknowledge that translations can be and are problems. I deal with a lot of religion articles. Believe me, I 'know translations can be problems. However, you also seem to be saying that the term "Nordic Egypt" refers to something other than what most of us associate with the term. If that is to be accepted, then you will have to produce some source to verify the existence of the alternate contention. I regret to say that I am personally unfamiliar with any other use of that term. So, again, we would need to have some source which meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS to add such content to the article. This is particularly important because all of us non-admins are going to have to ask an admin to make any changes for us. So, we'll need to see some source to verify any changes proposed to the article. And that applies to everybody, including me and Ramdrake and everyone else. Those are the rules when only admins can change articles. John Carter 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordic Egypt?????? 

message: for how long is the page protected. Maybe we should return to a sandbox to try to reach a consensus. Though we are still having edit wars, I think the stability is getting better and the article is going for longer periods without protection. Muntuwandi 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I believe there already is one, right? John Carter 18:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll all for it too. More constructive, too, IMHO.--Ramdrake 18:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the existing sandbox is at User:Wikidudeman/Egypt race article. John Carter 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have copied the current version to the sandbox. We can start to work on the disputed sections. Muntuwandi 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. As indicated above, though, I think it might be a good idea to identify what we think the article should cover, and adjust the content accordingly, first, rather than adjust the article almost helter skelter and have the argument about what should and should not be included go resolved for much longer. John Carter 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For those truly interested in sandboxing it, Use User:Wikidudeman/Egyptdraft2. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidudeman, please, take part to this new attempt. You seem to master the subject and Wikipedia's policies. Don't go backward when people need your presence. This is a humble but important service to humanity!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sandbox 

message: Here is one for all you anti everything but "black" egypt people.  It's all real man the powers of Pharoh in the bible, the gods of egypt having power and being refered to as gods in the bible ,by god mind you, not witches or charlatins.  My name is Egypt, my name is Pharoh, My name is even Rome I got power people that aint no thing.  Hey I'm a white guy.  How are you gonna deal with that, living prof?--207.14.131.183 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh by the way. 

message: Odd isn't it an eitire section pointing out the long period deviod of rampant deltions was recentlly deleted.  To bad I guess they just can't control themselves.--207.14.129.82 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rampant deleter strikes again. 

message: This case could easily be closed just by adding modern images of mulattoes and quadroons,both my parents were mulattoes - and I look like a mirror copy of ancient egyptian women [only fairer]and more Mesopotamian,sumerian etc.I have no doubt they were mixed race.One thing is for sure they were not from the germanic tribes of europe or the ancient iberians of the british isles from which most of the "west" now descends!
210.50.137.2 04:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On another note, black africans are not homogenous in appearance. Some are dark (central africa) some are light (ethiopians). Berbers are indigenous Africans and look a lot like middle eastern people (tho who is to say this isn't because of intermarriage with arab invaders). you have africans who are mid-range in color in west africa like Ghana and they definately weren't mixing with arabs and berbers. I think we need to redefine what is African so that eurocentrists stop gagging when someone calls the ancient Egyptians AFRICAN. The Middle East however has no claim to ancient egypt or at least no more than the Kushites or Berbers who lived a heck of a lot closer.  Scott Free (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to keep this conversation non-combative. The person whom responded immediately following made some good points and seems to have his or her head on right. Mikmik seems to be lacking in the reason department. I'll make a couple of points and then unwatch this article as it seems too much negativity is floating around here.
*Claiming that a people are black or white is not in itself racist. No one calls me a racist for calling the Romans white or the Yoruba black.
*The climates between what is now Saudi Arabia and Egypt are similar now and likely were similar then. However, the proximity of the ancient egyptian populations to nubians (they are right next door for crying out loud) would explain any differences in appearance pretty easily. 
*i've never claimed anything as hair-brained as your rather disgusting comment about invaders being uncontrollable sexual beasts determined to breed out other civilizations. People migrate and intermarry. That's the natural order of things. In America, only 30% of the African-American population can be traced back to a white male ancestor. Despite the overwhelming amount of African DNA in black american populations, they look radically different from black african populations because of intermarriage with blacks from other ethnic groups (Igbo men with Wolof Women or African men wih Native American women). Casual interbreeding over even such a short period of time (400 years is nothing in historic times) produces drastic results. Egyptian civilizatin was around much longer (3000 years if you count from old kingdom to Roman rule). Seeing how everyone and their babysitter conquered egypt at what time, it doesn't take too much imagination to forsee soldiers laying down roots even after they were defeated. No single invading population could have drastically changed egyptian appearance or culture. But a large concentrated population living just south of them (like the nubians) or even a scattered and small population living very close to them (like the berbers) could make a significant difference over such a long period of time. Considering that the egyptians themselves claim to come from the south, nubia becomes a pretty strong candidate for at least some if not the base of ancient egyptian ancestry.
*No people stays the same in appearance or culture over 6,000 years. Egypt's position on the nile made them a major trade hub which attracted people from all over the ancient world. Trade generally leads to intermarriage and migration. If it didn't, egypt would be the first place that ever happened in recorded history. If there ever was an egyptian ethnicity (and I really doubt there ever was one since being egyptian really only required adopting the customs), it probably would not have been recognizable to an old kingdom egyptian if he or she was transported to the New Kingdom period. No sane person can say today that the Egyptian nationals today are similar in appearance let alone the the same population as ancient egyptians. That is just false and maybe Mikmik needs to leave the peacepipe alone for a while.
*I know where the etymology of Africa comes from but that hardly has anything to do with this discussion. Stop putting out useless facts and stay on topic.
*Mikmik, don't make assumptions or blatant insulting statements toward black people. No one has come here to disrespect any race. To assume that any black person that puts forth the idea of ancient egyptian being a black or negro civilization is only doing so to find out about their own identities is absurd and paternalistic. You only need look at my profile page to learn that I am very educated on West African history and its connection to the African diaspora in the New World. You are not talking to an uneducated person. I might wonder about your level of education after laboring through your poorly written statements. Also keep in mind that African-Americans are not the only people who posit ideas of ancient egypt being an indigenous African civilization. This is a pretty commonly held fact by all but you for some reason. Nor are African-Americans alone in believing that the ancient egyptians were "black" or "negro", though they are in the minority right now regarding that dispute. 
In closing, several decades ago the scholarly community was positive ancient Egypt was an imported civilization (see Dynastic Race theory). Today, mainstream scholars are positive it was an indigenous civilization, though they refuse to come right out and say it was "African". In another fifty years, scholars will have to concede yet again the increasing (and for some odd reason frightening) blackness of the ancient egyptians. The afrocentrists whom were mocked in the past have been proven right on many of their beliefs. As the mainstream becomes less prejudiced to the idea of a black egypt (as they are already becoming now), the current "afrocentrists" will be proven right on many of their principles. Look at Great Zimbabwe or the original ideas on the spread of iron technology in Africa. Both were originally thought of as the works of outside "superior" peoples. Now we know that both are the creations of indigenous Africans. Until the concept of black africans (regardless of skin-tone) as inferior people is removed, egypt will be put conveniently outside the realm of African civilizations until the naysayers see the truth. I hope you are not so angry at these statements that you don't learn anything. PEACE  Scott Free (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern mixed race people resemble Egyptians [Alicia Keys,Zoe Kravtiz,Maya Rowell etc] 

message: Addtional notes on:
Sub-Saharan Africans are treated as a monolithic, and biological African groups such as Nubians, Somalians and Egyptians are viewed essentially as non-African for having a craniometic pattern more similar to that of non-African populations.
210.50.137.2 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distorted view of Nubians, Somalians and Egyptians as non-African. 

message: No I'm serious 13,000 Kb have been added to the talk page. I'm not saying that the discussion isn't productive, but I really think we need to start adding sourced information to the article, let's let the sources settle the points of debate. I've been watching this talk page grow all week, anticipating some kind of great new idea for improving this subject, but I don't know, are we going in circles? futurebird (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait the page is *still* protected? Wow. Why? Is there any process in place to get to the point where it can be unprotected? futurebird (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because no one has requested that the page be unprotected? You'd want to read Wikipedia:Protection policy#Unprotection to see how to get the protection lifted. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile, I have been working alone on User:Wikidudeman/Egyptdraft2. Where was John Carter? (Just to make you laughing a bit!).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I been slacking off big time in all sorts of areas lately. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please edit the article 

message: The following statement from the controversies section( Hawass, in a 2007 publication of "Ancient Egypt Magazine", also asserted that none of the facial reconstructions resemble Tut, claiming for example that the French reconstruction ended up with a person that looked French, whose features do not resemble any known Egyptians. He asserts that in his opinion, the most accurate representation of the boy king is the mask from his tomb.[92])Unfournately i cant confirm the comments no where on the web and the magazine is a very obscure U.K magazine and the statement seem to be totally opposite of what he said in the national geographic website which is already a source in the section in where Dr. Hawas  makes this statement("In my opinion, the shape of the face and skull are remarkably similar to a famous image of Tutankhamun as a child, where he is shown as the sun god at dawn rising from a lotus blossom," Hawass said. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0511_050511_kingtutface.html so i am asking for the comment to be taken down or this one be added to the section.
Now from the mummy reconstruction section the article read as follows (Though modern technology can reconstruct Tutankhamun's facial structure with a high degree of accuracy based on CT data from his mummy, but due to lack of facial tissue and embalming issues, correctly determining his skin tone, nose width, and eye color is nearly impossible.[56])i checked the source which is national geographic and it reads more like this(Some aspects of the king's appearance, however, are destined to remain mysterious. The shape of the top of his nose and of his ears, as well as the color of his eyes and skin, cannot be determined by CT scan skull data. These features are likely to remain forever unknown.)they do not make reference to his width of his nose it says the shape of the top  of his nose--Mikmik2953 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined. There is no sufficiently specific description of the edit request. Please try to express yourself more clearly. Sandstein (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mummy reconstruction section/Controversies Section 

message: Egyptians themselves called for the inclusion of Egypt in Du Bois's early drafts of the Encyclopedia Africana.  The director of the United Arab Republic Cultural Center in Accra wrote to praise Du Boise for having "maintained faith in the African character of Egypt's achievement," and urging that the Encyclopedia Africana keep Egypt within its Afrocentric focus. Afrotopia: The Roots of African American Popular History By Wilson Jeremiah Moses. Page 3. 
We might want to add this when the article is unlocked. futurebird (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good piece!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please add 

message: Could someone please change "King Tug" to "King Tut" in the Tutankhamun section?  Corvus cornixtalk 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. There is a mistake. But the article is still protected! For how long? Big mystery!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a mystery, it's due to constant edit warring.  Corvus cornixtalk 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit has been made since it was uncontroversial and no one disagreed with it (in accordance with WP:PROT). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Certian editors engage in consensus and discusion only to "passify" other editors and then turn around and do what ever they will.  I have seen editors delete poritons of the discusion that are unflattering to there own propoganda and views, in an attempt to present themselves as correct and unfaltering in there "view".  The wikipedia "process" has been mocked and sullied by you individuals.  And you believe the article is going to be unlocked so you can run rampant with your unacademic agenda.
That is not an argument that is a statment.  And I would like to thank you for helping prevent any self rightous "Trolls" from responding.  I read the same things being brought up on this disscusion page all the time, their veiws are right everybody else is wrong, no room for science or logical approach to the data let alone the article.  The whole thing comes across as a sad farce.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.217 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just please stop trolling. It won't work here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please try to offer constructive suggestions for editing the article, otherwise I don't see how your posts are helping anything. In other words: please stop trolling. futurebird (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What make you think the article is going to get unlocked? 

message: Not that I assume, editing of this article can re-start anytime soon, but can anybody explain in simple terms what's the article is intended to be about and why this strange lemma was choosen?
If the article should center on the anthropology and (reconstructed) population genetics of the ancient Egyptians, there seems to be no place for the outdated concept of "race" in the lemma, as the near consensus view in both disciplines denies its usefullness and explanatory power.
If the article should center on some public controversy (which may happily use the term "race", as in some parts of the world it is still used by the media and the general public), some quotation signs and "controversy" in the lemma would make this clear.
--Pjacobi (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article deals with both aspects.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma 

message: Please replace all instances of 'King Tut' with 'King Tutankhamun'.  'Tut' is too familiar/slangy - this article is supposed to be encyclopedic in style! 86.133.214.216 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another edit request 

message: Per a request at WP:RFPP, since this is now under ArbCom probation, I unprotected it.  Fair warning that the ArbCom remedy now gives wide berth to block disruptive editors.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Wknight94! Let's hope that this time we are going to work peacefully.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I have added a section on Relations between Ancient Egypt and Nubia. In the past, it was Muntuwandi who suggested the creation of this section.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That section needs some serious cleaning up and/or rewriting. I was going to try but I can barely understand what its trying to say(no offense).--Woland37 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wants to say that Egypt originated in Nubia and that Nubia, despite some clashes with Egypt I have not mentioned, kept a privileged position during all the Egyptian history.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If thats what you're saying then 1) It would seem to be original research (which pretty much all of this article is, even though it has 'sources') and 2) by not mentioning "some clashes with Egypt" you are not keeping with the standards of  NPOV. If I recall these 'minor clashes' were actually entire campaigns by several Pharaohs.
I really don't think that this article needs to become more bloated than it already is. --Woland37 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Good! But why did you not summarize the article of National Geographic? Now the quote has been removed because it is too long. Besides, this section: Relation with Nubia needs also a picture. Does anyone know a good one?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with Nubia 

message: I and a few other users have discussed the deletion of this article, mostly because we seem to feel that it is completely unencyclopedic and essentially a 'made-up' topic. So I added the unencyclopedic template in the hopes of generating discussion with people who think that it does belong in an encyclopedia.--Woland37 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dare say it is far more encyclopaedic than the average Pokémon, which all have their Wikipedia articles. While it can indeed use some improvement, I don't think calling it unencyclopaedic or calling for its deletion (please see previous AfD - the result was 'Keep by a landslide) would help much in this matter. The fact of the matter is, the racial characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians are the subject of a contrversy, which controversy is mostly in the popular rather than academic circles (even though it is also debated in academia), but doesn't prevent it from being encyclopaedic.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Then, go ahead, nominate it for deletion, and see what happens.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I really don't think we are at a point where this should be nominated for deletion. I did read the AfD a few days ago and I definitely see Ramdrake's point. At first I thought I was simply unaware of this 'controversy' but after looking through the references this really does seem like a made-up issue that the existence of this article has given undue weight to. I still haven't made up my mind entirely and would like to hear more from the 'keep' side. --Woland37 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please define more fully what you mean by made-up? This controversy definitely exists, although it may be an obscure one to a lot of people.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your welcome contribution! You may want to read up on such  guidelines as Good Faith and Civility. --Woland37 (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no real grounds for deleting this article, there are many journal articles, books, etc. that talk about this topic. I'm really surprised that this is even being put on the table. futurebird (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You've been warned.  Repeatedly.  Stop trolling.  Stop using the article talk space to attack other editors.  Stop altering the talk page record.  deeceevoice (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Comment to 207.14.129.217. Seems like a perfectly straightforward discussion to me. Do you have any thoughts on the actual subject of the discussion? Pinkville (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 207.14.129.217, let's try to keep this conversation on topic and avoid making personal attacks as you just now have done again. It is perfectly reasonable to remove comments not related to improving the article from the talk page. futurebird (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, someone else removed it without discussion. Woland37 (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic Template and Deletion 

message: My watchlist is showing an increasing number of reverts on this page.  Do we need to go back to indef full protect?  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of cause no! Important changes must first be discussed here in the talk page. But, there are people using IP to make significant changes. How to deal with them?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More edit wars? 

message: *Content Removed per WP:SOAP & WP:TALK; this is not a discussion in relation to improving the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLACK EGYPTIAN EMPIRE 

message: Why no images of Egyptian art?  Why are there no images here from the Tomb of Menna, Nakht, Sennefer,  Thutmosis IV, Amenhotep III and many others?  The ancient Egyptians left so many convincing images of themselves, yet none of them are visible here on a page about the appearance of the ancient Egyptians.  Such images in and of themselves provide definite evidence that cannot be denied easily.  Actually a section on ancient Egyptian artwork should be created, saying that the Egyptians created a large number of images of themselves which covered most of the tombs and temples along the Nile.  Many of these images, especially those in the tombs and some temples, still are well preserved with the colors intact. Show some of the images then note how some people attempt to disagree over what these images represent, from being symbolic, to tanned.   A good place to go would be flickr, however many of these images are not licensed for Wikipedia:
Osirisnet is another good reference:
In fact not only should there be a section on it with some images from these tombs in these pages, but the page on ancient Egyptian art should be updated to show more than faded statues with no paint.  The problem being that most of the full color images from the Egyptian tombs and temples are never shown in more than piece meal fashion, which means the public only gets a distorted view of Egyptian art.  There are thousands of full color images from the Egyptian tombs covering old to new kingdom and yet these images are hardly ever published for the public.  Some tombs have thousands of images by themselves and these are hardly ever shown in a complete fashion to the public.  That is unless they travel to Egypt and see them in person.  In this day and age of digital photography and online distribution, there is no excuse for this.  Especially since many museums and research institutions have tons of high quality images of all these tombs, at various stages of restoration and/or decay, which can and should be made to the general public.  The fact that these images are not being shown, versus the usual unpainted, damaged, restored or faded versions of Egyptian sculpture says a lot about the way ancient Egypt's image is being shaped by those with an agenda.
At the very least we can add some of links to such imagery on these pages.
Big-dynamo (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Several reasons. We can't be sure that they were accurate. In fact, we have some good evidence, mostly relating to imagery related to Ikhnaton, that the majority of ancient Egyptian art presented very "idealized" views of Egyptians, which often had little real relation to their true appearance, and thus they cannot be seen as being particularly relevant to the matter of their factual appearance, rather than what they, for whatever reason, perceived as being "fashionable". Unfortunately, we can't know what their motivations if any were, although we do have evidence that the majority of the imagery is not what we today would call truely representative, so the images are at best unreliable sources as to what the Egyptians really looked like. Also, frankly, multiple, generally redundant, images don't necessarily add anything particularly valuable. There may well be other articles where those images would be relevant, and I wouldn't have any real objections to seeing them there. But overloading the page with images which don't necessarily add anything unique isn't particularly useful, and probably ultimately counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sorry John Carter, but you argument is not valid. If you have a reliable source that says that ancient Egypt art can't be used because it is to idealizing, then add it, so that the article debates both sides. Otherwise leave it. Zara1709 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry as well. However, please note that the article is explicitly about the current controversy, as per the first sentence of the article. The facts of the ancient art are at best of dubious relevance to the current controversy, unless that relevance is itself established by references in the literature about the existing controversy, which it does not seem to be. As such, I believe, as I and others have indicated, that that content is of at best dubious relevance to an article which is explicitly about the current controversy. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're are saying that this article is intended only to debate the controversy about the Race of ancient Egyptians, without mentioning what "Race" the ancient Egyptians actually were? Aside from the point that the whole concept of Race is probably    nonsense anyway, the controversy about this issue exists apparently only in Afrocentric circles on the one side and in Nordicist circles who are still living in the first half of the last century on the other side anyway. So if we can get is established in the article that from the perspective of academic Egyptologists the ancient Egyptians had "quite dark" skin, we should be fine. And then the article can take a look at all the other views. I wonder if there is anyone who considers them to be "yellow" or "red". On a white-to-black scale, it seems every colour has been proposed.  Zara1709 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The numerous previous discussions regarding this article, and the ArbCom, came to that conclusion, that this article is about the current controversy, yes. I agree with you personally that the question of race according to modern science is possibly a moot one, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been a lot of discussion regarding the often genetically consistent ethnic characteristics which the ancient Egyptians may have possessed. I think the word "Race" was chosen for the title primarily because it says more precisely what it took me rather more words to say explicitly above. While the factual race, if there were only one race, of the ancient Egyptians is relevant to wikipedia, discussing that involves so many other matters, beyond the high-profile media coverage the subject has recently received, which is the central focus of this article, that it would basically require an entirely separate article, and even then all it would basically come down to is "dunno, but there are a lot of ideas out there." But the previous discussions agreed to limit the scope of the current article to discussing the recent controversy. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In this case, may I suggest that you add (citation needed) tags and (summary-style) wherever you feel they are needed? I feel it would be more constructive and less POV-seeming than just blanking numerous additions. I too feel that the additions are tool long-winded, but I think removing them just isn't the solution; summarizing them would be much better.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this is an highly controversial topic unsourced and or poorly sourced statements should be removed and i sited examples and ramdrake i reverted because there was blatant pov statements hidden behind bogus sources and unsourced, than left a message saying that the author could rewrite the statement to fit into the article better lets face it the edits he/she made could be cut down to a a few sentences,and also i said what does the relation with nubia have to do with the race of the ancient egyptians any way tht section should be removed period leaving this section leads to innuendo rather than fact--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The passages you object to constitute only a fraction of the additions by User:Big Dynamo, and I don't think they warrant the wholesale removal of what looks like a lot of work. If you feel their total inclusion is unwarranted, you can suggest changes you feel will be more in line with NPOV, but I still think wholesale removal is unwarranted. In any case, we now have about two weeks to achieve consensus on an acceptable compromise.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Egyptian Art 

message: I have no problem removing and rewording what has been added that is long winded.
It wasn't my intent to start an edit war, but to fill in some gaps in what was already on the page.
But the page itself is a bit winded anyway and probably should be split to put the issue of the debate into another age.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big-dynamo (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As it seems we have a few days to cool off from the article, would you mind reworking your additions and putting them on the talk page? That way, they can be properly discussed and we can hopefully achieve some consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Let me try to clear up a few things: this article is baiscally about the phenotypic makeup of the Ancient Egyptians, period. "Race" is shorthand for "phenotypic makeup" here. The debate isn't solely about the Afrocentric views, although the debate is certainly more important in Afrocentrist circles (but that's just a statement of fact). Lastly, WP:NPOV decides what is relevant here or not. If you're reporting a notable, sourced opinion about the subject matter, it should definitely go in. If you're reporting facts that have been claimed in support of a notable viewpoint on the subject, it also goes in. If you're reporting your own viewpoint or conclusions on the subject, that's OR and not allowed. I have no problems with the insertion of your content, except maybe its relative wordiness, and possibly a couple of sentences that do come across as your own conclusions (maybe for lack of sourcing those specific sentences). If you can address these issues, I don't think anybody can oppose the inclusion of your edits based on WP policies. Hope I've answered your questions.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long winded and rambling 

message: The whole thing really is ridiculous.  Our conception of "race" is a construct of 16th and 17th centuries that justified the trade and keeping of slaves by men who were supposedly Christian.  The way we look at race simply did not exist before then.  All the trappings and words we associate with this whole topic are so horribly loaded that they are practically useless in relation to real, productive discussion about how peoples of the ancient world dealt with differences of physical appearance.  That there was a certain amount of "hey, they look different, so let's kill them" is almost a given, but this broad-brush "race" concept is a product of the modern age.  Any sort of genocide, or what we would call "discrimination" would occur along religious or what we would call "ethnic" lines.  Getting onto the subject at hand, it would seem to me that there was considerable variation among the egyptians, even their pharohs.  Tutankhamun, look similar to a berber or arab, whereas Huni, for instance, looks more Nubian.  People need to grow up. -- 69.104.228.30 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I to understand that to be a request for semi-protection of the page, to ensure only registered users edit it? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I see a few ip vandals being reverted in the last month, one to a legitimate anon contribution. I notice there is a ip engaging in discussion above. Where is the rationale for semi-protection? cygnis insignis 08:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, I see absolutely no reason for semi-protecting this page. There is maybe 50 edits by anonymous ips in the last 6 month!, and 15 of these within the last 3 month. This is nothing, nothing at all! Try pages like Great Sphinx of Giza or the Nile, where there is nothing but vandalism going on by anonymous ips, a dozen or more, daily. Twthmoses (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more and more edit wars 

message: I've restored the previous semi-protection of the article. The article has recently been removed from full protection, but at the same time the pre-existing semi-protection was removed. Given the fact that the article has drawn a good deal of dubious IP edits historically, I think it is reasonable to restore the previous semi-protection. If anyone wishes to contest semi-protection, please do so below. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: How about trying to turn this into a serious discussion on the "origin of Egyptians"? The "race" question is an "Afrocentrist" red herring. There is some actual research into the genetic history of Ancient Egypt and Nubia, at present stashed away under Egyptians#Origins. How about we re-define the scope of this article as "origin of Egyptians", and relegate the Afrocentrist blather to Afrocentrism? dab (𒁳) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that in any way, shape or form a "neutral" perspective?  On the contrary, your comment is very biased, not at all neutral. 70.105.52.50 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And who are you?  I presume this isn't your first time on Wikipedia, although this is the first edit by that IP address.  Dbachmann is asking that the article be based on the real research, and I guess you can say that asking for an article to be based on scientific evidence is biased, but then that's what Wikipedia calls for.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so we're clear on that... 70.105.52.50 (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Dbachmann, months after being silenced, it seems you are back to bring disorder to the article. I am a bit upset about so many changes made to the article without looking for consensus. Many of us are too busy with other things to react immediately. But this doesn't mean that we agree with every change happening to this article, like the disapearance of the section: Relation with Nubia. What next? Dbachmann, you better read Jean-François Champollion before stepping your feet in a subjet about Egypt, an ancient African civilization. I am speaking about Champollion because in the section Relation with Nubia, he was quoted saying that Egyptians are from Sudan or Ethiopia. Were ancient Ethiopian and Sudanese White people to think that their descendants, the ancient Egyptians, living quite next to them, were? Many of us must go back to elementary school!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m quite happy to see the section go. It was not very good, full of selective quoting. Champollion is an ok read, but as I already stated in an earlier thread (now moved to archive) selective quoting is the doom of this article (and a lack of direction). Champollion does not talk about ancient Egypt, in relation to an origin from Sudan or Ethiopia; he talks about a time before agriculture. That’s not ancient Egypt, that’s 4-5000 years before ancient Egypt! (counting ancient Egypt’s start as 3000 BC) Even for the Middle East this is still in the Stone Age, with pre-dynastic Egypt infinity far in the horizon. It’s the exact same thing Diodorus Siculus talks about (a time before there even was a Nile!), yet these apparently “minor” time issues are just ignored when quoting. That was not only a problem in the now deleted section, but all over the current article. All kinds of evidence are mishmashes in between each other and lending support to each other, with 1000 of year’s difference.Twthmoses (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikiscribe and Twthmoses. It seems to me that you are speculating out of your sadness of seeing an ancient great civilization in the African continent. It is clear to me that you have never read Jean-François Champollion. So, please, go and read the following before discussing further: Jean -François Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, pp. 455-460; Jean-François Champollion, Lettres d'Egypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829, pp. 429-430. If you don't know French, ask some friends to make translations for you.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually stated previously that the relations with Nubia section was  OR and should probably be removed. The problem with it was that it dealt only with  primary sources and didn't have secondary sources that related it to the topic of the actual article. Also please do not accuse people of racism with comments like "your sadness of seeing an ancient great civilization in the African continent." Please try to   assume good faith.  --Woland (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked at the Nubian stuff. It's clearly OR and certainly the references I noticed (touregypt, for instance, which is great for planning a trip there) weren't all RS. It shouldn't be in the article.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Those sources are indeed bad, I move that that line be stricken. Unfortunately I suspect that there are several places in the article like this.--Woland (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, one would need to have a reliable source to claim that the populations of Egypt circa 7000-8000 BC were different than those circa 3000BC to make the point. Otherwise, dismissing the cite on the basis that they were different is both OR and POV. The default assumption should be that they weren't that different (that's just common sense). Has someone documented migrations in or out of Egypt in that timeframe, which would support a change in the population makeup?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only documentation from that time period is from the archaeological record, which shows completely different cultural patterns. I'm not sure that I have access to the sources for this. I could ask the resident expert on this on my campus but I'm pretty sure he'll look at me like an idiot, which I'm not up to during finals week.--Woland (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, a culture can become radically different in four millenia, without the population makeup changing significantly (look at the cultural changes in Egypt between the start of Ancient Egypt and today, which is a comparable span). So, you'd need a firmer basis, such as evidence of significant migrations in or out of Egypt. Also, you'd need a WP:RS that actually claims these were different populations. I'm not aware of any,  but then I'm not an expert on the question.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, good points, I think. The problem I seem to be having is being able to even think about populations in terms of racial categories, especially since racial categories of the past probably don't match the ones that cultures have today. Too many anthro classes maybe.--Woland (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not dismiss Champollion as a source, so absolutely not. He is definitely an authority on various ancient Egyptian matters. I dismiss hands down, when people do not cite (or rewrite) the full text, and especially, in the context in which it is made. That was exactly the case here, along with Diodorus Siculus‎ who also was talking about an “excessively ancient” time, when he made similar comments about the original population coming from Ethiopia (a time before there even was a Nile). At no point was it made clear that what Champollion and Diodorus talks about pre-dates ancient Egypt by many millennia, and point more towards an early understanding of Recent African origin of modern humans, that a knowledge of the Egyptian population anno 3000 BC. I have no problem with the writing of neither these two guys, nor an insertion in the article of their texts (both are primary sources on several subjects), but I do want the inserter to apply the proper context to their statements, - they themselves supply, and not selective quote from parts of it, that suits you. Diodorus Siculus was selective quoted several times, in the now deleted section, which I already pointed out 3 month ago. Twthmoses (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Woland, I'll grant you that, absolutely. This modern debate would probably look specious, even ridiculous to the Ancient Egyptians. My only concern is that we shouldn't confuse WP:NPOV with WP:TRUTH. All opinions need to be presented, in accordance to their weight in the real world, including those we feel might be wrong. As someone who firmly believes that race is purely a social construct, I agree that some of the arguments here sound like radial tetracapillectomy but NPOV demands that they be presented, if they are backed by reliable sources.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree.  It just seems like the burden of proof (or WP:V if you will) in this article is unduly placed on the mainstream. I guess I feel like this article should focus more on the documented controversy (using only sources directly related to said controversy)  and less on what I see as  original research using the primary source documents. It would also help if people stopped accusing others of racism. --Woland (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all your observations. But unless the debate becomes a bit less emotional on the subject, it will be hard to get there. I've been observing this article for a number of months now, and what I've seen is mostly POV-pushing from both sides of the argument, and fairly little in the way of an attempt to reconcile the two positions. Last time both positions were reconciled, somebody was again hacking into the article to make it more mainstream within a few weeks, if not days.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh, that discussion is like two months old dude.--Woland (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  seriously