Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 1

message: Is this article a POV fork of Afrocentrism?  Friday (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: not sure what a POV fork is (whether that means this page is POV, or whether it was taken out to avoid too much POV-fighting on the afrocentrism page).   About 60% of the afrocentrism page was devoted to this issue, it was causing too much trouble over there and we/I moved it over here.   I expected it to be noisy over here but its been basically dead since then.   --155.91.19.73 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV fork? 

message: I've removed the info about DNA sequence analysis.   It's uncited -- no scientists/journals named -- and based on content on the users page and the racist undertones seems to be trolling.  It posits that Ancient Egyptians were black (usually an afrocentrist statement), but also that they were and "less evolved" and more ape-like than Caucasians (likely race-baiting).
--Archier 18:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA sequence analysis 

message: Who determine and what are criterias to say site is racist or not. Site in question http://www.white-history.com/egypt.htm. Where else we can expect to see an opposition to afrocentrism, if not in erocentrist sites ? AlV 08:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, please refrain from calling others "racists" either directly or through innuendo (e.g. saying a link is to a "racist" site).   Alv, I've put the link back.   You may want to make additions to the article *other* than links too.   A common tactic by users who just want to stir the pot is to add links to the bottoms of several pages, without any content additions, so your actions may have been misconstrued   --71.112.11.220 17:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The link says that there were Semites and Blacks present in that country from the very beginning. No one claims the contrary - in fact, this was the very reason why that civilization fell, as it was eventually overrun by Blacks and Semites - if there had been none of those racial groupings present, the Egyptian civilization would still be going! Any reasonable person calls that racist. Jim Apple 22:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I asked for criterias by witch the judgement is made, so other (black, blue, green, red, yellow) racist links (or content in articel itself), can be eliminated by using set of guidelines. Now the sentence itself there were Semites and Blacks present in that country from the very beginning.. Nothing racist here as it is a simple fact. if there had been none of those racial groupings present, the Egyptian civilization would still be going This point to theory, that as percentage of nubians(blacks) and mixed race increased, the acient Egyptian civilization ceased to exist as we know it, and become a nubian one. Where is racism there ? This is as racist as to say 'South-American civilizations ceased to exist because they teritory was overrun by white race'. The maya are still there, but not their civilization. AlV 09:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  I was looking into wikipedia policy, however i did not find a policy where removal of "racist" links are required. AlV 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I agree that is racist.  My bad.  I posted at the village pump to see what policy is regarding such links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#racist_links
   -155.91.28.231 19:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: the consensus at the pump is that this link is allowed.  it may actually be *required* to maintain NPOV. -71.112.11.220 02:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Again, original research has made its way onto this page.  If you can't provide a citation for a claim, please do not include it.  When uncited content isnt obvious to other editors, it doesn't belong here.   This is an official wiki policy.  See WP:NOR for details  --71.112.11.220 17:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: we don't need a formal poll to determine what is original research.   if there is no citation and the first four people i ask don't think its obvious, it meets the wiki definition.  original research is not about majority rule.  "crap" is offensive, uncivil, vulgar, a four-letter word....profanity.  please be civil.  -71.112.11.220 02:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research (alveolar prognathisms) -- don't do it 

message: However, race is not based on genetics; it is based on phenotype.
race is not based on phenotype or genotype solely.   according to one-drop theory, a person that does not appear (phenotype) black is still black, as long as he has a black ancestor (genotype)  -71.112.11.220 02:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  race based on phenotype? 

message: The introduction seems contradictory, or at least unclear. It states that Egyptology began in the mid-nineteenth century, and also that this was the era of the African slave trade. While there was still some slave trading, the era of the Atlantic slave trade was mostly over by the middle of the nineteenth century. Britain banned slave trading in 1807, and France was the last major state to completely outlaw the practice when it did so in 1848. It was after the slaving era that Hamitic theories and other such nonsense were developed. From what I've read of earlier scholars, those who did coincide with the slave trade, they didn't much consider race. It was in that era, after all, that many historians came to believe that Egyptian culture was derived from the unambiguously black Nubian empires. - SimonP 00:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon -- just edit the article.   You don't need to come and discuss this here first, though explanations for large changes are appreciated.  -155.91.28.231 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in the intro

message: This article is biased in the following ways:
-- strongly advocates for the "race doesn't exist" fallacy.
-- strongly and pervasively tainted by a pro-"Afrocentric" and thus revisionist view of history.
The inclusion of racist crackpot Diop's psuedoscience and an admonishment that we must not "ignore" it, is too much.
I suspect the hand of black supremacist deeceevoice in this.
Zuzim 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a move towards NPOV, do you think you could write a paragraph explaining why Afrocentrists feel that the race of Ancient Egyptians is important?  The page is quite confusing in that respect; being unfamiliar with the philosophy, I don't feel comfortable writing it. --Mgreenbe 09:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV