Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive 3

message: just the sound of crickets chirping in the distance
Justforasecond 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sure is quiet here... 

message: If I ever do see any so-called "Negroid" people anywhere, y'all be some of the first to know! Seriously - how the hell can a statue have a "race"? Who cares!?!? Perhaps all refences to "race" mshould be removed from the article and the reader should be allowed to make their own inferences - which, btw, really is all "race" is actually about: people inventing theories to pretend that there are substantial genetic barriers between people from different places, and then trying to come up with Scientific methods of determining these "differences" after the fact. It's all so silly! People from different places look the same, no need to pretend there is some fundamental Genetic basis for that. Are Arabs the same "race" as Europeans? Are the Bantu languages speaking people a different "race" from the people of the Nile? Are "Negroids" the same "race" as "Aborigines" (they look the same - don't they?)? Race does not exist. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "as far as I know" conclusion is not borne out by the NYT article and other sources.  Your original-research conclusion is not relevant here.  deeceevoice 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with Zaph that the information belongs under "description," I support moving the info to "identity" as a compromise.  It certainly doesn't belong where it is currently situated.  deeceevoice 03:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a letter to the editor, not really a legitimate source.  Sheldon's use of "Black African" is curious, I've only heard it from one other person....   Justforasecond 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Zaph, will you support a move to the section dealing w/identity?  deeceevoice 10:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to take a straw poll to build consensus, that's a great idea; but don't gang up and engage in edit wars when there is no consensus. It's been shown there are more people against the move than for it. Last time the article was locked down, please don't repeat. -- Stbalbach 14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe it could move to Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians?   Most of it is cited, but borderline notable.   For instance, french novelist Gustav Flaubert is famous, but this isn't really his field, an orthodontist isn't really an academic, etc.   As well, most learned individuals don't break the ancient world into black/white like afrocentrists do.  The other problem with it (and this is a wiki problem in general) is that almost no one has cared enough to come to conclusions about this, but there's no way to cite information saying "most anthropologists have not given this issue any attention".    Justforasecond 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negroid 

message: The American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998). 
:We believe that it [the statement] represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.
This should be worked into the article somehow, to clarify that any discussion of "race", from a scholarly view, is considered non-mainstream by the worlds largest body of anthropoligists.
--Stbalbach 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAA statement on "Race" 

message: I once saw a TV programme claim that the Sphinx was carved from a much earlier statue of a bull which itself was made by an earlier bull-worshipping civilization. This explained why the sphinx's head is too small in relation to its body. Bull or Bull bull? Quirkie 19:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bull 

message: Deeceevoice said (in edit comment):
:if there is no consensus, then this version is as good (better, I contend) as the other. would you like to place it on the admin notice board & open it up for comment?)
The reason is, the majority of people who have commented on thus far say it belongs in the theories section. If you think otherwise, then follow normal procedure and start a RFC and any number of other standard procedures to establishing consensus. Taking it to the admin notice board is when people don't follow the rules and when it reaches that step no one cares about the content issue anymore.  -- Stbalbach 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip.  I'll do just that when I have time -- because there is absolutely no justification for placing the information in a section that treats outlandish, discounted speculations; it belongs in either the section treating the monument's identity or "observations."  deeceevoice 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on location of ethnicity section 

message: removed this side-view image:
The reason is Original Research and unverifiable. "Apparent" is original research. Plus the image could have been doctored, or taken at an angle or lighting to enhances a certain effect. When I look at other side-view images such as this one it doesn't look like the one posted at all. It's easy to cherry pick images and come to "apparent" conclusions. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection to the photo is utterly groundless.  I clicked the link to the photo you reference, and it, too, clearly shows a pronounced prognathism.  Sorry, but either you don't understand the term, or you're just wasting our time on purpose.  The jaws of the sphinx in the photo you've presented clearly and in an extremely pronounced fashion protrude beyond the plain of the forehead.  deeceevoice 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The racial issues would be best hashed-out in the controversy over race of ancient egyptians article, which a short blurb here to whet the appetite.   It contains a lengthy section on the sphinx, much of which is very similar to this article see Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians#The_Great_Sphinx_of_Giza .  For what its worth, the editor that uploaded the photo doesn't seem to have much of a bias in what he uploads, so on the surface of things it doesn't seem like he would have manipulated it.   However, the photos at the "returntoglory" website, which have been used here before by a still-active editor, *are* manipulated.  As far as original research, yes, it probably is.    04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you this image has not been doctored or modified in any way. The image you link to is not a perfect side-on view, but taken at an angle; notice the other eye is visible. You can change the image description to whatever you think is most suitable, but I don't see why the image should be removed from the article altogether. Mgiganteus1 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image side-view 

message: :copied from "Current surveys" entry
*Great Sphinx of Giza.  Where in the article should the information contained in the subsection titled "Ethnicity" appear?  It is currently under "Alternative theories," which treats "crackpot" theories.  The lead paragraph reads in part: "In common with many famous constructions of remote antiquity, the Great Sphinx has over the years been the subject of numerous speculative theories and assertions by non-specialists, mystics, pseudohistorians, pseudoarchaeologists and general writers....  Egyptologists and the wider scientific community largely ignore such claims...."  Or, does the information regarding the ethnicity of the human form depicted more properly belong elsewhere, under, say, "Description" or "Origin and identity"? This issue has been discussed on the article talk page ad nauseam, with no resolution.  Sorry. I can't refer you to a specific subheading, but it recurs at various points on the page -- and I think the matter here, when regarded objectively, is a straightforward editorial one, decided easily enough without reading all the talk page give-and-go (but if you have the time and patience, you're certainly invited to do so.) Please let us know your thoughts here.  Thanks.  10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia: Current surveys|Straw poll]] regarding location of information on ethnicity