Talk:Afrocentrism/Archive 5

message: Anyone want to begin a 'Reasons for Eurocentrism' article? The idea that since 800 BC Europe has dominated everything deserves some explanation. Europe has conquered the entire World, Europe rules the World, Europe for Europeans, Proud to be European.
EUROPEAN PRIDE!--86.137.173.9 20:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC
Europe has not dominated since 800 B.C.  It was not until 55 B.C that the Romans first wrote of Europe. There are no writings from Europeans. The word Romans first called Britain was albion meaning white. The word Albino now! They did not come back until 46 B.C. and conquer. The other words they used we're Barbarians, Celts, Gauls. As we know Egypt is very ancient. And the Bible mentions Kush(Ethiopia) before Eygpt! Whites are the children of albino blacks. Also Europe did not start conquering until 1030AD That's 4000 years after Egypt started!
02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your posts are terrible.  You can't even articulate a coherent argument .  Do you have any substantiation for your claims? --Jugbo 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for Eurocentrism 

message: * National Geographic: Corrected incorrect caption - the National Geographic shows the reconstruction of the French team, not the Egyptian reconstruction. Now, which one is the "controversial" reconstruction? The French? Or the Egyptian?
* Drusilla Houston: Corrected incomplete and out of context quotation. Drusilla Houston distinguishes between ancient Egyptian, Ethiopian, Nubian and Cushites. She argues in her book that in early ages Egypt was under Nubian domination, and NOT that Egyptians ARE Nubians. 
**What?  No one ever said that Eygptians and Nubians were the same.  They were two distinct kingdoms, often sharing peoples in common. deeceevoice 15:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not "craniometry" as it has been used to justify trumped-up, silly contentions about inherent inferiority or superiority of certain groups of humankind.  The article mentions well-known and widely accepted "racial"/ethnic facio-cranial characteristics in the context of forensic science and forensic anthropology -- areas of scientific inquiry and professional practice where they remain in use today as highly accurate indicators of ethnic identity.  Witness Anton's dead-on conclusions -- absent any geographic context whatsoever.  You're grasping at straws, and your complaint simply does not hold up.  deeceevoice 10:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: At 2 points, the article says that Afrocentrists would use the term "highly miscegnated" to describe the modern Egyptian population.  It is not reasonable or acceptable to use this term to describe any population, this is offensive to the modern Egyptians.  This confirms my suspicions that Afrocentrism, at least in the form put forward here, is a form of racism by a section of the population of the main imperialist power against the population of a 3rd world country.  The article should be edited to take account of these issues. PatGallacher 11:29, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
Also, Niger and Nigeria do not derive from the Latin for black, they derive from a Tuareg word for river (and so are unrelated to the word we all want to avoid).  The Hyksos did bring the chariot to Ancient Egypt.  I find all this stuff with diagrams of skull types rather disturbing, reminiscent of material from the Third Reich, I am not sure it has any place in a Wikipedia article. PatGallacher 14:31, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
How do we know that the origin of "niger" and "nigeria" come from the Tuareg word and not the European (the ones who colonized and delineated the countries)? There are very few if any Tuareg in Nigeria. And the mouth of the Niger river is in a non-Tuareg region of Africa. --68.60.55.162 10:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article on the Niger river for the derivation. The Taureg word is a possibility. I agree with you about skull types and the stuff about 'misecegenation'. This aspect of the content is courtesy of User:Deeceevoice, whose insult-laden methods of debate and POV I find so uncongenial (to put it mildly) that I have withdrawn from involvement. However the article needs a big overhaul. As it is, it has drifted unpleasantly close to the kind of 'racial theory' that should have died out half a century ago. Paul B 15:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Now, now. Just because something is blatant 19th-century style racism doesn't mean we can't have an encyclopedia article about it. — Phil Welch 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Highly miscegnated?

message: The proposition that the Sphinx could be up to 10,000 years old is a so called theory advanced by Graham Hancock and several others of his ilk. It isn't accepted at all by main stream archaeologists. It is obvious that deeceevoice is a proponent of the Afrocentrism theory that suggests that Egypt was a black African culture and that the Hellenic civilization which followed robbed from them. Judging by the more academic links on the page, this is ill accepted by the most notable Egyptologists.
: The issue and objecvitity of this article "Afrocentricism" is that it disputes the most notable Egyptologists, because their conclusions are said to be biased by Afrocentric scholars. For example, the MET has two busts (reserve heads) of old kingdom people. One looks very semetic/caucasoid while the other looks very black/negroid. The negroid bust WAS assumed to be the nubian wife of the tomb owner (i.e. they assumed someone from nubia traveled from their non-egyptian native ground to giza). BUT, they subsequently concluded... once they put their bias/assumption/default-white mentality aside that the bust was the tomb owner. 
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm
"Although each reserve head has characteristics that make it unique, this example stands out from the group. It is one of the largest and is the most perfectly preserved, exhibiting none of the intentional damage found on others. Excavated in a shaft with another head, this one was originally identified as the Nubian wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb. Although the face has affinities with later depictions of Nubians, it also bears a striking resemblance to statues of Fourth Dynasty kings and undoubtedly represents an Egyptian. The variations among reserve heads probably reflect the diversity in Egypt's population."
This is why there is Afrocentricism, without it, the mentality of the notable Egyptologists would not be checked and people would be assuming this is a slave or something other than the actual original owner of the tomb way up in the north.
Now the only problem left is that people will assume, no doubt, that this is an isolated example of Black Africans in the north. Which again is why Afrocentricism is so concentrated on Egypt.
It would be great if Afrocentrism was just an attempt to introduce more fairness into Egyptology or whatever. But it isn't. It's swinging the pendulum in the other direction, and in many ways it's less defensible, because we know more now than they did when they were claiming that the Egyptians were white and so forth. Correcting one falsehood with another won't cause the truth to show up. Afrocentrism is based on identity politics and the like, it isn't based on taking a good and balanced look at everything. The argument of "Oh the mainstream Egyptologists just believe that because they're white" is amazingly disingenous, is it supposed to be plausible that in a matter that in many ways pits black vs white, that blacks are going to be any more honest? 
And the excuses for Afrocentrism along the lines of "Well the racist white Egyptologists used to believe this" sees a trip into a childish land where it's all about paying back past wrongs, not about trying to get things right. It is impossible to solve inequalities against one group, or against one scientific theory, or whatever by inequalities against another group or theory or whatever. Yet the idea that this is possible seems rather common, even though it's basically the belief that the best way to solve a wrong is to commit the opposite wrong. --Edward Wakelin 20:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Great Sphinx

message: All stuff about Afrocentrism being right or wrong or whatever aside, maybe it would be best to cut it up between Afrocentrism, and Afrocentric (ist?) Egyptology? Which could include black-Egyptian stuff? Or perhaps just shove it all into Egyptology and have a section on Egyptian racial issues? --Edward Wakelin 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming stuff

message: Not "Akhenaton".
(Petrograd 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akhenaten 

message: You're like a dog chasing its tail.  Again, Wikipedia is not authoritative.  The information (or dis/misinformation) it provides can be edited by any ignorant hack or crackpot with a computer and an ISP.  Wikipedia is not to be used to verify its own information.  I have checked authoritative sources.  Again, there is absolutely no mention of "miscegenation" being inherently pejorative, and it has no relation to the words you cited:  "misleadership" (if that even is a word; if it is, it's an ugly/clumsy one) or "mismanagement."  Check your dictionary.  "Misc" refers to mixture; "gen" to "gen" to "people."  It's a mixing of different peoples.  Your entire argument is completely groundless and utterly without merit.
IMO, no reasonable administrator would protect this page or honor the POV label.  Far too many editors have parsed and negotiated and reconsidered and researched to make this article as accurate and objective as possible for you to slap a POV tag on it behind some crap that easily could be cleared up if you would just crack a dictionary.  deeceevoice 08:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is ''not'' an authoritative source and cannot be used to verify its own information

message: deeceevoice, if you're going to revert my changes, plese say something in the talk page or at least in your comments as to why. Jim Apple 11:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to claims of possible image "distortion," I draw your attention to the fact that the photo is provided as an example of Tut's facial features -- not his ears, or anything else peripheral to the face.  (I've changed the caption -- which I thought I had already done -- to conform with that in Tutankhamun.)  Note that the same characteristics of the nose and mouth of the mask, as well as the prominent alveolar prognathism, are also visible here and , as well as in numerous other photos -- including the one you provided.  Quite clearly, they are not all extremely close-angle shots.  It can be argued that the secondary image of the mask you have provided in juxtaposition to the National Geographic shot doesn't look anything like the images of the mask on these pages, either. Again, it's all about lighting. Any experienced photographer knows that the brighter the light, the flatter the image.  If you really want to see the contours of an object, then you use a filtered or dimmer light source.  These potographs show the actual contours of the mask much more accurately -- as, again, does the photo you took the time to find and, which, incidentally, I prefer because it shows the buzzard/cobra crown and is simply a more beautiful, very moving photograph. Further, it also does not have the Freeman Institute copyright information superimposed on it, which makes for a "cleaner" image. It cannot be charged that the "wallpaper" shots are on the website of a "radical Afrocentrist cult," either.  (Freeman is a Jewish professor specializing in cultural diversity training.)  Further, here's a link to a photo of the mask on the Discovery Channel website. The image looks very black African -- and not at all like the image you inserted.  Note that the ears are not flattened, and the lighting is such that the contours of the mask are clearly visible.  I'm really not very familiar w/Wikipedia image use policy, but if there is some way this image could be inserted in place of the Freeman Institute image under "fair use," then I would be amenable to that -- this one or your really cool, dramatic pic.deeceevoice 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distorted picture 

message: Ludicrous?  Moi?  I have restored the NPOV flag for various reasons, among them:-
1. Wikipedia should not be treated as an authoritative source?  This is highly POV, and will come as a surprise to many Wikipedians.  I cautiously suggest that Deeceevoice should raise this on the relevant pages.
2. Deeceevoice quoting white supremacists to back his case is quite a good example of the problems here.  A POV which they may share is still a POV.  That is like saying that because Hitler and Stalin did not agree on very much, but they did agree in 1939 that Poland should not be an independent country, therefore they must have been right.  
3. The idea that we can automatically assume that the racial composition of the Egyptian population has changed substantially over the centuries is not one which I found in a couple of books on Egyptology I had a look at earlier today, not one I have come across much before, and not found in the Wikipedia articles on History of Ancient Egypt, Egyptology, or Unsolved problems in Egyptology, so this is definitely POV.
4. The Oxford English Dictionary may not say in so many words that miscegenation is pejorative, but most of the quotes have negative or problematic connotations.
5. A word may be etymologically unobjectionable, but it may still acquire negative connotations, e.g. the "n-word" ultimately derives from the Latin for "black". PatGallacher 21:24, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
:No.  Few people would be surprised that Wikipedia is not to be treated as an authority.  A case in point. I can log on to Wikipedia any day of the week and click on any number of articles pertaining to my own people and read things like, "The only good nigger is a dead nigger," "All niggers should be slaves," or, "Nigger is any black person who can't speak English nor pay the electric bill and cares more about having expensive clothing than the necesities of life."  My first encounter with Wikipedia which caused me to become involved in this project was some ridiculous contention that the slaves used to call their white, rapist fathers "motherfucker" instead of "daddy."  Anyone who treats any open-content website like Wikipedia as an authoritative source, which anyone can edit at any time and say anything ought to have his or head examined.
:You're merely being obtuse.  Your characterization of "miscegenation" as pejorative doesn't hold water.  Virtually any dictionary will include, along with a proper definition, the informaton that "nigger" is pejorative.  The same cannot be said of miscegenation, which essentially means "race mixing."  Why?  Because it isn't inherently pejorative.  You have absolutely nothing to lend credence to your claims.
:By way of illiustration, this from an online article on the Houghton-Mifflin website, "Reader's Companion to Women's History:  Miscegenation":
:"The word 'miscegenation' was invented during the 1864 presidential campaign (from the Latin miscere, "to mix," and genus, race) when Democrats claimed that Lincoln's Republican Party advocated sex and marriage across the color line. Like 'mulatto,' probably derived from the concept of mules and hybridity, 'miscegenation' was pejorative in its historical context.'
:As I said, racists have used the word.  
:However, at the end of the article, Houghton-Mifflin uses the word outside the historical context of racism to mean, essentially "people of different races screwing and producing offspring" in a neutral fashion:
:"The ongoing legacies of the legal and social history of miscegenation are apparent in issues ranging from the influence of racist ideology in sex crimes or alleged sex crimes, to ambivalence or antagonism on the part of both white and Black communities toward marriages and relationships across the color line."
:Another online article in "Christianity Today" is titled "Books & Culture Corner: In Praise of Miscegenation.  Racial categories don't mean what they used to. Hallelujah."  And at slate.com:  "Miscegenation -- an official trend: The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a seemingly important taboo-busting story on the increase in black women dating white men. The evidence of this trend is not only anecdotal -- AJC's John Blake says."
:Simply because you and others may be unfamiliar with the use of the word outside of its racist context does not mean it is not used frequently and without negative connotations by others.  Time for a reality check. Drop it.  deeceevoice 23:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is all kinds of misinformation on Wikipedia.  I just made a change to the cultural appropriation exhibited in Janis Joplin, but if someone had visited that article before I did so and taken it as authoritative, they would have been misled.  Again, any hack with a computer and an ISP can edit here.  That fact in and of itself should be enough to give any sensible person pause about the reliability of information on this website. If you've spent any time as an editor, you must know that.  Further, you must be aware that vandalism is not always detected immediately.  And certainly the same can be said for erroneous information.  No one in any kind of position of authority on Wikipedia would ever suggest that it is an authoritative source.  And, no.  You've challenged this article's NPOV status on the basis of my use of the word miscegenation, so it was wholly appropriate for the matter to be discussed here -- as we both have been discussing it.  It was you, in fact, who brought the flawed article into this dicussion in the first place.  It is quite clear you were in error with regard to the purported inherently pejorative nature of the term.  And, yes, I already have deleted the erroneous information in miscegenation.  And, no.  A challenge to content is of an article is not POV if it is supported by authoritative sources.  And, clearly -- as herein demonstrated by documentation -- the content of that article was certainly incorrect.  I only skimmed it -- but from what I saw, the article actually did NOT say the term was inherently pejorative.  It seems you were incorrect about that, too.  deeceevoice 11:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: About changes to miscegenation:  as I said, I've already been there, done that. deeceevoice 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've had another look at miscegenation and I still don't see any recent relevant changes by deeceevoice or anybody else.  The most recent change was 8 September and not relevant to these issues. PatGallacher 22:06, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
Are you blind?  Take another look.  My first changes were minimal, but substantive.  I removed the language that identified the word as a pejorative.  After your post, which I'm just reading, I later returned and did some further editing of the first few paragraphs -- but haven't bothered to read the entire article.  I see that at least one other person raised the issue before me of the fact that the term is not inherently pejorative.  deeceevoice 01:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The NPOV tag is not only necessary for the reasons in the section immediately above but because the article completely is written in an attempt to advance the viewpoints of Afrocentrists at the cost of ignoring facts, expert oppinion and so forth. The "close up" Tut photo is extremely misleading, the claims about racial charactersitics of Egyptians are mostly nonsense, there is no list of objections to Afrocentrism, nor list of false claims they make (like Cleopatra mentioned above), nor the highly important mention that mainstream experts in all the various areas reject the views of Afrocentrists as being advanced by social identity concerns over using facts. This is one messed up article. DreamGuy 03:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly POV article 

message: I offered other images of Tut for comparison which showed precisely the same features of the now absent Freeman Institute image and, later, the image offered by another editor, but ultimately accepted the image which now appears in the article.  It is, after all, still clearly that of a blackman.  :p  And who made the change?  Check the edit history, jerk. I did. And still no substantive changes to the article?  Just some foolish attempts to change "pale" to "medium-tone," when, clearly, if the range of skin tones of indigenes for the region is from blue-black to dark brown to red-brown, brown and then to, possibly, tan and dark olive-toned (if they're mixed with outsiders), "medium-tone" would be -- and I'm being extremely generous here at least tan.  Your remark in an edit note was precisely on point:  this is the part of the "world where Charles Barkley is pale."  And Charles Barkley is considerably darker than the pale Tut reconstruction. And guess what?  I'm not the only one reverting such silly changes.  Again, check the edit history.
For the last time:  put up or shut up.  Your infantile whining, your weak excuses, your groundless complaints and silly assertions are wasting our time.  *x*deeceevoice 08:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Living in Honduras my perspective on skin tones has substantially changed from what it was living in White England. As we are an international encyclopedia dealing with an African issue we should keep the different perspectives of different communities in mind in our descriptions. We are not substantially writing for white Americans and Europeans, so I agree with Deecee on this point, SqueakBox 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is not whether the skin tone is 'middle' in some absolute sense in terms of world populations, but the fact that the creators of the image chose a "mid tone" in terms of the Egyptian population, as determined by experts in the field. You are not such an expert. Neither am I. Neither is Deeceevoice. Instead of trying to disprove the decision of the experts we should present the conclusions of those who are best qualified to judge what is a mid-tone in this context. If other experts disagree, we should report on that fact too. Paul B 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing but excuses

message: Flags like NPOV or Cleanup should not be lightly removed, I would remind all parties of the 3-revert rule, I may apply for this page to be protected.  See comments from a while back for explanation of Cleanup flag.  I will go into this in more detail later. PatGallacher 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've tried with the clean-up flag, and it was removed. The flag was there for weeks, and no substantive changes to the article occurred -- because it doesn't need "cleaning up." The NPOV tag is equally groundless. Absolutely no one has come up with any substantive challenge to the fact presented therein. No one. You wanna call in an impartial admin to take a look? Be my guest. But as far as page protection? Protection of WHAT? There's no edit war going on. Just some sour-grapes grumbling and a totally unsubstantiated NPOV tag -- -- which I, yes, have removed again. There should be a penalty for its gratuitous use. You can't in good faith slap a clean-up or an NPOV tag on something because someone is saying the world is round and you think it's flat and have absolutely nothing to back it up and will not cannot provide an argument to support your views. The whiners have been invited repeatedly to come to the table with other, hard information that refutes the information provided in this piece. And they've come up with nothing but more whining and ad hominem attacks. Again, put up or shut up. Don't abuse/trivialize the wiki process. *x* deeceevoice 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This article is anything but quality. It's full of factual errors which I have not involved myself in trying to correct because of the sheer hassle of trying to get anything past. It also gives a completely distorted view of Afrocentrism, since it is almost wholly obsessed by the Black Egyptian concept to the exclusion of discussion of anything else. These points have all been raised here. Paul B 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: OK, I apologise for saying that Deecee made up the concept of the Nubian wig. It clearly is a term used to describe a common type of wig. However, I don't think it is correct to say that Tiye is depicted wearing one. As I already wrote - quite a while back - the brown colour that appears on the surface of the "hair" is in fact a glue that was used to keep a series of blue tiles on. In other words it is not a wig in a conventional sense, since it was intended to be a blue-coloured head-dress. Only a few of the tiles survive on the head-dress today, at the back. Paul B 22:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nubian wig

message: I have deleted the following passage, and an anonymous "editor" insists on inserting it.
"Wells was, at the least, mistaken in his understanding of human genetics. As DNA is replicated continuously, in living organisms there is no such thing as "old" DNA. That said, among mainstream scholars, there is a fairly broad consensus that humamity originated in Africa, though the details remain open to study. In any case, this biologicalism is not Afrocentrism's core thesis. It is, rather, that black Africans contributed much more to the culture of the world than is generally acknowledged."
This is an utterly wrong-headed and almost ridiculously literal interpretation of Wells' comments.  By "oldest DNA," Wells is referring to the fact that the San bushmen are the oldest known intact human population of record.  All humankind can be traced back to them via Y chromosomnal DNA analysis.  Unless the anonymous poster can point to a geneticist or other authoritative source who has made such a wrong-headed appraisal of Wells' comments with regard to the San having the "oldest DNA on earth," this should be excised.  It is, in a word, "absurd."  Further, the thesis of Afrocentrism is already stated.  It was long ago generally agreed -- and I myself concurred -- that the section on "Egypt and black identity" would be split from the main article.  This commentary is gratuitous.  deeceevoice 02:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: certainly, the DNA in question is not "old"er than DNA in any other person on the planet, its only as old as the person being genotyped.  this should be removed on that basis until an accurate description is put there.  the likely approach taken by wells was to survey mitochondrial DNA, which is inhertied only maternally. He probably found more diversity in the San bushmen than in others surveyed, though this is too scientific a description (perhaps an article describing the research and techniques is warranted or exists already(?)).   To leave this there as is a disservice to wikipedia and afrocentrism.  anyway, the research is beside the point.  as far as i can tell from this article, afrocentrism is not about human evolution, it is about culture.  in that respect, this is irreleant.  the article could be changed to include evolution/prehistory as important to afrocentrists if that is the case.  the "interestingly" moniker is just plain silly and notes about how the bushmen are different than other Afrian populations just confuses the matter further.  --155.91.19.73 19:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV appraisal of Spencer Wells

message: *I've removed the "radical" from the characterization of Hume, because it is entirely misleading.  The sense in which Hume was considered radical had absolutely nothing to do with his racist views, which is the point of the quote's inclusion.  Unfortunately, his racism was right on par with that of others of his time -- and afterwards.  Indeed, there are those who tend to downplay Hume's so-called "radicalism" altogether.  (See David Hume.)  Further, in such a context, this characterization is gratuitous and misleading.  Hume had considerable influence.  Again, this from the Internet on Hume:  "Generally regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, David Hume (1711-1776) -- the last of the great triumvirate of "British empiricists" -- was also noted as an historian and essayist. The entirely appropriate and indisputable "noted" has been restored."
*The curiously wordy and very off-the-mark "who has had little influence" clause appended to the Toynbee reference has been removed.  What follows is an excerpt from an editorial book review at amazon.com of Toybee's A Study of History, in which the racist text appears.  This ten-volume magnum opus is still being hailed today as a great work with no mention whatsoever of Toynbee's racism.  This does not sound like a work with "little influence."
Arnold Toynbee's ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History, is acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship. "Of all the books published so far in this century," Clifton Fadiman once said, "the one most assured of being read a hundred years from now is A Study of History." The Los Angeles Times called it "a veritable masterpiece of erudition and one of the most suggestive, stimulating and inspiring studies of this age."
In The Study, Toynbee revolutionized the writing of history. By encompassing virtually all civilizations--the Egyptian, the Sumeric, the Mayan, the Iranian, the Japanese, the Hellenic, and the West, to name only a few--within the scope of his monumental work, he achieved the first all-embracing synthesis of world history. Before Toynbee, world histories were histories of the West, and only specialists wrote Babylonian, Arabian, or Aztec history. But Toynbee's scheme includes all nations and, more remarkably, by his emphasis on general patterns--on the genesis, growth and breakdown of civilizations--he was able to give a shape to this incredibly diverse material, making it comprehendable to the general reader.
*John Burgess was active well into the 20th century, having died in the 1930s.  Reverted to "20th century."  I thought to put "19th and 20th century," but that's simply TMI and clutter.  As with all three of the individuals cited, those wishing additional information can either consult Wikipedia or Google them.
*I deleted the appositional clause "Although the individuals quoted above were born in earlier centuries," because that much is obvious.  I also removed "though rare in modern settings," because there are many who would argue that the underlying racist presumptions inherent in the conclusions reached by the three individuals quoted are still in evidence today.  Further, it reads as though Afrocentrist scholars contend it is "rare in modern settings," and I'm not certain that's the case.  I think many of them would argue the opposite -- hence, the need for new scholarship.
*Deleted the "claim they," because it is not necessary.  The framers of this article long ago decided to treat the serious study of history and deal with Afrocentric scholarship -- not fringe hacks.  A good deal of history has always been, and remains today, largely interpretive.  While there are those in the mainstream who agree and disagree with certain conclusions of various Afrocentrist scholars, there is no question that rigorous research and study have gone into their work.  While the war of ideas continues, the scholars listed in the article are highly respected historians and authors, widely published, widely read -- as well as hotly debated.
*Melanin Theory?  "Afrocentric"? Totally wrong, totally irrelevant!  deeceevoice 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A different world-view -- recent reverts

message: dear editors,
Arguments advancing the notion of racial similarities between a Nubian and a Dravidian, both classified as Negroid, Afrocentrists contend, are far more credible than those of beween, say, a Swede and a modern-day Turk, both classified as Caucasian. Traditional racial classifications, after all, are not based on genetics, but on phenotype
this is an uncited addition and seems like it may be "original research".   I won't remove it, the editor that added it may have just forgotten to put a reference and it seems fairly believable, but there is a lot like this in the article and it is eventually going to be removed for lack of verifiability.   your time would be better spent adding citations or cited material than adding even *more* uncited material.
please make sure you've read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR   ("no original research")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
--155.91.28.231 02:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is bull.  There are all sorts of anonymous contentions inserted to counter Afrocentrist notions, but then the Afrocentrist argument is expected to cite everything? (Note to self:  http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diop.html and http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/black_egyptians_are_the_original.htm) deeceevoice 19:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  deeceevoice, remember to "act in good faith".  that means if someone says they believe something is original research, assume that they mean it as such, not that they have a political agenda.  use of profanity and near-profanity is also frowned upon.  -71.112.11.220 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think that it's a good idea, roger. The afrocentrism page won't have two parts, one that try to convince you that egyptians were black, another to convince you they were not, I don't think it's the encyclopedian mindstate. This article, is supposed to describe in a purely neutral way, afrocentrism. Apparently, people who wrote most of this article are unable of doing so without trying to convince us. It's so simple, we aren't trying to find out what color egyptians were, but what afrocentrism consists in, period. --SuperBleda 02:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  wiki guidelines recommend against splitting into pro and con sections. -71.112.11.220 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited additions 

message: This article has *very* few references.   If you've got some, now's the time to dig them up.  Unverifiable text may be removed at any time.
-71.112.11.220 21:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of references 

message: To Eurocentrism or wherever. They could easily be replaced with a link to that, and a mention of past eurocentrism in Egyptology. It would serve the same function. I myself don't have time to do it now, when I've got some free time, if somebody hasn't done it already, I'll have a look at the two articles and figure out how to move it. --Edward Wakelin 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The eurocentrist/racist quotes should be moved 

message: * National Geographic: Corrected incorrect caption - the National Geographic shows the reconstruction of the French team, not the Egyptian reconstruction. Now, which one is the "controversial" reconstruction? The French? Or the Egyptian?
* Drusilla Houston: Corrected incomplete and out of context quotation. Drusilla Houston distinguishes between ancient Egyptian, Ethiopian, Nubian and Cushites. She argues in her book that in early ages Egypt was under Nubian domination, and NOT that Egyptians ARE Nubians. 
**What?  No one ever said that Eygptians and Nubians were the same.  They were two distinct kingdoms, often sharing peoples in common. deeceevoice 15:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not "craniometry" as it has been used to justify trumped-up, silly contentions about inherent inferiority or superiority of certain groups of humankind.  The article mentions well-known and widely accepted "racial"/ethnic facio-cranial characteristics in the context of forensic science and forensic anthropology -- areas of scientific inquiry and professional practice where they remain in use today as highly accurate indicators of ethnic identity.  Witness Anton's dead-on conclusions -- absent any geographic context whatsoever.  You're grasping at straws, and your complaint simply does not hold up.  deeceevoice 10:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: At 2 points, the article says that Afrocentrists would use the term "highly miscegnated" to describe the modern Egyptian population.  It is not reasonable or acceptable to use this term to describe any population, this is offensive to the modern Egyptians.  This confirms my suspicions that Afrocentrism, at least in the form put forward here, is a form of racism by a section of the population of the main imperialist power against the population of a 3rd world country.  The article should be edited to take account of these issues. PatGallacher 11:29, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
Also, Niger and Nigeria do not derive from the Latin for black, they derive from a Tuareg word for river (and so are unrelated to the word we all want to avoid).  The Hyksos did bring the chariot to Ancient Egypt.  I find all this stuff with diagrams of skull types rather disturbing, reminiscent of material from the Third Reich, I am not sure it has any place in a Wikipedia article. PatGallacher 14:31, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
How do we know that the origin of "niger" and "nigeria" come from the Tuareg word and not the European (the ones who colonized and delineated the countries)? There are very few if any Tuareg in Nigeria. And the mouth of the Niger river is in a non-Tuareg region of Africa. --68.60.55.162 10:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article on the Niger river for the derivation. The Taureg word is a possibility. I agree with you about skull types and the stuff about 'misecegenation'. This aspect of the content is courtesy of User:Deeceevoice, whose insult-laden methods of debate and POV I find so uncongenial (to put it mildly) that I have withdrawn from involvement. However the article needs a big overhaul. As it is, it has drifted unpleasantly close to the kind of 'racial theory' that should have died out half a century ago. Paul B 15:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Now, now. Just because something is blatant 19th-century style racism doesn't mean we can't have an encyclopedia article about it. — Phil Welch 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Highly miscegnated?

message: The proposition that the Sphinx could be up to 10,000 years old is a so called theory advanced by Graham Hancock and several others of his ilk. It isn't accepted at all by main stream archaeologists. It is obvious that deeceevoice is a proponent of the Afrocentrism theory that suggests that Egypt was a black African culture and that the Hellenic civilization which followed robbed from them. Judging by the more academic links on the page, this is ill accepted by the most notable Egyptologists.
: The issue and objecvitity of this article "Afrocentricism" is that it disputes the most notable Egyptologists, because their conclusions are said to be biased by Afrocentric scholars. For example, the MET has two busts (reserve heads) of old kingdom people. One looks very semetic/caucasoid while the other looks very black/negroid. The negroid bust WAS assumed to be the nubian wife of the tomb owner (i.e. they assumed someone from nubia traveled from their non-egyptian native ground to giza). BUT, they subsequently concluded... once they put their bias/assumption/default-white mentality aside that the bust was the tomb owner. 
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm
"Although each reserve head has characteristics that make it unique, this example stands out from the group. It is one of the largest and is the most perfectly preserved, exhibiting none of the intentional damage found on others. Excavated in a shaft with another head, this one was originally identified as the Nubian wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb. Although the face has affinities with later depictions of Nubians, it also bears a striking resemblance to statues of Fourth Dynasty kings and undoubtedly represents an Egyptian. The variations among reserve heads probably reflect the diversity in Egypt's population."
This is why there is Afrocentricism, without it, the mentality of the notable Egyptologists would not be checked and people would be assuming this is a slave or something other than the actual original owner of the tomb way up in the north.
Now the only problem left is that people will assume, no doubt, that this is an isolated example of Black Africans in the north. Which again is why Afrocentricism is so concentrated on Egypt.
It would be great if Afrocentrism was just an attempt to introduce more fairness into Egyptology or whatever. But it isn't. It's swinging the pendulum in the other direction, and in many ways it's less defensible, because we know more now than they did when they were claiming that the Egyptians were white and so forth. Correcting one falsehood with another won't cause the truth to show up. Afrocentrism is based on identity politics and the like, it isn't based on taking a good and balanced look at everything. The argument of "Oh the mainstream Egyptologists just believe that because they're white" is amazingly disingenous, is it supposed to be plausible that in a matter that in many ways pits black vs white, that blacks are going to be any more honest? 
And the excuses for Afrocentrism along the lines of "Well the racist white Egyptologists used to believe this" sees a trip into a childish land where it's all about paying back past wrongs, not about trying to get things right. It is impossible to solve inequalities against one group, or against one scientific theory, or whatever by inequalities against another group or theory or whatever. Yet the idea that this is possible seems rather common, even though it's basically the belief that the best way to solve a wrong is to commit the opposite wrong. --Edward Wakelin 20:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Great Sphinx

message: All stuff about Afrocentrism being right or wrong or whatever aside, maybe it would be best to cut it up between Afrocentrism, and Afrocentric (ist?) Egyptology? Which could include black-Egyptian stuff? Or perhaps just shove it all into Egyptology and have a section on Egyptian racial issues? --Edward Wakelin 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming stuff

message: Not "Akhenaton".
(Petrograd 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akhenaten 

message: You're like a dog chasing its tail.  Again, Wikipedia is not authoritative.  The information (or dis/misinformation) it provides can be edited by any ignorant hack or crackpot with a computer and an ISP.  Wikipedia is not to be used to verify its own information.  I have checked authoritative sources.  Again, there is absolutely no mention of "miscegenation" being inherently pejorative, and it has no relation to the words you cited:  "misleadership" (if that even is a word; if it is, it's an ugly/clumsy one) or "mismanagement."  Check your dictionary.  "Misc" refers to mixture; "gen" to "gen" to "people."  It's a mixing of different peoples.  Your entire argument is completely groundless and utterly without merit.
IMO, no reasonable administrator would protect this page or honor the POV label.  Far too many editors have parsed and negotiated and reconsidered and researched to make this article as accurate and objective as possible for you to slap a POV tag on it behind some crap that easily could be cleared up if you would just crack a dictionary.  deeceevoice 08:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is ''not'' an authoritative source and cannot be used to verify its own information

message: deeceevoice, if you're going to revert my changes, plese say something in the talk page or at least in your comments as to why. Jim Apple 11:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to claims of possible image "distortion," I draw your attention to the fact that the photo is provided as an example of Tut's facial features -- not his ears, or anything else peripheral to the face.  (I've changed the caption -- which I thought I had already done -- to conform with that in Tutankhamun.)  Note that the same characteristics of the nose and mouth of the mask, as well as the prominent alveolar prognathism, are also visible here and , as well as in numerous other photos -- including the one you provided.  Quite clearly, they are not all extremely close-angle shots.  It can be argued that the secondary image of the mask you have provided in juxtaposition to the National Geographic shot doesn't look anything like the images of the mask on these pages, either. Again, it's all about lighting. Any experienced photographer knows that the brighter the light, the flatter the image.  If you really want to see the contours of an object, then you use a filtered or dimmer light source.  These potographs show the actual contours of the mask much more accurately -- as, again, does the photo you took the time to find and, which, incidentally, I prefer because it shows the buzzard/cobra crown and is simply a more beautiful, very moving photograph. Further, it also does not have the Freeman Institute copyright information superimposed on it, which makes for a "cleaner" image. It cannot be charged that the "wallpaper" shots are on the website of a "radical Afrocentrist cult," either.  (Freeman is a Jewish professor specializing in cultural diversity training.)  Further, here's a link to a photo of the mask on the Discovery Channel website. The image looks very black African -- and not at all like the image you inserted.  Note that the ears are not flattened, and the lighting is such that the contours of the mask are clearly visible.  I'm really not very familiar w/Wikipedia image use policy, but if there is some way this image could be inserted in place of the Freeman Institute image under "fair use," then I would be amenable to that -- this one or your really cool, dramatic pic.deeceevoice 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distorted picture 

message: Ludicrous?  Moi?  I have restored the NPOV flag for various reasons, among them:-
1. Wikipedia should not be treated as an authoritative source?  This is highly POV, and will come as a surprise to many Wikipedians.  I cautiously suggest that Deeceevoice should raise this on the relevant pages.
2. Deeceevoice quoting white supremacists to back his case is quite a good example of the problems here.  A POV which they may share is still a POV.  That is like saying that because Hitler and Stalin did not agree on very much, but they did agree in 1939 that Poland should not be an independent country, therefore they must have been right.  
3. The idea that we can automatically assume that the racial composition of the Egyptian population has changed substantially over the centuries is not one which I found in a couple of books on Egyptology I had a look at earlier today, not one I have come across much before, and not found in the Wikipedia articles on History of Ancient Egypt, Egyptology, or Unsolved problems in Egyptology, so this is definitely POV.
4. The Oxford English Dictionary may not say in so many words that miscegenation is pejorative, but most of the quotes have negative or problematic connotations.
5. A word may be etymologically unobjectionable, but it may still acquire negative connotations, e.g. the "n-word" ultimately derives from the Latin for "black". PatGallacher 21:24, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
:No.  Few people would be surprised that Wikipedia is not to be treated as an authority.  A case in point. I can log on to Wikipedia any day of the week and click on any number of articles pertaining to my own people and read things like, "The only good nigger is a dead nigger," "All niggers should be slaves," or, "Nigger is any black person who can't speak English nor pay the electric bill and cares more about having expensive clothing than the necesities of life."  My first encounter with Wikipedia which caused me to become involved in this project was some ridiculous contention that the slaves used to call their white, rapist fathers "motherfucker" instead of "daddy."  Anyone who treats any open-content website like Wikipedia as an authoritative source, which anyone can edit at any time and say anything ought to have his or head examined.
:You're merely being obtuse.  Your characterization of "miscegenation" as pejorative doesn't hold water.  Virtually any dictionary will include, along with a proper definition, the informaton that "nigger" is pejorative.  The same cannot be said of miscegenation, which essentially means "race mixing."  Why?  Because it isn't inherently pejorative.  You have absolutely nothing to lend credence to your claims.
:By way of illiustration, this from an online article on the Houghton-Mifflin website, "Reader's Companion to Women's History:  Miscegenation":
:"The word 'miscegenation' was invented during the 1864 presidential campaign (from the Latin miscere, "to mix," and genus, race) when Democrats claimed that Lincoln's Republican Party advocated sex and marriage across the color line. Like 'mulatto,' probably derived from the concept of mules and hybridity, 'miscegenation' was pejorative in its historical context.'
:As I said, racists have used the word.  
:However, at the end of the article, Houghton-Mifflin uses the word outside the historical context of racism to mean, essentially "people of different races screwing and producing offspring" in a neutral fashion:
:"The ongoing legacies of the legal and social history of miscegenation are apparent in issues ranging from the influence of racist ideology in sex crimes or alleged sex crimes, to ambivalence or antagonism on the part of both white and Black communities toward marriages and relationships across the color line."
:Another online article in "Christianity Today" is titled "Books & Culture Corner: In Praise of Miscegenation.  Racial categories don't mean what they used to. Hallelujah."  And at slate.com:  "Miscegenation -- an official trend: The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a seemingly important taboo-busting story on the increase in black women dating white men. The evidence of this trend is not only anecdotal -- AJC's John Blake says."
:Simply because you and others may be unfamiliar with the use of the word outside of its racist context does not mean it is not used frequently and without negative connotations by others.  Time for a reality check. Drop it.  deeceevoice 23:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is all kinds of misinformation on Wikipedia.  I just made a change to the cultural appropriation exhibited in Janis Joplin, but if someone had visited that article before I did so and taken it as authoritative, they would have been misled.  Again, any hack with a computer and an ISP can edit here.  That fact in and of itself should be enough to give any sensible person pause about the reliability of information on this website. If you've spent any time as an editor, you must know that.  Further, you must be aware that vandalism is not always detected immediately.  And certainly the same can be said for erroneous information.  No one in any kind of position of authority on Wikipedia would ever suggest that it is an authoritative source.  And, no.  You've challenged this article's NPOV status on the basis of my use of the word miscegenation, so it was wholly appropriate for the matter to be discussed here -- as we both have been discussing it.  It was you, in fact, who brought the flawed article into this dicussion in the first place.  It is quite clear you were in error with regard to the purported inherently pejorative nature of the term.  And, yes, I already have deleted the erroneous information in miscegenation.  And, no.  A challenge to content is of an article is not POV if it is supported by authoritative sources.  And, clearly -- as herein demonstrated by documentation -- the content of that article was certainly incorrect.  I only skimmed it -- but from what I saw, the article actually did NOT say the term was inherently pejorative.  It seems you were incorrect about that, too.  deeceevoice 11:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: About changes to miscegenation:  as I said, I've already been there, done that. deeceevoice 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've had another look at miscegenation and I still don't see any recent relevant changes by deeceevoice or anybody else.  The most recent change was 8 September and not relevant to these issues. PatGallacher 22:06, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
Are you blind?  Take another look.  My first changes were minimal, but substantive.  I removed the language that identified the word as a pejorative.  After your post, which I'm just reading, I later returned and did some further editing of the first few paragraphs -- but haven't bothered to read the entire article.  I see that at least one other person raised the issue before me of the fact that the term is not inherently pejorative.  deeceevoice 01:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The NPOV tag is not only necessary for the reasons in the section immediately above but because the article completely is written in an attempt to advance the viewpoints of Afrocentrists at the cost of ignoring facts, expert oppinion and so forth. The "close up" Tut photo is extremely misleading, the claims about racial charactersitics of Egyptians are mostly nonsense, there is no list of objections to Afrocentrism, nor list of false claims they make (like Cleopatra mentioned above), nor the highly important mention that mainstream experts in all the various areas reject the views of Afrocentrists as being advanced by social identity concerns over using facts. This is one messed up article. DreamGuy 03:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly POV article 

message: I offered other images of Tut for comparison which showed precisely the same features of the now absent Freeman Institute image and, later, the image offered by another editor, but ultimately accepted the image which now appears in the article.  It is, after all, still clearly that of a blackman.  :p  And who made the change?  Check the edit history, jerk. I did. And still no substantive changes to the article?  Just some foolish attempts to change "pale" to "medium-tone," when, clearly, if the range of skin tones of indigenes for the region is from blue-black to dark brown to red-brown, brown and then to, possibly, tan and dark olive-toned (if they're mixed with outsiders), "medium-tone" would be -- and I'm being extremely generous here at least tan.  Your remark in an edit note was precisely on point:  this is the part of the "world where Charles Barkley is pale."  And Charles Barkley is considerably darker than the pale Tut reconstruction. And guess what?  I'm not the only one reverting such silly changes.  Again, check the edit history.
For the last time:  put up or shut up.  Your infantile whining, your weak excuses, your groundless complaints and silly assertions are wasting our time.  *x*deeceevoice 08:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Living in Honduras my perspective on skin tones has substantially changed from what it was living in White England. As we are an international encyclopedia dealing with an African issue we should keep the different perspectives of different communities in mind in our descriptions. We are not substantially writing for white Americans and Europeans, so I agree with Deecee on this point, SqueakBox 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is not whether the skin tone is 'middle' in some absolute sense in terms of world populations, but the fact that the creators of the image chose a "mid tone" in terms of the Egyptian population, as determined by experts in the field. You are not such an expert. Neither am I. Neither is Deeceevoice. Instead of trying to disprove the decision of the experts we should present the conclusions of those who are best qualified to judge what is a mid-tone in this context. If other experts disagree, we should report on that fact too. Paul B 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing but excuses

message: Flags like NPOV or Cleanup should not be lightly removed, I would remind all parties of the 3-revert rule, I may apply for this page to be protected.  See comments from a while back for explanation of Cleanup flag.  I will go into this in more detail later. PatGallacher 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've tried with the clean-up flag, and it was removed. The flag was there for weeks, and no substantive changes to the article occurred -- because it doesn't need "cleaning up." The NPOV tag is equally groundless. Absolutely no one has come up with any substantive challenge to the fact presented therein. No one. You wanna call in an impartial admin to take a look? Be my guest. But as far as page protection? Protection of WHAT? There's no edit war going on. Just some sour-grapes grumbling and a totally unsubstantiated NPOV tag -- -- which I, yes, have removed again. There should be a penalty for its gratuitous use. You can't in good faith slap a clean-up or an NPOV tag on something because someone is saying the world is round and you think it's flat and have absolutely nothing to back it up and will not cannot provide an argument to support your views. The whiners have been invited repeatedly to come to the table with other, hard information that refutes the information provided in this piece. And they've come up with nothing but more whining and ad hominem attacks. Again, put up or shut up. Don't abuse/trivialize the wiki process. *x* deeceevoice 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This article is anything but quality. It's full of factual errors which I have not involved myself in trying to correct because of the sheer hassle of trying to get anything past. It also gives a completely distorted view of Afrocentrism, since it is almost wholly obsessed by the Black Egyptian concept to the exclusion of discussion of anything else. These points have all been raised here. Paul B 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: OK, I apologise for saying that Deecee made up the concept of the Nubian wig. It clearly is a term used to describe a common type of wig. However, I don't think it is correct to say that Tiye is depicted wearing one. As I already wrote - quite a while back - the brown colour that appears on the surface of the "hair" is in fact a glue that was used to keep a series of blue tiles on. In other words it is not a wig in a conventional sense, since it was intended to be a blue-coloured head-dress. Only a few of the tiles survive on the head-dress today, at the back. Paul B 22:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nubian wig

message: I have deleted the following passage, and an anonymous "editor" insists on inserting it.
"Wells was, at the least, mistaken in his understanding of human genetics. As DNA is replicated continuously, in living organisms there is no such thing as "old" DNA. That said, among mainstream scholars, there is a fairly broad consensus that humamity originated in Africa, though the details remain open to study. In any case, this biologicalism is not Afrocentrism's core thesis. It is, rather, that black Africans contributed much more to the culture of the world than is generally acknowledged."
This is an utterly wrong-headed and almost ridiculously literal interpretation of Wells' comments.  By "oldest DNA," Wells is referring to the fact that the San bushmen are the oldest known intact human population of record.  All humankind can be traced back to them via Y chromosomnal DNA analysis.  Unless the anonymous poster can point to a geneticist or other authoritative source who has made such a wrong-headed appraisal of Wells' comments with regard to the San having the "oldest DNA on earth," this should be excised.  It is, in a word, "absurd."  Further, the thesis of Afrocentrism is already stated.  It was long ago generally agreed -- and I myself concurred -- that the section on "Egypt and black identity" would be split from the main article.  This commentary is gratuitous.  deeceevoice 02:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: certainly, the DNA in question is not "old"er than DNA in any other person on the planet, its only as old as the person being genotyped.  this should be removed on that basis until an accurate description is put there.  the likely approach taken by wells was to survey mitochondrial DNA, which is inhertied only maternally. He probably found more diversity in the San bushmen than in others surveyed, though this is too scientific a description (perhaps an article describing the research and techniques is warranted or exists already(?)).   To leave this there as is a disservice to wikipedia and afrocentrism.  anyway, the research is beside the point.  as far as i can tell from this article, afrocentrism is not about human evolution, it is about culture.  in that respect, this is irreleant.  the article could be changed to include evolution/prehistory as important to afrocentrists if that is the case.  the "interestingly" moniker is just plain silly and notes about how the bushmen are different than other Afrian populations just confuses the matter further.  --155.91.19.73 19:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV appraisal of Spencer Wells

message: *I've removed the "radical" from the characterization of Hume, because it is entirely misleading.  The sense in which Hume was considered radical had absolutely nothing to do with his racist views, which is the point of the quote's inclusion.  Unfortunately, his racism was right on par with that of others of his time -- and afterwards.  Indeed, there are those who tend to downplay Hume's so-called "radicalism" altogether.  (See David Hume.)  Further, in such a context, this characterization is gratuitous and misleading.  Hume had considerable influence.  Again, this from the Internet on Hume:  "Generally regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, David Hume (1711-1776) -- the last of the great triumvirate of "British empiricists" -- was also noted as an historian and essayist. The entirely appropriate and indisputable "noted" has been restored."
*The curiously wordy and very off-the-mark "who has had little influence" clause appended to the Toynbee reference has been removed.  What follows is an excerpt from an editorial book review at amazon.com of Toybee's A Study of History, in which the racist text appears.  This ten-volume magnum opus is still being hailed today as a great work with no mention whatsoever of Toynbee's racism.  This does not sound like a work with "little influence."
Arnold Toynbee's ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History, is acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship. "Of all the books published so far in this century," Clifton Fadiman once said, "the one most assured of being read a hundred years from now is A Study of History." The Los Angeles Times called it "a veritable masterpiece of erudition and one of the most suggestive, stimulating and inspiring studies of this age."
In The Study, Toynbee revolutionized the writing of history. By encompassing virtually all civilizations--the Egyptian, the Sumeric, the Mayan, the Iranian, the Japanese, the Hellenic, and the West, to name only a few--within the scope of his monumental work, he achieved the first all-embracing synthesis of world history. Before Toynbee, world histories were histories of the West, and only specialists wrote Babylonian, Arabian, or Aztec history. But Toynbee's scheme includes all nations and, more remarkably, by his emphasis on general patterns--on the genesis, growth and breakdown of civilizations--he was able to give a shape to this incredibly diverse material, making it comprehendable to the general reader.
*John Burgess was active well into the 20th century, having died in the 1930s.  Reverted to "20th century."  I thought to put "19th and 20th century," but that's simply TMI and clutter.  As with all three of the individuals cited, those wishing additional information can either consult Wikipedia or Google them.
*I deleted the appositional clause "Although the individuals quoted above were born in earlier centuries," because that much is obvious.  I also removed "though rare in modern settings," because there are many who would argue that the underlying racist presumptions inherent in the conclusions reached by the three individuals quoted are still in evidence today.  Further, it reads as though Afrocentrist scholars contend it is "rare in modern settings," and I'm not certain that's the case.  I think many of them would argue the opposite -- hence, the need for new scholarship.
*Deleted the "claim they," because it is not necessary.  The framers of this article long ago decided to treat the serious study of history and deal with Afrocentric scholarship -- not fringe hacks.  A good deal of history has always been, and remains today, largely interpretive.  While there are those in the mainstream who agree and disagree with certain conclusions of various Afrocentrist scholars, there is no question that rigorous research and study have gone into their work.  While the war of ideas continues, the scholars listed in the article are highly respected historians and authors, widely published, widely read -- as well as hotly debated.
*Melanin Theory?  "Afrocentric"? Totally wrong, totally irrelevant!  deeceevoice 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A different world-view -- recent reverts

message: dear editors,
Arguments advancing the notion of racial similarities between a Nubian and a Dravidian, both classified as Negroid, Afrocentrists contend, are far more credible than those of beween, say, a Swede and a modern-day Turk, both classified as Caucasian. Traditional racial classifications, after all, are not based on genetics, but on phenotype
this is an uncited addition and seems like it may be "original research".   I won't remove it, the editor that added it may have just forgotten to put a reference and it seems fairly believable, but there is a lot like this in the article and it is eventually going to be removed for lack of verifiability.   your time would be better spent adding citations or cited material than adding even *more* uncited material.
please make sure you've read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR   ("no original research")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
--155.91.28.231 02:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is bull.  There are all sorts of anonymous contentions inserted to counter Afrocentrist notions, but then the Afrocentrist argument is expected to cite everything? (Note to self:  http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diop.html and http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/black_egyptians_are_the_original.htm) deeceevoice 19:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  deeceevoice, remember to "act in good faith".  that means if someone says they believe something is original research, assume that they mean it as such, not that they have a political agenda.  use of profanity and near-profanity is also frowned upon.  -71.112.11.220 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think that it's a good idea, roger. The afrocentrism page won't have two parts, one that try to convince you that egyptians were black, another to convince you they were not, I don't think it's the encyclopedian mindstate. This article, is supposed to describe in a purely neutral way, afrocentrism. Apparently, people who wrote most of this article are unable of doing so without trying to convince us. It's so simple, we aren't trying to find out what color egyptians were, but what afrocentrism consists in, period. --SuperBleda 02:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  wiki guidelines recommend against splitting into pro and con sections. -71.112.11.220 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited additions 

message: This article has *very* few references.   If you've got some, now's the time to dig them up.  Unverifiable text may be removed at any time.
-71.112.11.220 21:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of references