Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 3

message: I made alot of changes to the article, here's a a few problems I saw: 
1.The explanation for the difference between ancient Nubian and other sub-saharan crania due to admixture, there's no evidence of admixture in Nubian crania prior to the Mohammedan invasions, if there's evidence, present it, then I will gladly concede. 
 
2. "An elder lady thought to be Queen Tiye among them". i just put Queen Tiye, the evidence seems pretty convincing to me that it's who "The Elder Lady" is. 
 
3. I want to put to rest the myth of Eygpto-Nubian racial wars, that myth still seems to be flying around, even in intellectual circles.
 
4. It's time we bring in the genetic big guns people, haplotype and maternal lineages should have been the first thing to be put in the genetics section of this article. Jesus christ do I have to do everything? 
Got any problems talk to me, bubs. 
Playing football on the moon. Teth22 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey.  

message: A genetic-Test from egyptien officials, has already proved that Ramses II was a negro with black-hair.
This was a news from egyptian officials august 2000, published on this page http://www.sis.gov.eg/public/letter/fhtml/ftext058.htm
I saved the page here: http://people.freenet.de/freezama/mop/Lettre_du_Caire_58_Du_25_4_Au_1er_5_2000.htm
The news was in French, so you have to translate it yourself.
 
CERTAINS TRAITS GENETIQUES DES EGYPTIENS ANCIENS 
Dans le cadre des recherches effectuées par l'Université du Caire en collaboration avec le Conseil supérieur des antiquités, il a été possible de parvenir aux caractéristiques anthropologiques des Pharaons. 
Selon les indices préliminaires, on est parvenu à un certain nombre de traits génétiques des Pharaons . Il a été possible de déterminer les gènes de la taille, de la couleur de la peau et de la couleur des yeux et des cheveux du roi à l'époque pharaonique dont des échantillons ont été prélevés. Ils l'ont été sur des momies placées dans les sarcophages. Un groupe de chercheurs a pu séparer ces gènes qui ont prouvé que les Egyptiens anciens n'étaient pas hauts de taille comme on le croyait auparavant. Leur taille était plûtot moyenne, à l'exception de 
Ramsès II dont l'analyse des gènes a prouvé qu'il était taillé. Il a également été démontré que sa peau était brune et que ses cheveux étaient noirs, et non pas roux. La couleur rousse qui a été trouvée sur sa momie est due à une teinture (probablement du henné). Ses yeux étaient noirs avec une légère teinte de couleur marron. 
Amenhotep III était court de taille, la couleur de sa peau était d'un brun clair. Ses yeux et ses cheveux étaient de couleur noire foncée. Ces traits prouvent que les rois étaient apparentés. Tous les rois à cette époque avaient une origine commune dans l'arbre généalogique de la famille royale. Il sera ainsi possible de déteminer d'une façon précise les dates et les époques dans l'avenir . Ces recherches vont confirmer certains traits anthropologiques qui ont été étudiés auparavant sur les momies pharaoniques. Ceci permettra de donner des indices préliminaires concernant les traits , les maladies et les caractéristiques des Pharaons. 
Caid--84.130.0.224 07:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Genetic Test on the mummy of Ramses II 

message: I'm not entirely sure I would call this a "controversy" so much as a debate, but I dunno. Just thought I'd interject....
:c'mon james, be bold!  this is good info (even afrocentrist diop's laughable counter "proof" that this couldn't have been the case because egyptians killed anyone with red hair they came across)  Justforasecond 14:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha.  If you knew the history of this article....     Justforasecond 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it was my understanding that the redness of the hair was a result of the embalming process.  Hardly likely that any redhead would exist, let alone survive long in Africa.  Can you say "squamous cell melanoma"?  And even assuming there ever was a redhead in ancient dynastic Egypt, the very suggestion that a pale-skinned, redheaded person could be indigenous to the region is utterly laughable -- hysterically so.  We don't even have to waste time mocking/debunking such contentions; they are ridiculous on their face.  deeceevoice 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy? 

message: The article states "light-skinned or "white" people (Semetic people or people of Europe, North Africa, Western Asia, South Asia and portions of Central Asia)." First, a Semite is simply someone who speaks a Semitic language, so no, no one thinks the ancient Egyptians were Semites, second, it's misspelled.
The type of Caucasoid they are believed to have been would be similar to that of other Caucasoid North Africans, obviously.
: Besides the semitic culture appears -1500 BC or later.
: How could they have created a civilization 2000 to 3000 years older ? 
: References: Lenormant, Bible, etc.
: Caid --84.130.6.7 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Semetic" 

message: Okay, so I'm not involved in this debate in any way. I don't have any knowledge on the subject, either lay or professional. So it's entirely possible that some members of this conversation will object to my injecting my opinion, but hey, that's Wikipedia.
I'm not here to offer an opinion on the racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians. I'm here to ask everyone to take a step back from this article.
I don't have the authority to have anyone stop editing this article, and I wouldn't try to even if I did. I don't have administrative authority to block users or lock articles, and I don't think that would do this dispute any good. I think that this article has the potential to be a fascinating, informative article, and it needs passionate and knowledgable editors to work on it. It's clear to me that it already has passionate and knowledgable editors. So what can be done to make progress in this area?
After seeing this article in Recent Changes, I considered tagging this article for mediation, but then I decided, hey, I'm a level-headed Wikipedian, no need to draw any negative attention this way. So this is the general Wiki-Wisdom that I can offer to this situation. And please remember, these are just my opinions, but they are what I have found works for constructive collaboration.
* Try not to post, even on a talk page, when upset, angry, or offended. This article has 'controversy' in the title: of course there will be controversy. But editing in a good mood is always more effective than editing in a bad one.
* Try to recognize your own agenda and bias. Every human being has biases, and everyone on Wikipedia has an agenda for the 'pedia. If everyone keeps this in mind, and recognizes that they have some stake in this article, it will be easier for everyone to make their points clear.
* Try to recognize the agenda of the other editors. If everyone realizes that everyone else has some stake in this article, it may become clearer why disagreement quickly becomes heated.
* Try to remember that Wikipedia is for everyone. With the exception of blocked or banned users, anyone can edit any article on Wikipedia ... and it's made that way for a reason. That means that your text may not stay in an article. It means that your text may be changed when you come back. This is to be expected.
* The most important thing: Simply try to be civil. If you have an viewpoint to post, post it, and cite your reasons for believing it. But that is all that need be done -- personal attacks, rudeness, and badgering do not help anyone, and do not help the state of the article.
I would strongly suggest that everyone involved in this disagreement take some time off from this article, however long they think they need to calm down. I have no intentions of bringing this disagreement to the Wiki-authorities, but if this level of incivility continues, someone certainly will, with disappointing and unfortunate consequences. Evaluate the situation here: is this article really worth getting blocked over?
I would also suggest that, if anyone believes that he or she cannot approach this article with a level head and a civil attitude, that he or she refrain from coming back to this page before changing his or her attitude. Of course, I am not saying "Do not edit this page". I'm simply saying "Remember that incivility and anger can have negative consequences". Nobody wants that.
Editing and discussing with a level head and a civil attitude is good for the Wikipedia community, and it makes the likelihood of your point being heard and understood much better. When we're all nice, everybody wins!
Peace. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 19:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Added some data and citations that support BOTH sides of the controversy, while maintaining a balanced tone.Enriquecardova 06:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I recommend ... 

message: The history for this article is impossible to follow. Please use edit summaries, and try to make all edits to the article at the same time. (If you need, you can copy and paste the wikicode into an outside text editor, make your changes, then copy and paste it back.) This will help people following the development of this article greatly. Thanks! - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page history 

message: In order to avoid legal actions against Wikipedia I removed these unsourced reproaches against Hawass & the Egyptian Government: 
These critics contend that a foreknowledge of their subject's identity and certain biases inclined the French to assign lighter eyes and skin and, as well, prompted acceptance of the selections by the Egyptian government.  
Afrocentrists long have charged Hawass and the Egyptian government with mounting a campaign to "destroy" evidence  of what Afrocentrists claim was a "black" civilization. The Egyptians themselves have in turn accused the usually West African descended Afrocentrists (often black Americans) of attempting to appropriate and bastardize Egyptian culture which has nothing to do with West Africa. CoYep 07:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced reproaches against Hawass & Egyptian Government 

message: Is the section on modern Egyptians really necessary? The title of the article is "race of ancient Egyptians", so why an entire section on Egyptians today? — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add those studies so I can't say anything about how it describes modern Egyptians. I do believe it's pertinent to the discussion and one section on it isn't excessive. Modern populations are descended at least in part from ancient ones and those who believe Ancient Egyptians were relatively light-skinned often point to modern Egyptians as evidence for their claims. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I wasn't actually calling for the total elimination of that section. Nor was I questioning that modern Egyptians are descended from ancient Egyptians. I accept the mainstream Egyptological/anthropological view that population continuity largely maintained its integrity since the dynastic period. But if Egyptians are simply Egyptian, then there would be no "controversy" and no need for this article, and no need to fit Egyptians into discrete categories like "Caucasoid" or "Africoid". The controversy exists because the mainstream view, I assume, is put to question. If this is the case, and proponents of the controversy on either side don't feel that the modern population is representative, then why rely on that as "evidence"? If the intention is to prove that ancient Egyptians were either black or white by looking at their descendants, then it will turn out to be a futile exercise because Egyptians, being mostly a range in the middle of the two, can fit both in different contexts. In any event, I don't intend on editing that section, but if it were up to me I would change the wording that puts modern Egyptians squarely in an African or Caucasian genetic profile, and also the part about southern Europeans! I understand if there is an affinity with southern Europeans, but I have never heard Egyptians being classified as European which the section currently states. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 03:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Egyptians 

message: this article is getting pretty extensive.   long passages go on without single images...making it boring.   could we get some more omages?  or stop removing the images we DO have.
Justforasecond 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accuracy and NPOV is more important than being a little bit boring because it doesn't have images. Images are included in Wikipedia to add to the encyclopedic content and demonstrate something explained in the article. There's no need to have more images than necessary or to have them in sections where they are not explained. They are meant to be a demonstration or explanation, not decoration. If you can find images for a highly deteriorated mummy, for instance, then that would work great for the "Condition and availablity of remains" section. Maybe a small (and localized to show relevant areas) version of the Afro-Asiatic languages map or one for Semitic languages would work for the "Geography and linguistics" section. Better yet, a blank map with just names of ancient languages spoken in nearby areas in the relevant time period would be good. I don't see how we could include an image for melanin tests (unless there's an image of one in process). The Cultural and Religious section probably should have that fellahin girl's image restored, as I see now that the section is badly named and the fellahin picture does illustrate something in the text (instead of being a lone image for decoration). Perhaps "Comparisons to neighboring peoples?" "Textual evidence" could only be represented the actual text, obviously. "Geographic evidence" - same as above for the "Geo. & ling." section under problems, and that's about it. We don't need to put a bunch of representation of Egyptian art out of laziness; we should actually use pertinent images. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm I've never read that images need to be section-specific.   Can you point me to some policy that says this?   Anyway it is POV to delete images that don't match your POV....Justforasecond 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't have to be as a matter of Wikipedia policy, but if all the images only illustrate a single section, then beyond the first few sections, the images become redundant and unnecessary. The best way to use them would be to have a variety of different types of images to illustrate each section. I'm not deleting images that don't match my POV, by the way. If Deeceevoice or another editor added dark images of Egyptians throughout the article outside of the relevant sections I would delete them as well. Note how I haven't deleted any additions to the "artistic" or "problems with artistic representations" sections (also the "problems with skin color" one, but I do believe that one should be replaced with an image of modern Egyptians with varying skin color). The addition of all those images does add a POV, whether or not I agree with it (as would the addition of a bunch of dark-skinned images), which should of course be avoided, especially considering the article's subject. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more photos needed 

message: Maspero croaked in the second decade of the 20th century.  He belongs to that class of "scholars" who tried to find white people in everything Egyptian, as was the fashion of the day.  Nofretari came from southern Egypt and is widely considered by scholars these days to have been black. Just Google her. The passage was an overly lengthy missive ostensibly placed there to illustrate the uses of color in Egyptian art, but in actuality a thinly veiled attempt to insert another contention of a non-black Egypt. Heck.  Even Petrie, the Father of Egyptology, recognized that Nefertari was "black" -- his words. Maspero was a hack.  It is kaput.  deeceevoice 07:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted lengthy Gaston Maspero passage

message: When I first glanced at the map, overall, my immediate, gut reaction was, "This can't be correct!"  I googled "Biasutti native populations," and the first thing I came up with was this.  It would be nice to find something suitable in the way of illustration for this segment -- but,  man. This is so gone.  deeceevoice 07:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Biasutti map

message: Question: Can someone provide a source to the results of the test, the numbers of mummies he tested and what kind of mummies he tested? Diop mentions "mummies from the Marietta excavations in Egypt", but I can't find any informations about the "Marietta excavations". I'm also interested to know how many "white" mummies "with non-existent melanin level" and how many "Black" mummies he tested. Infos appreciated. CoYep 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melanin Dosage Test 

message: This is regarding Justforasecond's recent edit As far as I'm aware, Schoch doesn't believe in extra-terrestrials. The link for the quotation refers to him defending the scientific claims of a New Ager regarding the age of the pyramid while distancing himself from the New Ager's (West's) views regarding Atlantis and the use of certain ancient Egyptian buildings. I'm going to put a fact on that until an appropriate link is provided. Also, Just, can you please provide edit summaries? It makes browsing changes to the article easier. Thanks. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 07:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I lookid it up and he doesn't believe in ETs (he was quoting someone else that does).   He did however have an enounter with "phantasms" when he was in Peru   Justforasecond 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra-terrestrials

message: The article as it stands now uses a (cropped) 19th-century drawing of an Egyptian mural as evidence for the "ethnographic" awareness of ancient Egyptians. It is an excellent example for what I think is wrong with the direction of this article. The image has no attribution, which is a significant omission. It looks very much like the paintings of Ippolito Rossellini which were published in Monumenti dell’Egitto e della Nubia (1832-1844) and may well originate from a reprinting of this work. Rossellini had travelled to Egypt with Champollion (the famous decipherer of the Rosetta Stone); these 19th century explorations of Egypt were important milestones in the history of Egyptology, but they are also part of the history of colonization and ultimately served European colonial interest. Moreover, there are other revealing instances where these drawings were used in the 19th century. The illustration to the right here shows a similar rendition of the wallpainting in Types of Mankind (1854), a classic example for 19th century scientific racism. The caption reads: "The ancient Egyptian division of mankind into four species--fifteenth century B.C." It is interesting to note that the controversial recent publication Race: The Reality of Human Differences (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2004. ) by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele uses the self-same image (p. 34) with the following caption: "Egyptian wall painting showing four races." The image in Sarich and Miele serves as "evidence of the Egyptian awareness of racial difference" (p. 34). 
To me, this example shows that it is absolutely indispensable to historicize the controversy. It certainly does not start with 20th-century Afrocentrism. It is very revealing to see that much of the controversy points to racial tensions in the West, and particularly in the United States, starting with the slavery debate. When Enlightenment philosophy, as put into practice in the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, brought up the notion of equality, and African Americans began to claim it as their right, it became necessary for the apologists of slavery to collect evidence against the humanity of black people. If they were not human, they could be excluded from human rights with impunity. Ancient Egypt, its artifacts and human remains have been instruments in this debate and seeing historical interconnections makes it easier to reveal "evidence" as ideology. I put up a rough outline of a more historically aware version of this article here: Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians/Draft. --Jottce 11:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ethnographic Murals" as example for the origin of the debate 

message: photography representing races on the wall of Ramses III Tomb:
http://www.geocities.com/enbp/images/races3.jpg
The Negroes on this picture are Egyptian, called Remetou, in mdw-nTr: http://www.africamaat.com/IMG/jpg/G1E-s-2.jpg 
This fact is more emphasized in this picture: http://www.africamaat.com/IMG/jpg/RACES33.jpg
N.B. Remetou, in mdw-nTr: http://www.africamaat.com/IMG/jpg/G1E-s-2.jpg, was the generic appellation for the kemets.
Caid--84.130.54.45 09:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Ethnographic Murals, Egyptian represented as true negroes in the tomb of Ramses III 

message: Given, however, that the ethnicity of Egypt's population of Egypt varies from urban to rural areas, with more Arabized populations
This is a bit racist and presumptuous.   Can we steer clear of language like "Arabized"?   Reminds me of the "Africanized" killer bees...Justforasecond 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thosee are your value-laden presumptions -- what you bring to it, and not the language itself.  deeceevoice 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain how? I really don't see the racism in it. Any one that considers him or herself an Arab and lives outside of the Arabian peninsula and is not a descendent of people from the Arabian peninsula, from the Maghreb to Iraq is an arabized Arab (Adnan or al-'Arab al-Musta'ribah). The real Arabs (al-`Arab al-Aribah) or mixed with arabs (al-'Arab al-Muta'aribah) are a minority. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Being arabized means that they didn't speak Arabic or consider themselves Arabs (something that's a bit of a new phenomenon, beginning mainly in the 20th century, actually) in past times, which is obviously true because they spoke Egyptian and Coptic. Being arabized has nothing to do with race as it only affects Ethnicity. Northern Sudanese are Arabized and I would say they are black (they generally look no different from Ethiopians), but people in the Maghreb and Syria are also Arabized, but very few of them (there are some black Berbers) could be classified as black. Relax, Justforasecond. Besides, this has nothing to do with the article at hand. Please address it at Talk:Egypt or request an arbitration or comment on it if you think it's important. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note but I think we should try to keep "arabized" out of here.   It sounds just like those "africanized" killer bees which many african-americans thought was racist.  if it's a 20th century thing then it doesn't effect skin color tests anyway so is sorta irrelevant.  Justforasecond 23:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "arabized" 

message: :"Caucasoid" is different than "white" as you well know.  You've claimed Sudanese are caucasoid yourself.  "Africoid" does not appear to be a scientific term (neither is Afro-Semitic).  Anyway, you asked if I knew any Sudanese and it just so happens I talk to a Sudanese man regularly and he says your claims are bogus (he actually giggled at them).   Sure, he might not be an anthropologist by trade, but I wonder sometimes how you are privvy to this privileged info that it seems neither scientists nor locals nor truly anyone has other than perhaps the late Diop.
:I'm thinkin of mailing Hawass to see what his take on it all is.   I'm guessing he'll reply with the info that scientists and academics and locals use and not "King Tut was a white Arab!" or anything similar.  I saw him on TV and he wasn't an extremist of any sort.
:As for DNA that Hawass won't let be studied, you might be interested to know there is no DNA test for "blackness".   Any DNA test would come down to clustering a number of samples and predetermining how many "races" to break the world into.   If you tell the computer that you believe there are 3 races you'll get 3 races.   If you tell the computer that you believe there are 50 races the computer will group people into 50 races.   Anyway, when scientific tests have failed to lead to your pre-determined conclusions in the past you've criticized them.
:Anyway,  the reasons Egypt won't permit any DNA testing is twofold
:#the tiny bit of DNA present in egyptian mummies requires extracting their teeth, thereby damaging the mummies
:#DNA testing hasn't worked on Egyptian mummies that are in the U.S., etc.
:Oh and btw, my Sudanese friend considers himself black.  It's the Egyptians that he says are not.  Justforasecond 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrt to the Sudanese man, which claim? The long list posted by DCV, or the part about Fellahin? I don't know about Fellahin in general, but I know an Upper Egyptian (who considers himself black) who is very knowledgable about Ancient Egypt, population movements, genetic studies, and the like, who considers most Upper Egyptians black, and believes that there were both "Classic Negroid" and "Ethiopid" types, along with some Levant populations in the eastern Delta and Sinai. Either way, none of this has to do with the development of the article, either in its current state or in its future state as per Jottce's proposal, so I suggest you continue the conversation on a talk page or elsewhere. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DCV asked me if I knew any Kenyans, Ethiopians, or Sudanese.  I know people from all three nations (the only Egyptian I know is what DCV would call "highly miscegenated" or "highly arabized").  Anyway, the one I asked about "black" Egyptians said it was all wrong.   Justforasecond 01:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: deeceevoice, that is is an excerpt from a book review.   a book review of a novel.  you even said so yourself: "Consider this book review of Shahhat, An Egyptian, by Richard Critchfield".  And as for the racialist Kola Boof?   Sheesh, the woman claims the was Osama Bin Laden's mistress!   But thanks for the link.  Justforasecond 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: response to deeceevoice

message: I personally emailed Dr. Brace asking him why his Giza series clustered with Europeans. What he told me personally was that the sampled populations he had for the Northern Egyptian series does not date back to the pre-dyanstic era but around the Late Dyanstic period when foreign mercenaries were settled around Giza.    Also, I am curious why that nobody here is citing Brace's new study published in 2006?  How about the work of Dr. Keita on North-eastern African remains?  
Also people need to stop using Dr. Brace for a proof of a caucasoid northern Egypt because Dr. Brace himself does not believe in any of the races such as caucasoid,negriod,or mongoloid.
Can somebody tell me how I can add citations to the article? (unsigned post)
::Very interesting. Then guess that the 52 skulls from the Egypt Bronze (Naqada) (3300 BC: Predynastic Period)  he is referring to in his list of samples and his study are just a persistent typo ... CoYep 11:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CoYep, can you provide sourced quotes from Brace's study that specifically contradict the post above?  If so, it would be helpful.  This is precisely why I deleted the faulty and uncited conclusions inserted in the last paragraph of that section.  The person who wrote it conflates "Caucasoid" to mean "Caucasian," writing about a "biracial" Egypt.  Without being familiar with Brace's study and having no direct quotes, I could tell immediately that it was faulty and suspected the author had no proof of Brace's purported finding.  The author repeatedly has edit warred the material back in, with no citation, no explanation.  It should stay gone until this matter is resolved.deeceevoice 11:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi.  Thanks for your interest. :)  Unfortunately, one of the tenets of Wikipedia is "no original research."  If your "citations" involve the insertion information from an e-mail, then they cannot be included in the article.  For instance, I cannot use my e-mails with Anton on Wikipedia.  If the information you wish to include appears in print or has otherwise been copyrighted, published, recorded, disseminated, then it can be used.  Also, if Dr. Brace would like to comment, he is, of course, more than welcome to do so.  If you would like to include Keita's information, then by all means do. Peace. deeceevoice 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal email from Dr. Brace Northern Egyptian samples 

message: I noticed that there was an anonymous user (207.195.241.51) who reverted the good-faith edits of deeceevoice labeling them as "vandalism." I think that is completely unacceptable. On a controversial subject such as this, I think major reverts such as this should be discussed. Anonymously going through the article with an ax to eliminate sections you don't agree with will not improve anything and does violence to the Wikipedia process. --Jottce 09:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you even bother to read the edit history? CoYep 13:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please play nicely. Jottce is one of very few people working on this article article who has not engaged in provocative, uncivil, or abusive language. Being nasty to her is completely uncalled for. If you have something to point out, please do so, but don't bite at people who did nothing to you. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: deeceevoice blanked a fairly long passage.  at least on the face of it it seemed to be in furtherance of a pov.  i think 207.... said "rv blanking vandalism".   i guess you could say 207 is not assuming deeceevoice's good faith, but then you wouldn't be assumignt 207's good faith. ;)  Justforasecond 15:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YoCep, and Justforasecond I concede that it was wrong for me to criticize 207.195.241.51 the way I did before double-checking whether deeceevoice's edits were in fact "good faith" edits as I assumed they were. I wrote too quickly. If I appeared to take sides, that was not my intention, and (if you are reading this, 207.195.241.51), I apologize for the wording of my criticism. I would criticize similar behavior in anyone if I noticed it. But, being wary of vandalism, I do pay particular attention to edits by anonymous users. I did not assume 207.195.241.51 was the "bad guy" though. What I criticized was clearly defined behavior, behavior I consider counterproductive in any edit situation. And I stand by the content of the criticism, to whomever it applies. My appeal, then, goes to both 207.195.241.51 and deeceevoice and anyone else involved in circular edits-reverts to take a step back from carrying out the controversy in the article and moving it to this talk page. What are your main grievances? Perhaps we can resolve them collectively. The issue seems to be larger than the inclusion or exclusion of individual passages or images. --Jottce 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: hey man, no big deal.   this is just wiki after all ;)  Justforasecond 19:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey woman, actually. ;) — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 19:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edits labled "rv vandalism" 

message: An editor inserted a question next to the drawing of the ethnographic mural, "Why not show the real thing?" which Yom reverted, and rightly so since the question belongs to the talk page. I haven't seen "the real thing" nor do I know whether it was not just as faded in the early 19th century when the original of the drawing shown here was made. The reason that I am bringing this up here is that the image sorely needs an attribution that clearly contextualizes its origin. The different versions of the drawing are filtered through 19th century racial sensibilities. The image is a small selection from a room covered with human figures, and the image as it is shown here is again cropped from the drawing. The image does indeed adequately illustrate the controversy since it is a recurrent element in it, but it is definitely not a reliable source for "ethnographic" conceptions that existed in ancient Egypt. And as it is placed in the text right now, it deceptively appears to illustrate precisely those conceptions: "As can be seen from the adjacent painting, ancient Egyptians usually portrayed themselves differently from both the Nubians and the ethnically Semitic Middle-Easterners/North African Bedouins." It would be much more appropriate in an article on the controversy to use this image as well as its equivalents in Types of Mankind (1854) and in Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004) to illustrate its function in the controversy. This function, as I see it, has been to suggest that in terms of racial thinking, there is not much difference between the ancient Egyptians and contemporary culture, the conclusion being (as faulty, in my opinion, as the premise) that "race" is an unchangeable category, either in human biology or in human culture. What do you think? --Jottce 11:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that the "real thing" the editor is referring to is what Afrocentrists love to bring up as "evidence" that Egyptians and Nubians are identical: the image of the one Nubian erroneously labeld as Egyptian in the book of gates  which was addressed by Lepsius in his book "Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien" . I didn't like the drawing either, so I added some time ago some links to the original tomb images (Nubian , Asiatics  Egyptian  Libyan ) I agree with you that the text should emphasize that the distinguishing criterion wasn't "race", as we know it today, but nationallity/cultural affiliation. CoYep 13:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ethnographic Murals" - the question of the "real thing" 

message: Um, I haven't been to this article in quite a while, and I could barely recognize it. What the hell happened? I have many problems with the article in its current state, deecevoice and yom, the only two editors who have an ounce of sanity and objectivity, this is not applied to you, so please excuse my impending tirade. 
1. "racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians" WTF? Is that an appropriate title for the article? Shouldn't it be "Racial affinities of ancient egyptians?" That sounds more logical, but "logical" is a little too much to ask at this point since the article has fallen to hordes of ideologues, isn't it? 
2. Large parts of the article have been illogically deleted, like a good part of the OBJECTIVE cultural analysis of Ancient Egypt. Once again, WTF? 
3. I know you guys did not just DELETE the part about the cranial analysis of the new kingdom royal mummies. That section did not need to be removed, it was fine as it was. Somebody put it back please. 
4. What the hell is up with the damn art show, what the fuck is the person who did this trying to prove, many of those portraits are idealistic, so if you were looking to prove that the egyptians were "caucasoid", you failed, and made an ass of yourself, whoever you are. Why don't put up a picture of Menes, Djedefre, and Amenemhat just to even things out? Hmmm. 
5. I notice alot of my data, which was from EXPERTS in the field of craniometry (SO keita) or Egyptology (Frank Yurco) were deleted. That wasn't even right. 
6. Just for a second, you need to stay away from this article, you're not contributing anything positive, in fact, you're exacerbating the situation. Sorry, bub. 
That's all I gotta say, I might try to salvage this mess, and make the article decent, but then again, sometimes you just have to say "fuck it." 
Peace. Teth22 16:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that deeceevoice is the only editor with an ounce of sanity could be construed as less than civil, Teth.  Justforasecond 17:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: not to mention as rather surreal. Also, "racial affinities"?(??) dab (ᛏ) 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Birds of a feather flock together. CoYep 13:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Teth22, I am sorry you feel this way. But it is the nature (and the strength) of Wikipedia that it is in a perpetual state of transformation. One person cannot and should not control this process. This article is relatively active, as, I guess, all articles relating to race will be. I have so far only contributed to the discussion and refrained from editing the article itself because there is so much contention around it. I have, however, as of Yom's suggestion, put up a draft outline of an alternative structure for the article that would take on the issue from a historical perspective. What is important to me is that the article now performs the controversy that it should represent and historicise (the title is "controversy over ..."). Yom suggested to start another article that would deal with current scientific findings on the genealogy of ancient Egyptians and reference the article on the controversy, but not deal with it. --Jottce 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the draft. --
Jottce 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That looks nice, you could be on to something yet, peace. Teth22 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd noticed, too, that large sections of the article have been deleted -- mostly by an anonymous editor.  I've made a quick attempt to restore the information I wrote under the "forensic/cranial analysis" portion, but I'm not even certain that version hasn't been messed with.  But, inexplicably, the section on cultural and religious evidence (along with the great photo of the Fellah child) has been deleted.  This is important stuff.  I recommend that the old section on cultural evidence be reconstituted, incorporating the section on "art" and whatever other aspects of culture are addressed herein, such as language.  I haven't been paying serious attention to this piece for some time -- just dealing with the art business.  It needs a good onceover.  The article has been hijacked and shamelessly Bowdlerized --with no attempt whatsoever at justification.  deeceevoice 10:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Deecevoice, I can't help but congratulate you for restoring alot of the old material back into the article, in other words, thank you for putting the FACTS back in. I have one question though, who is the author of the website you linked to under the cranial analysis section, it can't be from Atlas of the Royal Mummies, since the page cites studies past 1980, the book's publication date. Can you help me out there? Thanks. Peace. Teth22 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I gotta say something....... 

message: Why was this taken out (is it factually incorrect or what?):
Approximately one-third of so-called "white" Americans have detectable African DNA markers or craniofacial traits that would forensically categorize them as "Negroid."Heather E. Collins-Schramm and others, "Markers that Discriminate Between European and African Ancestry Show Limited Variation Within Africa," Human Genetics 111 (2002): 566-9; Mark D. Shriver and others, "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping," Human Genetics 112 (2003): 387-99. And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA.E.J. Parra and others, "Ancestral Proportions and Admixture Dynamics in Geographically Defined African Americans Living in South Carolina," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 114 (2001): 18-29, Figure 1. In short, given three Americans, one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. White, another one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Black, and one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is no objective test that will identify their U.S. endogamous group membership without an interview.Carol Channing, Just Lucky I Guess: A Memoir of Sorts (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002); Gregory Howard Williams, Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy who Discovered he was Black (New York: Dutton, 1995) In practice, the application of such forensic criteria ultimately comes down to whether the skull appears "Negroid," "Caucasoid," or "Mongoloid" in the eyes of the forensic practitioner.  [unsigned post]
:I substantially rewrote the earlier portion of this section a while back, because it painted an inaccurate and incredibly POV and grossly misleading picture of the usefuless, accuracy and scope (of utilization, which is worldwide) of the use of faciocranial analysis, characterizing the methodologies as being used by only Americans, and solely to shoehorn specimens into strict racial classes or categories.  The fact of the matter is the use of faciocranial analysis in forensic and criminal anthropology is alive and well -- and a well-respected and time-tested discipline that more often than not yields highly accurate results.  
:I removed the section to which you refer because it was simply TMI and not directly relevant to the matter at hand.  The current language succinctly states that there are complicating factors with faciocranial analysis when examining mixed populations.  Studies citing African-Americans and Carol Channing, yadda, yadda, yadda, are not immediately germane here.  This information may be appropriate to an article on forensic anthropology, or forensic methods, or some other such subject -- but not here.  It's simply too far off the point/extraneous.
:Finally, and less importantly, but particularly with regard to the case of King Tut, the examination of whose remains is discussed in the article at length, this information is particularly irrelevant, because there is no indication whatsoever that Tut was mixed with anything.  In fact, it would be extremely difficult to find a more by-the-book, exaggerated example of the classic Nilotic (black) phenotype, which Tut's remains clearly show him to have been.  The precise cluster of faciocranail attributes exhibited by Tut's skull belong to no other ethnic group on the planet. (Coupled with the information known about Tut's physical stature, "gracile," longer and more slender than the human norm -- like the Dinka, like the Tutsi, their strikingly long limbs an adaptation to extremely hot climates in order to disperse heat more efficiently, Tut's racial/ethnic identity is not even open to question.) There is absolutely nothing in his faciocranial structure (or physical stature) that would indicate he was mixed with anything (not even another Negroid/Africoid phenotype) -- which is what allowed Susan Anton of the American reconstruction team (the only team of the three who collectively were unaware of the skull's identity), even absent the information about physical stature, to accurately pinpoint the specimen's origin first clearly to Africa (it belonged to a black man) and then to North Africa, as opposed to sub-Saharan/Equatorial Africa.  And, again, the expunged text is simply an (unnecessary) elaboration of the already-stated difficulties of faciocranial analysis in ascertaining "racial"/ethnic identity (or geographic origin) of human remains in racially/ethnically mixed populations. 
:The next couple of paragraphs are a bit off-point, but let me take the opportunity here to say:
:*Further, not only is faciocranial analysis useful in determining racial/ethnic identity, but in some cases (particularly when the specimens adhere point by point to certain phenotypical models/criteria), it allows not only for accurate reconstruction of facial features, but for extremely accurate racial/ethnic/geographic assignation and designation of eye, skin and hair color, as well. For example, a skull exhibiting all the hallmarks of the classic Mongoloid phenotype would be highly unlikely to belong to a person with blonde or red hair and grey, green, blue, or hazel eyes, nappy or curly hair and "black" or dark brown skin.  Because of the absence of any feature that would indicate mixed ancestry in populations which possess fairly uniform skin and eye color and hair texture, such features can be fairly accurately extrapolated from the faciocranial evidence.  The same can be said for a specimen exhibiting all the hallmark characteristics of a classic Negroid/Africoid (Equatorial) phenotype with regard to the inappropriateness of assigning straight hair and fair skin, or for a skull possessing the characteristics of the classic Nilotic phenotype with regard to assigning blue, green, grey or even hazel eyes; fair/white or light brown skin and blond hair.  Many Nilotic peoples are among the blackest on the planet, some so dark, they have a blue-black or purplish cast to their skin.
:*In the last instance -- that of Nilotic populations -- which is directly germane to the Tut specimen, it should be quite clear to any objective observer that the specimen should have been assigned dark brown or nearly black skin and dark eyes -- and particularly by the two teams who were aware of the skull's identity, given the abundant examples of artwork showing Tut with precisely such attributes, dark brown/red-brown skin and dark eyes.  There is absolutely no example of contemporaneous artwork of which I am aware where Tut is portrayed in everyday life (i.e., non symbolic contexts) in any other way -- and never with hazel eyes.  And therein lies the basis for the voiciferous -- and, IMO, thoroughly justified -- criticism of the French team's model.  There was clearly a thinly veiled agenda afoot to whitewash the result, which has been Zahi Hawass' track record.  Any professional worth his/her salt would have used the contemporaneous depictions of the king as the basis for such making such decisions in producing a credible reconstruction.  And, to their profound discredit (and I would say "shame" if they had a conscience, which they apparently do not), they did not.  deeceevoice deeceevoice 08:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question 

message: I tried to reorganize the article so that it flowed more logically.  I haven't added much, and I tried not to delete the more relevant parts of the article.  The History and Origins sections are mainly from Jotce's draft article; they should definately be expanded.
I tried to split the controversial eurocentrist and afrocentrist claims into two sections.  With the subsections I was trying to follow a pattern of explaining each claim, and then explaining if it's a mainstream belief, and if not, why not.
The last section was just because I felt those two parts of the article were good, and wanted to keep them.  Something like a summary of the modern egyptologist perspective should be added that incoporates the material in them.Altarbo 23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: And who decided the article should be mutilated in such a fashion?  Where is the substantive discussion regarding such drastic changes?  I'm only just now discovering the existence of Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians/Draft -- and, looking at the edit history, other than User:Jottce, who opened the draft, there were  only two other contributors weighing in on it before such drastic changes were made. Apparently, I'm not the only editor who missed the existence of the page altogether, given the scant mention of it here. There are problems with this version, as well, with the explication of Afrocentrism, IMO, incredibly condescending/inadequate. I've restored the original, admittedly flawed version until some sort of rational discussion and more participation cah be had regarding a proposed redraft.  The article as it is framed now, in a sort of false dichotomy of views, is unacceptable.  Further, much of the supporting information of the earlier version has been deleted wholesale, which is utterly unreasonable/unjustifiable.  And who decided which images to use?  The redraft is not only mind-numbingly uninformative, but a total snore.  deeceevoice 08:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to remain civil, deeceevoice.   It isn't OK to describe other editors hard work as "mind numbling" and "a total snore". Justforasecond 16:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowdlerization of the article and the reasons for my revert to original

message: Isn't it rather likely, almost certain that Egyptians, like all current North African peoples, represent a transitional group between the 'white' peoples of the Middle East and the 'black' peoples of sub-saharan Africa, with (probably) skin becoming darker the further south you go?  This whole article seems rather pointless to me.  BovineBeast 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know what I mean, but I'm obviously wrong, eh?  Race is a continuum, not a series of definite 'races'.  Europeans become Middle-Easterners become Egyptians become Sub-Saharans.  Even if the Arabs only entered egypt recently, there's always going to have been interbreeding on the border of Egypt, between them and the Canaanites.  And so arises a continuum.  BovineBeast 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Last time I checked, the Sphinx was a kind of sandy brown.  Not 'black'.  The Ancient Egyptians may have had darker skin than they do now.  They may have looked a little less Arabic. They probably resembled modern Copts, who have less Arab ancestry. The Copts vary, of course.  As you can see from the Copt article, some of those represented have mostly 'africoid' features and some of them look fairly indistinguishable from the Arabs. As I said, transitional.  I find it bizarre that you can't see that the whole *idea* of race involves splitting what is in fact a continuum into various arbitrary discrete blocks, called 'white' or 'black', or whatever.  It's a pointless and, quite frankly divisive endeavour which serves very little scientific purpose. BovineBeast 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The "evidence" supports this fact so strongly that we can't find a single scholarly reference (unless you count dyed-in-the-wool afrocentrists) that says so.  "Afro-Semitic": a term that didn't exist until the above editor coined it.  Google and you'll find a band.   The "clearly africoid" fellahin to the right. Justforasecond 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't it obvious?

message: * To be included later in the Afrocentrist (of course) section, a subsection on skeletal remains, including the (now excised) info by Houston re Petrie and the Badarian skulls; editing and also reinsertion of deletion info under "ethnographic murals."  deeceevoice 07:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: all statements with the citations needed note on them will be deleted in three days if citations/refrences are not given 
-ishmaelblues
i'm not joking cite them 
-ishmaelblues
:You can sign by typing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your comments, Ishmaelblues (5 if you just want to put the time with no name, 3 for your name and no time). I definitely can provide citations for the "dolichocephalic" and craniofacial statements, so please give me a little time for that. I'll look into the others. I deleted one citation needed regarding whether or not certain ancient author who called the AE's hair "wooly" were from the Near East and Europe (Herodotus was of course European). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: citations

message: Good job. Keep up the good work. Don't let the readers see all those black sculptures. Oh did-ums. I got direct permission in writing from thefreemaninstitute.org to use any pictures they wish. Oh i guess we're gonna see a lot of black egyptians in this article. boo hoo. chumps. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oddment, blubber. tweak. dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job, only use "white" looking Egyptian sculptures 

message: "==Obstacles in ascertaining race==" is currently a subsection right after the meat of the article. Improper formatting, if we need this it should be integrated into the start of the article or somewhere else, properly. 12.215.36.208 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix race intro 

message: Precicely how did it come to be that all anti-afrocentric arguements are automatically called placed in the category "euro-centric"? Has it not occurred to  anyone that this page is unbalanced per se because it inherently accuses all facts of being biased? Thanatosimii 23:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Isn't the entire discussion in this article a little flawed? 2,000 years after the last native ruler of Ancient Egypt died, we are arguing about the racial makeup of their country. Since race was not important in Egypt, and nationality seemed to be the only personal characteristic of any importance, it seems reasonable to assume that, given Egypt's geographical location at the meeting point of so many ethnicities - east African, north African, Arabian, Semitic, etc. - that Egypt would have had a pluralistic raical distribution. If this is true, and all of the anthropologists, Egyptologists, and Art Historians (oh which I am one) I've spoken to recently seem to agree that it is, then this argument is essentially trying to decide if American culture is dominated by "brown-eyed people" or "non-brown-eyed people". Not only is the distinction unimportant in American society, the distribution of such peoples is roughly 50/50. Chiwara 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to be the consensus. The arguement (generally, not specifically here) that a segment of afrocentrists gives is that you have two choices, the Egyptians were sweedish or they were nigerian.(I actually read an article saying about that two days back) Which is why scholars don't take afrocentrism seriously. Thanatosimii 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong, juice. We write of North African blacks: Nilotic, Cushitic, Oromo, Nilo-Saharan, Khoisan peoples -- all black African peoples, all of whom were present in dynastic Egypt: Egyptians, Nubians, Sudanese. Do you have any notion at all as to the phenotypical and physical diversity of the indigenous peoples of the region? You should do some investigation into the diversity among the Ethiopian population alone. And the Nubians. They go from slender noses and straight hair (what has erroneously been described as "Caucasoid" -- not "Caucasian" -- there's a big difference) to broad noses and nappy hair, from average stature to gracile (tall, slender -- Nilotic/Nilo-Saharan like the Tutmosid line). The cultural and physical affinities are clear -- from Tut's enlarged incisors and red-brown skin,,,, , markedly dolichocephalic heads, full lips, alveolar prognathism, receding chin line, gracile stature (think Dinka, Tutsi, Karo, etc.),,, to their religion, to their hairstyles,,,. Furthermore, it is pretty useless to debate the issue here. Most people have made up their own minds -- yes? I suggest you do your "talking" in the article, 'cause, gee, the "Eurocentric" section is lookin' pretty slim. :p deeceevoice 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deeceevoice, you've just proven the dissenting point better than your detractors ever have. The mere fact that all dissenting arguements are labeled "eurocentric" goes to show that you believe it's either afrocentrism or eurocentrism (which is a pretty stupid theory which noone of any note has held pretty much at any time whatsoever). When people make the argument that they look like they themselves represented themselves, you retort with pictures the more african and darker skinned variaty as if that proves somthing. It doesn't, because noone argues that they don't have strong african roots and affinities. The dissenting arguement says only that they were a mixed bag. To prove the Afrocentrist point you cannot argue that some of them look black, but that all of them look non-black, because the dissenting arguement won't be ruined by showing a significant size sampling of what it expects to be there regardless. Then you make arguements about the race of certain people like Tut, Akhenaten, and even Tiy, as if their african traits are proof of your claim, however you then fail to notice that they both contain extensive amounts of foreign blood in them, specifically through the personage of Yuya, Making Tut and Akhenaten both at least one fourth Mitannian, and Tiy, whom a significant number of Afrocentrists have taken to calling a "black beauty" is half Mitannian. Now, Cranberryjuice10, you're not making this any easier either. By calling the egyptians caucasian you're falling into the self same false dichotomy. All of this just goes to show that there cannot be a neutral version of this page with the evidence being forced to fall under two poorly named headings. Thanatosimii 14:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It proves that the article sux as it is currently structured.  I never agreed to it.  And your criticism cuts both ways, Thanatosimii.  All evidence that argues for a black African presence in Egypt is labeled "Afrocentric," when scholars like Petrie, the Father of Egyptology; Martin Bernal, another white guy; and others who do not fit the Afrocentrist mold would argee with certain of the points presented herein.  No one I'm aware of is arguing that dynastic Egypt was entirely black.  What Afrocentrists posit, however, is that dynastic Egypt was first, fundamentally and primarily a black, African civilization, and that it retained that essential identity through the millennia.  deeceevoice 03:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Flase Dichotomy?

message: Hair:
* include info on other analyses of hair.
* include info on Nubian (or "enveloping"/afro) wigs and commonality of hairstyles throughout Africa:  braids, cornrows, dreadlocks. Get photos.  deeceevoice 10:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than presuming to "tell" me what to do, juice, why not spend your time doing something constructive, like contributing some useful information to the Eurocentrist side -- if you can?  deeceevoice 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: I've added a small section on "De-Cetrist" claims, an attempt to find a common ground in the argument as well as critique the discourse altogether. Take a look and make comments as necessary. I will try to add more information as I sort through my books. Chiwara 17:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am curious, do you consider, "De-Centrist" to mean arguments against the notion that their race should not be focused on at all, or just the position that disagrees with the two centrist arguements. For instance, would a study on the shape of skeletal remains which finds that it is impossible to classify egyptian remains into any established racial groups, european, african, or middle eastern, belong in the de-centrist subsection or somewhere else? I figure if Redford think's its still authoritative, it ought to go somewhere. Thanatosimii 22:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use "De-Centrist" in that I am arguing against the notion of a geographic "center". So to answer your question, I would say that an inability to "classify" skeletal remains would fall under de-centrist arguments, though most of what I talk about is a critique of the way the Eurocentrist/Afrocentrist discourse is constructed, not really an analysis of any statistical data. Yet.
This is why I have a problem with the structure of the article as proposed by Altarbo.  Contrary to your assertion, I never agreed to it.  After the change, I went back, dug up the old text devoted to the difficulty in ascertaining race and inserted it at the beginning of the article, because I thought it provided context and perspective.  Again, Altarbo (or someone else) deleted it wholesale.  The information you refer to, Thanatosimii, may be appropriate there. deeceevoice 22:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section: De-Centrism

message: There were some recent massive changes by an unidentified user to this page. Although much was added and much was removed legitimatly, two paragraphs were blanked in my estimation which ought not to have been blanked. Reverting would have removed the good with the bad, so I reintroduced those two which were cited. If somthing still seems missing to anyone, please reintroduce it to the current page and do not revert. Thanatosimii 19:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits are all perfectly legitmate. This article is supposed to be about presenting both sides of the debate, not turn into an afro-centric tract. There's been a recent mass vandalism of the other side completely.207.195.254.141 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, because both sides (anon and reg) are involved, full protection may still be required. Ryūlóng 20:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism, blanking is vandalism. According to Three_revert_rule#Exceptions, reverting vandalism is an exception to the 3rr rule, and thus the revisions by the regular users were completely legit and even called for. Thanatosimii 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There doesn't seem to be any dispute here, unless someone can tell me where it says blanking paragraphs is permissable behavior, since Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism says blanking is vandalism. I was actually going to add some content between the time I first reverted and the lock, but the lock has been preventing me, so unless someone can put forward a legitimate arguement for keeping it, how does one go about getting it unlocked? Thanatosimii 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Is there any objection to the article focusing purely on the conflict?  (I asked earlier, but it's kind of buried.)
The current article has all of the claims taken out period.  It's lacking in several areas:
1. Afrocentrism (when was he born?, who are his parents? , what's he doing these days)
2. The debate was mainly in the good ole US, and people (well not the majority of people, but scientists; and they're what really counts right?) started to not talk about that race thing quite so much, when Hitler started killing people because of it, and we kind of went to war with him.
3. Outfits like Stormfront are still shoveling coal into the good old eurocentrism train.  Maybe some mention of them should be made?
Anyway try to ignore that (or fix it.  I'd prefer you fix it, so I don't have to, but I'm not the kind of guy to really feel comfortable asking favors like that of people I've never seen; so you can ignore it, if you can.) and just discuss the layout.Altarbo 01:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I quite follow that... Thanatosimii 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To a degree. It is insufficient to discuss war without discussing weapons, it is insufficient to discuss this conflict without discussing evidence.Thanatosimii 03:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I thought. Thanks for reverting. Chiwara 12:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a version as Altarbo made is, I suppose, not entierly bad. If he could actually come up with a way to to it without deleting any cited sections from the previous version, it's much better than the false dichotomy we've got going now. However, as it stands, such a change doesn't do justice to the development of the history of the conflict, since the arguments have been largely removed. Thanatosimii 14:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones?Altarbo 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you mean? Cited arguements ought not be removed. Thanatosimii 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Material that is sourced and relevant should stay.  I was asking if there was anything specific, that struck you as particularly relevant.Altarbo 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perzackly.  And since he's the one who came up with the structure that presents the false-dichotomy in the first place, his hack job is particulary inappropriate.  deeceevoice 15:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Computer Hacking" and a "Hack job" have nothing to do with each other.Thanatosimii 19:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is my problem with the modern "Race is a social construct" bit. While it is true that "Race" is a fairly new system of distinction, when people call it a social contruct it leads some to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to discuss phenotypes from an objective, scientific standpoint, which is incorrect. It is possible to discuss phenotypical charecteristics, and I think they ought to be discussed somewhere on wikipedia, inasmuch as it is encyclopedic knowledge. If it were up to me, "phenotypical charecteristics of the ancient egyptians" would be a good title, but somehow I don't think that would go over so well, inasmuch as I have a tendancy to pick out strange names.Thanatosimii 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Altarbo. I'm sorry, but in my opinion the informations in this article about "phenotypical charecteristics" such as  "ears very large and protruding like a negro’s" belong into a 18/19th century encyclopedia but not in this article in Wikipedia 2006.CoYep 11:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "race" is a made up concept that deserves to be dumped in the trash, however when europeans made race, they did not create phenotypes. Drop the comparisons to any one "race" by all means, however there are objectivly determinable phenotypical charecteristics present in significant amounts of the ancient egyptian populations, and however completely irrelevant mainstream egyptology thinks they may be, they get disputed frequently, and we're sticking our heads in the sand if we don't deal with them fairly and objectivly. Thanatosimii 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said earlier, IMO, the most objective way to deal with those alleged "phenotypes" is to address them in context of the controversy. The current state of the article would certainly improve if it wouldn't cite out of the blue a 19th century French fantasy writer talking about "typical protruding negro ears", and other pseudo-scientific opinions taken from blogs and personal websites, and would instead offer information about alleged phenotypes/racial characteristics in context, meaning: along with notable people actually involved in the controversy, their concepts and ideologies. As long as editors continue to argue about what size of incisors are necessary in order to define an individual as an alleged "typical buck teeth negro", that long we are not going to make any progress. That's why I suggested to discard the current article version and to develop the Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians/Draft by Jottce instead. CoYep 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "If race/racial characteristics/phenotype/ethnicity -- whatever the heck you wanna call it -- didn't matter, Arabs wouldn't be working so gottdamned hard to appropriate a past to which they cannot legitimately lay claim." Lineage matters.  Common phenotypes or a common set of racial phenotypes would evidence that the "Arabs" in Egypt now, descended from the Ancient Egyptians.  This debate, however, has largely centered in the US, between two groups (West Africans and Europeans) who are not the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians.  Race also did not matter in Ancient Egypt.  The article should reflect those things.Altarbo 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focusing on the Conflict. Objections? 

message: Deeceevoice, could you please explain your deliberate addition of disinformation about Frank Domingo?        You stated that you accessed the article , so you know very well that the information is false and that neither West nor Domingo even mentioned "race" in the article ("The Case of the Missing Pharo" by John Anthony West published in the New York Times OpEd section June 27, 1992), nor did they "determined that the sphinx has a "distinctive 'African,' 'Nubian,' or 'Negroid' aspect". Bad-faith edits and the deliberate addition of disinformation compromises not only the integrity of Wikipedia but the integrity of Frank Domingo as well. Stop it. CoYep 11:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberate disinformation about Frank Domingo / New York Times 

message: I believe I am the individual who perpetuated this on going debate sometime ago. I have read the entire debate including links, and there are points to be addressed. Firstly race had only been defined by Europeans, it was not a trait associated with Africans in anyway; unfortunately the point of Ancient Khem has been missed. Khem as it was called was a center for trade between the medittaranean, many Greeks studied at the Universities in Khem and in Alexander the Greats writings and his soldiers they speak of the ashed people of Khem. It was a melting pot of the world at the time so yes different colors did arise over time, however the original inhabitants were of indeginous African traits physically and spiritually do to sheer geographically proximity. I dont truly understand the debate it would seem that mixed or full negroid would be irrelevant considering in America one ounce of negroid blood made you full negro. One also should take account of the Bible, Torah, and Q'ran all refer to people of the south being of darker complexion. Another problem, race in the context that Eurocentrics try and prove the point of the darker the more inferior doesnt hold for this arguement, one would have to think like an ancient or better yet in a class system. No matter of your color, your lineage and wealth dictated your status and there was no getting around that unless the Pharoah himself smiled on you. If you were to actually visit Egypt it would tell you the story itself; there are rows of sphinxes (miniature of course) with many nationalities represented. It is common knowledge that Arabs had not taken over Egypt until the 5th Century (which is humorous conisdering the so called authority in Egypt is Arab). Napolean shot the nose off the sphinx for a reason, and its the same reason justforasecond and others tend to lean more towards a fairer skinned Khem. If blacks, negroid, berber, moor, sudanic however one would like to coin it, were people of prominance then prejudice and hate would have no validity considering it would be apparent that no one race genetically is better than another, and thats a point the Khemetans themselves understood. Of course color was not equivalent in ancient times to intelligence, morality, and overall ability as it is today especially with the fairest of the so called races dominating popular culture and undoubtedly taughting there own as dominant.  
There is no need for research to be cited, it is simple Khemet and Nubians are different (Pharoahs would marry Nubians to keep military and political ties strong)and sub-saharan Africans are different than Northern Africans, I think this is consistant with most minds, yet the pertinant question was not was there a difference but what black or negroid itself is? Its nothing really a made up word, theoretically speaking there is no direct difference nor correlation. Given America as an example what was done to Africans created many different looking so called black people, however they are all considered black as a unifying simplification, the same we undoubtedly saw in Northern Africa due to powerful nations looking to grow there power from the North and East. However, it is concluded in there own hieroglyphics that they held no one color above another as many Eurocentrics do, question to justforasecond and those alike, why do African, Negroids, blacks, however you want to marginalize them, considered incapable of development without European assistance or interference. Even though in times of turmoil we all move closer to whats familiar, Khemetans showed no signs of abuse based on race (Jewish is not a race but a religion/ethnicity)and they did act as a center for learning even during times of turmoil. It is apparent in this page the heart of America and the true feelings of Eurocentrics its sad! No more links, just do yourself a favor and go and look at the walls they will tell you the story. Look long at the images depicted with long hair notice the Locked style. Notice the theory and belief system, the way they worshipped, what they worshipped and who or what was God to them. Go and see how the depicton of color to differentiate between people not just of status even though unwittingly by Khemetans became one and the same. And for the record, you will only find black people calling themselves black people in America, everywhere else they actually have a country and a history and a religion and lineage and thus cling to a past they dont belong to either. Most all black in America are descendant of West Africans while Khem would have seemed on the other side of the world to them during the times we are discussing. It is evident to me 1. Eurocentrics want to wipe away all credibility of civilization of the disenfranchised black american as they did when first stolen from their homeland. This seems to be continuing today for some reason it seem Eurocentrics believe an uprising in the wind if blacks in America understood a long standing history of Africa. Even if they are not directly linked to it genetically, they could affiliate and assume the accomplishments. One question to Eurocentrics, with some strong arguments from objective sources who are reliable and well studied professionals concluding that without doubt the race of Khem was darker skinned, subject to Native African environment and culture, had or maybe even developed African thought and religion, and documented interaction with other Africans far more frequently than those of other nations why is it wrong or farfetched that they would actually be black as you would call it in America? One question to Afro-centrics, must you be validated by European authorities on every argument, when will your voice and your research be enough? There is one truth we as individual people will believe what we believe, the fact will never change and unfortunately the facts are skewed and seeded. How unfortunate we are not to be more like ancient Khemet. Saklas
I removed 
*While prominent in modern English, the word "black" had no racial connotations in Ancient Egyptian. Clearly African nations such as Nubia were never referred to as "black"; nor were the undoubtedly light-skinned Semitic neighbors to the North referred to as "white", "yellow", or any other term based on skin color. Different nations were referred to by their actual names, i.e. Nubians, Libyans, etc. Experts on the Ancient Egyptian language such as Raymond Faulkner and James P. Allen universally state that "black land" referred to the color of the soil around the Nile, in line with the "black land" of Russia and Ukraine.
because it is not only NPOV, but it is just plain false. "Kushite" in Hebrew and Egyptian meant "BLACK". In addition, I personally have read things in Ancient Egyptian where the Semites are referred to as "yellow" or the hurrians as "pale skinned", the one that comes to mind, King Amanemhat, the throat slitter of Asia as he was known referred to the Asiatics (Aamu) as yellow. In addition, this paragraph is inappropriately in the wrong spot. It's a rebutal of the Afrocentric position, which is a rebuttal of the Eurocentric position. In effect the contribnutor is trying to neutralize the Afrocentric position by stating neutrality. This issue of naming all the black people of the world after black bodied rivers is also starting to get old and show itself. They tried this with the River Niger (Dasibari/Isa-ber) and the people dimunitive at the end of the word does not lend itself to mean "people of the black land" it means "land of black people"> Think about it. the Nubians and Kushits ALSO are people of the same kind of BLACK LAND. I'll say there is no 100% conclusion either way. One could say "black land people" also.
:In effect the contribnutor is trying to neutralize the Afrocentric position by stating neutrality.
:You're not clear on this point. I think you just accused the article of being neutral. Furthermore, I will state this only one more time. If someone thinks KMT means "Black people," that person is either a crackpot or decieved by one. please don't think me rude here, it is merely becoming painfully tedious to try to kill that ridiculous idea. When faulkner says it, it goes, barring a well argued published work to the contrary, which is not in existence on this issue. Thanatosimii 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanaatosimii, maybe you think the idea of reverse psychology is novel, but I am really ignoring your attempts to apply it with me. Read my replacement of the text which I removed again. Read it and think about it before you go a-reverting. Furthermore the assumption that the "Black Land" refers to the dirt is erroneous because many other areas outside of "the Black Land" along the nile ALSO have the same "Black Land". Nubia, Kush, Kerma, Meroe, etc. All along the river, they all share the same characteristic. In fact, as you know, there has never been any proof given that KEMET was understood by the Egyptians as meaning "black land". But never the less I do not conclude either way (as I stated before), because the word for black skinned people (Nehesi, Kush) also is not applied to Kemetic people (however this may not be conclusive either as Nehesi, Kush, and Kemet may all three be different kinds of Black people!). But that't not where my editing is focused. Where we are at loggerheads is that you erroneously conclude that the Egyptians did not have skin color names for people, yet they did. They were not color blind any more than we are today. The difference is, they just didn't automatically assign disdain in their minds to the darker colored people. Black people do not just come from "Africa" and historically have not been resigned to African soil. Black people were not trapped on the continent only to come out in shackles by the assistance of conquering Arabs or Europeans or Romans. So lets start being objective. This article discusses the CONTROVERSY. Both sides have their premises, and i am placing the premisises appropriately. You are not supposed to erase them because you don't think they are "correct". Doubly so when it is revealed that they actually ARE Correct! --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it today with people reading their own insinuations into what I write? I mean what I said: you can't wipe somthing you don't agree with, and you quite obviously have no understanding of egyptian determinitive use, inasmuch as what you have said is both false (the people determinitive is used frequently to refer to the denziens of a geographic location, wherein it is substituted for the axt symbol) and you've disagreed with faulkner without citing a differing up to date source. I read what you said and found it wanting, and you blanked a paragraph. I have reverted blanks by true eurocentrists in the past: do not mistake what I do for some kind of malevolence or partizanship (I think the whole debate is largely absurd, especially given the false dichotomy); it is merely an attempt to maintain order. Blanking is bad. Thanatosimii 19:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let me help you again. It is certainly true that they referred to people based on geography, but they also did based on Ethnicity. What was the difference between the "Nebu"  and "Nehesi"? One refers to a "location" and another refers to a "race/ethnicity". If not Can you tell me the geographic difference if that is not the case? And what of the "Aamu" (Asian) and the "shemsu" Semites? And the "Tamhou"(whites) and the "Libu" (people from Libyan region)? I can certainly agree maybe they didn't see the similarities in exactly the way we saw them, but there is obviously a difference between their regional and racial conceptions! --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  It would help if you could provide sources to what you've added.Altarbo 04:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation and asssumption removed 

message: I removed the bold faced lie below: 
*The controversy over racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians refers to a conflict over the the racial identity of ancient Egyptians, dating back to 18th century natural history which first attempted to systematically classify human beings based on genetics.
Why? Because only a manipulator would try to push the notion that genetic studies of human populations was being done in the 1700s. Genetic study didn't even begin as a science until the early 1920s. The racial undertones for genetic variation were not created until the 1950s. The bold portion lies doubly so because of the word "first". It was FIRST attempted... No, what natural history first attempted to do was to classify human beings based on regional origins. next was skin color. Then educational western social order. Then phenotype. Then skull shape. etc. Maybe I dont have the order exactly correct, but genetics is not in here. I also know there is another definition of genetics that does not refer to DNA, but more loosely refers to offspring or biological relationships. However, that is misleading to use that obscure definition in here if that IS the case. This article is controversal in itself and using homograms and false cognates is a sign of NPOV and weasel tactics. "natural history"? Oh it was already official and objective by the 18th century? No I think not. Bye bye misleading statement! and I will undo any reverts --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article starts off lying to support the Eurocentric bias 

message: Let us clarify what this article is about. This article is not about proving that the Afrocentric viewpoint is wrong nor that the Eurocentric viewpoint is wrong (even though to me it is hypocritically wrong). this article is about describing the controversy over the Ancient Egyptians. So the first two paragraphs should do what Wikipedia expects. It describes what the article is about and gives a clear synopsis of where the controversial topic stands today. We should not see anyone in here going back and restoring nonsense to refute the Afrocentric claim, and certainly no one should be posting false statements to back up the Eurocentric claim (like the one about genetics being used in the 18th century). Certainly it should not be stated nor implied that "everyone reasonable" agrees with the Eurocentric position, while the "unscientific biased" agree with the Afrocentric position. That is first of all not a controversy, but a circular argument. Second it's false anyway. Reverts will be undone. This talk page should be used to make changes that diverge from the essence of this reasoning.  And one more thing. I want you to know, I have been waiting a LONG time to come back in here and get this article where it belongs. You guys refuted me by going on and on about the fact that we cannot reallyd define what "black" means. So I took care of THAT. Now let us no longer play the "what is black, no one knows, oh well" game.  --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I rewrote the first two paragraphs 

message: There's a sudden rush to wiping data wholesale out of this article if one finds it absurd. Now, I'm no expert, so perhaps a good deal ought to indeed go. However, that's what the talk page is for. Please, If I might propose a suggestion: If somthing looks wrong, 
* adress it on the talk page before you delete it, or
* delete it and put on the talk page a credible source which justifies the deletion.
The world won't end if this page doesn't look perfectly accurate to our own sensibilities for a few hours. If somthing looks wrong, raise the point, don't drop the paragraph. Furthermore, It would be polite if one were to ask the claiments of a "patently incorrect" statement for a citation before wiping. 
(p.s.: Apparently because of my critical look at this page, I apparently am being cast into the "other" camp in the minds of multiple editors. So I will be clear: I used the words "patently incorrect" because those are words I would use. I did this intentionally in order to avoid seeming to take a cheap shot at any given editor, yet if you feel targeted, rest assured you are not. I'm just going after the whole sentiment of "let's wipe things" that's been on this page for, apparently, quite a long time. It's difficult to express tone of voice on the internet, and in a heated debate I am aware that the obvious tone of agressive editors can be impressed upon the less accusatory, but let me assure you that I have no personal beef with any of you, only a cold, calculating desire for exacting accuracy.) Thanatosimii 19:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A morotorium, please! 

message: I removed this:
*The Ancient Egyptians employed several terms to describe people that they perceived distinct from themselves. The inhabitants of Lower Nubia were known as the Medjay (possibly ancestors to the Beja) or Ta-Seti (the land between Aswan and Edfu), while Ta-Nehesy, meaning "the land of the Nesyu" ("Nubian" in modern terms) was used to describe both the settled nile valley inhabitants and the desert nomads (this state was indigenously termed "Wawat"), and Kush referred to the state south of the 3rd cataract in Upper Nubia.Robert Morkot, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt's Nubian Rulers, p. 2. 
and restored my previous contribution because. 1. Medjay does not and never has referred to a group (by race), which is what this article describes. This is not about just "other people distinct from themselves", this is about a racial controversy. So for example, Medjay describe a warrior class or caste of Nubians, but this does not describe the Nubians as a whole. Beja and Medjay may or may not be related. Ta-Seti is a regional name, and there were no "setiu" or "setites" people. The Nehesi was a place name based on people. Ta-Nehesyu (Land of the Nubians), but that was already in the article. In any event, the paragraph seems to dilute the black presence by redefining it based on regional names (although Wawat is a good example), Ta-Nehesi, Wawat, Kush, are all specific regions, but only "Kush" and "Nehesi" were used to describe people (if you can find a WAWAT people description then add it in). --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medjay removed

message: Deeceevoice
Your recent comments have been markedly uncivil.   It has also bordered on racist and, as far as I can tell, not true.   You can't go around calling people liars and usurpers just because you think differently than they do.  It's clear you have an opinioned on this matter -- anyone who disagrees with you is "ignorant".  etc.  and it looks like you are getting a little worked up.  Please, be kind to others.
Justforasecond 21:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The steamroller comes in predictably. I am FINALLY glad someone else picked up on it. Where is the Asian, Arab, or Egyptian guy that should be coming in any minute now to complain about how his culture is being stolen by Afrocentrics? Where is the extremely pissed off guy that is "calling it how it is bluntly" that the Egyptians just "weren't black"? I am not going to have an arguement about how blackness is subjective and that really there is no such thing as being black. I already went there and resolved that. Go to the Black People page. Classic ad hominem attack: Accuse the otherside of committing an ad hominem attack! Classic ad hominem attack against a black person: Accuse them of being racist! --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your insults towards my contributions and claims of malfeasance on the part of other editors don't change the simple truth:  calling people liars, usurpers, racists, ignorant, crakkkas, etc. isn't nice.   Can't imagine you'd disagree with that.  Justforasecond 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Baiting is uncivil.  Stop. Altarbo 20:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Without even reading the argument in question, deeceevoice, I can tell you that this comment crosses the line of incivility. If you have nothing civil and constructive to say to Justforasecond, I would recommend that you ignore him, because comments like the one you just made are likely to accomplish nothing other than getting you admonished. You can think anything you want about Justforasecond, but saying what you just said is unequivocably against WP policy. - CheNuevara 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That may well be; I admitted I didn't read most of the argument. But incivility doesn't justify incivility, and what I was saying was that deeceevoice's response to Justforasecond's accusations of incivility was clearly incivil. That's all I was saying. - CheNuevara 02:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A plea for civility

message: There is no controversy ABOUT the controversy in this article. The only thing missing is pictures of SCULPTURES to support the Afrocentric position. That's not a controversy that's a matter of getting pictures. The layout of the article and the perspectives of the article are pretty well balanced at this point. Even though I think the Afrocentric position is more accurate and consistent, the article I still think is balanced. I removed the tag.
BEFORE you raise it again, list some reasons why on here FIRST! All of the arguments beforehand that are archived and what not, they don't matter at this point. I rewrote the first two paragraphs to clarify what the article is about and no one has really disputed that. So if you have a legitimate grievance, put it here and let's discuss it first. I am only watching out for Eurocentric weasel words and homograms and semantic games. I certainly see the Afrocentric position well developed (but lacking enough pictures). Need I reiterate anymore? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously, there is no controversy left here 

message: I removed 
*The controvery over the race of Ancient Egyptians is actually a very sensitive issue. This is because it has been established beyond reasonable that the earliest form of science, technology, medicine and civilization, has been traced with accurate archeological facts to Egypt. 
because it's worded very immaturely. "actually" is weasel word. Also the first statement is overly redundant (this article is called CONTROVERSY over the characteristics...), when is a controversy NOT a sensitive issue? The real question is WHY is it sensitive? Well, I answered that in the first two paragraphs already, so this is redundant now. And despite my insistence that the Egyptians are Black, it's not valid to say "earliest form of science, tecnology...." those are qualative statements that even to this day are not backed up by evidence. Certainly Egypt is AMONG the oldest civilizations and I personally believe it IS the oldest but we have not conclusively proven that. We only assert it strongly based on our charisma as Afrocentrics (which is not how proof gets established). I am not here to see this article get changed to "faith that Afrocentricism is correct". The proof speaks for itself, so I took the paragraph above out. Place some photos instead. Or some information about what year the first civilization existed. Place some info showing how Egypt influenced Sumer (a civilization that existed aroudn the same time). etc.  --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immature wording removed 

message: Whoever it is who is putting "citation needed" all over the present status needs to understand something. This is not about beating one side or another with citational red tape. The statements are already backed up by data elsewhere in the article, and by information in the Ancient Egyptians article itself. We do not need to continue to create the wheel, and to do an entire Ancient Egyptian history lesson on this article to cite the obvious. If you feel a citation is really needed, you do your part, find some info on the statements you find lacking (or disagreeable), cite them and correct where necessary. Do not think for a second that "citation needed" is a slick way to get the Afrocentric side to capitulate. It won't work.  --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The questioning of "the present status" 

message: I noticed something this article leaves out, and something that few people consider- it's extremely likely that many pieces of artwork and records depicting black africans were desecrated and destroyed by invading semetic armies. I don't deny ancient egypt's multi-ethnic makeup, but considering how arabs have traditionally held a disdain for african blacks, considering the early slave-trading islamic empires, the Archamedans almost certainly destroyed much of those.
I am just glad that those white sculptures were removed. Whoever put them there was being a little dishonest, most of them were not painted, or the paint had just worn off. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desecration of artwork 

message: This article is missing much if not most of what is explained much better and shorter in Egyptians#Origins:
Over the years, the findings of archaeology, biological anthropology and genetics have been able to shed light on the origins of the Egyptians. The indigenous Nile Valley population became firmly established during the Pleistocene when nomadic hunter-gatherers began living along the Nile river. Traces of these proto-Egyptians appear in the form of artifacts and rock carvings in the terraces of the Nile and the desert oases. Beginning in the predynastic period, some differences between the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt have been ascertained through their skeletal remains, suggesting a gradual clinal pattern north to south. Mediterranean influences were more predominant in the north, while a tropical pattern was also evident in the deep south.Batrawi A (1945). The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part I. J Roy Anthropol Inst 75:81-102.Batrawi A. 1946. The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part II. J Roy Anthropol Inst 76:131-156.Keita SOY (1990). Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol 83:35–48.Keita SOY (1992). Further studies of crania from ancient northern Africa: an analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs. Am J Phys Anthropol 87:245–254. When Lower and Upper Egypt were unified c. 3150 BC, the distinction began to blur, resulting in a more "homogeneous" population in Egypt, though the distinction remains true to some degree to this day.Berry AC, Berry RJ, Ucko PJ (1967). Genetical change in ancient Egypt. Man 2:551–568.Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR (1993). Clines and clusters versus "race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31.
A 2006 bioanthropological study on the dental morphology of ancient Egyptians by Prof. Joel Irish shows dental traits characteristic of indigenous North Africans and to a lesser extent Southwest Asian populations. Among the samples included in the study is skeletal material from the Hawara tombs of Fayum, which was found to be virtually identical to that of the Badarian series of the predynastic period. Biological continuity was found intact from the dynastic to the post-pharaonic periods. According to Irish: 
...an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First-Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11-12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time... Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well.Irish, p. 11
A group of noted physical anthropologists conducted similar studies and concluded that "the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well."Brace et al. 1993 
Genetic analysis of modern Egyptians reveals that they have paternal lineages common to indigenous North Africans/Berber populations primarily, and to Near Eastern peoples to a lesser extent. These lineages would have spread during the Neolithic and maintained by the predynastic period. Studies based on maternal lineages also link Egyptians with people from modern Eritrea/Ethiopia such as the Tigre.
--Espoo 11:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is no longer about the "origins of the Ancient Egyptians". If you would like to create one, that has been discussed before, but this is about the history of the dispute. - Che Nuevara 19:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, not to sound snarky, but isn't the fact that this page is constantly welled up in controversy more or less exemplative proof that there is in fact a controversy? That seems pretty obvious to me. - Che Nuevara 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: by "there is no controversy", we obviously mean "there is no controversy in citeable academic mainstream". Of course there can be controversy about anything at all among random anonymous internet users. This isn't what we are doing on Wikipedia. You can debate about the colours of the Ancient Egyptians on Usenet to your hearts' content, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There is still no evidence that this is anything other than a 'dispute' between afrocentrist crackpots and white supremacist crackpots. dab (ᛏ) 08:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  complete rewrite necessary 

message: you have been discussing this for a year now, and there is still no evidence that this is even debated in Egyptology? I am afraid the only category this can be in is "Afrocentrism". Of the four titles in the "bibliography", one is the afrocentrist book under debate, while one is a treatise on afrocentrism, and the other two are just on egyptology in general. The article body is unreadable rambling on race and egyptology in general, without pinpointing any actual debate. The article seems desperate to imply that afrocentrists are somehow accepted part of egyptology, without of course being able to state this up front. There can well be an account of afrocentrist positions on Wikipedia, but they should be honest, and declared as part of US politics and sociology, not Egyptology. Filling pages re-iterating material that belongs on race and pan-africanism doesn't make things better. You don't have to elucidate the background of the "debate", this is covered elsewhere. You have to pinpoint, concisely, the points made wrt mainstream Egyptology. I can click on race if I want to know details on the concept, alright? Cutting down all the tangential rambling, the material on this article would be maybe good for a page or two. dab (ᛏ) 08:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: delete, move or merge?

message: This is probably only a minor mistake but the article states... "Such distinctions became salient at various points in Egyptian history, most notably when the Hyksos, a foreign people from southeast Asia, invaded, occupied, and ruled Egypt between 1674 and 1548 BCE."
I can only assume this is a mistake, as Southeast Asia is a hell of a long way from Egypt, I guess Southwest Asia was what was meant, so I've put that in instead. --Hibernian 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyksos from "southeast Asia"? 

message: Why dont images showing the Africaness of Ancient Egyptians be added? There so many, one showing the same hairstyle in Africa today, the ones of the smashed broad noses, etc---Halaqah 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why dont images be added

message: The following is probably orgininal research added by a Wikipedian who disagreed with the cited material. It is likely that a peer reviewed source has actually taken issue with source in question, in which case that should be cited. But the following is unacceptable in both form and tone: savidan(talk) (e@) 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from the "a controversial perspective" section 

message: I changed the title of this article to remove "controversy over." If there was (or could be) an article for "racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians" and a subarticle for "controversy over..." then the old title would have been OK, but in this situation I think the shorter title is preferable. This article doesn't just cover the controversy, it's about the racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians in general (assuming there are any facts in this area which aren't controversial). savidan(talk) (e@) 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: :Hello, article monitor Teth 22 here, anyways, I haven't  been to the article in quite a while, but I was expecting it to be overrun (rather overedited) by white supremacists and medicintrists, but instead it's not in THAT BAD of a shape, I really like how it shows how Egyptian civilization was wholly indigenous in culture and development, and how the "Civilizing Race From mesopotamia" theory is pretty much put to the grave :). And nice job to whoever made the section on saharan v.s. sudanic influences, which region  had the strongest influence?, the 64'000 $ question!!! But I think the sahara/sudan influences section shouldn't belong in this article, it should belong in the predynastic egyptian one, the objective of this article is to merely confirm the african origins of the world's first nation-state, we don't have to get that deep into the details ;). And for the anthropology section, what happened to the link that showed analysis of the 17-20th dynasty royal mummies, that was a vital source! Get back to me... Peace. Teth22 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sahara-Sudanic section shows that Egypt was peopled by folks moving up from the South not Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean or elsewhere. It should stay because it establishes the link of Egypt with peoples further South, rather than the Mediterraneans bringing civilization theory so often advanced. It may not be really necessary to determine whether the Sudan or the Sahara had the greatest percentage of influence. That is unknowablein any case from the evidence available. That being said, the PreDynastic article can use some building up. It is thin on many details. Some info here can be modified and copied over. As for the Anthro section, the only thing in there before the last series of edits was stuff on deemphasizing race, which duplicates a quote by Cazvilli Czorza. Whoever moved the comparison on the mummies, it wans't me.Enriquecardova 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, thank you for responding :). Nice to see the article is in finally good hands, now where the hell are deeecevoice and yom, or they busy, or have they just said "fuck it" and left the article by its lonesome? But yes the predynastic egyptian article does need some work, especially the misleading part about lower egypt influencing upper egypt instead of the real truth, which is the latter. And didn't egypt have agriculture thousands of years before the badarian, but then had a hiatus coinciding with the dopopulation of the valley? Get back to me. Peace. Teth22 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I cant remember seeing anything about a 1000 year previous agricuture and then a hiatus. The early sites show hunter gatherers, but as time went on they progressed to plant and animal domestication including cattle. This progress continued all the way into the Dynastic era. The depopulation thing may allude to the drying up of the Sahara over several millenia, which created a barrier of sorts. Before that it was lush and green. Earlier histories see the Sahara pushing the Negroid stocks back to the south, while more advanced Mediterranean, Near Eastern and Caucasoid types took over up north. Such theories have been discredited by the evidence on the ground whcih show a movement of the southern folk up to the Nile Valley, not a movement down. And the movement and material progress up was part of a continuation of the indigenous culture, not an influx of outsiders. Of course the drying Sahara did eventually make movement more difficult, and did eventually become a significant barrier, but that was over millenia, and more than enough "southern" folks were already in place to become part of the Badarian culture and to conquer the North and unify Egypt under the 1st dynasty. And that barrier operated more than just to the south. It would affect Berber peoples moving in from the West as well, with the people already in place working out their own "mix"Enriquecardova 07:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some complaints......  

message: Ah, yeah,  and you should also work on the cultural section of Ancient Egypt, do you see any major cultural resemblance between egypt and near eastern polities? The way the section is worded seems to indicate that. Get back to me. Peace. Teth22 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good question. It could depend on the time period you pick. if you take the greek and roman or arab time periods, or the time of ancient foreign invasions and wars with other nations a case could be made that way. There was also a lot of trade and cultural contact depending also on the time period. For the early phases though it appears that heavy cultural linkage is found with the sudanic/saharan peoples, and this goes into the dynastic period. This does not rule out links with berbers to the north, but the trail is heavy to the south. Egypt also did things a lot differently from some of the near eastern nations, as in distinctive pyrmids, writing, religion etc. That is why the dynastic race theory of outside people coming to civilize the natives has been discredited. My own take is that the Egyptians were a mix of people already in the ground, like todays hispanics from day one. They wouldnt fit into conventional race classifications of the uS, because the original mix was a mix to begin with. they do serve to illustrate however that the black gene pool does not stop somewhere at the congo zone, which is common practice with the carefully drawn narrow definitions, but includes a whole range of types. what they are called "offically" will never be solved. folks speak of moving beyond labels and I agree as long as the whole picture is put on the table.Enriquecardova 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah Enriquecardova, I feel ya on the last part, you ever see the "racial" illustration of Africa in  Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel", apparently the region from Tunisia to fucking Mogadishu was, well, white.... Anyways, when I say cultural links I mean the culture from the predynastic to right before the state lost its indepedence (that's the 26th dynasty right?), so the times afterwards, when Egypt was overrun by foreigners like a blunt line at a Bob Marley concert, don't count ;).  And I don't see any major cultural influences from Berbers, although they were Africans as well. And I see the only cultural influences in the predynastic coming from the Sahara and the Sudan, so it would be south as well as west, babe. And what do you mean "mixed from the beginning" I really don't see evidence for an even notable migration of foreigners (for this case's sake, non-blacks) until middle kingdom times, and even then it didn't affect the mass of the population, things really started to step up during the 26th dynasty, with welcomed (by the Pharaohs) migrations from the Near East (especially Greece, basically Egypt's only good friend during this period) and of course successive invasions.... So... get back to me.. Peace. Teth22 03:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I hear you. All good questions. The more you dig into the subject the more stuff seems to arise. From what I see you can't rule out the Berber types in the mix. Of course the BErbers themselves aren't "pure", example the Tedas. You can rule out sweeping invasions from the North and the Middle East (save for the much later periods), but one possible path of significant Berber and other movement is from the West, through Libya, and parts of the Sahara. Population movements of these folks to Nile Valley seem to be LATER than the Saharan-Sudanic elements already in place, per the new section I added on the Sahara. But even in Libya you get a mix, Negroids, etc(see Italian excavation). Info that I see is very light on the Berbers, but if there is more data out there, I am sure others will add. By the time of the 26th Dynasty however, with so many new invaders etc, plus earlier invasionsof the Hyksos, plus the even later Greek and Roman incursions, the scene changes. But from the early phases, the fundamental "peeps" (whatever % mix they were) didnt change much. What section of Jared Diamond talks about that you reference? I'll have to look it up. Enriquecardova 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cultural links

message: Anyone have more examples or web links to egyptian language that show what names the Egytians called themselves? Enriquecardova 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on names egyptians called themselves

message: I notice a lot of back and forth moving. First, both of you need to be aware of WP:3RR. Second, at this point a move back the original title makes sense as this article has never reached NPOV for more than 24 hours before it gets re-filled with  all manner of POV material from either side. There has been an improvement to be sure, but I have raised several issues with some of the claims presented here on Talk:Ancient Egypt. The move at any rate was done unilaterally without discussion, so I believe moving it back to the original title is appropriate. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: The result of the AfD was keep. However, it is strongly recommended that you open a request for comment on the dispute at hand so it can be resolved. --Coredesat 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I voted delete because I hate black people and voting to delete articles is the only way for me to express my inner racism.  As for your other arguments, hiding behind an IP to revert is not "putting your cards on the table". Fact is, the pre-revert version was quotespammy, POV, ugly, and non-encyclopedic. The current version is not, as agreed to by nearly everyone in the AfD. If you have suggestions about content that don't negate consensus, please add them. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could care less who you hate or don't hate. Thatis irrelevant. The majority of the AFD pointed to cleaning up or modifying the curent content. That was the "consensus". This talk page itself calls for RFCs if needed, but you also conveniently ignore that too. Just because YOU voted to delete the page does not make YOU the sole arbiter of its contents. The consensus rather was to keep the page and refine it. This is fine. If you have problem, then make your case. Your lack of specifics and unilateral reverts however indicate another motive at work. In any event, in accordance with the AFD, some changes have already been made, reducing some quotations, but the fact that you just keep reverting the whole page indicates that you are not intent on following Wikipedia guidelines or the afd consensus, but rather on vandalism in the guise of tags and reverts.Enriquecardova 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is doubtful whether he and others are interested in doing the research and making a specific case for the Aryan approach. The game is to vandalize using reverts and tags. They want the content removed that is the bottom line.Enriquecardova 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It was sarcasm. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD

message: It is apparent that new mainstream content brought to bear on this topic is disliked by some persons, so they have resorted to (a) trying to get the article deleted and (b) edit warring reverts. It may be these persons prefer a more "Aryan" approach or something else from the other end. If anyone has a problem with the mainstream scholars used, discuss and debate it as like any normal Wikipedia page rather than use sleight of hand. Put your cards on the table like a man and make your case. The fact that said persons have been avoiding any substantive debate or discussion not only reveals their true motives, but also exposes their intellectual weaknesses. They prefer to hide behind tags, reverts and requests for deletion, rather than make their case for all to see. If there is a Request For Comment to be made, by all means, bring it on, and lets deal with the issues openly in the normal Wikipedia way. Enriquecardova 05:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I voted delete because I hate black people and voting to delete articles is the only way for me to express my inner racism.  As for your other arguments, hiding behind an IP to revert is not "putting your cards on the table". Fact is, the pre-revert version was quotespammy, POV, ugly, and non-encyclopedic. The current version is not, as agreed to by nearly everyone in the AfD. If you have suggestions about content that don't negate consensus, please add them. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could care less who you hate or don't hate. Thatis irrelevant. The majority of the AFD pointed to cleaning up or modifying the curent content. That was the "consensus". This talk page itself calls for RFCs if needed, but you also conveniently ignore that too. Just because YOU voted to delete the page does not make YOU the sole arbiter of its contents. The consensus rather was to keep the page and refine it. This is fine. If you have problem, then make your case. Your lack of specifics and unilateral reverts however indicate another motive at work. In any event, in accordance with the AFD, some changes have already been made, reducing some quotations, but the fact that you just keep reverting the whole page indicates that you are not intent on following Wikipedia guidelines or the afd consensus, but rather on vandalism in the guise of tags and reverts.Enriquecardova 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is doubtful whether he and others are interested in doing the research and making a specific case for the Aryan approach. The game is to vandalize using reverts and tags. They want the content removed that is the bottom line.Enriquecardova 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It was sarcasm. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate and discuss content rather than edit war

message: *The proposal to delete this article sees a abusive use of WP procedure, & a waste of time for us all.--DGG
* This version, while far from perfect, is much better than the current article, and would be a good place to start from.-- Schlomanga5
*Keep but go through RfC and edit mercilessly to correct the POV and to remove any copyvios in the paragraph long quotes --Edison 
*Keep - clearly capable of being put into encyclopedic tone and format Cleanup, sourcing, neutrality, RFC, and dispute resolution are more appropriate venues.--FT@
*Keep too well-sourced to be deleted. --TSO1D
*This is an editorial issue not suitable for AfD.-- Sandstein 
*Keep and clean up to be more encylopedic: fewer quotes --Heimstern Läufer
*Keep and revert or cleanup to make it readable at least. ? ANAS 
*Keep, notable controversy in all its ridiculosity. - idonotexist
*Has encyclopædic value, just needs some work. Michael Billington
*Keep but needs some serious clean up. Hagerman
*Keep — per User:Bwithh Dionyseus 
*User:Enriquecardova is an enthusiastic and prolific newcomer to Wikipedia who has made many knowledgeable contributions in his limited time so far. The amount of focus and ambition I've noticed that he brings to articles he's interested in is admirable.. I don't see a need to bring the dispute to afd. User:Nebkaneil should try a Request for Comment and perhaps appeal for the involvement of WP:EGYPT members to generate consensus. Another path would be to ask for Peer Review of the article.. --Bwithh
:::Sound advice in Wikipedia spirit and policy, rather than the bogus and deceptive methods used by Wooty/Nebakneil and other assorted alias.Enriquecardova 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sampling of feedback from AFD exposing outright lies of Wooty,  Nebkaneil andother aliases/helpers