Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 15

message: I would like to suggest that we archive this talkpage as soon as everyone has finished their 'debates' about specific content (which will only have to be brought up again later, so it's better to just conclude them for the time being and put the energy to better use) and start with a clean, pre-organized talkpage dedicated to constructive discussion with a view towards actually resolving the troublesome issues. As it seems impossible to carry on simultaneous discussions at multiple levels on an article such as this, the topics on this talkpage should be discussed in 'natural' order, i.e. an order which is conducive to building up real, long-lasting consensus unlikely to be overturned upon the appearance of a new editor or two (providing they actually read the talkpage before hitting the 'edit' tab).
In my opinion, the first thing that needs to be discussed is the exact Scope of the article. Some of you disagree, I know, and you should voice your opinions at the appropriate time in the appropriate place. I think that place is at the head of a new talkpage. However, all discussion not directly and intimately related to the task-list set forth on the new page should be postponed until the time comes to discuss it. If we work together, we will get through the whole thing eventually.
If someone agrees with me, archives and creates the new talkpage, please add a section for 'New Additions', 'New Research' or something similar in addition to one on 'Scope' so that editors who are still researching will have a place to note any recent discoveries which might play a role in the deliberations over the organization of the article. Varoon Arya 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so, just archive it and start over, eh? How about you stop bickering, Taharqa, and actually address the issues raised up front? This article could be cleaned up and split into two valid article in a matter of hours as soon as you stop trolling. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbachmann, there is no concensus on splitting this article. All the sections contain valid informations for helping the readers have a broader picture about the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians. You are not obliged to like everything written here. There are things in the article myself do not want to see. But they have to be there since they are significant and have been brought by other contributors. Who are you to try to impose your will on other editors? Why do people have to repeat what Wikidudeman explained to you days ago? Be reasonable, move forward, and stop blocking the positive work of editing the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's so many words. Wikipedia is about showing a good faith effort and putting the facts on the table. Then there can be friendly debate between bona fide editors and informed compromise on specific points. What you are doing is just abusing Wikipedia's consensus principle to dodge policy and stall encyclopedic discussion. Show some effort in discussing this encyclopedically and we can have a debate. Wikilawyering without show of encyclopedic editing is trolling in my book, and I am not interested in debating that. Your "broader picture" translates to ideological soapboxing, and Wikipedia simply isn't for that, sorry. I repeat that I am not here to impose "my will", but Wikipedia policy, which asks you to dump all unencyclopedic and unacademic blather from this page, and report strictly on academic debates without further ado. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, start another RfC on the subject of the split, to see if you can get support for this idea from a wider audience. So far, I don't see that you have garnered significant support for your position, but in all honesty, an RfC could change that. Barring that, I would ask that you respect consensus.--Ramdrake 11:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive, Plan and Get to Work 

message: This article needs a *history* section that explains that there was a time when european scholars insisted that the egyptians were white. Only in the context of the racism of its day do the theories of Afro-centrism make sense. As it stands this article talks about the Afro-centric view out of context and fails to mention Eurocentrism at all. 
I do not think it's a good idea to put all of the Afro-centric information in a separate article, it will become a POV fork. Frankly, MOST of the people who discuss the Egyptians in-terms of "race" are either Eurocentric or Afrocentric scholars.  Most other people consider them to be "Egyptians" and "Africans" and leave it at that. 
The core subject of this article is the history of how this debate became important and the interplay between the people in the debte. The question: "what race were they?" is comparatively unimportant. Right now the article takes the question at face value.futurebird 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense. futurebird 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what part of "this is an Afrocentric myth" do you find difficult? dab (𒁳) 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's decide the name and actual topic before we argue about content. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically, because there's been discussion about whether the article and/or title is POV and about whether the existing content might be better merged into the other article. The essential question is about the relative weight to give the theory of ancient Egyptians as white, the similar theories that they were black, the evidence and supporters of each, and the objective scientific evidence. John Carter 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to disagree with you on any of the points, except for, maybe, to a slight degree, say that it is possible that the moderns who champion the "continuations" of earlier cultures could take some pride in their "ancestor" culture. But even I think that's probably a small point. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much any of what we've said really is very helpful to defining what the stated scope of this article, and possibly related articles, should be. Personally, I rather favor maybe a series of articles relating to color/race, with one central article about the "colors" and modern scientific views of them, and some individual articles on things like Ainu/Japanese relations, adding that the Ainu are now seen as being more direct descendants of the Japanese ancestors, much to the dismay of the Japanese, the Aryan race theory and its numerous flaws, Tamil/Hindu relations, and so on. Just one opinion, of course. John Carter 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I note that the Hamitic article could use some work. Having said that, this article could certainly link to it to establish the "prehistory" of the existing debate. So that would be one way to "start" the article. I'm afraid I still don't personally feel sure as to what the content of the article should be though, or how to relate it to other subjects in the same general field, if at all. John Carter 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the context? 

message: I may have missed this in the extensive discussions in the archives, but I'm still not clear on who's considered a fringe source for this topic. For the benefit of me, and anyone else who was drawn in by the posts on the fringe theory noticeboard, could someone concisely say which sections of the article cover the "fringy" material, and which sources the fringe theories come from? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Afrocentric parts arguing that ancient Egyptians were "black". Wikidudeman (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I'm looking for something more specific: are you talking about the entire "controversies" section, or what? Is Cheikh Anta Diop a fringe source? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially all of the arguments about the Sphinx, Everything in the controversies section as well as everything in the "other views" section would be considered fringe. The sphinx arguments are presented as being mostly historic though. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well let's start with the name of the article and get a consensus on that, then we can move onto the actual topic of the article and then determine what content should go where. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbachmann does not know the history of Egyptology! Egyptology began by negating the Black race as being the race of the Egyptians. Maurizio Damiano-Appia is an Italian Egyptologist. He is the one who denounced racism in Egyptology. Just read Egitto e Nubia, Milano, 1995, p. 8: "...è data per scontata l'idea di un popolo di razza bianca, che creò una cultura meditarranea che poco aveva a che fare con l'Africa se non una quasi casuale collocazione geographica...con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione". Is this man Afrocentrist? Where are you going to put this? In Afrocentric Egyptology? Actually, I am not happy with the title of the sub-section Cheilh Anta Diop. There is more than Diop there. Even Diop. This man presented the results of the melanin test on mummies at the Cairo Egyptological Conference in 1974. Then, Nobody contradicted him. Dbachmann, you need to learn more and stop insulting African Americans. Jean-François Champollion, the father of Egyptology has to put things in order about the origin and race of the ancient Egyptians. It is a controversy in Egyptology from the beginning of this field. It was in 1828 that Champollion wrote in Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, p. 455: "Mais ce n'est point à l'histoire seule de l'Egypte proprement dite que les études hiéroglyphiques peuvent fournir de précieuses lumières; elles nous montrent déjà la Nubie comme ayant, aux époques les plus reculées, participé à tous les avantages de la civilisation égyptienne. L'importance, le nombre et surtout l'antiquité des monuments qu'on y admire, édifices contemporains de tout ce que la plaine de Thèbes offre de plus ancien, sont déjà, pour l'historien, des faits capitaux qui l'arrêtent en ébralant les bases du système adopté jusqu'ici sur l'origine du peuple égyptien". For Champollion, p. 456: "les Egyptiens seraient une race propre à l'Afrique". Don't you see here a controversy about the origin and the race of the ancient Egyptians? Is Champollion Afrocentrist? In many Dictionaries, ancient Egyptians are said to be Caucasians or Whites. Dbachmann, how do you call this? Stop amusing people with your rethoric. We are many here to study the history of Egyptology. I can give you more facts without quoting any African or African American. The issue is not about Afrocentrism, but about the race of ancient Egyptians.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The folks who reconstructed King Tut's face described his features as "Caucasian". Wikidudeman (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Futurebird, for now I can give texts in Italian. I will have to find also something written in English in some old dictionaries. Encyclopedia Universale 3, Milano, 1984, p. 465: "Per l'evoluzione della civiltà egizia si rivelano quindi di fondamentale importanza, in correspondenza con il naqadiano secondo, l'arrivo di un popolo straniero culturalmente più avanzato, verosimilmente di stirpe semitica e proveniente dall'Asia anteriore attraverso il Golfo Persico e il Mar Rosso, e la sua fusione con la preesistente popolazione camitica. I nuovi venuti esercitarono un profondo unflusso su tutti gli aspetti della vita nella valle del Nilo, elevandone notevolmente il livello". Dizionario encyclopedico italiano, Roma, 1956, p. 284: "E. Smith ha descritto come prevalente un tipo da lui detto Proto-egiziano, piccolo di statua (...), a cranio allungato, stretto e piuttosto alto; i capelli erano lisci o ondulati, di color bruno scuro come gli occhi, la pelosità poco svulappata, la pelle brunastra, la facia ovale, con grandi occhi e naso a dorso rilevato e pinne un po' larghe. Questo tipo, che rappresenta evidentemente una delle razze medi. degli Europeidi, continua nelle età successive a formare il nucleo essenziale della popolazione dell'Eg.". Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's "fringe"? 

message: I've archived a lot of the older discussions including some newer ones that seemed to have been repeating themselves over and over. I think that after I rewrote the article last week it was a lot easier to determine the direction of it and I think that we need to do that again right now. I previously asked this question but now I want to start a straw poll for the name of the article. Everyone who agrees to a specific name please just sign your name under it as I will demonstrate. You can sign under more than one if you are ok with either name. Also feel free to introduce a new name for the straw poll. Some of the names are previous names of the article and have bad grammar and phrasing, but I'm introducing them anyway. Do not add comments. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the initiative to contact some of the projects which might be interested in this article, including Discrimination and Anthropology. I hope that we hear from some of them as well. And I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have worked on this article. I am aware that it can be a very controversial subject, and that the work to improve it is almost always going to be controversial. The work to improve the article, controversial or not, deserves our recognition and thanks in any event. John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you John!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to ignore the "no comments" rule for now to point out that this article seems to forma continuity with :Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups.  Perhaps we could go with a name along the those lines of those article titles.--Pharos 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe like "Origins of the Ancient Egyptians"? John Carter 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there is clear scientific facts concerning the "origin" of the ancient Egyptians. The real controversy seems to be over their skin color or tone and physical characteristics along the lines of race. Also, When I said "do not add comments" I meant not in the area where you signed your name under the article title, just so it doesn't get muddied up with debate. Commenting here is fine. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for all the additional work here, dude. Knowing that this is probably idle speculation, is there any evidence of the characteristics of the pre-dynastic upper and lower kingdoms? It might just be a guess, but I get the impression that they may have themselves possessed differing "racial" characteristics. John Carter 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely "origin" includes "racial origin".  It's basically the same issue as in all the :Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups articles.  I'm going to add this as an option.--Pharos 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, they were essentially the same as indigenous Egyptians from other periods, though the populations then had more homogeneity. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true only in that the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt were somewhat isolated prior to the unification and the onset of dynastic Egypt, so *each* was independently more homogeneous up to that point. The distinction is not as clear afterwards and the entire population essentially becomes more like each other, and eventually more homogenous as a whole. BTW, the article is looking good, but it is still structured in the manner of the controversy about the topic, which perhaps seems inevitable. I made my choices for the title based on that. — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also time for Dbachmann to make his choice for the title. He is making too much noise elsewhere in the talk page. He has not to come later and say I don't like the title. It will mean to go angainst the concensus. Dbachmann, wake up! (just laugh!).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't usually feed trolls, but how about you make clear what the article is supposed to discuss before we decide on a fitting title? dab (𒁳) 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is generally the best way to go. Otherwise one potentially faces the problem of deciding on a title, finding that it doesn't match the later agreed upon content of the final article, and then having to decide on a different title later. John Carter 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbachmann and John, is the introduction of the article not clear enough?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been said that the content of the article, potentially including that of the introduction, will be determined after the title is arrived at. On that basis, yeah, it could happen that the content of the article ultimately be determined to be different than it now is, which would possibly necessitate changing the title again. That's I think the reason both dab and I think we might be putting the cart before the horse a little here in trying to determine the title first. John Carter 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I also find it a bit puzzling that the desired scope of the article is not being discussed prior to deciding upon a name. By picking a title at this stage of what is to become a major edit, we are only inviting unecessary disagreements later on... Varoon Arya 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No synthesis of a position C is being made just because sources A and B are added together. A synthesis is constructing a new position based on the various sources. No such thing occurs just by mentioning both the Afrocentric views and the mainstream views in the same article. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't a separation of viewpoints called a "POV fork", a Wikipedia no-no?  Besides, there's obviously going to be some amount of migration both by land and by sea, so the truth has to lie between the hypothetical extreme viewpoints. 70.15.116.59 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: *Wikidudeman (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Race of ancient Egyptians (current name)

message: *Wikidudeman (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity of ancient Egyptians

message: *Wikidudeman (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearance of ancient Egyptians

message: *John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Race of Ancient Egyptians controversy

message: *John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians

message: *John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians

message: *Wikidudeman (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over appearance of Ancient Egyptians

message: *— Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient Egypt and race

message: *Pharos 08:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the ancient Egyptians

message: * I suggested this shortly before the poll but someone deleted the comment. 70.15.116.59 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No synthesis of a position C is being made just because sources A and B are added together. A synthesis is constructing a new position based on the various sources. No such thing occurs just by mentioning both the Afrocentric views and the mainstream views in the same article. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't a separation of viewpoints called a "POV fork", a Wikipedia no-no?  Besides, there's obviously going to be some amount of migration both by land and by sea, so the truth has to lie between the hypothetical extreme viewpoints. 70.15.116.59 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racial affinities of ancient Egyptians

message: in spite of the surreal ado on talk, the article has made slow progress. the present version mostly isolates the fringe material in a "Controversies" section, where it can remain for the time being. The actual topic is addressed under "Population characteristics". Further development should focus on giving a clearer diachronic structure to this "Population characteristics" section. The "Controversies", ceterum censeo, are WP:UNDUE and belong merged elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  progress 

message: You people must have heard of that game telephone.  You tell one person a phrase and 
by the time it reaches the last person in line the phrase has changed.  Wikipedia will 
no doubt be referenced some day, some how, so through very carefull manipulation you 
all may very well be an important link on the chain of turning paraphased references and POV summeries into the complete opposite of what the original research claims.  There-by allowing POV's validitiy in the eyes of readers of newly published material's.  
Twthmoses's  observations seem to be leaning toward this point but not fully addressing 
the magnitude of what is being undertaken on this page.--207.14.131.239 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahh to be a part of history. 

message: I just went to the Pan-African page.  Just as the African Deaspora page the page deals 
only with "black" Africans.  A racist page to say the least no mention of any of the other
native ethnicities.  The placement of the article withing such a catigory seems only a 
thinly vieled attempt to continue the article within the African Deaspora section for 
later validation without merit.  Much like a squatter within the modern american escrow 
laws.--207.14.131.239 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the page you refer to is Pan-Africanism. "Racist" might be a bit strong, but it would seem to violate NPOV, but it describes a sociopolitical view which is itself at least somewhat inherently POV, so that's not completely inappropriate. John Carter 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Your grammar is somewhat hard to follow at times. I believe you're saying his matter. Also, there are some rules regarding how pages should be titled, and the most common usage of a given word, even if not necessarily the most correct one, is generally considered in determining article's titles. I acknowledge that that article would benefit a lot from having general definitions of "White", "Red", "Black," "Yellow" in terms of race included, however. It would also help if the book The Seven Daughters of Eve were referenced even once in the article on race in humans, although it isn't yet. If you can produce good evidence of Pan-Africanism or equivalents being used in scientific jargon, however, I would welcome seeing it. I'm not sure this is necessarily the best place to make such comments however. John Carter 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the "color" terms are extremely difficult to define, and that they should probably be used as infrequently as possible for that reason, and defined at least once in wikipedia so that it can be made clear exactly how the terms are used here. And manipulation of any scientific data to benefit "the cause" is something I too think is to prevalent in the world, although I can't think of a time when it wasn't common. Unfortunately, several "theories" of race, like Aryan race, are notable enough that we are more or less forced by circumstances to have at least something on them. This article falls in the same group. These "ideas" ("theories" is the wrong word), strange as some are, are independently notable. Also, unfortunately, this theory seems to be a rebuttal of the earlier Hamitic theory, which wasn't any better. I agree that the article might be better structured as one of a series of articles dealing with these related ideas and facts, but the older editors of the page consider the name of the page of primary importance, and that's what's being decided now. John Carter 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I did, and think that your assessment of this article there is probably dramatically overrated. Right now, the idea of the ancient Egyptians being black seems to me to already be a complementary idea to the Hamitic article, and I believe it could be presented as a separate article, as that Hamitic theory is. This is in perfect accord with wikipedia policy, as long as the article referenced makes it clear that it is discussing one viewpoint on an issue, and adequately discusses the opposition as well. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming already does that and is considered to be an NPOV article. There is no real inhibition to having such content, as long as the article states it is presenting only one viewpoint, even a minority viewpoint, on an issue, and links to the other content. Creating a navigation box between this article and other related articles would make it clear that they were all directly related, and the average reader would realize, depending on the phrasing of the introduction, that a separate article on the modern theory, linked with an article on the consensus scientific theory on Egyptians and other related articles, is perfectly in accord with wikipedia guidelines and policy. John Carter 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am a junior editor, who actually bothers to let people know how much experience he has. Do you? Also, as repeatedly noted by me, how is your discussion here relevant to an article about Egyptians? I would love to hear an answer to that question, which I frankly have yet to see. And please do not vandalize articles by moving sections of content, as you have just done. Thank you. Regarding your point, yes, it might be relevant to the article in question. Why are you making those comments here? How are they even remotely relevant to this article? And the name was Buckaroo Banzai and my user page makes it clear what the source was in fact John Carter (character). Do you even have a username, by the way? And you're commenting about others, who have at least created an account to make it clear their statements are all from the same person? John Carter 23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine. I will refrain from guessing whatever planet you came from. You have made your comments. And, if you read my own comments here, you would note that I came to this page to make the same point you made above. Your points have been noted, and several of us will work to change the article so that those changes are noted. For a person whose first edit was yesterday, you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. That is, if that was your first edit. Otherwise, repetition of such comments as you have made violates several extant wikipedia guidelines and policies, and can be cause for action of one sort or another. As your points have clearly been noted, there is no real need for you to repeat them, particularly as several editors, including myself, came to this page to ensure that the very points you raised are observed on this page. Thank you. John Carter 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem. As noted before, your interests are being addressed. There is now a section below which I think is very relevant to the current discussion, and I think we would welcome the input of all interested parties in deciding that matter. We all have problems with spelling, I know I do, and I tested at a high level myself. I just hope that we can all focus on the content of this particular article, rather than bringing in outside matters which will probably only complicate issues. John Carter 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Pan-African really appropriate? 

message: I changed the title of the sub-section Cheikh Anta Diop into Racism in Egyptology, because it deals with racism, and Cheikh Anta Diop is not the only scholar quoted in.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism in Egyptology 

message: Please describe in as few words as possible your views regarding the scope of this article, i.e. what you consider as falling within the domain of the topic as it should be discussed in this article. (There is no need for direct confrontation with other contributing editors at this point. Simply state your case and wait until at least 4-5 individual editors have done the same before attempting to work with them towards a reasonable compromise.) Varoon Arya 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the color of the ancient egyptians is too narrow and we should focus on race. Among black africans there is tremendous variability in skin color. Therefore we should focus on race, which includes skin color, physical appearance and ethnic origins. Muntuwandi 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. "Color", as well as other characteristics, seems to be the main point of the article, and clearly other racial characteristics do come into play as well. Skin color per se is seemingly the most important one to many, but clearly not the only one. The down side, of course, is that the "race" theory is itself a very contentious issue, and that would make this article about a controversial point of view based on another controversial point of view, which could easily be seen as having POV problems. John Carter 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This article should present an organized documentation and intelligent differentiation of the methodology that has been applied to solving the primary question, i.e. the race of the ancient Egyptians, in qualified studies and the theories that have come about as a result, both past and present. In the absence of a more qualified article, it should also present those aspects of the non-academic controversy which have cropped up as a result of this research. Varoon Arya 02:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the Hamitic theory be included then? One of the essential points of contention in my eyes is whether this article should be expanded to include all the relevant material regarding that theory as well, given its direct relevance to the subject of this article. If the content were to be merged, fine. If a separate, complementary article on the current theories were presented, also fine. However, including the content regarding the "factual" race/ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians in one article relating to a subject, and not in the other, in this case the Hamitic article, is to my eyes clearly a violation of NPOV and probably a violation of Undue weight, as the inclusion of the scientific data in one article lends to that article a greater sense of importance than the other. John Carter 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume by the "Hamitic theory" you are referring to the now-outdated and generally discarded use of the term Hamitic to refer to 'lighter-skinned' Africans and/or their languages. If there is more to it than this, please explain. I could see including a blurb about it in a sub-section dealing with the historical development of theories of race pertaining to Egypt, with a link to the current article. Regardless, however, more contributing editors need to add their take on the scope before we get into any kind of discussion involving the particulars. Varoon Arya 16:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to the theory put forward in that article, yes. As has been stated above, at least some of the current theories seem to be exist as, to varying degrees, responses to that original theory. If that is true, then it would seem indicated that the proximate cause of these new theories being developed be discussed. John Carter 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason for that to not be included. Varoon Arya 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: *The proposed scope of the article is the current theories relating to the "color" of ancient Egyptians.
#John Carter 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: *The proposed scope of this article is the current theories, and extant historical evidence, relating to the "color" of ancient Egyptians.
#John Carter 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2

message: *The proposed scope of this article is the current and historical theories, and extant historical evidence, related to the "color" of ancient Egyptians.
#--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4

message: I believe this information is relevant to the identity of the ancient Egyptians. It is to give information on whether the Egyptians thought of themselves as being African or Near eastern. Of course currently North African countries are currently divided as to whether the are more oriented to the Middle east or to Sub-Saharan Africa.  North African countries are members of both the Arab league and the African Union(sometimes reluctantly).However it seems that it was clear that the ancient Egyptians were oriented towards inner Africa. They viewed themselves as African. this does not say that they were black, but they viewed themselves more as African than Near eastern. All the scholars acknowledge this, so it is not inherently controversial. Of course I expect some resistance to this, In the eurocentric world  we are so accustomed to focusing on the North that we find it difficult to comprehend that the Egyptians thought otherwise. Muntuwandi 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is true, then I request as per my rights that you produce a specific citation and/or, if necessary, an exact quotation to that effect. Otherwise, that would constitute either WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Please produce an source which explicitly states that the Egyptians saw themselves more as Africans than Near easterns. Thank you. John Carter 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muntuwandi, on this one, I believe John is right in his objection: AFAIK, Egyptians didn't particularly identify with Africa (nor for that matter as Near Esterners - they just identified as Egyptians). If your citation was taken to mean they simply might have viewed the lands to the south as the lands of their origins, then I believe a case might be made, but if you want it to just mean that they identified with Africa per se, I think the case here is much more tenuous.--Ramdrake 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the egyptians would not use the term "African" because the concept of "Africa" did not exist at the time and is a more recent invention. However they viewed their ancestral homeland as somewhere in inner Africa. The maps they drew apparently only extended into Africa and not the Near east. It is surely a different mindset than what we have today. I agree that we cannot make any conclusions about the race of the egyptians from this information, but it does give us an idea about the social constructions of ancient egypt. Race is a social construction.Muntuwandi 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No real disagreement. However, I believe you can see how it would be WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to say in the article that they viewed themselves as being something when we do not have a specific source which explicitly states that. Having said that, altering the text so that it does agree with what a specific source specifically states would be perfectly acceptable. What is required here is now finding a specific source which can be used to substantiate whatever the text ultimately says on the matter. John Carter 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is clear to me that this information is important to the article. Many sources mention it: I quoted Cheikh Anta, Nations Nègres et Culture; Edouard Naville, "L'origine africaine de la civilisation égyptienne"; Muntuwandi is quoting David Silverman,Ancient Egypt, 42. . “Oriented in their geopolitics towards the south and Africa, the Egyptians turned their backs on the north”. Who does not want this information has something to hide. But we are not here for that scope. This must be clear to Egyegy and Dab. I know that "facts are bitter", but they remain as they are: "facts". We have to rely on them.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Importance is one thing, WP:Undue weight is another. As it is I believed asserted nowhere that the ancient Egyptians were themselves experts in the field of population studies, and as their opinion was also at least somewhat based on opinions and practices which seem to actually be contrary to extant science, there is a very open question as to how important that information is. John Carter 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A very dangerous area to proceed into, an area were lots of creditability can be lost. You are talking about nationhood with a pinch of nationalism. Given the fact that the ancients Egyptians did not know the full extend of their surrounding and if their contacts should be any form of guide; ancients Egyptians hardly saw themselves as “Africans” or “Near Easters”. They were Egyptians (which I don’t even think translates to the common man). Contact with the south (Nubian, Sudan, Ethiopia) consisted of war (lots of war), trade and some settlements in Lower Nubian. After all Ramesses II did not built Abu Simbel to invite his fellow African over, but to make a statement “here begins the domain of Ramesses II, submit or die”. Contact toward (west) North Africa consisted of mainly war and contact with the Middle East, war, trade and settlements. Some of the Levant was for extended periods under de facto Egyptian control and there are so many smaller finds from southern Palestine that it could indicate a possible Egyptian hegemony, especially in the 12th/13th dynasty. With all this war and land grabbing going on, it is simple impossible, proven or not, that there does not occur some influx of people from south and the near east, complication the equation to a mere point of view what the ancient Egyptians thought themselves to be. Should Herodotus be any guide, then the Nile is the dividing line between Libya and Asia, and thus Egypt at his time lay in both modern day Africa and Asia. Herodotus even want to make the Delta into another division (along Europe, Libya and Asia), since it apparently does not lay in either. Why would the Egyptians think of themselves as African, when their country lay smack in the middle of Asia and Libya?, half their country in each. Twthmoses 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey Taharqa, snap out of this paranoia trip. Nobody is suppressing anything. So far I have learned reading these talk pages, that there is a core of editors around that will grab at anything that places Egypt solid in black Africa. To be honest I don’t really see any Eurocentric views around here! Really, when was the last time someone cried “Egyptians are white”? There is a few neutrals around (you know who you are). Never mind that I have no problem with a solid black African Egypt – so be it if that is the case, I do have a problem with the way its done in this place. Example comments like this “It is only undue weight if it is suspect or contradicted by other more dominant views, but apparently it isn't”. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. There are 500.000 Egyptologists and another million already dead. There is enough material on Egypt to fill the royal library twice over. Have you even looked for contradicting views? I’ll take a qualified guess at not. Even more funny is “All the scholars acknowledge this (Egyptians viewed themselves more as African than Near eastern)”. What ???!??! Does that mean I can pickup any scholar and I will find such a view? The whole sentence is ridicules, and does not need disproving, it is automatically false. These weasel wordings are used over and over again, on the talk page as well as the article. How would scholars arrive at such opinions (that the Egyptians viewed themselves more Africa)? What sources would they have used to arrive at such a conclusion? Is there some kind of “how we viewed ourselves” book from 2000 B.C I don’t know of? Or did they read it off some temple? Nationalism is a 19th century invention, there is no such thing prior to that (at least not as we understand it). Even today local loyalties far outweigh nationalism, in nearly all aspects. Go to, say Germany, and you will hear I’m from Bavaria, from Saxony-Anhalt etc.. with German as 2nd (sometimes even as 3rd after European). There is no such thing as black, white, brown, yellow issues in ancient Egypt, much less a nationalism issue and some grand scheme “I’m from Africa”. Fight for king and country – rubbish. I’m from Thebes, I’m from Memphis, this was the issue. A hegemony ancient Egypt has never existed, and that the common man should somehow have a sense of “being African” or “near Eastern” is a 20-21 century hair brain child to project current issues back in time. The common man did not even know he lived in Africa!! Ask Inca’s about the Rocky Mountains, the Sioux about the American continent shape or an Egyptian about the greater good of Africa, and you would receive??? cause they have no concept of it. I know, now I’ll be meeting with original research and violation of blab blab. But this is not meant for the article but solve for the talk page, and for you to start doing some objective research on the facts, rather then to find support for predefined opinions. No there is no price in the end of all this; you don’t win - and you don’t lose either - if Egyptians someday turns out to be black African or Chinese, space aliens or Nordic Vikings. Twthmoses 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, not quite true. The matter of WP:Undue weight is a valid one. Your attempt to write it off above does not come close to being completely accurate. Please directly respond to the claim that the inclusion of that information may well violate undue weight. Thank you. John Carter 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ad hominem!, do you even know what an ad hominem is? What you just did was a genuine ad hominem. You invalidated my argument by appeal to my person; - see now you know what an ad hominem really is. I invalidated both yours and one of Muntuwandi argument not by appeal to your persons, but by sheer statistic and the fact that if I pull any one of those Egyptology books down from the shelf and if I don’t find a “Egyptians viewed themselves more as African“ statement, the “All the scholars acknowledge“ is invalid. We need to start getting off the weasel wording wagon that is running here, and start being a little objective. Muntuwandi base subject “Egyptian orientation” is a very valid one, and even interesting – but a subject that is 90 degree uphill, since the Egyptians did not leave much of their views of themselves to us, so where should it come from, and how much accuracy do you think it contains? This is what I highlighted. The fact that you don’t care about my personal beliefs is irrelevant to me and to this article, especially in light that I have not given it to you (other than it makes no difference to me what race the Egyptians is, and a few other minor details). As I have said to you before Taharqa, grab the ball and try and stick with it.Twthmoses 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, simply for purposes of information, once anything is challenged, it is the duty of the person who produced the information which is challenged to verify that the content is accurate. It very much seems to me that what was said above was a challenge to the content. This is not a matter of interpretation of policy. However, I acknowledge that it was not formally indicated as needing an explicit citation. As you know, anyone can indicate a citation is required at any time. If such citation is not produced, then the uncited content can be removed at any time. I believe that the statement above baasically constitutes such a request. However, considering the page is now protected form edits, the template cannot be added there directly. If someone on the talk page were to explicitly state that they believed citation was required for a certain part of the text, however, that would have to be taken as being the same thing, and would require the same sort of response for the text to remain in place. John Carter 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian orientation 

message: can some1 please explain to me exactly what is meant by this statement:
:Egyptologists generally consider the ancient Egyptians to have been a continuum from the lighter northern population of Lower Egypt to the darker Upper Egyptians.
Thnx in advance.Scott Free 13:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's confusing, but lower Egypt refers to northern Egypt and upper Egypt to southern Egypt. The "continuum" means that northern Egyptians had lighter skin, southern egyptians darker and people to the north of Egypt even lighter and the south even darker. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuum 

message: I removed the geographic orientation sentences from the Egyptian self-view section yesterday; since then, they've been reinserted by Muntuwandi, and must have been removed again sometime (as I don't see them in the article now). I guess I should more fully state my objection to these sentences.
Geographically, they viewed "south" as being "up" because the Nile flows south from Upper Egypt to north in Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt borders Nubia, where the ancient Egyptians obtained their gold. Thus the ancient Egyptians were oriented in their geopolitics toward the south and Africa, rather than the north.
I'm not saying these are inaccurate, as I'm quite sure they're correct. But this is original research in the context of an article on race, not geography, because the connection between these facts about geographic orientation have not previously been connected to the race of the ancient Egyptians by any reliable sources. The connection is being made by Wikipedia editors, which is not acceptable. Is it now clear why these sentences must not be included until a reliable source connects the facts stated within to the race of the ancient Egyptians? Picaroon (t) 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a lot of Original Research in the article since I first rewrote it 2 weeks ago. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not original research, then it is reasonable, and in fact requested by policy, that specific citations to support the specific points of contention are required. As the page is now locked, I believe it would be reasonable if Wikidudeman indicated below exactly which points he believes requires specific sourcing. If that sourcing is not specifically presented, it would be completely in agreement with established guidelines and policies for the statements to be removed. John Carter 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is we are not going to find much material that deals directly with the race of the ancient egyptians because The egyptians did not construct race the way we do in modern times. Hence most of the information that we will have will be derived from indirect sources. For example we have included studies of egyptian mitochondrial dna, when we know that this tells us about ancestry but not necessarily about race since these mitochondrial haplogroups are shared by people who are black, brown and white. But mitochondrial dna will give us some information on origins. We keep mentioning the terms upper egypt and lower egypt throughout the article but we do not provide any context as to the terminology. The lead section mentions that the Upper Egyptians were darker, Surely then Egyptian orientation has relevance with regard to the Egyptian mindset at the time. It is interesting that though they did view themselves as a distinct people from the nubians, they still oriented themselves towards them and the rest of Africa instead of to the North.Muntuwandi 21:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, yes, but not that interesting. If there was an ocean in one direction and a neighboring kingdom I could trade with in the other direction, I'd point myself the latter way too. But that's not the point. The point is it remains original research to mention this geographic orientation info in the article, because it implies something about race. Regardless of the fact that it is hard to find good sources on the ancient Egyptian race, we can not settle for original research. Better no content than unprofessional content concocted by encyclopedia writers. Are there any reliable sources which have connected the direction the ancient Egyptians oriented themselves towards with their race? If so, please quote them here; I remain incredulous until I see source(s) which cover this issue. Picaroon (t) 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Egypt is still connected to the Near east at the Suez. In fact biogeographically North Africa is sometimes considered contiguous with Eurasia, hence the Egyptians could have oriented themselves to the North where lighter skinned people came from. Instead the oriented themselves in the direction of the darker skinned people. The statements just give background information, however they do not conclude that because the ancient egyptians oriented themselves to the south, then they were black. It is just some factual background information, hence it does not qualify as original research. What can be discussed is whether it is relevant, which I think it is in learning about the ancient egyptian mindeset. Many articles do provide background information to help in discussing the content.Muntuwandi 03:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was providential that Muntuwandi came forward with the geographical orientation of the Egyptians. It counted for them as the quotations made by Muntuwandi and by myself have proved. Now, we find in Plutarch something very similar. The Egyptians divided the world in four parts: East, West, South and North. Speaking about the South and the North, Plutarch says that Egyptians considered themselves as pertaining to the southern world which belongs to Osiris (Black of skin) while the northern belongs to Seth (Red of skin) and to the enemies of Egypt. Egyptians would avoid greeting people who are red. Egyptians think that Jerusalem and Judea are descendants of Seth. I have the texts in Italian. Somebody can search for the English translations. PLUTARCH, Iside e Osiride, § 31: "Ma quelli che riferiscono che la fuga di Tifone dalla battaglia fu fatta sul dorso di un asino e durò sette giorni e che, salvato in questo modo, generò poi due figli, Hierosolymo e Giudeo, mirano evidentemente, come provano i nomi stessi, a far entrare nel regno dei miti le tradizione giudaiche"; §32: "Ora, il Nilo - che scorre da sud ed è ingoiato dal mare a nord - a buon doritto è detto avere la nascita a sinistra e la morte a destra. Questa è la ragione che fa aborrire il mare dai sacerdoti, i quali chiamano perciò il sale 'spuma di Tifone'"; § 33: "Ecco perché, credendo che Tifone nascesse rosso di pelle e giallastro, s'incrontrano tutt'altro che volentieri con uomini di tale aspetto e non vogliono aver che fare con lore". "Osiride, d'altro canto, nacque nero di pelle". "Di più, l'Egitto ch'è quanto di più nero ci sia al mondo nel colore della gleba, essi lo chiamano, proprio come il nero dell'occhio, Chemia, e l'assomigliano al cuore. Perché è caldo e umido, ed è incluso e congiunto con la parte sinistra del mondo abitato, come il cuore è al lato sinistro dell'uomo". It is useless to think like John Carter that Egyptians ignored their origins. They were not stupid people. They had great scholars among them. I think it is easier to know one's origins than to project and then raise pyramids.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the regular derogation of the input of others which seems to be such a fixture of this discussion is almost certainly completely counterproductive. I at no point made any statements which even remotely qualify as indicating that the Egyptians "ignored their origins". I sincerely believe that the regular dismissal of opposing viewpoints and input is very likely one of the primary reasons this discussion has become as argumentative as it is. I note to everyone that official policy of wikipedia, including WP:CIVILITY, makes it quite clear that such I think knowingly false statements have no place here. I sincerely hope that all individuals involved cease and desist in such petty, pointless, counterproductive commentary on others. John Carter 14:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want documentation for the accusation, please note your own contributions of going so far as to use multiple adjectives at 20:00, 30 October 2007 here, 16;54 31 October 2007 here, 20:25 31 October 2007 (in which you seem to make it clear you don't even know the meaning of an insult you level against others) here, 16:51 31 October 2007 here, and your own post above saying these accusations were unfounded. That's five on this active page alone. And calling someone else guilty of false accusations is probably one of the worst violations of the code of conduct and civility possible. Thanks for giving me reason to point out the examples of your conduct, though. It'll be a start if we ever have to request comment on user conduct here. John Carter 15:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They all clearly link to comments of derogation of others made by you. If you want to discuss the topic, then I suggest you do so, rather than continuing in insulting others as you did above. That would be in accord with guidelines and policies. As I have stated before, your own regular attempts to insult and diminish others, as well as similar attempts by others, are probably one of the primary causes of the degree of contentiousness which has been evident on this page since I first came here. The answer is simple, if you want to discuss the article rather than individuals, please do so. Thank you. I do note that you seem to be the one editor on that "side" who regularly cites sources, and I am grateful that there is such a party. I just hope that you can limit any future comments to the content of the article, rather than insulting others as you did in each of the links I posted to above. I have no doubt that such insults are one of the main causes of the tone of this discussion being what it is, and I think we would probably all agree that such discussion is at best useless here. However, should you choose to persist in calling proof of insulting others, an RfC on all parties, including me and you, could be requested. I would be willing to do it myself, in fact, regardless of any consequences I might face myself. Otherwise, I sincerely hope that all such comments on others cease now, as I had already indicated above. I honestly believe that an RfC would be the way to go if anyone chooses to respond further in kind with irrelevant personal comments, and am more than willing to file it. John Carter 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: John Carter, Taharqa - please see that this mutual recrimination doesn't help anyone or anything, quite the contrary. If you must, I can Puro you each a punching bag, if that'll help..! :)--Ramdrake 16:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They clearly do hold racial implications. However, we cannot say anything in wikipedia which is not directly sourced. In short, if the sources don't explicitly say something, neither can we. Yes, it can be a pain. It often is, particularly when dealing with matters about which there is little direct evidence. However, I beg everyone to remember that this article is probably one of the better articles available for any potential outside reviewer to use to indicate whether and how well the process of editing here at wikipedia works. Our own policies clearly and explicitly state that synthesis of material from multiple sources, which is what drawing "implications" is, and original research are explicitly forbidden. If we were to permit any variation from that standard on this, probably one of our more contentious articles outside of religion, we would not only be failing to abide by explicit wikipedia policy, and doing a great disservice to any of our readers who may come to this article, but also providing fuel for those who detract from our efforts in general. That's why I think that we have a particularly strong obligation to ensure that nothing which can even be reasonably thought to possibly violate policy make its way into this article, as it could, potentially, be used against not only this article, but wikipedia in general. John Carter 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My removal of the geographic orientation information 

message: Folks, it really pains me to see that this discussion is (again) starting to degenerate close to the point of name-calling. Can everybody concerned please keep in mind that we're all fairly intelligent people, that we're all here acting in good faith (in the sense that we all really think our position is what's best for the article), and if someone feel slighted by someone else's remark, I would please ask them to take everything in stride inasmuch as possible. Escalating snide remarks into insults is extremely detrimental to the atmosphere, especially on such a contentious article where it is (IMHO) of paramount importance to try to keep as open a mind as possible to other editors' viewpoints so that we can hopefully arrive at some consensus from so many diametrally opposed viewpoints. We're all fairly intelligent, as I said, and we're all fairly opiniated, but in the end we don't know everything, and we are fallible. Calling someone names based on our individual foibles is counterproductive in the extreme. So, I would like to suggest we all resist the temptation to act like temperamental 12-year olds (my apologies go to any of my fellow editors who might actually be 12 years old), and try to concentrate on the subject at hand while doing our best to ignore what may be perceived as baiting, as a lot of it strikes me as purely unintentional.
Well, 'nuff said!  Thanks for listening.--Ramdrake 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course this is usually the motto that I follow, though it is indeed difficult when you have people (ala John Carter) obsessively edit warring on your talk page, accusing you of absurdities, and then when you warn them for it, they bring it directly to an article discussion page. As insecure and childish as that seems. I for one, am not responding to one more contentious comment or shallow threat.. Thanx for addressing this..Taharqa 16:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links have been placed above. Thank you for pointing out that I did not link to the specific diffs. I would have thought that indicating the times such comments were made should be enough, but evidently they weren't. And I sincerely hope that no one either responds to or instigates insults against any one else from this point forward, despite the multiple insults contained directly and explicitly in the post directly above. Actually, that makes at least six on this page alone from that party. John Carter 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, I understand, we're at this point all getting on each other's nerves. But the only honorable way out of this is to let bygones be bygones, concentrate on the article, each watch our own mouths, each take everything that might be taken personnally with the largest possible grain of salt, and carry on with improving the article. I very much think this is quite feasible for every editor involved. What say you?--Ramdrake 16:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folks, please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]! 

message: The current page is about 131 kb long. It is getting rather long. Suggest that we perhaps archive everything said to date, and start the next page which a subject on what the proposed scope of the page be. Several parties, including me, have already indicated that it doesn't make sense in their eyes to try to discuss the title until after the content is decided upon, and, as one of those parties, I think it makes sense to do so. Any objections? John Carter 16:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I'm not sure I agree. First, we started with a new draft of the article, then questioned the title, and now we are questioning the entire content and structure of the article, basically intent on rewriting it from scratch, while on the other hand, many of the objections raised by the various editors had to do with specific section, most often specific paragraphs, or even a single sentence. I don't think rewinding the article back to the beginning and starting all over will help alleviate the conflict, and IMO it may even widen it. While I don't oppose regular archiving of this talk page, I would like to point out that is was done less than a week ago, and that in my experience, this repetitious archiving may lead to the same questions coming back time and again needlessly, just because the previous answers keep getting archived. I would say let the talk page alone for a few more days before archiving again (maybe archive once a week?) and let everybody bring up specific points needing improvement. Reinventing the wheel all over will not prevent us from arriving at the same disagreements if we don't discuss and resolve them. I am aware that several editors have in fact been rather specific on points needing improvements, and I commend those. However, sweeping declarations of the ineptitude of this article really don't help at all.--Ramdrake 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily disagree myself. My only reason for suggesting it was the length. 131 kB I've heard from others can be a bit long, and take some computers a fair amount of time to upload, which can potentially only make irritability increase. Having said that, I don't disagree with your points above. John Carter 16:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people just like to argue and say they will rewrite articles but few actually do. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. In at least one case, however, that's because he has a great deal of assessments to do for any number of projects before he really has time to write any articles. The fact that this article should already be tagged for the Ancient Egypt, Ancient Near East, Egypt, Anthropology, Ethnic groups, and History projects I think indicates just how much work needs to be done there. John Carter 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to point out that the WP:SIZE guideline calls for 30-50 kb of text prose, not overall length, and that this article currently has 36 kb of text prose, so it's not really overlong to all intents and purposes.--Ramdrake 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would only add that Abortion is a GA, and the similar Intelligent design is an FA, to indicate that such articles can reach high regard if editors are willing to work on them. That was one of the other reasons I proposed archiving this talk page, so that we could start on discussing what the content of the article would actually be and, with any luck, approach it with a fresh start. John Carter 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good addition, John Carter. Anyone who cares to look will notice that the Talk:Intelligent design page also has clear points of reference at its head which delineate how future edits are to be made. Really, this article should have had something like this long ago. Varoon Arya 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

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

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

message: I think we all know that the sandbox's content while it is still in the sandbox isn't a matter of extraordinary concern. Taking that into account, I wonder if the rest of you would agree to the following. We could use the sandbox to include all the relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced material anyone sees as being relevant to the article. If you honestly think this includes a picutre of grandma's three-toed cat or your kitchen sink, fine, include it. Possibly at the same time, we could discuss here exactly how much content the final page might have. I think it might be possible that some of you may have had content removed from the article, or conciously withheld including material in the article, based on thinking that it might give the subject undue weight. That shouldn't be a factor in the sandbox, though. And, if we do find that all the relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced material we have does make for more than one article, we'll have a better idea of how to split it up. If we find that we don't, then we'll probably have to use the hopefully contemporaneous discussion here as to what the content of the final article should include, and remove any content that might violate undue weight rules. Even there, though, that material could be shifted into separate articles on given individual books. I just want to ensure that everyone realizes that this doesn't have to be the only article regarding this subject, and that all the relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced material we can find on the subject is at least potentially eligible for inclusion. John Carter 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: There are two strategies that we can use to get the article unprotected and try to keep it that way. Firstly we can either work on the draft and find some consensus. The problem with this is that even if we reach a consensus, as long as user conduct is not addressed, edit wars will persist. Unfortunately many of the edit wars have been over details that are not critical, some may say even petty.The other alternative is for all editors to agree on how users should conduct themselves when editing this article. It is my belief, that when an article is protected, everybody loses. As we can see, there has been hardly any activity on the talk page since the article was protected, yet the moment the page is unprotected activity will increase. I will discuss some of the issues that I have noted that are contributing to edit wars. 
===Edit war  definition===
Wikipedia guidelines indicate that an edit war has occurred when an article has 4 or more reverts in one day. I would recommend that editors take note of the edit history before deciding to revert and possible refrain if there have been already many reverts. This is because when an administrator notices a large number reverts in a short period, they will not hesitate to protect the article.
*Suggestion: We should take note of the number of reverts and refrain from reverting if the revert history for the day is already high.Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If material is misrepresented or is totally irrelevant then it should be deleted. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the case in any article, however it is the process of determining relevance is what is of concern. We shouldn't rush to conclude that any material is irrelevant. Muntuwandi 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would agree, there is the possible problem of someone making a rush to conclude that information which no one else deems relevant is deemed by one editor as relevant, thus in effect gaming the system. John Carter 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As you mentioned earlier, we should add information to the sandbox. My concern is that since the article is protected, interest in the article and even the sandbox has reduced. Most of the usual suspects are nowhere to be seen, since there isn't much motivation. Though we should continue to work on the sandbox, we should work on our conduct as well. If the article is to be unprotected we need some sort of consensus on this. If we can reach an agreement on conduct, we can make a case for the admin to unprotect the article. Muntuwandi 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Wikipedia guidelines indicate that an edit war has occurred when an article has 4 or more reverts in one day. I would recommend that editors take note of the edit history before deciding to revert and possible refrain if there have been already many reverts. This is because when an administrator notices a large number reverts in a short period, they will not hesitate to protect the article.
*Suggestion: We should take note of the number of reverts and refrain from reverting if the revert history for the day is already high.Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war  definition

message: When two editors have an edit war the maximum number of reverts is six due to the 3RR rule. When we have two tag teams edit warring there can be up to 12 reverts before the 3RR can take effect on any editor. Tag teaming increases the revision history in a short time and attracts the attention of administrators who will quickly protect the article. 
*Suggestion: If two editors are edit warring and you support one side, instead of reverting, an editor can use the talk page to voice his or her support for the particular editors. This would keep the number of reverts low and help avoid protection.Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag teaming

message: It is my belief that the current article has still got a long way to go in its evolution. Libraries are filled with books on ancient egypt so there is still plenty of information that is not represented. Currently we are giving undue weight to a few scholars. The article feels like "race of ancient egyptians according to Keita and Brace". So I tend to favor including information rather than deleting information. I wouldn't object to someone discussing the red hair of rameses II, however there should also be no objection to the discussion Maiherpri's dark skin. Every now and then I hear calls to delete information on the sphinx.Censorship doesn't work because people will find the information from other sources.  
*Suggestion:- If new information is added and meets the standard of WP:RS and has some relevance to the topic, we should not rush to delete or revert if we disagree with the content. Instead we can use tags or the talk page first.Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If material is misrepresented or is totally irrelevant then it should be deleted. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the case in any article, however it is the process of determining relevance is what is of concern. We shouldn't rush to conclude that any material is irrelevant. Muntuwandi 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would agree, there is the possible problem of someone making a rush to conclude that information which no one else deems relevant is deemed by one editor as relevant, thus in effect gaming the system. John Carter 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletionism or Inclusionism

message: Wikipedia relies on volunteer editors. If an editor does some research online or from a library and presents the information to the article, and another editor disagrees with the content and reverts within 3 seconds, how will that make the contributing editor feel. The natural reaction is to edit war. Rushing to revert, especially without discussion tends to aggravate the situation and encourage others to revert. 
*Suggestion: Instead of instantly deleting new material we can consider the use of tags, such as the dispute tag and the talk page. Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: fast reverts

message: The article is controversial, we know that there are "two camps" and some neutral editors who have interest in the article. In order to keep the article from protection, when we disagree, we should do so slowly. Instead of reverts we should consider other options such as dispute tags and using the talk page. The article is not going anywhere, so there is no need to be in a hurry to have one particular version represented. Wikipedia is not censored, we should avoid deleting material that we disagree with if it meets WP:RS. Neutral editors can have an important role because they can gain trust of all the warring parties.Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned earlier, we should add information to the sandbox. My concern is that since the article is protected, interest in the article and even the sandbox has reduced. Most of the usual suspects are nowhere to be seen, since there isn't much motivation. Though we should continue to work on the sandbox, we should work on our conduct as well. If the article is to be unprotected we need some sort of consensus on this. If we can reach an agreement on conduct, we can make a case for the admin to unprotect the article. Muntuwandi 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary