Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Draft

Purpose

This is a rewrite of the "ethnicity" section in the Great Sphinx of Giza article.

It attempts to address: 1. the ethinicity of the sphinx 2. why it's important 3. why it's not mainstream

in the most objective, verifiable, wiki way possible. Altarbo 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free state your opinions and edit the article at your leisure. It's only a draft. Altarbo 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Notes on Possibly Controversial Changes

- "the exploitation of Africa, the trans-Atlantic slave trade and racial discrimination." to "exploitation of Africa and African peoples"

The original phrase reads oddly. I think "exploitation" should be changed to "colonization" or "the slave trade and racial disrimination" should be changed to "African peoples". I went with the shorter alternative, because it's more of an introductory sentence. It should flow into the rest of the section.

-"black Africans" to "Sub-Saharan Africans" This was just for verifiability.Altarbo 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Junk

This draft is junk. It started ok but has turned into a hopelessly POV document. I could never support it in its current form and would have to do major surgery to it (ie. draft 2). Basically, no matter what is written, deeceevoie will twist it around to give undo emphasis to a minority POV and under-emphasize the majority POV. There is no mention here of the AAA statement, no mention of the Egyptian race controversy article etc.. -- Stbalbach 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're a psychic, petulantly predicting that I will "twist it around to give undo [sic] emphasis to a minority POV and under-emphasize the majority POV " -- even though neither you nor anyone else has provided any credible mainstream POV which contradicts the findings of two very mainstream professionals (a Harvard professor and a well respected forensics artist)? "Assume good faith, Balbach." :p

Further it's exceedingly bad form to characterize the earnest efforts of editors as "junk" simply because the wording quite reasonably dares to address forthrightly the implications of a huge, honking ancient monolith with the face of a black man, a few millennia old, barely 110 miles from the North African coast. deeceevoice 02:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The responsibility is on your shoulders to show that the Sphinx is a black man is a majority POV. You have failed to do so, which is why it is called an Alternative Theory. -- Stbalbach 02:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The "draft" as currently written spends %90 of the time talking about the minority POV and gives once brief unsourced sentence to the majority POV. -- Stbalbach 02:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the mainstream nature of the sources provided who support the notion of the Giza sphinx being a representation of a black man, in the absence of theories from any other credible source, then the notion must be considered mainstream. You can bet that if there were any reputable source stating otherwise (and not just racist, neo Nazis shrilly proclaiming the 'natural inferiority' of blacks ), someone would have dug it up. But there is no such information -- because no one today with an ounce of credibility would attempt to refute it. Rather than acknowledge the sphinx's blackness, most have remained silent. (You won't hear the afrophobe Zahi Hawass address the subject.) What we must go by are those with the expertise and the knowledge who've actually addressed the subject. You can't continue to play Psychic Friend and claim to somehow intuit a nonexistent "mainstream" stance because guess what? Silence doesn't count as an opinion -- mainstream or otherwise. deeceevoice 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check out Negative proof CoYep 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A mainstream source is mainstream Egyptology. None of your sources are Egyptologists. Egyptology is a branch of Archaeology which is a branch Anthropology which means the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" is the primary source on this topic for the purposes of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Stbalbach 15:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And, no. Again, another false and completely absurd argument. Because Egyptology, like much of modern archaeological study, is cross-disciplinary in this age of scientific and academic specialization, mainstream sources can come from any number of respected disciplines. After all, Susan Anton and other members of the American team who participated in the reconstruction of the Tut likeness are not Egyptologists any more than is Domingo. And the head of the French team is a forensic cop -- just like Domingo.deeceevoice 05:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"And the head of the French team is a forensic cop -- just like Domingo" (Deeceevoice)

Jean-Noël Vignal is a forensic anthropologist, Frank Domingo is a forensic artist.

But eitherway, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these your edits in which you declared the French's team reconstruction [1] irrelevant, stating that it is a "pale-skinned, pale-eyed travesty" [2] and calling it a "silly-looking forensic reconstruction" [3], claiming that you "can't see how in hell any rational, well-informed forensic scientist could conclude that the skull of Tut was from a "Caucasoid North African"" [4]? (sarcasm/on: oops ...there we have a 18th dynasty "Caucasoid North African" Pharao, we should mention that the constructors of the 18th dynasty were "Caucasoid" in articles such as the Valley of the Kings, Valley of the Queens, or the Theban Necropolis for instance :sarcasm/off) CoYep 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Save your link. Again, the information provided is properly sourced and attributed. Where's yours? :p deeceevoice 13:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The only source named for the theory that the "Sphinx is a black man" is Schoch. But if Schoch is declared to be a reliable source then:

• the Sphinx isn't a black man but a black woman
• the assertion that the "Sphinx suggest that ... at least one pharaoh was black" is incorrect, since there were no female pharaohs during the Fourth Dynasty
• the conclusion that the head of the Sphinx bears resemblance to the monuments constructors is incorrect since Schoch states that the Sphinx wasn't build/created/constructed during the Fourth Dynasty. He states that only the head was recarved at that time, and that "there is no way now to determine what the original head of the Great Sphinx looked like". So, if we are following the draft's logic and the draft's sources, then there is no way to determine what the original head looked like, then there is also no way to determine what the original constructors/original people living at the time of the Sphinx's construction looked like.
• Last but not least: the assertion that "black people lived in Ancient Egypt and had the influence, wealth, and organizational skills necessary to create monoliths like the Great Sphinx" is contradicted by the draft's source since Schoch claims that ancient Egypt was not build by Africans but by a "lost master culture" which were a "Post-Ice Age Diaspora from the Orient" and who "brought with them their knowledge and form of government".

Summa Summarum, the whole thing doesn't add up unless you find other sources than Schoch to support the draft's claims. Furthermore, I still stand by my opinion that this article is not the right place to discuss this issue, for reasons I already stated @ Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza. CoYep 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is a false one. The informed, expert opinion isn't that of Schoch; it's Schoch quoting Domingo -- whose findings are reported elsewhere in much the same language, as well. Schoch is merely the most quotable source. Whatever Schoch believes is irrelevant to this discussion. deeceevoice 05:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How did I know that Schoch will be declared "irrelevant" [5]. I must be a psychic... :p (from "Noted Sphinx schlar [sic]" [6][7][8] to "The informed, expert opinion isn't that of Schoch .. Whatever Schoch believes is irrelevant" - what a remarkable career!) Anway, since Schoch is now "irrelevant", maybe you can point us to a source in which Domingo states that the Sphinx is "Negroid". The source [9] you provided only states that "forensic expert Frank Domingo of the New York Police Department has definitively proven that the face of the Sphinx and the face seen on signed statues of Khafre are not of the same person" (which, by the way, contradicts again the assertion that the "Sphinx suggest that ... at least one pharaoh was black"). The assertion that "the Sphinx has a distinctive "African," "Nubian," or "Negroid" aspect" is the conclusion of Schoch - but Schoch is now irrelevant. I also fail to see the alleged "degree of prognathism and other features uncommon to peoples traditionally classified as Caucasian" in Domingos reconstruction. [10]. But I'm sure that you can offer an explanation for this. I would also like to read some of Domingo's opinions about the "original constructors/original people living at the time of the Sphinx's construction". You have a link? CoYep 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

The sources being used here, Schoch and Domingo, are not reliable. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Beware false authority

• Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. As mentioned above, none of the sources are Egyptologists, archaeologists or anthropologists. They are not accredited to evaluate Egyptian statues in a professional manner.
• Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Issues to look out for

• Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?

Self-published sources

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

-- Stbalbach 13:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

History

The article should be arranged historically. In the order that things actually happened.Altarbo 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting information that the sphinx depicts a black person first, is like Christians going into the History of Europe article, and starting it off with a few paragraphs about how Europeans would become Christians and spread Christianity all over the world.

On top of that, race is not a definite, provable, absolute. It is a recent, unscientific, social construct based phenotypes. There are not even clear defintions for black, white, etc. You cannot prove that someone is black. The only evidence that people have that sphinx is black is its facial traits. Pictures of the Great Sphinx, in the article clearly show its facial traits. People can look at that and decide for themselves.Altarbo 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"You cannot prove that someone is black" (Altarbo)

Exactly, thats why the whole section/discussion is superfluous for the Sphinx article. It's appropriate to include it into an article about these kind of outdated racist fringe theories/concepts but it shouldn't be included here. CoYep 11:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you're debating something this fundamental. The article already has a structure. The section on the race/ethnicity of the sphinx is just that -- a section on the reputed race/ethnicity of the sphinx. Obviously, the most important, critical information/central point of the entire section is precisely that. As such, that information belongs at the head of the section. An explication of the history behind other people's assumptions about black people, generally, is relevant to the section and, indeed, the article only in light of the primary information -- which is that the Giza sphinx is thought by many to have the head of a black man. The section is, after all, not a section on Eurocentric racism. That information is secondary/subordinate and supportive and deserves to follow the text addressing the primary issue at hand: the reputed/purported ethnicity of the sphinx. deeceevoice 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"the primary issue at hand: the reputed/purported ethnicity of the sphinx." (Deeceevoice)

If the "primary issue at hand" is ethnicity, then a discussion about "race" or "racial" traits and "racial" characteristics is - again - irrelevant, superfluous and unnecessary. CoYep 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, Why?

"Obviously, the most important, critical information/central point of the entire section is precisely that. As such, that information belongs at the head of the section."

No it's not obvious. I would like you to explain why it's important. Why should the article talk about things in an order other than the way they happened? Why should we start off with "Modern people categorize the sphinx as a member of a group they made up long after the sphinx had been constructed."

You know Cyrus the Great acted a lot like a good christian. Maybe I should go put "Modern people think Cyrus acted like a good christian," on the Cyrus page? (<- How is what you're doing different than that?)Altarbo 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note

The draft article has been moved out of the main namespace to Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Rough draft. Khatru2 02:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)