Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Improving the Article

This article is in fairly bad shape. It's quite POV from my (and other editors) prospectives, It contains far too many quotes, It changes from subject to subject, among many other problems. So what I want to do is stop attempting to argue what the Ancient Egyptians race really was as that's quite pointless here and doesn't improve the article. I want to cooperate with everyone here to make this article better. In order to do this I will need to know a few things and the first thing is, What is this article about? It's a pretty simple question, What is this article about exactly? What is the point of it? The article is named "Race and Ancient Egypt" and that alone is quite ambiguous and alone seems to imply that the article is about Race(in general) and it's relation to Ancient Egypt, opposed to the race of the Ancient Egyptians. Upon reading the actual article it seems to be written more like an Essay than an Encyclopedia and seems to be making arguments for the contention that the Ancient Egyptians were "black" opposed to presenting all of the relevant views in a NPOV manner, following WEIGHT. So in order to progress on improving this article with the cooperation of all of the editors here, I will first need to know what it's about. I want all major editors here to explain in their own words what this article is about, what the point of the article is, etc. Please limit your answers to 1 paragraph, 6-8 sentences. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wikidudeman.. Firstly, I'll respond to one critical question at a time and hopefully others can join.

This article is in fairly bad shape. It's quite POV from my (and other editors) prospectives, It contains far too many quotes, It changes from subject to subject, among many other problems.

^I agree with the quotations, which is why a tag is put up until we can sort out a better way to summarize things. But claiming that an article full of research data is pov is stretching it, but that is only my opinion and I'm open to see how. Maybe disputed entires like what Zerida addressed is what you're referring to, instead of giving sweeping criticism. I see why some proposed a split, but these same disputes will go on once you move the disputed content to another article, now that's two article that will attract disputes. The most that I can recommend for no is to keep communicating until consensus is reached.

What is this article about?

Well, since I've been concerned with the article, the format was always AE and race, with emphasis on the data shedding light on it, along with some mainstream and past interpretations.

the article is about Race(in general) and it's relation to Ancient Egypt, opposed to the race of the Ancient Egyptians.

^Race as it concerns ancient Egypt subsumes that question..

Upon reading the actual article it seems to be written more like an Essay than an Encyclopedia and seems to be making arguments for the contention that the Ancient Egyptians were "black" opposed to presenting all of the relevant views in a NPOV manner

The problem with that is that none of the researchers cited make this claim, since "black" is an american social categorization that doesn't have any biological basis. None of the research indicates that they were "white" either, so what neutrality are you referring to when addressing that? The common theme however, is that research/ers suggests an indigenous origin. However that translates into race is immaterial to the validity of race or what is being reported, since no one has made this claim, besides some social interpretations from a few historians like Davidson, etc.. Luka may be able to elaborate on that more than I..

Now, in my view, the article deals with a genuine mainstream, but not necessarily scientific controversy. But scientists who have been directly involved in the controversy and have commented on it, is what makes the topic notable. This is an overview of the data which sheds light on that question, also an examination of the concept of race its self is addressed. To shed light on the question, data is drawn from a variety of sources and interpretations, from Egyptology, to Anthropology, to Archaeology, to linguistics and culture.. Also accompanied by the opinions of a few notable figures who have stated views based on the data. In general, it is simply an article shedding light on a hotly debated and noteworthy topic..Taharqa 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You say that none of the people cited claim that Ancient Egyptians were black? This is incorrect, As just a single example of a sentence that I removed said "As to their origins, Basil Davidson cites evidence that the Egyptians were primarily from the south, then joined by people fleeing the desertification of the Sahara; and as to the color of their skin, the same. Davidson firmly believes that they were "Black people"."

Moreover, Let's just stick with my question. I asked what this article was about. You say that it's about "Ancient Egyptians and race, with emphasis on the data shedding light on it, along with some mainstream and past interpretations.". What does "Ancient Egyptians and race" mean? Is this Article about (as you say) "Race as it concerns Ancient Egypt"? This is a different thing from the "Race of the Ancient Egyptians". An article about race as it concerns ancient Egypt would explain not only about the race of the ancient Egyptians but also perhaps racism in Egypt, various races living in Egypt at the time, etc. So is this article about the Race of the ancient Egyptians or Race in Ancient Egypt? As they are both two seperate things. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no contradiction as I've already mentioned Davidson and said that Luka should be able to elaborate on that.. I'm sure he'll show up soon to join discussion. I'm not sure who exactly expressed racism towards ancient Egypt in those contemporary times or modern, but I'm sure it's notable. Other than that, it is pretty safe to say that it is about ancient Egypt in the light of race (modern concept that may be defunct). The name of this article has been changed many times.. From "population history of ancient egypt", to "appearance of the ancient egyptians", to "ancient egypt and race" (controversies), from who knows what else. But the format has always generally been the same other than the prior split..Taharqa 18:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You stated that none of the academics cited in the article claim that Ancient Egyptians were "black" when, as I've proven, Davidson clearly does.

Also, I still don't know what you're saying that this article is about. You say it's about "ancient Egypt in the light of race"? What does this mean? Please explain. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, the article is about the race of the ancient Egyptians. I think it is what Taharqa means when he says "Race as it concerns Ancient Egyptians". This is a big issue since the beginning of Egyptology. I don't know if you have studied Egyptology. Even Jean-Francois Champollion, the father of Egyptology, has to deal with it in the book I quoted before. The reason is simple: White Europeans were enslaving Black Africans and were planning to colonise what is known as Black Africa. It became evident that it will be difficult to say that the people who were going to be "civilised" are the very one who are at the start of the civilisation. Egypt had to be cut off from the rest of Africa. Hegel already gave the lead: "Egypt is not part of Africa and Africa does not belong to History". Champollion, without mentionning Hegel, responded that the beginning of Egypt is to be found in Soudan and Ethiopia. He gave many reasons to sustain his views. Today, there are people who are attempting to make Egyptian being a race in itself: "Egyptian are neither Whites nor Blacks, but Egyptians". The article is trying to report about this issue quoting relevant scholars. The article can and must be improved, but not anyhow! Is your question innocent, or do you have a hidden agenda? Excuse me, Wikidudeman, for asking you this. It is because I saw that you were already editing the article. You could have made your question weeks ago.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 19:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So the article is about the race(s) of the Ancient-Egyptians? Ok, Then that is how the article must be written and framed. The article should be renamed to "Race of Ancient Egyptians" or something such as that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the article has been changed so many times, as indicated. But I'm not the one to stand in the way of consensus, so let's wait for some more comments. An admin actually just changed the name like a week ago..Taharqa 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it should not be changed. The article includes discussions of modern racial perceptions, mostly in the West, and how they are projected onto the people of antiquity. Since the article will inevitably always include such discussions, the current title is more appropriate. Otherwise, the entire direction of the article will need change along with the title, which entails removing a lot of its content. — Zerida 20:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

At the moment we should focus on improving the content rather than cosmetic name changes. This is where most of the controversy in the article stands. What really seems to be the controversy is what race were the egyptians when the egyptian civilization first began. It is not controversial that at some stage, immigrants from the north came and assimilated into egypt, thus we have the modern egyptians of today who speak Arabic. Maybe if we can focus on when and how this transformation took place, we can have a decent structure of an article. Muntuwandi 20:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows that any "transformation" happened back before the Egyptian Civilization began, or maybe when it was beginning. All the reliable sources say that. This article is really about black groups using Ancient Egypt for political reasons. That's why you have books like "African Americans Searching for an Ancient Past". If this wasn't being raised now, the "debate" would be dead like the 19th century old Europeans who started it because they mixed their racial obsessions with the history and science. This is what these black groups are doing now. Egyegy 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that the transformation took place before the civilization began. But this should be a starting point in how we frame the article. We can state that some scholars including some afrocentrists believe the transformation took place recently towards the end of the Egyptian civilization, and throughout egypt remained primarily a black african civilization. Others believe the transformation took place much earlier even before the civilization began. Muntuwandi 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The first step for improving the article is giving it a proper name. User:Zerida states that this article includes "modern racial perceptions" and their relations to Ancient Egypt. This doesn't mean that the title "Race of Ancient Egyptians" would be inappropriate since such info could fit into an article with that name just as well. Currently this article's name is not appropriate considering it's topic. Let's not get into debates on the facts here but rather stick to one single subject at a time and right now it's the name of the article. This articles topic (as everyone agrees) is the Race of the Ancient Egyptians. As such this article should be named accordingly, I.E. it should be named "Race of Ancient Egyptians" or something very similar. The fact that such an article would contain information on how modern Caucasians might have projected their perceptions onto antiquity doesn't mean such a name wouldn't be fitting. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has changed names at least 7 times. I propose clearly delineated arguments, one an black or Afrocentric argument. On the other side a counter argument, call it mainstream, eurocentric or non-afrocentric. I think this will help in avoiding edit wars if we all agree to not delete cited information. If someone disagrees with the afrocentric model they can simply post to the non-afrocentric model. Muntuwandi 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

^^I honestly see that as a bad idea since it gives undue weight to "afrocentrism".. One thing that we must understand here is just because someone label's a position in which they disagree, as "afrocentric", doesn't make it so. That is original research and it shouldn't be claimed unless the writer is a noted afrocentrist. In which case, the entire page would have to accomodate a whole new list of noted afrocentric authors who are not notable and should be on the appropriate article dealing with afrocentrism..Taharqa 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, people who write books like "African Americans in search of a past", are clearly politically motivated non-scientists. Which is why books like those are often full of hyperbole and straw man arguments, accompanied by rash generalizations and even factual errors from non-specialists misinterpreting data in order to prove their case. People supposedly "searching" for a past has nothing whatsoever to do with the data; that is a eurocentric fallacy and also racist due to the implication of such a title. Africanist historians (not some obscure Jewish historian) probably see it as a spit in the face to their work. Charges of Eurocentrism actually is what leads to such vicious attacks on this kind of dogma, with the works of Basil Davidson, or Richard Poe. Also, there was "no transformation" before "egyptian civilization", we have been over this and contrary to what the wiki editor Egyegy, the Dynastic race theory, which proposed a "transformation" before the dynastic period has fallen out of favor and both archaeologists and anthropologists in general report cultural and biological continuity between the predynastic and dynastic. This continuity on both sides just happens to represent an African context. Yes, Egypt shared close relations with other regions other than its self.. This is a false consensus along with a red herring brought fourth by Egyegy, and we've already discussed it so who are we going to listen to anyways, Yurco (who says that since Badari times there was a mix of north african and sub-saharan elements that typified egypt ever since), Keita (who reports a predominate southern presence in upper Egypt that extends into the dynastic, with evidence of them penetrating the north, although change occurred) and Zakrzewski(who found the same thing as Keita, but that the Badarians clustered with tropical africans and later Egyptians, and that they all had tropical body plans, respectively which lasted through out the dynastic), or a wiki editor?Taharqa 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Basil Davidson

Wikidudeman, Basil Davidson is a great and respected historian. He wrote extensively on Africa. Egypt is an African civilisation. It is not an exception as Hawass thinks. Davidson studied Egypt as any African civilisation. You are refusing to accept his views. That's your problem. But the man is a great historian. He is expressing views already expressed by Jean-Francois Champollion, the father of Egyptology, in his book Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens: "Egypt beginnings are in the south". Besides, I can give a long list of authors refuting the african ethnicity of the Egyptians and another long list of authors saying that Egyptians are indigenous Africans (a euphemism for Blacks). There are not even Mediterranean people. This will go against their mythology because they considered the sea as belonging to Seth while they belonged to Osiris and Isis who are Nubian gods. Here again the video made by Basil Davidson Kemet - Black Civilization. Please, follow carefully this video. Egypt did not erupt by chance. It has a long history behind it. Basil Davidson helps understand that. Surely he has his place in the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for elaborating Luka..Taharqa 20:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Basil Davidson is not more reliable than someone like Hawass. Davidson has no credentials in studying Egypt. He is not an Egyptologist. He has no long history studying Egypt or it's history. He's simply an author who has written about Africa. To say that his views are on par with those of Hawass is very wrong, not to mention trumping them. TO cite him over or even alongside someone like Hawass would be a clear violation of WP:Fringe. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

^^You need to stop throwing that "fringe" word around at every turn, especially against authors of whom you obviously do not know. Basil Davidson is a highly esteemed British historian whose works are required reading in British public schools, along with his videos. He is no where near a fringe theorist and is just as reliable as anyone else, especially given his long standing credentials..Taharqa 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

protected again

Let us try to resolve the disputes so we can avoid this protection business. I propose having a for and against sections for fairness. One section should be for black egypt and another section with counter views. In this way we will not go around removing each others edits. As long as the citations are reliably sourced and relevant to the article, we shouldn't remove edits.Muntuwandi 22:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Firstly, Giving equal weight to the contention that Egyptians were "black" would be in violation of WP:Weight. Secondly, segregating them into separate sections in this sort of article would be unrealistic and would cause it to be unreadable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

it is not giving weight to an argument. Simply reorganizing some of the material so that the arguments for and against are clearly articulated. Then readers can decide for themselves which argument they feel has credibility. What is happening now is that when some adds some material, immediately afterwards a counter argument is added. This haphazardness results in the article being disorganized and contributes to edit wars. If we clearly state that this section of the article presents a "black" argument, and this section presents a "non black" argument, then there will be less controversy. Muntuwandi 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this article (as it stands) gives extensive undue weight to fringe beliefs opposed to the beliefs of most of the experts. This article is extremely inflated with fringe views and all of the actual scientific evidence or historical evidence clarifying the race of the ancient Egyptians is totally missing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion was completely ludacris. Making a main section for "black egypt", and then "counter views" in another section, as if black egypt is actually a scientifically correct theory in neutral terms. As Wikidudeman states, there is a total lack and need of the right references and real historic and scientific evidence. I tried to add some of it, but it got deleted by some afrocentric editor, that clearly violated the 3rr rule, the WP:Words to avoid rule and some parts of WP:Point in his aggressive and vandalistic way to keep reverting my edits without proper argumentation, then add his own original research and afrocentric POV. This articles main problem is the disruptive editing by afrocentric borderline-vandalists, which has caused the article to be protected god-knows-how-many-times, which they, on the contrary, have abused and exploited tactically, so that the article would remain vandalized with their invoked POV due to protection caused by them. Another manipulation is the accusation of others breaking the 3rr rule, while breaking it in notorious capacities themselves. I cannot believe editors like User:Taharqa havent been blocked ages ago. SenseOnes 05:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a total lack of such evidence, then how come we have an article. Muntuwandi 03:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's been warred over nonstop by afrocentrics? Egyegy 04:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the content meets the standard of verifiability and WP:RS. Muntuwandi 04:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifiabillity is not the main problem. Sources that support afrocentric views are being cited (or afrocentric parts of exact sources are being quoted) rather then eurocentric views. There are tons of original research, uncited text and generalizations and violations of WP:Words to avoid (like: "Stormfront is a racist, neo-nazi community", "No respectable person supports the view that the ancient egyptians were partly white" etc), and the same editors keep violating WP:3rr. The article is clearly biased, and only a person trying to invoke a specific POV would deny it. SenseOnes 04:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I advocate clearly dilineating the arguments. This is actually beneficial to those editors who feel the article is too afrocentric. By doing so, such edits would have an established section dedicated to countering Afrocentric views. But if the Afrocentric views meet RS, then they shouldn't be removed. This is why I had initially suggested adding the term "controversy" to the title. To let everyone know that there are divergent philosophies on the racial nature of the Egyptians. Muntuwandi 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Even a theoretical afrocentric section has to follow the rules. SenseOnes 06:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Stormfront is an extremist and questionable source, with no assertion of any scholarship, and the very existance of their views being expressed in this article is a clear violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Reguardless of whether or not they are a neo-nazi website, they are not experts on race or ancient Egypt. I suggest the entire section be outright removed. Yahel Guhan 01:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So we shouldn't mention the views at all regardless of their relevancy? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Scholarship and (to some extent) notability are of equal, if not greater importance than relevance. Not all relevant views are notable or scholarly, and don't necessarily belong on wikipedia, especially if the particular view is not scholarly. Extremist and questionable sources shouldn't be used at all per WP:V. Yahel Guhan 02:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design isn't scholarly. Should that entire article be deleted? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. It is a FA, it is highly notable, and there are plenty of scholarly academic views on the topic. Yahel Guhan 02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, There are plenty of Scholarly and academic views "about" Intelligent Design but they don't support the idea that Intelligent Design is legitimate. There are also plenty of academic views on the idea that Egypt was a "Nordic empire" however those scholarly views don't actually support the contention. So if I can find scholarly views discussing the idea that Ancient Egyptians were "white", can it be used in the article? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

sure. But stormfront isn't scholarly, so for now, I am removing it. Yahel Guhan 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of Article (Please discuss until settled)

(Copied mostly from above) The first step for improving the article is giving it a proper name. User:Zerida states that this article includes "modern racial perceptions" and their relations to Ancient Egypt. This doesn't mean that the title "Race of Ancient Egyptians" would be inappropriate since such info could fit into an article with that name just as well. Currently this article's name is not appropriate considering it's topic. Let's not get into debates on the facts here but rather stick to one single subject at a time and right now it's the name of the article. This articles topic (as everyone agrees) is the Race of the Ancient Egyptians. As such this article should be named accordingly, I.E. it should be named "Race of Ancient Egyptians" or something very similar. The fact that such an article would contain information on how modern Caucasians might have projected their perceptions onto antiquity doesn't mean such a name wouldn't be fitting. Please add input so that we can settle this prior to moving onto other issues. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The name at the moment is of minor importance. I am more concerned about the content which is leading to frequent edit wars and frequent protection of the article. This is the most important issue. Muntuwandi 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We must start somewhere and this is where I think we need to start. Many of the disputes stem from misunderstanding what this article is actually even about and thus it's name is very important. It should be renamed to Race of Ancient Egyptians to better reflect it's actual topic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The current name of the article:Race and ancient Egypt technically means the article is about Race( in general) and it's relation to Ancient Egypt (a totally unrelated subject), While the title Race of Ancient Egyptians specifies that the article is about the race OF the ancient Egyptians. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no matter whether race is simply a western or eurocentric concept, or an actual biochemical/genetic phenomenom (which was discussed somewhere on this talk page), the article is about the race of the ancient Egypt(ians), so naturally it should be named Race of Ancient Egyptians RATHER than Race "and" ancient egypt, its not like those two subjects are fundamentally related. SenseOnes 04:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We need to get consensus on this prior to moving forward with other disputed aspects of this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the article is just fine. Why change it to Race of Ancient Egyptians? Since the "RACE" has changed over time. As there were many occupations that changed the "race" of the people by interbreeding, etc. African, Roman, Greek, Arabs, etc. There is no one race of ancient peoples. Some are Nubians, Ethiopian, etc., or are mixed, some are Arabs and mixed. Some believe ancient Egyptians are a distinct race. Some believe they are from outerspace! There is a modern debate on who where the ancient Egyptians. Also the Afrocentric views are now surfacing. One or the other does not mean the other did not exist. The article was named before as "Race and ancient Egyptian controversies", or something similar, before it was moved here. So now another name is introduced. Why not go back to the controversy, as there are such controversies over the race of ancient Egyptians, as evident on this talk page. The subject is controversial, and is prone to edit wars, and editors wanting yet again change the name of the article. sigh How many times are we going to go through this? A name change is not going to stop the edit wars, as it's been tried numerous times before. Jeeny 04:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What you are discussing there are exactly the questions the article should deal with, which is why the name should be Race of Ancient Egyptians. SenseOnes 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The population of Egypt has changed over time. The Race of the ANCIENT Egyptians is what it was. Since it's a historical aspect, the topic of this article isn't the Race of Egyptians today. The TOPIC of this article is the Race OF the Ancient Egyptians. That means that the article discusses the race that the Ancient egyptians were. Thus, As SensesOne and I have said, The name needs to be Race of Ancient Egyptians. That's the topic of this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Solutions to reach consensus

Nothing is happening at the moment, and it wont be long before its October the 2nd. One suggestion was to split the article up, one section with afrocentric-based research, and one with all opposition to that. I am generally opposed to that idea, and would rather that we made the article more NPOV in general, and cited the relevant sources with the one requirement of the cited sources being based on respectable, reliable and acknowledged egyptologists research, and in cases of controversial theories simply presenting the evidence in its own category (example: nordic egypt) even if the advocates of it are controversial. If everyone are against this, I am willing to help with the other idea that was proposed anyway. If anyone has other (perhaps better) suggestions please post them so we can find out where to go from here. SenseOnes 08:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. One of the main problems is that the major contributors of this article seem not to be contributing to the discussions. I hope they aren't waiting for the protection to be released so they can continue edit warring again. I might have to get the page protected for a week or so longer until we can start discussing things again. Unprotecting it tomorrow and allowing the edit warrs to continue wouldn't make any sense. We've accomplished nothing since it's protection as most of the editors have not been discussing it. We need to start with agreeing on the name of the article. We've already agreed on the topic and now the name needs to be decided. Then we need to start working on the article in general from top to bottom, basically initially getting consensus on how it's layout will be. A total rewrite is in order IMO and the only way that can succeed is if we all work together on it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me mention that I would not be opposed to having various sections explaining various hypothesis or ideas about the race of the Ancient Egyptians. One on "Nordic" egypt, One on "Black" egypt, Etc, Etc. As long as they follow WP:WEIGHT and are offered in a context of NPOV. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Muntuwandi to divide the sections of the article in Black Egypt and non-Black Egypt (White and Yellow and "Egyptian"). In that way, there will be less problems.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well let's settle on a pagename before we get ahead of ourselves. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I say Race of Ancient Egyptians like you proposed, for a more specific title. The current title is too unspecific and only creates more confusion. SenseOnes 14:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This title: Race of Ancient Egyptians is short and clear. We can take it. And regarding the presentation of the article, I side with Muntuwandi.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a consensus on the title to me. Let's move on to the next area of discussion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Format of article

This is where each major contributor ( or anyone interested) can describe how they want the article to be formatted. I will give an example of how I think it should be formatted and each other editor should do it the same way(in explanation). Here is how I think it should be formatted.

Wikidudemans proposed format

Intro

Brief discussion of "Race" and how it could be applied to Ancient Egyptians

Elaboration on the Scientific consensus views of Egyptologists and Geneticists.

Elaboration on other views including Afrocentric views and White Supremacist views.

---

Comments on my version go here:

I think this is by far the simplest version. With a number of subsections like the last part states, for various controversies and views (nordic egypt, nubian egypt, and so on) it would without a doubt represent the most simple way to make this article NPOV and yet cover the needed subjects. I suggest other editors take a look at it and compare it with the other proposals, and consider which version is the most effective. SenseOnes 09:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Each editor should describe your ideal format in the say way I described mine. Put ===Your name=== and then precede to include how the basic sections should be formated. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

===Your name===

Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

According to me and following the point of view of Muntuwandi, we can still keep the plan of the article as it is, but subdividing it in a new way.

Defining race

Origins (Genetics and Anthropology)

• African origin
• Non-African origin

Kmt

• Black County, Black people
• Black land, Egyptians

Accounts by ancient writers

• Egyptians were Blacks
• Egyptians were non-Blacks

Mummy reconstructions

• Black mummies
• Non-Black mummies

Modern travelers and the Great Sphinx of Giza

• The sphinx represents a Black king
• Other theories

Controversies

• Alleged whitening
• Dynastic race theory and Nordic Egypt

--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Where is the intro?

2. Why discuss origins? Also, Who's origins? Humans? How is this relevant?

3. What does Kmt stand for?

4. Why can't accounts by ancient writers be merged with the specific sections for instance into Afrocentricism?

5.Why have a separate section for Mummy reconstructions? Why can't this be discussed in the same section on current scientific consensus?

6. Why should the Sphinx "representing a black king" have it's own section? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, maybe you never studied Egyptology. Have you ever read Jean-François Champollion? The controversy about the race of Egyptians is a controversy about their origins. This is clearly expressed in the conclusion of the book Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens of Champollion. Did the Egyptian followed the Nile from north to south or did they follow it from south to north? Champollion himself quoted Diodorus Siculus, an ancient writer. It has nothing to do with Afrocentrism. The non-African ancient writers will be quoted as did Champollion, the father of Egyptology, because they lived side by side with the Egyptians and they spoke about the color of their skin and about their cultural traditions. Kmt is important because according to some Egyptologists, in it, the Egyptians gave a self-definition. They said what they were. For fear or for other unknown reason, other Egyptologists avoid carefully a literal translation of the word. There is a literature about that. It will be used. The sphinx has always been an important piece of art in Egyptian History. Not only because it is very ancient, it belongs to the old Kingdom, but also because it attracted the curiosity of travelers as well as Egyptologists. There is an important literature about it. Yes, the mummy reconstructions can join the scientific section. The introduction? There is no problem about that. There will be one. Don't worry! I really hope, Wikidudeman, that you know a bit of Egyptology and of its history.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So the "Origin" part means the origins of Ancient Egyptians? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right!

Muntuwandi

• Brief intro of controversy
• Very brief discussion on modern theories of race and how it relates to both modern and ancient egypt

Origins

• Scientific facts on origins, and population historical facts
• Black or Afrocentric interpretation on origin
• Non-Afrocentric interpretation on origin

Skin color

• Summary of egyptian portrayals of skin color
• Black or Afrocentric interpretation of skin color
• Non-Afrocentric interpretation of skin color

Language

• Black interpretation, afro-asiatic, kmt etc
• Non-black interpretation

Crania

• Black interpretation
• Non-black interpretation

Genetics

• Black interpretation
• Non black interpretation

Mummy reconstructions

• Black interpretation
• Non black interpretation, hawass etc

The great sphinx

• Black interpretation
• Non black interpretation

Allegations of Racial bias in Egyptology

Other theories.

I would like to see separate subsections for each argument, In that way if anyone wishing to add information can do so under the appropriate heading. This will avoid the situation where editors try to make counter edits immediately at the end of someone else's statement. this results in an incoherent article. We can therefore give both sides an opportunity to express their views. Muntuwandi 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which should be given more weight? The contention that Egyptians were "Black" or the contention that they were not? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A neutral position should be taken. If we give weight to a black egypt, edit wars will arise. If we give weight to a non-black egypt, edit wars will arise too. Muntuwandi 02:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just popping my head in at this point, but "brief" as per the discussion on modern theories of race is unrealistic. Bearing in mind the nature of Wikipedia we should not attempt to be brief, particularly in an effort to "tone down" or "gloss over" parts of an article. However the lead itself should be succinct, and an outline of what is to come in the article. Pedro :  Chat  07:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We can take the plan proposed by Muntuwandi. Then, we will rearrange the existing material accordingly.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should the contention that Egyptians were "black" be given as much weight as the contention that they were not? Are both views equal in the eyes of experts? Is the scientific and historical consensus that both beliefs are equal? If not then giving them equal weight would violate WP:WEIGHT. So which view enjoys more support among scientists and historians? The idea that Ancient Egyptians were black or that they were not black? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If we follow the plan proposed by Muntuwandi, the question of weight is useless. We will only have to report what experts said about the subject, respecting the different subsections. But if you insist, Wikidudeman, about weight, I will have to say this: the idea that the Egyptians were Blacks must have more weight. First, because the father of Egyptology, Jean-Francois Champollion, favoured this hypothesis. In its Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens published in 1828 [New edition Elibron Classics], he said (the translation is mine): "He (the historian) has indeed to ask himself if the civilisation of Thebes went upwards following the Nile, the population which forms the Egyptian nation coming from Asia, or if that civilisation, coming from the south and going donwards following the sacred river, did not establish itself first in Nubia, then in the region south of Thebaid, and if, going bit by bit towards the north, it did not finaly, helped by the efforts of the river, push back the water of the sea, and conquer for agriculture the plain next to Asia. With this new hypothesis, the Egyptians will appear to be a race peculiar to Africa, peculiar to this old part of the world which shows everywhere signs of fatigue. / The physical constitution, the customs, the uses and the social organisation of the Egyptians, had, in the past, only weak analogies with the natural and political state of the people of West Asia, their closest neigbhors. Finaly, the Egyptian language had nothing in common, in its constitution, with Asian languages (...). From these two facts one can conclude in favor of the second hypothesis, the African origin of the ancient Egyptians. Indeed, everything seems to show us that the Egyptians constitute a population totally alien to the Asian continent (...). It is on a high point, in a country not covered entirely by flooding that was the first establishment of the Egyptians; and in that perspective Nubia , or better Ethiopia, were the advantadged regions" (pp. 455-457). Concerning the Egyptian language, the Grammarian Alan Gardiner proved Champollion right when he wrote: "Egyptian differs from all the Semitic tongues a good deal more than any one of them differs from any other, and at least until its relationship to the African languages is more closely defined, Egyptian must certainly be classified as standing outside the Semitic group" (Egyptian grammar, Oxford, Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 2001 [third edition], p. 3). One of the most recent synthesis regarding this issue of the origins of the Egyptians can be found in Bernard Nantet, Dictionnaire de l'Afrique, Histoire, Civilisation, Actualité, Paris, Larousse, 2006. In the entry Egypt, one can read (the translation is mine): "The history of ancient Egypt, in particular predynastic, was, from the years 1950, subject to a great debate. Thought to be essentially from the Middle-East, if not from the Mediterranean region, the Egyptian civilisation has clearly shown its Southen African origins" (p. 104).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't where we argue about whether Ancient Egyptians were "black" or not. We're talking about weight right now. Jean-François Champollion did his work right when Egyptology was just starting in the early 19th century. Are you really going to say that the views he held 200 years ago are relevant to todays scientific and historical consensus? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you did not read well my argument. Those who like Erman, Maspero and Breasted contradicted Champollion on the issue of the origins of the ancient Egyptians are now found wrong. I quoted Gardiner (2001) and Nantet (2006). The later adds: "research in climatology and archeological findings made in Soudan and in the rest of the continent have shown the identity and the continuity between the Sahara and the beginning of pastoralism in the Nile valley (...). In this region, kingdoms linked to Egypt by common references began to separate from each other due to the progress of the desertification cataract after cataract (Kerma, Napata, Meroe)" (p. 105). Don't you see, that Champollion (you like refering to Egyptology. And Champollion is actually the father of Egyptology!) is proven right? Besides, Egypt has always looked black up ot the 19th century. In such a way that the view that Egyptians were not Blacks is suspected by Egyptologists like Lam of being a falsification. Basil Davidson, you dislike, thinks likewise. From Antiquity (Greece, the Biblical world) up to the time of the 19th century, Egyptians were just Blacks. We have to question the reason why the have been whitened. I have an amount of literature about that. Damiano Maurizio-Appia, an Italian Egyptologist said that this happened because of a racist mentality which flourished in Egyptology through the works of Egyptologists of Anglo-Saxon orientation who thought that any significant civilisation in the world must have been a creation of the White race (please read Egitto e Nubia). No facts to sustain this view of White Egypt. It is an empty claim. Only ideology and philosophy. As Muntuwandi stated, there is no need of giving more weight to one or another of the tradition, but to report in a neutral way all of them. But, if you want to give more weight to one of them, you will find yourself forced, if you respect facts, to give priority or more weight to Black Egypt. It is the most enduring tradition. Once more, I agree with the plan proposed by Muntuwandi. All the arguments surrounding the race of the ancient Egyptians can easily fit there.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:WEIGHT the article must be presented in accordance to the scientific and historical consensus. This means that one view is supported by a majority of the scientific and historical community then that view gets more support and space in the article. If you advocate presenting both the idea that Egyptians were "black" and the idea that they were "not black" then must we also give equal weight to the idea that the Egyptians were "Nordics"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The people indigenous to Africa being Black (Champollion speaks of a race peculiar to Africa), the Nordic is in the non-Black. Actually, this non-Black can be divided in White, Yellow or mix of races! I have no problem with that. The most important thing for me is a clear division of subsections. Muntuwandi advocates for that and with reason.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it might sound absurd to say that Egyptians were "Nordic" however if you advocate equal weight to all views then that view must also be given equal weight. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of weighting, the main argument centers on two hypothesis, one is that the ancient egyptians would have been like modern egyptians, a heterogeneous population showing traits that are intermediate between sub-saharan africans and Asiatics. The other argument is that they were black. The nordic theory does not have much scientific support. Muntuwandi 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So the only alternatives are that Ancient Egyptians are the same as Egyptians are today or they were "black"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are the main arguments. Though Hawass did say that the ancient egyptians were not black and they were not arabs. According to him they were a completely separate race. Muntuwandi 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone here is confusing the issue, and by zoning in on Egypt's blackness is only a set up for people to yell fringe. Of course the assertion that Egyptians were Nordic is absolutely a fringe theory since there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate it and it has never been proposed by any credible scholars, nor is it a controversial issue. Linguistically the Egyptians share no language with the Nordics, no customs, no geography, no genes, no nothing. To the contrary, all of this they have in common with groups often referred to as "black africans".. The reason why it is a red herring and totally useless to try and present an argument in case for a "black" egypt is the same reason why it is useless to do the same for a "white" one. Because "race" its self is fringe and Egypt is one of the most protected from categorization. What is important is that the AE were indigenous to Africa and continuity is found through out the dynastic from the predynastic.. The question of "Black and White" is merely a social debate, as Yurco points out. What's important is that Yurco also notes that the closest ethnically to the Egyptians were Nubians, and Nubians are labeled "black" by many social standards.. Or that Keita finds early Egyptians to be most similar to Nubian samples, and Zakrzewski states that Egyptians were adapted to the tropics as indicated by what Robins called a "super-negroid" body plan, which we most commonly see with east Africans like Nilotics and Somalis.. Or even Ehret who uses culture and linguistics to trace Egyptian origins in the south, postulated from the ancients speaking an african language which emerged in more southernly regions, with no semitic loan words (since semitic is younger anyways), yet Nilo Saharan loan words. No need to revise into a "black and white" argument, just report accurate, non-contradictory (unless notable) data..Taharqa 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that when we're discussing an aspect of how the article should be formatted everyone attempts to try to continue making a long argument for the "blackness" of Ancient Egyptians? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"blackness" of Ancient Egyptians?

^Obviously everything that I wrote went completely over your head.. Taharqa 19:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's due to the fact that you seem to be shifting back and forth as far as your standpoints. In one sentence you say that it makes no sense to say Ancient Egyptians were "black" and in the next you reference people who called them "super-negroids", whatever that even means. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is merely due to your misunderstanding of both the data and my position. It is no less inaccurate to referr to Nigerians as "black", since it is just a color. Robins terminology in describing Egyptian limb proportions as "super-negroid", is more correctly termed "tropical african", or "elongated". Zakrzewski calls it a "tropical body plan", as does Keita.. Robins' study is a bit older, where the terminology was dfferent, yet her results were confirmed later. Race within its self is obsolete, but biological relationships or regional characteristics that can inferred from biological data is always helpful, which is the point..Taharqa 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa

• Intro

Describes content or background of the topic being discussed. I feel the current into is appropriate, probably can be condensed a bit.

• Define race

^Self-explanatory

• Origins

Highly relevant, so this is to cover the dominant hypotheses as to the origins of the ancient egyptians, and the evidence involved..

One sub-section of physical remains or genetics, another on material culture

• Demographics

What influences from outside effected the population structure, or was influence minimal? To what extend did they do this, what biological history do Egyptians share with other groups?

• Skeletal data

• Crania

Cranial studies, their methodologies and flaws. We need to cover the results and the implications..

• Body Plans

Same as crania.. Describe their importance in population biology, cover results, relationships, and implications.

• Language

Along the lines of culture, but different. Describe their importance in tracing population movements, the common interpretations, origins of the ancient Egyptian language, related groups who speak similar languages, its implications.

• Diop's melanin test

^Merely because it's the only one to have been performed, where results were reported. Discuss flaws, criticism, methodology, implications.

• Accounts by ancient writers

Lay out various accounts and their interpretations upon seeing them, modern interpretation, and anthropological view on the effectiveness of associating ancient accounts with concepts of "race" or "ethnicity"..

Everything else seems fine to me.. The Sphinx can follow a similar format to ancient writers, discarded hypotheses is self-explanatory, and so is the tut and controversy section..Taharqa 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would we include an entire section to a non-egyptologist's views? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Diop WAS actually trained in both Egyptology and Anthropology, accusations aside.Taharqa 19:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that make him an Egyptologist? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he received his PHD in egyptological studies at the University of Paris...Taharqa 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been unable to find a source for that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

http://dubois-paris2006.fas.harvard.edu/biographies.html#CADTaharqa 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That says he "studied" Egytpology, Not that that he received a PHD in Egyptology. By profession he's not an egyptologist and simply studying egyptology in college doesn't make him an expert or even a reliable source on it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd stop selective reading you'd see that he is explicitly referred to as an Egyptologist in the very first sentence and his doctoral dissertation concerned Egyptology under the premise that Egypt was an African civilization.[1]Taharqa 00:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a different link from what you initially posted. However the fact that he did his dissertation on the idea that Ancient Egyptians were black (which was originally rejected) doesn't make him an Egyptologist. How many peer Reviewed studies has he published concerning Egyptology? How many exhibitions has he lead that have lead to new discoveries? Simply studying Egyptology in college and doing a dissertation on an aspect of Egypt doesn't make someone a reliable resource on Egyptology. I know many people who have studied Egyptology in college but I wouldn't call any of them reliable resources on Egyptology to be used as sources for an encyclopedia! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote: That's a different link from what you initially posted.

• Red herring.. They both contain biographical information and the initial link explicitly refers to him as an Egyptologist, which you directly disputed.

Quote: However the fact that he did his dissertation on the idea that Ancient Egyptians were black (which was originally rejected) doesn't make him an Egyptologist.

• The fact that he did his dissertation on the premise that AE society was "black", which he refined and ultimately got accepted, has nothing to do with the Harvard source that I've provided which explicitly refers to him as an Egyptologist in the very first sentence.

Quote: How many peer Reviewed studies has he published concerning Egyptology?

Many.. Which is why he is so widely criticized and widely praised..

Quote: How many exhibitions has he lead that have lead to new discoveries?

• Irrelevant

Quote: Simply studying Egyptology in college and doing a dissertation on an aspect of Egypt doesn't make someone a reliable resource on Egyptology. I know many people who have studied Egyptology in college but I wouldn't call any of them reliable resources on Egyptology to be used as sources for an encyclopedia!

As noted, you seem to make a habit out of grasping at straws.. As the leading proponent behind the views that kick-started the controversy, Diop is beyond notable and as indicated by the sources in which you apparently did not read, he appears to have been what you seem to personally dispute.Taharqa 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, your entire argument is fallacious as it is based on an ad hominem attack that you're not even able to substantiate.Taharqa 01:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get an idea of his credibility as a source. Could you provide some links to the published peer reviewed studies that he has done concerning Egyptology specifically? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He has written numerous works dealing with Egyptology as it is the foundation of his research.. As far as you requesting that I hunt down as many research papers as I can concerning his work is both arbitrary and unnecessary. Mainly, because he isn't used in the context of a reference source, but for notability of a study that need not be suppressed, especially one performed by an extremely notable figure. To balance that, one only needs to produce criticism, which I've done already, summarizing the review by Dr. Froment, who considered the technique to be ancient among anthropologists and that Diop should have used electron miscroscopy.Taharqa 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

unprotection

the protection is expiring tonight so we need to work on a consensus for the format of the article, otherwise it will quickly be protected again. Muntuwandi 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing will be resolved by tonight. It will take a few weeks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is already unprotected..Taharqa 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is unprotected. Well at the least we should make some progress on the format. Muntuwandi 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Race of the Ancient Egyptians". Muntuwandi 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

According to me, we can begin rearranging the article following the plan done by Muntuwandi. But we have to replace Black by African as Taharqa put it. We can write the article in a more neutral way. Not only Afrocentrists speak about the Egyptians being indigenous. In fact the best Egyptologists from Champollion agree with the ancient Writers that the Egyptians were Africans coming from the south. The dictionary of African civilisations of Bernard Nantet (2006) states the same thing: the Egyptians are Africans. Separating things according to schools will help avoiding conflicts. Wikidudeman can contribute where he wants with sound arguments. It is time to work positively. The new title is good. We agreed on that already.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Afrocentrists actually do claim that Ancient Egyptians were "Black", not simply African. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

They have a right to do so as "black" is a subjective term denoting skin color, which has relative meaning and is of little use to science and geography.Taharqa 00:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Black" is an ambiguous term. I agree however that the article needs to say what some afrocentricists say about them and thus mention it, however as long as it's in a NPOV manner not written like an essay as it seems to be now. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Which would inevitably lead to the next step. Which is to discuss concerns with the format or arrangement of content, which I see has actually already been taken into consideration..Taharqa 00:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Many ancient egyptians would probably be classified as black by today's standard. Muntuwandi 01:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Many modern Egyptians (northern or southern) would be classified as black by today's Western standards. That does not actually make Egyptians in general "black". In addition, ancient Egyptians would not have described themselves as black unless they clearly physically/phenotypically looked black, as explained by Yurco in the message I posted a few days ago. — Zerida 02:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hawass says Egyptians were not black or Arab. Muntuwandi 03:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of this spoof? Anyway, it doesn't changes what he actually said. Egyegy 04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Black" is a subjective term that has no phenotypical description other than dark pigment, nor did this concept apply to anyone in Africa in classical times, so it is useless to argue over it. Egyptians don't have to classify themselves by modern standards since they were not modern. Yurco also very well knows about the phenotypical variation in Africa and by all indications, doesn't subscribe to notions of "black and white", as is indicated by his reference material.[2]Taharqa 05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

ramses

I was concerned about the citation, since I could not read anywhere what Zerida had quoted. Muntuwandi 04:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you need to access the study to read it. The full citation, which, like most citations in the article, is available under the Bibliography section, is Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson (1993). Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31. — Zerida 04:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You need a subscription to read the article. In any case this is about an incident that occurred in the US recently. It has little bearing on the race of the ancient egyptians. There have been several protests by african american groups whenever there is an egypt exhibition. Must we list them all. Muntuwandi 04:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The study is mentioned several times throughout the article. Every anthropological study in the article requires access. And it's certainly far more relevant than the 19th century travelogues. — Zerida 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Inproper to use subscription only sites for citations. Also I belive you are trying to make a point adding this information. Not nice. Jeeny 04:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already addressed why this violates WP:Point.. We've been over this and Zerida is aware that such things were agreed to be left out until a consensus is reached on how to contextualize varied political views, if notable. Plus, putting comments from a Ramses exhibit in a king tut section exposes what I am alluding to.. Taharqa 05:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather amusing to describe it as such when it is from a notable anthropological study and quite relevant to the topic. After all, Hawass is quoted making a similar statement. It's also not correct, since this is the version to which we both agreed [3]. This should have never gotten caught up in that last dispute. — Zerida 05:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We can create a section that has modern egyptian views of the Ancient egyptians. Muntuwandi 05:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that part used to be in the section "Modern Egypian reaction". We can restore that, though I don't know how much detail you'd like. This part is particularly relevant because it's from one of the anthropological studies cited in the article. — Zerida 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

10 years from now the ramses exhibit fiasco will be forgotten news. But what I do feel is important is some mention of what modern egyptians feel about this controversy. Also what modern black egyptians think as well. Muntuwandi 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what was disputed in the first place.. But I'd assume that an academic view, Egyptian view, and Africanist view would be notable, even though it is all socio-political baggage anyways and merely springs from a difference in interpretation.. One would of course have to restore everything relevant, and redirect the "alleged whitening" section to coincide with that format. All in all, I feel that too much emphasis on politics in general is a distraction and can be used for nefarious purposes, including WP:Point or NPOV, as far as editing. This extends to each side/position..Taharqa 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that most editors will not agree to removing the other sections, and that is why I included the Egyptian one for balance. It sounds like you both agree, however, to restore that part, but add it in its own section? The quote by the Egyptian attaché is not simply about Ramesis, it's an indication of how Egyptians view the controversy. You can add other quotes if there are others. — Zerida 05:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Zerida, I only agree that it be restored if the other relevant sections ("academic view", "ancient Egyptian view", "afrocentric view") are stored, as I've stated above.. I can't speak for MuntuwandiTaharqa 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Academic view" is simply the "Alleged whitening" section, which is in the article. The "Ancient Egyptian view" -- is this the one about Punt? Don't forget that I never objected to retaining any section, as long as each one is balanced. — Zerida 05:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Manu Ampim. This article gives a good critique of the reconstructions of King Tut. Each reconstruction does indeed produce a different looking face. Muntuwandi 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I've seen ampim's page dealing with the overall contradictions.. Pretty elaborate..

This should also be interesting. It is a reply letter from Dr. Susan Anton, of the American team (the ones who didn't know it was tut).. She asserts that her team never identified him as a "North African Caucasoid", which she calls a useless term. She says that his features and skull spoke strongly of "African origins", and she postulated North Africa based mostly on the peculiarity of the narrow nose, which is also common among east Africans, of which is addressed in the exchange. She also says that "Caucasoid" was an incorrect classification on the media's part and that based on such traits found on tut, such as his skull and alveolar prognathism (among other things), she suggested that he was a male from 18-20, of African ancestry.[4]Taharqa 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So Hawass was not entirely accurate when he said all three teams concluded that he was "North African caucasoid". Muntuwandi 05:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

^^Only the French team said that..

“Importantly, the ‘Caucasoid North African’ terminology apparently was that of only the French and Egyptian teams. In the words of Susan Antón, a member of the American team, ‘Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a ‘Caucasoid North African.’ We classified him as African based on many of the [skull’s facio-cranial] features….’ Antón noted that this was done regardless of the fact that the nasal cavity was relatively narrow, because the metrics were within the range of probability for the Nilotic peoples of the region. With regard to any finding of European origins, Antón commented that, in light of the cumulative evidence, she ‘determined the statistical association [with Europeans] was very low and, therefore, based on the nonmetric characters, was not likely to be accurate.’ ‘… it would have been less confusing,’ Antón added, ‘if that terminology [‘Caucasoid North African’] had not been used.’ ‘I think his features are consistent with him being African'.’

“Antón refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race. Neither did the Americans assign skin or eye color. Referring to the skull’s pronounced dolichocephalism, alveolar prognathism, ‘large teeth,’ receding chin and sloping cranium, Antón stated she was ‘in general agreement that, based on the cranial skeleton, an estimate of African is appropriate. What that implies in terms of skin color,’ she added, referring to the French team’s reconstruction, ‘is an inference.’”Taharqa 05:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian view

Okay, even though discussion was still pending, I see where Egyegy added it and can assume good faith since it actually would be for balance as it is directly beneath a section which covers another view (that section in question needs a bit of refining, like a name change, etc., but we'll cover that). I have no problem with that, only the random, out-of-context entires that seem more along the lines of forced pov.. Context is everything... Hopefully we can move on to other concerns now, wherever applicable..Taharqa 06:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sphinx again

I'd just like to note that there seems to be a bit of cherry picking and weaseling going on with that section, in efforts to undermine its conclusions, by emphasizing a distinction noted with the Sphinx and Khafre, who it was supposed to represent. However, it is misguided and misrepresents the views of Schoch, Dowell, and colleges concerned as it is out of context. So much emphasis on Khafre, when the section concerns the sphinx, would warrant further elaboration then. Biological anthropologist, Dr. Colette M. Dowell (National Museum of Anthropology, Merida, Yucatan) sees the Sphinx physiognomy as being indicative of modern Upper Egyptians more so than Arab northerners, and she attributes this to a higher degree of African ancestry, in which she says represents both the sphinx and early Egyptians.[5].. She is a direct associate of Schoch.. Perceived differences between Khafre and the Sphinx in question are unsubstantial, since it has nothing to do with their premise or the data in question relevant to the section, so I don't understand the emphasis on such selective quoting..Taharqa 07:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Biological anthropologist, Dr. Colette M. Dowell... Um, she is certainly *not* a "biological anthropologist" [6]! Here is more background information on this interesting lady [7]. Schoch is also not an anthropologist. I'd love to know, however, how Dowell managed to get a picture of a naked Upper Egyptian woman. — Zerida 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

She's a theoretical physician.. I got the implication that she was an anthropologist based on her affiliation with the National Museum of Anthropology, Merida, Yucatan; my mistake for assuming. Though that had little to do with my point anyways.. To answer your question, she claims to have gotten the photo from a German Anthropologist named Dr. C. Stratz, who performed the initial anatomical studies..Taharqa 08:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is the deal with the claims of continuity between ancient and modern? Brace' study clusters and clines contain no modern Egyptian samples, nor does he make that statement. Maybe another one of his statements were taken out of context, but he definitely made no mention of this said continuity, especially seeing as how ancient and modern are distinct in his 2006 study, with ancient Egyptians clustering closer to Somalis and Nubians, than to Modern Egyptians.[8]

Yurco reports no such thing either.. He explains that Egyptians were an amalgam of north african and sub-saharan ethnicities, which has typified Egypt and its descendants ever since. To what degree this typification is noted can be subject to interpretation, but please don't distort information to give such a false appearance as he did not report any biological continuity, which is a specific claim.. ..Taharqa 08:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Waring Again

All. Please let's not have anyone end up with a 3RR warning on their page or worse over this. And let's see if we can continue to use the talk page as before. The history of reversions this morning (UTC) was not good. I will protect the page (again) if it carries on. Pedro :  Chat  09:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're uninvolved with the debate so please don't hesitate to protect the article if it continues. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

slow improvement

the article is slowly beginning to look half civilized. I still object to the prominent mention of a "controversy" in the lead, when there is in fact no such controversy in Egyptology. The intro should summarize the anthropological findings, and then take brief note of the Afrocentrist circus surrounding the question. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start improving the article from the lead down to best reflect the whole situation. I hope I don't get reverted. Please keep a watchful eye to make sure whatever I change is properly formatted, etc. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, be very careful in doing what you are planning to do!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just help me out and everything should go smoothly. Do you have access to full texts to scientific studies? Such as a University computer? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, not. But we have to trust each other.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiklidudeman, please do not drastically revert or alter content with out consensus, as dab says, the page seems to be a bit more civil. Even though his snide comments and endless appeals towards afrocentrism doesn't help, he has the right idea and so does Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka..Taharqa 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not reverting anything. I'm just improving the article as I see fit. I post anything here that I think is controversial prior to changing it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that bro, you're turning out to be a breath of fresh air, just be patient as this is a touchy subject obviously. No one here I believe went in intending to bicker and dispute with such veracity, that just seemed to be the cause of an unstable situation, which we need to quell. You're doing a good job though..Taharqa 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Source requests

Can someone please post the links to the following sources:

• Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza. 1994, The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

• [Hammer, M. et al. 1997.]

• Keita SOY and Rick A. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544

• S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87: 245-254 (1992)

• Toby Wilkinson. Early Dynastic Egypt, 2001, Routledge, pp. 15

• Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 15-26

Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

what links? Most of these won't be available online. The first one has "look inside" at amazon [9], as does Wilkinson [10]. The Soy-Kittles paper is at jstor.org [11]. But I suppose you can use google as well as I can. --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to some of those articles. If anyone does please E-mail them. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This statement:

"In comparison to the 2005 reconstruction, the earlier 2002 Discovery Channel reconstruction showed a darker skin tone, among other differences."

is original research. The link provided shows an image of a reconstruction of King Tut and nowhere does it state that his skontone is "darker" than other reconstructions. While it might seem obvious that his skintone is indeed darker, This could be due to many things including background, lighting, the way the image was produced, etc, etc. To interpret any differences not stated in the source cited would be a clear example of WP:NOR. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Lighting? Let's be realistic here; is it that hard to assume good faith for what is so undeniably obvious? In any event, it is noted in this press article here[12];

Two years earlier three teams of scientists from New Zealand, Britain and Africa recreated images of Tut for the Discovery Channel. The documentary on the Discovery Channel portrayed Tut as decidedly Negroid and many contend that is in keeping with the anatomy of the skull itself.”Taharqa 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that's one reporters opinion. Which means we could say that "Some have interpreted the Discovery reconstruction as having "Negroid features". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as the sources say what they say and there are others, which I can provide. It is obvious as well, which is why I sincerely ask you to keep good faith and use good logic on this..Taharqa 16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't say the reconstruction absolutely has specific features just because a few sources say so. We can only say that "Some people say it has N features." WP:AGF doesn't include sources. I assume that whomever added this did so in good faith, however I disagree that it was appropriate to do so. WP:AGF doesn't mean you must assume someone is right or something is true, It only means that you need to assume that another editors actions were done in "good faith", I.E. with the intent to improve the article. I do this. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What I am pointing out to you is not merely the features, but the obvious contrast of skin tones, which has been noted. It was noticed and stated as fact by Professor Charles Grantham from the Field Museum of Natural History, who wrote:

As a matter of fact, scholars working with the Discovery Channel a few years ago assigned a much darker complexion to their reconstruction of King Tutankhamun.[13]

And also mentioned by Evan Henderson (by way of 3rd person), in an article that I don't have the link to but remember reading.. My fault on mis using the "good faith" policy; my understanding of it was obviously lacking, but I'm sure you know what I mean by what I've conveyed and revealed to you.. Not to drag it out, I wouldn't mind if it were worded properly, like "many have noted that the earlier 2002 Discovery Channel reconstruction showed a darker skin tone, among other differences", or something similar..Taharqa 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The view of mainstream physical anthropologists

Most physical anthropologists believe that the Ancient Egyptians belonged to that same Mediterranean branch of the white race to which the Berbers, Arabs, Hebrews and other neighbouring peoples belonged. Their chief reasons for believing so are as follows:

(I) The vast majority of modern Egyptians belong to this Mediterranean sub-race. (2) In their tomb and temple frescoes, the Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as ruddy or white but their Nubian slaves as brown or black. (3) Ancient Greek writers like Herodotus and Strabo describe the Egyptians as differing from Greeks in customs only, unlike the Ethiopians, whom they describe as differing from Greeks in physiognomy as well.

(The Religion of the Yoruba in Relation to the Religion of Ancient Egypt Olumide Lucas Review author[s]: R. W. Wescott The Journal of African History, Vol. 2, No. 2. (1961), pp. 311-321.)

http://www.jstor.org/view/00218537/ap010004/01a00110/0

This information should be added to the article. MoritzB 12:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail me the PDF to that article. I don't have access. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in the Hamitic myth section, it is ancient stuff considered dyfunct in physical anthropology.. The paper its self is very outdated and obscure.. No anthropologists today fit AE within this imaginary context[14].. MoritzB pops up here every once in a while trying to push these old fringe theories from people like Coon, etc, and never produces a paper that represents a mainstream view, but old colonialist pseudo-science. He basically says the same thing everytime. "Here's an outdated paper by some fringe author supporting some wild, debunked theory; it should be included in the article." He does the same thing..Taharqa 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, is Wescott an Egyptologist? He does not even know Herodotus well. If the Egyptians looked like the Greecs in physionomy, the Colchis could have not been a problem to them, because tey would look like the Greecs. But it was not the case. Actually, like Aristotle, Herodotus does not make difference between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians when speaking of their physionomy. All of them are said to be black (melas, melanos). In book 2, 104, this blackness (melas, melanos) is applied to Colchis and to Egyptians by Herodotus, and in book 3, 101, this blackness (melas, melanos) is applied to Indians who live far fron the Persians and to Ethiopians. In Herodotus, Greecs are not black (melas, melanos). Colchis, Egyptians, Indians who live far from the Persians and Ethiopians are. You can easily check what I am telling you, because I gave you the references.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka and Wikidudeman. Can you comment on the proposed changes above? Or agree or disagree reasonably?Taharqa 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

IP 205.212.72.174

How is it that this IP is not yet joining the discussions? Why is he continuing to hide himself? He seems to be very disruptive. He is lacking total respect for other editors!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 05:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How is that you are allowed to continue your Afrocentrist mythologizing on Wikipedia? Please desist from your POV attempt to rewrite history and total disrespect for other contributors. Be civil and cooperate. 203.109.33.35 06:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharaqa is removing my discussions of the issues and has engaged in revert warring to undo all of my contributions. He also keeps deleting large chunks of the article to maintain POV ownership of the article. Let's reach consensus here not to remove anything because it's very disruptive and I was almost blocked. Do not remove something to maintain a POV, this is against Wikipedia. 203.109.33.35 07:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing removed was vandalism and feigning interest in cooperation does you no good when in the same instance you call wiki editors names and accuse them of absurdities of which you're unable to substantiate. Not many editors are willing to "cooperate" with vandals or defamers..Taharqa 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you deleting huge parts of the article after you agreed on a consensus? That was disruptive. Egyegy 07:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy, you make no sense whatsoever and are completely lost.. I repel vandalism from an abusive ip that is now blocked, and your response is to revert me at all costs and make up any excuse to do so; your wikistalking notwithstanding. Well, the page is blocked for a month, so I guess that settles that anywaysTaharqa 08:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am lost? Dude, you are unbelievable!!! How many times have different people here tried to reach a compromise with you, get a consensus, just so you can turn around and revert it? This is you deleting a lot stuff that you agreed on [15] and it isn't the first time. Enough is enough. Egyegy 08:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Administrator note Taharqa please don't feel that with the protection "that settles that". You've already pointed out that you think the page is on the wrong version. The protection does not have to last a month. If editing disputes can be resolved the page can be unblocked at any time. Let's try working forward again, as was happening previously. All - we will get there. It is possible. Let's focus as a team to build a better article. Pedro :  Chat  08:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro.. I appreciate that and will indeed do my part to contribute and hopefully we can quell a lot of the tension involved with such a controversial article/topic. That is refreshing to know and gives me more motivation to work towards a more complete and enduring consensus on the format..Taharqa 09:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been here a long discussion to try finding a compromise. Egyegy did not show up. Maybe he was very busy. At least Taharqa, along with Wikidudeman and Muntuwandi, made his contribution. He deserves respect for that active participation. He did not hid himself like the anonymous IP who was totally absent from the discussion initiated by Wikidudeman, and which helped to have a new plan. He just came to disrupt! Knowing that this is a sensitive subject, why does he not use the talk page to initiate discussions before making changes?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia should be able to identify the editors of the discusion pages. They can track and block vandals. If anything good comes out of this odd discusion page a program for guarding the wikipedia pages might be it. But I am pretty sure they already have such a program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with current protection

So I'd like to at least form a consensus for changes by way of admin, just write whether you agree or not to each change..

Removal of the "White Egypt" section[16], which even Egyegy felt was an inappropriate inclusion and is misrepresented....Taharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is "EVEN Egyegy felt was inappropriate" supposed to mean? I am Upper Egyptian for God's sake!! Even though most Upper Egyptians are not black, they're not white either [17]. That section though has some nonsense about Ancient Egypt being ethnically European. Egyegy 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy, you're not ancient Egyptian, so I don't care, nor do I care about your opinion of how uppr Egyptians should be classified. Nubianet disagrees with you.[18].. Remember that you are a wikipedia editor and not a reliable source, no matter who you claim to be..Taharqa 15:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• AgreedTaharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article is about ancient Egypt, not about modern Egypt. From history we know that Egypt was subject to many invasions by White populations from Asia or from Europe, starting really after the Old Kingdom when the Egyptian civilisation was already well in place. These invasions, which initiated the Intermediary Periods, modified both the Kmt-Country with counteless distructions and the Kmt-People with the whitening of the black colour of their skin. This is general history. Nothing to do with Afrocentrism. Are Herodotus, Aristotle, Jean-Francois Champollion, Basil Davidson Afrocentrist? Perhaps yes, in the sense that they see Egypt within its African original context. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed, since there are people who think like that. It is controversial, of cause, but let readers know about the subject.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the depiction of Minoans in the section on "ancient Egyptian view"[19]....Taharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• AgreedTaharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Egyegy 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reason to remove this image. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed. It shows once more that Egyptians did not distinguish themselves from other Africans. It is believed that lands around the Mediterranean sea in north Africa, Palestine and Europe were inhabited by Africans before the invasion of Indo-European speaking people known as Whites in the 2 millennium BCE.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tag over the section dealing with Origins[20], since no one has expressed confusing over it and it is the product of blind reverting...Taharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• AgreedTaharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's very confusing. Has too many quotes and scientific jargon. I'll rewrite it and simplify it soon. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Let's come back to it after the visit of the section by Wikidudeman.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the section on the Sphinx[21] there is a distortion of cited material. It reads: To the contrary, Afrocentrists do not view de Volney in the light of someone who harbored racial prejudice against modern Egyptians, with "Afrocentrists revised from what previously read "scholars", as the sources speak nothing of afrocentrism..Taharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• AgreedTaharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Egyegy 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• The question must be: Is the quoted source reliable? Who quoted that man? Is that man an Egyptologist?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally, renaming the section titled "Afrocentric views, to "Africanist" views, since some of the authors cited, namely Davidson are not afrocentric.Taharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• AgreedTaharqa 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Egyegy 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, Perhaps neither? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed. Afrocentrism having nothing to do with colour but with the state of mind, even people like Jean-Francois Champollion can be said to be Afrocentrist, because unlike other scholars of his time, he studied Egypt in its African original context. There are also Afrocentrist before the birth of Afrocentrism: Herodotus, Aristotle, Volney. Cheikh Anta Diop is said to be Afrocentrist. But, as far as I know, he never applied this word to himself!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think any changes should be made to the article right now until everything has settled with time and consensus. This might've been avoided if some people just stop deleting and deleting, and reverting and reverting even after they agree on a version. Egyegy 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are merely out to undermine consensus given your lack of reasoning and hostility WP:Point. You've already suggested that the "white egypt" section should be removed and others have aswell. Actually, the current version isn't that bad and is something I can live with, but the proposition still stands.Taharqa 09:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How about you stop attacking me for no reason and assume good faith for a change? You asked for an opinion and I gave you my honest one. Egyegy 09:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I said and as stated, the revision isn't too drastic, but I had concerns. You have in no way whatsoever contributed to discussions here and have been blind reverting in accordance with Zerida, who actually communicates. You're lucky that I don't report you for pov or wikistalking again, but I just don't have the energy or motivation to do so.. Taharqa 09:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm lucky? I'm shocked you haven't been blocked for your last disruption despite this very clear warning [22] and your tag teaming with Jeeny and Lusala Luka. I've been watching this article for a long time and will continue to edit it whether you like it or not. Egyegy 09:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

^I'm not concerned with what you do, as long as you abide by policy, and actually contribute something instead of justifying edits by way of blind tag-teaming all topics Egyptian with other modern egyptians to ensure your national ideology gets through in these articles. Jeeny is aware of your abuse and posting a link to a warning and "being surprised" says nothing of your non-contributory, wiki stalking, tag-team approach to editing. As long as you continue this abuse (on this article or elsewhere), you will be repelled, no matter your persistence, whether you "like it or not".. Thankfully I got to make a lot of necessary changes/refinements before the IP's disruption and subsequent protection of the article... Enough with that though..Taharqa 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is getting no where, as we have people opposing things for no apparent reason whatsoever, things that were disruptively and randomly added by the ip and lack general context. The irrationality displayed is a good indication as to why this page is chaos.. I won't worry about it.. Scrap section; moving on then..Taharqa 15:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added reasons. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

^Sorry, I must have replied before you gave your justification. It seems that no changes are warranted, so we'll leave it at that. Like I said before, it is mostly just petty concerns that are not top priority. Just thought I'd get a reaction. I'm perfectly fine with the current revision, pending discussion, albeit the minor dissimilarity with the former. We can move on if there's nothing else..Taharqa 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Uhh dudes this is getting sad while egyegy states that he lives in the upper nile, good for him sounds like a nice place, my name happens to mean egypt my ancestors were the egyptian pharohs, hell the continents of the f-ing planet are named after my friging family's name. While i do not consider myself the egyptian stereotypical ethnic you can be Damned sure that their were people with the flesh you call white eroepean in ancient egypt that weren't slaves. they Just don't have tans anymore. yes their were southern african pharohs that were black and yes etheopia and kenya were part of the empire and had egyptian trade routes. Think about it start with the americas and move eastward, you might be able to guess my name. know also that the proper pronuceation of america is Ame Rego {for amerego vazpuche the catogrifer of the the "new worlds"} Taharqa you going to have to deal with reality, move on and find a life. I came to this page on a lark the argument seemed extremely redicoulous to a person such as myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro

@ Wikidudeman

The new intro is solid and is well written, I must say. I have one request.. It seems that you've sufficiently and neutrally covered aspects of a section that was in dispute, that would be the "ancient writers section".. I recommend you go ahead and just remove that section since it is very subjective and you've given a great over view of it in the introduction. Thanx..Taharqa 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No can do. The introduction is actually a "Summary" of the article as a whole. I'm moving down from the intro and will improve the article little by little. We can't have something in the intro if it doesn't exist in the article itself. I will however drastically improve that section soon. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem.. I wanted to add something anyways in accordance with neutrality..Taharqa 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a direct link to that Keita source? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Egypt-Africa-Theodore-Celenko/dp/0253332699Taharqa 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a book by someone named Theodore Celenko. I'm asking for the link to the actual paper published by Keita. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is cited as being in the book, the page numbers and everything.. You can get a copy at the library of congress or find it on amazon or ebay.. I posted the actual paper here numerous times in its entirety, which can be read here[23]..Taharqa 20:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor and his obsessive edits/revisions are in no way helping..Taharqa 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Afrocentristc" should be either "Afrocentrist" or "Afrocentristic." ➳ Quin 08:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the first sentence of the article. ➳ Quin 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the paper exist though? If Keita wrote it then it should exist as an independent paper, separate from a book by someone else. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I've shown you the paper. I you're not going to buy the book, there's nothing else I can do for you, it is available through the outlets which I've shown you and it is a definite reference citation from one of the most reliable sources there is. Besides showing you the entire paper, word for word, I have nothing else for you, nor am I obligated under wikipedia policy to provide more. You seem to be confused. It is an independent paper by Prof. Keita and A.J. Boyce, submitted to Theodore Celenko for inclusion in the said book by way of the Indianapolis Museum of Art/Indiana University Press (publisher). Many authors from a variety of sources have contributed to that book, and you seem to be unaware that the book its self is a compilation of essays from top scholars of their fields, all tackling the same question. The overall consensus of the book is summed up near the end of this essay aswell[24].

Seeing as how there are many other raw reference cited herein, I'm curious as to why you aren't pursuing direct quotations or verbatim excerpts for those. No moving the goal post please, you asked for a direct link, meaning, a direct source along with the extracted material, and I've provided both. If you're concerned if whether or not "Keita wrote it" (which would be rather strange) and that this isn't some form of fraud or forgery, simply copy and paste the citation (page number, etc) that I gave and google it.. Then again, your suspicion would be irrational since I've already provided a verbatim extract. Why are you so concerned with these sources in particular, anyways? So much so that you make a draft?[25], even when you have links that you can clearly read in less than 5 minutes? Unusual if you ask me, but I hope that you're satisfied sooner or later..Taharqa 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Drawing from the tomb of Seti?

Who brought this picture again? It was removed a year ago. There are people who do not follow well the discussion of this article. The famous "1820 drawing of a fresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting from left: Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, and Egyptian" is not a picture, but a modern rendering. Not being authentic, it has to be removed from the article as agreed upon in the past.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I added it. I disagree. The image is relevant even if it's a modern rendering. The image is very exemplary of Egyptians perspectives of differences between themselves and others. It's not meant to be some sort of scientific piece or anything like that. Just an image showing how Egyptians saw themselves compared to others. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find an actual photograph of the topic of the drawing to be used. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What consensus is there on adding that image? We've already agreed to leave it out, so I suggest that you do so. There's another rendering that I can upload which is more elaborate, yet shows obviously different complexions. What basis do we have in choosing one over the other? Why not leave it out? And can someone please revert the disruptive IP who just altered and blanked cited material for no reason?Taharqa 19:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is full of Afrocentrist myths because it's being edited by Taharaqa, who is a paragon of afrocentrism mythology and pseudo-science. This is an absurd article. Now, I do not mean to be rude, but I'm sorry to say, I am surprised he is allowed to spread these myths. No wonder wikipedia is no longer taken seriously by many people outside it. Please desist from playing the race card online in order for you to push your POV wishful thinking and accept history and reality. Spurious sources from myth makers will not suffice in the real world! please be civil reason and try to cooperate. 203.109.33.35 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a main image and that one is very descriptive and relevant. Please upload the actual image if you have it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay.. But in the meantime can you rv the disruptive editor per discussion please?Taharqa 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone checks history of article, you appear to be controlling this article as though you owned it. Be reasonable and cooperate. 203.109.33.35 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Maiherperi2.jpg

Mummy of Maiherpri

File:Maiherperi.jpg

Maiherpri from the book of the Dead

^This is what I was referring to btw..Taharqa 20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This aswell (to the right)..

Horus and four Egyptians as one of the "four races of mankind." in the Book of Gates in the Valley of the Kings.

.. I actually think that since this article is exclusively about Egyptians, this would be more appropriate, but imposing any picture over another is arbitrary, which is why we agreed to keep it out..Taharqa 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The first one needs a source. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Then forget about the first one, it is the same image anyways..Taharqa 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That one doesn't show any differences though. They are all the same. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously both of these renditions depict the same scene, yet depicted differently (and actually more accurately since tomb scenes show each group represented in fours) from the front page rendition that you've included.Taharqa 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, as I told you that image is a modern drawing, a Copy of some figures from the Seti I tomb by Minutoli in 1820. The photograph is at the left side and in bad shape. I don't know what was in the mind of Minutoli when he made it. But it is not authentic, because not Egyptian.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for reasonable justification; will assume good faith as of now..Taharqa 05:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually upon looking at this link I can see that the 1820 drawing is quite accurate. Even down to the skintones depicted of nubians and Egyptians. The fact that it's a drawing of the scene opposed to a picture itself doesn't seem very relevant as it's quite depicting of the scene itself. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, we better take the picture even if it is not in good shape than a modern drawing. How can you be sure of his accuracy of this drawing? The commentary speaks "possible". Drawings are subjective. They depend heavily on the spirit of the drawer. How can you ignore that? Actually the skin of the Egyptian is not in question. Many Blacks, in Nubia, in Kemet or today in Africa, have brown complexion. Besides, many Egyptians are dark. We see that in the picture which is in good condition, just down the first picture. Its drawing is at its right side. One sees two dark Egyptians. This is a picture. Why don't we take it?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that I'd like a picture comparing Egyptians with other peoples of other nations as the current one does. this is the original image. Not good quality photograph however that's the original. this is the 1820 drawing. While the drawing isn't perfect, it's a fairly accurate rendition of the wall painting. It's from a historical source and this should all be explained. The point of having the image is that it shows how th Egyptians saw other peoples in comparison to themselves. Simply having an image of 3 Egyptians wouldn't show that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not sure of the accuracy of the rendition as the commentary says: "possible"!. We can take the rendition of the second picture. Both are in good shape. But you feel maybe a bit shaken because the Egyptians are shown to be dark like the Nubians. One needs a bit of courage and objectivity when one deals with this kind of stuff! Browness is not stranger to Nubians. One cannot oppose Nubians and Egyptians in terms of brown (Egyptians ) and dark (Nubians). This just fantasy. Please, visit The Tomb of Huy--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

To pull up a garbled photo from geocities and asserting from personal opinion that it looks accurate is an invalid justification. To me it isn't anymore accurate than the rendition on the right depicting them in fours, and as I said before, less accurate upon viewing it. Also, justifying by saying this is what you'd like seems selfish considering the painstaking discussion it took to reach agreement among all to leave it out, only for one editor to come by and insist on its inclusion, especially at the expense of other options. Taharqa 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The image posted on Geocities, this image is the original one that the artist used to draw in 1820. That's the wall painting. The 1820 drawing of it would thus be justifiable to use. I'm afraid I don't understand the objections to using it. The fact that it was done in 1820 really shouldn't be relevant, nor should the fact that it's a drawing of the original painting. No one is saying that it's somehow 100% accurate however that's all explained on the caption. All in all it's a good photograph showing what Egyptians thought of other peoples compared to themselves. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what it is, that's irrelevant. Both drawings depict that same scene so your logic is faulty. The objection is rooted in your insistence of one over another for no explainable reason. Honestly, you are double talking. The others above are also good 'drawings' of the same thing, yet you weasel away from addressing this.Taharqa 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Image:Egyptians BOG.jpg is not suitable since it shows only Ancient Egyptians themselves, however since this article is discussing the "race" of Ancient egyptians, an image showing how the Ancient Egyptians saw themselves compared to other peoples is more relevant. Image:From Giovanni Battista Belzoni- Egyptian race portrayed in the Book of Gates.jpg would be good except for the fact that it's source is not provided and it could be deleted soon. This means that Image:Egyptian races.jpg is the best choice since it's free and shows how Egyptians saw themselves compared to other peoples and is thus more relevant to the topic of the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But why don't we take the picture of the tomb of Ramesses or the drawing made of it? The picture is in good shape, and one can notice easily than with the picture of the tomb of Seti, how the drawing is accurate.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What image are you referring to? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

^^It shows the Egyptians as jet black in that tomb, though it is controversial since some say it wasn't authentic, while others (including the one who initially copied it from the tomb) have stated its accuracy and Manu Ampim has even allegedly taken photos of the tomb.

But Wikidudeman, I'm about to leave real fast, but will be back and will leave on this note for now. The article is about Ancient Egyptians, which is why I think an isolated photo of Egyptians is more appropriate than capturing different peoples. Even with that, tomb scenes depict the different ethnys in fours, it is convention, so the unsourced one above is more accurate if anything anyways. I can find the source, which is no problem and which is why I'm discussing it as if it has one. That was a speedy upload just to show you something, but it is indeed public domain as it is over 100 years old and I can provide the source whenever it is seriously demanded..Taharqa 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What picture are you referring to? Please link it. Concerning the image I'm supporting, How is an image simply showing random Ancient Egyptians more relevant to an article about the RACE of Ancient Egyptians? The image showing how Ancient Egyptians saw themselves compared to other peoples is clearly more relevant in an article about the race of Ancient Egyptians. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What abount that picture though? Of the mummy. Real impressive considering that hair is not as strong, cohesive, tensil or long lasting as skin. That is an amazing feat of mummification, mind you only one {appearently} out of hundreds of mummies that gets to keep it's supposed hair. not even affected by the bandages sprie, lite, bouncing with full body after "thousands" of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, this is your opinion as to what you think is and isn't relevant to the article. I feel an isolated picture of how the AE saw themselves is more than sufficient. In fours is also the conventional way to depict these murals, so the ones above are more accurate. I haven't looked yet because I've been busy, but as soon as I grab a source for the other scene that includes the various ethnys, I'll present that also.. As of now, you don't seem willing to compromise though, I'm trying to understand why? Even when more than one editor has expressed concern about prior consensus, including alternatives.Taharqa 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An image showing ONLY the ancient Egyptians wouldn't really be as relevant as we're discussing the race of the ancient Egyptians and thus an image showing them COMPARING themselves to other peoples is much much more relevant. You may not understand my not compromising, however it's a yes or no issue. Either the image stays or it goes. I think it should stay. I don't understand your reasoning though. You state that it's not relevant because it's a drawing? Well you endorse other drawings. What's specifically wrong with this one? As far as Prior consensus. Consensus can change. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse more accurate representations, period, and I've explained that above. Also, seeing as how the article is about ancient Egyptians, I don't see your reasoning for comparative renditions being that (1), the Egyptians are not depicting races since their concepts of human biodiversity is totally different from ours, and (2), the source is old and inaccurate.. We've already agreed that it should go along time ago, yet YOU say "stay".. What I'm suggesting for compromise is to either put up more than one rendition then (show both), to remove it, to put up one that is more accurate, or to omit the foreigners and simply include an isolated rendition of how the AEs saw themselves, since the article is about them, not any random ethnic groups with whom they came in contact. But again, it seems that you aren't putting any noted effort into acknowledging past consensus or trying to compromiseTaharqa 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it inaccurate just because it's old? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope that in the future during discussion you'd think more of me to actually pay attention to what i explain to you the first time.

Taharqa wrote (directly above you): - In fours is also the conventional way to depict these murals, so the ones above are more accurate.

^This is how they're depicted in the tombs themselves..Taharqa 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: As far as Prior consensus. Consensus can change.

Well, it hasn't and trying to force consensus or being unwilling to comply or compromise is not the answer.. I'll address this later, when I come back with the source to the rendition in question.Taharqa 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Further pictures that may be of use

Seeing the debate over the use of images within the article, I have just uploaded a few I took while at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston to Wikimedia Commons that may be useful. They all depict captives and are from the palace of the 20th dynasty pharaoh Ramesses III:
- depiction of a pair of Nubians: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-DepictingNubians-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
- depiction of a Philistine and an Amorite: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-DepictingPhilistineAndAmorite-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
- depiction of a Syrian and a Hittite: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-DepictingSyrianAndHittite-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
- all three sets of images compiled into one image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-NubiansPhilistineAmoriteSyrianAndHittite-Compilation-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
There are other images on Wikimedia Commons (from the same era) which could be of use:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypte_louvre_119_ennemi.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypte_louvre_120_asiatique.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypte_louvre_121_ennemi.jpg. Captmondo 01:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

---

  Wkiedudeman makes sense.  In that what the egyptians defined themselves as different and

to an extenet similair to the "other" ethncities. It's a shame the carving appeared to be so damaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)