Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:47, 7 August 2009

Template:Article probation

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:AncientEgyptBanner

Ancient Egyptian race controversy received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/12/10. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Human Genetic History (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives

Archive 1 - Dec 2006 to Jan 2007 Archive 2 - Jan 2007 to Apr 2007 Archive 3 - Apr 2007 to May 2007 Archive 4 - May 2007 - 12 May 2007 Archive 5 - May 2007 Archive 6 - to May 23, 2007 Archive 7 - May 25 to July 14 2007 Archive of "appearance" article) Archive 8 - to August 23 2007 Archive 9 - to September 15 2007 Archive 10 - to October 29 2007 Archive 11 - to November 5 2007 Archive 12 - to December 13 2007 Archive 13 - to August 12 2008 Archive 14 - to September 3 2008 Archive 15 - to September 23 2008 Archive 16 - to February 6 2009 Archive 17 - to February 13 2009 Archive 18 - to February 16 2009 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Jimbo Wales / Dimitri Yankovich

Jimbo Wales read this article here Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy/Archive_18#I_speak_here_only_as_a_reader and apart from the sub-section on race, He seemed quite happy with it. So I think it is clear that having a wider scope is fine. Dimitri Yankovich (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo also noted that he was not an expert and that he didn't want his remarks to be given any special weight. So don't treat them like a message from god or anything. Anyway, a number of contributors on this page have said that the article could have a wider scope than recent Afrocentric approaches. That's not really the problem under discussion, although many editors pretend that it is. The problem is that a number of editors here don't understand the difference between an article that describes the history of attempts to define the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and an article that attempts to establish what race the ancient Egyptians actually were. Thus, the misleading, uncontextualized list of classical Greek authors who said the Egyptians were "black". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that at least you have been able to address a specific area in the article. A lot of users have generally attacked the article but when asked for specifics, they fail to provide any. I don't think any sensible person will believe what the Greeks said alone without context, but I think they are useful in helping to provide historical context on the controversy, and also historical views on race and how they differ from today. Dimitri Yankovich (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"The problem is that a number of editors here don't understand the difference between an article that describes the history of attempts to define the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and an article that attempts to establish what race the ancient Egyptians actually were"

That is what i was trying to convey when this article was taking shape "AGAIN" that people are trying to prove what race the egyptians were--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dimitri Yankovich looks like yet another sock. I've blocked him William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's reason for a block? I hope you really mean to say that this has been verified by CU! Gray62 (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus ???

Where??? by who banned editors for pushing fringe theory....even if there is a consensus to expand it to more than just afrocentrism that does not mean a return to a defunked version of the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the comprehensive and consensus version of the article. If there are parts that are objectionable we can work on fixing or removing them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's not consensus for any version of the article right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"The problem is that a number of editors here don't understand the difference between an article that describes the history of attempts to define the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and an article that attempts to establish what race the ancient Egyptians actually were"

Until we can establish what that above statement means to the article what can i say i am not a soothsayer, people act like this is going to be resolved in a day or something,i am sorry to inform some but this sort of article is controversial childofmidnight and lets get some opinions on this statement--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't seen a single editor suggest that a version that focuses solely on Afrocentrism is appropriate. So there is clearly a consensus against this version. I'm all for addressing any concerns over the more comprehensive version. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egypt is only given nominal attention outside of afrocentrism ,it's not a main focus of many egyptologist also a consensus is not a majority vote you should know that[REDACTED] is not a democracy--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, I do not think it's even close to rational to submit to your philosophy while you are still being investigated for sock puppetry. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy but it sure will not become a shadowy dictatorship nor oligarchy of one POV. --Panehesy (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This statement is false. The race of the Ancient Egyptians is widely known throughout academia as a debatable issue and is not regarded as solely via Afrocentricism. The bigger issue however is the POV methods used with Wiki administrators of a higher level to establish your POV "the Egyptians weren't black, and there isn't even a real debate otherwise". I stand against this manipulation. --Panehesy (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No thats not a false statement ,you do know what "nominal" means, also no i am not under investigation for sock puppetry,so stop with the dramatics ,it seems you are more likely are one particulary since you did not edit since may but started to edit as soon as several pov pushing editors who had hi jacked this article were banned,i think thats more suspect than me--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To get a clear understanding

Look at the Human_skin_color article and pay special note to the Von Luschan scale. That scale is a terrible reference to use. Look at how it's so skewed. In the talk page, notice my comments at the bottom regarding this. I had to add all of the pictures of black people darker than Between Jordan and Hally Berry in the examples. Before that, the article had 5 different European types (and notice in the talk page, they can't even agree on who is the lightest) and only one African type. It is in this same mindset that skin color is carried on in this debate, only this is in regards to physical location and not skin color. The variation that is artifically pushed to exclude blacks in the experience and to increase the caucasian type is a form of Eurocentricm. This has nothing to do with Black Athena, nor Afrocentricism. Afrocentricism is not a mirror to Eurocentricism. In the skin color article, you can see the lack of effort to show variation among blacks, but far too much in showing the delicate variation among whites. This is happening here. Too much is shown to establish a Caucasianesque heritage of the Egyptians, under the guise of them being "racially neutral"... why?

Because as the skin color thing shows, even racially neutral people are classified by default "Caucasoid"! --Panehesy (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to file this one under "missing the point". Again, the purpose of this article is not to establish whether the ancient Egyptians were black, white, negroid, caucasoid, or whatever. The purpose is to describe attempts that have been made to slot the ancient Egyptians into various racial categories. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know that. What I see is an attempt instead to isolate the conversation into "Blacks wanted to make the Egyptians black for some other reason besides their own view of the actual evidence". Or let me put it another way. Intead of talking about the physical evidence itself and how it's interpreted, the contributors take the so-called Afrocentric viewpoint, deconstruct it in this article, then present that deconstruction as a "reason" there is even a debate. That's not being honest about the topic. It would be like saying to merely call them black is in itself Afrocentric. What is this method of isolating a POV called? --Panehesy (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No thats not a false statement you do know what nominal means, also no i am not under investigation for sock puppetry,so stop with the dramatics ,it seems you are more likely are one particulary since you did not edit since may but started to edit as soon as several pov pushing editors who have hi jacked this article were banned,i think thats more suspect than me--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say nominal. And furthermore, when you say "you don't know what... means" you disrespect and will be treated with disrespect. Thirdly, you're not paying attention or listening (which shouldn't be hard as you have to only pay attention to what your own eyes read). I never spoke about nominality. Ask, before assuming what I know and don't know. Or if you are so certain I do not know, then explain what it is. Because you just come off as someone who wants to convince people they are more important than they actually are. Oooo you said I don't know something, well that must automatically mean that YOU know what you are talking about. Do tell! And yes, you were under investigation for sock puppetry. Perhaps you were vindicated, who knows. Who cares. In the end, your attitude, where you speak with an arrogant manner as one who dictates the end result of any situation will not be tolerated. I see nothing but editor under your credentials here. My editing is precisely due to the ebb and flow of this debate. Where I feel there is an unfair use of the system or representation of the article, I will contribute. Where stuff is taken out of context I will contribute. But being a sockpuppet is not what I do. --Panehesy (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. OR, of course, but given that "Ancient Egypt" covers about 3000 years, while we currently believe that skin color evolves to match UV within 500-1000 years, does it even make sense to speak about "the" skin colour of ancient Egypians? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports your 500-1000 year for skin color change assertion? I haven't heard this previously. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised, too. I got it originally from Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Dark_skin_vs._fair_skin, which points to Human skin_color#Environmental_factors, which references Nina G. Jablonski and George Chaplin, The evolution of human skin coloration in J. Hum. Ev. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well my initial reaction is that the theory sounds very fringey. But dismissing things we've never heard of out of hand isn't a good response. I think calling it "evolution" is highly problematic given that 500-1000 years isn't an evolutionary time scale. I don't really know what to say about the assertion other than it should be treated with care unless it is widely accepted. My main concern with this article is the wholesale removale of content and the setting up of a gutted article that focuses on Afrocentrism, setting it up as a straw man as if there was never any other inquiry into the issues involved, and dismantling it with selective sourcing. The entrie first section after the opening last I checked was a subarticle of afrocentrism and has no place in this distinct subject that was studied long before the period in history where afrocentric approaches were applied. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes it somewhat more plausible is the claim that this is not evolution de novo, but that it is only selection operating on existing variability in the gene pool, as in the peppered moth evolution. 30 generations is quite a lot for such a selection if the selective pressure is strong enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish the purpose of the article

It is said: The problem is that a number of editors here don't understand the difference between an article that describes the history of attempts to define the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and an article that attempts to establish what race the ancient Egyptians actually were"

lets see if I understand it. The article is supposed to chronologically describe all the events historically that have caused a row, or a discourse in the public regarding the race of the Ancient Egyptians. Considering the first modern interpretion (by white scholars mind you) clearly indicated they were black, it is VERY much in the scope of the article to present this and then to demonstrate the change over time. When did the first view of them begin to change from one to another, how was that received by most scholars? How does that even work, considering most scholars were white and did not accept black contributions peer reviewed until the 1960s. Also demonstrating why one side feels they are, why another side feels they are not. Pictures depicting the Egyptians, and how they were interpreted is the best way. Things that should NOT be done in the article: Debating the merits of Afrocentricism. This is unrelated to the article. Discussing the debate regarding Afrocentric viewpoints about Egypt. On the other side, attacks on white scholarship simply because it was exclusively white is not right either. I think I got it, you agree? --Panehesy (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheikh Anta Diop is not even mentioned, when he is the absolute pinnacle of the debate (not in purporting the view one way or another). --Panehesy (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Strike that, I'm focused on one section of the article. I forget there are other sections. --Panehesy (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Debating the merits of Afrocentricism. This is unrelated to the article. Discussing the debate regarding Afrocentric viewpoints about Egypt. On the other side, attacks on white scholarship simply because it was exclusively white is not right either." I do not understand this. Panhesy you seem to be making categorical statements about what is or is not allowed. But our NPOV policy states that all significant views from notable sources must be included in the article. Now, I agree with you about relevance - no view should go into the article unless it is part of a larger view concerning the race of ancient Egyptians. But if in the course of promoting a certain view of the race of ancient Egyptians, someone accuses her opponents as Afrocentric (or as Eurocentric), surely we must include this in the article, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Champollion and new lead in origins

Saw the new lead in origins, and could not help smile, for two reasons. That there somehow should have been a "conclusion" that AE’s was "undeniably black" in the 19th century is in all measurement a stretch beyond plausibility. Apparently the source that is listed for this (The New-England Magazine Volume 0005 Issue 4 (October 1833), pp.273-280) was not a read properly, since it not only states that it is left to the reader to form his own conclusion on the subject and then it goes on to, more or less, present info that the AE’s were not Negros. In all essence this is a source that should be used for an "undeniably NOT black" statement! Found that a little funny.

My second note, is to my favorite Champollion passage, in so that it is now the 3rd time I’ll comment on this very passage on this very talk page (the two others are in the archive). In all fairness this is the first time the passage is quoted from "Egypte Ancienne", the other two times it comes directly from the source. And I can see "Egypte Ancienne" does not contain the full context to the statement. Egypte Ancienne is the work of Jacques Joseph Champollion-Figeac, the brother of the more famous Jean-François Champollion, though it is of course based on Jean-François Champollion’s text and letters. The original source is "Lettres écrites d'Égypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829" by Jean-François Champollion, and this very passage comes from APPENDICE. No.1 - Mémoire sommaire sur l'histoire d'Égypte.

• Lettres écrites d'Égypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829 by Champollion le Jeune, APPENDICE No1 November 1829. Direct Babel Fish French to English translation (first four paragraphs)

The first tribes which populated EGYPT, i.e. the valley of the Nile, between the cataract of Osouan and the sea, came from Abyssinie or Sennaar. But it is impossible to fix the time of this first migration, excessively ancient. The former Egyptians belonged to a race of men completely similar to Kennous or Barabras, inhabitants current of Nubie. One finds in Coptes of Egypt none features characteristic of the old Egyptian population. Coptes are the result of the confused mixture of all the nations which, successively, dominated over Egypt. One is wrong to want to find on their premises the principal features of the old race. The first Egyptians arrived to Egypt in the state of nomads, and did not have residences more fixed than the Bedouins of today; they had neither sciences then, neither arts, nor stable forms of civilization. It is by the work of the centuries and the circumstances that the Egyptians, initially wandering, occupied themselves finally of agriculture, and were established in a fixed and permanent way; then were born the first cities, which were not, in the principle, which small villages, which, by the successive development of civilization, became large and powerful cities. The oldest cities of Egypt were Thèbes (Louqsor and Karnac), Esné, Edfou and the other cities of, above Dendérah; average Egypt became populated then, and Low-Egypt only had later of the inhabitants and the cities. It is only by means of great work carried out by the men, that Low-Egypt became livable.

The key sentence in all this is "finally of agriculture". Champollion talks about a time before agriculture (7000-8000 B.C), when exactly did that become ancient Egypt? (3000 B.C). It’s a bit like says that the origin of today’s USA is the Indians. They certainly were there first, but who made up (populations wise) the USA anno 1776? And who build it up towards what it is today? – Well, emigrants did! The certainly is the possibility that AEs anno 7000 B.C is the same as AEs as anno 3000 B.C, population wise, but it could also be they were not – and Champollion does not address this, one or the other way. Twthmoses (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is beyond insufficient to draw your conclusion based on your premises. How then do you conclude that Lower Egyptians, (who were the conquered of the Upper Egyptians) made up the standard of Egyptian people? The key sentence is not "finally of agriculture". This sentence does nothing for you except maybe give those Dynastic Race Theory racists who believe that agriculturalist societies were by default "Caucasoid". The burden is far on you and in addition you demonstrate the relevance of THIS quote (since it is YOUR third time alone using it, and it's also used in other works)as being part of the debate. YOU are arguing whether or not the Egyptians were black, not whether or not this quote constitutes a key example of the controversy. Remember, we are not debating whether or not the Egyptians are black. We are discussing the controversy of how they were remembered in the modern era. I'm putting the quote back in. --Panehesy (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the clarification needed is to not call them Egyptians. People living the area were not necessarily Egyptian, as that civilization didn't arise until later and may have been a completely different ethnic group or groups. The same issue applies with modern Egyptians, which is why we differentiate ancient Egyptians, since it's not a clear connected line (thus part of the controversy or mystery, if you will). ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See Panehesy, you entirely missed the point! When you can get beyond the point that addressing a source and what it says does not equal Afro centric, Eurocentric, Black, Not Black,etc.. it gets so much easier to have a conversation. When you can get this kind mass “conclusions” out of a single addressing of a source, I’m not entirely sure you are an unbiased observer/contributor/writer. Please try and grab the ball and address the very issues of a conversation, rather than straying off to far-off conclusions that is not actually there. I revivals so much about yourself, rather than the person you address. Now lets leave this and focus on the issue. Champollion talk about a time before agriculture and that is not AE. Champollion does not address the issues of what happened to those people over 4-5000 years – and consequencely I do not! End of message! I do not assume they are not the same, and I do not assume they are the same. You do. Twthmoses (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the native inhabitents of Egypt.

I am curious, where are you guys getting your evidence, or research to back up the claim that the people who civilized Egypt were a different ethnic group than the original inhabitents/ The only theory I have heard that comes close to it is the Dynastic Race Theory. That has been debunked and in addition, we are speaking from the POV of what the Egyptians looked like. I don't even know by what standards you guys are even distinguishing the "predynastic race" from the "dynastic race". Perhaps they were both black. You can't deny, at least one was! Further, this... actually is a great thing to add to the debate. I will add how the White Dynastic Race theory came in (and it makes sense now) and that spawned the Afrocentric response. In fact you guys are making it clear why Afrocentricism continues on. You're promoting a Caucasoidism that is baseless. You brought up the NOTION (with absolutely NOTHING but your own conjecture, not even a working theory) that they were different races. The question... why? --Panehesy (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Panehesy, it sounds like you think Misplaced Pages editors read sources in order to develop their own arguments. This is wrong. It is not for any Wikipedian to make any argument in favor or against any position for the simple fact that Wikipedians never put their own views into articles. The way I read Twthmoses is, she is trying to summarise Champollion's views. Now there are questions one can reasonably ask: Is Champolion expressing a significant (NB NOT "right" or "wrong") view? Is Twthmoses providing an accurate summary of Champolion's view? But what Twthmoses thinks is irrelevant, just as what you think (about the race of ncient Egyptians i mean0 is irrelevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Origins continued...

I did a lot of work to expand clearly on the origins section. thanks to some of the anti-blacks on here, I was reminded of the Dynastic Race Theory and then I remembered some things that I imagine were taken out of the article months ago. Afrocentricism in relationship to Egyptology was definitely used to debunk not just the obvious outrageous Eurocentric nonsense, but also the subtle methods used to neutralize the black Egypt theory. Now, I understand, and I would like to be reminded no longer, that the Article is about the controversy itself, and not about establishing one view over another. However, the controversy itself has premises over the century that were discussed and used to justify one view and another. Those views from what I studied were the established scientific community's use of Craniometry (sp), Skin color scales, etc... Those on the other side, feel FREE to point out the Afrocentric methods that were debunked. But in the end do not try to surreptitiously make the article back up the claim that the Egyptians were a non-black Caucasoid race. That's where problems start. You guys gotta understand, that even halfway between the Caucasoid type and the Negroid type are people who nowadays are known to be strongly black. I cannot look at Obama for example (and hardly anyone can) and say that he is not black, and certainly not his family. The same being for Egypt. Although this is not the purpose of the article, it does matter that both sides understand that the attempt by Caucasoids to redefine race or neutralize race ignores the relevance of how we visually see them, and how they related to others specifically those further south. --Panehesy (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to make racial attacks? Does someone who disagrees with you automatically become a racist? I'm pleased that you understand the article and are working on it, but this doesn't help. Just a couple of comments about your edits - 'Caucasian scholars'? Not a good label, would you call some scholars 'Negroid scholars'? - whatever those words mean. And some of your paragraphs are cited, others not cited at all - do you plan to cite them? Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I ask the same question when I see how Afrocentricism is used as "the reason" this debate exists and then it is attacked. I ask "is it necessary to make racial attacks". But you don't see it that way do you? Notice I made the comment "FEEL FREE TO POINT OUT THE AFROCENTRIC METHODS THAT WERE DEBUNKED", so that answers your question "does anyone who disagrees with you automaticaly become a racist" with a resounding "NO". Now MY question: To you, anyone who points out unfairness among whites in a debate automatically a race baiter? Caucasian scholars woudl be a good label since the organization at that period was racially segregated. And I plan on citing them, but feel free to do so also. I mean, do you actually look at all sides of the thing, or do you do all of the leg work to get one side up to the requirements and just delete parts of the other that aren't up to snuff? --Panehesy (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance Doug, I notice no comments made by you to debunk the comments above that are trying to resurrect the Dynastic Race Theory. Yes, I consider that theory based on a racist mind set, just like the skull measurements, and the skin color scale. All established by one race, never asking for the opinion or the input of other races, and then taking their one view, and making it "official fact" . Yes, I consider that racist, don't you? --Panehesy (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on other editors, and I'm asking you not to. You are welcome to think that a hypothesis is racist, but not to call editors racists. Meanwhile, I asked you some questions about content, are you going to reply? Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem, Panehesy, is that you are using your own views to prop up your arguments. It does not matter that Obama looks Black to you, or that Ancient Egyptians look Black to you. When you inject your own views into the discussion, you only veer closer to violating NOR and further away from settling any point of contention in improving the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevance?

Specifically, this attempted rewriting of the historical narrative of Europe developed into two main forms: the claim that European civilization was founded not by the Greeks, but by the Egyptians, whose culture and learning the Greeks allegedly stole, and that the Egyptians themselves were not only African but also black. Often, Afrocentrists link the two claims, as the following quote (by Marcus Garvey) displays:

“

Every student of history, of impartial mind, knows that the Negro once ruled the world, when white men were savages and barbarians living in caves; that thousands of Negro professors at that time taught in the universities in Alexandria, then the seat of learning; that ancient Egypt gave the world civilization and that Greece and Rome have robbed Egypt of her arts and letters, and taken all the credit to themselves.

”

Both themes were to survive Garvey and to continue throughout the 20th century and up to the present day, provoking debate both in academia and in more public spheres, such as mainstream media and the internet.

This piece starts off talking about Europe. What does this have to do with the article? This is another referendum on Afrocentricism. As many admins have said again and again, this is not a debate about whether or not the Egyptians are black and this is not a referendum article on Afrocentricism. Please keep the article focused on it's purpose. And feel free to put that section in the Afrocentricism article. --Panehesy (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why material on Afrocentrism does not belong in this article, as long as a verifiable source is using Afrocentrism to explain a position in the debate of ancient Egyptian races. My principle is simple: we must not violate NOR. But if a significant view concerning AER, in a notable and reliabl source, accuses someone of Afrocentrism in relation to AER, well, I see no grounds for excluding it. This does not mean that the article is about Afrocentrism. it simply means that one view of the controversy claims that Afrocentrism is relevant. I believe one could take verything I just wrote, replace Afrocentrism with either Eurocentrism or Hellenocentrism, and it would remain an accurate and appropriate statement.

It seems to me that a main impediment to progress in this article is the following: that more than one group of people are or have been debating the racial identity of ancient Egyptians. If this is so, I believe there is a simple solution: each group (i.e. each distinct debate, e.g., a debate among historians and a debate among the general public) should get its own article. This would not be a POV fork (since each article would continue to represent opposing views), it would be a content fork which is perfectly legitimate. It is my sense that this article keeps getting bogged down (it has been going on for years now) because two or more different debates (by which I mean, debates among different groups of people) keep getting mixed up. The path to peace is to separate distinct groups/debates. If everyone insists on keeping one article, then it should be reorganized to say "Different people at different times have debated ..." and then each section of the article would cover a different group of people debating the issue. My point is to shift focus away from the question "what was the race of ancient Egyptians" to "Who is it that cares about and debates the race of ancient Egyptians."

This shift would mean that this article is not in any way about ancient Egyptians, it is about people today - people today who hold contrary beliefs about ancient Egyptians. They may claim that they hold on to their respective views because they are "true" but a historian, sociologist, or anthropologist would argue that they hold on to thi beliefs because of other factors - their life history, their position in society, and broader cultural and social forces. We should be looking wor works by sociologists and anthropologists that analyze this debate in its present cultural and historical context; that analyze this debate in order to learn something about race relations today (and not racial identities thousands of years ago).

I have a final suggestions which I think might accommodate all sides here. In the article on ancient Egyptians, treat the demography (when did different waves of migrations from different areas settle in Egypt) of Egypt separately from the question of, "how did Ancient Egyptians conceive of differences among people/categorize different people." Moreover, following Misplaced Pages policy, in each section provide the mainstream view first, then the minority view.

What i have tried to do is provide a space for every significant view. And I have done so by trying to arrange these spaces in a way that would be most edifying to our readers. Now, have I been misunderstanding some major part of the debate here? I don'tmind people criticizing my proposal, but I'd appreciate it if the problem(s) were laid out in a clear and logical way. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On June 18 Paul B suggested that an approach advocated by Zara1706 could be a productive way to reframe and develop the article. I urge Ancient Observer, WDFord, and other good faith editors to follow this approach. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of a three-step-program

Today I received afriendly advise that I "will find it a more congenial editing environment" here, if I'd like to continue to work on this article. For the record: I would really like to continue to work on this article, however, I am currently caught up in another controversy. As the situation currently is, I am not feeling prepared for another polemical controversy here. So, before we are turning to the actual issues of this topic, I would like to make a suggestion on the way we should handle the issue. I personally think that our policies and guidelines are very specific. It aren't the views of the editors, that should determine the content of an article, but the views of reliable sources. As long as we don't bother with reading the academic works on the topic, we will not be able to solve the controversies surrounding it. I, too, originally made the mistake of editing here without having read a few books on the topic, but I've realized my mistake by now. I think that out policies, especially wp:rs, would suggest the following order of business:

• Step 1: Identify reliable sources on the topic, searching the most reputable academic ones.
• Step 2: Discuss, and find an agreement, on the scope of the article and write a preliminary lead section.
• Step 3: Discuss what material needs to be included in the article, what sections there need to be; e.g., should we include a section on the "Ancient views" or one section on "Language" or not.

If there is sufficient support for this 3-step-program, then I think we can have the controversy solved, to a great part, within 2-4 months. This topic is highly controversial, and there will always be a few editors with whom no compromise is possible, but since I can be sure that there are good, reliable sources on the topic and that there are still more editors who are interested in writing articles than in pushing partisan views (of either side), the controversy on Misplaced Pages is solvable. For step 1, everyone would be able to suggest the sources he knows on the topic. Even those editors who are currently banned from this talk page can suggest the sources they know on my user talk page and I will add their suggestion here. We can then discuss the reliability of the sources, which should not take more than two weeks, I hope, and then we can go to the next step.

This discussion is not a vote, but if you endorse this proposal, please write Support, if you wish to decline it, please write Oppose. Zara1709 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Zara i think the parameters that should should be addressed first is what should "not" be in this article,so as not have a return to the previous article and the previous one before that that will inevitably get reset from scratch again for pushing fringe theory and just waste alot of time, wdford was just in the process of re adding everything from the previous article before you did a revert--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that is reliable sources take divergent views on the same topic, they must all be represented in the same article. But if differnt sources address different questions or issues, there may be a need for mor than one article (this would be a "content fork").Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• support Slrubenstein | Talk 23:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Step 1: Finding sources

Let's see: There is only minimal support for my proposed program, but then, again, there is also no opposition. (I am not sure what to make of the comment that was removed as a violation of the article ban.) So I think we should go ahead with it. I will most likely make more than one set of suggestions on sources. Of course, you are free to bring your own sources forward, this is in fact the whole idea of step one. If you are currently banned from this article talk page, you can tell me about your sources on my talk page, if you want.

Suggestions by Zara1709 (Set 1)

Reputable academic works

• Yaacov Shavit, History in black : African-Americans in search of an ancient past, 2001
• Stephen Howe, Afrocentrism : mythical pasts and imagined homes, 1998
• Wilson Jeremiah Moses, Afrotopia : the roots of African American popular history, 1998
• Mary R. Lefkowitz & Guy MacLean Rogers (Eds.), Black Athena revisited, 1996 (some articles in this book most likely fall under the category of partisan sources below, but I haven't checked yet)

Partisan sources

• Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, 1987/1991 (?)
  • A critical review can be found e.g. in the Journal of the History of Ideas
• Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth As History, 1997
  • For a critical review see e.g. August Meier in The Journal of American History

Discussion

The two books under "Partisan sources" are, afaik, essential, since they are the reason why the issue is discussed in the so-called academia in the first place. One of the problems so far in this discussion was, as I perceived it, that one group of editors only read Bernal and the other group of editors only read Lefkowitz. We should be able to move the discussion beyond that point now, unless of course, someone of either group would like to object to either Bernal or Lefkowitz being listed as partisan sources - then I can spend several hours looking through the "Online Contents"-database for more critical reviews, if necessary. So, if anyone has a reason to disagree with my assessment of these sources, he /she should better say that now, because I wouldn't like it if we have to go back to step one after we have reached step two. Zara1709 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions by Jayen466

• Maghan Keita, Race and the writing of history, Oxford University Press
  • Some reviews: , , JN466 13:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've just read the introduction of the book (not at google books - I've got the printed version from my local, very well endowed library) and it looks very promising. Also: Maghan Keita is, like Wilson Jeremiah Moses, an African-American. With this, we actually have the authors almost balanced out with 3 'white' and 3 'black' authors; Of course we know that the skin colour of the author has nothing to do with the reliability of the source, but I am not sure if everyone, who is reading this, does. ...Zara1709 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions by Zara1709 (Set 2: Some French articles)

• Alain Froment: Origines du Peuplement de l'Egypte Ancienne: l'Apport de l'anthropobiologie. Archéo-Nil 2 (1992):79-98. Publisher description
• Alain Froment: Race et Histoire: La recomposition ideologique de l'image des Egyptiens anciens. Journal des Africanistes 64 (1994):37-64. available online: Race et Histoire

Muntuwandi made a remark on my talk page, implying, among other things, that the topic is also discussed in France. Well, I don't know about that, but the French article which we currently have mentioned under "References" is quite good, I think. And the same author also wrote at least one more article on the topic, which, however, would be rather difficult for me to get. Muntuwandi also implied that he would like to see an "anthropological perspective or even from Egyptologists." Well, I would like to see that too, but then again, I am already content that we've found some history books. Of course, if Muntuwandi knows some Anthropology and Egyptology sources on the topic, then I'd like to hear about then, here. Zara1709 (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sphinx section

Sorry to have blundered in here; I realise this article has been contentious, and I don't know all the history. However, the Sphinx section was empty, with a tag asking for expansion; I found some material that had been used elsewhere in the past, tidied up the sourcing, and while it only illustrates one side of the argument at the moment, I believe it is better than what there was. As for the Sphinx image, the quote by the Harvard orthodontist directly refers to the Sphinx's profile, as seen from the right, which is precisely the view this picture illustrates, thus giving the reader an appreciation of the argument. By all means, let us represent the views and reasoning of those who support a different view, but what is there now is part of the debate. Is that okay? Cheers, JN466 21:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Step 2: Scope and Lead of the article

We could have allowed some more time for the finding of reliable sources, but considering the recent unilateral action by Wdford, we have to proceed to step two now. Wdford's ban from the article and this talk page was lifted just today, and he immediately went ahead with editing. Hey, we've already had this before: There is no point in adding new sections to this article when we don't even know how reliable secondary sources define the scope of the topic. What can't talk about what is relevant or not when we haven't even looked at some sources. Specifically, I object to the removal of the mentioning of 'Afrocentrism' from the lead of the article; Although the topic is not exhausted by discussion Afrocentrism, it is essential to cover the movement, because otherwise one could not understand why this is a current and ongoing "controversy". Let's that we get some quotes from the literature, and then we can discuss how to word the lead. Zara1709 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Zara i think the parameters that should should be addressed first is what should "not" be in this article,so as not have a return to the previous article and the previous one before that, that will inevitably get reset from scratch again for pushing fringe theory and just waste alot of time, wdford was just in the process of re adding everything from the previous article before you did a revert, a few things to leave out of the article are random art galleries and genetic studies and also any scientiffic studies that does not have a direct tie to an over all controversey reateing to this subject--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably I have not made myself clear enough: We can't address anything here, if we don't know what reliable sources have to say on the topic. If editors simply add whatever they personally think is relevant for the article, then we are not getting an encyclopaedic article, but an expression of whatever viewpoints the editors have. As soon as I'm done with checking 4 history books on this, I can tell you, why we need to mention Afrocentrism (and also Black Athena) in the lead. Zara1709 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn't change the scope of the article, I just deleted all the unsubstantiated material. I also didn't add back the entire content of the previous version, I mostly referenced existing sections to existing main articles. Do a comparison and see the difference. I have no objection to mentioning Afrocentrism in the lead, provided its referenced and provided the Afrocentrists don't try to hijack the controversy as their own. However we can't leave the article crippled for the next few months while Zara gets around to finding sources she personally approves of - feel free to add your sources when you have the time. Its also not acceptable for everyone else to have to stand around while Zara decides what she thinks the article should be about – that is article ownership as well as personal POV of the worst kind. The comments I added are referenced, neutral, balanced and substantiated by reliable sources. If anybody deletes referenced, neutral, balanced and substantiated material because of personal content POV then that constitutes disruptive editing. Wdford (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced does not mean it belongs in the article,particulary a article like this that is prone to original research and fringe--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, nothing I added is original research or fringe, so its fine then. If you object to any particular sentence then please point it out, and we can discuss and correct as appropriate.

AND ZARA - YOU DON'T NEED TO FIRST SEEK CONSENSUS IN ORDER TO DELETE UNSUBSTANTIATED MATERIAL - I'M SURE YOU KNOW THAT. Don't start an edit war based on your long-standing desire to own the article - the scope is still exactly the same as it ever was, and you are the one who needs to achieve consensus to change it. Your little survey achieved a single response, at a time when those many editors who disagree with you were banned from commenting, so it means nothing has changed. If you can find reliable sources to substantiate the material I deleted, then by all means add it back in, however it can’t stay there indefinitely while you get around to it.

Wdford (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's see: Among other, Wdford added a section on Ancient Egyptian art. Unless we have reliable secondary sources that also discuss "Ancient Egyptian art", it is highly doubtful that we need such a section. Adding this section certainly won't help readers to understand why this is such a controversial topic. Probably the article can have such a section, probably not. But before we add such a section, I really think that we need to see the reliable secondary sources that explain, why this needs to be included in the article. Zara1709 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has been protected for 48 hours based on this new edit war. Please reach a consensus on these new edits - if one is reached before the protection expires, I'm happy to remove it, and I'm happy for any other admin to do the same. ~ mazca 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how adding the Art section constitutes a BOLD edit, but I agree to leave out that one section in order to restore the rest of the many corrections and removed the OR. If Zara wants to be constructive, then surely she can't object to that. Can she? Wdford (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On editor conduct

Wdford, here is a suggestion: I know that my little survey didn't achieve a lot of response. But before you accuse me of having a "long-standing desire to own the article", remember that I gave up on this article after you and your friends (of whom some were sockpuppets) repeatedly ignored my objection to their edits. I've read some academic books on the issue, and I would gladly help to write a good (or at least an acceptable) article on it for Misplaced Pages. However, I am under the assumption that Misplaced Pages highly regards WP:Reliable sources, which, I presume this article needs. If you want to write this article together with me, then you have the chance to bring forward your reliable sources now, and you should use this chance. Because otherwise it is doubtful whether you are adding actually relevant and verifiable content to the article, or whether you are simply pushing your personal point-of-view. Zara1709 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all the content I have added is verifiable, as you could clearly see just by following all the references I supplied. If you have specific reasons for questioning any single sentence, then by all means point it out. However its not appropriate to leave the article stuffed with unsubstantiated OR while you wallow around in your academic books - how come you are not concerned about all that existing OR? And its not appropriate to ground the entire article while one editor (you or anybody else) decides what is or is not appropriate content. Please contribute constructively any time you see the opportunity, but you don't have the right of veto here whatever you might think. Wdford (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

i think zara is on the right path she has put foward a rational plan on how to try and proceed with this article, also what was stated by the admin on the admin incident notice board fits here,the admin something to the fact that this is not the time nor a good idea to WP:BEBOLD at this point, this is not an article that is going to be put together in a day,this is tedious work--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you failed to see my point, Wdford. It is not only verifiability, it is also about relevance. You have included a reference in your "ancient Egyptian art" section, but we don't know why we would need such a section. Certainly one could find verifiable information on how the ancient Chinese depicted themselves in their art, but that would certainly not be sufficient to justify an article 'Ancient Chinese race controversy'. This article purports that there is some kind of "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". We currently even lack basic information on this controversy. Who started the debate, for example. I really doubt that it was Jean-François Champollion, as the article currently implies. Before we turn to such specific questions as to what extent a reference to Ancient Egyptian art has been used as an argument in the controversy, we need to find out some basics facts. I was just about to do that. I could appreciate your help, but I would also be able to figure that out on my own. Zara1709 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In studying and trying to understand who the Ancient Egyptians were, wouldn't their art and depictions of themselves be a useful tool? Isn't it discussed as such in many sources? Why would a culture's own artwork be excluded from archeological studies of who they were? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to figure out who the Ancient Egyptians were or present a case of what race they were--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is about their race ie. who they were. And the artwork plays a role in providing evidence. Isn't that correct? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest working on a Draft version, rather than the main article. Since this article is under a heavy spotlight, we don't want to give any excuses, for protections, blocks and bans. There is a draft Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Draft. A good start would be to list all the sources that could be used in the article, vet which sources are reliable and directly relevant and eliminate those which aren't. We also need an agreement on the scope of the article, because the subject is quite large. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And in the meanwhile the article is a "hideous mess of unsourced statements, maintenance tags, original resource and synthesis", to quote from ANI. Surely there must be enough maturity to agree to fix that, before we descend yet again into the process of finding consensus on the scope? And if we agree on a consensus scope and rebuild the article in draft, will the article move forward, or will Dab simply reappear to happily stomp on it again? I agree that the current situation is far from perfect, but the controversy is real, and I would rather help all the knowledge-seekers by having a properly balanced article that addresses half the topic, than by having a bunch of Afrocentrist POV or having no article at all. Seeing as how this repair job is going to take months and will inevitably result in some non-neutral admins simply repeating the loop yet again, can we perhaps find a majority of mature adults who are willing to agree to first fix the existing article within the existing scope? If we can just fix what is patently broken, then Zara can have her extended period to dig up her sources and explain her POV, and we can spend months working on a draft to nowhere - but in the meanwhile good-faith readers are being given some unsubstantiated babble about Hollywood and the Jews - how could that possibly be appropriate? Wdford (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::The article is not about what race the AE were, it is meant to be about the history of the controversy - when it started, who the main participants were, etc. If there was a major issue which involved artwork, perhaps the artwork should be featured. I think CoM has a different view of what this article is about. Wdford, attacking another editor is not a good idea when you have just been unbanned, is it? Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the controversy over who the Ancient Egyptians were? So in covering the controversy won't the points of view and investigational techniques including the artwork be discussed? Is there another article covering who the Ancient Egyptians were? Maybe that's the solution. Get rid of the word "race" in the title, and come up with a title that covers the notable and ongoing investigations into who the Egyptians were. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, only some editors think that the scope should be limited, and the title of the article itself does not support any such limitation. At the moment this is the root of much of the problem, as different camps are contesting over scope limitations which should not actually exist. I have proposed before that the article be divided into different streams, each with a different scope, but certain nameless camps don't want to solve the scope issue, as the current mess seemingly suits them better. And as for attacking people, I have been attacked much more severely than anything I have written today, and yet my attackers were condoned. Once again, why the double standard? Wdford (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why we don't need a section on "Ancient Egyptian art"!

There is an easy way and a hard way to find an agreement on this article: The 3-step-program which I have suggested is the easy way. In step one we searched for reputable sources on the topic. In step 2 we should find an agreement on the scope (and probably the title) of the article and write as lead paragraph for it. In step 3 we can discuss what sections the article needs. Currently, Wdford is actually forcing us to take the 3rd step before the 2nd. We don't yet know what this article is actually be supposed to be about, and yet we have to decide whether the article needs a section "Ancient Egyptian art". Wdford, I am not saying that we should limit the scope. I am saying that we first need to define the scope of the article, before we continue to expand it. I've said the same thing last January, and if you had followed my suggestion then, you would have saved yourself a lot of work. If you insist on expanding the article know, and then it would turn out that that, what the academic secondary literature discusses as "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" doesn't actually include a discussion of ancient Egyptian art, you would have wasted quite a lot of work. If it should turn out that there aren't "multiple reliable sources" on the topic of this article, then it should be deleted. Even if every single information in it is verifiable, the article as a whole would constitute original research. I am actually thinking of proposing it for deletion right now, there should be enough editors who have grown tired of the controversy to give this afd a chance to succeed. And then, if I'd like, I could write an article on the Black Athena controversy or the Bernal-Lefkowitz or on Radical Afrocentrism or on Afrocentric historiography or on Racist historiographies or else. All those topics are rather easy to define, whereas it is still unclear what this ncient Egyptian race controversy is.

Anyway, based on the literature I've read I don't think that we need a section on "Ancient Egyptian art". This is what Wilson J. Moses has to say about this:

"...General Colin Powell, although whiter than most of the self-portrayals of Egyptians in most surviving paintings, can remember a day when he would have been banned from the University of Alabama. And yet many of the same Americans who once denied Ralph Bunche admission to restaurants and tennis courts can become apoplectic at the idea that the Pharaohs were Negroes by the American definition. It was in the face of this illogic that the mulatto author J.A.Rogers classified his Pharaohs as black. John G. Jackson was more Caucasian in appearance than most Egyptians, ancient or modern, and many of the Pharaohs, if transplanted across time and onto the Chattanooga Choo-Choo in 1945, would have had difficulty obtaining a Pullman berth or being seated in a dining car." (Afrotopia, p. 37)

I am fully siding with the (not radical) Afrocentrists here. The ancient Egyptians were black, however, as Wilson J. Moses points out with a very good reason "...by the American definition". The problem is not determining the colour of the Egyptians on the surviving paintings; If the literature bothers with that issue, I haven't found the particular passages yet. Actually, I suspect that the historians (at least those I've read) would find it quite boring to look at the Ancient Egyptian paintings or to measure the 'blackness' of skin colour of the contemporary Egyptians. Instead they look for the people who themselves looked at the Ancient Egyptian paintings and whatever other arguments there are to say that the ancient Egyptians were 'black' (by the American definition). The historians localize these people in their intellectual contexts, and by doing this they manage to say something about the US-American society. I strongly assume that many readers of Misplaced Pages would be interested in what these historians have to say, because Ancient Egypt and "Black people" is a topic that appears to be discussed intensively in the U.S. Or at least, some people have strong views on this - they don't necessarily talk to the people with the other view.

In short, I want to have an article on the controversy. I want to know which people have argued that the ancient Egyptians were "Negroes by the American definition", probably based on a look at Ancient Egyptian art; I don't want to have a section that talk about "the ancient Egyptians depict themselves in a wide variety of colors, but the predominant color used for Egyptian men was reddish-brown, while the Egyptian women are usually portrayed with much lighter skin pigmentation," diff unless it should somehow turn out that this was used as an argument in the controversy. Zara1709 (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since Zara has offered a framework for progress, I suggest we follow it, reputable sources, scope and content. I do believe that art is important, since much of what we know about how the Egyptians may have looked like comes from art. I disagree with Editors searching for specific images to support one position or another, unless there are reliable sources that back up such interpretations. The public has been influenced by images of Egyptian art, and it is very much part of the controversy, the task is making it relevant to the topic. The scope of the article is really important. I think different editors approach this controversy from different perspectives. Some think it should only be about the controversy, only about Afrocentrism or even only about African American Afrocentrism. The population history of Egypt article was created as a Fork because of such views and we need to decide whether or not it should be reincorporated into the main article. The historical development is also controversial. Some editors only want contemporary studies and don't want sources from the 19th century. The language section has also been the subject of dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

General

• Bard, Kathryn (1999). Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt. ISBN 0415185890.
• Shaw, Ian (2002). "The Racial and Ethnic Identity of the Ancient Egyptians". ISBN 0192802933. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Yurco, Frank (1989), Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White? (PDF)

19th century publications

• Morton, Samuel George (1844). "Egyptian Ethnography". {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Volney, Constantin-François (1801). Travels in Syria and Egypt, during the years 1783, 1784, & 1785.
• Morton, Samuel George (1844). "Egyptian Ethnography". {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Rawlinson, George (1886). "The People of Egypt". Ancient Egypt. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Nott (1855). "Negro Types". Types of Mankind. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

  • Modern sources about 19th century scholars

  • General Remarks on "Types of Mankind"
  • Trafton, Scott (2004). Egypt Land: Race and Nineteenth-century American Egyptomania. ISBN 0822333627.

I guess we need to decide whether any of this is relevant, important or necessary for the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic evidence

• Bernal, Martin (1987). Black Athena: the Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization. Vol. Volume 3, The Linguistic Evidence. ISBN 0813536553. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Population history/Anthropometry

• Zakrzewski, Sonia (2007). "Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state" (PDF). doi:10.1002/ajpa.20569. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Kemp, Barry (2005). "Who were the Ancient Egyptians". Egypt: Anatomy of a civilization. p. 52. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• S.O.Y. Keita (2005). "Early Nile Valley Farmers, From El-Badari, Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data" (PDF). doi:10.1177/0021934704265912. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• Morant (1925). "A study of Egyptian craniology from prehistoric to Roman times". Biometrika. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |First= ignored (|first= suggested) (help)
• MacIver (1905). "chapter 9". The Ancient Races of the Thebaid. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Strouhal, Eugen (1971). "Evidence of the Early Penetration of Negroes into Prehistoric Egypt". Journal of African History.

Population genetics

• Stevanovitch (2004). "Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt". doi:10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Afrocentrism

• Ivan van Sertima (1994). Egypt, Child of Africa. ISBN 1560007923.
• Ivan van Sertima (1989). Egypt Revisited. ISBN 0887387993. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• W.E.B Du Bois (1915). The Negro. ISBN 1605060275.

Scope and name of article

There was a decision by a small number of editors to reduce the scope of the article to only cover the Afrocentrism controversy. The Afrocentrism controversy is just one part of the subject and there is sufficient evidence from some of the above sources that there is interest in the subject beyond Afrocentrism. In light of this a name change may be necessary. Possible names include:

• Race of the Ancient Egyptians
• Race of the Ancient Egyptians (theories and controversies)

Wapondaponda (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to prepare a more elaborate reply; before we discuss the name, we would have to discuss the scope and write a lead for the article. If I was to make a suggestion for the name, I would go with

• Ancient Egypt in historiographies of race

but I think it is to early for a discussion of the name yet. First we need to agree on the scope, and discuss such questions as how important Afrocentrism is for the topic. Because I think, based on the literature I've read, that although the topic is well not exhausted by referring about Afrocentrism, an understanding of core theses of Afrocentrism is essential to understand why this is a controversial topic in the first place. Probably more than half of the article should ultimately deal with Afrocentrism. And I don't think that we need any article Race of Ancient Egyptians/Chinese/Germans/ ... or whatever, simply because the concept of 'race' is totally outdated. Yes, there were historically enough historiographies of race, but the more popular versions of these are all pseudo-scientific, and we must not refer them as sciences on Misplaced Pages. What you want to discuss is, speaking politically correct, not the race of the Ancient Egyptians, but the origins of the Ancient Egyptians (we already have a redirect Origin of Egyptians). You could even mention the work of Bernal there. However, you would have to make it abundantly clear that theses like those of Bernal are much more than purely a scientific hypotheses. They are part of a cultural/intellectual movement, and actually there is a contrary intellectual movement, which is why this topic is discusses so controversially, and, to point that out, the important discussion is not the one in the sciences, but the one in the public sphere. Zara1709 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to mention the Afrocentrism movement as part of the context of the controversy, and I also agree that the controversy is not a scientific discussion. However Afrocentrism already has its own article, including an existing section on Egypt, so we certainly don't need to dedicate half of this article to Afrocentrism. I would resist any attempts to hi-jack this article to further expound the Afrocentrism viewpoint, because that article already exists and anything that needs to be added can be added there.

The "Race of the Ancient Egyptians" is also already dealt with elsewhere, more or less adequately, and there is mention that some people believe different things and that a controversy exists. Dbachmann split that material off more or less intact into the Population history of Ancient Egypt article, and although we need to enhance the material, the various "scientific" arguments can be made there. Those of Whom We Dare Not Speak have already warned that they will use the size of the article against us if we add that material back in, so rather leave that material there and just link it. I already linked it, but a certain editor mass-reverted it along with a lot of other stuff.

Those of Whom We Dare Not Speak have several times already reverted months of work because we deviated from their preferred POV of the "history of the controversy". There is no valid basis for this scope limitation, but I am nonetheless concerned that any outcome that is not confined to the "history" will once again be happily reverted, however inappropriately, and that this discussion is thus going down a blind alley.

I strongly suggest that we accept the scope limitation, provided we change the title of the aticle to "History of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy." That way certain people get their twisted little triumph, but wikiusers who genuinely want to know more about the controversy will not be mislead by the title of one poor and limited article into believing that there is no controversy, and that it was all just a figment of the imagination. Once that is accomplished then padding out the article with the sources mentioned above becomes appropriate, and any further work done will at least not be wasted.

The Tutankhamun / Cleopatra etc race issues are what the majority of wikiusers really want to read about - "which race built the Pyramids?" These existing articles can then each have one section mentioning that a controversy exists, briefly and in line with WP:UNDUE, with the necessary bunch of links to the Afrocentrism article and elsewhere as appropriate to provide the full detail for those wikiusers who want to know more. This is the stuff that is really important to explain the controversy properly, and I am concerned that it should not be submerged among 200 years of academic pontification.

Provided all the articles are properly cross-linked, any wikiusers who genuinely want to know more about the details of the controversy will be able to find what they need by reading a number of complete articles in combination, rather than be tricked into relying on one damaged and censored article whose scope has been perverted away from that promised by its title.

Lastly, I propose that as soon as the article is unprotected, the huge amount of unsubstantiated OR be deleted. Keeping massive amounts of blatant OR on the article makes the article look ridiculous, which I suspect is exactly why Those of Whom We Dare Not Speak allow it to stand there while ruthlessly crushing much less serious comments. We don't have to first discuss in depth the relevance of Bernal et al before unsubstantiated OR can be removed. If any editor really wants to keep all that unsubstantiated OR in the article, please could they substantiate their reasons here today.

Wdford (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, in a side note: Obviously we have different views on the topic, and of course you don't need to like me, but if you want to express your distance, then it is sufficient to simply address me in the 3rd person. I am doing the same; And while Wdford is now lamenting about "months of work" being reverted, he is forgetting that it was me who desperately tried to start a discussion on the scope here last February or so. If we had discussed this back then, then obviously one could have done useful work in the meantime. The notion that one should have a consensus on the scope of an article on a controversial issue, which one is writing in a collaboration, isn't that hard to get, or is it?

Probably it is possible to have an article on the racial typology/population characteristics (or similar) of the ancient Egyptians, but such an article must not be called "Race of the Ancient Egyptians" - simply because nobody who is interested in a purely scientific debate would use the word "race" any more. I've looked at the sources that we've got here: the closest is one article that speak of "racial identity". I have to admit, I haven't studied all the sources in detail and there are certainly more sources out there, but, with the current sources at least, there is no way to justify a title like "Race of the Ancient Egyptians" that would be about a purely scientific debate. If you want to have an article on the views of physical anthropology or that like, I think, the old Origin of the Nilotic peoples would have been a good start.

Really, there is to be an article about the ancient Egyptian population on a purely factual basis, this article should not have the word "race" in its title. The question: Where did the people who build the pyramids come from?" is a a valid one and worthy of an encyclopaedia. As far as we know, mankind didn't evolve in the Nile valley, so the ancient Egyptians must have migrated there at some point in time. The question "which race built the Pyramids?" is less valid. Certainly, you are not asking what the ancient Egyptians looked like, or are you? I can tell you one thing: They were human, and that has to be enough. Is the physical appearance of the people who built the pyramids relevant for Misplaced Pages? If we actually had media images of the pyramids being built, would you choose an image that shows the people at work or one where you could see the colour of their eyes? Physical appearance is actually not interesting and I don't think that we need an article for that. About a century ago many historians thought that they could understand questions of pre-historical migrations better by looking at physical appearance. As far as I know, Genetics has largely replaced that notion. In short: If you want, you can write an article like "Origins of the ancient Egyptians" or that like. There is already a lot material on that, and I would help to gather it from the old edit histories; Just don't make it an article about 'race'.

Most likely you will now be saying that in some cases physical appearance does make a difference and is relevant. I myself have quoted a passage from a book that would illustrate the relevance. The Egyptians were rather dark-skinned, if compared to people from Europe, but this is only relevant because skin colour has historically carried a social significance in the 19th and 20th century. Guess why Wilson J. Moses explains for almost half a page (the quote is about twice as long in the original) what it meant to 'be black' in mid 20th century America! The European people of that time often had the notion that people with a dark skin were inferior to them, which in turn led authors like Joel Augustus Rogers point to the example of the ancient Egyptians as Black people in this sense who clearly weren't inferior. This is a topic that is somehow about "ancient Egypt" and "race". But you only need a very few facts about ancient Egypt for a corresponding article - and a lot of facts about the 19th and 20th century United States. Zara1709 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Kathryn A. Bard: Ancient Egyptians and the Notion of Race; Black Athena Revisited, pp. 103-111

As first part to writing a new lead paragraph (one without any fact-tags) I took a look at the source referred. Reference 2 checks out ok, but because it is not entirely clear what is meant by anachronistic, I added the quote in the refs. However, reference no. 3 is highly problematic. The sentence currently reads: "Scholarly consensus at the end of the 20th Century is that that as far as skin colour is concerned, the ancient Egyptians were neither "black" nor "white" (as such terms are usually applied today)." If Kathryn A. Bard says that, I can't find it. What she says is: "The evidence cited here strongly suggests that the ancient Egyptians were North African peoples, distinct form Sub-Saharan blacks." I don't think that I need to bother to explain to most readers here that there is a difference between 'Sub-Saharan black' and '"black"'. The main reason for the Afrocentric Egyptocentrism (i.e. the Afrocentric preoccupation with ancient Egypt) is that according to the notion of 'black' (as in "black race" or "Negro") which was common until the 1960s or so the ancient Egyptians would have to classified as 'black'. And Lefkowitz et al. are taking a heavy polemic beating because they are completely oblivious to this fact. The article by Kathryn A. Bard is technically correct, because she only speaks of "Sub-Saharan blacks". However, by neglecting the social circumstances in which the intellectual position which she opposes has arisen, authors like her aren't helping to establish a dialogue with the other position. Anyway, I am going to fix that sentence. Since it is not clear what is meant by "usually applied today", I'll simply use, as Bard does, the terms "Sub-Saharan blacks" and "Caucasian whites". Zara1709 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of "months of work wasted", those who were not participating at the time should please note that a number of editors spent those months working out a consensus for a scope and a lead section, and then got banned for our efforts. In fact, the very process of suggesting and debating different possible lead sections on the talk page was held against me by ICB, although fortunately some admins of integrity showed up at AE and set the record straight. Half a dozen of us did in fact achieve a consensus on the scope of the article, but then Dbachmann reappeared with his own special POV, and the rest is history.

I agree that this controversy is not a scientific debate. However the controversy is about “race” as ordinary humans understand it and are affected by it, so while it is certainly appropriate that we point out that “race” is not a valid scientific concept, we cannot hide from the fact that billions of humans are acutely aware of the concept as it affects their daily lives (and not just the African-Americans.) We can argue here that “race” is a non-concept, and that its enough that “they were human”, but millions of people want to know for real – “were they Black like me?” Many claim that “they” were indeed Black, others claim they were not Black, and so we have a controversy. To many of those millions, the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians is actually very interesting indeed, and they are actually very interested in what race were Tut and Cleopatra etc.

PS: The debate on physical anthropology is currently incorporated at the Population history of Egypt, and everything seems to be going smoothly. That includes covering “Where did the people who build the pyramids come from?" although only in a very circumspect manner, as the debate is “scientific” and the “hard” evidence is inconclusive.

PPS: I fully agree with Zara’s new lead sentence quoting Bard. If I recall correctly the original sentence was from the Cairo Symposium, not from Bard, and the accurate referencing was lost when this drivel was reinstated during the Four Month Rollback.

PPPS: Rather than trying to tweak an article full of unsubstantiated OR, I strongly suggest that the first step after the lock-down is lifted be to clean up all the unsubstantiated statements. If the original editor is sitting out there stewing impotently behind a topic ban with a ream of references ready and waiting, please pass them on to me on my user page.

Wdford (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Images

I think we need to obtain a consensus on the use of images in this article. The uploading of images can obviously be abused by persons trying to "prove" the race of the Egyptians through sheer weight of images, and that is clearly inappropriate. However wikipolicy does encourage the use of images that clarify the subject matter of the article, and it seems foolish to write a paragraph about e.g. the features of Ahkenaten without including a picture so that readers can see what is being described. I am also concerned about editors deleting images on the basis that they are "not neutral" - if the image is verifiable and relevant to the controversy then deleting it is a form of POV in itself. Wdford (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I heartily agree. We should feature such images as have been put forward by either side of the debate. JN466 08:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I would he helpful to go into a debate about the use of images at this point. First we would need to know whether we actually need a section on the Sphinx, e.g., and I really would like to reserve the discussion about that for Step 3. First we need to write an acceptable lead paragraph. Zara1709 (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph

So Wdford removed several sentences that were flagged with "citation needed" (and one that wasn't flagged) diff. I suppose this doesn't make any difference, because we can simply restore the two or three statements that are verifiable. Because Wdford's edit left the article without a meaningful lead, I started with that. I would give you a full quote from Shavit on this talk page, now, if only I'd had more time a.t.m. Right now it should be sufficient to say that the Eurocentric considerations (at least) were already developed in the 19th century (p.43) and that Shavit explicitly describes this as the "Eurocentric point of view" (p.44).Zara1709 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The one line that wasn't flagged was still unsubstantiated OR.

I have reverted the blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence, as absolutely no attempt was made to discuss this, far less establish a consensus.

I propose as a lead section, the following:

Scholarly consensus at the end of the 20th Century is that the concept of "pure race" is incoherent, and that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic.

Comments?

Wdford (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Lefkowitz p. 8
2. Marcus Garvey: "Who and what is a Negro", 1923. Quoted by Lefkowitz.
3. Bard, in turn citing B.G. Trigger, "Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?", in African in Antiquity, The Arts of Nubian and the Sudan, vol 1, 1978.
4. Frank M. Snowden Jr., Bernal's 'Blacks' and the Afrocentrists: " Egyptians, Greeks and Romans attached no special stigma to the color of the skin and developed no hierarchical notions of race whereby highest and lowest positions in the social pyramid were based on color." Black Athena Revisited, p. 122
5. Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt, by Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert, pg 277
6. Race and Human Variation
7. Keita (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation" (PDF). doi:10.1038/ng1455. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
8. General history of Africa, by G. Mokhtar, International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa, Unesco
9. Afrocentrism, by Stephen Howe
10. Tutankhamun was not black: Egypt antiquities chief, AFP, September 2007
11. Baltimore Sun: "Was Cleopatra Black", 2002
12. "Was Cleopatra Black?", from Ebony magazine, February 1 2002. In support of this, she cites a few examples, one of which she supplies is a chapter entitled "Black Warrior Queens" published in 1984 in Black Women in Antiquity, part of the Journal of African Civilization series. It draws heavily on the work of J.A. Rogers.
13. "Afrocentric View Distorts History and Achievement by Blacks", from the St. Louis Dispatch, February 14 1994.
14. Irwin, Graham W. (1977). Africans abroad, Columbia University Press, p. 11
16. Kathryn A. Bard: Ancient Egyptians and the Notion of Race, p. 104, cp. also p. 111; in: Black Athena Revisited, pp. 103-111.
17. Zakrzewski, Sonia (2007). "Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state" (PDF). doi:10.1002/ajpa.20569. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
18. S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce (2005). "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation" (PDF). doi:10.1353/hia.2005.0013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
19. Shomarka Keita (2005). "Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Text "10.1007/s10437-005-4189-4" ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
20. Keita (2005). "History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt" (PDF). doi:10.1002/ajhb.20428. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
21. Shomarka Keita: What genetics can tell us
22. S.O.Y. Keita (2005). "Early Nile Valley Farmers, From El-Badari, Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data" (PDF). doi:10.1177/0021934704265912. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review