Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 10 February 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: 7 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 7 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 - ..... Archive 14 - ..... Archive 15 - Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Resolve Probation

It seems to me that this discussion is deadlocked. Some of us want to include information which explains what the "Controversy" is actually about, while others of us want to limit the scope to just the history of the debate without explaining the debate itself. This has been dragging on for a while without any sign of a consensus emerging. Perhaps we should accommodate both parties by renaming this article as History of the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy. That way the scope and content of the article will finally match the name, and the actual "Controversy" can be explained elsewhere, with an appropriate link to this sub-section. Comments please? Wdford (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think that renaming it that would solve the issues but an expanded history section is certainly warranted, some of which can be taken from the Afrocentrism article. Much of the information that people want to add to this seems to exists in other articles and could be added using WP:Summary. --Woland (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What's your big plan, Moreschi?

Ok, I notice that Moreschi and Woland have objected to merge the material on the various controversies (Tutankhamun, Cleopatra VII, Great Sphinx of Giza and 'Kemet') here, but I fail to make out their arguments. It was, I think, to some extend justified to replace the version from August 2008 with a new one, but this doesn't excuse leaving the intended scope of this article undefined. If it's supposed to be about Afrocentric view about ancient Egypt, then the material on the controversies has to be included. What arguments do Afrocentrists use to illustrate that Tutankhamun was black, e.t.c.? How has academic criticism of Afrocentrism evaluated these arguments? and so on... If this article is not supposed to be about Afrocentric view about ancient Egypt... - what is this article supposed to be about, Moreschi? I personally would prefer to have an article radical Afrocentric historiography or similar that gives an overview about the development of Afrocentric universal history (Shavit) in general, without going into the details of such controversies as that about the Great Sphinx of Giza. But you have already indicated, Moreschi, that you would still want to keep this article. I can agree to that, but then, why do you object the merge. Either you must have a grand scheme for this article that is as yet beyond my comprehension or you are simply being stubborn? We really need a clarification of this. Zara1709 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with some material like that being added (maybe using WP:Summary style), I do think that we should keep things like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in mind when doing so however.I think that this was the intended scope of the article but there has been disagreement largely over providing evidence for one side or another. Obviously the arguments used by both sides are relevant when they are from secondary and tertiary source material but I feel that this could easily degenerate into something that lists eveidence then counter-evidence then counter-counter evidence ad infinitum...which is what the previous version looked like. It is always difficult to walk the line (when we are describing a controversy) between simple description using sources and arguing for one side or another., but this is what we should strive for. If that makes sense.--Woland (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, if Moreschi gives his 'ok', too, then we can merge the content from Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? here? Hopefully we can all keep ourselves from jumping at each others throat for long enough, so that we actually work on the article. (edit conflict) WP:Summary applies, but only the other way round. In the articles Tutankhamun, Cleopatra VII, and Great Sphinx of Giza we should give an about 3-5 sentences summary of the debate stirred up by Afrocentrism, and here we would attempt to give an account of the whole debate. The importance of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is self-evident. Zara1709 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is Moreschi emerging as the informal leader of this article, It would be nice if consensus included Moreschi. But that does not have to be the case. There is no shortage of capable editors on wikipedia. At the moment, he is the only one who is not for restricting any progress. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've returned to this issue only recently, and I came here today to ask the same question as Wapondaponda. What gives? Why are people kowtowing to Moreschi? He's just another editor who happens to be an administrator. Yes, he keeps threatening people, but so what? Moreschi got someone to ban me -- for nothing -- and the ban was immediately overturned because it was utterly groundless. Threatening "Afrocentric" contributors who concentrate on Black subject matter with subject matter bans is simply a means of trying to censor and intimidate people. Don't let it happen. As long as you're editing in good faith, trying to collaborate and contributing as you see fit to the development of a quality article, then everything should be copasetic. And if you do get banned for being righteous, then, again, so what? What's the point of being here if all you do is shuffle? This ain't no gottdamned plantation.

There's no need to start a separate article. Let there be one article, appropriately named. And if you get taken to the woodshed (AN/I) simply for working in good faith to make a better article, then I happen to believe there are those who will see that, who will back you up. Keep it civil. Keep it collegial. Keep it factual. But for God's sake, stop tip-toeing the f*** around Moreschi, and grow some, people!

My impression. My two cents.deeceevoice (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate name, Race of the Ancient Egyptians

Eventually, the article will return to its rightful name, "Race of the Ancient Egyptians". It is direct and succinct, with no fluff. The controversy should be a subsection of Race of the Ancient Egyptians. The reason is, their are certain things that are not controversial, I will name a few

• Egypt is located between subsaharan Africa and the Middle East. The Egyptians had frequent contact and often intermarried with middle easterners and Sub-Saharans.
• Egyptians spoke an Afro-Asiatic language, that is now all but extinct. Afro-Asiatic languages are indigenous to both blacks and middle easterners.
• The Egyptians depicted themselves in a variety of colors, but predominantly they depicted themselves as reddish brown.
• At present, the available evidence shows that the formation of the Egyptian State was an indigenous process ie, there is no evidence of an invasion of peoples from outside Africa.

Wapondaponda (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see what any of those things have to do with race...I also can think of no good to reason as to why we would have any article called Race of people X (e.g. The Race of Americans, The Race of the Ancient Greeks etc), especially when that civilization doesn't exist anymore. Describing past populations in terms of modern racial categories is inherently anachronistic. On the other hand I think an article about the Archaeogenetics of Ancient Egypt or Physical Anthropology of Ancient Egypt or something like that, would be appropriate. --Woland (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On one hand, I agree that race as a social construct, is difficult to apply to ancient populations. But it is not enough either to think of the ancient egyptians as just abstract people with no racial affinity to any modern day populations. The notion that the ancient egyptians were just egyptians seems to me to be running away from the problem. The ancient Egyptians either descended from a Middle Eastern population or a Sub-Saharan population or both.Wapondaponda (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, but I still don't understand the need to have an article that focuses on the race of a particular civilization (see examples above). Is there something special about the Ancient Egyptians that warrants this? Maybe, but I don't know. --Woland (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Archaeogenetics" is too narrow a topic - much of the supporting evidence is not DNA related. This would certainly be one topic within the desired scope of the article, but on its own it does not cover all that is required. Wdford (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Race" is no longer politically correct; it's generally viewed as a discredited term -- for a number of reasons. And I agree with Wdford that "archeogenetics" is far too narrow an approach. Something more akin to "Identity of the ancient Egyptians," or "Ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians," or something like that probably would be more suitable. deeceevoice (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the same problem with those titles as I see with the other. See above(Ethnically, they were Egyptian of course). There has obviously been a lot of physical anthropology done on the Ancient Egyptians and it may warrant its own article but I don't think that this article should be the main venue for that and I don't think that it needs to have race or ethnicity or identity. I can't find any other articles that deal with the issue by doing this and I see no reason to do it with this article. Call it whatever you will, Archaeogenetics of Ancient Egypt was simply meant to illustrate a possibility. --Woland (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll put in my twopence too: I've been watching the talk page silently for awhile now, and it seems the dispute revolves around two main points. First, it would seem that pretty much everybody agrees that the position of a Black (unqualified) Egypt is held by a minority of specialists. The first point of dispute seems to be how to qualify this minority: is it a standard, respected minority opinion, or is it the fringy-type minority opinion. The answer to this question, of course, dictates WP:WEIGHT. I've seen a number of references presented that seemed to suggest the former; however as for refutation of the strength of these arguments, the refuting arguments presented seemed to spring mostly from personal opinion as opposed to cited academic opinion (although some of these were presented too). The second bone of contention seems to revolve around whether the dispute (or controversy, or debate - name it what you will) is a modern one or one that is mostly historical and has since died down or been resolved. The sources presented so far seem to indicate that the dispute is in good part historical (many sources cited date back a century or more), with a rather recent revival (a half century or less) which seems to have been born in good part but convinvingly not totally in Afrocentric circles. I don't see a clear-cut picture showing the subect being a totally Afrocentric one: I see a historical question, mostly non-Afrocentric (by modern standards) and a more recent debate, this one arguably mostly Afrocentric.

I don't mean to argue in favour of one position or another. I just wanted to give you the impression of a mostly uninvolved editor (at least, I've been mostly uninvolved for the better part of a year - I used to be more involved). If my insights may be useful to some of you, build on them. I you feel they aren't useful, just ignore them; I certainly won't be offended. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article could begin with the word Theories... as suggested somewhere.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strict oppose. If this article is renamed into anything, that would be Afrocentric views concerning ancient Egypt. deeceevoice , you mentioned the Nordicists in your elaborate reply at Talk:Tutankhamun. What I would have written in my reply was, that it was them who made me become involved in this topic in the first place. If you want to have an article about the Race of ancient Egyptians, and the fringe theories about them, then you would also have to include the Nordicists, which I did. And then, in the previous discussion, consensus built in the direction that we did not want to include the material on the Nordicists and that this article should only be about the Afrocentric views concerning ancient Egypt (the 19th century views are also described as Afrocentric universal history by Shavit, b.t.w. ) Actually, by now I think that this is a great idea. And if you rather want to have an Archaeogenetics of Ancient Egypt, well we already have that one. Check the article Archaeogenetics of the Near East, where I created a section on ancient Egypt with the pre-August 2008 material from this article. Zara1709 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some Changes

Okay. I changed the lead. I didn't like it. Hated it. And judging from some of the commentary on this page, so did others. I hope this is better. If not, I don't own it. Change it -- just, please, not back to the way it was! First of all stuff I changed itself was incredibly POV. And blatantly inaccurate. The roots of the debate don't lie in the establishment of Afrocentrism as a programmatic/ideological reaction to opression and White supremacy. The debate started way before then. Herodotus' account of the ancient Egyptians as black and woolly-haired contrasts with what certain historians and others over the ages up to the present day (like Zahi Hawass) have been telling us. There's a disconnect there somewhere. It also contrasts with all the pop-culture schlock people around the world have been bombarded with in terms of highly Europeanized reproductions/facsimiles of Egyptian in art and artifact, and in print and mass media.

I'm sick of people pretending Afrocentrists are crackpot revisionists and the first and only ones to posit Black African beginnings to dynastic Egypt and to maintain that it was, and remained, essnetially a Black African civilization from its inception to its demise. The article as it was written, continued that misapprehension. The subhead referring to the ancient historical record hopefully will include varying accounts as to what the ancient Egyptians looked like and how they regarded themselves. Because the way it was written, it seemed as though Afrocentrists invented Black Egypt out of whole cloth -- when such is most certainly not the case. deeceevoice (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south (from what a later world knew as Nubia): while the Greek writers reported that they were much like all the other Africans whom the Greeks knew.::

I believe the above quote is trying to present evidence about their race rather than highlighting the race controversey it's self --Wikiscribe (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, seems relevant to me.--Woland (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The text I've written is a toning down of the text of the, IMO, POV verbiage that existed before. And if Davidson's quote is evidentiary, then it is certainly no more so than the "neither black nor white" language -- that, frankly, is neither terribly helpful nor very instructive. Does that mean they might be Chinese, then? Maybe blue? At least Davidson's, IMO, exceedingly measured quote addresses the issue and gives a more instructive perception. deeceevoice (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deecee the difference between the statement you added by Davidson and the sentence your refering to by Bard is the difinative notion Egyptian art and that it was realistic that will need a rebuttle which means this article is going back to the way it was prior rebuttle after rebuttle in other words trying to present evidence of there actual race because as you know there are many scholars and sources for their art being highly symbolic from pitch black statues to the lilly white alablaster statues. But back to statement by Bard which is making a note of a now very open debate about the notion of either they had to be among the black races or the white races in other words imposing a very United States of America social Construct /Aryan Model view on Race and forceing it upon the Ancient Egyptians which has been already chronicled also by the late Frank Yurco which fits into what the current state of what the article is suppose to be about the arguement not provideing evidence which is what the Davidison quote is doing, also your statement "Does that mean they were Chinese or Blue" crystalizes her and Frank Yurco arguement, also when do we start the DNA section because i know thats next.--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Way Forward

People, there is a strong sentiment that more information is better, provided it is quality stuff and not dribbling supposition and wishful thinking. With such a lack of consensus, I feel the only way to resolve the impasse is for those who are interested to build the expanded site, and then everyone pitch in to improve the quality until we are AOK. There are a lot of sites out there that touch on these issues, and all of them could be reduced and streamlined by a three-line referral to this site once this site exists. The voting so far at the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? deletion debate is 5 to delete and 9 to retain in some improved form, with many suggesting that that site be merged in here.

I suggest the following template:

Lead;

The mainstream view - to ensure no reader is confused;

A range of sections covering the various disputed topics, using only "scientific evidence" and not just "unsupported personal observations".

A "history of the debate" section.

A final section, listing a selection of the "unsupported personal observations", but clearly noting that these are in fact "unsupported observations".

There is a fortune of material in other articles that could and probably should be centralised here. It will be quick to import it, but it will take a while to clean it up and remove OR and duplications, so a degree of tolerance will be required.

Is there anything approaching a consensus to move forward, and what needs to be done to lift the probation and get on with the job? Wdford (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

This late proposition looks interesting to me.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Commercial sites

Due to the controversial nature of the article, and accusations of original research, we should avoid referencing commercial websites. We should strive to maintain a high standard of references, otherwise, disputes will quickly deteriorate. These are two examples.

• http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/gate/gate20.htm
• http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/bookgates5.html

Zara's edits on Cleopatra

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_4_57/ai_82479151
• http://goliath.ecnext.com/premium/0199/0199-1352591.html
• http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB04E771E692744&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
• http://www.asante.net/scholarly/raceinantiquity.html

Wapondaponda (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. --Pstanton (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In general commercial websites do not meet the standard of WP:RS Wapondaponda (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Major revert

I notice all of Wdford's recent edits have been reverted unilaterally. Considering the consensus here, and on the AfD discussion, which was to merge. I believe this was done in error, and this article will NEVER improve if we can't make any progress. The whole reason the spin off article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt" was begun anyways was because of unilateral reverts of this page. --Pstanton

And I have no idea whats wrong with the formatting of my comment and whats up with this box around my words, can someone please fix that? --Pstanton (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to restore most of Wdforts edits. We had a rough consensus that material on Tutankhamun, Cleopatra VII, Great Sphinx of Giza and 'Kemet' should be included here, but anything else wasn't actually discussed.As long as there isn't a consensus on that, it shouldn't be included. Zara1709 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you've unilaterally restored the old, awful lead to the article. And what's your rationale for doing this, given my stated rationale for changing it and Wdford's reasoned revision of it? And when are you going to lift the "in use" tag? It seems a rather presumptuous -- and, frankly, obnoxious -- thing to do. deeceevoice (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflic)I didn't restore it unilaterally, you have changed it unilaterally. I actually explained some of my objections above. You are of course free to consider the current lead 'awful', but if you want to change it, you need a consensus of the majority of editors. I, certainly, am not going to agree to it. Zara1709 (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a comment under the "Some changes" subhead that addresses the language I inserted in the lead in lieu of the old, dreadful one you restored. I'd appreciate the courtesy of a response to my rationale. Particularly since we weren't treated to a rationale for the earlier language, I made it a point to post my rationale for the change I submitted above, but I don't see any comment from you specifically addressing the language you restored and why. So, why did you restore the old, old language -- while purporting to restore Wdford's version -- without addressing the revert? From where I sit, it looks like a bait and switch. And beyond the lead, I thought the structure of the other language showed some promise over what exists now, given your changes. deeceevoice (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think considering the nature of this article, a "under construction" tag would be more appropriate. --Pstanton (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What material to include?

Ok, the easy part first, before we come to the question of the lead and scope of the article. What we had discussed here is that we should include material on Tutankhamun, Cleopatra VII, the Great Sphinx of Giza and Kemet. I was under the impression that it was especially Wdford's concern to have a specialised article to include the material on the Great Sphinx of Giza, in accordance with wp:NPOV, since that material would give undue weight to the question of race in the article Great Sphinx of Giza. Anything else wasn't discussed, and most importantly, Woland ONLY agreed to this. In case anyone hasn't noticed this yet: There is a notice on top of this discussion page that says: "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them." Adding completely new material is, of course, a substantial edit, so it was necessary to revert in full. (Changing the lead or scope of the article is a substantial edit, too, and therefore it was necessary to revert it accordingly.) If we want to have any improvement of this article, we have to stick to the rules. It would not even be necessary that I specify my objections here, but I'll do it anyway while I look through the material (and I don't think that I would need to remove the inuse notice before I am done with that.) Zara1709 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would include

1.) Evidence and arguments for a historically black egypt 2.) Evidence against a historically black egypt 3.) the notable proponents of each side 4.) the general view of the "black egypt" theory in: Academia, the general public, the modern Egyptians (i.e. the Egyptian Government), and popular culture.

--Pstanton (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also! I notice a "Journal of African Civilizations" is mentioned in the article. I found its official website. http://www.journalofafricancivilizations.com/

It doesn't seem to be anything like a normal peer-reviewed academic journal. Its not an actual Journal, its a store selling books and audio lectures of dubious provenance. A quick examination of their store shows their material is mainly based off the ridiculous theory that the Africans colonized the Americas, Europe. I even saw one claiming that the ancient Africans were in Asia... I think the "Journal of African Civilizations" needs to be discounted as an academic source, or at least needs to be taken with a grain of salt. --Pstanton (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I see it, there was substantial material on four to five potential subtopics added:

1. Material on "the ancient historical record" or "The Classical Observers"
2. Material on the "19th Century Observers"
3. Material on the "the Ancient Evidence", namely 3a) "the Ancient Egyptian texts" and 3b) "Ancient Tomb Paintings"
4. Material on "The Language Element"

My objection to this addition of material is based on several reasons. 1) There is the material from the pre-August 2008 version of this article on these subtopics that could be restored if we would want to include it again. I have, as with the material on Tutankhamun, reworded that partly already. 2) There was some sort of consensus to limit this article on the Afrocentric views on ancient Egypt and the controversy surrounding them. There may be several editors who object to this and rather have a factual article on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians, but before we change the scope of this article again, we need to have a throughout discussion about it or we will just wander around in circles. If the article is indented to be about controversy surrounding the Afrocentric views about ancient Egypt, then material on the "the ancient historical record", the "the Ancient Egyptian texts" and "Ancient Tomb Paintings" and "The Language Element" is only interesting insofar it has been used in the discussion of the Afrocentric views. The material in the form in which it was added did not show that. 3) The material on the "19th Century Observers" could be added, then, though, since these are, at least by Shavit, also subsumed under Afrocentrism, but we would need to hear a few more editors on that, first. I could write some more on this, but the question of the lead and the scope of the article are more important than that, a.t.m.Zara1709 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead and scope of the article

Ok, deeceevoice, I took a look at your comments in the section you called "some changes" (what an understatement). Wasn't there a guideline somewhere "Arguments to avoid"? To write "I didn't like it. Hated it."certainly doesn't help to advance the discussion. What helps a little are your other statements about you feelings. You have written. "I'm sick of people pretending Afrocentrists are crackpot revisionists," - Well, I, too think, as opposed to Dbachmann and Moreschi, that it is unjustified to pretend that ALL Afrocentrists are crackpot pseudo-historians. However, there are some Afrocentrists who are crackpots, if I may use your terminology, and those aren't helping to advance the Afrocentrist cause. The critique of Lefkowitz apparently fails to recognize the differences within Afrocentrism, and so does Moreschi. But, I already was well under way with getting Moreschi into a discussion that would help him realize his misconception, since Shavit, whom I have repeatedly quoted, is aware of the differences within Afrocentrism, which is why he speaks of Radical Afrocentric universal history, and not purely of Afrocentrism. But since we now need to have a discussion about the scope and the lead of this article, I don't think that I will be able to continue the discussion with Moreschi soon.

And in the discussion about the lead and the scope of this article, I have to largely take the side of Moreschi. The old, pre-August 2008 version of this article was unacceptable because WP:SYNTH prohibits to take material from various sources and use it to advance a position not given by these sources. "The centuries old-ramblings of the first Egyptological amateurs" are not really notable in an article about the current controversy surrounding the Afrocentric views about ancient Egypt and certainly can't be used to justify an article title like 'Race of ancient Egyptians'. We don't need an article that attempts to list "contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times." Who cares about all the "Evidence and assumptions have been contributed by people of all walks of life, from tourists to traders to scholars"? What we need is an article that gives an overview about the development of radical Afrocentric historiography since the 19th century. What we apparently also need is an article that accommodates the material on the various controversies about ancient Egypt that have arisen due to Afrocentric historiography. The accounts of other people are only relevant in this article insofar they have been referred to in the controversy. Such an article can have a clear structure and a concise lead. If you want to have an article not only about the Afrocentric views and the controversy surrounding them, but about the Ancient Egyptian race controversy in general, or the Race of ancient Egpytians, all you can actually say in the lead is that some people have considered the ancient Egyptians as 'black' and others as 'white'. Would you seriously want me to restore the material on the Nordicists?

I am not even half done with criticizing, but if I want to remove the 'inuse' soon, I need to get back to the article. And if, after I have removed the inuse, there are large reverts and an edit war, I'll ask this article to be fully protected so that we can resolve the discussion first. Then no one will be able to edit the article, though. Zara1709 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, your reverts are unilateral, you have not sought the support of the community on your actions. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neither did you seek the support of the community on your actions. Again, read the notice on top of this article: Please discuss substantial changes here before making them. I've made the substantial changes that roughly were agreed on and some insubstantial additions (with citations), anything else does need to be discussed first. I am not saying that some of the intermediate additions that I have removed mustn't be restored, but we need to discuss that first. Otherwise I don't think that we will be able to ever improve this article.Zara1709 (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, many of the edits that Zara undid were also in good part unilateral (although I totally see your point). It might be better to wait until (s)he's done editing and then address whatever was reverted and not restored that you and the other editors feel should be in the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also a suggestion to the editors: it might be useful to consider giving the scope of what is called "Afrocentric" at least as far as this article is concerned. From Zara's explanation of the concept, it looks to be much broader than I had imagined as a total layman on the subject, which prompted some of the misapprehensions I had on the current formulation of the lead.--Ramdrake (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The emerging consensus on this talk page and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? is there is no need to have limited scope on the article. Editors should not arbitrarily assign the scope of any article, the scope of an article should be mirror its scope in Academia. Editors cannot for example, decide to limit the scope of an article on Mathematics to Algebra and not Calculus. If they did so, they would be engaging in original research. The same goes for this topic. Scope can only be limited for the purpose organizing an article ie WP:SS but this is not the case with this article. Otherwise as long as information meets WP:RS, WP:NOTE, ], then it is fair game. Secondly as previously mentioned, because of the controversial nature of the article, we should maintain a high standard of references. Commercial sites are generally not recommended, as they often violate policies such as WP:SPS and WP:QS. Zara1709 has introduced the following references from commercial sites.

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_4_57/ai_82479151
• http://goliath.ecnext.com/premium/0199/0199-1352591.html
• http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB04E771E692744&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
• http://www.asante.net/scholarly/raceinantiquity.html

I therefore suggest reverting his edits to this version before Zara1709 instituted his/her unilateral reverts.Wapondaponda (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, I've skimmed your response, and much of it is utterly off-point. In changing the lead, you completely reverted to a version that pretends that the controversy began with Afrocentrism as a school of thought -- which it did not. That is unacceptable. I'm not defending Wdford's specific revision of the lead (frankly, I think it's inferior to the language I contributed -- but that's just my opinion, though I'm not wedded to the inclusion of the Davidson quote appearing there; I'm fine with its addition later on). What I am defending, however, is the information it presents (it is essentially what I intended), and I am defending the fundamental plan of attack that it suggests in the restructuring of the article. Your actions so far with regard to the article are entirely inappropriate and insulting to those of us who have been trying to work in a collaborative fashion. Essentially shutting down the article for editing, then making such sweeping changes without discussion, or even bothering to address and explain your rationale(s) in the talk page space is unacceptable, disruptive and counterproductive. And threatening to shut down the article completely for editing if you don't get your way is precisely the kind of nonsense we've been getting from Moreschi. It doesn't work, it's not going to shut us up, so cut it out.

If one of us had pulled the stunt with this article that you just did, we'd find ourselves at AN/I in a flash. What you've done is essentially duplicate the dictatorial, threatening approach that Moreschi adopted in the framing of this article and in relating to the other editors here, after he seems to have exited the scene (temporarily, at least) -- and, speaking frankly, it looks to me a helluvah lot like the classic good cop, bad cop gambit, like the two of you are tryin' to play us. If I'm wrong, then my apologies, but you certainly couldn't prove it with this kind of conduct.

And don't even try to compare what I did with the lead with what you've done. It simply doesn't wash.

Finally, given what Zara's done with the article -- disregarding anything else and simply looking at Wapondaponda's list of "sources" above -- I think reverting to the imperfect, but far more acceptable, version by Wdford would be a good point of departure at this point. I think a block revert is in order. And if Zara would like to defend and discuss her suggested changes to the article in the article talk space, then perhaps we can decide what is acceptable, what is not, and what might be acceptable with some alteration. deeceevoice (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that, if you want a full revert, you could have found a better argument? Some of the weblinks are only from the pre August 2008 version of this article; "http://www.asante.net/scholarly/raceinantiquity.html" is a link to the private homepage of an African-American (!) scholar. It would be nice if we could replace some of those links (others are fine), but it is not urgent. What we need to discuss here above anything else is what kind of article we want. I roughly know what I want. An article radical Afrocentric historiography (if I find the time to write it) and this article to include some content about controversies that would be an undue weight in other articles. But what do you want? Do you really want an article that includes every "evidence and assumption that has been contributed by people of all walks of life, from tourists to traders to scholars"? Don't you think it would be better to have an article that only includes the material insofar it is relevant for the debate about the Afrocentric views about ancient Egypt? How are you going to find a criteria of what to include and of how much weight to give each point, if you want to include all "reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times"?

I justifiedly think this article will be of more use to the reader if it explains for each element of evidence or argument, how it has been used by Afrocentrism (or the critique thereof) in the debates surrounding ancient Egypt. This doesn't mean that we mustn't include that e.g. "Herodotus described the Egyptians as having black skins and woolly hair." On the contrary. We need to include how the account of Herodotus has been used within Afrocentrism, which however, is quite different from simply saying how he described the ancient Egyptians. It is actually not that difficult to find out how Herodotus' account has been used within Afrocentrism. There are good tertiary sources on the topic. All you need to do is look up "Herodotus" in the index of History in Black. But with the strong concerns of Woland and Moreschi about original research and original synthesis, I don't think that the material on Herodotus that was added was acceptable. I think that some material on "the Classical Observers" should be added, but with the article, controversial as it is, we certainly can't discuss 4-5 subtopics AND a change of the lead and scope of the article at the same time. Reverting was the only option, if we want to keep all sides in the discussion. And I neither want Moreschi to block the expansion of this article completely nor deeceevoice to push the topic of the article back to "Race of ancient Egyptians", a concept which, I think, we have already left behind. I certainly object to the later, and since I suppose that Moreschi and Woland would too, as long as they are taking part in the discussion here, I don't think that I could be outvoted.

(edit conflict) Yes, deeceevoice, I pulled quite some stunt here. It has cost me my whole Tuesday morning, and I hope that Misplaced Pages was worth it. And if you really think what you have written, deeceevoice, why don't you notify Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? I certainly am not scared if this and someone ought to learn from it. Zara1709 (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Zara, I don't know what I want. It may surprise you, but I haven't come here with a plan on how I want the article to go. But I know when something is right and when something is wrong. I don't mind letting other people take the lead and contribute an idea and then commenting and seeing where it takes us. Contrary to the authoritarian, unilateral approach you and Moreschi have taken here, my approach tends to be organic and collaborative. That doesn't mean I'm against people taking the initiative and contributing something to see if it sticks -- which is what I did in taking a stab at rewriting the lead after reading a lot of grumbling in the talk page space. But, again, what I did and what you did are not even remotely equivalent.

And are you serious? You can't be that tone-deaf. Your use of sources is the least of my objections. I clearly didn't say that was my only issue with your sweeping changes. Certainly, the problem with the lead and where it takes the article is the major one.

Clearly, Zara, since you want an article on "radical Afrocentrism," then you need to go write it -- because this isn't the place for it. And therein lies the problem. The article begins with a comment on Afrocentrism -- when this isn't that article. The restored lead totally twists/mischaracterizes the controversy at the outset -- as I've been saying since I returned to this piece -- when the controversy has far older and deeper roots than Afrocentrism. It's flat-out inaccurate.

"...I neither want Moreschi to block the expansion of this article completely nor deeceevoice to push the topic of the article back to "Race of ancient Egyptians", a concept which, I think, we have already left behind."

WTF? I suggest you go back and reread the title of this article. Yeah, we get it. Your stated agenda is an article about "radical Afrocentrism." Fine. But don't skew/screw this article in the service of that end. Since you're so hell-bent on it, it might benefit the project if you would go away and write that other article and leave those of us who want to write an article about the controversy surrounding the ethnicity/"race" of dynastic Egypt to do so.

And no. I'm not going to the AN/I behind your nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, such measures are only to be used as a last resort, and I don't think it's necessary at this point. Besides, I never much cared for cops -- especially ones who play utterly transparent games and think they can fool people. ;) I don't believe in running to the AN/I whenever there's a problem. After all, we're all adults here. Just go away, or stay and behave yourself, and all will be well. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I can guess what plan you have for this article from what you have written here. But, if you want my opinion, that plan is stupid and I am actually trying to get you to reconsider it. But so far, you appear unable to actually discuss your intentions; The polemical tactics, which I also used against Moreschi, are not ends in themselves. After the three month debate about whether Adolf Hitler was nominally Catholic I simply have come to the conclusion that it doesn't make much sense to start out polite if the discussion gradually turns into polemics anyway. I wouldn't be here arguing if I hadn't reassured myself that I have a point. You are saying "the controversy has far older and deeper roots than Afrocentrism", and, in the lead of the version you proposed, that "the current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times." YOu couldn't be more wrong. The debate, that you and almost everyone else care so particularly about, emerged from the situation of African people in the United States and in Europe (mostly France). If you give me a few hours, I can explain this with some quotes from Shavit, whose scientific credibility has not been doubted so far. It might be that other contemporary historians writing about Afrocentrism assess the issue differently, but in any case WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS FIRST (as probably not all adults, but at leasts academics would do it.) YOU don't appear to be up to this discussion, why else would ask me to "Just go away". Zara1709 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's amusing. If you can guess my "plan," then you must be a psychic -- and a better one than I. ;) And Let's leave Hitler out of this discussion -- shall we? You keep mentioning him.

Actually, I didn't write that language you quote. What I wrote, and what I've already said I favor, was:

"The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory perceptions and physical portrayals of Egypt in the ancient historical record and in academia, among travelers, historians, archaeologists and other scholars of ancient and contemporary times, and in modern popular culture. The disparate ways in which the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in art and artifact, in symbolic representations and realistically, have served to fuel the debate."

And don't twist my words. It's clear that I said you should stay and behave yourself and help write an article on the clearly designated subject matter -- or go away and write the article you've said you want to write on "radical Afrocentrism." Just don't keep trying to do it here. Again, this is not the place. deeceevoice (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Radical Afrocentric Historiography

Radical Afrocentric Historiography has now been created, based heavily on the work of Shavit. Let's use this energy constructively, please? :) Wdford (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, Wdford, couldn't you have done something useful, like actually merging the content on the Great Sphinx of Giza here? I kept it quite that I was rewriting the material from the pre August 2008 version of this article under the name Race in ancient history for a very good reason. If the editors who otherwise watch THIS page noticed the article and are as 'bold' with substantial changes there as they are here, then I will never be able to write a halfway decent article.

In a related note. I will stop talking to deeceevoice. She thinks that she can tell me to "behave myself", what would only be appropriate in a mother/child or teacher/pupil relation. I don't know whether she is a mother and/or a primary school teacher in real life, but I personally have the intention of writing an encyclopaedia article based on academic sources, and although polemics are sometimes necessary, this is quite different from a kindergarden. Zara1709 (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And on a further notice: Don't expect much from me on this issue for the remainder of today and tomorrow. I don't mind spending 8 hours in one morning on a single issue, but there are other things I have to do. It would be nice if you could keep yourself from carrying out substantial revisions, though, until I had a chance to comment on them. Zara1709 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"It would be nice if you could keep yourself from carrying out substantial revisions, though, until I had a chance to comment on them." You're kidding -- right? deeceevoice (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them. "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages." Restoring a disputed revision with a full revert is disruptive. To quote Moreschi: "Can someone please bite the bullet and ban this troll?" Zara1709 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference, Zara, between a willingness to discuss substantial changes before making them -- an instruction you would have done well to head before disrupting the article and precipitating a lockdown of the article by shutting down the article for your own purposes and defying that very instruction -- and holding off editing the article for a single editor (you) while that editor goes off to work on another article. And stop the name-calling. Your "contributions" thus have been disruptive and wholly counter to the spirit and process of collaboration here.

Furthermore, you will notice that there has been substantial dissatisfaction voiced herein, by various editors, about your edit-warred version of the lead paragraph, which launches into Afrocentrism immediately -- when that is not the scope of this article. It is inappropriate and reflects your stated desire to write an article on "Radical Afrocentrist History." As I've said before, go ahead. Write your article. But that article is not this one. Your edit-warred lead needs to go. deeceevoice (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

suggesting deep revert

I see we're in another round of Afrocentric pov-pushing, indistinguishable from its twisty little precedents, all alike. Here is the sane version of 26 August 2008, for future reference. I fail to see that re-addition of all the Tutankhamun/Cleopatra stuff is at all encyclopedic or helpful. As much as I love articles on cranky topics, we need to remember that Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a random collection of information pulled off the web. --dab (𒁳) 13:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wished you had done this before you suggested a deep revert, but you can still do this now. Take a look at the article Great Sphinx of Giza, its edit history and talk page and tell me whether the section on the racial characteristics can be considered undue weight there. Probably not with the way Wdford has attempted to rewrite it; but the view that the Sphinx was black is a significant minority view and needs to be discussed somewhere. In the version as I had written it there wasn't a singe web page quote, only books. Zara1709 (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Radical Afrocentric Historiography has now been created, so hopefully the "Afrocentric pov-pushing" will relocate there where it can add real value. The "Tutankhamun/Cleopatra stuff" is helpful to those who have heard of these "cranky" topics and are seeking actual scientific evidence to either confirm or rebut what they have heard. Please assist us to build and professionalise these sites. Wdford (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Now, then, it seems to me the lead can go back to something less restrictive and more appropriate than that which now exists.  :) deeceevoice (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Although there was substantial agreement to merge Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? into the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, it seems some people want a paragraph by paragraph referendum on such changes. As this approach is going to be tedious and time-consuming, I propose that we meanwhile build the new Ancient Egyptian race controversy article on the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? site, move it to a new name and then polish and build consensus there before merging the fully built and agreed article into Ancient Egyptian race controversy.

On this basis I have rebuilt the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? site. There is lots more to do. Comments and contributions please.

As the current name Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? is offending some people, would it be acceptable to move this entire process to a new site, called “Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians”, or something similar, while we build agreement on the content and layout?

Wdford (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's great for those who want to concentrate on that side of the debate -- and I'm one -- but there also need to be people here, keeping an eye out and working constructively to frame the article in such a way that that information, once polished, redacted and properly sourced, can be effectively included in this piece to produce one, coherent article. (In case you hadn't noticed, there's been another hand-off -- from Moreschi, to Zara, and now to Dbachmann.) Thanks for being bold and taking the initiative. :) deeceevoice (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but I am starting to think that perhaps we should build the completed article at the other site, then create a new name that everyone is happy with, then blank this article and substitute it entirely??? Wdford (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I would ask you to forgo creating random articles at random titles until you acquire a basic knowledge of WP:MOS. --dab (𒁳) 14:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, --dab, I am working my way through the manual. This was an emergency. YIIA Wdford (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

well, the proper place to discuss Afrocentric historiography, including "Radical" variants, is at Afrocentrism. The current attempts at making this stuff appear more legit just by waving your hands intensely will not work, as it never does on Misplaced Pages. If you want to apply such twists and spins to the story, you are much better off writing your own blog where your contributions won't be redacted or scrutinized. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I fuly agree that "this stuff" should all be centralised at Afrocentrism, and hopefully it will be eventually. Meanwhile, its currently all over the place, and is damaging a range of "factual" articles. Somebody with the appropriate knowledge needs to fix Afrocentrism and consolidate the topic, but I'm not that guy. All I'm trying to do is resolve the current dispute so that important issues can be addressed without tripping over each other. Please assume good faith, and help where you can. Wdford (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed temporarily

I'm trying to work within the framework that seemed to be developing before the unilateral edits of yesterday evening, but in doing so I find I've had to remove some potentially useful information under the subhead "Modern-day Afrocentrist scholarship." I'm stating this right up front so that there can be no misapprehension that it is my intent to completely excise it from the article. The deleted text follows.

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.

”

Just sticking it elsewhere is problematic because the text that currently exists examines Diop and others who are considered Afrocentrist. So, this needs to be redacted and incorporated. I'd do it, but I've got some errands to run. Will be back later today, though. Hope I haven't made a mess. deeceevoice (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring/arbitrary block reverting by Zara

Let's here some comments here on the two versions, so we can proceed. deeceevoice (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your section titles like "The Ancient Evidence" not only shows that you continue to cheerfully ignore basic WP:MOS, they are also misguided in other respects. "Ancient evidence" for what? An "Ancient Egyptian race controversy"? What you mean to discuss is "evidence adduced by Afrocentric historiographers". That this alleged evidence should concern Ancient Egypt is hardly remarkable, since the entire discussion surrounds Ancient Egypt, not the current-day Arab Republic of Egypt. Seeing that your contributions fail to meet any standards even at such a basic level, I don't think further discussion is necessary. --dab (𒁳) 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was "Ancient Evidence on the subject of the race of the Ancient Egyptians". The "evidence adduced by Afrocentric historiographers" is a separate section. This article has been crippled by a series of mass reverts, and a lot of repair is needed. Wdford (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Bachmann. Don't presume to tell me what I "mean to discuss." You clearly haven't a clue. The information contained under the heading is about the infamous mural, which provides some "evidence" with regard to how the ancient Egyptians regarded themselves relative to their neighbors. How that "evidence" is interpreted is another matter altogether. And your comment about style is petty/ridiculous and simply juvenile. I'm perfectly familiar with wiki style with regard to headers, but that's the least of my concerns with this article at the moment. There's plenty of time for such nitpicking. Seeing that your contribution here fails to meet any objective standard: i.e., it fails to address the matter at hand in any substantive fashion, but is merely a (characteristic, even comically signature) b*tchy, supercilious, little snipe hardly worthy of notice, no further discussion of your particular input here is necessary. deeceevoice (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, that doesn't give in indication of where you stand on the lead paragraph. I'm trying to frame this article in a way that addresses the entire range of perceptions of the ancient Egyptians, from self-portrayals/concepts to ancient observers, to academia, to even pop culture portrayals and how they've served to shape the current debate/confusion over the matter -- rather than simply starting out with Afrocentrism, which ignores centuries of portrayals and images up until that point. What say you? I'd like to know what you think. deeceevoice (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with what you're trying to achieve - I would personally much like to extend the scope beyond just Afrocentrism. However I was concerned that the specific language you used was a bit too intellectual for many readers - a lot of us don't speak English as a first language. I know this is an encyclopedia, but it is a valuable global resource, so please bear with the other 82% of us! :) Also, I would prefer to keep the lead short and sweet, with the detail further down in the article. Secondly, a lot of this material is of the "unsubstantiated opinion" variety that attracts WP:OR and so forth, so I wanted to create a section for "opinions" to differentiate clearly what is "science" and what is "personal opinion". I thought this might help, considering some of the pro-delete comments at the other site. BTW, now that this site has been blocked again, would it not add value for you to work on the other site rather in the meanwhile - then the effort will be useful when we copy it across? Wdford (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I intend to contribute there, but, Wdford, you still haven't clearly answered the question. Which lead, which approach to developing this article are you more in favor of? Focusing on Afrocentrism and ignoring all other contributing factors to the controversy at the outset, or framing the controversy in a more inclusive, comprehensive and encyclopedic manner? If we do not keep this article on track, there won't be anywhere fit to come back and interject whatever language we come up with elsewhere; it'll be twisted beyond all recognition -- or end up so expurgated/truncated, we might as well revert back to Moreschi's personal draft. deeceevoice (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I say frame the lead as inclusively as possible, but use language that is a bit more user-friendly please. Wdford (talk)

So, you don't have a problem with the content of what I wrote, then? And you prefer that approach to framing the article over the present one? (Sorry, but we need to be clear if we are to proceed. Thanks.) deeceevoice (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer your approach. Please consider the current version of the lead at Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?. Wdford (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the page so people can come to a consensus on how to proceed. Please do not create any new articles in this area until there is agreement. Tom Harrison 14:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your protection is totally premature. Zara escalated the conflict, but neither party involved (neither she nor I) violated 3RR, and I clearly opted not to respond to her edit warring with a revert and, instead, took the matter to the discussion page. There was, and is, no need to protect the page at this point. For chrissake, at least give participating editors the opportunity to discuss, debate and come to some kind of consensus without stepping in unnecessarily to abort the editing process! Heated disagreement on a topic like this is to be expected. We haven't begun to reach the point where such precipitous intervention is called for. deeceevoice (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the protection, under the remedy at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, is appropriate. You can all discuss, debate, and work out a consensus on the talk page. As you say, heated disagreement is to expected. I hope everyone will help keep the heat down by avoiding inflammatory language. Tom Harrison 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What we need here is room to disagree without an admin hovering over us like a mother hen. If and when we reach an impasse and edit warring begins, then, it seems to me, protection is called for -- but, it seems to me, not until. Such a measure is an extreme one and should be used only when things have gotten out of hand. You've clearly jumped the gun. deeceevoice (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion focused on the issues, not personalities. As to protection, that seems to me the lighter weight option. We can move to topic bans for individuals if that becomes necessary. Tom Harrison 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Lighter weight option" as opposed to what? The better/best option would have been to leave it be and let us continue to try to work things out, and then proceed with building a better article. So far, no 3RR's, no impasse. Page protection was/is completely unwarranted. Period. I'm done. deeceevoice (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

""Lighter weight option" as opposed to what?" Wide topic bans for anyone who acts like an obnoxious jerk. Tom Harrison 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Like some of the folks I've been referring to. Gotcha.  ;) Except that subject matter bans are not intended to deal with wiki etiquette issues. "Obnoxious jerks" generally are dealt with by other means. Subject matter bans are intended to deal with the issue of POV pushing with regard to particular subject matter. I should think -- and would hope -- that an administrator would understand that important difference. Unfortunately, it seems, that difference has eluded your comprehension. deeceevoice (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Though Tom harrison has not expressed an opinion, I don't think his association of the article to pseudoscience is reassuring. There is plenty of information that is well established and accepted science.Wapondaponda (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- and have said as much on Harrison's talk page, as has User: Ramdrake. Clearly, the information presented was/is not "pseudoscience." His seems just another commonly uncritical, knee-jerk reaction to "Afrocentrism" and the nature of the subject matter. What, Wapondaponda, is your opinion on the lead paragraph and the direction the article should take? (Please register your comments above. Thanks.) deeceevoice (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, FWIW I think it may be useful to get consensus on what is or isn't "Afrocentrism". From reading your exchanges with for example Zara, I get the feeling that you have different definitions of the subject, and that Zara's definition may be much broader than yours. I'm certainly not going to arguen who's right or wrong (wouldn't know where to start), but hammering out a consensus on what it is and what it isn't may be a good place to start.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my position echoes my recommendations. If one construes Afrocentrism narrowly in its most pejorative sense, then yes it is important to divorce those viewpoints/observations made on the Ancient Egyptians by those not associated to the movement. If one construes Aroncetrism as a scholarly discipline studying anything having to do with Africa, then the distinction becomes moot. However, I would strongly suggest this article make it clear which conception of Afrocentrism is used, and then the lead can be adjusted accordingly. But it is clear to me that there is some valid science behind the interrogation as to the physical traits of the Ancient Egyptians. Personnally, I believe that mention of Afrocentrism belongs in the lead, as the racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians is definitely an important theme within the subject; however, I don't think that the afirmation that the whole interrogation is contained within the subject of Afrocentrism is correct, based on my understanding of how Afrocentrism is commonly construed.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not useful. Zara has already stated her intention not to converse with me. Further, I understand full well what she means by the term. Finally, she's already stated her intention to remove herself from this article for a time -- after getting her version of the article locked into place (if not directly, then by her proxy Dbachmann), so what she has to say really doesn't concern me at the moment. I'm concentrating on those who wish to contribute actively to this article. What's your position on the lead and the approach to framing the article, Ramdrake? Do you have one? (Please respond above.) So far, you've only addressed the current version. I don't think Afrocentrism belongs in the lead at all. Do you have any questions in that regard? deeceevoice (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the indefinite page protect, it seems many editors have not learned any lessons that this is not a article to try and present proof of the race of the ancient egyptians rather it's about the controversey itself and i beleive the admin was well with in his right to protect the article to nip it in the bud now rather than allowing full fledge edit wars which were simmering already and this article in particular has a history of emotionaly driven content disputes and edit wars trust me i know about edit wars--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume then, since you agree that this "is not a article to try and present proof of the race of the ancient egyptians", that you now accept the need for the other article at Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? which you previously labelled as a content fork? Wdford (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What would the community think about conducting some straw polls on the scope and content of the articles, so that we have a better idea of what the consensus is. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Although a majority of respondents agreed that the "evidence" should be merged in here, it seems there are still some hold-outs who insist the scope should be limited to the history of the controversy alone. Others want it to deal with the detail but only from an Afrocentric viewpoint. I would like to propose that this article be renamed "History of the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy", so that another article can be built which deals with the issues that some are unwilling to allow be dealt with here. Are there any objections? Wdford (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest that, better than a simple straw poll, we conduct a full content RfC. This could generate even more views and allow for a better determination of consensus. Even though there may have been a previous consensus to make this article solely about the history of the controversy, I believe that the is now ample evidence that consensus can change. The only proper way to find out is to hold an RfC.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

wow. Any article deeceevoice touches will turn into a hostile quagmire. We have had the privilege of witnessing this for about three years now. It is beyond me why admins still try to resolve this by protecting articles instead of simply banning the disruptive user. There is literally nothing here that hasn't been rehashed and rehashed yet again over the past years. deeceevoice simply is part of the problem here, and clearly not part of any solution. I would request that this should be handled by admins aware of the previous history of this particular user because otherwise this will just go in circles indefinitely. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's another admin willing, he's welcome and I'll step aside. Or, there's always dispute resolution. Until then, keep the discussion focused on the subject, not on other editors. Tom Harrison 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the personal stuff is just not helpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm another admin, and I'm willing. However, I'm not seeing anything (in an admittedlly brief intial scan) to indicate that Tom harrison should not continue to assist in this article's development. - brenneman 02:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Template:RFChist At present the content of the article is restricted to a discussion of the relationship between Afrocentrism and the race of the Ancient Egyptians. However, there has been throughout history, adequate interest in this topic outside Afrocentrism. Suggestions have been made to broaden the scope of the article, to include all notable contributions that have been made to the subject, regardless of whether or not they are associated with Afrocentrism. talk 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• comment - Someone unfamiliar with the article might find an example helpful. Tom Harrison 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, duh. That is the problem with the lead paragraph that was under discussion when you locked down the article. There seems to be a consensus that the lead, as edit-warred by Zara, is inappropriate, given the title of the article. deeceevoice (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Example

For example The very first sentence in the lead reads the following

Yet the following references show that several 19th century scholars tackled the issue long before the blossoming of Afrocentrism. Afrocentrism as a movement mainly began in the 20th Century. In fact the term "Afrocentrism" was first used in 1961. These references have been reverted out of the current version because of scope. The following have no known connection to Afrocentrism, in fact some are associated with scientific racism.

• Anthon, Charles (1851). "Complexion and Physical Structure of the Egyptians". A classical dictionary,. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (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)
• Morton (1844). "Egyptian Ethnography". {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Kenrick, John (1850). "Population and Language". Ancient Egypt Under the Pharaohs. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= 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)
• Nott (1855). "Negro Types". Types of Mankind. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Darwin, Charles (1871). "On the Races of Man". The Descent of Man. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Wapondaponda (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to the page, the present title of the article implies to me that its about general controversies regarding the race of Ancient Egyptians. If that controversy pre-dates the 20th century, and there are verifiable sources to that effect, I don't see why that can't be included. On the other hand, if there's strong feeling about the scope of the article being narrower than that, then it could be forked (although I'm not sure that the article is really large enough to justify that). If so, though, what should the other article be called... Ancient Egyptian race controversies that pre-date the Afrocentrist movement of the twentieth century seems to be over-doing it somewhat. Equally, this article could be changed to Ancient Egyptian race controversies and Afrocentrism, if that's its specific scope. But I can't see any reason not to discuss 19th century theories anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and not to link to it from here, if this isn't the place. Anaxial (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely! That's been my objection all along with the current lead as edit-warred by Zara. Please see "Some Changes" above and weigh in there. Zara was hell-bent on doing an article on "Radical Afrocentrist Historiography," and she contorted the lead to fit that end. Now that that article has been established (under a somewhat different title), and she's gone off to write that article, the should be no difficulty in changing the title -- if we can get the majority of the participating editors here onboard. See the version of the lead edit-warred out by Zara here. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In a sensible world it would not be very difficult to write an NPOV article that included the debates of 19th-20th century race theorists along with modern Afrocentrists and recent studies. I think we have managed to do that to reasonable effect on the Nordic race article, for example. The problem here is that all such attempts have rapidly degenerated into fights between editors who want to drag out any any every referencce to skin shades, curliness of hair, nose shape and what have you in any source that can be found ("Joe Schmo said in a letter in 1798 that his Egyptian servant was 'dusky faced' and looked like a statue of a pharaoh he saw in Memphis" etc etc). All attempts to place such statements in context are drowned by special pleading. The problem is that there is no agreed definition of "black" or "non black" and no agreement about what is and isn't "Afrocentrism". Paul B (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And that is precisely why the article shouldn't be frame the subject matter at the outset as an Afrocentric issue -- which is what Zara's edit-warred version has done. This article should be about explaining how the debate arose in the first place, what gave rise to such disparate perceptions about dynastic Egypt, who/what the notable players/schools of thought are and -- briefly -- what they believe to be true. Period. As it stands now, the article paints the thoroughly false picture that the debate began with Afrocentrism -- which we all know not to be the case. deeceevoice (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any difference between "Joe Schmo said in a letter in 1798 that his Egyptian servant was 'dusky faced'" and "Marcus Garvey said the Negro once...." and "H.F.K. Günther in 1927 wrote that Augustus Caesar displayed Nordic...". Isn't that history. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But such statements should not be used out of context. If we're going to discuss the matter thoroughly, whatever its historical scope may be, simply quoting numerous individual mentions like that would not be very helpful. Furthermore, a letter would be a primary source, the use of which is discouraged. What you need are good secondary sources forming some sort of synthesis of how the controversy has evolved (since performing the synthesis ourselves would be original research, and not appropriate, either). Anaxial (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is one such secondary source that covers many of the aforementioned protagonists. Egypt Land: Race and Nineteenth-Century American Egyptomania (New Americanists Amazon reviews. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I fought for weeks against Moreschi and Woland trying to make broardened the scope of this article, to show, even quoting Jean-François Champollion the father of Egyptology, that Afrocentrism did not start the problematic of the race of the ancient Egyptians, rather that it is linked to the birth of Egyptology. Champollion spoke about it, Adolf Erman and Herman Ranke spoke about it, to quote just a few. For example, Champollion said that the Egyptians are indigenous africans; they did not resemble the Copts who are a mix of many races who came to dominate Egypt, but they look like the Kennous and Barabras, the actual inhabitants of Nubia (Lettres écrites d'Egypte et de Nubie en 1824 et 1829 (Elibron Classics for the new edition), 1833, p. 429-430). While Erman and Ranke affirm that the Egyptians are a mix of Asians and Africans, they admit that they do not look like the Semites and Libyans, but like their southern neighbours, the Nubians (La civilisation égyptienne, 1948 for the German edition and 1952 for the French edition, p. 46).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So, does this mean that you would support a lead with broader language, that doesn't refer to Afrocentrism at the outset and opens the article up in its approach to the subject matter -- such as the one that existed before Zara's edit-warred version? deeceevoice (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"While Erman and Ranke affirm that the Egyptians are a mix of Asians and Africans, they admit that they do not look like the Semites and Libyans". Who cares what someone writing 100-200 years ago said? Do you realise how absurd this is? It's the equivalent of quoting Lavater on human physiognomy. Paul B (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, in this article Evolution#History_of_evolutionary_thought, there are several writers from 200 years ago. Today some of their ideas are ridiculed, but nonetheless they are still noted for having a whack at it. Take Jean-Baptiste Lamarck for example. What is important is that several scholars who were not afrocentrists were studying the issue. This directly relates as to how and why some editors arbitrarily decided that the scope of this article should be limited to Afrocentrism, when clearly there is an abundance of interest outside of Afrocentrism.Wapondaponda (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka does not want to quote these writers as historical figures in the context of their time . He wants to use them as direct evidence - to pluck some obsolete statement out of the past and use it to support the claim that Egyptians looked like Nubians ("they admit..."). That's exactly what must be avoided. Paul B (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Of cause, Deeceevoice, I support a lead with a broader language! We have to report what was said about the race of the ancient Egyptians, no matter if it was said 100 years ago or not. After all, Jean-François Champollion is still the father of Egyptology! What are you afraid of Paul? This article must have a historical perspective, because its theme is rooted in history, even, to say the truth, long before the birth of Egyptology. Often, Champollion quotes ancient writers, (cf. Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, Elibron Classics for the new edition, 1828, pp. 457-461) and links the question of the race of the Egyptians to the one of their origins. According to him, Egyptians are from Ethiopia (Soudan).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A broader perspective, yes, but I agree with Paul that the comments must be used in their historical context. What you can't do is use them as evidence for the fringe theory, just for the historical pedigree of the fringe theory. I'm fine with this article taking a broader historical scope (which was the original question in the RfC) but it must retain NPOV, and not give undue weight to fringe theories. Anaxial (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard

Editors here deserve to know that there is once again a discussion going on concerning the editing of this article on the Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Afrocentric_historiography. --Blockinblox (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Authority of egyptologists

An Egyptologist is typically an archaeologist, historian, art historian or linguist. This means that many egyptologists may not have the necessary training in physical anthropology or population genetics. These disciplines are probably the most direct when it comes to issues of race. A linguist may offer an opinion on how the Egyptians spoke about race, based on translations of ancient texts, but that is about as far as a linguist can go. An archeologist may be specialized in material remains rather than human remains, as it is a broad discipline. Consequently, I think we must exercise caution, when we make assertions such as "mainstream egyptologists say this" or mainstream egyptologists think that. The real experts on this topic may not even be egyptologists. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So what? Egyptologists don't address the issue in the way Afrocentrists do becaue its not relevant to Egyptology what hair shape or skin pigment a given Egyptian had, and more than it matters to an expert on Renaisance art whether Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo had the same colour hair or not. This only matters is you think this represents an ethnic conflict of some sort. If you don't, it's as silly as arguments about relative the nose-shape and hair curliness of people in any profession anywhere Paul B (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've not been following this exchange, but your response, Paul, leaped out at me. Oh, yes, they most certainly do! Witness the reconstruction of the Tut skull presided over by Zahi Hawass, with the result being a fair-skinned model with hazel eyes -- and Hawass announced that Tut was "Caucasoid." If the head of Cairo's Supreme Council of Antiquities doesn't qualify as an "Egyptologist," then no one does. And you bet it represents a conflict. Hawass is one of the foremost pushers of the current fiction. deeceevoice (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Paul's views on hair curliness, nose-shape are somewhat naive. As silly as they may sound, it is those traits that seem to define race. I don't see how one can talk about race without some mention of these traits. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Caucasoid is a phenotype category based on head-shape. There are black-skinned people who are Caucasoid. The point I was making is that it is not relevant to modern Egyptology whether a given Egyptian had light or dark skin or straight or curly hair. In the heyday of "race theory" that was an issue because that's how racial typologies were modelled. So your writers of the 1850-1950 period (roughly) do debate such matters. But even then, they typically recognised that offspring from a royal bride from the south might produce a darker skinned heir while another child from a dynastic marriage with a northern kingdom might mean a lighter skinned one. It's pretty much arbitary at that social level. At the "grassroots" genetics has replaced that way of modelling race. Tickboxing markers of face shape is largely irrelevant because it tells us almost nothing of value any more. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, again, PB. "Markers of face shape" can tell us almost everything when it comes to: 1) placing a human specimen -- and particularly an ancient one -- in the context of its geographic locus of origin; 2) actual physical appearance of the once-living human being; 3) relatedness to other human populations, living and dead -- i.e., whether the person was a blood relative of, perhaps, other human specimens found nearby (via similarities in cranial form), and whether the individual was descended of peoples commonly referred to as "Negro," "Caucasian", "Asian." Human crania, when examined in light of long-established and still commonly used (contrary to the kind of twisted, politically correct, "post-racial" urban myth currently circulating on Misplaced Pages today) faciocranial phenotypical models can tell us much that is of value. Certainly, Susan Anton's dead-on identification of the Tut skull as originating from Africa and then, more specifically, North Africa is a spin-shattering example of this. And such comparisons also can provide reasonable clues as to skin and eye color -- again, as with the Tut specimen, evidence that was overlooked/ignored by the French reconstruction team, the head of which was a criminal forensic specialist with absolutely no training in forensic archaeology and virtually no familiarity with, or training in, the indigenous peoples of the region. deeceevoice (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Susan Anton identified a North African as North African. I fail to see how this is relevant beyond the fact that it clearly suggests that North Africans then looked pretty much like north Africans now. The point I was making was that this kind of thing tells us nothing of value, which is why Egyptologists don't care about it. Genetics is valuable to trace population histories in the way that can actually tell us things that are useful about history. The mapping the relative nose shapes of particular individuals is of little use to Egyptology in the same way that the nose shape of Michelangelo is useless to art history (and it wasn't a pretty shape, since it was broken when he got beat up by a rival artist). In the past these markers were used to map population histories. That's why writers in the 19th-20th century were interested in them. Since modern genetics indicate that these features are poor evidence of population histories they are not used in the way they once were. Paul B (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that by your use of the term "North African," you're referring to the Arabized peoples of the region -- because that's what the common misperception is -- as opposed to the indigenous Blacks of Northeast Africa. Sorry, but your assumption betrays an ignorance that is so deep, so abysmal, I hardly know where to begin. Perhaps, you should go to Talk: Tutankhamun and read my entry there -- and be sure to follow the links and examine the images. It explains, in part, how Anton reached her conclusions about Tut. (It's interesting how you keep refactoring your comments under the guise of further explanation.) And, again, Egyptologists do care. Again, a perfect example is Zahi Hawass, who has spent a good deal of his entire career attempting to Arabize dynastic Egypt. deeceevoice (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't have the argument both ways. If an anonymous skull is identified as north African, that means that the identification is based on similarity to the modern population. You can't persist with your fantasy that everyone in Africa was black until some "Arabization" event occurred. here is no point in reding your screed of OR on the Tut page, and your usual resort to crass bullying and abuse when you have not got an argument will not work with me. I have not refactored anything. I said the same thing in the first post. You just didn't understand it. I am also, btw, perfectly well aware of what Anton wrote, which you have scattered over blogs across the internet and repeatedly twisted to suit your ideology. Paul B (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, PB. If you'll take a moment and read what I wrote, Anton herself said she concluded immediately that the skull was "clearly African." The only thing that gave her pause was the narrow nasal index. (Clearly, she was using the established metrics I've referred to above to establish origin. First, she concluded that the skull was "clearly African" -- not Asian, not European, but African. (Read "Black.") The only aberrant metric resulting from her examination was the nose. Why? Because equatorial Blacks do not commonly have narrow nasal indices -- only some in North Africa commonly do. So, she determined it was "North African" -- not Semitic, not Asiatic, not European, not "Caucasian"/Caucasoid, but "North African." And there is no question that Egypt has been Arabized over the centuries. One need only look to the displacement of indigenous languages and religions as clear evidence of that -- and northern Sudan and the Tuaregs as well. What is fiction to you is clear, historical fact in most quarters. deeceevoice (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD results

I have closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? as delete, with extensive commentary. The gist is: work it out here. - brenneman 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Other business

In looking over the talk above, it's very long and to some degree repetative, and appears to be making very little headway. Unless there are strenous objections, archiving will occur soon to provide some clearer air. I'd ask that all talk page participants attempt, to some degree, to err on the side of brevity moving forward. That is to say, WP:REFACTORing may occur without warning, even of signed comments if required. I'd further ask that as much as possible discussion here be strictly limited to this article and proposed changes to it.

The most pressing issue is that the article currently does not conform to the guideline at WP:LEAD. This has been identified clearly in the Request for comment section above. I'd like to see some concrete proposed lead paragraphs presented here, starting with discussion on that from the recently deleted pseudo-draft.

brenneman 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

From history of deleted article (admin only)

The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times. The scarcity of "hard" evidence has served to fuel the debate. The scholarly consensus outside the field of Egyptology is that the concept of "pure race" is incoherent; and that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic..

Comments/suggestions on the above

1. There are GFDL complications on a delete/merge, but it's not actually a violation of the GNU Free Documentation License. - brenneman 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
2. The lead above, could do with some refining, but it is acceptable to me. To start with, the statement is neutral and covers a much broader scope. I also think it would encourage a reader to continue reading the article. The suggested lead does not have the shock value of the current lead, that needlessly has two links to the same Afrocentrism article.Wapondaponda (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
3. It looks also fine to me, as it gives a historical broad view.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
4. I would be happy with this lead, as hopefully it will open the debate beyond the restrictions currently imposed on this article. Wdford (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
5. A definite improvement over existing language, as I stated at the deletion page, but please see my suggestion and comments below. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative lead paragraph

It's good to see we're back on track -- after an entire day and-a-half wasted because of a totally precipitous and unwarranted lockdown of the article. This is precisely where I was going with my constant questioning/badgering above. The present lead is terrible. After doing an informal poll (above) yesterday, I returned this a.m. to do a formal head count.;) So, thanks, guys, for going ahead and doing it for me. Judging from the responses I recieved (and from commentary independent of my direct questioning as well), there seemed to be fairly widespread dissatisfaction with the current lead and a desire for a more general, inclusive approach to the subject matter at hand.

I'd like to offer the language I wrote originally for consideration. I'm not wedded to it; I don't have any pretentions to ownership, but I think it is preferable in some respects. Perhaps an amalgam of both might be preferable, as the above is an amalgam of my original language and other contributions. Certainly the far more accurate, broader, more inclusive approach is one that I have favored from the outset.

The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory perceptions and physical portrayals of Egypt in the ancient historical record and in academia, among travelers, historians, archaeologists and other scholars of ancient and contemporary times, and in modern popular culture. The disparate ways in which the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in art and artifact, in symbolic representations and realistically, have served to fuel the debate.

A comment on the other language suggested above: actually, I think there is plenty of hard evidence, just no proof, and that which exists is sometimes contradictory and certainly inconclusive. Perhaps that is what should be said instead. Either way, the suggestions here are far superior to what currently exists. deeceevoice (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose the following as a compromise lead paragraph:

The on-going debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory perceptions and physical portrayals of ancient Egyptians in the historical record, in academia and in popular culture since ancient times. In the 20th century a number of alternative theories arose to challenge the conventional wisdom, including but not limited to the Afrocentrism movement. The scarcity of "conclusive" evidence, and the disparate ways in which the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in art and artifact, have served to fuel the debate.

Comments? Wdford (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"In the 20th century a number of alternative theories arose to challenge the conventional wisdom including but not limited to the Afrocentrism movement". This implies that there was a conventional wisdom that was challenged, which is highly dubious, and that some sort of similar challenge was occuring outside of Afrocentrism, which is confusing and probably misleading. Paul B (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is always a "conventional wisdom" - on[REDACTED] it is usually called the "academic consensus" or the "mainstream", or similar. I am happy to substitute any suitable term. And yes, there is a similar challenge occurring outside of Afrocentrism - if that were not the case then this debate could be confined to a sub-section within the Afrocentrism article. Wdford (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, theories of ethnicity and race have evolved dramatically, and DNA has put a whole new complexion on such studies. So you can't just assert that there was a "conventional widom" without any good reason to make such a claim. Nor can you claim a "similar challenge" without reason. Paul B (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wdford that there was a common wisdom which considered the Egyptians as Blacks. This wisdom was chalenged during the time of the slave trade and the colonisation which followed. Now new studies tend to go back to that ancient wisdom. That is the case in study about the HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks where it is said that Egypt-Ethiopia had populated Greece, thus the sub-Saharian origin of the Greeks.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to support the lead suggested by Deeceevoice. It has more elements than the first one and the one by Wdford.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The "conventional wisdom" (call it what you will) is that the ancient Egyptians were exactly like the modern Egyptians - i.e. not European, not Semite and not "Negro" either. The articles are full of such positions, as I'm sure you are aware. The people who are now bringing DNA analysis to the party would be part of the Afrocentric challenge if they are Afrocentrists, but if they are not themselves Afrocentrists then they would be among those who are making a "similar challenge". Where are we missing each other?

BTW - what wording would you prefer for the lead paragraph?

Wdford (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The full article about the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks is found here http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia/blog/who-are-greekshla-genes-in-macedonians. I prefer the wording suggested by Deeceevoice.--62.101.92.14 (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Lusala seem to think he agrees with you that there was a "conventional widom" that they were black, but you say that the conventional wisdom is that they were...not! Your version creates false dichotomy between conventional and alternative, where alternative is aligned with Afrocentrism, even if it isn't identical to it. Also DNA has been used to confirm the "wisdom", conventional or not, that they were pretty much the same as modern Egyptians. I'd prefer a lead that simply stated that this is an issue within Afrocentrism and that it draws on earlier debates of race theorists and descriptions of Egyptians from ancient history. p.s. Arnaiz-Villena' article is not generally accepted, and is irrelevant here. Paul B (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So, now we're going back to mentioning Afrocentrism in the lead? Why? Let's just start with a general statement everyone can agree on, and let the article sort itself out from there. First, though, let's get rid of the perfectly ghastly language that exists now. Jeezus H. Christ! deeceevoice (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If this issue is to be defined narrowly in the lead, then the Thought-Police will start reverting contributions again on the basis that they fall outside the scope of the article. If we are to accept a lead that merely says "This is an issue within Afrocentrism" then the whole article need not exist, and we can simply build it as a section within the existing Afrocentrism article. The lead needs to allow for a discussion on the controversy over and above that which is part of the Afrocentric debate. Any wording that achieves this broader scope will be fine with me. Otherwise, we need to change the title to indicate a limitation on scope, do we not? Wdford (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, duh. We're just going around in circles. First, let's agree not to mention freakin' Afrocentrism in the lead. How 'bout that? And let's not talk about "conventional wisdom," because most people back then hadn't a freakin' clue about Egypt. There's plenty of time to elaborate on what was recorded and written during various times. Let's just KISS and stick to a bare-bones lead paragraph, so we can open up the article and make that disgusting text just disappear and start to frame the article in a proper manner. I don't like your version, because it refers to popular culture in ancient times -- when there really was no "popular culture" as we know it today back then, no media as we know it today. Unless there's some specific criticism of the language I've offered, let's just go with it (or something very similar in scope).

Furthermore, there were Europeans making whitewashed images of Egyptian art and artifacts before the 20th century, which further muddied the waters. So, jumping to 20th century opinion/thought that 'challenged conventional wisdom' doesn't begin to capture the issue. It once again truncates the discussion and screwss the logical development of the piece -- in much the same way sticking Afrocentrism in the lead in this current version does.

And your concern (expressed earlier) about speakers of English as a second language just doesn't fly -- since this is an English-language project. While I can understand reading and writing in a second language may at times prove challenging (it takes me considerable effort to do so in Spanish), I don't favor dumbed-down/simplified language to accommodate ESL contributors -- and I don't think, as a whole, that should be a consideration when crafting submissions. And, no. The "thought police" are all too anxious to paint this as some crackpot Afrocentrist issue; they can't wait to do so -- which is why the lead was written/restored the way it was by others -- notably, the individual whose stated intent was to craft an article on "Radical Afrocentrist historiography." If we're writing about the controversy, then one of the most obvious things to do is discuss Afrocentrism. The problem is framing the article in that context at the outset -- which gives rise to the notion that Afrocentrism is where the debate all started -- which we know is bogus.

That's why, IMHO, we need to keep Afrocentrism out of the lead. (We don't mention Nordicists, either.) What about that don't you get? (Sorry, but if I'm sounding impatient, it's because I am. Let's just do a simple lead, that can't be disputed and move on from there. No one has suggested that we try to write the article without mentioning Afrocentrism. That would be absurd/pointless. deeceevoice (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OK!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are nowhere near as frustrated as me, I assure you.

WP:LEAD says specifically that “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible.” That’s all I ask – you don’t need to dumb it down, just use accessible language please.

I am very much in favour of a most simple lead, but it still needs to explain why the article exists and provide a summary of what will follow. It should also link to the title. SO, for simple starters, how about this:

The on-going controversy over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt continues to be debated in academia, in politics and in popular culture. However it has its roots in the contradictory perceptions and physical portrayals of ancient Egyptians in the historical record since ancient times. The scarcity of "conclusive" evidence, and the disparate ways in which the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in their surviving art and artifacts, have served to fuel the debate.

Wdford (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article...." The lead as I've written it does that. And the text is accessible -- to speakers and readers of English. (Again, let me remind you this is an English-language project.) No one who reads and writes English sufficiently proficiently above a certain grade level should have a problem with the language as I've written it.

Further, the first sentence in your version is redundant, and there's no need for "however" anything, or the need to put "conclusive" in quotes. All you're doing is -- forgive me; I do understand your difficulty with English, and also the fact that, even so, you're quite impressively proficient -- is somewhat clumsily repeating what I've already written. Let's just go with it and move forward. Further refinements/improvements can/may be made later, but so far you haven't produced anything better. deeceevoice (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I spoke/wrote too quickly. The second sentence could stand -- without, of course, "conclusive" in quotes. That's good.  :) deeceevoice (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a good enough start - let's go with this. Wdford (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. It's not far from where I left it yesterday -- is it? God. I certainly hope the rest of the article goes a lot more smoothly than this has! Please vote below, so there can be no misconstruing the result. (Note the other use of your language, Wdford. ;) ) Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another iteration of the lead - votes, comments, please

So, now we're looking at:

"The ongoing current debate controversy over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory perceptions and physical portrayals of Egypt in the historical record and in academia, among travelers, historians, archaeologists and other scholars of ancient and contemporary times, and in modern popular culture. The scarcity of conclusive evidence, and the disparate ways in which the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in their surviving art and artifacts, have served to fuel the debate."

Collaboration is good.  ;)

So, who's cool with that? deeceevoice (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes. I'm in. deeceevoice (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes. I'm in. Wdford (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes. Me too. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes. It is good.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Comment I am, I hope, a disinterested third party, not having read this article until the RfC a few days ago. I have no particular problem with the proposed paragraph above, but it's unclear to me whether this replaces just the current (single sentence) first paragraph, or all of the lead. I think that the existing second paragraph (beginning "Today, the debate largely takes place...") is also important, and should be retained in some form - although a citation for the first sentence (already marked with a "Fact" tag) is clearly desirable. Anaxial (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes to deeceevoice's version also. Sorry to see the politix of trying to make a dissent voice disappear. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
7. No. (Which I am going to warrant later.) Zara1709 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral Somehow, I'm not comfortable that this subject is presented as if both propositions have an equal weight of adherents. We do know that the hypothesis of a "Black" Egypt is in the minority in the real world, and we are bound by Wiki rules to report this as is. Right now, the intro looks good, except that the positions aren't properly weighted, which is a total no-no. We need to work on this some more.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead as stated doesn't take a position, so I don't get your objection. deeceevoice (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

1. No as decribe below i agree with zara

Sign in and vote. Otherwise, your vote won't count. It's a common means on Misplaced Pages of helping to ensure people don't vote twice deeceevoice (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

"The question of the racial identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in the conflicting perceptions and physical portrayals of Egyptians in the historical record and in academia, among travelers, historians, archaeologists and other scholars of ancient and contemporary times, and has been revived in modern popular culture. The absence of conclusive evidence, and the disparate ways in which the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in their surviving art and artifacts, have served to fuel the debate. While many experts agree that the population of Ancient Egypt was probably quite heterogenous, several hypotheses exist as to the physical appearance of the Ancient Egyptians."

It still needs work, but I respectfully submit that this presentation is a bit more neutral.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Third iteration of the lead para - votes, comments, please

So, now we're looking at:

“The controversy around the racial identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in the conflicting perceptions and physical portrayals of Egyptians since ancient times, both in academia and elsewhere. The absence of conclusive evidence, and the disparate ways in which the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in their surviving art and artifacts, have served to fuel the debate. While many modern experts agree that the population of Ancient Egypt was probably quite heterogeneous and/or that applying modern notions of race classification to Ancient Egypt is anachronistic, other hypotheses have also been proposed.”

Obviously we need to limit the material to referenced secondary sources and comply with all policies.

So, who's cool with that? Wdford (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm in. Wdford (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Now, I'm in too. :) Ramdrake (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
3. comment. I am supportive, but I think "and/or" is not best practice and need some refining. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And/or isn't necessary. AFAIK many experts agree on both and they're not mutually exclusive.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

1. No at this point i don't know where this article is going is it suppose to try and prove what race tha ancient egyptians are or what there has been zip clarification on the direction of this article.

Again, you haven't signed in, so -- sorry -- your vote doesn't count. If you have an opinion and want to weigh in, then own up to it first and sign in. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How is there "consensus" in a "controversy"?

Someone shoot me if this question has already been asked, but: is it fair in the lede sentence to speak of a "consensus" among scholars in a situation if there really is none? I quote WP:NPOV: "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." The part I bolded suggests that we shouldn't force a spectrum of widely dissonant views to artificially agree in some way that they do not. In other words, if it's a "controversy", shouldn't we describe it as such and say there is "no" consensus, instead of pretending there is one, but only among those who agree in some respects? 70.105.28.106 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There can be consensus -- general agreement -- among some parties and still controversy outside that group who have reached consensus. In that regard, the language may be confusing/contradictory to some. But we're not working with that language right now. Many of us find the lead as it currently stands objectionable, but for other reasons. See the discussion immediately above for more information. Welcome to the discussion. :) Please feel free to continue to contribute; however, it would be helpful if you would sign your comments. If you do not yet have a user name, that's remedied easily enough. Thanks for your input. deeceevoice (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent - that's exactly what we're trying to achieve - to provide all the available evidence from which "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." We do not propose to create the impression in the lead that there is a consensus on this issue - quite the opposite. Please review the latest proposal above, and contribute your vote/suggestions. Wdford (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Concern

I am concerned that while we are trying to work on a consensus regarding the scope of the article, certain editors, who were "edit warring" are not participating in helping to achieve a consensus. I have a suspicion that if and when the protection is lifted, they will reappear and resume "edit warring" in order to have the article reprotected. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that is a reference to me but I'm done with this article. It looks like there is progress being made but I just can't deal with certain people so I'm stepping out of this one. Ciao. --Woland (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall see you edit war. But it would still be great if you voiced your opinion. The more opinions the better, so I hope you step back in. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Silence is consent. We are doing this by the book, so if they don't participate (meaningfully, that is) then they can't complain later, the consensus will have shifted and any reverts will be out of order. Thusfar the vote is unanimous. Wdford (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of these guys are pretty smart at gaming the system. They know that just a little disruption is enough to get the article protected. This is exactly what happened last week, we had a rough consensus to broaden scope, all of sudden, a few editors who had not participated appeared and started edit warring, and the rest is history. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First the good cop, bad cop ploy and then -- yes, Wapondaponda, the lockdown. And, of course, the choreographed hand-offs to a series of like-minded admins with the same, IMO, coercive, autocratic mind-set and modus operandi. Well, I've just dropped by several user pages, asking for their input. (Barlow and Woland's, too.) I didn't bother with dBachmann, because, IMHO, he's simply too disruptive/nasty. Ditto for Zara -- name calling and such. Besides, she's already said she has nothing to say to me, and she's off writing on "radical Afrocentric historiography." In the wrong place; but, hey, that's another story, another battle. ;) Besides, word has a way of getting around, and if they have anything to say, I'm sure they'll have at it. So, hey, we'll give things a day or so and see what develops. Thanks again, guys. :) deeceevoice (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

General sanctions ban

User:Deeceevoice is banned from the article and talk pages of all articles related to the race of ancient people/peoples until 5 May 2009. This includes, but is not limited to, this article. Tom Harrison 19:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I find this ban very strange. Why did you rush to ban Deeceevoice? And who next?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a rush; hopefully no further bans will be needed. Tom Harrison 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I do agree it looks like a rush: no warning related to this specific incident and the ban is rather long, especially for a warning-less ban... Just my twopence.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_of_User:Deeceevoice. - brenneman 00:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we suppose to chime in on her ban if we agree or not Brennemen or is that just for admins--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite the page's name, anyone is welcome to add thoughtful commentary, hopefully based upon measured examination of relevent guidelines and policies. I'll leave the decision on how frequently admins actually do do that as an excercise for the reader.

At this stage, before even beginning to talk about the validity of the ban I'd like to establish the tenacity of it. That's a complex policy-based argument, and in the end must satisfy the guys with the ultimate ban-hammer: Arbcom. For this reason, I'd suggest that it be left to those who've been around for ages. (Please don't read this as any sort of approval for a two-tiered set of editors, just a commentary on how things work.)

brenneman 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I will no longer be monitoring pages in this area. Thanks to everyone who has contributed, Tom Harrison 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information

• wp:not#ikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Although the examples listed in that guideline don't fit this case particularly well, I think that the underlying issue applies here. We want an encyclopaedia article, we don't want a list of all the people who have ever commented on the question what 'race' the ancient Egyptians were. I think I have mentioned that before. If you have a lead:

"The ongoing current debate controversy over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory perceptions and physical portrayals of Egypt in the historical record and in academia, among travelers, historians, archaeologists and other scholars of ancient and contemporary times, and in modern popular culture. The scarcity of conclusive evidence, and the disparate ways in which the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in their surviving art and artifacts, have served to fuel the debate."

, how are you going to decide how much weight each one of these "travelers, historians, archaeologists and other scholars" deserves? Especially, considering that mainstream academic though has left the concept of 'race' behind. What there is to say from the mainstream academic perspective is said in Archaeogenetics of the Near East in the Egypt section. And honestly, if you think that this "Egyptocentric fanatism" (Wilson J. Moses) "has its roots in contradictory perceptions and physical portrayals of Egypt in the historical record", well, then you have never read a book by a scholar of contemporary history on Afrocentrism. Zara1709 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara you are right on that note ,the article as you might know previously was called "Race of the Ancient Egyptians" which turned out to be just that an idiscriminate collection of information and now the usual suspects are back to try and re-create that article to try and prove ancient egyptians were black africans or not--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

the following apply to WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

1. Frequently Asked Questions.
2. Plot summaries.
3. Lyrics databases.
4. Statistics.
5. News reports.

None of the sources proposed fall into this criteria. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting myself: "Although the examples listed in that guideline don't fit this case particularly well, I think that the underlying issue applies here." Do you want to disagree with this argument? Zara1709 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, that we cannot list each and every person who has ever commented on the race of the ancient egyptians. But as long as we acknowledge that several non-afrocentrists have commented on the subject, then we have enough justification to broaden the scope. We can select some of the most notable commentaries on the suject, or we can summarize the different views that were prevalent in history. My concern is that some might decide to use WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a means to censor useful and relevant information. One of the best ways to avoid accusations of original research, is simply to use direct quotes. Since many claim that the article contains original research, direct quotes can help. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Censor useful and relevant information to what end? Tom Harrison 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is standard practice for articles to devote a section to the history and development of ideas that relate to the article. See Race_(classification_of_human_beings)#History, Nordic_race#Attitudes_before_1900 for example. As I have mentioned earlier, I don't see any reason why this article should be an exception.Wapondaponda (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but again, censor useful and relevant information to what end? Tom Harrison 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand, could you clarify. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Above you wrote, "My concern is that some might decide to use WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a means to censor useful and relevant information." My question to you is, what would be the purpose of that censorsing? Tom Harrison 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, POV-pushing, perhaps?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My impression, though I could be wrong as I cannot read minds, is probably there is intent to ridicule Afrocentrism. The limited scope of Afrocentrism, means that only some of the most outrageous and exaggerated claims are represented in the article, Garvey, Diop etc. Anyone reading the article would get the impression that the topic race of the ancient egyptians is complete fringe nonsense. But many people with no connection to Afrocentrism, have sometimes made observations similar to the observations made by Afrocentrists. For example Charles Darwin, thought a particular Egyptian was black. The fear of the pro-fringe camp, is that if we include these references, we might be giving credibility to some Afrocentric claims, and they don't want that. My position, is that if it is true, relevant and important it should be included, regardless of which side of the fence it is on. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the candid and helpful answer. Tom Harrison 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Update

From the above polls, there are currently at least 8 editors who support modifying the lead. Two are against, Zara based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and one other editor for reasons that are unclear. In my opinion that seems like a rough consensus, I'll wait to see what others have to say. The next issue is obviously to broaden the scope of the article to include the history of the controversy, beginning with info from the 18th and 19th Century. This should really be straight forward, in most other articles its standard practice to have historical development of ideas. But because of the politics of this article, consensus needs to be achieved. Ideas on how we can set up proposals for votes or comments are welcome. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to add the history component as suggested. However I would suggest we first clearly establish the scope of the article, as this is the ground on which Moreschi and Dab were basing all their reverts initially. Others have also commented on the lack of clarity.

Our consensus thusfar about the new lead has been aimed at opening up the scope, but Zara has correctly raised the concern that we can't have WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Deeceevoice was largely concerned about limiting the scope as well. Although Afrocentrism will obviously be part of the debate, we can't limit the entire article to Afrocentrism only, partly because there is more info that is relevant and partly because we could otherwise merely frame this as a sub-section of the existing Afrocentrism article (or attract the attention of the Fork Police.)

I suggest that the scope be defined as:

A review of all the evidence from whatever time period that has bearing on establishing the race of the Ancient Egyptians, including but not limited to Afrocentrism, with a small section briefly listing some of the commentators both for and against who do not have actual evidence to back up their opinions, but limiting this so as to avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE.

Once we have clear consensus on the scope then the reverters will have no further basis for involvement, and the block can be lifted.

Comments and suggestions?

Wdford (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope (before lead)

Well, I would suspect that several editors haven't commented on the discussion because it was built up the wrong way. I mean, look at the comment of Wdford: "If this issue is to be defined narrowly in the lead, then the Thought-Police will start reverting contributions again on the basis that they fall outside the scope of the article." No, actually I did not revert because some material fell outside the scope of the article as defined by the lead, but I reverted because the added material and the new lead changed the scope of the article. Before we discuss how to word the lead paragraph, we obviously have to discuss what we want the article to be about. If you discuss the lead before the scope, you are actually trying to avoid the discussion about the scope, with is illustrated by a comment from deeceevoice: "So, now we're going back to mentioning Afrocentrism in the lead? Why? Let's just start with a general statement everyone can agree on, and let the article sort itself out from there." I have to admit, to say that there are "contradictory perceptions and physical portrayals of Egypt in the ancient historical record and in academia, among travelers, historians, archaeologists and other scholars of ancient and contemporary times, and in modern popular culture" is not factually false. But for several reasons, one of which I have mentioned above, I can't accept an article that is an indiscriminate list of everything that has been said on the 'race' of the ancient Egyptians. And I think neither could Dbachmann, Moreschi, Wikiscribe and Woland, although it would be helpful if more of them had plainly stated this on this talk page for the record.

So, before we actually discuss how the lead should be worded, we need to discuss what the scope of the article should be. In that order - the other way around we certainly will not achieve an encompassing consensus. And if you look at the archives of this discussion page, you will indeed see, as Wikiscribe has commented, that the previous version "was called "Race of the Ancient Egyptians" which turned out to be just that an indiscriminate collection of information." And we are on a good way to get such an article again: If you are aware of the previous controversy between me and Wdford about Great Sphinx of Giza, where Wdford intended to limit the weight given to the Afrocentric view, it might be a surprise to see him here in the Afrocentric-team, as some people might want to describe it. But if you look at the edit history before the article was fully protected, you will see an edit like this one. . He actually added the statement by Zahi Hawass in the lead section. I would suppose, if we let those editors have their way, after some time they would start to disagree how much weight each statement should be given, and, since they did not previously agree on a meaningful concept for the article, they would be unable to sort this out. Which is why we need to discuss the concept first. And I don't think that we can lift the full protection before the concepts and the scope of the article have been worked out, or at least formulated. The whole debate only really set off, after I pointed out that I failed to see Moreshi's plan for this article. Zara1709 (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara is quite right. To state upfront that the controversy has its root in contradictory descriptions of Egyptians is to get the whole thing topsy turvy. The controversy is determined by the imperatives of modern race politics, primarily in America. We could construct articles on French people race controversy and Irish people race controversy if we wanted to by simply accumulating material from history which described the appearence of the French or the Irish in contradictory ways, but the reality is that there is no "controversy" to write about. But there is plenty of material to do it ("In the late 19th century it was argued that 'physiognomic similarities' to Mongolians indicated that the Bretons descended from an ancient Asian race.") The phrase in question gives the false impression that there as been an ongoing controversy for centuries. There was a period of "race science" when theories - often very odd to modern ears, like the "Mongolian" Bretons - proliferated. You can find claims that early "Negroid" tribes were still to be found in Scotland in the 17th century (see David MacRitchie) and numerous other notions at this time. But there is no Misplaced Pages article on "Scottish race controversy", any more than there is on the Irish or French, because these are not issues that are linked to modern ideologies and cultural politics. This is an issue in modern cultural politics, which draws on long obsolete debates and variable phrases about skin tonality used by writers from the ancient past. Paul B (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron, we should be a little bit more succinct and direct to avoid repetition. Does one believe there is adequate material outside of Afrocentrism and is it relevant to the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

It is tempting to go ahead and implement changes right away since the page is unprotected, but I will desist and would recommend others do the same, otherwise the page will be protected again. I suggest we continue to build a consensus. However we can change the lead, as current consensus is 8 vs 2 in favor of change. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We certainly could, but it might be a good idea to actually wait until we come to a consensus as to the scope of the article so we can address any further changes which could be warranted given a new scope.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That is why i asked an admin already to protect the page as per there is no consensus what should be the scope of the article let alone the lead has zara had mentioned--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think on the lead there is a rough consensus. I know you disagree, but eight other people are in agreement. At the moment that is the only change, that is warranted. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you have a lead as per there is no consensus to the scope of the article which has been brought up by zara and which paul b agreed as well as i do--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I think Zara and Paul are not philosophically opposed to a broader scope, Zara seems to be concerned about WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though she admits it may not apply to some of the sources in question. Paul is concerned about something, but I don't quite know what it is. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've said, I think, that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is one of the main reasons I oppose the version of the lead you propose, but it is not the only one. We need some more time to discuss this. Zara1709 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Trying to figure this out

Just read through the long discussion about the lead (or really, just the end of it). Am I correct in concluding that the controversy over the lead centres around whether or not Afrocentrism should be mentioned in it? Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The overall debate, is whether the controversy is limited to afrocentrism, or whether it has existed outside afrocentrism. Historically, the debate predates the Afrocentrism movement. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If the debate predates Afrocentrism, then isn't the Origins section (intentionally or unintentionally) misleading? Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, there is a section detailing the historical debate from the 18th and 19th century that has been deleted, that we are arguing to have restored. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the question whether Afrocentrism should be linked or not, but that is probably the main one. Now, PLEASE, could we leave the article as it is, until we have a broader consensus and exchanged the viewpoints? Because I don't count 8 to 2. Zara1709 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very obvious now who the disruptive editors are. We had a straw poll, and the majority were in favor of modifying the lead. Paul did not participate in the poll. Zara is clearly reverting against the rough consensus without justification. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping by and read your note, Wapondaponda. If that is so, then I think at the very least some fact and balance tags are certainly in order. I'm happy to oblige. If there is clear consensus, or certainly general agreement among a majority of the involved editors about how to proceed, and if Zara continues to revert against such common understanding, then we certainly can, based on her performance thus far, discuss possible remedies up to and including a subject matter ban. deeceevoice (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really do think so, well, then take it to whatever noticeboard you see fit. But, I will insist, as long as that issue will be running, this article should be fully protected. To me, only one thing is obvious: I was the only editor who actually took a look at the old material from before August 2008 and started to rewrite it. I was the only editor who actually managed to confront Moreschi about the 'meme' thing. If, after that, you want to imply I am disruptive editor, then 1) either Misplaced Pages is not worth my time or 2) we need to push this through the hard way. Zara1709 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of page protection, page protection is not used to deal with content disputes, it's used because of the actions of editors. Revert-warring and the like. And, while I'm not sure what you mean by "push this through the hard way", that sort of combative language is precisely the sort of thing that we want to avoid here. Guettarda (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, the simple facts are that you: 1) block reverted and made sweeping content changes tht were clearly against consensus, 2) shut down the article in order to do so, and 3) called (ineffectually) for my head on a stake-- ironic, given that your offenses here have been, by any metric, by far the most egregious. So, it shouldn't surprise you one whit that you aren't getting commended for your work. Finally, no one is "imply" anything; we're flat-out calling you disruptive. deeceevoice (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, ugh. That version isn't really appropriate. Whether it mentions Afrocentrism or not, "the ancient Egyptians were neither "black" nor "white" (as such terms are usually applied today)." doesn't belong in the lead. "Usually applied today"? By whom? Where? There's a "usual" definition of "black" and "white"? Perhaps a culturally specific "usual", but then wouldn't you have to specify which culture? And, um, more importantly, the lead shouldn't contradict the article, which does not appear to say "they were neither black nor white"... Isn't the point of this article that there's a controversy? Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely, Guettarda (points which I and others already have raised). This article is going around in circles. deeceevoice (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some straw polls here with various proposals on possible leads. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw them. I suppose that my point is that, while it's acceptable to disagree as to whether to include Afrocentrism in the lead, at the very least the lead should broadly agree with the article, and should use language that's precise enough that it should be meaningful. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Geuettarda - work thorugh questions of what are significant points of view and how to present them in the body of the article first; then wording the intro is easy. That said, can someone explain to me why it is not sufficient to state that many scholars (with references) believe that it would be anachronistic to apply current racial categories (and perhaps even the concept of race as such) to ancient Egypt? I agree with Guettarda that neither black nor white is, one way or the other, meaningless. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Kudos to Zara for taking on Moreschi about the meme thing (which I call a "neologism," not a "word") Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A fourth submission for a lead

Here is what I could come up with. Please feel free to rewrite or tear to pieces as appropriate.

"There have been conflicting perceptions and physical portrayals of Egyptians since ancient times, and the ways in which the ancient Egyptians have depicted themselves in their surviving art and artifacts have been found to be quite disparate, changing throughout their entire history. Today, many modern experts agree that the population of Ancient Egypt was probably quite heterogeneous, others agree that applying modern notions of race classification to Ancient Egypt is anachronistic while a growing consensus dismisses racial classification as a social rather than a biological construct. Nevertheless reconstructions of the physical aspect of Ancient Egyptians continue to stir some controversy, in the absence of conclusive evidence."

Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First impression is that it is very, very, very wordy and needs some work. Will return to it when I have a moment. (Deadlines through tonight.) Thanks, though, for your contribution and your ongoing efforts, Ramdrake. Peace.  :) deeceevoice (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm certainly not married to the text. I was just trying to address some of Zara's objections. If it can be reworded more succinstly all the better. My first language is French, so that may be why I tend to write things more wordily. The sentences are definitely run-on, that's for sure. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, Wikiscribe etc

The general consensus is the article in its current state is inadequate. Several editors, Deeceevoice, Luka, Wdford, Ramdrake and myself have all made suggestions at improving the article. Yet Zara and Wikiscribe have ZERO suggestions. They are in universal opposition to any suggestion, and make no suggestions themselves. I invite them to make proposals on improvement instead of criticizing everyone else's proposals. Lets make suggestions, vote and move on. Otherwise we will continue moving in circles. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, general consensus is sufficient to move ahead with editing the article. Unanimity is virtually impossible on any article, and particularly one of this nature. I don't know about Wikiscribe, but certainly Zara's had ample opportunity to do something other than edit war, threaten/bully and obstruct, and she's chosen not to budge. You can be bullied only if you allow it. If we have general consensus, then let's move ahead with editing the article in accordance with that consensus. And if certain other members continue to disrupt/hamper the constructive development of the article, then they can, and should, be dealt with. deeceevoice (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not your average not-many-people-know-about biography or that like article. It shouldn't be to much to ask that you allow a few days, or even a few hours, for everyone who has this article on his watchlist to comment or, in my case, to prepare a more elaborate comment. It certainly is the only way to avoid an edit war. Now I don't mind a full protection of this article due to another edit war - actually I think it would help since we do have a lot of argument to catch up on. Zara1709 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, I think you have had ample time to make any suggestions, this discussion has been taking place for a while now. From the time you managed to get the article protected. Deeceevoice, there is a rough consensus to move forward, but as you know, the[REDACTED] elite are biased against those who would like a broader approach. Our suggestions are factual and relevant. But somehow the burden is on us to prove a consensus beyond all reasonable doubt. The other editors like Zara don't have that burden as there are many administrators who are sympathetic to their perspective.Wapondaponda (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, I don't agree with you that the problematic of the race of the Egyptians began with Afrocentrists. Actually, there are conflicting reports among the ancient writers even if most of them from Herodotus to Aristotle say that there were Blacks. There is at least one who was quoted in an old version of the article, Lucius? (I don't remember well) who said that they look "like us" (meaning for him Europeans). During the time of the slave trade, Volney reminded Europeans that the Egyptians to whom Europe borrowed elements of civilizations are Blacks. Jean-François Champollion, as far as I know, did not affirm clearly that Egyptians are Blacks, but he said that they did not look like the Copts who are a mix of people who came to dominate Egypt later in history, instead like the Kennous and the Barabras of Nubia. According to him, Egyptians are from either Abyssinie (Ethiopia) or Sennar (in Soudan). The other Champollion known as Champollion-Figeac, spoke agaisnt Volney saying that black skin and wooly air are not sufficient elements to caracterize a Black. We are here at the beginning of Egyptology. This has nothing to do with Afrocentrism. Besides, by today standard, ancient Egyptians are Blacks, because there were dark. To say brown doesn't help. Many Blacks of today in central and southern Africa are brown. Nobody says that there are neither Whites nor Blacks. No-race is not a race. The actual lead is unbalanced, because it quotes from the same book. It doesn't even quote Afrocentrists while it makes the race of the Egyptians an issue whithin Afrocentrism!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And neither do I. So, what do you intend to do about her intransigence and her insistence on a version of history we know is a farce? She's not listening. Are you going to sit on your hands indefinitely? deeceevoice (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on the Scope

I would agree with Zara that we need to first clearly establish the scope of the article, as this is the ground on which Moreschi and Dab were basing all their reverts initially - judging from their comments on the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, I don't think they have gone away. Others have also commented on the lack of clarity of direction.

Our consensus thusfar is that the scope must extend beyond just the "history of the debate" as per Moreschi, and it must go beyond just Afrocentrism too. At the same time it must obviously avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE and WP:OR etc etc.

I suggest that the scope be provisionally defined as: A review of all the objective evidence that has bearing on establishing the race of the Ancient Egyptians, excluding personal opinions that are not substantiated by objective evidence, in a way which presents the reader with the evidence but leaves them to decide for themselves.

That should protect against WP:NPOV as well as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If we specifically include ALL the EVIDENCE available that should also protect against WP:UNDUE.

I would ask also editors who disagree with the consensus material to please comply with WP:Revert, and to express their opinions by improving the material offered rather than just blindly reverting. The article is still under probation, and blind reverting for no reason other than personal unhappiness surely constitutes disruptive editing. Not-so-subtle threats of edit wars and consequent shut-downs could also surely be considered disruptive? "Discuss substantial changes" is not the same as "get unanimous approval from people who are busy with other things." We can't expect the whole world to make do with a damaged article while one or two interested editors sort out other business first - if they have improvements to offer they can always add them later when they do have the time.

Comments and suggestions? Wdford (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your presentation of the scope of the article--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that I ever said that the article "must go beyond just Afrocentrism". But see below. Zara1709 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I fear that Wdford is asking everyone to violate NOR (and indirectly NPOV. This objective: "A review of all the objective evidence that has bearing on establishing the race of the Ancient Egyptians, excluding personal opinions that are not substantiated by objective evidence, in a way which presents the reader with the evidence but leaves them to decide for themselves" is simply put a plan to conduct original research. That is entirely forbidden by Misplaced Pages. The purpose of this article is not to resolve any controversy or to somehow help readers resolve it. It is not for Misplaced Pages editors to decide what constitutes objective evidence - what counts as evidence is itself one of the things at stake in the controversy. An article on any topic has only one objective: to provide a clear account of all significant views from notable sources. It is important to identify distinct views directly, and provide enough context to understand the view and how and why it is different from another view. But we are not arbiters of evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to fear, I am asking no such thing. What is important here is to distinguish between commentators who said "I have studied 300 samples of DNA and have concluded these people were Sudanese" and those who said "My wife said they looked a bit Sudanese to her - pass the brandy please old chap." If we indiscriminately include every comment that is purely an opinion then we will indeed drown the article in waffle - which is against Misplaced Pages policy. Its not for us to judge whether the evidence in question is right or wrong, or good or bad - but the contribution should be more than an unsubstantiated opinion. Wdford (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If to such sources as you describe exist, I bet my feeling about them would be similar to yours. However, that is not Misplaced Pages's standard for inclusion. NPOV demands that all significant views from notable sources go in. All we can argue over is whether the view is significant and whether it comes from a notable source. If the answer to both question is yes, no matter how stupid we think it be, or irrelevnt, it nevertheless goes in. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We are on the same page here Slrubenstein - you are quite correct that the issue is whether the commentators are "significant" or the sources are "notable". If a 16th century slave trader makes a passing comment about what he thought of the features of the Sphinx, is that significant and notable, or would including that comment be WP:INDISCRIMINATE? If a newspaper in Dead Pig, Arkansas prints a story mentioning that the Reverend Lucas P. Nobody claimed King Tut was black, would that be significant and notable, or would including that comment be WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I'm sure you have already noticed that editors on this article have access to a huge range of work on the topic, but how much of that material is really significant and notable, and how much of it should be considered to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE? There must be a cut-off, but unless we are clear on that upfront the article will be drowned in waffle. Wdford (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the version with the changes, on the grounds that it is more informative. That's why I would want to read the article, to get all the information like what I'm seeing here, on the historiography of the thought. It's a pity that I have to get it mostly from the talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Roots of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy

I know that usually there is a rush to edit an article when one has and idea or thinks that something might be missing. I displayed that attitude on the pre August 2008 history of this article, too. However, it is leading you nowhere here. At an article as disputed as this one, you should be aware of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#A vital component: good research. I haven't been doing nothing while in the few months during which nothing was going on at this article. Just as an illustration, I decided to give you an image.

These books are:

• Stephen Howe, 1998, Afrocentrism. Mythical Pasts and imagined Homes
• Wilson Jeremiah Moses, 1998, Afrotopia. The Roots of African American Popular History
• Yaacov Shavit, 2001, History in Black. African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past
• and Lefkowitz & Rogers (ed.), 1996, Black Athena Revisited

If you don't count some uninteresting articles in Black Athena Revisited, that's about 1000 pages. I am not saying that you have to read this - I am doing that - but if you honestly want to write a good Misplaced Pages article, you should give me the time to explain what these books have to say on the topic.

1) As I have already tried to explain to Moreschi: None of these books speaks of 'memes' (unless I've overlooked it badly.)

2) The term 'Afrocentrism', according especially to Moses (pp.2,18-19), goes back to the 1962 Encyclopaedia Africana by W.E.B. du Bois, but was popularized by Molefi Asante in the 1980s. However, retroactively it is applied by historians to describe a diverse body of literature that goes back to the 19th century. Moses (p.1) considers this misleading and would prefer to speak of "African American folk history" instead.

3) Within this Afrocentrism, or African American folk history, there is an "obsession with ancient Egypt, 'Egyptocentrism'." (ibid.) In the extreme form (radical Afrocentrism) the argument is:

"Pharaonic Egypt, the 'child of Africa', or the 'mother of Africa', the cradle and crest of human civilization, was an integral part of Africa and its black culture. The Egyptians belonged to the black race. Egypt acquired its cultural practices from Africa and disseminated this African culture throughout Greece (Europe), Mesopotamia (Asia) and the two Americas." (Shavit, p. ix)

I can't give you much more references a.t.m.. But I think I can say that, according to the most reputable sources I found, the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, as we encounter it at Misplaced Pages e.g. in articles Tutankhamun and Great Sphinx of Giza, has its roots in the body of literature that these sources describe as Afrocentrism or African American folk history. Consequently, this article needs to describe these (rather speculative) theories. If you can give me that time I need for this, I can propose a lead in accordance with the books of Shavit and Moses. But before that, I think a general discussion of the scope of this article is necessary, so that we at least reach a basic level of common knowledge on the topic. As I said: You don't have to read these sources yourself. But you should be willing to hear what they actually say. Zara1709 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No Zara, were Herodotus, Aristotle, Volney, Jean-François Champollion and Champollion-Figeac, to name just a few, African Americans? All of us do read history. America is young. This debate is old. Please Zara, read what I wrote above for you!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What, "no Zara"? First, you shouldn't be trying to argue with me, but with Shavit, Moses and Howe, and secondly: Would you seriously want me to believe that you have read all those classical writers yourself (were not talking about the 19th century white racists, that's a different issue)? Would you want me to believe that you have made excepts from these writers whenever they touched on the issue of race? No, obviously you have your references to these classical writers from other books. That you, and everyone who stumbles across this issue e.g. at Misplaced Pages has to hear about these classical writers is due to the current discourse in which they are referred. And this discourse is called Afrocentrism or African American Folk history. Zara1709 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that Zara's suggestions are already allowed for in the wording of the scope I suggest here and the wording of the lead as previously suggested above. Zara's points 2 & 3 above can usefully be added to the History section, in the appropriate amount of DUE detail, as soon as she has the time. Meanwhile, this is not central to the article and thus is not a reason to delay consensus on the scope or the lead. Wdford (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All the books that Zara has proposed are about Afrocentrism, and the history of Afrocentrism. There is nothing about the history of Egyptology and how race fits into it. This book Egypt Land: Race and Nineteenth-Century American Egyptomania (New Americanists Amazon reviews deals directly with the 19th century controversy, and how the controversy emerged. Black Athena and the others books Zara proposes are really late comers to the discussion. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all these books are about Afrocentrism. Books about Afrocentrism remark on the first page the "obsession with ancient Egypt" (Moses). If this was only a 19th-century issue, how come that the controversy about Tutankhamun has permeated 20th century media (and Misplaced Pages)?

For the record, King Tut was discovered in 1922, there could not have been a 19th century debate. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) True enough. But she has justified this because the books are part of a controversy. This article is on a controversy, it is not about Egyptian history. All significant views in and about this controversy should ve covered in this article. IF a historian of Egypt has played a role in the controversy over race, then that view belongs in. I think it would help if everyone just started by focusing on which sources and views relate to "the controversy" - it has to be a controversy that the sources themselves acknowledge. It is not about a controversy among[REDACTED] editors! It seems like there are sometimes some slips here between the two. This article has to be about one, but cannot be about the other. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's always interesting to see a new editor joining an issue, but you missed the central point. Hasn't anyone of you ever heard of Michel Foucault? Issues like this don't manifest themselves in the form of singular evidences or arguments, they exist in the form of discourses. If we want an article about the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy", we need an article about the Afrocentric discourse about it. Discourses don't form in an empty space. Actually a large part of Afrocentrism (in a wide definition) consisted in the vindication of the black 'race', in a refutation of white racial theories. But these theories are a different discourse, and they would either need separate articles (Dynastic race theory, e.g.) or aren't actually relevant enough. Zara1709 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. We already have an Afrocentrism article, where editors can add details about that paradigm if they want to. This article is about the "controversy", and while we must surely include Afrocentric contributions to the debate, we must also accept non-Afrocentric contributions. Nobody is denying that Afrocentrism has made a big contribution here, but if we deliberately limit this article to the Afrocentric contribution then we will be excluding part of the controversy. Also, we must ensure that all contributions are supported by evidence, because if we simply include every politician, preacher and plumber who made an Afrocentrist statement in public then we will fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wdford (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First, to answer Zara, wll, yes, I have indeed heard of Michel Foucault. Nevertheless it would violate NOR if you or another editor were to place a Foucauldian styled analysis of the discourses at play in this controversy unless it comes from a reliable, verifiable source. Yes, I have heard of Foucault, but has anyone heard of Misplaced Pages policy? My point was very simple: the ask here is not to resolve any controversy among editors concerning the race of Ancient Egyptions. The task is to write an article about a controversy about the race of ancient Egyptians that exists in the real world. And NPOV demands that we include all significant views from notable sources. If one significant view is Afrocentric, we add it, with a reliable source. If one significant view is critical of the Afrocentric view, we add that. If a significant view is a Foulcaudian analysis of racial discourses among 19th century historians, we add that. My point is that we have to follow our core policies, and that the task is to write about what the title of the article says the article is about. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

'From almost everything i have read that's going on here,it seems to be a re-creation of the previous article "RACE OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS" so why all this "DRAMA AND SPECTACLE" why not just restore the old article if possible and save alot of work and effort.Why waste peoples time with trying to argue against such an article ,when it seems the die is already cast.Come on i want to add in that Strabo said "THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS LOOKED LIKE NORTHERN INDIANS" right after "HERODOTOUS SAID THEY HAD BLACK SKINS"than somebody can add that "S.O.Y KIETA SAID THAT YOU CAN'T USE SUCH DESCRIPTIONS TO DECIPHER ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PHENOTYPE" E.T.C E.T.C also where will we be placeing the D.N.A section '--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You, Slrubenstein are pointing out wp:nor to ME? I case you haven't noticed: I mentioned the sources here that analyse the discourse at play. I even gave you an image. Now, if you actually do want to discuss the issue, there shouldn't have been any substantial edits to the article while we're discussing that.Zara1709 (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, please pay attention to your own comments. I made a comment on 21:24, 6 February 2009. Please read it again and ask yourself: is this directed against Zara? I frankly find it hard to understand why you would believe that. But you responded, and your response was that I did not know Foucualt. So yes I responded to you, to explain that my previous comment was not about Foucault but about policy. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot take a comment I addressed to others and ask me to address you, and then complain me when I address you. Slrubenstein | Talk

Brief summary of the roots of the controversy

Volney had wrote about the Negro characteristics of the sphinx and the egyptians following his travels to Egypt circa 1785. His assertions along with others who made similar observations caused significant anxiety in the United States. Back then Slavery was still legal, based on the supposed inferiority of the Negro races. Talk of Negro civilizations was the last thing the establishment wanted to hear as it would have upset the rationale for slavery. So in 1844, Samuel George Morton had obtained several crania from Egyptologist George Gliddon. The purpose of which was to prove that the Ancient Egyptians were not black. Samuel Morton George was one of the pioneers of scientific racism and polygenism. Nott and Morton were ardent supporters of the pro-slavery movement. By 1844 there was growing resistance to slavery and the American civil war would erupt 17 years later in 1861, slavery would be abolished in 1865. Back to Morton, in 1844 he published his book Crania Aegyptiaca, in which he concluded that the Ancient Egyptians were not black but caucasian. This conclusion was made despite the fact that he acknowledged the presence of Negroid Crania in his Egyptian Specimens.

Samuel George Morton's proteges George Gliddon and Josiah C. Nott would follow in his footsteps publishing Types of Mankind in 1855 with the same intention. They however acknowledged that Negroes were present in Egypt but this time they argued the Africans were only present in Egypt as captives or servants. However, even they admitted the Egyptians were intermediate between African and Asiatic races.

During this time Charles Darwin published his "origin of species" but had waited for 12 years to publish Descent of Man, owing to the controversy that it would generate. Though he shared the Victorian racial attitudes of the time, he was also an objective observer, and he believed the racial differences were superficial. So when he read Nott and Gliddon's Types of Mankind he wasn't entirely convinced. Having seen the statue of Amunoph, he consulted with two of the most competent judges of the time, and all three concluded that Amunoph had strongly marked Negro-type features.

Basically this is a brief summary of the origins of the controversy. As one can see, by 1844 before the abolition of slavery, controversy was well underway. There wasn't much of an Afrocentric movement back then. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the vindicationist Afrocentric (if you want to apply this term retrospectively) tradition has even earlier roots. Moses (p.23) mentions a Sermon by John Marrant from 1789 "which called attention to the African origins of Christian church fathers Cyprian, Origen, Augustine, and Chrysostom."! And then he continues: "Vindicationist history, which focuses on the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Ethiopia, is not a new movement. An 1827 editorial in Freedom's Journal, the first black newspaper in the United States, asserted the relationship between black Americans and the ancient Egyptians." Technically, though, this is the same discourse. Zara1709 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Where on earth do the sources to which Zara continues to refer think the Abyssinian Church came from in the African-American religious tradition? I mean just how does a young "negro" (since that's what we were called back then -- with a small "n" -- placing this in historical perspective) boy of 17 or 18 years old, in 1920, have it in him to write something like this?

I've known rivers.

I've known rivers ancient as the world and older than the

flow of human blood in human veins.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

An understanding among Blacks in the U.S. of the Black, African roots of the earliest human civilizations is older than Zara and many of her sources seem to understand. Prince Hall, the founder of the first Black masonic organization, and who claimed to pass on the knowledge of our Black, Egyptian forebears, fought in the Revolutionary War. Richard Allen, born a slave in 1750 (or ’60 or thereabouts), founded the African Methodist Episcopal Church and claimed Ethiopia as his spiritual home. He felt a deep, spiritual connection, as did a young Langston Hughes -- the latter while a mere teenager -- to Africa, Ethiopia and dynastic Egypt. Noble Drew Ali and the Moorish Scientists (who predated W.D. Fard and the Nation of Islam), had a firm grasp of the Almoravid and Amadyyat Moors and their role in the conquest and civilization of Spain. And where did all this come from? It came from the Bible and from those who studied the classical and medieval historians and passed the knowledge on -- not J.A. Rogers, not James, not Diop, not Dr. Ben (Yosef ben Johanan), not Van Sertima. And that is the path we must tread if we are to competently and encyclopedically trace the history of the controversy. And, mind you, this is not something I had to research. It is something that, as an educated African-American steeped in the history and culture of my people, is second nature to me. I know it like I know my own name. Much like Langston Hughes, I knew dynastic Egypt as a Black African civilization in the early '60s as a nine-year-old. This is the depth of this knowledge among certain segments of the African-American population.

So, when we read about those like Lefkowitz, et al., who would limit the discussion of such an understanding of history to ideology-driven Afrocentrists, or attempt to shoehorn the Afrocentrist paradigm into the narrow confines of the so-called "culture wars" -- in itself an ideology-driven construct -- it brings to mind the parable of the blind men groping an elephant. And many of Zara's vaunted sources seemingly have grasped only the elephant's tail. deeceevoice (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the posts by Wapondaponda and Deeceevoice that this controversy is old. It is found outside as well as inside Egyptology, outside as well as inside Afrocentrism. We have to come back to the lead reverted by Zara. Zara, what do you think?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In skimming Zara's comments about "African American folk history," I'm prompted to ask, "Oh. Like you mean that business about white folks believing in 'democracy' and the Bill of Rights back in the day when my ancestors were held as property?" History grounded in ancient, classical scholarship isn't "folk history" -- just because the average, everyday, white person's idea of "real history" is White supremacist myth. deeceevoice (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And Wapondaponda is dead-on when he writes of the collusion to whitewash the history of dynastic Egypt in the service of the twin lies of White supremacy and its corollary, inherent Black inferiority, in order to continue to justify the trans-Atlantic slave trade and chattel slavery. The economic stakes were too high. (World capitalism and the subsequent Industrial Age was, after all, built on the backs of enslaved Africans.) deeceevoice (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Deecevoice, it does not matter whether something is an ideological-driven construct, or a whitewash of history, or real history. Misplaced Pages is uninterested in "truth." All we do is provide all significant views from notable sources. Whether you or I think the view is "the truth" or "bullshit" is irrelevant. If it is significant, and from a notable view, we add it. If you feel a significant view from a notable source has ben excluded from ana rticle, you do not need to argue with anyone over whether the view is true or not, just add it to the article! And if you think a view in the article is garbage, well, alas, NPOV demands that all significant views from notable sources go in. We all have to live with articles that include views we don't like. But there is no need for or point to you arguing about which view is right or wrong. Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. You have a verifiable source expressing the view? you do not need to argue with anyone! Just add it!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what post you're responding to, because you seem to miss the point of my post. You asked a question about when the debate became "notable," and I answered it, including some commentary about how the issue has persisted in the African-American community, and why there is such a disconnect between how the matter is perceived there and among the (for now, at least) majority, White population. I really don't need to be schooled on NPOV and what Misplaced Pages is about -- but thanks anyway. :) deeceevoice (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Content

I placed some content from the deleted article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? in this version. We can start considering how to merge the content into this article. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What we should be able to agree on, regardless of how each of us would like to define the scope of the article, is that there should be subsections on the "specific controversies" included, surrounding Tutankhamun, Cleopatra VII, the Great Sphinx of Giza and 'Kemet'. As long as those subsections adhere to wp:NPOV and wp:NOR, I don't think that even Dbachmann could object here. Zara1709 (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would propose that we go back to the article structure I had suggested in this version concerning the specific controversies, and the merge the material from where it currently exists. If no one objects, I could do it this afternoon. Zara1709 (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest "I"s as there are several other editors interested. I haven't seen anyone objecting to the specific content that has been referenced. But myself and the other editors believe that the content has a narrow scope. Basically it's what is not in the article that is controversial. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

One other concern is the potential for a straw man's argument. That is including the Afrocentric claims that are the most easy to refute. Cleopatra is hardly considered the archetype of Ancient Egypt, she hardly resembles most of the ancient Egyptians. Yet there seems to be great insistence to include references to her. By the time of Cleopatra and the Romans, Ancient Egypt had virtually ceased to exist. Afrocentrist argue that the Greek, Roman, Persian and Arab invasion of Egypt diluted the Africanity of the Egyptians. In my opinion any reference to Cleo is not very representative of the controversy. However, she is an Afrocentric icon. In Dream Girls, Beyonce stars as a black Cleopatra. Personally, I think Afrocentrists would have a much better case for Nefertiti than Cleopatra.Wapondaponda (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggested that I could do it. Of course, I don't have to - if you want to merge some of the content on the Sphinx or Tutankhamun here, you can do it, too. (Although concerning the Sphinx, I would suggest that we use the material from an old revision of Great Sphinx of Giza, and not from the current one.) I guess concerning Cleopatra VII we need some more throughout discussion first. Zara1709 (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a talk page warning

This will probably seem deeply ironic after my beavering to get the last page ban lifted, but here goes: Comments about other editors, previous "bed" behaviours, etc making this process impossible. In reading the last few day's edits, they are littered with venom. This is unacceptable. Following this I'll be placing notes on individual editor's pages as well, but:

• Post are likely to be refactored to remove off topic material without warning, and
• There will be very little quarter given to anyone who edit wars over refactored posts.

This is not a chat forum. This is not therapy. Please attempt to keep your comments brief, as well as to the point.

Thank you,
brenneman 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Scope

People, we are being brilliantly side-tracked by those who want to undermine this article. I say again that we need to agree first on the scope of the article, otherwise any progress we make beyond the old scope will be reverted.

Our consensus thusfar is that the scope must extend beyond just the "history of the debate", and there seems to be enough evidence that the controversy preceeded Afrocentrism so the scope must include but also extend beyond Afrocentrism. At the same time it must obviously avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE and WP:OR etc etc.

Based on the latest comments, I suggest that the scope be provisionally defined as:

A review of all the objective evidence that has bearing on establishing the race of the Ancient Egyptians, as well as unsubstantiated personal opinions from notable sources but taking care not to transgress WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Any editor who has the time to submit multi-paragraph comments on the talk page, has got the time to contribute a few lines on the scope and lead in a constructuve manner.

Please lets stay on track and avoid being lured off-course. Wdford (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should discuss the scope first. However, since the discussion appears to be leading nowhere soon, and since the article currently isn't protected (and some editors might want to work on it), I could take up Wapondaponda's suggestion to discuss the content. Back to the issue of the scope: When you write: "there seems to be enough evidence that the controversy preceeded Afrocentrism", then I have to disagree. First, although the term Afrocentrism is rather new, the discourse to which it applies goes back at least to the 19th century. To continue the quote from Moses mentioned above:

"An 1827 editorial in Freedom's Journal, the first black newspaper in the United States, asserted the relationship between black Americans and the ancient Egyptians. "Mankind generally allows that all nations are indebted to the Egyptians for the introduction of the arts and sciences," the editorial stated, "but they are not willing to acknowledge that the Egyptians bore any resemblance to the present race of Africans; though Herodotus 'the father of history,' expressly declares that the Egyptians had black skin and frizzled hair." Since the 1820s, Afrocentrists have displayed remarkable exegetical prowess on those passages in Herodotus that are susceptible to interpretation as implying Egyptian or upper Nilotic origins for early Mediterranean civilization."

So probably we should change the lead from "...early years of the 20th century" to "Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians is an important issue for Afrocentrism since the 1820s."

Secondly: Whereas Afrocentrism is a continuing discourse up to the present, the various 'white' discourses about the race of ancient Egpytians and that like are either largely discarded academic theories (Dynastic Race Theory) or extremely fringe pseudo-history. (The continuities of Nordicism.) Although Nordicism and that like are historically notable, we wouldn't want them to be debated in article like 'Race of of ancient Germans' or 'Race of ancient Bretons' or similar. We (that is at least Paul B., dbachmman and me) had a hard enough time with articles like Nordic race already. Of course, those white theories are not totally unrelated to Afrocentrism. As far as I am aware of it, Afrocentrism developed partly as a critique of them. But they alone couldn't be used to warrant an article about the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". Within Afrocentrism, though, the focus on Egypt is strong enough to warrant an article specifically about the discourse surrounding ancient Egypt. If we want to discuss the lead of the article, I will insist that Afrocentrism is linked in the first sentence. Zara1709 (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - so please propose your suggested wording for the scope, and your suggested wording for the lead, so we can make actual progress. Wdford (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Aside from the reasons I've already stated, the term "Afrocentrism" continues to be portrayed/seen by the mainstream as a pejorative. Very few people -- fed on a constant diet of 15-second news blurbs from the boob tube and the kind of propaganda that passes for "news" on Fox -- have any comprehension of what Afrocentrism truly is. One need only look at the article of the same name on this very website to understand that. I remain opposed to framing the article from the outset in a manner that panders to the ignorant assumptions of the ill-informed, that shoehorns this discussion into a false and utterly ahistorical framework, and that utilizes at the outset a term that, in many people's minds, reduces the debate to ideologically driven, "radical", wack-job, academic wannabes cooking up a noxious concoction of outrageous, ahistorical mythology/quaint "folk history"/cyber rumor and disseminating/pushing it like crack rocks in the African American community, the junkies and lies ("memes") proliferating like some addiction-driven pestilence/infestation. deeceevoice (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong words, Deeceevoice. If you think the Afrocentrism article could stand some improvement, please make a contribution over there. However, as far as this article goes, we still need to decide on the scope. You have given a lot of background on your feelings generally, but please now suggest your prefered wording of the scope, so that we can make progress. Wdford (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You betcha. But reread my comments, Wdford. They are clearly about this article and discuss specifically the return to the, IMO, misguided notion of framing the controversy within the context of Afrocentrism, which is a loaded, value-laden word with different meanings to different people. And as far as preferred wording, I/we produced some several days days ago which, when last I read the pertinent discussion, seemed to be gaining general, though not universal, acceptance. After wasting a good deal of time yesterday dealing with an utterly frivolous/groundless content ban as a result of trying to move this article forward in a manner that specifically addressed the matter of article scope and sought to redefine and broaden it, I'm still stuck with this awful deadline that will not die. I haven't been back to see what became of that suggested language, but seeing that this discussion is now digressing/reverting (back to a sanctioning of an approximation of the hated language that existed when the article was locked down), I can see I'll have to return to this matter. I'll do a read of the page sometime over the weekend in order to more knowledgeably comment further. deeceevoice (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So, based on the latest comments, I suggest that the scope be provisionally defined as:

A review of all the objective evidence that has bearing on establishing the race of the Ancient Egyptians, including but not limited to Afrocentrism, as well as a review of unsubstantiated personal opinions from notable sources but taking care not to transgress WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

If there are any objections to this wording, please state them, so that we can move forward. Wdford (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. The scope is actually broader than that -- which is why in my earlier lead I referenced popular culture, which plays a tremendous role in shaping public perceptions and creating majority assumptions about, well, just about everything. If we're talking about things that helped shape the controversy, certainly broad public perception plays a part in that. So, we're talking cinema portrayals of very European/White/Caucasian Egyptians and Black slaves. We're talking whitewashed, schlock "reproductions" of actual artifacts as well as fantasy items produced during, say, the Egyptian revivalist period, as well as illustrations throughout the ages of the Giza Sphinx -- and also that godawful-ugly Luxor thing in Vegas. Perhaps as much as anything else, the power of the media -- print and film/video/electronic, music -- all of that has helped color/shape public perception and opinion, and has added fuel to the debate. deeceevoice (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The scope is clearly "the controversy" - we need to know when any claims about the race of the Ancient Egyptians became controversial. But Wdford, NPOV does not restrict us to adding "evidence." It demands that all significant views be included. Views, not evidence - that is the only way to comply with NPOV. But it has to be a view about an explicit and clearly-defined controversy. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So, based on the latest comments, I suggest that the scope be provisionally defined as:

A review of any and all significant views, substantiated or otherwise, which might in any way have bearing on the Controversy about the Race of the Ancient Egyptians, including but not limited to Afrocentrism and modern pop culture.

If there are any objections to this wording, please state them, so that we can move forward. Wdford (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I support the scope you suggest. Maybe we can put it up for a vote, or maybe it is not necessary per Slrubenstein as it is policy. If Zara can establish a direct connection between all the 18th and 19th century observers(ie Volney, Morton, Nott, Gliddon, Charles Darwin) and Afrocentrism, then her proposal that includes the term "Afrocentrism" is justified. If she cannot establish a connection then her proposal is original research. Somehow, we have made a lot of headway with discussions, but we need something tangible. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems most peopel who used to be interested inthis issue have tuned out because its slumped into a lot of bickering between people who actually care more about there own egos and pseudo-intellectualism than they do about[REDACTED] why don't you start to contribute or find a new hobby Anyway More people believe the egyptians came from Atlantis or Mars than that believe they were blacks anyway and you're not helping at all to educate them with your spoilt child whining —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.30.90 (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein wants to know when the race of the ancient Egyptians became controversial. I have already mentioned it. I repeat myself. It was when Champollion-Figeac contradicted Volney in his book L'Egypte ancienne (1839) saying that black skin and wooly hair are not the most important elements to define the black race. Volney quoted those elements from Herodotus. He concluded from them that Egyptians are Negroes. Something Champollion-Figeac rejeted. For him they are Whites with black skin and wooly hair! Check here a reference in French http://zalsambmandela2.afrikblog.com/archives/2005/12/12/index.html.For sure the beginning of the controversy has nothing to do with Afrocentrism. African Americans mentionning of the blackness of the Egyptians in their works was in line with the ancient writers. The controversy started at the beginning of Egyptology with the negative reaction of Champollion-Figeac (the elder brother of Jean-François Champollion, the father of Egyptology).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Luka is correct as far as I know. Volney's writings were in vogue and a source of intense debate in the 1790s to the early part of the 19th century. He was critical (in only a very thinly veiled way) of Thomas Jefferson and his involvement in slavery. For its American printing, one of Volney's works was edited to remove all references to the Blackness of dynastic Egypt -- something which infuriated Volney, and he took great pains to ensure the same thing didn't happen in subsequent editions. And in an era when the trans-Atlantic slave trade was in full swing, of course there was a firestorm of controversy over the whole thing. Volney was accused of "Hottentotism" -- (likely an insult making reference to the perverse and prurient fascination of many Europeans/Whites with Saartjie Baartman, who was the rage of European society at the time, and who sparked the fashion craze, the bustle) -- sometimes known as "negrophilia."

There likely were other controversies, but this is the first big dust-up in mainstream White society that I'm aware of over the matter.

Not only that, you'd better believe Black folk, abolitionists and their sympathizers sat up and took notice. Volney's works (and those of others with similar interpretations of history) made the rounds among literate Blacks, with the information reaching deep into our communities. More contemporarily, W.D. Fard of The Nation, the Moorish Scientists, and, later, Pullman porters -- the "Race Men" (and women) of the 1920s-1940s -- spread this information like they disseminated jazz and bid whist (soapboxing on street corners; house parties; train journeys; study circles; public meetings; barbershops; bookstores; lodge meetings; segregated schools, public and private; HBCUs; Black fraternities and sororities; and, of course, in formal study of the Classics and other works) throughout the African-American community, and that is why Afrocentrist thought runs so deep -- St. Clair Drake, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Houston, W.E.B. Du Bois, Alain Locke, among our greatest men and women of arts and letters. That is how someone like Michael Jackson could come out with a music video "Remember the Time," in 1991 in which Eddy Murphy portrayed a pharaoh and Iman a queen and the Black community not give it a second thought -- while White America scoffed, utterly askance. It's simply another example of how our communities are so different, our fundamental assumptions about world history and world culture so glaringly at odds. And if you haven't been clued in to African American life and culture all this time, then you really wouldn't know just how deep this thread runs, or how long the controversy has existed. Because White people, perfectly content with whitewashed images, historically haven't focused on the controversy, beyond instances like that of Volney, when it is so public -- international, in fact -- that it can't be denied. In 200 years, this debate pretty much disappeared from their sight. And those who were aware of it didn't want to hear of it.

Meanwhile every Europeanized image of Egypt -- every film, every book, every stupid comedy routine (like Steve Martin's "King Tut" on SNL, when he declared of Tutankhamun, "He's my favorite honky" -- that was our turn to scoff, looking utterly askance at such ignorance, but doing so separately and far more silently, relative to media access, than Whites in their reaction to the Jackson video), every erroneous historical account, every misrepresentation, has, for us, stuck out like a sore thumb, a red flag, aggravating our sensibilities like salt in a wound. It's been a long-standing source of ... annoyance. I can't say "controversy," because for a whole lot of Black folks, the Blackness of dynastic Egypt hasn't even been a matter under debate!

And it is only relatively recently, with the entry of more outspoken Black people into institutions of higher learning and working in academia at advanced levels, with greater access to the media, that you're hearing our voices. But the conversation, our take on the "controversy" (in the U.S. and elsewhere in the African world), has been ongoing for centuries. The falling tree in the forest is finally being heard. deeceevoice (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

meaning of Kemet section.

Is there a reason that the section on kemet here and at afrocentrism are identical? that's poor writing at best. Also, there's an author there, Aboubacry Moussa Lam, who could probably use a stubbing so that his relevance can be seen for those just learning about this topic. ThuranX (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of things about this article that need to be changed. However, we are having a lot of disagreement still about what this article needs to be about, so progress in fixing it has thusfar been slow. Wdford (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Scope

Its been 7 hours since I posted this suggested scope, and thusfar nobody has raised an objection. In case it has been overlooked by interested parties due to all the knowledgeable discoursing that followed, here it is again:

A review of any and all significant views, substantiated or otherwise, which might in any way have bearing on the Controversy about the Race of the Ancient Egyptians, including but not limited to Afrocentrism and modern pop culture.

If there are no objections after 24 hours, I think we can take it that all are in favour of adopting this as the scope of the article going forward, thereby over-turning whatever consensus might previously have existed which alledgedly limited the article to discussing the history of the controversy only. Once that is accomplished, we can move on with addressing the content of the article.

If you wish to add to or modify this scope, please speak up. Wdford (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with it. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• I Agree. For the sake of transparency, this process is necessary, but in truth Slrubenstein has nailed it. A consensus should not be required to implement[REDACTED] guidelines and policies. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed. (Are you going to vote, Wdford? ;) ) deeceevoice (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ook. Can we please not call it "voting"? But that aside, twenty-four hours is not a reasonable turn-around time. People cannot be expected to monitor an article that closely, RL >> WP after all. - brenneman 03:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Picky, picky! Call it whatever you want. But I agree. And it's the weekend. Some people may not "do" Misplaced Pages on the weekends. deeceevoice (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is twenty-four hours is six months too long. The scope that Wdford has proposed is realistic and common sense. Attempts to limit the scope of any article, not just this article, are attempts to circumvent WP:NOTCENSORED. How can editors limit the scope of an article if they do not know or fully understand the subject. This is the only article I have ever encountered that has rules limiting the scope. Unless the editors who watchlist an article have super advanced PHDs, we can assume that no single editor has infinite knowledge on any particular subject or article. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort and the basis for collaboration is that an individual editor alone does not have enough knowledge to create a good article. This decision was made out of a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. Take this quote which clearly shows that the editor in question had little actual knowledge of the history of the controversy

Oh, come on. Yes, it may occasionally have cropped in 19th-century scientific racism, but the majority of 19th-century discussion concerned the origin of the Egyptians, not their race. It is Afrocentrism that has brought this issue to mainstream attention, Afrocentrism that has popularised the debate, Afrocentrism that has dominated the discussion for the last 90 years or so. Clearly this article is going to be about the Afrocentric debate: without Afrocentrism, this article wouldn't exist.

Wapondaponda (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• My take on the scope of the article is that it should include the basic arguments and evidence for both sides along with a neutrally toned statement of which side is generally accepted. --Pstanton (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys/Girls I have a live outside Misplaced Pages, too. And Wdford, you should already know my objections: All views outside of Afrocentism alone wouldn't be sufficient to warrant this article. If we want to have an article (which I personally don't considerer absolutely necessary), then this article has to be to a very large extend about the Afrocentric discourse about ancient Egypt. Which doesn't mean that the views outside Afrocentrism shouldn't be included; they need to be included insofar Afrocentrism has responded to them: That European racial theories considered the ancient Egyptians to be white has to be included, and that Afrocentrism refuted these theories; but we don't need to include how these European theories themselves developed their views concerning ancient Egypt. Because that is what I had attempted in the previous version (pre August 2008), where my contributions were vigorously bashed.

This also means that you can't simply add a reference to Herodotus. We all know by now that he wrote that the ancient Egyptians "black skin and frizzled hair", but what we actually need to include in the article is how the Afrocentric discourse has made uses of this statement. For the record: I am going to oppose any version of the lead that doesn't mention Afrocentrism in the first sentence. If really necessary we could mention stuff like the Dynastic Race Theory in the second or third sentence. And please, don't say something like: "The controversy has its roots in contradictory perceptions and physical portrayals of Egypt in the ancient historical record etc." That's the worst understatement of the significance of ideologies in the 19th and 20th century that I've ever heard. Zara1709 (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have any proof of a connection between the aforementioned 18th and 19th century scholars and Afrocentrism, then you have a point, that having a strict association between the subject and Afrocentrism is warranted. If you do not have proof, ie that this subject has existed, and continues to exist independent of Afrocentrism, then limiting the scope to Afrocentrism is your personal opinion and is original research.Wapondaponda (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, you are absolutely right. Zara must give some proof about the supposed strong connection between this suject and Afrocentrism. The beginning of this controversy has at least two names: Volney and Champollion-Figeac. These people are called neither Afrocentrists nor African Americans. Volney is Orientalist, the other is Egyptologist. And both of them are French. Egyptology is born in France. Equally this controversy. <redacted> --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The above comments are, if I may, borderline unhelpful. Please, try to be as brief as possible, this page is almost unusable.
2. I believe that Zara is saying this subject is predominated by Afrocentricism, and that as such should be mentioned in the first sentance. (See how shourt that was?)

brenneman 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I already have given a citation for the fact that the Afrocentric preoccupation with ancient Egypt can be traced back to the 1820s. I've never indented to imply that is were only Afrocentrics who preoccupied themselves wit the issue - on the contrary. All I am saying is that the various Eurocentric discourses couldn't be used to warrant an article specifically about an "Ancient Egyptian race controversy", because then also article like 'Ancient German Race controversy' could be warranted, and every German editor on this Wiki who is not a right-wing conservative (rechtskonservativ) would go on the barricades against that. If you look at the current lead of the article Nordic race, you will see that it is a compromise between those editors who would like the article to be about the concept of a 'Nordic race' and those editors, like me, who would rather have an article about ideologies "referred to as Nordic theory, Nordicism or Nordic thought." And - if I may comment on the style of discussion here - if you take a look at Talk:Nordic race, you will see that this compromise was achieved without filling up 15 pages of discussion archives. Wapondaponda, I could accept a bold suggestion of the lead and we could work from there - but you simply couldn't wait and had to restore all the other content that me and Wikiscibe have already obejected to because it is just an indiscriminate collection of information. I was going to discuss that; Actually I've already explained the problem of the classical writers for the example of Herodotus. If you've missed my argument, then I can explain it again. But if you don't bring in enough patience to discuss the issue, I guess we're going to advance further then where we had already been last Tuesday. Zara1709 (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

this is NOT a neutral article! come on!

this article is FAR from neutral. It's teeming with subversive, and not-so-subversive derision for any idea that veerrs from a eurocentric one.

Its not such a crazy thought that the ancient Egytians were..gasp...black. It is an african state, after all. It sems as though the authors own ideas are weighing heavily, and there's heavy inclination in one directo. Definately NOT neutral.

I'm highly disappointed that the other side of the coin is being so obviously ridiculed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.252.152 (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That has already been established. We are currently trying to come to a consensus on how to move forward in a responsible manner without upsetting the factual nature of the article and introducing fringe theories; which quite frankly, is exactly what these theories are in my opinion. But the arguments in favor of a Black Egypt do need to be mentioned, if only to be shown as false. --Pstanton (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This mess has all the hallmarks of a typical clash between Prescriptivist wikipedians and Descriptivist wikipedians. As it usually goes, the Prescriptivists are a minority, but tend to be much more authoritative, aggressive and insistent that there are things readers "don't need to know", and often win on that basis - even though the Descriptivists have the letter of the policy defining the project scope on their side. In the meantime, someone like me who is looking for a purely descriptive analysis (and not a prescriptive one) would be better off looking outside of wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Volney and Afrocentrism

I am currently trying to figure out a compromise for the lead to propose. But since Volney is brought up, you might find this interesting:

"As I shall illustrate, concern with ancient Egypt as a feature of African American cultural ideology did not begin with Martin Bernal's Black Athena, which is only the latest in a series of works by white authors cited by African Americans in their attempts to authenticate a tie to the monumental history of dynastic Egypt. In the nineteenth century it was Count Constantin Volney who was most frequently cited by Afrocentric enthusiasts." (Moses, p. 6)

In his Introduction, Moses discusses the relation between Afrocentrism and the "concern with ancient Egypt" to some extent. And since it might be helpful in this discussion, here is another quote.

"Much silliness and ill will has been spewed forth by the likes of Mary Lefkowitz and the black nationalist polemicist Maulana Karenga, who represent two sides of the same hateful coin. As a result, it has become almost impossible for most persons to engage in analytical, dispassionate discussion of the various expressions of those movement - both intellectual and emotional - that constitute what we today refer to as 'Afrocentrism.

Radical polemicists of the Lefkowitz-Karenga ilk have assiduously avoided a systematic definition of Afrocentrism, confusing it not only with Egyptocentrism but with affirmative action, multiculturalism, black nationalism, and whatever other issue they may wish to adress at any given time. Under the guise of promoting historical objectivity, they spew out whatever tendentious trash they wish to include on a wide vareity of subjects, reflecting nothing more than their own racial and political biases."

If Wilson J. Moses already has this opinion of academics like Lefkowitz, I guess the way the discussion is going here is no surpriseZara1709 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Unauthorised Major Edit

I just logged on again now, to see that Zara has put a block on the article while she makes major edits. I don't recall any consensus being reached on any major edits, or any agreement that Zara should make any edits at all. This article is still under probation, is it not? <redacted> Wdford (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've placed the inuse tag there because I was about to propose a compromising version of the lead, which however, is turning out increasingly difficult because I don't simply want to make something up on my own and the literature is quite extensive. It is definitely wrong to say that "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times.", and it is totally unsourced. What is sourcesd in the article is that: "The roots of Afrocentrism lay in the repression of blacks throughout the Western world in the 19th century, most particularly in the United States.", but I am currently asking myself whether this might actually be a misquotation. If you really think that I am keeping this article from making progress, then ask for some admin intervention. Because all that I can see is that Wapondaponda has restored a very substantial edit which was already reverted by me last Tuesday. If this material now is restored, without my objections being taken into account, obviously in the five days since then we didn't make any progress in the discussion, even though I really think that I've tried. I've you don't bring in the patience for a discussion of this issue (which, admittedly is extremely difficult to discuss), then we are better of if we have this article fully protected and seek whatever resolution process Misplaced Pages might have for this issue. Zara1709 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Zara, we have been massively patient while you have been dawdling around, posting huge amounts of "discourse" on the talk page but not contributing to the progress, and calling through-out for a lock-down. That's not how the project works, is it? You revert other people's contributions because they don't please you, you call for more discussion and then you attempt (for over an hour) to make a unilateral edit. Shame on you!

Seeing as how Zara is prepared to move forward now, I propose the following as a draft lead:

The racial identity of the ancient Egyptians continues to be the subject of controversial debate from academia to modern pop culture, and it’s a major issue within Afrocentrism.

Today many people agree that the ancient Egyptians did not fit neatly into any of the modern racial classifications, and a growing consensus dismisses racial classification as a social rather than a biological construct.

Although the ancient Egyptians clearly distinguished themselves from the Asiatics, the Nubians and the Libyans who lived around them, their depictions of themselves in their surviving art and artifacts are not always realistic, and this absence of conclusive evidence adds fuel to the debate.

We don't have to include every detail in the lead, but this at least outlines every issue that will be discussed in more detail in the body of the article. Can we assess the level of rough consensus please, in the hope that progress might yet be possible? Wdford (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you have been making any progress. If you had made any progress, you would be able to give me a reliable source that can be used as referencefor the lead version you propose. However, in the interest of moving forward, I could accept your new proposal for a lead for now, although it still needs some tweaking. It's not better or worse than the current one, but I can agree to it, since it doesn't include anything that is, to my knowledge, definitely false like: "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times." Zara1709 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree wtith this lead but without the word "clearly". In many depictions Egyptians look just like their cousins, I mean the Nubians. That is why Erman and Ranke said that the Egyptians resemble more the Nubians than the Libyans and the Semites (cf. La civilisation égyptienne, 1952, 1988, 1994, p. 46: "Il semble que le peuple qui se rapproche le plus des Egyptiens soit leurs voisins du sud, les Nubiens").--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(I would also like the "it's" to be replaced with "constitutes". That would be more encyclopedic language. Also, please use either "controversy" or "debate". "Controversial debate" would mean that some people object to the question being debated, which I don't think is the case. Otherwise, I'm fine with it too - recognizing that the lead may change again once we're done with the rest of the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop this. Now.

This is the second time Zara has slapped an "in use" tag on the article and edited unilaterally and extensively. I suggest we stop this behavior, and that we do it now. Zara's behavior needs to be dealt with. She clearly has no respect for the process of collaboration and is determined to see her language prevail.

I suggest we come to a very clear consensus here and now that any such further conduct on Zara's part will result in a request for a content ban. I am reverting the present text to that which existed while we all worked toward building a consensus on article scope. At least then we all will know where we're starting from. deeceevoice (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice if you look at the page history, you will see that Zara did her edits after Wapondaponda also edited the article to put back the original lead, which I don't think we were finished discussing. Under those circumstances, it would be unfair to scold one editor and not the other for two equivalent but opposite actions. However, I do agree that at this point, the use of the {{inuse}} tag is certainly not the best idea, as it is more likely to incense editors than anything else.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this was not a helpful way to move forward on Zara's part. However, can I ask that slightly less inflammatory language be used? Even if you think someone is, err, "really bad" and even if they are "really bad," right now this article's talk page is nearly unusable. (Not making an acutla stand on Z either way, of course, just hand-waving.) If it's required that some behaviours get pushed over to discussion in a dispute resolution thread rather than here, that's probably a good thing at this point.

brenneman 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't gotten around to looking at Wapondaponda's edits when I made the revert. What I saw first was the complaint in the talk page space, and I went to the edit history and saw what Zara had done. In Wapondaponda's defense, however, it seems to me that his edits were at least in line with the consensus that seemed to be developing on the article talk page. And he did not, for a second time arbitrarily slap an in-use tag on the article. Once again, Zara did not write one word on the talk page to justify her edits before doing so and had not weighed in on the discussion or "voted" in the latest poll regarding the overall scope of the article. She is not collaborating, but going cowboy. It's disruptive and arrogant. And if she does it again, she needs to be dealt with. Certainly, her conduct in both instances is far more egregious than mine, which netted me a (subsequently overturned) content ban. deeceevoice (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's currently the "presiding" admin on this piece? Is it you, Aaron? If so, then why aren't you taking an actual stand on Z either way? Isn't that the kind of thing you're supposed to do? Certainly, this kind of conduct is far more detrimental to the development of a quality article than talk page snippiness, and you clearly seem concerned with that. Either her conduct is acceptable or it is not. Either it militates against collaboration, or it does not. Either it is disruptive, or it is not. Either someone will take a stand on this kind of behavior in order that it does not happen a third time, or they will not. I'm taking a stand. And I'm saying if it happens again, I'm taking it elsewhere. deeceevoice (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, with all due respect, why is it so hard to just comment minimally (or better - not at all) on other editors' behaviour? I know you're upset by Zara's revert and use of the inuse tag; so am I. However, all that talk page arguing over othe editors' behaviours, motives, etc. isn't appropriate for the talk page. To all: can we just keep the talk page to discussing the article, please? All these reciprocal calls of disruption of the talk page are disruptive themselves. What is so hard to understand about this? OK, 'nuff said.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had my say. I certainly wasn't going to revert Zara's edits without explanation. And I made a big deal of this -- yes -- because it's the second time it's occurred, and we all know how that makes us feel: disrespected. If she didn't learn from the reaction the first time (Why should she? The only thing that happened was that I got slapped with a content ban! lol), perhaps she'll learn from this one. Doubtful. She's already run straight to the AN/I, calling for (yet another) "uninvolved admin ... take a good look at the issue." I've responded, hoping to avert another article lockdown. deeceevoice (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you got a content ban, and she still feels you're not listening, who can blame her for finding assistance, and what does it say about your ability to understand who got in trouble? You're certainly doing your best to antagonize her and inflame the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly worthy of a comment. So, I won't. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You guys are killing me here. I'd note that one of the often-argued failing of Misplaced Pages is that there is no such thing as an "official" adjudicator of a page, just whomever rocks up. And, yes, right now that's me.

• DVC - I have expressed to Z that I think that her edit was unproductive, both here and on her talk page. I've also asked you to please try to be less emotive. (Although, considering the number of times I've totally blown my top, I wouldn't blame you for throwing a pinch of salt my way.)
• Thuran - That wasn't helpful.

If there are behavioral problems with this article, this is not the place to solve them. This page is not part of dispute resolution. I'll resist the urge to bold and underline that. Please, comment solely and succinctly on the edits. Talk about them like they were done by magic. Say things like "I think that the edits of 12:35 were not founded in consensus." Edits have no provenance, so forget the history of all this for now. Otherwise we'll just repeat it. brenneman 14:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem a fairly measured, temperate soul, Aaron. Fine, if that's the just way you roll. But what I was asking you for was not a comment on her "edit," but some forceful comment on her exceedingly disruptive behavior in order that it not occur again. We all know it's not just some one-time "edit" that is the difficulty here. That said, I'm done discussing it. (I don't envy your role. ;) ) deeceevoice (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to amplify a bit: I do understand that the problems with this article stretch back, and that frustrations are currently very high. I'm getting the slight sense that stronger action was expected with respect to Z's edits. And I've handed out a few "formal" warnings in the last few hours, but Z didn't get one, just a slight rub-up. So I do see that this could be seen as less than even-handed.

But you guys are making me work so hard on the talk page here that I'm barely getting a look in on the actual article, or its history. And, however one views Z's recent edits to the article, I haven't seen her getting any kicks in on the talk page. (Please, for the love of dog, don't point them out to me if I mised them!) In the absolute opposite to how things should be working I care more right now about what goes on here than what goes on there.

That's not good. It's not good for anyone who is trying to work here as an editor, because it saps energy that should be spent elsewhere. It's not good for the article, that's for certain. And It's not good for the Encyclopedia, seeing as how it's made up of articles written by editors and all. And it can't go on. Unless things start getting better, the probable outcome will be that this article get protected again, and possibly even trimmed down to whatever stub that there was consensus for. Which right now I think would be "Ancient Egyptian race controversy: It existed."

No one wants that, so let's see some more nice. Smile, however much it look like a mask of death. Find some common ground that eveyone can actually agree on. And I'm going to bed.

brenneman 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I was done with this until I read your above comments -- and, yes, I'd already read your "rub-up" of Zara. :/ You say you're concerned that you haven't been able to pay any attention to what's happened in the article main space for all the heat and noise occurring here. But when the discussion here deals directly with something very important that just happened in the main article -- something that negatively affects both the article itself and the potential for us working as together as a team collegially and collaboratively to continue to improve it -- not only do you not really deal with that; you don't concentrate on the importance of the process, what I/we are jumping up and down about, trying to get you to pay attention to; you choose to focus and comment instead on who, or who has not (and, yes, you've certainly missed it) has been/is being "nice." In effect, "Zara may be editing unilaterally, disrespecting the efforts of the other editors and being massively disruptive -- but, hey, at least she's being nice." (Not!)

H-m-m-m.

I'm honestly trying, Aaron -- and maybe I'm missing something -- but I'm just not feelin' you on this.

Okay. Now I'm really done. Back to the subject matter.... deeceevoice (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff, Deeceevoice. Now, please could you give your attention to our proposed lead, and let us have your constructive suggestions for further improvement, so that we can make progress with the article itself. In case its gotten lost, here it is again:

The racial identity of the ancient Egyptians continues to be the subject of controversy from academia to modern pop culture, and it constitutes a major issue within Afrocentrism.

Today many people agree that the ancient Egyptians did not fit neatly into any of the modern racial classifications, and a growing consensus dismisses racial classification as a social rather than a biological construct.

Although the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from the Asiatics, the Nubians and the Libyans who lived around them, their depictions of themselves in their surviving art and artifacts are not always realistic, and this absence of conclusive evidence adds fuel to the debate.

We will add the references once the lead is published, and the article itself will support the lead with its referenced content, so let's just agree the lead for now. Even Zara is happy to go with this as a start, so please let us have your final inputs. Wdford (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's wanting, Wdford. But I've already spent way too much time on this today, trying to keep track of this matter at AN/I. (One of our editors has been very active there regarding this article. ;) ) I'll take a good look at the discussion and let you know something sometime tomorrow. deeceevoice (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Now Zara must say if the proposed lead is good or not, if there is something to add or to remove. It is time to move forward for replacing the existing lead.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The version Wdford has proposed isn't any worse or better than the current version. Questions of style or readability are secondary, what is important is that Afrocentrism is mentioned in the first (or probably second, if you like) sentence and that the controversy is not simply explained as resulting from the difficulty of the sources. I would tackle the issue differently, though. Zara1709 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing at AN/I

Meanwhile, Zara's reverted the text to where it was before Wapondaponda's edits -- which is fine with me. I think it's a good thing -- something I probably would have done had I realized the changes (even though, from a cursory glance, it appears he was editing in according with a developing consensus; whereas Zara certainly was not). At least we're back to where we were during the ongoing discussion about article scope, which was my stated objective in reverting Zara's "in-use" edits.

FYI, while she hasn't posted her intentions here, Zara's written a good deal at AN/I, including that she intends to call for full protection for up to three months, if her reversion of Wapondaponda's edits triggers an edit war.

So, be forewarned, kiddies, and play nice. :p

There are other revelatory statements at AN/I as well that I find disturbing, that involve a seemingly inflexible, "come hell or high water" kind of "proxy" editorial approach. But I won't comment further here. I urge that everyone involved in the article visit AN/I and read up. deeceevoice (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, I certainly agree that "disputed" and "balance" tags should be replaced on the current version. deeceevoice (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We should stop moving around in circles and begin to make some hard progress. I have input some information in the article. I wouldn't say its set in stone. I don't have a particular version in mind. So I am putting up the information for the scrutiny of the other editors. I don't own the article, so I am open to suggestions, improvements. We cannnot be held hostage to the objections of one editor, who has not articulated any rationale for a limited scope, or has provided any suggestions. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

recurring problem in the writiing of the article.

In both the big and small versions of this article, I've noticed an irritating as hell behavior. Stop using ONLY last names to identify people. Although writing in the general tone and manner of an academic paper or journal article is fine, the presumption that any person who reads the article will know who you're talking about is foolish. We have people of all stripes reading here, and should be using full names the first time they appear in the articles. ThuranX (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree fully - once the rewrite of the article is underway we will pay attention to that as well. Thanks Wdford (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

You must be kidding. Talk. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, with all due respect, an admin is already watching this page and we are already talking. I don't think protection is necessary, at least not indefinite. This is likely to only stall discussion, as paradoxical as it seems. Please discuss with Aaron Brenneman. I think most of us would like you to reconsider. Never mind, saw the protection is only for 24 hours. I believe everyone can take a break - or live that long without touching the page. Regards,--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hope this break helps. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, please!

Can all of us please leave the main article alone until we have consensus? I know you like to be bold, but this will only result in getting the article protected - repeatedly, as just demonstrated. Trying to rush this will only slow down resolution.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Ramdrake here. If any of you feel you must make changes to the article, we have in the past made a copy of the article in userspace and made the proposed changes there. So far as I can remember, that worked rather well, and didn't lead to the article being protected by anybody. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Lead Section

Great. We now have general consensus that the scope should be fully open to all issues that address the title of the article, including unsubstantiated opinions from notable sources. It has also been clarified that imposing any restrictions or biases on that scope would constitute POV.

Now we need to agree on a lead section. We have substantial consensus on a draft, as follows:

The racial identity of the ancient Egyptians continues to be the subject of controversy from academia to modern pop culture, and it constitutes a major issue within Afrocentrism.

Today many people agree that the ancient Egyptians did not fit neatly into any of the modern racial classifications, and a growing consensus dismisses racial classification as a social rather than a biological construct.

Although the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from the Asiatics, the Nubians and the Libyans who lived around them, their depictions of themselves in their surviving art and artifacts are not always realistic, and this absence of conclusive evidence adds fuel to the debate.

Please can we agree on the final tweaks that would be essential before we can post this in place of the current version. Concise and constructive comments only, please, we have had enough lengthly discourses already. This is just the lead - you can elaborate on the details of your case in the body of the article. Wdford (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, is it possible to mention in the lead that "while many people agree that the ancient Egyptians...some desagree"? In this way, the lead will be more balanced. Besides, instead of the past tense "did not fit", I prefer the present tense "do not fit". Because the race of the ancient Egyptians is approached according to the standars of our days. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Negro"

It's bad enough that whoever is using it often doesn't capitalize it. (Do you know all the crap we went through just to win that small victory?) "Negroid" is fine when describing a phenotype, because, frankly, there's little way of getting around it. But can we please not use this word? *cringing* "Negro" is so 1950s. It's the 21st century, people. We're Black. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to rub it in, but most of us are varying shades of brownish. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Deeceevoice, lets not use "Negro" unless it is part of a quotation. --Pstanton (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arguments/Evidence_for_a_%22Black_Ancient_Egypt%22%3F
2. Bard p.106
3. lefkowtiz p. 7
4. Lefkowitz p. 8
5. Marcus Garvey: "Who and what is a Negro", 1923. Quoted by Lefkowitz.
6. 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.
7. Snowden, p. 122 of Black Athena Revisited
8. Rolfe and Crockett, Guide to Europe, 1929
9. Les Celtes… par les mathématiques.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review