| Revision as of 06:06, 18 January 2008 editJeff Dahl (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,457 edits →Maybe it's time: fx wording← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:57, 18 January 2008 edit undoMoreschi (talk | contribs)19,434 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{article probation}} | |||
| {{Controversial}} | {{Controversial}} | ||
| {{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
Revision as of 14:57, 18 January 2008
 | 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. |
|
| 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: 15 days  |
 | 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. |
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
please add
Egyptians themselves called for the inclusion of Egypt in Du Bois's early drafts of the Encyclopedia Africana. The director of the United Arab Republic Cultural Center in Accra wrote to praise Du Boise for having "maintained faith in the African character of Egypt's achievement," and urging that the Encyclopedia Africana keep Egypt within its Afrocentric focus.
- Afrotopia: The Roots of African American Popular History By Wilson Jeremiah Moses. Page 3. ISBN 052147941X
We might want to add this when the article is unlocked. futurebird (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's a good piece!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What make you think the article is going to get unlocked?
Template:Trollshere Certian editors engage in consensus and discusion only to "passify" other editors and then turn around and do what ever they will. I have seen editors delete poritons of the discusion that are unflattering to there own propoganda and views, in an attempt to present themselves as correct and unfaltering in there "view". The wikipedia "process" has been mocked and sullied by you individuals. And you believe the article is going to be unlocked so you can run rampant with your unacademic agenda.
That is not an argument that is a statment. And I would like to thank you for helping prevent any self rightous "Trolls" from responding. I read the same things being brought up on this disscusion page all the time, their veiws are right everybody else is wrong, no room for science or logical approach to the data let alone the article. The whole thing comes across as a sad farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.217 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just please stop trolling. It won't work here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your placement of the troll tag, as I have seen you claim it about me, is trolling in and of itself, an abuse of the system and a means in your opinion to quite a voice that you don't agree with, which mind you has not argued for or against content so much as the sad form in which has been presented. A witch hunt of modern online proportion. Yet another attempt to clear this page of all but a few, seemingly mentally inbreed, agenda driven editors. If you don't belive me just go ahead and read the archives its all there.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please try to offer constructive suggestions for editing the article, otherwise I don't see how your posts are helping anything. In other words: please stop trolling. futurebird (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my previous statments. None of you want this page to be anything more than propoganda "Shmack" in my opinion. You people know nothing of egypt that is let alone egypt that was. You need to stop stalking my family, I am a desendant of the egyptian pharohs, for your own personal gain.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the page is still locked. I have visted a few others bringing as I have to this discusion viable intelegent points of interest and "scholar". The main difference I have noticed is that most, if not all, of the other pages are not "gaurded" by ,in my opnion, mentally inbread propoganders that have only the sole intention of furthering their leacherous, parasitical affinty for the subject at hand. Nice increase on the size of the troll signs. Your most definitelly a hypocrite in my opinon as I have been reading the discusion page these days but have not chimed in. Looks to me like someone ,other than myself, is out there , as it has been all along, trolling for an argument to hide behind manipulated data in a letcherous parrasitical fashion.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Lemma
Not that I assume, editing of this article can re-start anytime soon, but can anybody explain in simple terms what's the article is intended to be about and why this strange lemma was choosen?
If the article should center on the anthropology and (reconstructed) population genetics of the ancient Egyptians, there seems to be no place for the outdated concept of "race" in the lemma, as the near consensus view in both disciplines denies its usefullness and explanatory power.
If the article should center on some public controversy (which may happily use the term "race", as in some parts of the world it is still used by the media and the general public), some quotation signs and "controversy" in the lemma would make this clear.
--Pjacobi (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article deals with both aspects.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is written through an afrocentric view, much of it must be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.102.136 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit request
Could someone please change "King Tug" to "King Tut" in the Tutankhamun section? Corvus cornixtalk 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are right. There is a mistake. But the article is still protected! For how long? Big mystery!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a mystery, it's due to constant edit warring. Corvus cornixtalk 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The edit has been made since it was uncontroversial and no one disagreed with it (in accordance with WP:PROT). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a mystery, it's due to constant edit warring. Corvus cornixtalk 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Another edit request
Please replace all instances of 'King Tut' with 'King Tutankhamun'. 'Tut' is too familiar/slangy - this article is supposed to be encyclopedic in style! 86.133.214.216 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's time
This may be a new revelation to some but this page has been locked for what 6 months maybe it is time for it to be put out of its misery if it can't be edited anymore,maybe its time for it to get nominated for a speedy deletion--72.227.238.252 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. This should be deleted and any relevant information should be merged with the Ancient Egypt article.--Woland37 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The whole point of putting the material in this article is that editors didn't want massive disruption of Ancient Egypt with the racial stuff. I can think of several reasons not to put any of this in the main article, aside from the disruption it would cause:
- Undue weight: mainstream Egyptology and Ancient Egypt sources do not cover the topic, or at least only do so in passing. Racial questions have not been around long enough to have them well-studied, and this is not the place to right the alleged bias of Egyptologists of the past.
- Everyone can agree that the society was not a homogeneous racial mixture, with immigrants coming from North, South, East, and West. It's a bit like asking "What race are Americans?"
- Does not add significantly to our understanding of the history and culture of the ancient Egyptians. There are many more important things to say about the ancient Egyptians.
- The field of DNA science is only beginning to address the question; future research may help answer some of these questions in the future. We have no deadline, so why not wait until the dust settles?
- I honestly don't care about the race of the ancient Egyptians. I get satisfaction enough admiring their achievements, and I just want to avoid the huge disruption this issue causes. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The whole point of putting the material in this article is that editors didn't want massive disruption of Ancient Egypt with the racial stuff. I can think of several reasons not to put any of this in the main article, aside from the disruption it would cause: