Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:21, 13 May 2008

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: 15 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

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 - .....

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

more and more edit wars

The whole thing really is ridiculous. Our conception of "race" is a construct of 16th and 17th centuries that justified the trade and keeping of slaves by men who were supposedly Christian. The way we look at race simply did not exist before then. All the trappings and words we associate with this whole topic are so horribly loaded that they are practically useless in relation to real, productive discussion about how peoples of the ancient world dealt with differences of physical appearance. That there was a certain amount of "hey, they look different, so let's kill them" is almost a given, but this broad-brush "race" concept is a product of the modern age. Any sort of genocide, or what we would call "discrimination" would occur along religious or what we would call "ethnic" lines. Getting onto the subject at hand, it would seem to me that there was considerable variation among the egyptians, even their pharohs. Tutankhamun, look similar to a berber or arab, whereas Huni, for instance, looks more Nubian. People need to grow up. -- 69.104.228.30 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

it seems many afrocentrist are coming on here under isp numbers and are blanking parts of the article that they dont like--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand that to be a request for semi-protection of the page, to ensure only registered users edit it? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

i think that would be a good idea--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a few ip vandals being reverted in the last month, one to a legitimate anon contribution. I notice there is a ip engaging in discussion above. Where is the rationale for semi-protection? cygnis insignis 08:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that, I see absolutely no reason for semi-protecting this page. There is maybe 50 edits by anonymous ips in the last 6 month!, and 15 of these within the last 3 month. This is nothing, nothing at all! Try pages like Great Sphinx of Giza or the Nile, where there is nothing but vandalism going on by anonymous ips, a dozen or more, daily. Twthmoses (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a controversial subject and to prevent sock puppets from blanking pages/paragraphs and omiting sourced infomation that he or she dont like it should be semi protected to protect the intergrity of the article,this has gone on it was raised not to long ago by another administrator wknight94,it is not unusal for conterversial subjects to remain semi protected to avoid the annoyance of the isp user being disruptive to the article it also will encourage people who want to contribute to this article to make up an account and maybe make useful changes ,to me the only people who would have a problem with this are the sock puppets themselves and the disruptive isp users mainly the whack jobs from stormfront and the wacky afrocentrics,also maybe the sphinx and nile should be semi protected as well ever think of that twthmoses--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Right from the KauKaKians mouth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kan13st (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Art

Why no images of Egyptian art? Why are there no images here from the Tomb of Menna, Nakht, Sennefer, Thutmosis IV, Amenhotep III and many others? The ancient Egyptians left so many convincing images of themselves, yet none of them are visible here on a page about the appearance of the ancient Egyptians. Such images in and of themselves provide definite evidence that cannot be denied easily. Actually a section on ancient Egyptian artwork should be created, saying that the Egyptians created a large number of images of themselves which covered most of the tombs and temples along the Nile. Many of these images, especially those in the tombs and some temples, still are well preserved with the colors intact. Show some of the images then note how some people attempt to disagree over what these images represent, from being symbolic, to tanned. A good place to go would be flickr, however many of these images are not licensed for Misplaced Pages:

Osirisnet is another good reference:

In fact not only should there be a section on it with some images from these tombs in these pages, but the page on ancient Egyptian art should be updated to show more than faded statues with no paint. The problem being that most of the full color images from the Egyptian tombs and temples are never shown in more than piece meal fashion, which means the public only gets a distorted view of Egyptian art. There are thousands of full color images from the Egyptian tombs covering old to new kingdom and yet these images are hardly ever published for the public. Some tombs have thousands of images by themselves and these are hardly ever shown in a complete fashion to the public. That is unless they travel to Egypt and see them in person. In this day and age of digital photography and online distribution, there is no excuse for this. Especially since many museums and research institutions have tons of high quality images of all these tombs, at various stages of restoration and/or decay, which can and should be made to the general public. The fact that these images are not being shown, versus the usual unpainted, damaged, restored or faded versions of Egyptian sculpture says a lot about the way ancient Egypt's image is being shaped by those with an agenda.

At the very least we can add some of links to such imagery on these pages.

Big-dynamo (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Several reasons. We can't be sure that they were accurate. In fact, we have some good evidence, mostly relating to imagery related to Ikhnaton, that the majority of ancient Egyptian art presented very "idealized" views of Egyptians, which often had little real relation to their true appearance, and thus they cannot be seen as being particularly relevant to the matter of their factual appearance, rather than what they, for whatever reason, perceived as being "fashionable". Unfortunately, we can't know what their motivations if any were, although we do have evidence that the majority of the imagery is not what we today would call truely representative, so the images are at best unreliable sources as to what the Egyptians really looked like. Also, frankly, multiple, generally redundant, images don't necessarily add anything particularly valuable. There may well be other articles where those images would be relevant, and I wouldn't have any real objections to seeing them there. But overloading the page with images which don't necessarily add anything unique isn't particularly useful, and probably ultimately counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What ancient art isn't idealized? That never stopped Greek art from being included in a discussion about ancient Greece. No scholar in their right mind would make such a claim about any discussion of history. How on earth could anyone supposing to be a historian omit something like the artwork of an ancient culture from a discussion on that culture? That is why I made the statement. Omitting Egyptian images is omitting facts and that is all there is to it. You cannot discuss the views and identity of any ancient culture and not include their artwork. That is how they established their identity. If ancient artwork is idealized and irrelevant then why are two images of Greeks on a page about ancient Egypt? Why is THAT relevant? Don't play games with me and try to talk your way around omitting relevant data because it goes against the nonsense that some people are putting out. If you want to be unbiased then be unbiased, but don't try and play silly games with me like I can't see through it. Of course Egyptian art is relevant in a discussion on the appearance of ancient Egyptians and Akhenaton is only one pharaoh and one tiny part of the artwork that spanned over 2,000 years. Big-dynamo (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

i am going to revert the edits by bigdynamo they are to long winded , dubious and irrelevent,you are welcome to shorten and rewrite your edits in a more encyclopedic fashion--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole page is dubious, long winded and irrelevant. The "race" of the Ancient Egyptians itself is dubious because modern scholars NO LONGER think in terms of "race". If you mean were the Egyptians medium to dark brown, then that would be a better topic, but still dubious, as almost all ancient artwork shows the Egyptians as medium to dark brown. This page focuses more on modern controversies than the facts and basically a bunch of he said, she said between one group or another. The page should be called the "debate over the skin color of ancient Egypt". What is missing is facts and details from Egypt itself, not hearsay. There is nothing encyclopedic about covering the debate of Afrocentrics versus "established" Eyptologists and such a debate is not proof of anything other than that there is a controversy on the issue. This isn't Jerry Springer and pushing such debates as some sort of "Encyclopedic" information is nonsense. The proof is in the facts from Egypt and the reason why such facts are so "long winded" is because this page has so little of it. I mean you have a picture of Herodotus on a page about the race of the ancient Egyptians, what does his picture have to do with it? Almost nothing on the page actually discusses facts from Egypt, as opposed to discussing the what one group has said versus what another group has said based on their own "interpretations" of the facts. That isn't Encyclopedic. Encyclopedic means putting all the evidence on the table and letting people make up their own minds. In fact, by putting the debate as the center of discussion, which should only be limited to one section, you are validating the opinions and views of both sides, as opposed to staying focused on the facts, which are too few and in between. There are no mummy images, no images from Egypt and so forth.

How isn't the fact that Kings from Ta Seti took the throne in the 11th/12th dynasty not relevant in a section called "Relations with Nubia", especially when the same section it quotes a scholar who says that Ta Seti means "Nubia"? How is that irrelevant? I don't see it. I see this as an omission of facts. In fact, why are relations with Nubia relevant in a page about the "race" of ancient Egypt? If it is, then why isn't there a section on the "Relations with Asiatics" or "Relations with Lybians". It is not relevant to begin with. But if it is going to be included, then why only present half the facts? Either remove it or put all the facts in it. The ancient Egyptians did not have a word called "Nubian" that they used for Southerners. The name they used was "Nehesy", just like they didn't call Northerners whites, they called them "Asiatics". If you are going to complain about something being too long, then the whole page is too long after the first major section.

I was trying to be nice by not deleting what was already there, because most of it is irrelevant and dubious to begin with.

So what was dubious and irrelevant? Care to be specific?

I can list out the points and I want you to show me how they are dubious and irrelevant:

1) The images of Tut and other royals are quite dark and not pale tan like the image from National Geographic. Those are facts not opinions.

2) Egyptians never called anyone "Nubian" and "Nubian" did not mean black, Kemet means black. Again those are facts from Egypt itself.

3) Southern black pharaohs have been ruling Egypt since the very beginning of the Egyptian state and such pharaohs had important roles in the Middle and New Kingdoms. Again, facts not heresay.

Sounds like if you cannot see where this is relevant, then it is because you are not interested in facts, you are interested in stupid debates and Jerry Springer antics devoid of any facts from Egypt itself.

And if I reword my stuff, the whole page will get rewritten because the whole page needs to be rewritten. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry John Carter, but you argument is not valid. If you have a reliable source that says that ancient Egypt art can't be used because it is to idealizing, then add it, so that the article debates both sides. Otherwise leave it. Zara1709 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry as well. However, please note that the article is explicitly about the current controversy, as per the first sentence of the article. The facts of the ancient art are at best of dubious relevance to the current controversy, unless that relevance is itself established by references in the literature about the existing controversy, which it does not seem to be. As such, I believe, as I and others have indicated, that that content is of at best dubious relevance to an article which is explicitly about the current controversy. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're are saying that this article is intended only to debate the controversy about the Race of ancient Egyptians, without mentioning what "Race" the ancient Egyptians actually were? Aside from the point that the whole concept of Race is probably nonsense anyway, the controversy about this issue exists apparently only in Afrocentric circles on the one side and in Nordicist circles who are still living in the first half of the last century on the other side anyway. So if we can get is established in the article that from the perspective of academic Egyptologists the ancient Egyptians had "quite dark" skin, we should be fine. And then the article can take a look at all the other views. I wonder if there is anyone who considers them to be "yellow" or "red". On a white-to-black scale, it seems every colour has been proposed. Zara1709 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The numerous previous discussions regarding this article, and the ArbCom, came to that conclusion, that this article is about the current controversy, yes. I agree with you personally that the question of race according to modern science is possibly a moot one, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been a lot of discussion regarding the often genetically consistent ethnic characteristics which the ancient Egyptians may have possessed. I think the word "Race" was chosen for the title primarily because it says more precisely what it took me rather more words to say explicitly above. While the factual race, if there were only one race, of the ancient Egyptians is relevant to wikipedia, discussing that involves so many other matters, beyond the high-profile media coverage the subject has recently received, which is the central focus of this article, that it would basically require an entirely separate article, and even then all it would basically come down to is "dunno, but there are a lot of ideas out there." But the previous discussions agreed to limit the scope of the current article to discussing the recent controversy. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

First off the additions bigdynamo made to the kmt and nubian sections are to long winded and poorly sourced and in many statements essential have nothing to do with the race of the egyptians and are irrelevant,here are some examples of poorly sourced and where bigdynamo makes a pov statements than sites,

"It is doubtful that this skin color simply means fertility or death. More likely it represents renewal of the institution of kingship and the throne from the South and Southern rulers, who were supported by allies from the South, which is a strong statement for blackness. And the idea of Southerners symbolizing the refreshment and renewal of the royal line from the South is not new, as the same thing happened in the 11th and 12th dynasties as well" and here is the source for this statements.White Chapel of Sesostris I with images of Min he makes that statement than sources pictures

more falcies from bigdynamo additions from kmt and relations with nubia section section

Southern people were not always treated as enemies in Egypt and there are notable cases of Pharaohs and noblemen with Southern roots claiming the throne of Egypt, long before the 25th dynasty. During the 12th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom, a line of Pharaohs with roots in Ta Seti came to the throne of Egypt. One of these kings claimed to even be fulfilling a prophecy. The King is Amemhemaat I and the legend is called the Prophecy of Neferti and here is the source for this statement

the problem with the above statement is the source is mythology but is authored in a way that is fact,and once again is long winded like all of bigdynmos edits,and the fequent use of southern people is misleading being nubians were not know as southern people or southerns(authors pov)

here below is another case of authors pov.he just makes his own pov unsourced statements

It is from this time period that the roots of divine authority passed into the legends that eventually stirred the invasions of Egypt by the Kushites in the 25th dynasty, thereby restoring one last glimpse of the glories of the ancient Empire.

here are more examples below of unsourced and biased statements from kmt section

Therefore, all of this indicates that the black skin color of the gods is not simply a symbol of the fertility of the earth but also the male seed and the first creation, which could be a symbolic reference to the first creation of humanity that occurred in inner Africa from the black man and woman of the Nile and the Origin of the Nilotic peoples of Egypt.

the egyptian art section that was created makes zero sence it is authored original work with its sources are pictures,also being the art aspect is already covered in the egyptians self view section which already has several different opinions covering all views

and also i have to question the validity of having a section based on egypts relations with nubia what does that have to do with there race anyway--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, may I suggest that you add (citation needed) tags and (summary-style) wherever you feel they are needed? I feel it would be more constructive and less POV-seeming than just blanking numerous additions. I too feel that the additions are tool long-winded, but I think removing them just isn't the solution; summarizing them would be much better.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

this is an highly controversial topic unsourced and or poorly sourced statements should be removed and i sited examples and ramdrake i reverted because there was blatant pov statements hidden behind bogus sources and unsourced, than left a message saying that the author could rewrite the statement to fit into the article better lets face it the edits he/she made could be cut down to a a few sentences,and also i said what does the relation with nubia have to do with the race of the ancient egyptians any way tht section should be removed period leaving this section leads to innuendo rather than fact--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The passages you object to constitute only a fraction of the additions by User:Big Dynamo, and I don't think they warrant the wholesale removal of what looks like a lot of work. If you feel their total inclusion is unwarranted, you can suggest changes you feel will be more in line with NPOV, but I still think wholesale removal is unwarranted. In any case, we now have about two weeks to achieve consensus on an acceptable compromise.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ramdrake it was removed because either way it is going to have to be re written valid arguements have been made but the arthuor has refused to do so maybe instead of badgering me you should ask big dynamo why he had refused to re work his edits unless you have a horse in this race? ,and i gave a few examples plus on top of that i gave valid reason for the removal of the art section as did john carter ,also as i stated now that this mess has been bough tup what does the relations with nubia have to do with the race of the ancient egyptians,and i am insisting that the section relations with nubia be removed altogether from the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Long winded and rambling

I have no problem removing and rewording what has been added that is long winded. It wasn't my intent to start an edit war, but to fill in some gaps in what was already on the page. But the page itself is a bit winded anyway and probably should be split to put the issue of the debate into another age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big-dynamo (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As it seems we have a few days to cool off from the article, would you mind reworking your additions and putting them on the talk page? That way, they can be properly discussed and we can hopefully achieve some consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point and I am not against that. My issue is with the whole idea that this page is about the Afrocentric debate only. You are talking about a debate on a civilization that lasted over 3,000 years. It is impossible to expect to fit in all the arguments from either side into one page. Therefore I don't think it really serves any purpose to have the page titled as is, because it really doesn't portray what is being discussed. And who determines what is relevant and what isn't? Everything is relevant because everything about ancient Egypt is being debated, as the evidence can be used by one side or another in this "debate". Either this page is to present the facts and details fitting the title or it is a waste of time and misleading to say the least. What is the point of just hashing out what has been "debated" in the media over the last 2 years or more and not really addressing the facts? Also, the core issue of the debate is omission of facts and distortion of the facts to begin with. Therefore, it is hard not to be positioning yourself on one side of the debate or the other by trying to determine what "fits" into the debate or not.

That certainly does not befit something that is supposedly "encyclopedic" if it limits the data and facts available for discussion.Big-dynamo (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to clear up a few things: this article is baiscally about the phenotypic makeup of the Ancient Egyptians, period. "Race" is shorthand for "phenotypic makeup" here. The debate isn't solely about the Afrocentric views, although the debate is certainly more important in Afrocentrist circles (but that's just a statement of fact). Lastly, WP:NPOV decides what is relevant here or not. If you're reporting a notable, sourced opinion about the subject matter, it should definitely go in. If you're reporting facts that have been claimed in support of a notable viewpoint on the subject, it also goes in. If you're reporting your own viewpoint or conclusions on the subject, that's OR and not allowed. I have no problems with the insertion of your content, except maybe its relative wordiness, and possibly a couple of sentences that do come across as your own conclusions (maybe for lack of sourcing those specific sentences). If you can address these issues, I don't think anybody can oppose the inclusion of your edits based on WP policies. Hope I've answered your questions.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ramdrake. I guess I should have expected this as it is a controversial topic. I do agree that some of the text I added is wordy and I am certainly willing to rephrase it. In the next day or so I will post my edits here for discussion. Certainly I do think it is all about making these pages as informational as possible. Big-dynamo (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've restored the previous semi-protection of the article. The article has recently been removed from full protection, but at the same time the pre-existing semi-protection was removed. Given the fact that the article has drawn a good deal of dubious IP edits historically, I think it is reasonable to restore the previous semi-protection. If anyone wishes to contest semi-protection, please do so below. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

seriously

How about trying to turn this into a serious discussion on the "origin of Egyptians"? The "race" question is an "Afrocentrist" red herring. There is some actual research into the genetic history of Ancient Egypt and Nubia, at present stashed away under Egyptians#Origins. How about we re-define the scope of this article as "origin of Egyptians", and relegate the Afrocentrist blather to Afrocentrism? dab (𒁳) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that in any way, shape or form a "neutral" perspective? On the contrary, your comment is very biased, not at all neutral. 70.105.52.50 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And who are you? I presume this isn't your first time on Misplaced Pages, although this is the first edit by that IP address. Dbachmann is asking that the article be based on the real research, and I guess you can say that asking for an article to be based on scientific evidence is biased, but then that's what Misplaced Pages calls for.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on that... 70.105.52.50 (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Dbachmann I have a different approach to such topics. (When I first stumbled across the old Nordic race article, he would have liked to redirect it to ] if I remember correctly. After I had added academic references for the use of term "Nordic Race" 1900-1950, that wasn't an issue. In the meantime we even got the "racialist POV-Pusher" who made balancing that article extremely difficult to confine himself to rants on the talk page and could finally removed the POV between Nordic race and Nordic theory.) The controversies about so-called "Races" are notable as such. This doesn't mean that we need an article Race of ancient Germans, where we would then depict debates about question like the one whether the ancient Germans were peasants from Scandinavia or nomadic warriors from Iran; not to mention the whole stuff about the origins on Atlantis or those fears of interbreeding and weakening the Aryan blood. Since we have already a lot of material with this article here we might as well keep it, though it will be difficult to find reliable secondary sources for the controversy after 1950; the Nordic part should now be sufficiently debated now.

I am very well aware of the possibility that someone disagrees with my contributions, actually I expect it. I don't know anything more about Egyptology, but working on such topics for some time now, I know quite a bit about racist ideologies. The huge problem when having an article about ideologies, modern myths, fictional secret organisations, etc. is that you are writing about something that is not true. Basically, you need to have an article that disagrees with its subject, but which at the same time needs to be an encyclopaedia article. This is already difficult when writing an academic article, but on WP it requires quite some effort. A sentence like: "Unusually it should not matter what skin colour a person has," doesn't really sound encyclopaedic. There might be better sentences to express the same issue, but I couldn't think of any at the moment. So please, don't just blank the section out if you disagree with it, but discuss it here first (and use tags were appropriate). Otherwise we just get our next edit war here. Zara1709 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, months after being silenced, it seems you are back to bring disorder to the article. I am a bit upset about so many changes made to the article without looking for consensus. Many of us are too busy with other things to react immediately. But this doesn't mean that we agree with every change happening to this article, like the disapearance of the section: Relation with Nubia. What next? Dbachmann, you better read Jean-François Champollion before stepping your feet in a subjet about Egypt, an ancient African civilization. I am speaking about Champollion because in the section Relation with Nubia, he was quoted saying that Egyptians are from Sudan or Ethiopia. Were ancient Ethiopian and Sudanese White people to think that their descendants, the ancient Egyptians, living quite next to them, were? Many of us must go back to elementary school!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I’m quite happy to see the section go. It was not very good, full of selective quoting. Champollion is an ok read, but as I already stated in an earlier thread (now moved to archive) selective quoting is the doom of this article (and a lack of direction). Champollion does not talk about ancient Egypt, in relation to an origin from Sudan or Ethiopia; he talks about a time before agriculture. That’s not ancient Egypt, that’s 4-5000 years before ancient Egypt! (counting ancient Egypt’s start as 3000 BC) Even for the Middle East this is still in the Stone Age, with pre-dynastic Egypt infinity far in the horizon. It’s the exact same thing Diodorus Siculus talks about (a time before there even was a Nile!), yet these apparently “minor” time issues are just ignored when quoting. That was not only a problem in the now deleted section, but all over the current article. All kinds of evidence are mishmashes in between each other and lending support to each other, with 1000 of year’s difference.Twthmoses (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

the relations with nubia section disapeared because it has nothing to do with the race of the egyptians, i.e because the egyptians had friendly relations with nubia does not mean they were black like the nubians or because for the most part the history of nubians in egypt was slavery does not mean they were not black like the nubians,in other words it was becoming a section based on innuendo and propaganda about the race of the egyptians not fact now genetic affinities between the egyptians and nubians are welcomed and would fall under population charateristics, relations with nubia is a section served best on the main article because has nothing to do with race,and i also suggest anything pertaining to mythology be removed also being mythology is called mythology for a reason and thus leads to just more innuendo and not facts--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe and Twthmoses. It seems to me that you are speculating out of your sadness of seeing an ancient great civilization in the African continent. It is clear to me that you have never read Jean-François Champollion. So, please, go and read the following before discussing further: Jean -François Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, pp. 455-460; Jean-François Champollion, Lettres d'Egypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829, pp. 429-430. If you don't know French, ask some friends to make translations for you.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review