Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:28, 18 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)

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)

I actually stated previously that the relations with Nubia section was OR and should probably be removed. The problem with it was that it dealt only with primary sources and didn't have secondary sources that related it to the topic of the actual article. Also please do not accuse people of racism with comments like "your sadness of seeing an ancient great civilization in the African continent." Please try to assume good faith. --Woland (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at the Nubian stuff. It's clearly OR and certainly the references I noticed (touregypt, for instance, which is great for planning a trip there) weren't all RS. It shouldn't be in the article.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For the 100 time Lusala, I do not care whether the ancient Egyptians are black, white, yellow, brown, red or green. It is absolutely of no importance to me. I do care about the correctness of statement and the lines that are drawn from them. Tone down the paranoia hidden agenda attitude; just because some questions a few lines of text, it is not about a black empire vs. white supremacy. This is about the correctness of quotes and text. It’s all I care about. Note that I have example not removed the highly incorrect statement “The Egyptians viewed the Land of Punt in the south as their ancestral homeland”, in the article. Primarily because I don’t edit the article, but also because someday I hope someone will ask what is the original source for this? They will quickly find there is none, because the Egyptians never wrote that. It’s a highly dubious transliteration that has been circling in books (with no source) for 50 years, repeated over and over again. There is only about two handful of docs about Punt written by Egyptians, and none of them says this line.

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

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

He talks about a time before agriculture (7000-8000 BC), when did that become ancient Egypt?(3000 BC). It might indeed be that the original people he says came from Abyssinie or Sennaar 10000-7000 BC still was exactly the same 4000-5000 years later when ancient Egypt “starts”, but I would not put my head on the block for that (and note Champollion does not himself state that this is the case). The fact still remains we do not know. Twthmoses (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are indeed bad, I move that that line be stricken. Unfortunately I suspect that there are several places in the article like this.--Woland (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one would need to have a reliable source to claim that the populations of Egypt circa 7000-8000 BC were different than those circa 3000BC to make the point. Otherwise, dismissing the cite on the basis that they were different is both OR and POV. The default assumption should be that they weren't that different (that's just common sense). Has someone documented migrations in or out of Egypt in that timeframe, which would support a change in the population makeup?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The only documentation from that time period is from the archaeological record, which shows completely different cultural patterns. I'm not sure that I have access to the sources for this. I could ask the resident expert on this on my campus but I'm pretty sure he'll look at me like an idiot, which I'm not up to during finals week.--Woland (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, a culture can become radically different in four millenia, without the population makeup changing significantly (look at the cultural changes in Egypt between the start of Ancient Egypt and today, which is a comparable span). So, you'd need a firmer basis, such as evidence of significant migrations in or out of Egypt. Also, you'd need a WP:RS that actually claims these were different populations. I'm not aware of any, but then I'm not an expert on the question.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good points, I think. The problem I seem to be having is being able to even think about populations in terms of racial categories, especially since racial categories of the past probably don't match the ones that cultures have today. Too many anthro classes maybe.--Woland (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not dismiss Champollion as a source, so absolutely not. He is definitely an authority on various ancient Egyptian matters. I dismiss hands down, when people do not cite (or rewrite) the full text, and especially, in the context in which it is made. That was exactly the case here, along with Diodorus Siculus‎ who also was talking about an “excessively ancient” time, when he made similar comments about the original population coming from Ethiopia (a time before there even was a Nile). At no point was it made clear that what Champollion and Diodorus talks about pre-dates ancient Egypt by many millennia, and point more towards an early understanding of Recent African origin of modern humans, that a knowledge of the Egyptian population anno 3000 BC. I have no problem with the writing of neither these two guys, nor an insertion in the article of their texts (both are primary sources on several subjects), but I do want the inserter to apply the proper context to their statements, - they themselves supply, and not selective quote from parts of it, that suits you. Diodorus Siculus was selective quoted several times, in the now deleted section, which I already pointed out 3 month ago. Twthmoses (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Woland, I'll grant you that, absolutely. This modern debate would probably look specious, even ridiculous to the Ancient Egyptians. My only concern is that we shouldn't confuse WP:NPOV with WP:TRUTH. All opinions need to be presented, in accordance to their weight in the real world, including those we feel might be wrong. As someone who firmly believes that race is purely a social construct, I agree that some of the arguments here sound like radial tetracapillectomy but NPOV demands that they be presented, if they are backed by reliable sources.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. It just seems like the burden of proof (or WP:V if you will) in this article is unduly placed on the mainstream. I guess I feel like this article should focus more on the documented controversy (using only sources directly related to said controversy) and less on what I see as original research using the primary source documents. It would also help if people stopped accusing others of racism. --Woland (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your observations. But unless the debate becomes a bit less emotional on the subject, it will be hard to get there. I've been observing this article for a number of months now, and what I've seen is mostly POV-pushing from both sides of the argument, and fairly little in the way of an attempt to reconcile the two positions. Last time both positions were reconciled, somebody was again hacking into the article to make it more mainstream within a few weeks, if not days.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

race and culture

The race and culture section should hold the moderate view held by many mainstream egyptologist about the race and culture not by piting one extreme view afrocentrism and another nordicism against each other the section is way to sypmetheic toward the afrocentric leanings,i have no problem with the nordicist view or afrocentric views being in the article but in seperate sections clearly marked or in the race and culture section but with out one being favored one over the other and also it seems to be wriiten in essay form which does not jive with wiki--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the section should hold all significant views, as long as they're properly attributed. The mainstream view should be clearly labeled as mainstream, but the other views should also be presented in accordance to their real-world prominence.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

that sounds good to me but the section is slanted and is being written in essay form so lets have the author re author it post it here so we can get a consenus on it --Wikiscribe (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was pretty wordy and rambly, but the cut may have been too drastic.--Woland (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

yes and was slanted toward one view instead of just explaining views and i will not have this page become a rambling junk pile like the origins of nilotic people article which is a atrocious article--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you say, but you may want to dial down the tone: what is one person's junk pile may be another's diversity of viewpoints. I suggest it might be better if you formulated your points using more neutral language. --Ramdrake (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I didn't want. Look at the top of this discussion page: "The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages." I don't have a general problem with critique, but I have a problem with people who delete first and discuss afterwards. If you disagree with my contributions, give me you point on the talk page, use the appropriate templates or reword singe sentences but don't simply delete it.

On the actual issue. I have an academic history book on Nordic though. In this book I have an explanation why people feel the need to put forward a link between race and culture. The only thing I did when adding this to the article was to sharpen it a little. Your average "white" reader of this article apparently doesn't understand what "judge themselves" means, but he should probably understand "the claim that the ancient is not worth any serious consideration at all." I know that this is probably too sharp, but we can soften it. I am myself thinking about how to word this, but I am not getting paid for my writings here, so don't expect something instantly perfect. And on a further note: Deleting whole section is disruptive. Please consider that this is an article "on probation", Wikiscribe. Zara1709 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Egyptian pharaos had a skin as white as the contemporary Norwegians"this statement shows your biased right now because many berbers have white skin just like the people of norway,and you are buying into the nordicist arguement that there are degrees of whiteness when modern studies done on skin tones buy jablonski showing that people of of scandinavia are the same skin complexion of other europeans and many berbers of north africa--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

there has not been any major write up or consideration with in the article that the ancient egyptians were from norway you are the one making it an issue so you can add afrocentric rhetoric to the page which was what you are doing in the begining i assumed good faith and still do but it is obvious what you were doing and yes it is possible that many egyptians may have been lilly white because many of the north african berbers are similar in complexion as europeans,just in the same matter that many egyptians could have been black just like the nubians are and the reality of it just to point out there is really no such thing as the nordic race is my postion so its not like im proposing that postion or pushing it all europeans are similar complexion whether you are from italy or finland--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that there was no such thing as a "Nordic race" and that the ancient Egyptians obviously did look like the contemporary Norwegians. I am fine with that. I would actually add that there are not even a "white" and a "black" race and that I hope that all editors on this talk page (aside from the usual anon. IP) agree on that. The reason I did not add more about the "Nordic theory" is that this might be undue anyway, and that I don't have a source for anything about it after 1950. Of course, to link the talk page of an article in the article itself is bad style, but I don't know where some "white" readers got their idea about a "Nordic Egypt" from, and the ip-users were smart enough not to list their sources. And the sentence: "The afrocentrist view of a 'Black Egypt' is clearly better justifiable then the historic nordicist view of a "Nordic Egypt", is also a little too sharp, hey, but it's true. It is easier to argue that the ancient Egyptians were black than it is to argue that they were white. Zara1709 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

zara pleas refrain from makeing snide comments about grammar it's considered a personal attack because its not the real issue at hand and if you cant read it just dont anserw than sometimes silence is golden ,but can you tell me where within the article was there nodic egypt propaganda it was mentioned as a thoery by some but not into major depth the only real issue on this page are biased editors in particular afrocentrics trying to create a propaganda page--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, commenting disparaginly on the viewpoint of other users is also a personal attack. Please refrain from these.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

THIS WAS NOT MEANT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK, it is just that I am not completely clear what you are saying. Zara1709 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ramdrake why dont you try to help strive for a nuetral article?--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm striving for neutrality, by trying to see the inclusion of all significant viewpoints, and it is emphatically obvious to me that the "afrocentrist" viewpoint is significant in this matter, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, or relegated to a small subsection. I have reservations on Zara's additions myself, but I'd rather let her complete her modifications before I say anything. I don't think her additions deserve ouright deletion.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, please, don't confuse "neutral" with "uncontroversial". Some white supremacists believe that the ancient Egyptians were white, Afrocentrists believe that they were black. Well in a black and white scheme I'd say that they were black, otherwise I'd say they were medium brown to dark brown, but in any case I personally don't care about the skin colour of persons who are dead for 1000s of years or about skin colour in general. But please, consider this: Facts are not the main scope of this article. This is an article about an ideological controversy. If you don't want an article about this topic, start an afd on it. Zara1709 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ramdrake so zara removes a whole ton of sourced entries to create zara's new take on things without coming to a real consenus that was okay and you seemed not to care but for some reason when i removed content you care can you still with a straight face say you are striveing for neutrality--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. What I did was to move the whole lead after the first two sentences to the section on "Population characteristics". Some had pointed out that this article is intended to be about the current controversy; well, then we should have an article about the controversy and move the part one the actual ancient Egypt population somewhere else. Now, I could add a section on the reasons why people waste their time on such an issue, and I did it, partly based on the example of the Nordicists. If the article is indeed to be about the controversy we need a section like this. We can talk about the wording (and have to), but the section needs to stay. Otherwise Dbachmann has a good point: Then don't have an article about the controversy and rewrite this in the direction of an article Origin of Egyptians. Zara1709 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, I took the time to go through all of Zara's recent edits, and she didn't remove anything' from the already existing text, she just added a section of her own, and then edited and re-edited it. Therefore, I find your charges of lack of neutrality on my part, and your implicit charges of POV-pushing on her part unfounded.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

fine have it your way propagandised the whole page and to let you know when making major contributions to a controversial issue ramdrake you are suppose to gain a concesus first--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, belittling the position of other editors is a personal attack. Kindly refrain from doing this. Also, please note that you're the only editor opposed to the inclusion of a section. Your objections seem to be based on WP:TRUTH rather than WP:NPOV concerns. It would be more constructive if you could suggest ways in which the recently added section can be improved rather than outright removed.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How the heck is this an ideological issue Zara? That is an odd statment it's seems as though your trying to remove fact from the disscusion and argueing for the article being a POV "ideological forum" that is only receptive to the "black" argument. There are many more ethnicities in Africa "indigidous" than "black" I prefere not to use the term afrosentric.--204.118.241.183 (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you're still not seeing why the debate about the race of ancient Egyptians is an ideological one, this section is not yet pointed sharply enough. White supremacy ideology alleges: Only White people can create a high culture -> for white supremacy ideology the ancient Egyptians couldn't have been black. This is ideological, although it is not quite as bad as Stalin. (Only Communist States can build an underground, let's demolish the one in Warsaw.) I would need to read Hannah Arendt again, but that is the example she uses for ideology. Of course, the argument that it is ideology applies to both sides. If you trying to make the ancient Egyptians more black then they actually were it's ideology, too. But black people have been the victims of institutional racism, not white people, and theories about a "Nordic" (- or say "Hamitic") Egypt pre-date Afrocentrism. It is by all means understandable that black people are concerned about this issue. Zara1709 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Zara Your attempt to validate your "ideology" about who's who and what's what in ancient egypt is well appreciated. However attempting to uttilize this page ,by changing it's dynamic and scope, as validation for further arguments in a more apporpreate setting, such as "Race and Ideology" is inappropreate.--204.118.241.183 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What, "my" ideology? The only thing that I'm saying is that the ancient Egyptians were (very) much more likely black than white, and it's ideology to claim otherwise. Obviously YOU have a problem with the FACT that the ancient Egyptians had a dark brown skin, but now you are switching the strategy of denial. First you tried to deny that this was an ideological issue at all, now you are accusing me of ideology. Well, face it: The pyramids were designed by black people, not as black as the people in central Africa, but definitely more black than the Norwegians. Zara1709 (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Zara1709, thank you for your well informed comments. That Egyptians were Black people, this is endeed a fact. Egyptologists know that. They are not so stupid! Only that they avoid to pronounce themselves about the subject because of the negative bias surrounding the black race in the West mostly. Nevertheless, common sens can help understand what they mean when, using euphemism, they affirm: "les Egyptiens seraient une race propre à l'Afrique (Egyptians are from an African race)" (Jean-François Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique, p. 456); "Il semble que les peuples qui se rapprochent le plus des Egyptiens soient leurs voisins du sud, les Nubiens (Egyptians look the most like Nubians)(Adolf Herman and Ermann Ranke, La civilisation égyptienne, p. 46). It is true that all the Black do not not look alike, but even in Central Africa, there are brown Blacks. And in Egypt there were dark Blacks. The black race covers a good range of colors. And the color brown is part of the black race, as Joseph Ki-Zerbo stated ("bien des Noirs ont la peau brune" (Histoire de l'Afrique Noire, p. 80).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Spinxs

Am I alone in thinking the sphinx should be removed as possible image as refernce material? When they found and uncovered that thing 100 some odd years ago the "head" was amzingly dispropotionate to the body probbible refashioned after centuries of erosion by some happhazard chiseler centuries earlier yet after Rome. No offense to Hawas and the egyptian reconstruction team. Egyptian art simplly was not that disproportionate!--204.118.241.183 (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If the Sphinx is referenced as being part of the controversy then it should stay. Otherwise it should go.--Woland (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review