Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 3

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 Talk 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 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Talk 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
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 Talk 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
 * Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians is an integral topic in Afrocentric historiography, and an important issue for Afrocentrism since the early years of the 20th century.

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. 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 Wikipedia, 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, 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 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)

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)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

 * wp:not

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.

None of the sources proposed fall into this criteria. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Frequently Asked Questions.
 * 2) Plot summaries.
 * 3) Lyrics databases.
 * 4) Statistics.
 * 5) News reports.


 * 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 Talk 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), Nordic_race 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Talk 22:30, 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. - 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 Talk 16:58, 6 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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[ing]" 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 wikipedia 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)

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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 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 Wikipedia.  The purpose of this article is not to resolve any controversy or to somehow help readers resolve it.  It is not for Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Neutral point of view. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia)?
 * 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 WIkipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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

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 wikipedia 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)

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.


 * I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young.
 * I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
 * I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
 * I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln
 * went down to New Orleans, and I've seen its muddy
 * bosom turn all golden in the sunset.


 * I've known rivers:
 * Ancient, dusky rivers.


 * 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[sp?] 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. Wikipedia 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.  Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is about -- but thanks anyway. :)  deeceevoice (talk) 16:39, 8 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 wikipedia 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" Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above comments are, if I may, borderline unhelpful. Please, try to be as brief as possible, this page is almost unusable.
 * 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)