Talk:Cheikh Anta Diop/Archive 1

Format and copyright
This article is almost a copy of the articles from the web, it needs to be better formatted and it needs to be original.--Halaqah 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pharaoh
This refers to his nickname among those with an interest in African History. To call him preeminent is probably true and I don't have a problem with that per se, but there needs to be a way to say that without losing the nickname.Pihanki 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. How about quotes around the word, and an explanation that it's an understood nickname? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 11:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution.Pihanki 00:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I think this article was written horribly. I have a couple of points to make, so pay attention:

1. It makes no mention of HOW Dr. Diop got his thesis the third time, how he went in with an array of anthropologists, linguists, archaelogists, etc., in other words EXPERTS. This needs to be mentioned.

2. I have a problem with the particular sentence in the article: "In this work, he claimed that archaeological and anthropological evidence supports his Afrocentric view of the Pharaohs being of Negroid origin. The academic world as a whole does not accept Diop's theories, but they continue to raise important questions about the cultural bias inherent in scientific research." Um, pharaonic civilization being of african (and thus "negroid") origin is not accepted by the academic community?! I guess SO Keita, Wendorf, Frankfort and pretty much every other accredited egyptologist and archaeologist that credits the rise of dynastic egypt to the cumulation of economic, social, and political evolution in the southern (READ African) part of the country doesn't count huh? This article has been hijacked by internet jackpots and ideologues.

3. Why does the article demonize the man as a crackpot? The man was a scientist and pioneer, and is regarded as such by many of the academic community. Christ.

Got problems? Talk to me. Peace.

Teth22
 * I will answer your three points:
 * 1. Feel free to add information about how he got his doctorate. But don't forget to mention that he only had "mention honorable", which is only awarded in France to thesis that are much less good than the average (in the eye of the University, of course).
 * 2. You may add these reference and explain how they relate exactly to Diop's theories. It's even better if you can point to Internet-available resources written by these researchers. And it's even better if they explicitly mention they agree with Diop, since this article is about Cheikh Anta Diop, not about Afrocentrism as a whole.
 * 3. All the pro-Diop say that this article demonizes him. All the anti-Diop say that the article divinizes him. The article presents both points of view and should not lose that quality. Thbz 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that in all this talk of "mention honorable" no one has brought up the fact that a thesis which puts blacks on stronger historical footing may have been regarded as unacceptable and possibly dangerous in a country, France, that still had vast colonial territories at that time. It should be mentioned that the difficulties he faced in getting his doctorate had more to due with the implications of his scholastic work than the actual facts involved in it.


 * Okay, Thbz, so what if his professors weren't jumping in joy over his thesis, what constitutes a "good thesis" can be very subjective, maybe they couldn't accept that Egyptian civilization came from the south? *gasp*. (even now white people can't accept that, as it seems in your case) As I mentioned before, scholars and egyptologists, "afrocentric" or not, agree with Diop's BASIC premise: that Egyptian civilization, whether it be linguistically, culturally, or religiously, has it origins in pre-dynastic AFRICAN upper egypt, which anthropologist SO Keita has shown plotted with Nubians craniometrically. Show me one credible source or study that refutes this, pleeeease, I dare you. Peace. Teth22 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You jump to conclusions. What makes you think I'm white? Because I hesitate about the value to give to Diop's theories, I am necessarily white? I am not a specialist, therefore I believe what the specialists say. And I have hat yet to see a confirmation of Diop's theories in books published by mainstream scholars, Afrocentrists not included. For example John Iliffe in Africans: History of a Continent mentions that the first Egyptian agricultural civilization, in the IVth millenium, was afro-mediterranean (i.e non-Black; later he mentions explicitly Diop to refute his theory that Egypt transmitted its civilization to the rest of the continent). Maybe Iliffe is not a good source, maybe the research has produced other results. Ok, so modify the article as long as you provide sources . And I will accept it without any hesitation (yes, I'm white, but no, I don't have a problem with the idea that Black people may have created Egypt and civilization; BTW, if you convinced all the white people in the world that the civilization was invented by Black African people, do you really think that it would change the way they look at Africa now?) Thbz 19:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No THBZ, it would not change the way the whites look at Africa, but it may change the content of this article and your contentions against it, which are not difficult to see. It is rather typical assesmnet for a white scholar when dealing with studies of a culture foreign to his own, Diop was not writing to change what whites think of blacks but what blacks think about themselves. But by the amount of work you have put in modifying his article one would think he may have missed his mark. Dare I say that you would do well (to hone your scholarship) to read the comparison that Marcus Garvey makes of Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. I'm willing to bet that you are more Clavin Coolidge than Teddy Roosvelt.


 * Another thing: the debate has taken place on Afrocentrism and Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians. If you modify the Diop page, please ensure that it's coherent with the other two pages (or modify them if they contain errors). Thbz 20:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, oookay. About that John Iliffe book, IS not a good source. The Egyptian neolithic (or the beginning of agricultural period) was the result of indigenous peoples incorporating asian grains and foods and methods into an already INDIGENOUS subsistence system. Further, the man makes the eurocentric mistake of labeling only West Africans "Negroid" and labels north east africans, even ancient ones "afro-mediterranean", such as ancestral afroasiatic speakers. He does say that Egypt was an "African" civilization though, read 18. oh, and Afro-Mediterranean babe doesn't mean non-black it means black mixed with mediterranean ("white") elements, get your terminology straight. And yes, I don't think that Egypt was this hyperdiffusionist vein for the rest of Africa, hell, or even most of Asia, as some past egyptologists have romanticized it to be, it's one of the few points on which I disagree with Diop, along with the society's linguistic affinities, which were Afroasiatic, and not Woloof, as the man said. Once again, show me a source that says straight up that egyptian culture, religion, and writing were imports from Asia. I await. Peace. Teth22 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with almost all you say. I never said I had sources that said that the Egyptian civilization was imported from Asia. Indeed, Iliffe says it's an African civilization. But African does not mean Negroid. On the other hand, I saw books this morning written by Bernard Nantet, who explicitly names Diop and agrees with his theory of the Negroid origin of the Egyptian civilization.
 * So, if you think this article should be modified, maybe you could make a proposal? Maybe it would be a good idea to make a distinction between the Negroid origin of Egypt and the influence of the Ancient Egyptian culture on the rest of Africa, and explain how each of these theories is or is not supported by mainstream scholars nowadays? The article is often too vague. Thbz 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

^Can you explain the difference between "Negroid" and the rest of Africa, and why they should be distinguished? How are West Africans considered "Negroid" to you, but not East and North? What's the difference? They're all biologically African, their features simply vary just like different places in Europe, Asia, etc, which is Diop's argument and now the position of every credible anthropologist associated with this subject and work. The "Negroid" is an obsolete term that restricted certain stereotypical sub-saharan types from other Africans, when the genetic data in its self never reflects such categories or racial boundaries. If any thing the Ancient Egyptian population at its inception was more more genetically related to the rest of Africa first, rather than anywhere else as is explained by Keita in his Y Chromosome studies. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/African_Archaeological_Revie__June_2005_.pdf

Diop was simply right, It's time to put Egypt with in its proper context, as Egyptians were from the same branch of the "so-called" Negroids and if "Negroid" were a valid category, then Ancient Egyptians would have easily fallen into that group, as they're intermediate between so-called "Negroids" and Eurasians today even, and share the same recent historical lineages.

Egyptians were "Africoid"(Alternative term to Negroid) just like the rest of native Africa. If we're to avoid any racial approach, they are to be simply put in their proper context as another African population, akin to Ethiopians, Nubians, Somalis, etc, all considered "Black" socially. Racially, that's not a valid concept, but Diop is right speaking in social terms and genetic relationships, with out a doubt. Just check the article now, and this page too.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africoid

"The concept of race is not based on genetics, which is a far more modern discipline, but on inexact and sometimes conflicting phenotypical categories, heredity, geography and cultural factors. Further, adjectival forms of race-related terms used to describe physical appearance commonly are conflated incorrectly to mean racial designation. For example, the term Caucasoid is confused by some with the term Caucasian. As a result, blacks and other dark-skinned peoples, paradoxically, sometimes have been called or considered "white"."

Taharqa 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Full of spelling mistakes
Africa how do you get to spell that wrong? Needs a cleanup. ASAP. that last chap looks like an essay.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

it's still interesting how some will clingdevotedly to unrealistic idea's aboutso called "race". It has been proven that every human on the planet can be traced back to one woman out of africa, so why all the nonsense? diop is to be commended for the work. Just looking at the globe without any knowledge of science, geography, and the rest, a child can see pangea. the world looks like a puzzle that is easily put together.Humans need something to believe in something, whether its god or that having no color makes one better. The fight or should say war on people of coloris just stupid! It is clear that Diop worked very hard to prove his findings which evidence supports. 2012 is very near, I wonder if color will play a part in the demise of the world.

Article is garbage
Celebration of racialist nutcase Diop is not going to be tolerated.

At best a hack. At worst a bitterly racist loon. Wheatabix 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The University of Dakar is named after him. The UNESCO has chosen him as one of the editors of its History of Africa. I think these two facts show that he is more than a "nutcase" or a "crackpot" as you say. Unless you are a greater authority than the UNESCO or the University of Dakar.
 * The article as it is, including your latest modifications which removed some biased remarks (except for the equally-biased word "crackpot" that should be replaced by something else), doesn't seem too bad to me. Of course I would like to see more explanations about his theories and about the arguments of the people who don't agree with him, but the article is not particularly biased. Thbz 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article as it is, including your latest modifications which removed some biased remarks (except for the equally-biased word "crackpot" that should be replaced by something else), doesn't seem too bad to me. Of course I would like to see more explanations about his theories and about the arguments of the people who don't agree with him, but the article is not particularly biased. Thbz 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Wheatabix have you deleted some sentences that can balance this article? Does it bother you that some of the last archaelogical discoveries of this decade can confirm a part of the work of Diop? Are you agains facts? --Kemkem 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this paragraph is not very clear. How exactly do Charles Bonnet's discoveries about Kerma "shed some light" upon Diop's theories? Apparently, Bonnet says that Kerma was a black kingdom with a brilliant culture which leaders rules over Egypt for a while (XXVth dynasty). This is very different from saying that Egypt as a whole was black and that its culture owes a lot to Black African culture. I think the paragraph should be rewritten in a way or another because it's not clear and the links to Kerma and Blombos cave don't help much since they say nothing about Diop. Thbz 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I get it. It has surely to be improved (but not deleted!). "shed some light" is maybe not the good phrase. Diop was one of the first scientist to assume existence of black civilizations when history was highly biased by racism. Kerma or Blombo's discoveries give some credit to the "essence" of the Diop's theories. It is not a detail! Diop's ideas have had a great heuristic power even if there are many mistakes in these works. --Kemkem 03:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing will get done this way. Use of anti-intellectual, inflammatory terms like "loon" and such are a complete waste of time. --149.10.196.227 19:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentric? This page is a farce.
Is it not ironic that anytime an african is found to have any formative influence on civilization, that he who has discovered it is deemed automatically afrocentric? Diop's arguments are deeply based on clear and unbiased scholarship, he himself asserted that had any other race been given the same natural pressures presented by the nile valley they would have been pushed toward similar developments. Diop knew that if any serious black scholar deviated in any manner from the strictest objective scientific scholarship that the whole line of African work, scientific, historical, cultural and otherwise would be discredited. The essence of Diop's work was not to fall into the trap of racial biases that European scholars had so ardently adhered to. The tremendous obstacles facing black scholars, particularly in the 1950's, required it, simple unsubstantial evidence would suffice to prove white, Mediterranean or any non-black origin of Egypt. However, linguistic, archaeological, cultural, bio-chemical, historical, and anthropological evidence are still insufficient to prove the African origin of Egypt? To claim that Diop is Afrocentric and that his work is somehow biased in that manner is to discredit the objective scholarship to which he dedicated his life.

I understand, but the way you went about blanking and replacing information isn't the way to go about it loved one.Taharqa 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Was my source invalid, along with the conclusions of UNESCO regarding the linguistic research? Elaborate? Please enlighten me as to the proper way to go about updating the page, so we can proceed with sorting out fact from fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.121.13 (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The greater danger is vandals trying to water down or bury Diop's scholarship by making the page hard to read, not minor terminology
Diop is called Afrocentric by some writers. But as the article now shows many of his arguments have been validated by "mainstream" scholars. The linguistic, archaeological, cultural, bio-chemical, historical, and anthropological evidence is in place that does this. So let us not quibble on terminology.

While we quibble a greater danger is taking place- namely anonymous authors and sockpuppets seeking to remove scholarship from the page, or to load the apge with so much text that the headings are not clear and the reader cannot easily follow the arguments and research of different scholars supporting (and opposing Diop). After the sockpuppet has done his or her work, the same person or cohorts then come in and make minor edits to "lock in" the vandalism as if it were a normal, reasonable edit.

This is the dodge tried by sockpuppet "Strotha" in his/her recent edit. The method is to make the page as hard to read as possible, which serves as a subtle way to diminish the article and Diop's work. This is the greater danger, not minor terminological issues. I have reverted the vandalism of sockpuppet Strotha. See his/her page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Strothra


 * Sockpuppetry case- Strotha- from user page
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Strothra


 * You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Strothra for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Those working with Strotha will try the "text bury" method again to make the page hard to read and water downthe evidence being presented. Be on your guard. TupeloMiss 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to discedit Diop with bogus references and quick sequence edits
Socket puppets are at it again. As usual no edit summaries are in place. Their latest dodge is to use bogus references. One puppet pulled up in this quote:

"The very latest discoveries by the Swiss archaeologist Charles Bonnet at the site of Kerma shed some light on the theories of Diop." Thereis only one problem. There are no "latest discoveries" by Charles Bonnet. Charles Bonnet (click for Wikipedia article) lived in the 1800s. The reference is clearely bogus and a blatant attempt to discredit the article. How lame. There is plenty of criticims of Diop's theories in the article as it is.

Another dodge is a series of edits in quick sequence under multiple accounts. These sequential multiple changes in fairly quick succession seek to disguise the information being removed and/or changed. Another variant is a "good user- bad user" routine.

The fact that puppets are resorting to these methods, and the fact that they keep hiding show how desperate they are to keep out or bury scholarship and scholarly methods. One wonders why they feel so threatened by the info contained herein. The game is really up.TupeloMiss 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Review WP:AGF before insulting other editors and making wild accusations. Note that removing cited information without a valid reason is vandalism. If you wish to see it removed then please prove that the reference is invalid. I have requested that the article be fully protected so that you will do this. --Strothra 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is one thing, commenting on work you clearly have not read, entirely another. Who pays? Truth. Who advances? No one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.121.13 (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a Swiss archealogist named Charles Bonnet, not the guy from the 1830s as suspiciously asserted above, but a contermporary guy. Bonnet did excavate Kerma, unearthing several statutes of the Nubian pharoahs. Reference to his work added to the article. And there is no need for people to tag Diop's Date of Death for a citation. That is just plain silly. No other biography article demands this level of detailed citation. Why is Diop's article held to a different standard? Adrunkman 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say that over the past few weeks this entry has improved tremendously, but the sections on DNA and race classification are still bothersome. One can recall that professor Diop said that race as applied in society is entirely based on phenotypes. It matters not whether the DNA of an Australian puts them closer to populations of Asia of whether genetic variability is greater within a population group as opposed to between them. The key factor is whether or not that individual is considered a black and is out casted or excluded on that basis from society. I sincerely doubt that a European would look at an aborigine or a Somali and not instinctively classify either as a black, just as the opposite is also true. One need not look far to see the blatant racial discrimination that exists today in Australia to site but one example. Why then bother to waste nearly half the entry on the topic  of racial classification when it is essentially missing the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.121.13 (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy Edit up to Influence of Egypt
I've been working on Afrocentrism and other articles related to Diop and other thinkers. I've done some copy editing of several paragraphs here to try to clarify what was written, make it more direct, and make it clear who said what. I did not remove any sources, but toned down some unsupported language that seemed very strong POV. I changed one section header from Genetic Variability to Physical Variability, because the text did not refer to genetics but to physical appearances.--Parkwells (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Diopbookcover.jpg
Image:Diopbookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of Diop's discussion of mathematics?
Diop discussed the African origin of mathematics at some length. But this article seems exclusively about racial stuff which I view as secondary. Recent work showing that Archimedes got to the foundations of calculus 2,000 years before Newton supports Diop's thesis. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/8974/title/Math_Trek__A_Prayer_for_Archimedes Someone should correct this. 69.227.209.136 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) John Toradze

Assessment Section
This section is incredibly long, and becomes very tedious and repetitive. Could this section be either compressed, or turned to a summary? Trying to read a massive statement on each work makes the page very hard to read or understand. --L.A.F. (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Diop A Hack
If he was such a hack, then why was his work only critized and never proven wrong by the "scholars?" Why did he shut everybody up at UNESCO in 1974? Doesn't sound like much of a hack to me!

I would not say Diop was a hack but balance is needed. I note that the UNESCO article states, inter alia, "UNESCO was perceived by some as a platform for communist and Third World countries to attack the West". This could tie in with the lack of vocal opposition to Diop's theories: he was linked to the African Unity movement, a political position which benefited from certain of his theories. His work may not have been proven wrong (but this is debatable as many scholars disagree with many of his arguments and have used evidence to do so; he is certainly beyond mainstream academia) but he has also not been proven correct. 99.240.139.189 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypical/Stereotype
Starting in the section, Broad black worldwide phenotype, such sentences as "He holds that modern blood and DNA analysis place Australian and Papuan groups closer to populations of mainland Asia, as compared with stereotypical sub-Saharan "negroid" types" overuse stereotype. What exactly is Stereotypical sub-Saharan DNA? How is sub-Saharan Africa a stereotype but mainland Asia is not? I know little about DNA, African populations, or Diop but I do know when words are overused. Unless the fact that Diop's theories are fundamentally based on stereotypes for Africa and not for the rest of the world; I'd like to clean this prose of these constant repetitions. Nitpyck (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd support that. As I understand it his ideas aren't exactly mainstream, and don't need to be used in the article except to exemplify his theories.--Pstanton (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think stereotype is overused. There is a clear quote by Diop where he addresses the problem, and the problem of stereotyping Africans is also written about by many established scholars cited. It is one of the biggest problem in African anthropology that appears in all sorts of studies across the board, so I do not see overuse at all. In fact one of the article reference is called 'The Persistence of Racial Thinking' #22, and another is called the 'Apportionment of Racial Diversity.'# 32, and one is called 'The Use and Misuse of language in the study of African history" #40. All of these and others mention the stereotype problem specifically. Stereotype is a huge problem in the field and so needs extended coverage. Diop recognized this also gives it extended treatment in his works. EssequiboEarl (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is repetitive and long
It is very difficult to follow the arguments, because the editors present material that jumps around in time. In other sections it seems to be repeating itself, in a circular way. There have been major changes in how scientists and academics of various sorts view new data and reinterpret old because knowledge continues to accumulate, and yes, ideas about race as a social construct have influenced thinking. But if Diop didn't believe in race, why did he insist on labeling so many people as black? It gets absurd to say the people of Melanesia are African, considering how long ago they migrated from Africa. After you say everyone on earth is African, having had African origin at some point, then were do you go? DNA and linguistic research has provided much insight to the migration and movement of populations. To jump back and forth 30 years or 40 years or more, however, and compare thinkers long before Diop, to material that new researchers are currently using, and claim that all new changes in thinking support his points makes me suspicious, to say the least. Is a lay reader supposed to be able to follow this article? If that is the goal, I would say we/you are not there yet. In claiming how contemporary researchers agree with Diop, editors seem to mention Yurco more than any other, casting doubt on how many other contemporary researchers do agree.--Parkwells (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article seems to hit areas of importance, but I think the repetition is due to the same issues cropping up in each area. Problems of distortion and stereotyping African peoples pop up in skeletal studies, and also in cranial studies, and also in cultural/material studies and also in historical studies, etc etc. Diop touched on all these areas so it is inevitable that the same issue comes up again. It is the nature of the beast. Also the article doesn't say he didn't believe on race, but rather that he expressed doubt about the race concept, and recognized it was a huge item on the table, and apologised for having to go back to it. Also his claim about Melanesians etc have been challenged by other scholars as clearly shown. And there are plenty of recent thinkers and scholars cited in the article. Most of these specifically cite recurring problems such as stereotyping and/or flawed methods. These problems are significant in the field if you read the cited material. As for references, there is Brown and Armelagos 2001, Keita 2004, Templeton 1999, Barbujani 2002, Bamshad 2003, Faulkner 2002 and others. Yurco by the way is not that old at 1996. I don't see a boatload of citations from 30 to 40 years ago. EssequiboEarl (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Titles
I feel that the section titles are all uncomfortably long, what's the consensus on shortening them down by at least half? --Pstanton (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They look about right given the technical material under discussion. EssequiboEarl (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Education - NEEDS UPDATE
The article mentions that Diop studied under Joliot-Curie yet fails to mention that Joliot-Curie studied under Paul Langevin at the school of Industrial Chemistry in France. Langevin is famous for introducing to the world Enstein's Theory of Relativety. It was under the recommendation of Langevin that Frederic Joliot went to study with Marie Curie. He would fall in love with Irene Curie, Marie's daughter, and thus became Frederic Joiliot-Curie. The couple Frederic and Irene would later win a Nobel Prize for "the systhesis of new radioactive elements." In 1948 Frederic Joliot-Curie would convince the French government to open a experimental Nuclear Laboratory south of Paris. Cheikh Anta Diop would become the only African of his time admitted to study in this highly advanced nuclear laboratory and consequently had access to the most "advanced body of scientific knowledge of the time". According to James Spady in his article "The Changing Perception of C.A. Diop and His Work: The Preeminence of a Scientific Spirit", "Given the close relationship between Langevin, The Curies, The Joliots and Einstein...his translation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is no more unusual than for Diop than the comparative philological study of Wolof and Egyptian grammar and vocabulary."

The aforementioned article by James Spady provided the facts for the information above and can be found in the book "Great African Thinkers - Cheikh Anta Diop - Edited by Ivan Van Sertima. 1986. Pages 89-100.

The information in this article regarding Diop's PHD thesis in incorrect in that he did not re-work and resubmit Nation Negres and Culture for his final acceptance as a PHD. In fact Diop submitted three different doctoral dissertations the first being Black Nations and Culture, the second The Cultural Unity of Afria and lastly, the third Pre-Colonial Black Africa. It was Pre-Colonial Black Africa that earned him his Doctorate not a reworking of Black Nations and Culture.

The information to support the above is found on page 8 of the introduction to the book Great African Thinkers - Cheikh Anta Diop edited by Ivan Van Sertima mentioned above.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Low importance of race as an element in genetic variability - Section Needs Update
It is the phenotype or physical appearance that matters in historical relations as Diop explains. He was well aware of the closeness of all human races on the genetic level. However he highlights that in a social encounter one does not see a persons DNA but rather their outward appearance or phenotype. After all apartheid was not practiced on a genetic basis but on a phenotypic one. Thus it is incorrect to say, as this article does, that Diop did not consider genetic similarity between races, or that it disproves his theories. The predominance of the Phenotype or physical appearance in social interaction between races is not changed by the closeness of the individuals involved on the genetic level. To quote Diop on the matter I reference an interview conducted by Dr. Charles Finch III in Dakar Senegal (1985) on behalf of the Journal of African Civilizations. In it Diop says, "If we speak only of genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha(prime minister of South Africa 1978-84) is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype.  It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will still live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has been the phenotype which has been at issue, we mustn't lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality. And this appearance corresponds to something which makes us say that Europe is peopled by white people, Africa is peopled by black people, and Asia is people by yellow people. It is these relationships which have played a role in history."

The above quotation can be found in the mentioned interview published in the book "Great African Thinkers - Cheikh Anta Diop. Edited by Ivan Van Sertima 1986. Pages 235-236.

It is rather obvious that the expansive sections of this encyclopedic entry devoted to genetics in an effort to present an unbalanced view of Diop's research and is essentially missing the point. The research of Dr. Diop as shown from the above information concerns the social relations between races which occurs purely at the physical level, thus it is incorrect to attempt to discredit him based on a genetic similarity existing between races. Only an argument that contains scholarly research that historical racial relations do not occur because of phenotypic differences would serve this purpose, otherwise I feel the genetic arguments against Diop should be removed entirely.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No discussion of Diop's political career
This article is completely without discussion of Diop's political career. He was a major political figure in Senegal and established three political parties in his life time, the first Block of the Masses of Senegal(1960) was banned and Diop imprisoned. In 1964 he founded the Senegalese National Front which was also banned and Diop was arrested again, lastly, in 1976 he founded the National Democratic Rally. As seen above Diop was jailed on numerous occasions in his own country for political reasons and in one such instance nearly died in jail. Prior to his political career at home he was also highly involved in the RDA an African student group in Paris of which he was secretary general.

The parts of the article dealing with his early life are rather incomplete and should be augmented considerably. Cheikh Anta Diop was not only a historian but a significant political figure who used science as a means to promote African cultural unity and progress. Without highlighting this aspect of his life the article is fundamentally incomplete.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

To few of Dr. Diop's books referenced
A scan of the references used in the article highlight that not all of Dr. Diop's books are actually used in the body of the article. How can a balanced argument be made for Dr. Diop if not all his works are considered? Civilization or Barbarism is not referenced at all, and this his final book is considered his magnum opus. Pre-Colonial Black Africa is also not cited, the book that he received his doctorate for. In fact it appears that only two of his books are referenced, The Cultural Unity of Black Africa and The African Origins of Civilization Myth or Reality. It must be noted that the French Nations Negres et Culture is included in the aforementioned translation so reference to it or to African origins are essentially the same, the former being the French version and the latter the English translation.

The definitive book written dealing with the works of Diop, Great African Thinkers - Cheikh Anta Diop ed. Ivan Van Sertima (1986) is not referenced at all despite the fact that "By the variety and substance of its contents it constitutes, without a doubt, a reference work for those who wish to better their understanding of the man, his work, and his deeds." to quote Louise Marie Diop-Maes the widow of Dr. Diop

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing negroid" types to Africans in cited text
Among other reasons for reverting Menuhotep23, he changed cited text in this article. That should not be done unless you can show that the source is being misrepresented. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the cited text. Keita is well-known for being against typological racial categories and when I read the text it seems to give the impression that Keita was endorsing the term Negroid. This is what he actually says in the text in relation to Oceanic populations and Sub-Saharan Africans:

one racial construct: that of the Oceanic Negro. This entity's name suggests that certain Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples were recent or ancient extensions of narrowly defined Africans, those called Negroids, especially so-called True Negroes (Seligman 1930). The Oceanic peoples are more genetically similar and genealogically related to mainland East Asians than to any Africans with the so-called Negroid phenotype (Bowcock et al. 1991). Curiously, there seem to be attempts to revive the idea that aspects of the morphophenotypes of Oceanians (and sometimes Dravidians of India) are retentions from early African (modern human) migrants. l? This idea is problematic, not least because it implies that Africans (stereotypically defined) have remained nearly unchanged since the emergence and redistribution of modern humans"
 * "Genetic studies may be said to have helped demolish

I've edited the text again to more accurately represent Keita's argument. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

the real question would be why Keita's views on such questions are cited in Diop's article in the first place. As long as Keita isn't directly criticizing Diop, explaining what views he may or may not hold on the term "negroid" is clearly an off topic tangent. We might consider moving it to Keita's own article though.

This article needs to avoid getting bogged down in discussions on Afrocentrism or race in general. It needs to stay focussed on Diop, his views, his fans and his detractors. --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was thinking about this last night after I left my PC after I read the quote. I expected it to mention Diop. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Diop as an Egyptologist
Some editors are complaining about the labeling of Diop as an Egyptologist in the article. I'd like to hear from those complaining on what grounds they object to him being labeled as such. Egyptology is defined as the scientific study of Egyptian antiquities or the study  of  the  culture  and  artifacts  of  the  ancient  Egyptian  civilization. An Egyptologist is a practitioner of this discipline. There can be no doubt that Diop was a committed scholar who studied Ancient Egyptian culture indepth including publishing extensively on Ancient Egypt, critiquing the work of other Egyptologists and debating world renowned Egyptologists. Unless there's some official criteria for classification as an Egyptologist that I am unaware of which Diop doesn't meet I see no reason why he should not be labeled as an Egyptologist in the article. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would beg to differ. Just because I may have a working knowledge of the complex principles of String Theory that may rival that of Brian Greene, it doesn’t grant me the right to self describe or rather, portray myself as an actual trained professional on such matters. Likewise, just because Cheikh Anta Diop may (or may not) have had extensive knowledge of Ancient Egyptian historiography, that doesn’t give him (or his apologists) the right to self-label himself as such (That honour is conferred based solely on his qualifications). You provided definitions for both Egyptology and an Egyptologist. What evidence do you have that Diop did in fact study Egyptology, and by extension, put that knowledge into practice (bearing in mind that his theories are generally regarded by the mainstream as pseudohistorical)? Fawal 12:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that his theories are regarded as pseudohistorical by the mainstream? Read The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality and you will find that Diop had a vast knowledge of Egyptology for his time. As I mentioned he also debated other Egyptologists and wrote a chapter in the journal General History of Africa on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. He studied Egyptology at the University of Paris and wrote a Ph.D. thesis proposing his theories on the race and origin of the Ancient Egyptians and he was eventually awarded a degree. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to give people labels, we need to have reliable sources, in this case other professional Egyptologists (mainstream) that call him an Egyptologist. See WP:RS -- and WP:OR. Without these references it's original research. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You need an Egyptologist to call someone an Egyptologist in order for them to be considered an Egyptologist? That's a ridiculous circular argument. Diop fits the criteria for what people generally consider an Egyptologist. A scholar who studies Ancient Egyptian culture or artifacts. It is not original research to label Diop an Egyptologist and it is a well-established fact that Diop was a scholar who studied Ancient Egyptian history and culture as well as debated other Egyptologists. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't a circular argument at all. You need reliable sources. I'm surprised you haven't found any, I'm not saying he isn't one or that such sources don't exist. The thing is, we have this argument about other people and disciplines, and too often there turn out to be no sources we can use. That isn't the case here. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a circular argument. You're saying the criteria for regarding an Egyptologist as an Egyptologist is for another Egyptologist to call them an Egyptologist. Is that the standard for every Egyptologist or does it only apply to Diop? Where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say that we must use this criteria? I find it highly disturbing that you two insist on labeling Diop as Afrocentric in the lead when that is not even a scholarly discipline and then object to his labeling as an Egyptologist when that description perfectly fits his work. This sort of bias is entirely inappropriate for an Encyclopedia. Fawal24 even admitted that he reserves the label of Afrocentrist for scholars whose views are deemed pseudohistorical vs. respected Africanists. Where is the evidence that Diop's research is regarded as pseudohistorical by mainstream Egyptology? Should we go around labeling every controversial figure who has talked about race by disparaging epithets? Should I change Rushton to a racist psychologist and Coon to a Eurocentric anthropologist? Do you not see the absurdity in your proposal? If we use your criteria then we should cross-check every scholar labeled an Egyptologist to make sure another Egyptologist calls them an Egyptologist and strike the label from there page if we can't find a source. Wikipedia was not designed to disparage scholars. You're supposed to write an unbiased article and if there are controversies surrounding their work acknowledge it as I have done with Diop. If there are criticisms of their work make a section for criticisms but I see these edits and proposals as clear attempts to disparage and discredit the scholar not write an objective article. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? That’s quite ironic, because what I find disturbing is the fact that you bristle at the labeling of Diop’s views as Afrocentric, when by the very definition of Afrocentric that you yourself have provided in the section “Diop: An Afrocentric or an African scholar?” above, it is perfectly clear to anyone who is familiar with his work that he was. Ulterior motives perhaps? No where have I ever stated that I myself reserve the label Afrocentrist for pseudohistorians and Africanist for respected academics. I specifically stated, and I qoute: And finally, no, those of us who are critical of Afrocentric Historiography do not label those who emphasize African contributions as Afrocentrists (Linda Heywood for example, a brilliant Africanist, isn’t an Afrocentrist), that honor is reserved solely for those who make pseudohistorical claims that fall outside that of the mainstream. I was speaking figuratively. It was not meant to be a representation of my own views. As I have already pointed out to you before in the section above, on the wiki articles of Rushton and Coon, their work is in fact portrayed and explicitly labelled as racialist. Until you can provide evidence of “Diopian” theories being taught as fact by accredited Egyptology programs (which the last time that I checked, were banished to the realm of pseudoarcheology along with the Dendera light and ancient astronaut theories), there is really no support to the argument that his views are currently accepted by the mainstream. I have asked you what evidence it is exactly that you have that Diop did in fact study and obtained a degree in Egyptology or a comparative field of study and you have provided none. You instead resorted to quoting obscure claims made in the article: At one point the article states explicitly that Diop attended the University of Paris pursuing studies in physics. Then however, the article becomes a bit ambiguous when it states that he obtained a Ph.D degree with the publishing of “Negro Nations and Culture,” yet provides no indication as to what discipline of study he gained his doctoral degree in. It then goes on to claim that he became chair of the radiocarbon laboratory at the University of Dakar – well, radiometric analysis is an application of physics, so it is understandable that he would have had extensive schooling in such to have qualified for such a post. So the question then is, what exactly did he obtain his doctoral degree in. Was it in physics, egyptology or a related branch of archeology? Did he hold multiple degrees? None of this is indicated in the article. You claim that “The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality” illustrates that Diop had extensive knowledge of Egyptology, if that is the case then why is it that almost none of the theories advanced in that book are currently accepted by the mainstream? You would think, based on how Diop’s work is portrayed in this article, that that book and many others which he has authored are treated as literal bibles by contemporary Egyptology students. And in closing, please don’t neglect to address the point that I have raised in the section “Diop: An Afrocentric or an African scholar?” In that section you claim that Diop’s historiography should not be labeled as Afrocentric simply due to the fact that he himself did not identify it as such. If we go by your standard, he should not be labeled as an Egyptologist unless he himself stated that he was such. The question is therefore, what evidence do you have that Diop self identified as an Egyptologist? Fawal 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if he was an "Egyptologist", but our rules require that whoever wants to call him an Egyptologist in Wikipedia's voice needs to present reliable references that support the claim. This has not been done as far as I can see. Sheesh, you reverted the article twelve times to a claim you are unable to substantiate? Can you say disruption? Mentuhotep23, you are correct. Academic mainstream is circular. You are an academic if other academics say you are. Wikipedia is married to academic mainstream. That is our premise. You don't like it -- publish your thoughts elsewhere. You needed the attention of half a dozen Wikipedia editors to figure this out? Please try to pull your own weight next time and read a couple of books in the time you save by refraining from pointless revert-wars. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on google books, I think it would be fair to say that Afrocentric authors often call him an Egyptologist. In fact, there seems to be an entire walled garden of Diop hagiography. What appears to have happened is that he pestered the University of Paris until they gave him his PhD just so he would shut up and go away, but a PhD is a PhD. It isn't clear whether his dissertation can be considered "Egyptology" though, or whether he was awarded any degree in Egyptology in Paris. We need to know what exactly he received in Paris. If his diploma says "Egyptology", it will be fair to call him Egyptologist, even if he went completely over the lunatic fringe after or even before he got it. As far as I can tell, Diop is a maverick scholar with a distorted racialist outlook and a grudge. Of course he puts his failure to achieve in academia down to racism. Apparently "whites begin to tremble whenever a black shows the slightest interest in Egyptology" It never seemed to have occurred to him that his researche was "not encouraged" because it was so bad, not because of the author's melanine content. Since the book goes to great lengths about him being given a hard time in academia but carefully avoids to mention any degree in Egyptology he may have received, I suppose it is safe to say he did not receive any. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Did Volney have an egyptology degree, did Champollion have an egyptology degree, did Massey have an egyptology degree, did Higgins have an egyptology degree? did Dr. W.E.B. Dubois have a sociology degree, did Herodtus have a history degree? Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dab, show me these rules that say that you need a reliable reference to call someone an Egyptologist. Are those the rules or did you guys make it up? Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. If the criteria for classifying someone as an Egyptologist is for others to call them an Egyptologist than who is the first person to officially be considered an Egyptologist? The fact is that Egyptology is a discipline that is broadly defined but an Egyptologist generally means a scholar who studies Ancient Egyptian culture. There can be no denying that Diop was a scholar who studied Ancient Egyptian culture. I am not aware of there being degree programs in Egyptology when Diop went to college. The fact is that he was a prominent scholar who studied Ancient Egypt and entered the academic arena to discuss Ancient Egyptian culture with the leading experts in the field of Egyptology. That warrants consideration of adding the label Egyptologist to the lead. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Diop mentions in an interview in the book Great African Thinkers - Cheikh Anta Diop, Ed. Van Sertima (1986) that he was the only African student studying Hieroglyphics in the university in Paris. He recalled that the only other student in the class was a white woman who would always erase the hieroglyphics she had written on the board before he would have a chance to copy them down. Dr. Diop recalled how the aforementioned students actions helped to solidify his resolve to further his studies on Egypt. I will find the specific interview and page number within the book as soon as I can acquire the book from the library again.

Secondly, Champollion-Figeac the older brother of Jean Francois Champollion the man who deciphered Hieroglyphics, is generally considered the Father of Egyptology. Diop, C.A., African Origin of Civilization - Myth or Reality? 1974 pg. 50-51 Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to be consistent across the whole encyclopedia about labels given to writers and scholars. The work of notable writers is often difficult to contain within a single discipline, so these questions arise quite frequently. The case of Bat Ye'or was one where I argued for the label "writer on history" which is neutral, rather than "historian", because she is not part of the community of professional historians. With Diop, the crucial point is whether he published in peer-reviewed journals on Egyptology. If he didn't, then we should leave off the "Egyptologist" label. This is not to disparage him in any way at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

He was certainly published in several issues of the Journal of African Civilizations, and was the driving force behind the convening of the often mentioned 1974 UNESCO Cairo symposium, a convention on the Peopling of the Nile valley and the Decipherment of the Meroitic Script. To my knowledge still the only convention of the worlds leading Egyptologists that dealt specifically with the race of the ancient Egyptians. Dr. Diop needless to say was among them, I.E. considered one of the worlds leading Egyptologists at the time.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think this little exchange is really quite tiring. If we go by your standards Mentuhotep23, then any schmuck can fashion himself an Egyptologist simply for having a fleeting interest in the works of Mark Lehner, Bob Brier or Ian Shaw. Where exactly did you get that fallacious idea that Egyptological principles weren’t taught in Diop’s time?! By the time he had entered the University of Paris in 1946 (taken from the current article), the branch of archeology that we know today as Egyptology was at least 200 years old. According to the University of Paris’ official website, their Department of Art and Archeology was established in the 1920s. The famed University of Chicago Oriental Institute was established in 1919. Even Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities came into being in the mid 1800s! And as far as Diop being a prominent scholar of Ancient Egyptian history, that seems like more of you interjecting your own opinions again (What contemporary mainstream Egyptologist claims that the Ancient Egyptian language derived from Wolof? Or that the Khepresh was inspired by Watutsi coiffure? Or that km.t translates to “land of the blacks?”). Alphonsobaptiste, the comparison of Cheikh Anta Diop with such luminaries as Herodotus, Jean-François Champollion, Godfrey Higgins, and W.E.B. Dubois is silly. In the case of the first three cited scholars, they are recognized as having what would be the modern day equivalent of formal training in their particular disciples, insofar as when one takes into consideration what they accomplished (or rather practiced) in their respective lifetimes, against the historical context of a period where such a discipline or degree did not yet come into existence. In the case of W.E.B. Dubois, sociology was still a nascent area of study at the time, and that coupled with the barriers faced by African Americans in his generation hindered him from gaining an actual Sociology degree (at his time at Harvard however, he completed what would have been the equivalent of a sociology degree, which came into existence at that university 20 years later. See the chapter: A Negro Student at Harvard in the Nineteenth Century). By Volney, I’m guessing that you’re referring to Constantin-François Chassebœuf. There’s nothing on his wiki article that even remotely suggests that he was an Egyptologist; The only references I found suggesting that he was were from Afrocentrists websites claiming that he said the original façade of the Sphinx was “negroid.” The Journal of African Civilizations is not a peer-reviewed Egyptology journal, and contrary to what Afrocentrists believe, Diop and Obenga were not initially invited to the UNESCO Cairo Symposium, nor was it a meeting of the world's greatest Egyptologist at that time (See Katherine Griffis-Greenberg’s (an actual Egyptologist) delineation of the events which actually transpired at that meeting). Fawal 08:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawal24 (talk • contribs)

It is of course interesting to note that W.E.B. Dubois along with Cheikh Anta Diop were awarded jointly in Dakar at the World Festival of Arts 1966 the prize for the two Africans who had the greatest influence on "negro thought in the 20th century" so it is not strange to place them on similar footing. This fact is written on the back cover of Dr. Diop's "African Origin of Civilization - Myth or Realty" (1974). Additionaly, footnote 3 on page X of the Translator's Preface of "African Origins of Civilization" (1974) says "The hypothesis is not original with Diop. Other scholars, such as W.E.B. DuBois, had earlier presented the argument that the ancient Egyptians were Negroes."

Count Constantin de Volney's book "Voyage en Syrie et en Egypte", published in Paris 1787 was the first book on ancient Egypt in modern times and was a guide to nearly all subsequent European voyages to Egypt. Napoleon would take Volney's book as a guide on his trip to Egypt and claimed that only Volney's work never led his expedition astray. King Loius XV court artist Vivant Denon was the man who famously sketched the other French savants with plumb lines trying to measure the head of the sphinx. He would famously remark "the character is African...the mouth, whose lips are thick, has a truly admirable harmony of execution and finesse of artistry. It is as if it is living flesh." Interestingly I have never seen Denon quoted by any Africancentrist scholar, even though his famous sketch has been reproduced on the very first page of "African Origin of Civilization - Myth or Realty (1974). Denon's quote comes from a book called "Napoleon in Egypt" by Paul Strathern 2008, pg 284.

You have also failed to mention that Godffrey Higgins much like Dr. Diop but over a century before was an early advocate of the African-Negro origin of Egyptian Civilization, as well as Gerald Massey who you have not mentioned at all in your refutation, and of course the famous quote by Herodotus where by he judged the Colchians on the black sea to be Egyptians because they were black with wooly hair. It was this statement by Herodotus that Volney remembered upon seeing the sphinx first hand as stated by Volney, quoted in Dr. Diops African Origin of Civilization - Myth or Reality (1974) page 27. Obenga added during the procedings of the 1974 Cairo Symposium that Herodotus had remarked that the Colchians spoke like the Egyptians and were the only people that were circumcised like the Egyptians and wove linen like the Egyptians. According to the report of the 1974 UNESCO conference page 16 the aforementioned information regarding Herodotus "was neither disputed by modern scholarship, nor invalidated by comparative critical study of the manuscripts". Lastly, Jean-Francois Champollion was also an advocate of the African-Negro origin of Egypt as referenced by his thirteenth letter to his older brother Champollion-Figeac which is quoted at lenght on pages 46-48 of Dr. Diops "African Origin of Civilization - Myth or Realty" (1974). As evidenced briefly all the men above, including Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, held very similar ideas regarding Ancient Egypt's African-Negro origin so it is far from irrelevant to associate them with Dr. Diop.

Professor Sauneron, as recorded on page 12 of the proceedings of the 1974 UNESCO conference, would clarify "that in Egyptian KM (feminine KMT)meant "black"; the masculine plural KMU (Kemou) the the feminine plural KMNT." Given the information it is correct to regard the Egyptian word KMT as meaning black.

You also mistakenly say that Dr. Diop said that ancient Egypt came from Wolof, it is infact the very opposite. He states through multiple comparisons that the Wolof were influenced greatly by Ancient Egypt, lingually, culturally and otherwise. you repeat the mistake about the Watusi coiffure again reversing the logic behind Dr. Diop's claim. Dr. Diop simply observes that one cannot form the coiffure worn by Ramses II without having kinky hair. He notes how the artist has actually made a point to carve small tight curls on Ramses II coiffure. Reference the footnote on page 19 of "African Origins of Civilization" (1974) describing the comparison of the two coiffures.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Diop: An Afrocentric or an African scholar?
I feel that the labeling of Diop as Afrocentric in the lead biases the reader against the scholar. The labeling of Diop as Afrocentric is anachronistic. The label did not exist during his day and he did his best to present the most objective research for his views, many of which are supported by modern scholarship. You do not see every White scholar with racial theories labeled as a Eurocentrist on Wikipedia. Diop was a historian whose life was dedicated to understanding the biological and cultural relationships of African societies and the accomplishments of Africans in history. The word Afrocentric is already used several times throughout the page. There is no need to define Diop as Afrocentric. His theories on the Black African identity of the Ancient Egyptians, while controversial, should be viewed within historical context. Is it Afrocentric to stress the biological and cultural Africanity of Ancient Egypt's people and civilization? Shomarka Keita, a leading biological anthropologist says not:

It is not a question of African influence; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct.


 * Both Diop's supporters and his critics would tend to label him as afrocentric... it is neither a good thing or a bad thing... it is simply the fact that many of his theory vary from mainstream views by having an afrocentric focus.


 * Of course he is also an african scholar/historian, and that should also be be included in his description, but given that he is most famous (again, in either a good or bad way depending which of his commentators you read) for his afrocentric view it needs to be included in his summary.


 * Afrocentrism is a vital part of a summary of Diop, in the same way that Byron's pages says "Lord Byron, was a British poet and a leading figure in Romanticism." rather than "Lord Byron was a writer".


 * Perhaps we could use "...was an Afrocentric anthropologist, physicist, Egyptologist, African Historian and politician who studied..."


 * On a side note, although he studied physics for many years he is not famous for that. Perhaps physics should be removed or at least moved to the end to the list of occupations.
 * Aetylus (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of Diop's supporters would consider it to be derogatory to define him as an Afrocentrist considering how hard he worked to present unbiased scholarship. Critics tend to label any person who discusses African contributions to history to be an Afrocentrist. Just because his views were controversial in his day doesn't mean that they are outside the mainstream today. Much of his research has been backed up by modern scholarship. But that's besides the point. How would it look if someone went to every Wikipedia page labeling every White scholar who ever discussed race a Eurocentrist because they disapprove of their views? I propose a compromise. We simply state that his controversial theories about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians is considered to be a major contribution to Afrocentric historiography. That at the least recognizes the relationship of his work to Afrocentrism without defining him as an Afrocentric scholar in the lead. It's similar to Ivan Van Sertima's article where it is noted that he is known for his controversial views of pre-Columbian, African continents in America. I really don't think the article should label him an Afrocentrist at all but I'm willing to make this change to acknowledge a valid relationship. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have already pointed out to you on several occasions, Diops notoriety amongst the Afrocentric Movement and the fact that he had views that are labeled as Afrocentric both by his proponents and opponents alike is pertinent to the depth and entirety of the article! Whether or not Cheikh Anta Diop's supporters see the labeling of his theories as "Afrocentric," derogatory is completely beside the point. What is of the utmost importance is historical accuracy. The article as it currently stands is grossly one-sided, and after reading through the entire page I don’t recall coming across a single instance in which Diop's Afrocentric leanings are thoroughly discussed let alone stated. You argue that the appellation of Afrocentric is “anachronistic”, when in fact this couldn’t be further from the truth. Afrocentrism is essentially an offshoot of earlier black philosophies such as Negritude, Pan-Africanism, and Garveyism. The earliest known application of the term “Afrocentric” comes from none other than W. E. B. Du Bois in his Encyclopedia Africana, published in the early 1960s. That part about Diop’s views no longer falling outside the mainstream appears to be more like you interjecting your own opinion. Name for me a single accredited Egyptological Curriculum where such tomes as “The Peopling of Ancient Egypt & the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script” or “The Cultural Unity of Black Africa: The Domains of Patriarchy and of Matriarchy in Classical Antiquity” are taught as historical facts backed up by a mountain of archeological evidence? I don’t quite get your analogy to “white scholars.” At no point did I ever describe Diop as an Afrocentrist. The opening to the article that I have proposed reads: “Cheikh Anta Diop was an Afrocentric historian, anthropologist, etc.” Afrocentric is a description of his historical perspective, not of the man himself. And the idea that Wikipedia isn’t critical whites who make pseudoscientific or pseudohistorical claims is completely false – the pages of such individuals more often than not carry a “Criticisms” section in the contents (something which interestingly enough is completely absent from this article). And finally, no, those of us who are critical of Afrocentric Historiography do not label those who emphasize African contributions as Afrocentrists (Linda Heywood for example, a brilliant Africanist, isn’t an Afrocentrist), that honor is reserved solely for those who make pseudohistorical claims that fall outside that of the mainstream. Fawal 12:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you admit that your agenda in labeling Diop an Afrocentric rather than African historian is to paint his research as pseudohistorical. While Wikipedia does include criticisms of White scholars who make controversial claims you do not see them labeled with terms meant to carry negative connotations. J. Philippe Rushton is labeled a psychology professor rather than a racialist or racist psychologist. Carleton S. Coon is labeled a physical anthropologist rather than a Eurocentric anthropologist.

Why does Diop NEED to be labeled an Afrocentric historian in the lead? He is already dubbed an Afrocentrist in the main body of the article. The support his research has by mainstream modern scholars is detailed within the article. Anthropologists, linguists and other African historians have confirmed many of his theories and recognize him as a revolutionary scholar who engineered a shift in paradigm on African historiography. Some of his claims are outdated and others controversial however I don't know of any scholars who have proven his work to be pseudoscientific or pseudohistorical and even if they were that doesn't justify the labeling of him as Afrocentric in the lead. Afrocentrism is not a movement and not a discipline. It is a viewpoint that emphasizes the importance of Black people in world history. I don't deny that it may be accurate to consider Diop's views to be Afrocentric and his research to be a major contribution to Afrocentric historiography however he shouldn't be defined by it. He never identified as an Afrocentrist and the label African historian is a far more accurate description of his discipline. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, no, I don’t have an “agenda.” And I fail to see just how it is exactly that my rather straightforward response to you would have given that impression. Have you actually read the wiki pages of the academics that you cited in a shoddy attempt to highlight some sort of a double standard? J. Philippe Rushton’s work is derided in the very first paragraph of that article as being controversial, ill researched and racist (and rightly so that it should). Furthermore, when you read that entire page the criticisms of him far outweighs any praise (practically none after a cursory scan). When you read the article on Carlton S. Coon, you are left with the impression that his work never gained favour with either his contemporaries or those in the modern day anthropological community, baring those who occupy racialist circles. By contrast, you do not have that in the current mockup of the Cheikh Anta Diop article. You continue to claim that Diop’s theories have gained mainstream acceptance; yet after I have challenged you to name for me a single accredited Egyptological Curriculum where Cheikh Anta Diop’s views are taught as fact, I have yet to receive an answer from you. Why is this? It would appear to me as though you are digging your own grave, from your very own definition of Afrocentric, it would appear to those of us who are knowledgeable of Diop’s work that the appellation is well suited. You counter that Diop should not be labelled as Afrocentrist simply due to the fact that he himself never self identified as such; I quite frankly can’t discern your reasoning. Let’s take for example the case of J. Philippe Rushton. You, and many others in the academic community, generally regard his work as racist and pseudoscientific. Does it make his work any less so just because he himself doesn’t self identify it as such? Moreover, since you seem to believe that self identification outweighs majority consensus, I will pose this additional question to you: What evidence do you have that Cheikh Anta Diop self identified himself as an Egyptologist? By your standards, he should only be labelled as one if he himself identified as one, so provide for me and all of the admins evidence that he described himself as such. Fawal 09:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawal24 (talk • contribs)
 * First of all my point stands on Rushton and Coon. They are not labeled by disparaging epithets in the lead of their articles. It only says that many regard Rushton's work as ill researched and pseudoscientific. Rushton is not called a racist or a racialist and neither is Coon. I can tell that labels are very important to you because you are the one who added the Afrocentric label to the article and have been edit warring to keep it in ever since. I simply question your logic in doing so. You speak of Diop being an important figure in the Afrocentric movement. What Afrocentric movement? Afrocentrism is a world view not a movement. It is not a scholarly discipline so it makes no sense to label someone as an Afrocentric historian in the lead of their article. I never claimed that Diop's views are taught in Egyptological curriculum. Diop was a polymath who took a Multidisciplinary approach to studying history. Many of his views have been backed up by mainstream modern scholars in various disciplines. The most notable of those views is that the Ancient Egyptians were biologically African with a variety of physical characteristics indigenous to the African continent (see the research of Shomarka Keita), that Ancient Egypt was an indigenous African civilization (Now the mainstream view in Egyptology), that Ancient Egypt had cultural and linguistic connections to its more Southernly African neighbors (see the research of Christopher Ehret) and that there has been tremendous bias in Western scholarship against the recognition of Ancient Egypt as an authentically African civilization (which has been recognized by mainstream academia including Egyptologists such as Bruce Trigger who recognizes Diop for causing a shift in paradigm in understanding Ancient Egypt as an African civilization). I am not saying that all of Diop's views are correct. Only that many of his main points are consistent with mainstream scholarship. The controversial nature of Diop's racial views is now recognized and if you want the article discuss criticisms of his views by all means do so. But defining his scholarship by disparaging epithets is inappropriate. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the matter has been resolved nicely in the lead now. Diop is defined as a historian and his influence on Afrocentric thought is acknowledged as well as the controversy surrounding his theory about the race of the Ancient Egyptians. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research in this article
I haven't scrutinized this carefully yet and won't be able to until I get in front of a decent monitor, but some of the article seems to have strayed into what is either OR or simply off-topic. The sections under the heading "Diop's thought and criticism of modern racial clustering" seem to have material in them from sources that do not discuss Diop and although they might be appropriate in an essay, not all of the material in them is appropriate here. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Dougweller, please reference my quote of Dr. Diop above in a section entitled "Low Importance of race in genetic variability - section Needs Update." In it Dr. Diop is quoted as saying that social encounters between different races occur at the physical level so it is important to consider the phenotype in such relations as opposed to the closeness of humanity on a genetic level, which though readily apparent genetically, is totally irrelevant on the phenotype level where historical social relations occur. Based on these facts I have advocated a removal of the section entirely as it is purely irrelevant. Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So be bold and remove it maybe? Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe I should, but given the rather heated nature of this entry I would prefer that it be discussed, but up until now the comments I have made previously (referenced above) have gone completely without response. It may be that bold action will be the only way to kick start a discussion. I'm hopeful that it will be a meaningful factual exchange as opposed to the tit for tat that seems so pervasive in this discussion section. Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully we will all agree that the article should be about Diop, not a general discussion of some of the subjects he wrote about. Thanks for your work. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree I have scanned the references of the article and many of them appear to quote entire books instead of the content of relevance within a book, or to not have referenced any page at all, I have cut and pasted them below to bring them to your attention. The "op. cit." sections also require the page number's used, even though the full reference is not needed, I have not cut and pasted those below but felt that they should be brought to all the editors attention as it seems not to have been done at all. Furthermore, as I have stated above, Diop's books are in fact rather sparsely quoted, and the best book on his thoughts, career and life, Great African Thinkers - Cheikh Anta Diop, is not referenced at all.

1. ^ Jackson and Rashidi, op. cit; Chris Gray, Conceptions of History in the Works of Cheikh Anta Diop and Theophile Obenga, (Karnak House:1989) 11-155

2. ^ Cheikh, Anta Diop, The Cultural Unity of Negro Africa, (Paris: Presence Africaine, 1963), English translation: The Cultural Unity of Black Africa: The Domains of Patriarchy and of Matriarchy in Classical Antiquity, (Karnak House: 1989)

3.^ Chris Gray, Conceptions of History in the Works of Cheikh Anta Diop and Theophile Obenga, (Karnak House:1989) 11-155

5. ^ Alain Froment, 1991. "Origine et evolution de l'Homme dans la Pensée de Cheikh Anta Diop: une Analyse Critique", Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines, XXXI-1-2: 29-64.

6. ^ UNESCO, "Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script; Proceedings", (Paris: 1978), pp. 3-134

7. ^ John G. Jackson and Runoko Rashidi, Introduction To African Civilizations, (Citadel: 2001), ISBN 0806521899, pp. 13-175

8. ^ Lefkowitz, M.R. (1996). Not Out of Africa: How" Afrocentrism" Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History. pp. 27-193

10. ^ Charles Bonnet and Dominique Valbelle, The Nubian Pharaohs: Black Kings on the Nile, (AUC Press: 2007), pp. 34-183

12. ^ a b Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review", 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996, The University of North Carolina Press, pp. 62-100

13. ^ Cheikh, Anta Diop, The Cultural Unity of Negro Africa, (Paris: Presence Africaine, 1963), English translation: The Cultural Unity of Black Africa: The Domains of Patriarchy and of Matriarchy in Classical Antiquity, (Karnak House: 1989), pp. 53-111

14. ^ Carleton Coon, Races of Mankind, 1962

15. ^ Philip L Stein and Bruce M Rowe, Physical Anthropology, (McGraw-Hill, 2002, pp. 54-166

16. ^ Chiek Anta Diop, Nations Negres et Culture,

24. ^ Keita and Kittles (1997): op. cit; Keita (2005): op. cit; Keita, "Further studies of crania", op. cit.; Hiernaux J (1975) The People of Africa. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons; Hassan FA (1988) The predynastic of Egypt. J. World Prehist. 2: 135-185

28. ^ Bruce Trigger, 'Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?', in Sylvia Hochfield and Elizabeth Riefstahl (eds), Africa in Antiquity: the arts of Nubia and the Sudan, Vol. 1 (New York, Brooklyn Museum, 1978).

30. ^ Frank M. Snowden, Jr., 'Bernal's "Blacks", Herodotus, and the other classical evidence', Arethusa (Vol. 22, 1989); Before Colour Prejudice: the ancient view of blacks (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1983)

35. ^ "TOWARDS THE AFRICAN RENAISSANCE: ESSAYS IN CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT, 1946-1960." Trans. Egbuna P. Modum. London: The Estate of Cheikh Anta Diop and Karnak House, 1996.

36. ^ Cheikh, Anta Diop, The Cultural Unity of Negro Africa, (Presence Africaine, Paris 1963), English translation: The Cultural Unity of Black Africa: The Domains of Patriarchy and of Matriarchy in Classical Antiquity, (Karnak House: 1989)

37. ^ Philip L Stein and Bruce M Rowe, Physical Anthropology, (McGraw-Hill, 2002, pp. 54-326

39. ^ Joseph H. Greenberg, The Languages of Africa. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966)

40. ^ Russell G. Schuh, "The Use and Misuse of language in the study of African history" (1997), in: Ufahamu 25(1):36-81

41. ^ Diop, C. A. 1977. Parenté génétique de l’egyptien pharaonique et des langues négro-africaines. Dakar: Les Nouvelles Éditions Africaines)

42. ^ Ivan van Sertima, Egypt Revisited, Transaction Publishers: 1989, ISBN 0887387993

43. ^ See for example http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/schuh/Papers/A64_1997_language_and_history.pdf + Russell G. Schuh, "The use and misuse of language in the study of + African history" (1997), in: Ufahamu 25(1):36-81 (in PDF, 152 kB).

46. ^ Russell G. Schuh, "The Use and Misuse of language in the study of African history" (1997), in: Ufahamu 25(1):36-81

56. ^ Diop, op. cit. Evolution of the Negro world' in Presence Africaine (1964)

57. ^ Keita and Kittles, op. cit. The Persistence of Racial Thinking,

61. ^ Michael J. Bamshad and Steve E. Olson, "Does Race Exist?" Scientific American: November 2003

63. ^ Lefkowitz, Mary "Not Out of Africa" Basic Books, 1997

64. ^ Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review", 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996, The University of North Carolina Press, p. 62-100

65. ^ Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books (July 1, 1989), pp. 37-279

66. ^ Keita, "Further studies of crania", op. cit.; Hiernaux J (1975) The People of Africa. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons; Hassan FA (1988) The predynastic of Egypt. J. World Prehist. 2: 135-185

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

African versus Afro - Centric
"Afro" is a hair style not a geographical or historic reference, one could translate it gratuitously as "hair style centric". Imagine if you will how ridiculous it would be to translate Eurocentric into "long strait hair centric". Hence "African-centric" or the shortened version "Africentric" is the preferred terminology when referring to individuals who study things from the African perspective, not Afrocentric.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems with French WP Diop article translation
It is certainly true that the French WP Diop entry is better than the English one. But there are problems with it that should be corrected. The recent section translated under the "VIEWS" heading is the first example. Herodotus did not mention features such as lips, he only mentioned black skin and kinky hair. In the above section about Diop being or not being an Egyptologist I made the following references concerning Herodotus "the famous quote by Herodotus where by he judged the Colchians on the black sea to be Egyptians because they had black with wooly hair" was remembered by Volney "upon seeing the sphinx first hand...quoted in Dr. Diops African Origin of Civilization - Myth or Reality (1974) page 27. Obenga added during the procedings of the 1974 Cairo Symposium that Herodotus had remarked that the Colchians spoke like the Egyptians and were the only people that were circumcised like the Egyptians and wove linen like the Egyptians. According to the report of the 1974 UNESCO conference page 16 the aforementioned information regarding Herodotus "was neither disputed by modern scholarship, nor invalidated by comparative critical study of the manuscripts"

Though the reference shows that Herodotus is misquoted in the French WP article, it is important to note that what should be written is that the testimony of many ancient authors, who were often contemporaries of the ancient Egyptians, confirms that they were Black Africans. This evidence is but one facet used by Diop to prove that ancient Egyptians were Blacks.

Any individual who is not familiar with the works of Diop cannot possibly conceive that lengths to which he went to verify and re-enforce facts. Nor can one imagine the extreme variety of fields that he covered in his research. It will be very difficult, if not impossible to write a precise "short" WP entry of Diop without leaving gigantic tracts of his work completely unmentioned.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A short article will never do justice to the work of a prolific thinker like Diop. We're going to have to improve the sourcing as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, but we must at least give it the semblance of justice by quoting sources accurately. To do otherwise will only foment the controversy which has up to now ruined this entry. I have greatly appreciated your editing of some of my additions as I'm just to wordy sometimes. It seems that this entry is finally moving in the right direction, and turning into something reasonably concise.

You will find were African historians are concerned, that the label of Afrocentric is seen by many as sufficient to completely discredit any work. It carries with it a connotation that the individual is emotionally and racially motivated and that the said individual's research is not worthy of a factual analysis or proper scholarly response. Thus, a multitude of scholars who have either been unwilling or unable to challenge Diop's works factually have simply ignored it resulting in a distinct lack of accurate evaluation of his work from other sources. Those scholars that have taken up the challenge to improve and refine Diop's work are again written off, ignored and disregarded under the seemingly criminal label of "Afrocentric" This was why I had quoted Diop when he said that "when they [foreign scholars] explain their own historical past or study their languages, that seems normal. Yet when an African does likewise...that is considered backward and alarming." Though I may have misplaced the quote within the entry, its importance cannot be overstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.90.70 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We all have to proceed with caution here, because Wikipedia isn't the place to right wrongs. I'm getting the impression that many historians would like to see Diop's work re-evaluated properly; it's not our job to do that and we may have to be patient. I can't currently access the Chris Gray chapter but it sounds like it's a particularly useful source. Is there one recent full-length biography that we can agree is reliable? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2010(UTC)

Check the section I wrote above "To few of Dr. Diop's books referenced" where I suggest the book "Great African Thinkers - Cheikh Anta Diop" as a biographical reference to use in the article. I would caution against using Chris Gray's book. Manu Ampim in his book "Egypt As A Black Civilization: The Counter School" (1992) deals extensively with the Bernal-Davison School, of which Gray is a graduate. They espouse several antiquated ideas about the race of the ancient Egyptians, while capitalizing on avenues of research that black authors have previously engaged in, but not received credit for. Gray, in particular, had become essentially the accepted mainstream expert on Diop and Obenga while undermining "the work of of Cheikh Anta Diop and other Black scholars working in the field of Classical African Studies." Gray even goes so far as comparing Diop's works to 19th century German white supremacist literature, essentially labeling it as an African version of the latter.

Ampim, Manu "The Problem of the Bernal-Davidson School" Egypt - Child of Africa Ed. Ivan Van Sertima. 2nd ed. New Brunswick/London: Transaction Books. 1995. pp. 191-204

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A few inaccuracies
"Diop had since his early days in Paris been politically active in the Rassemblement Democratique Africaine (RDA), an African nationalist organisation led by Félix Houphouët-Boigny. He was general secretary of the RDA students in Paris from 1950 to 1953"

Not true. See Dieng, 2003. Diop was the Secretary General of l'Association des Etudiants du RDA from 1951-1953. Dieng reconstructed this based on the archives of the group, which he was able to find at former dorm for African students (there are also documents in the National Archives in Senegal that would seem to clear up the date, though these sources are not always reliable). The group was headed by N'Ki Traore from 1949 to 1951. Also, given the students' positions about the RDA, you might need more evidence about the exact connection between the group itself and the RDA proper--despite Diop's comments about the issue. There's a spelling error on the next sentence.

You should check out Cheikh M'Backe Diop (2003), Pathe Diagne (1997?) and Mama Yatassaye Ndiade (2003) for more information on Diop himself. Also, Obenga wrote a book on him (1996).

Also: Diop was also "the only Black African of his generation to have received training as an Egyptologist."

Not quite. We don't have Diop's transcripts, but his degree was in Sociology (unfortunately, not even history--Obenga, personal communication). It's repeated a lot that he had his degree in Egyptology, etc., but you have to nuance this statement. After being refused a committee, he was told that he'd have to write about something other than Egypt (Obenga, personal communication). Thus, his final dissertation. Choice.

quince3800@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.230.141 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

 * In 1951, Diop submitted a PhD thesis at the University of Paris where he argued that ancient Egypt had in fact been a black African culture. The thesis was rejected, but it was published in 1955 as a book titled Nations nègres et culture ('Negro nations and culture'), proving very successful and making him one of the most controversial historians of his time. He made three further attempts to gain his doctorate, finally succeeding in 1960.

The above text is from the article. Doesn't the fact that he succeeded in gaining his doctorate in 1960 mean that the PhD committee at the University of Paris ultimately accepted his thesis that ancient egypt was a Black African culture? Pihanki 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. When the University accepts the thesis, it recognizes that the author has provided good arguments to his findings, that his ideas deserve to be discussed, but it does not mean that the University agrees with all these ideas. Besides the jury gave him the doctorate with "mention honorable" only (most students receive at least "mention très honorable"). Thbz 20:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...interesting...so can you tell me what it means when a university awards a Ph.D and most students receive at least a "mention très honorable" but a gentleman who writes a thesis that is about the Black African identity of ancient Egypt, a thesis which contained ideas that 'deserve to be discussed,' as you said, he receives a "mention honorable?" My point to all this is suggesting that the passage needs to be re-written.Pihanki 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Pihanki 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The student receives a Ph.D with "mention honorable", "mention très honorable" or "mention honorable avec félicitations" (honorable, very honorable, very honorable with congratulations) (cf. Doctorat). The jury was probably not convinced by Diop's ideas and methods. A doctorate with "mention honorable" has a very little value, and a student cannot become a professor in a French university with such a doctorate (maybe the jury gave him that mention because they did not want Diop to be a professor). The Bogdanoff brothers, who made television shows about science, recently obtained a doctorate with "mention honorable": everybody laughed. Why do you think that the passage need to be re-written? Can you make a proposal? Thbz 07:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm glad you asked. It just seemed to me like the passage was written in such a way as to separate his thesis that Egypt was a Black civilization, from his actually having obtained a Ph.D. Although POV criticisms of scholars or universities have no place in the article, this talk page is the forum in which to express how ridiculous the idea that scholars at the University of Paris could systematically ignore, destroy and obfuscate evidence of the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians if it didn’t match their worldview for years, but their perspectives can still be considered to be high quality scholarship. I wanted to approach this on the talk page before just making an edit, to see if we could get to some sort of consensus. Why don’t we change it to:

“In 1951, Diop submitted a PhD thesis at the University of Paris where he argued that ancient Egypt had in fact been a black African culture. The thesis was rejected, but over the next nine years, Diop reworked the thesis, adding stronger evidentiary support, and in 1960, he succeeded in the defense of his thesis and was awarded the Ph.D. degree. Five years earlier, the thesis was published in the popular press as a book titled Nations nègres et culture ('Negro nations and culture'), proving very successful and making him one of the most controversial historians of his time.”

I’m open to suggestions or improvements, but I’ve read enough Diop to understand that an accurate page about him must include the idea of the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians being the thesis which was accepted when he obtained his Ph.D. At the time, the acceptance of such a thesis was quite revolutionary.Pihanki 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's already obvious in the article that he received a PhD for a thesis that Egypt was a Black civilization, but your proposal may be even clearer, so I have nothing against it. Thbz 07:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Check Diop's son's book (2003) on him (named Cheikh M'Backe Diop). Ch.A. Diop submitted his PhD proposal and was not able to gather a committee. So, he never defended. Hence, it was rejected before he ever got the opportunity to defend his work. This was taken up by Alioune Diop then in 1954 (not 1955) as Nations Negres et Culture (Diop, 2003: 31-38). He was told (Obenga, personal communication) that if he wanted to get a PhD, he would have to write about something other than Egypt. Hence, he wrote Pre-Colonial Black Africa (primary) and the Cultural Unity of Black Africa (secondary thesis; Diop, 2003: 31-38). These two works are the ones that he received his PhD for in sociology (Obenga, personal communication). He did not receive a PhD in Egyptology (Obenga, p.c.). Van Sertima (Great African Thinkers tape) got this wrong in his speech. The PhD (Bara Diouf, 1960) was for the latter two theses, not a re-submitting of his thesis on Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.91.55 (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy - Diop as 'pseudo-history'
Hello,

[My first language is French, so... sorry] I think there is a big problem of accuracy (neutrality ?) in this article. After reading it, it looks like Cheikh Anta Diop was right about nearly everything he wrote, and that he is today known as a great historian. It may be so in some African universities and for some people of African-American descent in the USA, but according to nearly all the scientific community, Diop's work is considered as pseudo-history, only interesting from an historiographical point of view. There is some good references in the article of the French Wikipedia, which my be used to temper the tone of this article. From Congo, --41.207.120.66 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This was my impression too but without solid citations, which I can't be bothered to track down right now, there is no point attempting to edit the article because someone will come along and delete the edit. My impression is that Diop is still beyond the mainstream and is not taught in Egyptology classes, perhaps "pseudo-history" is a little harsh but I just don't know!99.240.139.189 (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Clarification:

Diop's work was not pseudo-history. He was reasonably up-to-date FOR HIS TIME. People try to write him off based on the state of research NOW, which is disingenuous. That's political. The reason he's attacked as such was because people did not like what he was saying (i.e., that racism was behind the denial of African achievement during the colonial epic). The archaeology that would prove or disprove his point was not undertaken until after the Cairo conference (referring to the work that is being undertaken in Upper Nubia and Central Sudan since the mid-1970s). He's no-longer a valid source on those matters, however, it's important that Diop in an interview with Harun Wangara before the Cairo conference makes it clear that he got angry when people accepted his ideas without developing a means of verifying them. His vision was to open up research ideas. He was wrong about a lot (particularly early-on in linguistics). However, his work stands as anything else written in 1954: it's good for that time. That said, his work (see Usai's 2005 and 2007 articles in the Journal of African Archaeology and the article in Nubian Studies 1998 on ceramic decoration motifs in the Sahara: “No Link between the Central Sahara and the Nile Valley?  (Dotted) Wavy Line Ceramics in the Wadi Howar, Sudan.”) was up-to-date until the mid-1990s. Not in terms of detail or methodology, but in terms of his conclusion. Also, his idea of Egypt arising from an African cultural sphere is strongly being borne out by the evidence right now (Wengrow (2001) in Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Maria Carmela Gatto (2002) in Acta Nubica and Bruce Williams (2000) in Cahiers Caribéens d'Egyptologie). I think you can get beyond the polemic here that's arising by pointing out Diop's vision, which (Great African Thinkers (Nile Valley Executive Committee interview) and his conference in Niamey in 1984--see the end when he's talking to students) is for people to push beyond what he was doing and form teams that would create new research (Obenga and Hamady Bocoum, p.c.). Hence, he WANTED to be critiqued (Obenga, p.c.). The issue is that the critique has to be well-meaning and productive (i.e., recognize the problem and push forward). Critiques of Diop point fingers usually because they are set in an ideological battle. That's not necessary. We can present new evidence and still give Diop his due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.91.55 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop
Your biography about "Cheikh Anta Diop" does not display the proper title for the subject in question. "Dr Diop" received his doctorate degree from the "University of Paris" in 1960. Therefore the subject heading should read: "Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop."

Sincerely,

Justice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.49.252 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 June 2011


 * This follows our Manual of Style for biographies. Section WP:CREDENTIAL says "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above." Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * as Dougweller said, but to confirm his opinion, in general honorifics and professional titles are never used unless they are a notable part of the person's appelation (like colonel sanders, for instance). HominidMachinae (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, per Dougweller. Khazar (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Life and Career and Studies in History - Diop's Educational History
The article cites S. Ademola Ajayi, in Kevin Shillington (ed.), Encyclopedia of African History but I cannot see any references to Diop's education before he arrived in Paris. The article badly distorts Diop's educational history. Two very full summaries of his educational history (in French) are at: and. The former is of course from Diop's own foundation. To correct the errors in the current article:-

1. "He obtained a bachelor's degree in Senegal before moving to Paris for graduate studies...". He could not have obtained any degree in Senegal before its university was founded in 1957, and bachelor's degree is a mistranslation of baccalauréat( or strictly brevet de capacité colonial correspondant au baccalauréat, as it was not awarded in France) in mathematics and philosophy: this is the entrance qualification for French Universities, not a degree, so he moved to Paris as an undergraduate.

2. "In 1946, at the age of 23, Diop went to Paris to become a physicist." The dates are right, but he actually first enrolled in Higher Mathematics (according to the cheikhantadiop.net website, with the intention of becoming an aeronautical engineer) then changed to Philosophy. His first degree, or licence, in Philosophy was awarded in 1948 and in the same year he enrolled in the Science faculty, being awarded diplomas in general chemistry and applied chemistry in 1950.

3. "He remained there for 15 years, studying physics under Frédéric Joliot-Curie", According to the cheikhantadiop.net website, he first met Joliot-Curie in 1953, and in 1957 began specializing in nuclear physics at the Laboratory of Nuclear Chemistry of the College de France conducted by Frederic Joliot-Curie and the Institut Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris. Joliot-Curie died in 1958, so Diop's actual period of study under Joliot-Curie was a year or two, rather than the 15 years implied.

4. "In 1951, Diop submitted a Ph.D. thesis at the University of Paris in which he argued that ancient Egypt had been peopled by Black people. His supervisor was Marcel Griaule." In 1949, Diop registered a proposed thesis for Doctor of Letters, which would treat "The Cultural Future of African thought" under the direction of Professor Gaston Bachelard. In 1951 he registered his secondary thesis title "Who were the predynastic Egyptians" under the direction of Professor Marcel Griaule. These were two parts of the same project, a general and a particular subject, to be examined for Doctor of Letters

5. "At first he could not find a jury of examiners for his thesis, but in 1954, he published many of his ideas as the book Nations nègres et culture..." It was in 1954 that Diop failed to find a jury for his secondary thesis.

6. "While continuing to study nuclear physics in the laboratories of the Collège de France, he continued to work on his thesis. He finally obtained his doctorate in 1960." In 1956 he re-registered a new proposed thesis for Doctor of Letters with the new state with main subject "The areas of matriarchy and patriarchy in ancient times." Also from 1956, he taught physics and chemistry in two Paris lycees as an assistant master, before moving to the College de France. In 1957 he registered his new secondary thesis title "Comparative study of political and social systems of Europe and Africa, from Antiquity to the formation of modern states." These two new topics did not relate to ancient Egypt, but were concerned with the forms of organisation of African and European societies and how they evolved, so it would be incorrect to say he continued work on his original thesis.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article is consistently occupied with defending Diop's claims against critics, and the article puts forward evidence in support of his claims in much greater detail than it puts forward evidence that contradicts his claims. The subsection titled "Physical variability of the African people" under the section "Assessment of Diop's Thought" is one example of this: Diop's theory on variability is also supported by a number of scholars mapping human genes using modern DNA analysis. This has shown that most of human genetic variation (some 85–90%) occurs within localized population groups, and that race only can account for 6–10% of the variation. Arbitrarily classifying Masai, Ethiopians, Shillouk, Nubians, etc., as Caucasian is thus problematic, since all these peoples are northeast African populations and show normal variation well within the 85–90% specified by DNA analysis.[26] Modern physical anthropologists also question splitting of peoples into racial zones. They hold that such splitting is arbitrary insertion of data into pre-determined pigeonholes and the selective grouping of samples.[27] Diop's objections to how data on African peoples was being manipulated has thus been supported by the work of several modern scholars, using modern DNA analysis.[citation needed][neutrality disputed]

Although there are a couple of citations which I assume are legitimate, there is an argument being constructed in favor of Diop's views by the author of the section.

The last sentence is a claim which is not cited -- it is simply being made by the author of the section. (In addition, the argument which appears to be being made -- this is a fuzzy argument -- is that since the degree of variation WITHIN given populations is so large, the differences found between populations must rise above the 85-90% "variation...specified by DNA analysis", which the author purports has not been done by researchers who are rebutting Diop's claims.)

Put simply, this is not good encyclopedia writing. It is certainly not neutral, and it is not cited.

If you can find an author who makes the claim made in the bold sentence, you should cite him AND make sure that you refrain from granting the defense of Diop absolute authority -- i.e., the claim that his objections have been supported should be chalked up to those researchers who have stated that is the case, not presented as fact. This is clearly a contested matter on which there is substantial disagreement, and, in fact, Diop is in the minority of researchers (at least inasmuch as this applies to the Egyptians), and thus his claims and the claims of those who support him cannot be stated as absolutes, but merely as a viewpoint. Additionally, since his ideas about race in Africa, at least inasmuch as they are connected with his claims about the Egyptians, are in the minority, sufficient space must be given for the objections to be expounded upon.

This section is just one example of the problem that affects the majority of the article. Although it is likely Diop's supporters who are working on this article, you must temper your enthusiasm and avoid "original research", which includes synthesizing citations into arguments of your own creation (or, at the least, unoriginal but also uncited arguments). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.174.68.114 (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As far is known, Diop never presented his work in journals where an independent editorial committee read them before publication, and his work never appeared in specialised journals that practice the system of peer review. He declined to seek the approval of other scholars, although it is the normal procedure in academic debate. Unorthodox theories can be accepted for discussion if they are solidly based and argued, and no element of African research should become marginalised by not accepting these normal rules. However, as Diop chose not to enter into discussion, it is not surprising his views are so polarising.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Amaaaaaaazing.....

 * To whoever fixed up on the "Assessment of Diop's Thought" section, I would like to thank you for your hard and well-researched work. Why? Not only did you save me a shit load of work, you finally set the record straight (on wikipedia at least) that Diop's major theories and thesises have been PROVEN by the mainstream, and that he wasn't the racist marx worshipping crackpot that he was (and still is to some degree) demonized to be. Maybe wikipedia is filled with other people besides trolls and 40 year old pedophile losers. heh- heh just kidding. But to whom this is directed, get back to me. peace. Teth22 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How proven (with or without capitals)? What mainstream? Diop never presented his work in independent academic journals that practice the system of peer review. He declined to seek the approval of other scholars, although it is the normal procedure in academic debate. Unless someone is prepared to accept discussion, and argue against criticism, of their theories, they can hardly expect them to be generally accepted.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Diop does not need to be vindicated by western scholars
"Scholars such as Bruce Trigger condemned the often shaky scholarship on such northeast African peoples as the Egyptians. He declared that the peoples of the region were all Africans, and decried the "bizarre and dangerous myths" of previously biased scholarship, "marred by a confusion of race, language, and culture and by an accompanying racism."[28] Trigger's conclusions were supported by Egyptologist Frank Yurco, who viewed the Egyptians, Nubians, Ethiopians, Somalians, etc. as one localized Nile valley population. He did not believe that such a population needed to be arbitrarily split into tribal or racial clusters.[29]" why is the above even needed? His books speak for themselves. vap (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Diop does need to be, if not vindicated, at least accepted by scholars in general, whether Western, Eastern, Northern or Southern. The alternative is to set up ghettoised schools of history, ethnography or whatever that satisfy their minority group, but are generally disregarded. As Henrik Ibsen said in his play Peer Gynt, the difference between humans and trolls is among men the saying goes: “Man, to thyself be true!” Among the trolls, the saying goes: “Troll, to thyself be — enough!”.Saying Diop does not need to be vindicated by Western scholars is saying that he is good enough for you, regardless. Shscoulsdon (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall the article is fair and criticizes Diop in several places
maybe like you say the article biases the reader against Diop by using the term 'Afrocentric' not than a more neutral term, but he has been identified with the label a long time in the media. But if you say 'was an afrocentric anthropologist' is that too not continuing the bias? The present wording in the lead: 'an African historian, anthropologist, physicist, Egyptologist and politician' I think is best, and agrees with the point you make about less bias. It is true also that Diop he is criticized in many places. Fromen is cited as challenging the melanin and burn victim claim. Scholar Keita is cited as challenging race claims regarding Australian, New Guinea people. Diop's southern vs northern cradle also criticized. And many scholars who question the notion of race are also cited in criticism of exclusive race claims. So Diop has much criticism in this article, with valid citations. Some of his theories are supported by later scholars. These are established scholars cited like Armelagos, Keita, Lovell, Templeton and Yurco, but the challenges and criticisms they make are included as well. Diop does not get an easy ride at all. Overall, there seem to be balance that should be maintain. removal of any of these valid reference should be reversed. EssequiboEarl (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article is fair and balanced overall. Defining him as Afrocentric in the lead is unnecessary. The reader is familiarized with his views that have been dubbed Afrocentric very early in the page. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear if you are responding only to the Talk items "Diop: An Afrocentric or an African scholar", or to "Neutrality" also. The point that the Talk item "Neutrality" was not that criticism of Diop was not included, but that the article defends Diop's claims against critics (rather than examining them objectively) and gives more detail in support of his claims than for evidence that might contradict them. I think there is some truth in both parts of that item. However, I think that the way forward is to look at and edit individual sections to enhance their neutrality.Shscoulsdon (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Languages demonstrating African cultural unity - Misleading
The final paragraph states that Dr. Diop "missed" the links between Ancient Egyptian and east African or cushitic languages. It is not so much that he missed them but rather that he was a native speaker of Wolof and thus was better suited to evaluating the local languages of Senegal of which he was a native speaker and had native familiarity with. He would have been out of his element and expertise to make claims about languages he was not a native speaker of or as intimately familiar with. The tremendous amount of African languages precludes one individual attempting to deal with them all. The article could do to mention the links that Theophile Obenga has made between Egyptian languages and the native languages of the Congo, a region to which Obenga is native, yet it does not. Ironically, the article in its thinly veiled attempt to refute Diop on the matter of links with east African languages actually re-enforces Diop's arguments that ancient Egypt was the classical culture of all of Africa, just as Greece was the classical culture of all of Europe. The links between Ancient Egyptian and east African languages only goes to show the breadth of Ancient Egyptian influence on the entire African continent north to south and east to west.

The passage being dealt with does not contribute in any manner to the validity of Dr. Diop's linguistic research, and if anything further supports his work. The misleading wording used is a roundabout way of trying to discredit the credibility of Dr. Diop's linguistic work and should be removed or reworded.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A comparison of Wolof and Dinka-Nuer is made in "Civilization or Barbarism" on pages 119-21 so it is incorrect to say that Dr. Diop did not reference east African languages as the Dinka-Nuer live in the Sudan. He continues the argument on page 181-2 were he compares the continuing practice among the Shilluk and Nuer of ritualistically killing the king as practiced in ancient Egypt in the festival of Sed. Dr. Diop re-enforces the Egyptian connection by observing that "the Nuer, in fact present a great many traits in common with the Wolof of Senegal. In fact, their true name is not Nuer, but Naas or Nahas, which is the term by which the Egyptians designated the Nubians and other Blacks of Africa." These facts among the others cited in the former entry should suffice to warrant a significant modification of the entry.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This section needs revising for several reasons, most generally because Diop himself said that Africa has a cultural and linguistic unity which is explained by its Egyptian heritage and the Ankh website http://www.ankhonline.com/ puts language as the most important evidence for such a unity, ahead of architecture, technology, handicrafts and art. The current section does not reflect the importance of language, possibly second only to arguments based on physical anthropology.

More specifically, it has the following faults:

1. The first paragraph does not correctly reflect the state of scholarship when Diop published "Parenté génétique de l’egyptien pharaonique et des langues négro-africaines" in 1977. Meinhof was long dead and already discredited by then. It may also conveys the impression that Greenberg and Schur support Diop's views, and that the former's work was in reaction to what Diop said, rather than starting almost 30 years before "Parenté génétique de l’egyptien pharaonique" was published. I am also unhappy about the labels "white civilizer-flavored linguistic theories" and "More careful race-neutral scholarship". Meinhof was a competent linguist, whose linguistic work is still recognised. That work was no less careful than that of Greenberg or Schur, and any race-neutrality is elusive. It was the crackpot racial theories Meinhof developed which are offensive.

2. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the section does not recognise that Diop and his collaborators and followers (Alphonsobaptiste correctly names Theophile Obenga, and there are others) entirely reject Greenberg's classification of African languages in favour of one treating all African languages except Greenberg’s Khoisan family and Berber as a single unit called négro-africain, and rejecting his Afroasiatic language family on the basis that the Asian Semitic and African Berber languages have less in common with Ancient Egyptian than any of the négro-africain languages. The basis for these claims is highly contested. As these are linguistic arguments, the reference to Ivan van Sertima (not a linguist) adds nothing.

3. The section originally suggested that, although the Wolof connection has been rejected, Diop's arguments were partially proved because Ancient Egyptian has been connected with the Chadic languages of west and central Africa, the Cushitic languages of northeast Africa. However, that connection was hardly in doubt and Diop wanted to prove a connection between all négro-africain languages and not only to the Afroasiatic family, which he argues does not exist.

Finally, Russell Schur makes a very valid point on the whole issue. If the human species originated in Africa and human language first originated with that species, all human language has an African origin. All languages are therefore related, so the Ancient Egyptian language and the négro-africain languages such as Wolof are related, although their common origin may be very remote. This does not mean that the négro-africain languages are more closely related to Ancient Egyptian than are languages that cannot be classed as black and/or African, nor that it cannot be said that some languages spoken in Africa are more closely related to some, and less closely related to some other, African languages. What Diop and his collaborators are attempting is to eliminate from Greenberg's Afroasiatic language family what appear to many linguists to be two subfamilies closely related to Ancient Egyptian (Berber as most of its speakers are not black and Semitic as its origin is not African) to create an artificially inclusive and exclusive négro-africain group. I have tried some editing but feel something more radical is needed. Shscoulsdon (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the Schur paper is a good source for us. To start with, we could really do with summarising what Diop himself said about the question. Then Schur represents one, probably the, scholarly response. Feel free to shorten the section. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith! Thanks for the comment. In reply: Diop is often not very specific about definitions and writes in the French style, which can be discursive (I hope that doesn’t sound too Anglo-Saxon) so it is necessary to go to the work of his collaborators such as Théophile Obenga for clarification of his ideas (although as Diop has endorsed Obenga's work, this is a reasonable step). Two of Diop’s main themes are the political importance of demonstrating the cultural and linguistic unity of Africa and the rooting of this unity in the Egyptian past. Diop took a wholly new approach in attempting to prove the unity of indigenous African languages, ignoring or rejecting previous scholarship, to produce the concept of a single family of langues négro-africaines including Ancient Egyptian. It is not clear if Diop originally meant langues négro-africaines to include all sub-Saharan languages or only those classed as “negro” as opposed to “bantu” and “nilo-hamitic” in classifications used before Greenberg, but Obenga treated all African languages except Khoisan and Berber as négro-africain. This is based on quite a small sample: as far as I can see, only Diop and four collaborators in total have produced linguistic analyses comparing Ancient Egyptian and modern African languages, and they examined less than ten such languages in detail. A large number of other writers, mainly supportive of Diop and his school, have cited these studies, but have not themselves undertaken linguistic research. In particular, Diop’s school reject the reality of the Afroasiatic language family as a coherent group, as it makes Ancient Egyptian less négro-africain. Schur is, I think, the only writer in English to have examined Diop’s hypothesis in detail, but another language specialist, Henry Tourneax, has done so in French in “L'argument linguistique chez Cheikh Anta Diop et ses disciples”, pp.79-104 in Fauvelle-Aymar, François-Xavier, Chrétien, Jean-Pierre and, Perrot Claude-Hélène (editors) Afrocentrismes: L'histoire des Africains entre Egypte et Amérique (2010), which also deals with the work of Obenga and others. In view of the importance of language to Diop's thought, I doubt the section could be shortened!

Shscoulsdon (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Influence of Egypt - Incomplete, Misleading and Includes too many biased references
The section on the Influence of Egypt is also misleading, Dr. Diop deals extensively with Greek history in nearly all his works. The amount of time he spends on Greece in Civilization or Barbarism, his magnum opus is tremendous, and overwhelming for anyone not intimately familiar with Greek history. It is not correct to down play his work dealing with Greece as this section does or the fact that Dr. Diop solidly established that Greek culture was fundamentally influenced by Egypt. Secondly, the section is rather sparing in that it does not speak of Egyptian influence in the near east or in India, not to mention its influence on west Africa, all of which Dr. Diop studied in his works. No portion even mentions the evidence concerning African cultural connections that Dr. Diop covered in his first book Nation Negres et Cultures, not to mention his subsequent material. For example the presence on latinized forms of Egyptian gods among the Yoruba of Nigeria was used by Dr. Diop to prove that the Yoruba still lived in Egypt at the time of the Roman occupation - African Origins of Civilization, First Edition 1974 pg. 186 - Thirdly, the article references several time Marry Lefkowitz's "Not Out of Africa" yet fails to mention even once the counter to the book "Still Out of Africa" by Dr. Charles Finch III. Lefkowitz is an admitted racist and her work should not be included. The book by Dr. Tony Martin "The Jewish Onslaught: Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront" (1993) highlights some of Marry Lefkowitz blatant and heavily un-scholarly activities and outright lies perpetuated against black scholars in general and Dr. Martin in particular. Given these facts, her work regarding Black scholarship does not in any manner contribute to the balance of the article and should be removed.

Alphonsobaptiste (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Before Diop, the general view, following Charles Seligman (Egypt and Negro Africa: A Study in Divine Kingship (1934) pp.9-10) on the influence of Egypt on Black Africa was that elements of Egyptian religious thought, customs and technology along four trade routes: up the White Nile; along the North African coast past Tunis to West Africa; up the Blue Nile and along the foothills of Abyssinia to the Great Lakes and through Darfur and Wadai along the southern edge of the Sahara. Seligman's views on direct diffusion from Egypt are not generally supported to-day, (see Oliver ans Fagan "Africa in the Iron Age: c.500 BC-1400 AD" (1975) p. 41) but were current when Diop started to write and may explain his wish to show that Egyptian and Black Africa culture had a common source, rather than that Egyptian influence was one way.

Shscoulsdon (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Tone of page, sources

 * The UNESCO 1974 section reeks of bias and has very little content. Can someone with knowledge of this please either rewrite it or remove it? Rjhatl 00:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done (much shorter version as part of the biography). Thbz 23:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Shscoulsdon (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On 27 December 2012‎, 74.198.164.176 (typically anonymous)‎ tampered with part of the section “Research in Senegal ” ‎ about the UNESCO Symposium in 1974 (1) changing the expression Diop "participated" to Diop "organized" the symposium, and (2) adding the words "triumphantly"+ "colleagues" to the expression "presented  his theories to Egyptologists.  This breaches one of the cardinal rules in that, where a passage is supported by an in-line citation, its meaning should not be perverted by additions contrary to the citation. I have added a link to the “Procedings” of the symposium, which shows that Diop did not organise it and that any talk of his "triumph(antly)" is unjustified. Diop’s comments at pages 97 and 98 of the Procedings (that ancient Egyptians were black was a fact, and that no further research on this was needed) is noteworthy. I can think of no area of knowledge where further research is unnecessary.

Pseudoscience?
Cheikh Anta Diop was actually a pseudohistorian and a pseudoscientist.--95.114.119.158 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Owen 'Alik Shahadah
A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cheikh Anta Diop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927100739/http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/LenJeffries/OurSacredMission.html to http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/LenJeffries/OurSacredMission.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cheikh Anta Diop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185254/http://www.webzinemaker.com/admi/m7/page.php3?num_web=27310&rubr=3&id=290477 to http://www.webzinemaker.com/admi/m7/page.php3?num_web=27310&rubr=3&id=290477
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927112328/http://www.africannewsworld.com/2009/07/contemptuousness-of-sub-saharan-africa.html to http://www.africannewsworld.com/2009/07/contemptuousness-of-sub-saharan-africa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111093844/http://www.rufisquenews.com/cheikh_anta_diop.html to http://www.rufisquenews.com/cheikh_anta_diop.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheikh Anta Diop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910170133/http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/reader/apportionment.pdf to http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/reader/apportionment.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.asante.net/diop/call.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Many Problems
The work of Arthur Jensen should not be highlighted on this page. He is in no way an authority on race as an anthropological or genetically based concept. He specializes in educational psychology and psychometrics in the United States, and has contributed “nothing” to Genetics, Anthropology or Archeology.

Further, there is no evidence that Sub-Saharan Africans were unable to migrate outside of that region. Both Mali and Niger find themselves in the Sahara region, while the majority of their populations are visibly Africoid (some of the darkest people on earth). Migration up from Sub-Saharan Africa has occured since the first men left the continent. There has also been long established trade between Africans from all parts of the Continent dating back to prehistory.

Sickle-cell anemia, so often thought of as an African disease, while it reaches high frequencies in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, it did not originate there. Its distribution includes southern Italy, the eastern Mediterranean, parts of the Middle East, and over into India. It would appear that the gene that controls that trait was introduced to sub-Saharan Africa by traders from those parts of the Middle East where it had arisen in conjunction with the conditions created by the early development of agriculture.

The term “Negroid” and “Caucasoid” are also misleading and have been formally discarded by Anthropology. Indeed, the term Caucasoid attempts to group geographically, cultural, ethnically, and historically divergent groups into one board homogeneous one. For example, Semites and Indo-Europeans share virtually no relationship with one another either historically or in ethnic terms. Indeed, the one trait shared by these groups is simply a nose that is neither Negro nor Mongoloid.


 * To the editor who has twice deleted this above comment: You appear to be starting an WP:Edit War. Please follow WP:BRD and discuss your reasons for deletion of this comment on this page. I have no views on the content of the comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC).

Copied Physical variability paragraphs
EditorfromMars (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)EditorfromMars (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
Of course, it is necessary to put a link of opponents to Diop. However, the previous link is deceitful since only 1/5 of its content is related to Diop! The major part of the link criticises (legitimately) the stupid, irrelevant and counterproductive exaggerations of advocators of Black Athena. Anyway, the link is irrelevant since it was not the core of the work of Diop. Please, find a new link less polemic and only about the work of Anta Diop not one that is mixing everything. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kemkem (talk • contribs).

Error of a newbie sorry for it. Anyway, facts have not changed and I really don't think that the last link is relevant. We definitely need a link of an opponent but not one with only two sentences against Diop (and about the most controversial of these books) among more than 200 lines! It is not about the core of the work of Diop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemkem (talk • contribs) Revision as of 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Putting back "POV"
He has been considered one of the greatest African historians of the 20th century by some, and a racialist scientist by others

This is actually true, i will tone it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The removal of discretionary sanctions in the area of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy is being discussed
I'd forgotten these even existed, and this article probably should have been tagged as part of the sanctions area. See Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with a couple of editors in these areas but first time, I am coming across this; glad to know of the DS! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * they may not be around long, so far there is only one Arbitrator voting to keep them. Doug Weller  talk 10:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned up the "Reception" section a bit
It still reads largely like a love-letter to the guy. DO we really need a giant list of praise from people who agree with him largely for political, rather than academic reasons? I might cut it down in the next couple days .5.151.22.147 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * See my recent edit summary, as well as my most recent comment above. The last thing this article needs is to become a battleground between ideologically opposed factions. Generalrelative (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to exchange the constructive appraisal quotes from Keith Crawford to Henry Louis Gates (Encyclopedia) as the latter is an authoritative source ?.WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this: ? The main problem with that source is that I can't find an author. Gates is co-editor of the encyclopedia, not the author of the entry. (I'm not sure why there would be no byline since typically these are included in specialist academic encyclopedias.) It's also a really, really uncritical summary when you read it in its entirety. All the basic facts it discusses are covered in much greater detail in the sources which Austronesier, Doug Weller and I have been discussing above. And speaking from personal experience as someone who has written articles for similar specialist encyclopedias when in grad school, the editorial oversight for this type of publication is typically rather lax. So I'm not at all sure that it can really be described as especially authoritative. Generalrelative (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I drop the suggested recommendation. I think this article gives a good balance of the critics and proponents of Diop's work. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The Bryson Gwiyani-Nkhoma paper needs to be treated with care, e.g. where it appears to give credence to outdated racial concepts, stating uncritically that Diop discovered that ancient Egyptian civilization was of Negro origin. I also find the discussion of Diop's reception to be unhelpful in that it divides the scholarly community into vociferous critics and ardent admirers, whereas it seems to me that most subject-matter experts actually fall somewhere in the middle. On the other hand, the author's own methodological criticisms in the paper's final section strike me as really valuable, and indeed very even-handed. I would certainly support summarizing his points there. So it appears we have at least five useful sources to help us rebuild the article:
 * Bryson Gwiyani-Nkhoma, "Towards an African historical thought: Cheikh Anta Diop's contribution"
 * Stephen Howe, Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes
 * Clarence E. Walker, We Can't Go Home Again: An Argument About Afrocentrism
 * Marnie Hughes-Warrington, Fifty Key Thinkers on History
 * Collins and Burns, A History of Sub-Saharan Africa
 * I encourage anyone watching this page to add content based on these sources, especially new content about concrete aspects of Diop's career, in such a way that the community can reasonably be expected to approve. Generalrelative (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

On a separate point, I think Diop's 1974 book "African Origin of Civilization" should be included in the article. Generalrelative did agree on its inclusion but should feature independent, sources. I think these sources should elaborate on Diop's core arguments in the book.


 * Firstly, Diop arguement that the ancient Egyptian civilisation was of Black African origin and his presentation of anthropological, historical and archaeological evidence.


 * Secondarily, Diop's second argument that the prevailing views in Egyptology were driven by scientific racism and biased scholarship. Sources that could contextualise this and summarise these core arguments would be great. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I do agree. I think especially Howe and Hughes-Warrington would be good WP:FRIND sources for this. Generalrelative (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you write the summary sentence on his 1974 book and include it in the relevant sub-section, just to ensure it complies with Wikipedia guideline rules ?.WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to, thanks for asking. I'm just waiting for those books to arrive through interlibary loan. Should be next week. Generalrelative (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)