Talk:Ivan Van Sertima

Untitled
What is the reason for deleting this section: Academic Response To Criticism? The criticism from Glyn Daniels, whose work was not in the field of mexican archeology, is allowed to remain in Wikipedia, while an expert in Mexican archeology, Clarence Weiant, has his response deleted. If there's no reason according to Wikipedia policy, then the removal of the Academic Response To Criticism should be considered vandalism. - =Academic Response To Criticism= - In response to Glyn Daniels' review, Dr. Clarence Weiant, who worked in Mexican archeology for the National Sandmadd (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Hi, I've just added a little bit here, including a bibliography of some of his work as author and editor. This likely can be rendered more complete and a much fuller article written in accord with wikipedia standards. Gallador 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So, wait, this guy's book has only been reviewed once in a reputable journal, in which it was dismissed as Afrocentric by people with a very clear ethnocentric agenda of their own? And only once, anywhere, do we hear anything about a reputable person endorsing his work? The book is very tame. There is not nearly as much ideological slant as found in the average American history text book. There's not even enough academic conversation on the topic to say one way or another, whether his claims are true. It's just been ignored. Mainstream science really seems unwilling to discuss the idea of African cultures ever having been as "advanced" as medieval European culture...any mention of alternative possibilities, no matter how much evidence is offered, gets jumped on as "Afrocentric". Anyone who built a good boat could potentially have crossed the ocean to trade from Africa to South America. Ocean currents favor this. The voyage would have been easier to survive than one made in colder northern waters, and many African civilizations had highly developed ships long before the Western Europeans. It's hard to see how the crossing never would have been made, even by accident. You've got people on one side saying it never happened, and people on the other side saying it definitely happened. Can we just look at the evidence available, and reason a little, and say that it probably could have happened, instead?


 * I am removing this line: "Weiant also wrote numerous articles on extrasensory perception and was an active member of the American Society for Psychical Research. In 1959 he presented the paper Anthropology and Parapsychology at an annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Mexico City. It was based on his 1939 discovery of the cache of figurines at Tres Zapotes through what he believed to be the clairvoyance of Emilio Tamago, a peasant worker.[13]" This article is about van Sertima, not Weiant. On a side note, this article needs to be rewritten for neutrality - it's practically oozing with racist undertones. Jgmoneill (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We can't use Weiant's letter without some context about Weiant, and that has to include the above. Dougweller (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Surname
If his father's surname was Obermuller, where did the name "Van Sertima" come from? Sounds a little phoney to me. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

His books say Ivan Van Sertima. He also used that name in many of his lectures. so whatever his father's name was is irrelevant. HIS name is what he says it is. vap (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to his obituary confirming both his name and his father's name.  --Nowa (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently his father's full name was Frank Obermuller Van Sertima
 * This is rather a loosey-goosey source; as it is given, it does not list Ivan as one of F's children and is vague about connections.Parkwells (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

His surname is always spelled with a capital V: “Van Sertima”. How can we change this article title to properly reflect that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewf (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I initiated a move request.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  08:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

British?
Shouldn't the article read that he was a Guinese historian, rather than a British? vap (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He was born in Guyana, he lived studies and worked in London and was a scholar for many years in the US. He could lay claim to all three designations.--Nowa (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He was said to have retained his British citizenship.Parkwells (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability
I fail to see how this article passes WP:BIO.

Sertima doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF, and while his Olmec theory is notable, we already have an article about it, at Olmec alternative origin speculations. I see no need for a biography article on top of that, what this article is doing is
 * (a) duplicate the scope of 'Olmec alternative origin speculations'
 * (b) invite uncalled-for hagiography and contention

Just because somebody wrote a book worth covering on Wikipedia doesn't mean they pass WP:BIO. This is a very widespread misconception. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Ivan Sertima's contributions include so much more than one book: THEY CAME BEFORE COLUMBUS. He was an associate professor at Rutgers, a poet as well as author of many publications about subjects other than Africans in precolumbian America. Dr. Sertima was widely admired (note the viewings of his videos on Youtube) and referenced in other works such as LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME by James Loewen. There are so many people of dubious distinction whose bio pages are never challenged. Dr. Van Sertima has more than earned his bio page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandmadd (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC) (Truth777333 (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)) I completely agree. This article is extremely biased and it needs to reflect neutral point of view. He is known for far more notable works than the Olmec Head theory which seems to be the highlight of this article as it stands.(Truth777333 (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC))

Rewrite
This article needs a total rewrite by someone expert in African anthropologies. In its current form, it's little more than a criticism forum targeting a minor area of van Sertima's work and acting as a platform for broader anti-African hate. The suggestion that van Sertima is primarily known for his Ancient Egyptian exploration of the New World theory is absurd to anyone knowledgeable in the field.

I've removed a few of the scare quotes and stray parenthetical commentary, and also a suggestion that the African Renaissance, a major contemporary political concept, is incorrectly named. Hopefully an expert can produce a fuller, balanced article soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.224.131 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you balance Pseudo history?
There is a complaint about balance (and balance is good), but how do you balance a scholar who identifies African origins based on apparent broad flat noses? (as if all Africans have flat noses) So it will be hard to find RS from outside Afrocentrism to say positive things about this work. But using another pseudo historian to vouch for the work of a pseudo historian is not the soln. I suggest we find a nuanced critique of his work point by point (if it exist) as opposed to just praise it blindly or wash it out blindly. And we should not in this search exclude other Afrocentrics after all there is no ban on any one ideology on Wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if we added Clarence that is not really an issue, BUT where Truth is adding it is incorrect. Also a Google search of Clarence does not come back favorable. Guess who is going on about him? Yipe the Ivan clique and that weakens things a tad--Inayity (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He doesn't belong in the lead. We are not trying to 'balance', we are trying to follow WP:NPOV. And Weiant was a ceramicist, not an expert in Olmec heads, etc. As well of course as being a psychic archaeologist. He is not a reliable source for Olmec heads. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But he does not have to be a RS on Olmec heads but a RS for his personal opinion of Van Sertima. In that capacity I think it can be included in the body of article.--Inayity (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But he isn't an expert on "egyptology, African history, oceanography, astronomy, botany, rare Arabic and Chinese manuscripts, the letters and journals of early American explorers, and the observations of physical anthropologist" and his statement "As one who has been immersed in Mexican archaeology for some forty years, and who participated in the excavation of the first giant heads," is misleading. He wasn't 'immersed' in Mexican archaeology for forty years. During some of the time he was actually doing archaeology he was doing other things, ie "Weiant pursued careers in chemical engineering (1910-1945) and parapsychology (1959-1978) as well." - although he was 'involved' perhaps for that length of time both in teaching and practical work, just as he was involved in chiropracty virtually all of his life. And participating in an excavation of the Olmec heads does not make him an expert as his statement seems to suggest. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, I noted from the website for Van Sertima they seem to be making him out to be.--Inayity (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes to lead without discussion here
Changing the lead without discussion here is not appropriate. Removing material (again) that has been replaced without discussion here first is highly inappropriate. The material Truth777333 has attempted to remove twice:

''He was best known for his Olmec alternative origin speculations, a brand of pre-Columbian contact theory, which he proposed in his book They Came Before Columbus (1976). While his Olmec theory has "spread widely in African American community, both lay and scholarly", it was mostly ignored in Mesoamericanist scholarship, or else dismissed as Afrocentric pseudohistory to the effect of "robbing native American cultures".''

The edit summaries:

''removed redundant information. This information is already mentioned under the paragraph entitled :Reception. Therefore no need to have it twice''

''I insist this is not included twice. It creates an unbalanced biased view of the scholar. don't agree that this information has to be in the article twice. What is the next step for compromise''

My edit summaries when I restored the information:

"Summary belongs in lead"

"once reverted do not replace material, take it to talk page see WP:BRD, as for content of lead see WP:LEAD

The material belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD: ''The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.''

Note the lead should contain content which is covered in the remainder of the article thus a summary in the lead is appropriate per MOS. The lead should include why the subject is notable (precisely what "he is best known for covers). The view WP presents of the scholar should reflect that of reliable sources and conform to WP:FRINGE:  A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is.; Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. and WP:PSCI:  The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This is precisely what the lead does by describing the lay popularity of his ideas and the mainstream scientific viewpoint. Read WP:NPOV and see what it really means, an editors ideas of bias are not what counts, what reliable sources say and the majority scientific viewpoint hold are what WP relies on. See WP:DUE and WP:VALID in particular. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why isnt this in the lead of others who have attributed to the Olmec alternative theories. Please refer to Leo Wiener, Jose Melger, Clyde Ahmad Winters,are all known for supporting this view. I dont see this in their leads. Only on Ivan Van Sertima's page.(Truth777333 (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC))
 * In addition Ivan Van Sertima is well known for other concepts other than what you have chosen to disclose in the lead. As I have indicated before, it is now proven that Blacks were the first peoples in America  so why is notice of his criticism even "relevant" at this juncture.  The critics have been proven wrong by scientific anthropological evidence supported by "mainstream" scholars.  Native Americans have been proven to be a mixed race of Africans and Mongolians. Therefore the earlier critisms namely " robbing native americas of their culture" are no longer valid.  (Truth777333 (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC))
 * Dear Truth77733 we are not here to discuss our personal opinions only insert material according to Wikipedia policy, this includes RS. If Ivan is know for other things we should include them. Right now I am only editing Van Sertima not Leo, Jose, or Clyde, and you can raise those issues on their pages. As I agree there needs to be balance across wikipedia.--Inayity (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(Truth777333 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)) Based on the comments above, this article was regarded as unbalanced and in need of a re-write which I have attempted to do. I dont see anyone else trying to fix the clearly biased article.I am the one that continues to get pushback every time I do so. How is this not a forum to discuss our personal opinions. Thats exactly what I see happening here. I have included factual information. This article is biased. Anyone reading it can depict that. He is known for more things than the Olmec theory so if those other things aren't mentioned in the lead then why do we have to explicitly include what his critics say about him in the lead. If this is wikipedia policy, then it needs to hold true for all articles and not just Ivan Van Sertima's. Particularly because it is already very badly written.(Truth777333 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)) (Truth777333 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)) In addition, I would also like to note that I am in complete agreement with the comment made from "Untitled " Mainstream science really seems unwilling to discuss the idea of African cultures ever having been as "advanced" as medieval European culture...any mention of alternative possibilities, no matter how much evidence is offered, gets jumped on as "Afrocentric". Wikipedia continues to throw out terms such as verifiable evidence when convenient  and yet, there was only 1 review of his book that received this criticism. How does 1 review substantiate it being pseudoscientific. Only when african writers speak of something contrary to the established view, does Wikipedias policy characterize it as unverifiable and treat it as dismissive. This does not align with wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This is particularly true because scientific evidence has evolved to the point where once "mainstream views" have been proven false. There has been countless examples of this. Wikipedia's articles need to allow for this. (Truth777333 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC))
 * Deal with other articles on their talk pages, the condition of other articles does not dictate how this article is to be edited, policies and guidelines do. Personal opinions are irrelevant. Reliable sources are what WP relies on. If there are reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of other reasons Sertima is notable present those sources and suggest the material you wish to include. Remember that WP:NPOV is clear on due weight, giving equal validity and pseudoscience. WP:RS provides guidance regarding scholarly sources, questionable sources, use of a source by other high quality sources and academic consensus. WP:FRINGE applies to the ideas of Sertima until the scientific consensus reflects general acceptance of his ideas (I don't see them even recieving serious consideration). An editor's opinion about what is biased is irrelevant what counts is what is in high quality reliable sources so "notice of his criticism" is relevant as it comes from RS. What an editor contends has been "proven" needs support from reliable sources and evidence of acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream science is what WP reflects, that's clearly spelled out in policy. Lack of acceptance, consideration and discussion by the field are also what substantiates something as pseudoscience. The material in the lead is supported by RS, if you wish to add other content provide reliable sources for it. General ideas about WP and an editors personal opinion about them are not relevant to editing this article. Objections to policy and to WP:What Wikipedia is and what WP WP:ISNOT are discussions for other forums (if you want to change WP one article is not the place). If the views of Sertima are supported by "scientific evidence [that] has evolved" and the once mainstream veiws have been proven false, present the reliable sources that say so. Scientific consensus does indeed evolve, if it has regarding Sertima, then present the RS that says so. If not see WP:FRINGE and the policies clearly explained above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing about how advance African culture was. That's irrelevant to this discussion. Truth777333 is simply doing web searches and hasn't found any academic books or papers, just a fringe article by the science editor of Softpedia and an interview with Walter Neves which he doesn't understand. So far as I know, van Sertima never suggested that there was an African migration 14,000 years ago, he was arguing that the creators of the Olmec heads came from Africa in historical times. There is no view within the mainstream that the Americas were ever inhabited by Africans, although the main mainstream view is that all our ancestors came from Africa. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(Truth777333 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)) Walter Neves ia an archaeologist from the University of Sao Paolo, has taken extensive skull measurements from dozens of skulls, including the oldest, a young woman who has been named Lucia. My reason for bringing him up is because he has proven that the oldest skull is not mongoloid. "The measurements show that Lucia was anything but mongoloid," he says. hence there is evidence that disputes what Ivan van Sertima's critics suggested about theer not bieng any african presence in America. That was my point. I do have information from books which further support this finding. However I provided you with links to articles on teh web because I figured it would be an expedient way for yu to access tehinformation quickly and I didnt feel it was necessary to provide such information in the form of an attachment to this talk page.I still do not udnerstand why other articles do not have to include this ifnormation in the lead. This is not consistent with others who are also attributed to teh olmec alternative theory. It is definetly racially motivated to explicitly portary the black author as such and not to include this same critisms in teh lead of the white authors.(Truth777333 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)) (Truth777333 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC))In accordnace with Wikipedia's policy for the content of the lead : Note the lead should contain content which is covered in the remainder of the article thus a summary in the lead is appropriate per MOS. The lead should include why the subject is notable (precisely what "he is best known for covers). Why cant we just input : "He was best known for his Olmec alternative origin speculations, a brand of pre-Columbian contact theory, which he proposed in his book They Came Before Columbus (1976)" and leave out the second sentence  which states what the critics stated  specifically. We already go into grave detail about what the critics say and why later on in the article. Is this not an appropriate compromise? (Truth777333 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)) Neves is not saying what you think he is saying. You might want to read Australoid race which makes it a bit clearer. This is still the 'we all came from Africa" idea. The mainstream out of Africa hypothesis is that many many tens of thousands of years ago Africans moved out of Africa, Neves thinks some of them lived in Asia for tens of thousands of years and then some of those migrated to America. He doesn't call them Africans and he certainly doesn't think Africans migrated to the Americas. And you are in danger of suggesting that some editors are racists, I'd drop that quickly. And see for instance Zecharia Sitchin which has a very similar lead.
 * As for your suggestion, no. It should be like Sitchin's article. It needs to make it clear that this is not an accepted opinion. You should get that from the lead, not have to read down through the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The accusations Truth is throwing does not float. David Irving (he is white) lead is not much different. Gadaffi, Meles Zenawi, Amiri Baraka all these leads have in negative things. And I would be the first to scream RACISM, if it was the issue here. --Inayity (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion should be on content, not opinions and interpretations of editors. Content needs to reflect mainstream scientific consensus and be sourced from reliable sources. I tire of repeating myself. Provide suggested content and reliable sources. If Neves has "proved" anything and it is interpreted in some particular way find the reliable source that supports this. Sertima's views need to be clearly presented as fringe (read the policies before further posting) and the mainstream consensus and level of acceptance of Sertima's theories need presentation clearly and prominently per policies. Further discussion should be supported by policy and reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes: (Clarence Weiant)
My deletion of extraneous information about Clarence Weiant in the Notes section was reversed. The reason given was that the Note was "relevant to his comment on archaeology". However, there is nothing in the Notes section or anywhere else on this page about context for Glyn Daniel. Glyn Daniel lacks the background for criticizing Van Sertima. Specifically, Glyn Daniel never published in the field of pre-Columbian history. Neither did he conduct original research/archeological digs in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica as did Clarence Weiant. Yet, Clarence Weiant is the only critic disparaged on Van Sertima's page- a violation of Wikipedia's pillars. All sources cited on this page should be treated equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandmadd (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Glyn Daniel was selected for commentary on the book by The New York Times. Since an extensive quote of Weiant is provided it is appropriate to provide some context for his commentary, note this is from a reliable source. All sources should be evaluated for meeting WP:RS criteria and if cited sources are discussed in reliable sources such discussion is appropriate. An editors opinions or original research has no place in the article, however should an RS state that Daniel is not qualified to critique Van Sertima that might be included. In my experience the NYT generally selects those they choose to review books fairly carefully and I think their judgement is widely respected on the matter of book reviews this carries quite a bit more weight than a WP editors assessment. Likewise the Smithsonian is widely respected for evaluation of historical and archealogical figures, meaning what they wrote about someone who is quoted provides context and helps a reader evaluate the commentary. Before making assertions about violations of WP's pillars take the time to read some policies (at least the page you type a comment here on and sign your post). - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I find it strange that no mention is made of the fact that Weiant has a degree in anthropology and a PhD in archaeology . Instead his later work as a chiropractic is mentioned along with the fact that he "worked as an assistant archaeologist". Tayedot (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the his PhD to the note. The content might also be revised. His work as a chiropractor seems irrelevant and the description as worked as an assistant archeologist doesn't seem quite right for someone with a PhD in the field. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's correct however, that's what the source says. His main career was as a chiropractor and that is what he is best known for, eg "Clarence Wolsey Weiant D C., Ph D Clarence Wolsey Weiant pioneer chiropractor who cut a path for the profession m its formulatlve years toward the sciences" - note also that Colin Wilson says "The archaeologist Clarence Weiant described how the Montagnais Indians of eastern Canada are able to contact distant friends and relatives by telepathy.". If we mention him we can't just say the guy had a PhD in archaeology as it's a lot more complicated than that. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
The Journal of Current Anthropology article cited is a dubious reliable source because of its position on race. When we talk about race we talk about biological markers like phenotype and dna to identify people. People of the African diaspora on the African continent and throughout the world are visibly identified as black and of African descent by their phenotype. No academic would issue a paper or journal arguing that a contemporary African-descended person with broad African features (flat nose, full lips, prognathism) is not black and has no African ancestry. Yet, when academics see ancient Africoid faces in unexpected places-like on Egyptian icons and Olmec sculptures- the models can’t be black and African. All of a sudden, the existence of race is brought into question. If the full lips, flat noses, and prognathism of the Olmec heads look like black people, you’re wrong, Journal contributors claim. They might as well ask, “Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?” The Journal of Current Anthropology article also contains this bizarre footnote “If, perchance, some Africans had landed in the New World, rather than being regarded as gods, they would probably have been sacrificed and eaten.” Refuting that assertion. dna studies from companies like 23andme reveal Mexicans have some dna from sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, genealogist Lyman D. Platt has found the sub-Saharan Africa admixture to be widely dispersed throughout the Mexican population. It’s clear that when Africans and Native Americans encountered each other-they mated! Ironically, the mixture of African and Native American bloodlines is on full display in the journal’s pictures of two women from the Olmec area and Chiapias. For the Journal of Current Anthropology then to accuse Ivan Van Sertima of ‘robbing Native Americans and trampling on their self respect or self-esteem is unprofessional and unseemly. Sandmadd (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are a new editor so I wouldn't expect you to understand our sourcing policy - see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I am surprised however at a couple of things. One, the Journal is a very respected academic journal and like all such does not take any positions itself. What it does do, which is interesting, is allow other academics to comment on articles from various positions, and for the original author(s) to respond. Thus you will find a wide variety of viewpoints being presented, not all of which can possibly be correct. You can of course ask at WP:RSN about this. Secondly, we source genetic information from academic sources, not private companies like 23andme (and that particular company is an interesting choice given how much trouble it's beenn in recently). And I'm wondering if you are confusing genetics and genealogy. Platt has no qualifications in the former so whatever he says about admixtures is worthless here. As are our opinions on what images signify. See WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2014

Many entities, including the police and courts, consider private companies to be valid sources for dna information. The problems with 23andme have nothing to do with the information they found in testing Mexican subjects. But, since you want genetic information from academic sources, Henry Louis Gates of Harvard University has investigated the genetic makeup of Mexico's population and he has found Mexico's population to contain a mixture of genes from subsahara Africa along with Native American and European genes. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/black-in-latin-america/ Sandmadd (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They make their rules, we make ours. Of course Mexico has that mixture. So does the USA. I don't know what your point is unless you are saying that Gates, whose interests are not genetics but African and African-American Literature and Cultural Theory, is claiming that there were Africans there before the Spanish. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is that when dna testing reveals mixed bloodlines-matings- between African and Amerindians in Mexico, it is beyond bizarre for the Journal of Current Anthropology to state that Africans would have been sacrificed and eaten in encounters between the two races. This was part of my argument that the Journal's article cited on Van Sertima's page is a dubious RS.Sandmadd (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The Journal made no such claim. But there is a "known instance in which "a Spanish boat with sixteen men and two women on board was wrecked on the coast of Yucatan six years before Cortes arrived; the crew were all sacrificed and ritually eaten, with the exception of Gonzalo Guerrero and Jeronimo". So not beyond bizarre. In any case, unless you can convinced editors at WP:RSN that suddenly a reliable academic source is no longer reliable, please drop this as you will get nowhere. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the exact quote from the Journal's article "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs. It is footnote #29:

"If, perchance, some Africans had landed in the New World, rather than being regarded as gods they would probably have been sacrificed and eaten."

There is no evidence that Native Americans sacrificed and ate the Africans they encountered. The Journal shouldn't print such a thing if they have no proof. The dna tests are proof that Native Americans and Africans in Mexico had another kind of relationship.Sandmadd (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the journal entry is a problem then contact them or write a rebuttal, But I am struggling to see how you disagreeing/ not liking WP:LIKE their statement now means we cannot reference them. What you should do is use energy to find a source that supports Van Sertima, to counter the source that you do not like. And let the reader decide.--Inayity (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, there is no such proof, there is just a similar incident that occurred with another group of people. But that's probably because there weren't any Africans there pre-1942. In any case, DNA evidence about Africans (which is post 1492 also) has nothing to do with Van Sertima. As I said, if you think you can manage show that the journal isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be used in this article you'll have to go to RSN. You are wasting your time here. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to your assertion that there were no Africans in the Americas before 1492 (I’m correcting your typo), I grabbed my copy of Alexander Von Wuthenau’s UNEXPECTED FACES IN ANCIENT AMERICA, 1500B.C.-A.D. 1500. I was going to talk about the dozens of pre-columbian sculptures in Von Wuthenau’s collection that show bold African features. But, then I realized that you would say they aren’t African/black. I realized that the multitude of evidence from various disciplines will not change your mind that there was a pre-columbian African presence in the Americas. If you don’t want to see, you won’t see.(talk)


 * Dear User:SandmaddPlease read WP:FORUM
 * Did this discussion not come up with that other DNA online site DNA Tribes. But on another note what does any of this have to do with the article ? Was Van Sertima a DNA researcher? --Inayity (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Van Sertima's work has been criticized by academics
This line means All of Van Setima's work was criticized by ALL academics? or it it some? Is this the case? he wrote a book called 1986, Great African Thinkers, Cheikh Anta Diop was that also criticized. I think the section needs a little more balance. As It seems to carry too much of his detractors POV. I would like to see more balance. --Inayity (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a simple factual statement. No one would read it as all academics. He's fringe, that needs to be clear, right? Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is let the reader decide because I am pretty sure Afrocentrics who happen to also be academics at key universities such as Molefi Asante certainly do not agree. The other issue is just washing people out with fringe is anti-academic, let the evidence speak for itself. Next thing saying Egyptians are Africans would just get filed under fringe also.--Inayity (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I read it as virtually all, universally known to anyone who is serious, that is why we have words like MOST, and SOME. It is all over wikipedia (Some Scholars think), Most scholars agree. We do not take controversial topics and say Scholars disagree. Unless we are saying all those Afrocentrics and Pro-Africanist are not scholars also.--Inayity (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Back in the day when Van Sertima's lectures were played on Pacifica stations regularly, anyone who cared to could tune in and discover that the poor old man was a crackpot. He was finally excluded from Pacifica because the broadcasters who had the unenviable position of bookending him were sick and tired of having to deal with call-ins from people who were frustrated that they couldn't call in to Van Sertima. The last year or so consisted of endless ranting from people who had confused Melanin and Melatonin and, well, the result was chaotic to put it mildly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

African origin of Mesoamerican culture?
This is why I am having a problem. African origin of Mesoamerican culture? is that what he said cuz I did not actually read the book. After reading this article I am actually Not sure what he is saying. Did he say African created mesoamerican culture, or did he say Africans influence a culture that was already in existence. Just like Rome was influenced by Greece? I think I would like to hear from someone who read the book. B/c there is a world of difference and I am not clear from reading. Fringe or not, we must still represent what is what. --Inayity (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesnt matter which of those he said cause they both run counter to all available evidence. His major critics in Mesoamerican study clearly critique him for making the former claim, and not the latter. Combating Eurocentrism is good, pseudoscience is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Look what i found, exactly the same thing I am complaining about. Judged without proper review--Inayity (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd expect him to say that and it's nonsense. He also claims that Indians eating Africans wouldn't happen, despite the fact that it actually did. What's ironic is his statement that some critics were venomous. I doubt you've read van Sertima's response to his critics in Early America Revisited, but I have and it was laden with vitriol. van Sertima did say Africans settled in plan colonies in the Americas and heavily influenced the culture, including in particular the Olmec. He writes as though there was no serious Olmec culture before his African colonists. I don't know of any Mesoamerican specialists who take him seriously. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With that in mind I must say that the section on reception is still lacking in full representation. It does not gives space to the article you read (and I did not read) but it should be included to reply to some of the claims. I think this book is over used "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs" and I do not believe that line is needed in the lead. It is suffice to say he is fringe without given further weight to one opinion. I think telling people they were discovered by Columbus is far worst than what Van Sertima is doing, so this robbing thing is unfair in the lead (based on what I have read). I think the link I gave to Asante's position should also be included to balance out some of the critiques. And my issue is very basic. I would like this article to be more balanced (forget about pro- or against) but anyone should come here and read it and get an honest total view of what is what. Many people discuss Van Sertima (from both camps) and most are devoid of the facts. I am no fan, but I still want to know what is what with neutrality. --Inayity (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And I think Van Sertima should be credited as bring the entire Olmec civilization to a broader audience. I dont think it was given this attention until he brought it up. (ref for this is in the Olmec article)--Inayity (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would he be credited for that? It is not as if he has a broad audience. And yes, Olmecs was given as much attention before he wrote as after. If anything he was a late comer and it would take a very good source to claim otherwise. He has been influential within afrocentricity to be sure, but approaching zero influence outside. We can certainly mention his influence in African and Afrocentric studies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course most Afro-Centrists agree with him. That's almost part of the definition of being Afrocentric. And who is telling anyone they were discovered by Columbus? You sure that's still happening? I know that my history textbook in school (not university) in the early or mid 50s didn't even claim that Columbus was the first European, that credit was given to the Vikings. User:Maunus what do you mean by know for Black Athena, are you thinking of Bernal? Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I look forward to a good rewrite that gives weight as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is important now is the article. I think the line about Robbing Native is undue weight and should be removed. It is already stated that it is Fringe. But too much emphasis on this "robbing thing". The next issue I think we need to balance the critique with the counters, such as Asante. I will skip getting into Afrocentrism vs Eurocentrism or even Myth history vs Anti-Eurocentrism. My sole concern is NPOV, and that people can read this article and be able to see the critique, the counter, and have clarity around what he said vs what his detractors think he said or wished he said. Just write it with everything crystal clear an no hint of editor bias. that section needs a re-write anyway cuz it really does not flow.--Inayity (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see Early America Revisited is already included, I think the responses to the critique listed would then be better than saying, he responded in HISown publication. I do not think Wiki should have this kind of bias. Clearly written by detractors and not with NPOV. The sections seems to have one intention, look how rubbish this man's work is. --Inayity (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move unopposed. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 06:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ivan van Sertima → Ivan Van Sertima – The preponderance of sources indicate that Prof. Van Sertima's name is spelled with a capitalized "Van".  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  08:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivan Van Sertima. 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/20090922192359/http://blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/5725/2009-05-30.html to http://blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/5725/2009-05-30.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) 06:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivan Van Sertima. 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/20050923193930/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F04%2F07%2F0411250 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F04%2F07%2F0411250

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) 20:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * IvanVanSertima1995.jpg