Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 15

Archive, Plan and Get to Work
I would like to suggest that we archive this talkpage as soon as everyone has finished their 'debates' about specific content (which will only have to be brought up again later, so it's better to just conclude them for the time being and put the energy to better use) and start with a clean, pre-organized talkpage dedicated to constructive discussion with a view towards actually resolving the troublesome issues. As it seems impossible to carry on simultaneous discussions at multiple levels on an article such as this, the topics on this talkpage should be discussed in 'natural' order, i.e. an order which is conducive to building up real, long-lasting consensus unlikely to be overturned upon the appearance of a new editor or two (providing they actually read the talkpage before hitting the 'edit' tab).

In my opinion, the first thing that needs to be discussed is the exact Scope of the article. Some of you disagree, I know, and you should voice your opinions at the appropriate time in the appropriate place. I think that place is at the head of a new talkpage. However, all discussion not directly and intimately related to the task-list set forth on the new page should be postponed until the time comes to discuss it. If we work together, we will get through the whole thing eventually.

If someone agrees with me, archives and creates the new talkpage, please add a section for 'New Additions', 'New Research' or something similar in addition to one on 'Scope' so that editors who are still researching will have a place to note any recent discoveries which might play a role in the deliberations over the organization of the article. Varoon Arya 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone please archive this talk page so that we can start over.. Way too much bickering (that I admit to have been involved in) and debating going on that distracts away from progressive conversation.Taharqa 16:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * so, just archive it and start over, eh? How about you stop bickering, Taharqa, and actually address the issues raised up front? This article could be cleaned up and split into two valid article in a matter of hours as soon as you stop trolling. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dbachmann, there is no concensus on splitting this article. All the sections contain valid informations for helping the readers have a broader picture about the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians. You are not obliged to like everything written here. There are things in the article myself do not want to see. But they have to be there since they are significant and have been brought by other contributors. Who are you to try to impose your will on other editors? Why do people have to repeat what Wikidudeman explained to you days ago? Be reasonable, move forward, and stop blocking the positive work of editing the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * that's so many words. Wikipedia is about showing a good faith effort and putting the facts on the table. Then there can be friendly debate between bona fide editors and informed compromise on specific points. What you are doing is just abusing Wikipedia's consensus principle to dodge policy and stall encyclopedic discussion. Show some effort in discussing this encyclopedically and we can have a debate. Wikilawyering without show of encyclopedic editing is trolling in my book, and I am not interested in debating that. Your "broader picture" translates to ideological soapboxing, and Wikipedia simply isn't for that, sorry. I repeat that I am not here to impose "my will", but Wikipedia policy, which asks you to dump all unencyclopedic and unacademic blather from this page, and report strictly on academic debates without further ado. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then, start another RfC on the subject of the split, to see if you can get support for this idea from a wider audience. So far, I don't see that you have garnered significant support for your position, but in all honesty, an RfC could change that. Barring that, I would ask that you respect consensus.--Ramdrake 11:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's the context?
This article needs a *history* section that explains that there was a time when european scholars insisted that the egyptians were white. Only in the context of the racism of its day do the theories of Afro-centrism make sense. As it stands this article talks about the Afro-centric view out of context and fails to mention Eurocentrism at all.

I do not think it's a good idea to put all of the Afro-centric information in a separate article, it will become a POV fork. Frankly, MOST of the people who discuss the Egyptians in-terms of "race" are either Eurocentric or Afrocentric scholars. Most other people consider them to be "Egyptians" and "Africans" and leave it at that.

The core subject of this article is the history of how this debate became important and the interplay between the people in the debte. The question: "what race were they?" is comparatively unimportant. Right now the article takes the question at face value.futurebird 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"there was a time when european scholars insisted that the egyptians were white" -- this is an Afrocentric myth, or at least a gross exaggeration. The theories of Afrocentrism do not make any "sense" academically. They do make "sense" psychologically, from the desire to build a sense of African-American ethnic pride. This has nothing to do with Egyptology, or alleged Eurocentrism therein. If you want to denounce racism in the 20th century USA, denounce racism in the 20th century USA, but don't take your frustration out on Egyptology. --dab (𒁳) 16:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense. futurebird 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * what part of "this is an Afrocentric myth" do you find difficult? dab (𒁳) 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's decide the name and actual topic before we argue about content.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm new around here, what's wrong with the title as it is? And why is there a merge tag? futurebird 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, because there's been discussion about whether the article and/or title is POV and about whether the existing content might be better merged into the other article. The essential question is about the relative weight to give the theory of ancient Egyptians as white, the similar theories that they were black, the evidence and supporters of each, and the objective scientific evidence. John Carter 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The primary significance of this debate is historical. Through viewing the debate on the race of the Egyptians you can see how ideas about race have changed in the history of the past few 100 years. At first it was unthinkable that they were anything but white. Then people questioned this idea and tried to prove they were all black. The current idea seems to reject both-- in the sense that it says that race has a different meaning today than it did in the past. However, the "Afro-centrists" were right about a few things and their work is important. They were right that sub-Saharan cultures and people had interactions with and were able to influence, and be influenced by, the Egyptians. Some of the Egyptians were of sub-Saharan origin. The Eurocentric story of early history that describes sub-Saharan Africa as "tribal", "unimportant" and uncivilized is not taken seriously anymore.

However, saying the Egyptians "were black" or "were white" is meaningless since these are modern social constructs that can't be applied to the past. Afro-centric scholars in America angered some old-school Egyptologists because they suggested that African Americas could be "proud of the accomplishments of their ancestors in egypt" --this was seen as unfairly "claiming" egyptian achievements. But, frankly, it's not that different from the eurocentric habit of describing the accomplishments of the Greeks as "the basis of American civilization. etc." White Americans are no more ancient Greek than African Americans are ancient Egyptian! (well, except for maybe the real Greek-Americans ... but even then....) All of these civilizations are human and we can all be proud of them.

This entire debate is a response the the systematic denegration and denial of the existence of black culture and the personhood of black people. --And the article fails to reflect this. futurebird 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to disagree with you on any of the points, except for, maybe, to a slight degree, say that it is possible that the moderns who champion the "continuations" of earlier cultures could take some pride in their "ancestor" culture. But even I think that's probably a small point. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much any of what we've said really is very helpful to defining what the stated scope of this article, and possibly related articles, should be. Personally, I rather favor maybe a series of articles relating to color/race, with one central article about the "colors" and modern scientific views of them, and some individual articles on things like Ainu/Japanese relations, adding that the Ainu are now seen as being more direct descendants of the Japanese ancestors, much to the dismay of the Japanese, the Aryan race theory and its numerous flaws, Tamil/Hindu relations, and so on. Just one opinion, of course. John Carter 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to outline the sort of changes this article needs to make to become neutral. The article makes it seem like Afro-centrists were just crazy and came up with these ideas out of the blue for no good reason. But, you need to understand that that at the time there was a hypothesis, called "Hamitic hypothesis" that said that in sub-Saharan Africa the evidence found for ancient civilizations was due to "people from the north" not from the black African people who live there! And this idea was taken seriously because white scholars just couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that Africans could have a civilization. It's only because of the work of Afro-centric scholars that it is gone. When you live in a racist society and discover one instance of flat-out lies designed to degrade your person-hood-- there is no reason to trust ANY of the other existing scholarship. That was the Afro centric perspective. And even if they took it too far at times we all owe them a great debt for uncovering the truth in some areas.

So, I'd rather not see their work treated as if it was "just some crack pot fringe theory" --They had valid reasons for reaching those conclusions. Just as Galileo had good reasons to think that a hanging chain made a parabolic arc rather than a cycloid. futurebird 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that the Hamitic article could use some work. Having said that, this article could certainly link to it to establish the "prehistory" of the existing debate. So that would be one way to "start" the article. I'm afraid I still don't personally feel sure as to what the content of the article should be though, or how to relate it to other subjects in the same general field, if at all. John Carter 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's "fringe"?
I may have missed this in the extensive discussions in the archives, but I'm still not clear on who's considered a fringe source for this topic. For the benefit of me, and anyone else who was drawn in by the posts on the fringe theory noticeboard, could someone concisely say which sections of the article cover the "fringy" material, and which sources the fringe theories come from? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Afrocentric parts arguing that ancient Egyptians were "black".  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is not a fringe view, it is a socio-political one. We're not pushing a racial agenda here in that one particular subjective view on race is to be shunned over another. "black" is a relative and subjective social term, completely separate from science, it is not a theory. A fringe theory is more along the lines of diffusionist ideas or far-fetched migration hypotheses..


 * Thanks, but I'm looking for something more specific: are you talking about the entire "controversies" section, or what? Is Cheikh Anta Diop a fringe source? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Essentially all of the arguments about the Sphinx, Everything in the controversies section as well as everything in the "other views" section would be considered fringe. The sphinx arguments are presented as being mostly historic though.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to clarify specifically what is and how according to wikipedia? I see a few historical observations and one opinion from an Ortofondist in the Sphinx section, but what is this "fringe" you're referring to?Taharqa 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the entire topic is presented along the lines of fringe "controversies". The truth of the matter is that there is no "controversy" at all, not outside Afrocentrism (and Afrocentrism works on a priori knowledge). The topic is valid. It should be presented along the lines of genetic and anthropological studies, without resorting to "black" and "African" at every other turn. The only people for whom the question of "Black Egypt" is even meaningful are the Afrocentrist ideologists. Afrocentrism is notable in itself, and has it's own article. This is perfectly simple. Rewrite the article factoring out the continual afrocentrist begging the question, and move Diop and friends to Afrocentrist Egyptology where they belong. People keep arguing about this for pages on end just on grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Apart from that powerful impediment to encyclopedicity, there is really nothing here that would require further debate. dab (𒁳) 15:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well let's start with the name of the article and get a consensus on that, then we can move onto the actual topic of the article and then determine what content should go where.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dbachmann does not know the history of Egyptology! Egyptology began by negating the Black race as being the race of the Egyptians. Maurizio Damiano-Appia is an Italian Egyptologist. He is the one who denounced racism in Egyptology. Just read Egitto e Nubia, Milano, 1995, p. 8: "...è data per scontata l'idea di un popolo di razza bianca, che creò una cultura meditarranea che poco aveva a che fare con l'Africa se non una quasi casuale collocazione geographica...con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione". Is this man Afrocentrist? Where are you going to put this? In Afrocentric Egyptology? Actually, I am not happy with the title of the sub-section Cheilh Anta Diop. There is more than Diop there. Even Diop. This man presented the results of the melanin test on mummies at the Cairo Egyptological Conference in 1974. Then, Nobody contradicted him. Dbachmann, you need to learn more and stop insulting African Americans. Jean-François Champollion, the father of Egyptology has to put things in order about the origin and race of the ancient Egyptians. It is a controversy in Egyptology from the beginning of this field. It was in 1828 that Champollion wrote in Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, p. 455: "Mais ce n'est point à l'histoire seule de l'Egypte proprement dite que les études hiéroglyphiques peuvent fournir de précieuses lumières; elles nous montrent déjà la Nubie comme ayant, aux époques les plus reculées, participé à tous les avantages de la civilisation égyptienne. L'importance, le nombre et surtout l'antiquité des monuments qu'on y admire, édifices contemporains de tout ce que la plaine de Thèbes offre de plus ancien, sont déjà, pour l'historien, des faits capitaux qui l'arrêtent en ébralant les bases du système adopté jusqu'ici sur l'origine du peuple égyptien". For Champollion, p. 456: "les Egyptiens seraient une race propre à l'Afrique". Don't you see here a controversy about the origin and the race of the ancient Egyptians? Is Champollion Afrocentrist? In many Dictionaries, ancient Egyptians are said to be Caucasians or Whites. Dbachmann, how do you call this? Stop amusing people with your rethoric. We are many here to study the history of Egyptology. I can give you more facts without quoting any African or African American. The issue is not about Afrocentrism, but about the race of ancient Egyptians.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"In many Dictionaries, ancient Egyptians are said to be Caucasians or Whites." I have heard this too. I think we should add some sources to the article that show this. Can you suggest any? futurebird 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Hamitic Hypothesis" was widespread in the 19th century and early decads of the 20th. Light-skinned people (perhaps even Aryans) were supposed to have created Egyptian civilization and supposedly had spread oveer Africa where they were a small ruling class. A major proponent was Grafton Elliot Smith, who was also a hyperdiffusionist and claimed that the Egyptians had influenced all the other civilizations. Afrocentric diffusionists make the same claims and cite Grafton Smith, except that now, the Egyptians are black. Itzcoatl 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The folks who reconstructed King Tut's face described his features as "Caucasian".  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The difficulties in forensic reconstruction addresses this problematic issue and also that is false.. The American team, or namely the leader, Dr. Susan C Anton, based on Alveolar prognathism, crania, among other things lead her to conclude that he was African as she notes that these traits aren't consistent with Europeans. She also states in a letter that she guessed North Africa based on the peculiarity of the nose, with north Africa simply meaning "above the equator" and not necessarily Morocco, etc. and that the nose alone in no way suggests that he'd had any non-African ancestry (paraphrasing).. We've went over this a while ago -

"''In the words of Susan Antón, a member of the American team, "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.' We classified him as African based on many of the [skull's facio-cranial] features...."

With regard to any finding of European origins, Antón further commented that she "determined the statistical association was very low and, therefore, based on the nonmetric characters, was not likely to be accurate."

The team refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race.

''Further, the Americans did not assign skin or eye color. Referring to the skull's pronounced dolichocephalism, alveolar prognathism, "large teeth," receding chin and sloping cranium, Antón stated she was "in general agreement that, based on the cranial skeleton, an estimate of African is appropriate.''" -

Also, what does this matter? Scientists also have studied the Sphinx' supposed "negro" countenance, along with one of Tut's ancestors, Tao the brave, among other 18th Dynasty royalty in Harris and Week's "X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies" (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980). These labels are subjective which is why they're restricted to media reports and not peer reviewed studies and which is why Saleh and now even Hawass can easily disagree with the results, including the American team. Btw, Anton was the leader of the American team who were the only ones to do a blind study. I don't want to link to any forums, but she also has an open letter addressing this that is widely available on the net.

Also please see the [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"] since even IF it were applicable, "Caucasians" don't exist, and neither do "Negroes". I just don't see what point you were trying to make with this response.Taharqa 06:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikidudeman was just trying to give an example of what I asked for above... that is "In many Dictionaries, ancient Egyptians are said to be Caucasians or Whites." as an example of Eurocentrism. (???) Now I'm confused. futurebird 07:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

^I'm actually confused also now so I may have wrote that for nothing and only confused you.... or not. We'll see I guess. It's inane..Taharqa 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Futurebird, for now I can give texts in Italian. I will have to find also something written in English in some old dictionaries. Encyclopedia Universale 3, Milano, 1984, p. 465: "Per l'evoluzione della civiltà egizia si rivelano quindi di fondamentale importanza, in correspondenza con il naqadiano secondo, l'arrivo di un popolo straniero culturalmente più avanzato, verosimilmente di stirpe semitica e proveniente dall'Asia anteriore attraverso il Golfo Persico e il Mar Rosso, e la sua fusione con la preesistente popolazione camitica. I nuovi venuti esercitarono un profondo unflusso su tutti gli aspetti della vita nella valle del Nilo, elevandone notevolmente il livello". Dizionario encyclopedico italiano, Roma, 1956, p. 284: "E. Smith ha descritto come prevalente un tipo da lui detto Proto-egiziano, piccolo di statua (...), a cranio allungato, stretto e piuttosto alto; i capelli erano lisci o ondulati, di color bruno scuro come gli occhi, la pelosità poco svulappata, la pelle brunastra, la facia ovale, con grandi occhi e naso a dorso rilevato e pinne un po' larghe. Questo tipo, che rappresenta evidentemente una delle razze medi. degli Europeidi, continua nelle età successive a formare il nucleo essenziale della popolazione dell'Eg.". Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

''"In many Dictionaries, ancient Egyptians are said to be Caucasians or Whites." I have heard this too. I think we should add some sources to the article that show this.'': futurebird, I trust you have "heard" this. I have heard it dozens of times, on this talkpage, and in afrocentric rants all over the internet. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Early Egyptologists were no morons. There may have been the occasional Nordicist in the 19th century, but these people were lunatic fringe even back then. It will not do to contort Egyptological mainstream, even early Egyptological mainstream, to serve some sort of afrocentric "we were wronged, so now we're wronging you back" ideology. The "Hamitic Hypothesis" doesn't equal "Caucasoid" or "Nordic" Egyptians, and in any case, by the New Kingdom, Egyptians certainly were just as "Hamitic" as Egyptians are today. Your famous "African crania" concern the pre-dynastic period back in the 4th millennium, fully 2,000 years before Ramesses or Tutankhamun. Afrocentrist Egyptology, briefly, goes like this: "hey, we found an 'African cranium' dating to 4000 BC. Hence Egypt was Black, qed." This is not serious, and it is beyond me why we are still debating this. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of article
I've archived a lot of the older discussions including some newer ones that seemed to have been repeating themselves over and over. I think that after I rewrote the article last week it was a lot easier to determine the direction of it and I think that we need to do that again right now. I previously asked this question but now I want to start a straw poll for the name of the article. Everyone who agrees to a specific name please just sign your name under it as I will demonstrate. You can sign under more than one if you are ok with either name. Also feel free to introduce a new name for the straw poll. Some of the names are previous names of the article and have bad grammar and phrasing, but I'm introducing them anyway. Do not add comments.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken the initiative to contact some of the projects which might be interested in this article, including Discrimination and Anthropology. I hope that we hear from some of them as well. And I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have worked on this article. I am aware that it can be a very controversial subject, and that the work to improve it is almost always going to be controversial. The work to improve the article, controversial or not, deserves our recognition and thanks in any event. John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you John!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore the "no comments" rule for now to point out that this article seems to forma continuity with Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups. Perhaps we could go with a name along the those lines of those article titles.--Pharos 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe like "Origins of the Ancient Egyptians"? John Carter 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is clear scientific facts concerning the "origin" of the ancient Egyptians. The real controversy seems to be over their skin color or tone and physical characteristics along the lines of race. Also, When I said "do not add comments" I meant not in the area where you signed your name under the article title, just so it doesn't get muddied up with debate. Commenting here is fine.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for all the additional work here, dude. Knowing that this is probably idle speculation, is there any evidence of the characteristics of the pre-dynastic upper and lower kingdoms? It might just be a guess, but I get the impression that they may have themselves possessed differing "racial" characteristics. John Carter 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely "origin" includes "racial origin". It's basically the same issue as in all the Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups articles.  I'm going to add this as an option.--Pharos 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, they were essentially the same as indigenous Egyptians from other periods, though the populations then had more homogeneity.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true only in that the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt were somewhat isolated prior to the unification and the onset of dynastic Egypt, so *each* was independently more homogeneous up to that point. The distinction is not as clear afterwards and the entire population essentially becomes more like each other, and eventually more homogenous as a whole. BTW, the article is looking good, but it is still structured in the manner of the controversy about the topic, which perhaps seems inevitable. I made my choices for the title based on that. — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also time for Dbachmann to make his choice for the title. He is making too much noise elsewhere in the talk page. He has not to come later and say I don't like the title. It will mean to go angainst the concensus. Dbachmann, wake up! (just laugh!).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't usually feed trolls, but how about you make clear what the article is supposed to discuss before we decide on a fitting title? dab (𒁳) 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is generally the best way to go. Otherwise one potentially faces the problem of deciding on a title, finding that it doesn't match the later agreed upon content of the final article, and then having to decide on a different title later. John Carter 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dbachmann and John, is the introduction of the article not clear enough?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It has already been said that the content of the article, potentially including that of the introduction, will be determined after the title is arrived at. On that basis, yeah, it could happen that the content of the article ultimately be determined to be different than it now is, which would possibly necessitate changing the title again. That's I think the reason both dab and I think we might be putting the cart before the horse a little here in trying to determine the title first. John Carter 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also find it a bit puzzling that the desired scope of the article is not being discussed prior to deciding upon a name. By picking a title at this stage of what is to become a major edit, we are only inviting unecessary disagreements later on... Varoon Arya 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians (current name)

 *  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * futurebird 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Captmondo 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * --Ramdrake 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Yahel  Guhan  23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * SenseOnes 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa 06:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Varoon Arya 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity of ancient Egyptians

 *  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearance of ancient Egyptians

 *  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Race of Ancient Egyptians controversy

 * John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Itzcoatl 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians

 * John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Captmondo 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Itzcoatl 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Egyegy 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians

 * John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Itzcoatl 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over appearance of Ancient Egyptians

 *  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt and race

 * — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the ancient Egyptians

 * Pharos 08:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Racial affinities of ancient Egyptians

 * I suggested this shortly before the poll but someone deleted the comment. 70.15.116.59 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

all of these titles will invite the discussion of afrocentric material. I don't care which title we choose, just as long as it is either about afrocentrism, or free of afrocentrism, but doesn't indulge in WP:SYN. Can I take it for granted that all people voting here are agreed to chuck the "Afrocentrism" material completely, then? dab (𒁳) 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No synthesis of a position C is being made just because sources A and B are added together. A synthesis is constructing a new position based on the various sources. No such thing occurs just by mentioning both the Afrocentric views and the mainstream views in the same article.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't a separation of viewpoints called a "POV fork", a Wikipedia no-no? Besides, there's obviously going to be some amount of migration both by land and by sea, so the truth has to lie between the hypothetical extreme viewpoints. 70.15.116.59 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosch and Newman
The population characteristics state.
 * In summary, ancient Egypt is thought by many scholars to have been a melting pot of various Nile Valley, North African, Saharan and Levantine peoples since earliest times.[9][20] Some theories have postulated that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East, and with minor demographic effects from regions further south.

This statement is allegedly sourced from this article Population history of North Africa: Evidence from classical genetic markers. Firstly this article refers to North Africans in general and not to the ancient egyptians. So the discussion is also about Tunisians, Libyans,Morrocans and Algerians. There are several problems with the article. It claims that Proto-Afro-Asiatic originated in the levant, when the weight of evidence has currently shifted to an African origin. The second quote is insufficient, it just states Newman, 1995. there is no way to verify the information. The general consensus among scholars is that the Ancient Egyptians were an indigenous african population. Whether they were black or white is controversial, but they were very much an African people. Muntuwandi 03:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While the race of the Ancient Egyptians has no interest to me (and per definition this article), my curiosity has been arisen over the constant battle going on here. It is quite interesting to watch.


 * In just a few hours a paragraph received a completely different meaning. This is just an example, and by no means the only one, in fact it goes on all this time, with no side being better than the other. Here presumably the editor did not like the wording of the original paragraph nor the sources for it – which by the way is locatable in a matter of minutes (Newman is used multiply times on wiki). A nice example of the hopelessness of this article, and yet the fun to watch the talk page. The latter version is in my opinion the more POV one. Twthmoses 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * James L. Newman, The Peopling of Africa: A Geographic Interpretation, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1995.
 * I don't think the meanings of paragraphs are supposed to remain the same. They should be changed if the information is not an accurate reflection of the source. Muntuwandi 05:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And how would you know that, that this is not an accurate reflection of the source? You apparently have not read Newman! Yet another excellent example of the fun of this article. Twthmoses 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem with inadequate footnotes is that one cannot be sure exactly what is being referenced. In any case, here is a quote from Newman "Agriculture seems to have reached Egypt through contact diffusion rather than through immigrants or invaders. The material cultural continuity from preceding times is considerable, and cemeteries have yielded comparable skeletal remains . Consequently, a fairly safe conclusion is that the language spoken was the immediate ancestor of the Egyptian branch of Afroasiatic represented in the hieroglyphics. it evolved into the demotic script, which in turn became Coptic." Itzcoatl 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Any sources that are not about ancient Egypt need to go. It's off topic and original research to keep them in. Based on what you have said we need to remove this. futurebird 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Valid opinion. A lot of stuff in the article needs to go I believe, if that was to be carried out. Some of the sources in the article, are they even about ancient Egypt? I saw you mentioned the Hamitic hypothesis above on this talk page, which is connected to ancient Egypt in what way? Twthmoses 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Twtmoses, you keep saying that you have no interest in the article, but you keep making contributions to the talk page. Isn't that a contradiction. Muntuwandi 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No not at all, I kind of like the fast moving of this talk page (finger pointing upon finger pointing) – and I also am interested in the Sphinx, which got me here in the first place (and the section is totally crappy) Twthmoses 05:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Twthmoses, please don't take this the wrong way by I find your tone condescending and some of your comments on the talk page are unhelpful.futurebird 05:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What way should I take it? You seem more interesting in my person, rather than the context of the discussion (btw this is general theme across all talk pages for this article, not specified you). You made a comment, I address it – what is the problem? Twthmoses 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course if the sources don't reflect what is being said then it has no business being there. Seems pretty clear cut..Taharqa 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, apparently I’m a little slow today, so I’m just going to ask instead. Who has read Newman? Muntuwandi?, futurebird?, Taharqa? Now if nobody has, and that is only if nobody has – how is it possible to make a statement that the information is not an accurate reflection of the source? How is this article going anywhere if sources are disregarded, based on nothing –well, other then you don’t like them? Come on!! No wonder there is a neutrality and factual accuracy tag on this article. And note, for reference, I did not say Newman was relevant, I asked how do you know he is not? (the editor that removed him, did not even know what book it was). Twthmoses 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just posted a direct quote from Newman above. I have the book and if there is another specific dubt about what it says ask.Itzcoatl 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd help if you indicated exactly where above. This page is getting complicated enough to confuse anybody, and I don't think it would be a good idea for anything to be overlooked simply because it can't be easily found. John Carter 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the quote is the one that says, "Agriculture reached Egypt...", I note that it seems to make reference only to "Cultural continuity", which isn't necessarily the same as genetic continuity. Acknowledging my own lack of real expertise in this field, I have to say that that doesn't look to me like it's saying anything about the racial/genetic patterns of ancient Egypt. If there is a statement which does indicate that "Cultural continuity" does refer to genetic continuity in that book, I would welcome seeing it. Otherwise, it seems to be referring to strictly cultural, not racial/genetic matters, and I'm not sure how much that relates to the genetic/racial/color makeup of old Egyptians. John Carter 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me copy the paragraph I referred to that I posted "above"-- I don't know how to make it more specific given the nature of these talk pages.


 * James L. Newman, The Peopling of Africa: A Geographic Interpretation, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1995.
 * I don't think the meanings of paragraphs are supposed to remain the same. They should be changed if the information is not an accurate reflection of the source. Muntuwandi 05:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And how would you know that, that this is not an accurate reflection of the source? You apparently have not read Newman! Yet another excellent example of the fun of this article. Twthmoses 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem with inadequate footnotes is that one cannot be sure exactly what is being referenced. In any case, here is a quote from Newman "Agriculture seems to have reached Egypt through contact diffusion rather than through immigrants or invaders. The material cultural continuity from preceding times is considerable, and cemeteries have yielded comparable skeletal remains . Consequently, a fairly safe conclusion is that the language spoken was the immediate ancestor of the Egyptian branch of Afroasiatic represented in the hieroglyphics. it evolved into the demotic script, which in turn became Coptic." Itzcoatl 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First-- The complaint that "some" Newman might have published in 1995 is invalid. Mutuwandi clearly stated the book to be "The Peopling of Africa A Geographic Interpretation." My objection is that no pages were cited.

Second-- The import of the paragraph by Newman is that claims have been made that people from the Near East brought agriculture to Egypt. Thus, Newman's "cultural continuity" has the genetic connotation that the genetic composition of Egypt (what ever that may be) was not altered by Near Easteners bringing agriculture.

Third- These are Newman's words and he cites no one else for this. Itzcoatl 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this seems rather hopeless. Itzcoatl do you even know what we are discussing here, and maybe more important why we do it? A good idea was actually to read the initial posts. Muntuwandi removed some text, replacing it with something else that gives an entirely different meaning. I found that rather funny, since both sources was hands down dismissed by Muntuwand, one of them (Newman) on the account that it was “impossible” to find. All that is in the initial post of this section. It was me who located the book, in a couple of minutes. Then Muntuwand states that the information was not an accurate reflection of the source, as a reason for the removal (instant supported by Taharqa), which I found even more funny, since apparently none of them had even read Newman. This has nothing to do with agriculture – the essential is “’’Some theories have postulated that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East, and with minor demographic effects from regions further south’’”, which Newman is listed as source for. Is this an accurate reflection of the source? Either way, Newman correct or not, the whole point of the discussion is to highlight the absurdity (POV) that Muntuwand just removed something he did not like, clearly without knowing the correctness of it, but solve for the fact that he did not like the meaning. This goes on all the time in this article, just happened to notice Muntuwand this time. This is why this article is hopeless. Twthmoses 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. The onus on verifiability lies with the person who adds a source. I have no problem with using Newman as a source as long as it is correctly cited. Maybe you are fortunate enough to know which article newman referred to, but I did not. A name and a number with no other context is not sufficient, especially for controversial articles. WP:PROVEIT states:
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
 * WP:CITE states
 * All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used.
 * I was able to find Bosch because the full article was hidden in the references but not Newman. These are the basics of editing on wikipedia. Muntuwandi 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a valid question which arises from the above. What specific definition of "ancient Egyptians" do we use? "Ancient Egypt" according to our article covers a period of 3500 years. The ethnic characteristics of the population at the beginning of that period were almost certainly changed by the end of that period, and it probably contributes to the questions raised by the article to not at least try to draw distinctions between at least the beginning and end of that era. John Carter 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm yes!! You know, the reason why we are having this discussion in the first place! "Some theories have postulated that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East, and with minor demographic effects from regions further south [Bosch et. al, 1997] and [Newman 1995]" – removed (rather rewritten with lovely weasel wording “Scholars generally believe”) by Muntuwandi on account that Bosch et. al, 1997 apparently is not a valid source and Newman was “impossible” to find. Is Newman a source for this statement, or rather is this an accurate reflection of the source? Twthmoses 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry this is late, I've been out of town. Nowhere does Newman write: "that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East, and with minor demographic effects from regions further south," so that footnoting the book in support of this is invalid.Itzcoatl 06:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In controversial articles, just saying "Newman 1995" is insufficient for verification. There could several Newmans who published works in 1995. Citations should be unambiguous and easy to verify.Muntuwandi 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

this is the main problem in the part of the article that actually discusses scholarship:
 * "would only receive significant influence from the near east after the establishment of the Egyptian civilization." (emphasis mine)

this is the "Pan-Africanist" spin given to the findings, betraying that to Pan-Africanists, "Ancient Egypt" is really pre-Dynastic Egypt. The exact same fact expressed in opposite spin:
 * "while pre-dynastic period was still characterized by primarily African descent groups, Egypt from the Old Kingdom saw significant influence from the Near East". (note the omitted "only" which was used to dismiss Bronze Age Egypt as merely an uninteresting sequel of late Neolithic Egypt)

go figure. It is sound to discuss 4th millennium population history, but this is not generally what we usually mean by "Ancient Egypt". Ancient Egypt generally refers to the 3rd to 2nd millennia (you know, the pyramids, the sphinx, Tutankhamun, Ramesses, things like that). If you want to find a "Black African" Ancient Egypt, you have to go back to the 5th and 4th millennia (and then to the southern fringe). This will be easy to straighten out, in intruducing an article structure that is actually historical, with separate "pre-dynastic", "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom" and "New Kingdom" sections. People will then be able to look up the period they are interested in. Discussion of pre-dynastic populations is perfectly on-topic, and should remain in the article, but it needs to be isolated from discussions of [Classical, Bronze Age] "Ancient Egypt" proper. dab (𒁳) 14:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, this goes to show that you're truly pov-pushuing your nonsense and imposing your own original research. You say that "black Egypt" goes back to the 5th millennium B.C., yet why would they change from black to non-black in a matter of of a couple of thousand years given no notable displacement of the population? Continuity is noted by various anthropologists so if you were to impose this label on early Egyptians, the same would apply for later material, of course also with a slow process of amalgamation. Your views are obviously fringe, socio-political, diffusionist nonsense.
 * The introduction of new individuals, with the attendant changes in genetic material, is, so far as I remember anthropology and genetics, standard in basically every population, and actually the idea has never been challenged that I can remember. This would be particularly true in a case when we're talking about 100 or more generations, which is the case here. John Carter 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material, (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972) - Zakrzewski (2007) (cited already)..

Also please see the consensus view on the now discredited dynastic race near east invasion theory..

''Though invasion theories would persist among a few Egyptologists for some time, and even see a resurrection in popular works as late as the 1990s, most scholars abandoned their search for the foreign origins of Egyptian civilization. Today, we look instead for indigenous development and the roots of dynastic Egyptian culture within the Nile Valley itself and the immediate territory surrounding this cradle of civilization.'' - The Origin of Egyptian Civilization

The fact that you attribute this to "pan-Africanism" exposes your own agenda and not anyone else's. Hopefully you can look more introspectifively instead of making these baseless, far flung accusations towards others.Taharqa 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that "abandoned" and "we look instead" to not necessarily mean that the ideas were false, however, but simply that attention has shifted. John Carter 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

progress
in spite of the surreal ado on talk, the article has made slow progress. the present version mostly isolates the fringe material in a "Controversies" section, where it can remain for the time being. The actual topic is addressed under "Population characteristics". Further development should focus on giving a clearer diachronic structure to this "Population characteristics" section. The "Controversies", ceterum censeo, are WP:UNDUE and belong merged elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine.. But in the meantime do not drastically alter or rearrange content without gaining consensus.. We've already reached this agreement on the talk page.. Your point of view is not priority, which is why we discuss things on the talk page and go through a consensus process.Taharqa 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh to be a part of history.
You people must have heard of that game telephone. You tell one person a phrase and by the time it reaches the last person in line the phrase has changed. Wikipedia will no doubt be referenced some day, some how, so through very carefull manipulation you all may very well be an important link on the chain of turning paraphased references and POV summeries into the complete opposite of what the original research claims. There-by allowing POV's validitiy in the eyes of readers of newly published material's. Twthmoses's  observations seem to be leaning toward this point but not fully addressing the magnitude of what is being undertaken on this page.--207.14.131.239 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Pan-African really appropriate?
I just went to the Pan-African page. Just as the African Deaspora page the page deals only with "black" Africans. A racist page to say the least no mention of any of the other native ethnicities. The placement of the article withing such a catigory seems only a thinly vieled attempt to continue the article within the African Deaspora section for later validation without merit. Much like a squatter within the modern american escrow laws.--207.14.131.239 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume the page you refer to is Pan-Africanism. "Racist" might be a bit strong, but it would seem to violate NPOV, but it describes a sociopolitical view which is itself at least somewhat inherently POV, so that's not completely inappropriate. John Carter 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The continuation of such practices proliferates certain editors in their beliefs that they are flying under the radar. In essince replacing a scientific term of African, which includes more that just "black" africans, subersivelly and not to covertly with "black" which is not always the intended definition of african when utillized by scienetis and egyptologists. I my opinion the placement within such a section creates the racist problem which I have just attempted to describe. --207.14.131.239 21:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your grammar is somewhat hard to follow at times. I believe you're saying his matter. Also, there are some rules regarding how pages should be titled, and the most common usage of a given word, even if not necessarily the most correct one, is generally considered in determining article's titles. I acknowledge that that article would benefit a lot from having general definitions of "White", "Red", "Black," "Yellow" in terms of race included, however. It would also help if the book The Seven Daughters of Eve were referenced even once in the article on race in humans, although it isn't yet. If you can produce good evidence of Pan-Africanism or equivalents being used in scientific jargon, however, I would welcome seeing it. I'm not sure this is necessarily the best place to make such comments however. John Carter 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tripoli is a city in Africa, Johanasberg is a City in Africa, Africa is a geographical scientific term. My arguement is not in favor of such descriptive terms as "Black" and "White" but the recognition of such terms being used inappropriatelly even when presented in a context where-by a footnote is required for identification, even if, as-per my prior staement, used incorrectlly or inconsistently with the desired definition of references authers. Unfortunatelly mitochondrian dna has created more opportunity for con people and opportuntist to cause,or hope to cause even without tests backing their claims, striff and scam for the world. Unfortunatelly far short of any true philladelphian (brotherlly) hope to the world, As per you reference to the seven daughters of eve.--207.14.131.239 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "color" terms are extremely difficult to define, and that they should probably be used as infrequently as possible for that reason, and defined at least once in wikipedia so that it can be made clear exactly how the terms are used here. And manipulation of any scientific data to benefit "the cause" is something I too think is to prevalent in the world, although I can't think of a time when it wasn't common. Unfortunately, several "theories" of race, like Aryan race, are notable enough that we are more or less forced by circumstances to have at least something on them. This article falls in the same group. These "ideas" ("theories" is the wrong word), strange as some are, are independently notable. Also, unfortunately, this theory seems to be a rebuttal of the earlier Hamitic theory, which wasn't any better. I agree that the article might be better structured as one of a series of articles dealing with these related ideas and facts, but the older editors of the page consider the name of the page of primary importance, and that's what's being decided now. John Carter 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

People name their countries after their people and tribes. German is phonetically similair to Aryan, China to Chin. Color is hard to define, yes especially in a world where more than "white" people can get tans. HOWEVER, Africa IS a geographical scientific term,  As such the term does not refer to only "black" africans. To protected the page as it is from subversive and innappropreate inuendo, or as you put it "ideas", the unttilization of the Pan-Afr*ican catagory should be removed, the placement within the catagory is subversive to referenced materials and the intended definitions of researchers,  the placement is a footnote that does not allow the quotation to speak for themselves. Unless of course the Pan-African page recieves a MAJOR overhaul. As per you belief about replacing the present page with, as you put it, ""idea"s" in a series. I belive that would be innappropreate. That would further POV referencing from wikipedia itself in an inappropreate maner. Did you even read the section " Ahh to be a part of history"? --207.14.131.239 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, and think that your assessment of this article there is probably dramatically overrated. Right now, the idea of the ancient Egyptians being black seems to me to already be a complementary idea to the Hamitic article, and I believe it could be presented as a separate article, as that Hamitic theory is. This is in perfect accord with wikipedia policy, as long as the article referenced makes it clear that it is discussing one viewpoint on an issue, and adequately discusses the opposition as well. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming already does that and is considered to be an NPOV article. There is no real inhibition to having such content, as long as the article states it is presenting only one viewpoint, even a minority viewpoint, on an issue, and links to the other content. Creating a navigation box between this article and other related articles would make it clear that they were all directly related, and the average reader would realize, depending on the phrasing of the introduction, that a separate article on the modern theory, linked with an article on the consensus scientific theory on Egyptians and other related articles, is perfectly in accord with wikipedia guidelines and policy. John Carter 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why, mind you, John Carter (is that your real name or a refernece to Buckaroo Banzie?) did you through the course of this discusion prove the very point of "ahh to be a part of history". Your referencing my part of the discusion, as per serial articles, concern with identification of color, as opposed to my concern with inderectly identifiey color through subversive means, when I made NO such statments or claims validate the very argument I am discusing in that section. As a "junior"? editor (which you are arn't you?) your approach to the discusion has been, in my opinion, closed minded and uninterested in hearing, even at least, a valid point. That point is not everyone that was/is in africa is "black" African/n is a geographical scientific term, and to inappropriatelly reference the term Africa/n to "black" is detrimental to the success of this article and inderectlly detrimentally to the wikipedia project.--207.14.131.239 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am a junior editor, who actually bothers to let people know how much experience he has. Do you? Also, as repeatedly noted by me, how is your discussion here relevant to an article about Egyptians? I would love to hear an answer to that question, which I frankly have yet to see. And please do not vandalize articles by moving sections of content, as you have just done. Thank you. Regarding your point, yes, it might be relevant to the article in question. Why are you making those comments here? How are they even remotely relevant to this article? And the name was Buckaroo Banzai and my user page makes it clear what the source was in fact John Carter (character). Do you even have a username, by the way? And you're commenting about others, who have at least created an account to make it clear their statements are all from the same person? John Carter 23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes Mars needs women. That egyptian were black is not a concensus. Your "blind" uttilization of the word/s Africa/n to mean black is the very thing that is subversive to the authors being referenced's deffinitions of the scientific use of the word Africa/n. And as such on a page such as this that is an issue that needs to be addressed.--207.14.131.239 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will refrain from guessing whatever planet you came from. You have made your comments. And, if you read my own comments here, you would note that I came to this page to make the same point you made above. Your points have been noted, and several of us will work to change the article so that those changes are noted. For a person whose first edit was yesterday, you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. That is, if that was your first edit. Otherwise, repetition of such comments as you have made violates several extant wikipedia guidelines and policies, and can be cause for action of one sort or another. As your points have clearly been noted, there is no real need for you to repeat them, particularly as several editors, including myself, came to this page to ensure that the very points you raised are observed on this page. Thank you. John Carter 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You said any evidence of subversive jargonism would be welcome. I appreciate that my concerns have been noted I mearlly attempted to bring the conversation back to the point at hand I had no intention of repeating myself. I mean "seven daughters of eve" where did that come from. If I now seem mean or vindictive it is only because of possible action being taken against this address. Well I was tested as a genious more than once I try not to come accross to oddly If I did I did not intend for that. Pardon my spelling never had a passion for that mind you.--207.14.131.239 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. As noted before, your interests are being addressed. There is now a section below which I think is very relevant to the current discussion, and I think we would welcome the input of all interested parties in deciding that matter. We all have problems with spelling, I know I do, and I tested at a high level myself. I just hope that we can all focus on the content of this particular article, rather than bringing in outside matters which will probably only complicate issues. John Carter 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Racism in Egyptology
I changed the title of the sub-section Cheikh Anta Diop into Racism in Egyptology, because it deals with racism, and Cheikh Anta Diop is not the only scholar quoted in.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Scope
Please describe in as few words as possible your views regarding the scope of this article, i.e. what you consider as falling within the domain of the topic as it should be discussed in this article. (There is no need for direct confrontation with other contributing editors at this point. Simply state your case and wait until at least 4-5 individual editors have done the same before attempting to work with them towards a reasonable compromise.) Varoon Arya 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: The eventual goal here is to formulate a reasonable, 1-3 sentence 'thesis' of sorts which should serve as a kind of mandate for all future deliberations. Varoon Arya 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S.: I think it would be best if contributing editors actually took the time to formulate their own description of the scope in a few sentences before any kind of 'voting' is attempted. If you think otherwise, someone has prepared a few suggestions below for you to sign your name under or add to as you like. Varoon Arya 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the color of the ancient egyptians is too narrow and we should focus on race. Among black africans there is tremendous variability in skin color. Therefore we should focus on race, which includes skin color, physical appearance and ethnic origins. Muntuwandi 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Color", as well as other characteristics, seems to be the main point of the article, and clearly other racial characteristics do come into play as well. Skin color per se is seemingly the most important one to many, but clearly not the only one. The down side, of course, is that the "race" theory is itself a very contentious issue, and that would make this article about a controversial point of view based on another controversial point of view, which could easily be seen as having POV problems. John Carter 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This article should present an organized documentation and intelligent differentiation of the methodology that has been applied to solving the primary question, i.e. the race of the ancient Egyptians, in qualified studies and the theories that have come about as a result, both past and present. In the absence of a more qualified article, it should also present those aspects of the non-academic controversy which have cropped up as a result of this research. Varoon Arya 02:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would the Hamitic theory be included then? One of the essential points of contention in my eyes is whether this article should be expanded to include all the relevant material regarding that theory as well, given its direct relevance to the subject of this article. If the content were to be merged, fine. If a separate, complementary article on the current theories were presented, also fine. However, including the content regarding the "factual" race/ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians in one article relating to a subject, and not in the other, in this case the Hamitic article, is to my eyes clearly a violation of NPOV and probably a violation of Undue weight, as the inclusion of the scientific data in one article lends to that article a greater sense of importance than the other. John Carter 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume by the "Hamitic theory" you are referring to the now-outdated and generally discarded use of the term Hamitic to refer to 'lighter-skinned' Africans and/or their languages. If there is more to it than this, please explain. I could see including a blurb about it in a sub-section dealing with the historical development of theories of race pertaining to Egypt, with a link to the current article. Regardless, however, more contributing editors need to add their take on the scope before we get into any kind of discussion involving the particulars. Varoon Arya 16:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the theory put forward in that article, yes. As has been stated above, at least some of the current theories seem to be exist as, to varying degrees, responses to that original theory. If that is true, then it would seem indicated that the proximate cause of these new theories being developed be discussed. John Carter 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason for that to not be included. Varoon Arya 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A few suggestions below. Please feel free to add more.

1

 * The proposed scope of the article is the current theories relating to the "color" of ancient Egyptians.


 * 1) John Carter 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC) - Preferred choice for me, as it gives the greatest amount of space to include all relevant information, pro and con, regarding the theories currently being discussed in the article.

2

 * The proposed scope of this article is the current theories, and extant historical evidence, relating to the "color" of ancient Egyptians.


 * 1) John Carter 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC) - Acceptable, but less welcome, alternative, given that the extant Hamitic article would also probably deal with much of the same historical material as it is potentially improved, and we try to prevent duplication of content.

3

 * The proposed scope of this article is the current and historical theories, without including extant historical evidence, of the "color" of ancient Egyptians.

4
-- Maybe you should just turn the page into a quote page with subdivisions, or without, of schools of thought. No original content not even an intro or summary, with an amazinginly large bibliogrophy section people can add to it and readers can find informational refereneces to the texts. As it is right now to many people are concerned with futhering their own POV via this page. And having originally come to this page as a lark I find that really odd.--207.14.131.239 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposed scope of this article is the current and historical theories, and extant historical evidence, related to the "color" of ancient Egyptians.
 * 1) --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars
I have noticed that when the article has consensus Muntuwandi quickly inserts controversial material or makes deletions without much discussion. He then disappears and edit wars follow. This is unhelpful in maintaining consensus. If you're going to make a lot of pov changes like that, you need to use the talk page. Muntuwandi didn't even work on the consensus draft. Egyegy 02:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see the material on the orientation of Egypt as being controversial and I haven't disappeared. The draft was a good effort at restoring some neutrality, however a lot of information from the article is still missing. The problem is the article has been protected for so long, that the draft was essentially cleaning up an older version. As we stumble across relevant information, we will continue to add to the article, if it is reliably sourced. Yes I did not work on the draft, I was tied up in a dispute at Origin of religion. However if you recall it was my suggestion to use a draft in the first place to try to resolve this dispute. I think the problem is that your editing style is sometimes too aggressive that it provokes other editors into edit wars. What happened was regrettable and unnecessary. Muntuwandi 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To say the truth, it is Egyegy and Dab who are problematic here. They keep changing things without reason. Is the orientation of the Egyptians meaningless information? Dab put all that is written by Africans in a single section. This is racism. It cannot be said that African means Afrocentrism. Afrocentrism has nothing to do with color. It is an orientation. Jean-François Champollion studied Egypt in its African context. He is Afrocentrist even if he is q white man. When Diop studies the melanin composition of the skin of the mummies he is doing pure science, not philosophy. Dab stop this behavior of belittling Cheikh Anta Diop. Read the report about the 1974 Egyptological Cairo Conference to know who he was. Your racist behavior is becoming too obvious. You cannot choose a tittle. Worse, you cannot say the scope of the article. What do you want, Dab?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's obviously a biased assessment of the work I have done and my efforts to go by consensus. Actually Muntuwandi has done this the first time around when he quickly inserted a random picture of a Nubian mummy after we worked for a long time on the consensus draft which he didn't touch. Then when you get reverted for not abiding by consensus, your side gets hostile and gang up to protect their pov changes to the article like they own it. It's things like that that invite edit wars. This can be avoided if everyone doesn't make changes that they know are going to receive lots of opposition until it's discussed. Egyegy 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

it is people like you who apparently believe that Wikipedia is a random discssion forum, and articles are the result of chatty discussions who are the problem. Wikipedia policy is not negotiable. Not after pages and pages of hand-waving. WP:RS applies. WP:UNDUE applies. WP:FRINGE applies. As long as you do not recognize this, I will not even acknowledge there is an ongoing debate, let alone a valid dispute. I don't care if an author is "an African". I don't even check. What I do care about is is the publication peer-reviewed Egyptological literature? If it isn't, away to the fringecruft section it goes, African or no African. It is, in fact, racism to take cranky nonsense seriously just because it was written by "an African". --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann, you seem to fail to quote the most important policy in this case: WP:NPOV, and to recognize that separating out this article the way you suggest is pure, simple POV-forking, and absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia. This is not negotiable. Your refusal to enter into the discussion except to restate your point over and over and to rearrange the article against consensus speaks very poorly of you as an editor, and even looks like a violation of WP:POINT. I see that you have three choices: either
 * start seriously negotiating a position which will be acceptable to all parties,
 * agree to disagree without hindering the process of remaking the article through tendentious editing
 * or face the possible consequences such as, for example, a user conduct RfC
 * The choice is up to you.--Ramdrake 12:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, attempting to tell someone that they are violating NPOV, and then saying that it is "the most important policy", is itself POV. Personally, I would have no objections to seeing an RfC on all parties involved here. As stated before, there appears to be a very pronounced POV which is shared by multiple users regarding this page, and that POV remains POV even if it is shared by several people. If a user RfC were to be raised, I believe that there would very likely be several users whose actions could bear such scrutiny as is proposed above. John Carter 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me correct myself: WP:NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies (not sure why I mixed it up with the five pillars). From the NPOV policy page:
 * Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]
 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.
 * So, it isn't POV to say that it supersedes many others. That being said, I don't have a issue to have a multi-user RfC if anybody wishes, though I would say that this should then become an article-oriented RfC for the sake of helping to clear up this situation, although we could certainly do both. The one thing which is obvious is that something needs to happen to allow up to get out of this impasse.--Ramdrake 13:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also clearly the case that several articles have already been created, and accepted, which present only one side of a discussion on a controversial subject. These articles have been deemed acceptable if the article itself clearly indicates that it is presenting only one side of a larger discussion, and similar articles presenting the opposing viewpoints exist as well. The previously mentioned List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming may have a longish title, but it is a very good example of the fact that such articles, which present only one side of a discussion, can be and are acceptable if the article makes it clear in itself that it is presenting only one side, and not necessarily the most popular side, of a given discussion, provided there is similar content which addresses the other sides of the discussion in other articles. John Carter 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those may exist, but I believe the argument you're trying to make is of the sort WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which isn't really a sound argument for this kind of decision. In this case, I would have grave concerns that, in addition to being a violation of WP:POVFORK, this would create articles which would be obvious racist magnets.--Ramdrake 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am saying nothing of the kind. And, in fact, your own attempt to cite it indicates that you may yourself have a rather strong POV which is causing you to think that way. While such articles could become obvious racist magnets, as noted above, they already exist. There already is an article about the Hamitic theory, and there already is an article descriving the modern, contrary, theories, this one. To say that we might be creating POV magnets when in fact it seems that those POV magnets already exist seems to be more than a little odd. John Carter 13:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me try to restate myself once more: it is my position that separating out theories about the origins of Ancient Egyptians into articles based on whether or not African roots for this people are surmised (partially or not), especially under the guise of whether these hypotheses are accepted as part of the Egyptological canon or not (and if they're not, they're automatically dubbed "Afrocentric") definitely represents a POV fork to me. If one absolutely wanted to separate out these subjects, to be done fairly, one would absolutely need not two, but three articles to meet NPOV: one on the controversy per se, and one each on what Dbachmann calls the "Egyptological" and the "Afrocentric" positions. Myself, I think it's best to keep the controversy, and both positions, under the controversy article.--Ramdrake 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True. However, I regret to say that I already know of one whole project, WikiProject intelligent design (I'm a member of it, by the way), which pretty much seeks to try to work on many articles which clearly already are similar to what you describe. Several other articles relating to various forms of Christology and whatnot exist as well. There is clearly precedent for such separation, if the amount of content justifies it. If we were to add some sort of navigation box template to them all, however, I think they would probably be found to be in aggregate acceptable for POV, even if they were to apparently fail individually. John Carter 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it's been done before, I don't contest that. But is it the best thing to do, when we have a choice? I personnally think not (as per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS); however, if contents (mostly size concerns would be applicable in this case) dictate, a 3-way split (controversy, pro and con) would be in my opinion our best shot at keeping NPOV. A navigation box template would also help greatly in such a case, I fully agree.--Ramdrake 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you realize you refered to an entire wikiproject, which deals with somewhere in the neighborhood of 176 articles, and a whole series of articles about what is one of the most important questions in all of Christianity, by a rather insulting term. I know what you meant, though, so no problem. What I am saying is that the content which would be created for such separate articles alrready seems to exist, and that perhaps there is enough such content that such separation might be a reasonable possibility. If you believe that we would be better served by ensuring that potentially sourced, verifiable information on the subject not be included in wikipedia at all because of concerns regarding WP:Undue weight in a single article, I can understand that position, even if I personally disagree with it. Would it be fair to say that such a statement does somewhat fairly reflect your view? John Carter 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I never meant to refer to creationist beliefs as "crap". WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is just the name of the WP guideline/essay, and I was referring to the idea of separating a controversial subject according to the different POVs that people hold on the controversy as genrally a bad idea, and generally against WP policy, namely WP:POVFORK. I'm not saying it never works; obviously, it's worked in at least a few cases, against all odds. Again, I'm not saying creationist beliefs are crap; they're beliefs, and everybody's entitled to their own. My most profuse apologies if I led you to think I felt otherwise.--Ramdrake 15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But to answer your question, I think two choices are acceptable, and one isn't: acceptable choices would be:
 * 1-Keep the article on the controversy whole, with full positions of what Dab calls the "Egyptological" and the "Afrocentric" viewpoints
 * 2-Split the article in three parts: one that explains the controversy per se, and one each for the two positions noted above.
 * The one unacceptable choice would be:
 * 3-Split the article in two, one the "orthodox Egyptology" article and one the "Afrocentrist" article. This solution lacks the proper info to integrate both views in their proper perspective, even if they mutually refer to each other. Also, I'm quite certain this could become a magnet on both parts for insertion of more and more extremist views.
 * Personnally, I would prefer the very first view, but would also accept the second view. The one view I can't accept is the third view. I hope this answers your question fully as to where I stand.--Ramdrake 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I want to make sure that everyone knows I was probably playing a bit of a sick game with my earlier comments above, and that there was no offense taken at any time on my part for any statements made by the above editor. To respond to his edits, I'm guessing that, if there were the at least three way split mentioned, the Hamitic article and/or content would probably be referenced in one as well. I do think that adding some sort of navbox to all those articles would be at least useful, if they were to be created, to indicate that they all deal with what is basically a common subject. And I can very easily agree that the question as to whether there is sufficient content for such separate articles is not yet clearly answered. John Carter 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent, lest we fall off the page) I just checked, and the "prose size" for the page says it's only 36k long (even though the page with pictures and references is 153k in size. I'll let someone else comment on that.--Ramdrake 15:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, you wrote: "What I do care about is is the publication peer-reviewed Egyptological literature? If it isn't, away to the fringecruft section it goes, African or no African". This is too restrictive. The rule says: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 13:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dab, also, this attitude makes me particularly uneasy regarding people such as, say, Cheikh Anta Diop. The man is a bona fide historian and anthropologist, has published in peer-reviewed journals on subjects touching Egyptology; he's even presented at an Egyptology conference in the 1970's, if I recall correctly. Yet, you continue to profess that he isn't a reliable source, that his theories are fringecruft and should be segregated to another article. This reminds me of Rushton in the Race and Intelligence articles: many people despise him and his views, but his views can't be ignored, as they are significant views on the subject. Same thing applies here: you cannot segregate views based on ideology, if the views pertain to the central question of the article, and in this case, they do. The only thing you can do is make clear which view is the majority view, and this article makes this abundantly clear already, IMHO.--Ramdrake 14:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

^^Dbachmann is obviously the problem since as you can see, the reverts were centered around his disruptive edits lacking consensus, bordering vandalism, and he's violated 3RR. I don't see why he isn't blocked to tell you the truth; why are we even pondering another page protect?Taharqa 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note If this degenerates into a revert war again I will fully protect the article. It's heading that way now. Pedro : Chat  13:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who is actually willing to work constructively with others on this article should completely ignore the current article and whatever edits and/or reversions take place on it. A few of us are trying to work out a solid basis upon which future changes to the article can be justified and not made at the whim of one editor and his interpretation of Wikipedia policy (see Scope above). I would like to see that number grow considerably. Note that it is not easy to coordinate and work as part of an editorial team; it takes patience and dedication - which is why some prefer to take things into their own hands and end up starting an edit war. Each of us needs to make a decision to remove ourselves from the current state of the article and focus instead upon building up true consensus on the basis of reasonable and reliable information. And that requires - to the dismay of the revert-zealots - a clear plan of action that all can agree upon. Varoon Arya 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well written. I'd have to agree whole heartedly, though I see that this process will indeed be a difficult task, with all of the protects and unprotects. We just formed a consensus actually before the last unprotect, but it was compromised by new voices so it would seem. Everyone was on the same page, so I only wonder what would be the case if we'd reach another agreement, only for it to be offset again given a similar situation. In my opinion, the article is fine and with the exception of a few people who want to propose drastic changes for whatever reason, I thought we had a consensus version. Maybe the main thing as you've noted, that we need to discuss is a policy on editing aplicable to this page.Taharqa 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in the nature of Wikipedia that 'consensus' is ever-evolving. Some editors lose interest, new ones come along, etc., etc. However, this does not normally prove problematic for an article. In fact, one of the strengths of Wikipedia is its being open to multiple editors. We are here to check each other's work and improve upon it. So, what is going wrong here?
 * Besides the fact that this is a controvertial topic, this article lacks a manifest, that is, a clear statement of its scope, goals, and method of organization, which, besides general wiki policy, should serve as model for each and every change made. If this information was posted at the top of the article's talkpage, then all new contributing editors would have a reference-point from which to judge their proposed changes. If reversions are made, the reverting editor would need only to refer to the manifest to justify his revert. And if major changes are proposed, then the contributing editors would need to rethink the manifest, possibly rewording it if necessary. The manifest is the tangible product of consensus. And until new editors come up with convincing reasons for changing the manifest, it is what actually governs the article.
 * Most articles do not require such a manifest, as there is rarely more than one or two major contributors. But in a situation such as this, when there are more than a dozen interested parties, a manifest becomes an absolute necessity. This is what I have been trying to get people here to move towards. I see it as the only positive way forward out of this situation. Varoon Arya 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Take a look at the top of Talk:Abortion for something similar to a manifest. Varoon Arya 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian orientation
I believe this information is relevant to the identity of the ancient Egyptians. It is to give information on whether the Egyptians thought of themselves as being African or Near eastern. Of course currently North African countries are currently divided as to whether the are more oriented to the Middle east or to Sub-Saharan Africa. North African countries are members of both the Arab league and the African Union(sometimes reluctantly).However it seems that it was clear that the ancient Egyptians were oriented towards inner Africa. They viewed themselves as African. this does not say that they were black, but they viewed themselves more as African than Near eastern. All the scholars acknowledge this, so it is not inherently controversial. Of course I expect some resistance to this, In the eurocentric world we are so accustomed to focusing on the North that we find it difficult to comprehend that the Egyptians thought otherwise. Muntuwandi 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is true, then I request as per my rights that you produce a specific citation and/or, if necessary, an exact quotation to that effect. Otherwise, that would constitute either WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Please produce an source which explicitly states that the Egyptians saw themselves more as Africans than Near easterns. Thank you. John Carter 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi, on this one, I believe John is right in his objection: AFAIK, Egyptians didn't particularly identify with Africa (nor for that matter as Near Esterners - they just identified as Egyptians). If your citation was taken to mean they simply might have viewed the lands to the south as the lands of their origins, then I believe a case might be made, but if you want it to just mean that they identified with Africa per se, I think the case here is much more tenuous.--Ramdrake 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true that the egyptians would not use the term "African" because the concept of "Africa" did not exist at the time and is a more recent invention. However they viewed their ancestral homeland as somewhere in inner Africa. The maps they drew apparently only extended into Africa and not the Near east. It is surely a different mindset than what we have today. I agree that we cannot make any conclusions about the race of the egyptians from this information, but it does give us an idea about the social constructions of ancient egypt. Race is a social construction.Muntuwandi 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No real disagreement. However, I believe you can see how it would be WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to say in the article that they viewed themselves as being something when we do not have a specific source which explicitly states that. Having said that, altering the text so that it does agree with what a specific source specifically states would be perfectly acceptable. What is required here is now finding a specific source which can be used to substantiate whatever the text ultimately says on the matter. John Carter 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me that this information is important to the article. Many sources mention it: I quoted Cheikh Anta, Nations Nègres et Culture; Edouard Naville, "L'origine africaine de la civilisation égyptienne"; Muntuwandi is quoting David Silverman,Ancient Egypt, 42. ISBN 019521952X. “Oriented in their geopolitics towards the south and Africa, the Egyptians turned their backs on the north”. Who does not want this information has something to hide. But we are not here for that scope. This must be clear to Egyegy and Dab. I know that "facts are bitter", but they remain as they are: "facts". We have to rely on them.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Importance is one thing, WP:Undue weight is another. As it is I believed asserted nowhere that the ancient Egyptians were themselves experts in the field of population studies, and as their opinion was also at least somewhat based on opinions and practices which seem to actually be contrary to extant science, there is a very open question as to how important that information is. John Carter 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A very dangerous area to proceed into, an area were lots of creditability can be lost. You are talking about nationhood with a pinch of nationalism. Given the fact that the ancients Egyptians did not know the full extend of their surrounding and if their contacts should be any form of guide; ancients Egyptians hardly saw themselves as “Africans” or “Near Easters”. They were Egyptians (which I don’t even think translates to the common man). Contact with the south (Nubian, Sudan, Ethiopia) consisted of war (lots of war), trade and some settlements in Lower Nubian. After all Ramesses II did not built Abu Simbel to invite his fellow African over, but to make a statement “here begins the domain of Ramesses II, submit or die”. Contact toward (west) North Africa consisted of mainly war and contact with the Middle East, war, trade and settlements. Some of the Levant was for extended periods under de facto Egyptian control and there are so many smaller finds from southern Palestine that it could indicate a possible Egyptian hegemony, especially in the 12th/13th dynasty. With all this war and land grabbing going on, it is simple impossible, proven or not, that there does not occur some influx of people from south and the near east, complication the equation to a mere point of view what the ancient Egyptians thought themselves to be. Should Herodotus be any guide, then the Nile is the dividing line between Libya and Asia, and thus Egypt at his time lay in both modern day Africa and Asia. Herodotus even want to make the Delta into another division (along Europe, Libya and Asia), since it apparently does not lay in either. Why would the Egyptians think of themselves as African, when their country lay smack in the middle of Asia and Libya?, half their country in each. Twthmoses 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course since race its self is subjective, but indeed based on biogeographical origins, I have no idea why that should be supressed frm mention if it is actually noted by the citations in question. It is only undue weight if it is suspect or contradicted by other more dominant views, but apparently it isn't, so why does this bit of info need to be suppressed?Taharqa 16:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Taharqa, snap out of this paranoia trip. Nobody is suppressing anything. So far I have learned reading these talk pages, that there is a core of editors around that will grab at anything that places Egypt solid in black Africa. To be honest I don’t really see any Eurocentric views around here! Really, when was the last time someone cried “Egyptians are white”? There is a few neutrals around (you know who you are). Never mind that I have no problem with a solid black African Egypt – so be it if that is the case, I do have a problem with the way its done in this place. Example comments like this “It is only undue weight if it is suspect or contradicted by other more dominant views, but apparently it isn't”. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. There are 500.000 Egyptologists and another million already dead. There is enough material on Egypt to fill the royal library twice over. Have you even looked for contradicting views? I’ll take a qualified guess at not. Even more funny is “All the scholars acknowledge this (Egyptians viewed themselves more as African than Near eastern)”. What ???!??! Does that mean I can pickup any scholar and I will find such a view? The whole sentence is ridicules, and does not need disproving, it is automatically false. These weasel wordings are used over and over again, on the talk page as well as the article. How would scholars arrive at such opinions (that the Egyptians viewed themselves more Africa)? What sources would they have used to arrive at such a conclusion? Is there some kind of “how we viewed ourselves” book from 2000 B.C I don’t know of? Or did they read it off some temple? Nationalism is a 19th century invention, there is no such thing prior to that (at least not as we understand it). Even today local loyalties far outweigh nationalism, in nearly all aspects. Go to, say Germany, and you will hear I’m from Bavaria, from Saxony-Anhalt etc.. with German as 2nd (sometimes even as 3rd after European). There is no such thing as black, white, brown, yellow issues in ancient Egypt, much less a nationalism issue and some grand scheme “I’m from Africa”. Fight for king and country – rubbish. I’m from Thebes, I’m from Memphis, this was the issue. A hegemony ancient Egypt has never existed, and that the common man should somehow have a sense of “being African” or “near Eastern” is a 20-21 century hair brain child to project current issues back in time. The common man did not even know he lived in Africa!! Ask Inca’s about the Rocky Mountains, the Sioux about the American continent shape or an Egyptian about the greater good of Africa, and you would receive??? cause they have no concept of it. I know, now I’ll be meeting with original research and violation of blab blab. But this is not meant for the article but solve for the talk page, and for you to start doing some objective research on the facts, rather then to find support for predefined opinions. No there is no price in the end of all this; you don’t win - and you don’t lose either - if Egyptians someday turns out to be black African or Chinese, space aliens or Nordic Vikings. Twthmoses 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

^Unfortunately for you Twthmoses, this entire diatribe consists of nothing but ad homina and your own personal perspective, which frankly, we don't care about. I am and always have addressed the relevant sources and what they say, not my own assumptions, speculation, and gripes. It's a waste of time, nor have you addressed Muntuwandi..Taharqa 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, not quite true. The matter of WP:Undue weight is a valid one. Your attempt to write it off above does not come close to being completely accurate. Please directly respond to the claim that the inclusion of that information may well violate undue weight. Thank you. John Carter 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem!, do you even know what an ad hominem is? What you just did was a genuine ad hominem. You invalidated my argument by appeal to my person; - see now you know what an ad hominem really is. I invalidated both yours and one of Muntuwandi argument not by appeal to your persons, but by sheer statistic and the fact that if I pull any one of those Egyptology books down from the shelf and if I don’t find a “Egyptians viewed themselves more as African“ statement, the “All the scholars acknowledge“ is invalid. We need to start getting off the weasel wording wagon that is running here, and start being a little objective. Muntuwandi base subject “Egyptian orientation” is a very valid one, and even interesting – but a subject that is 90 degree uphill, since the Egyptians did not leave much of their views of themselves to us, so where should it come from, and how much accuracy do you think it contains? This is what I highlighted. The fact that you don’t care about my personal beliefs is irrelevant to me and to this article, especially in light that I have not given it to you (other than it makes no difference to me what race the Egyptians is, and a few other minor details). As I have said to you before Taharqa, grab the ball and try and stick with it.Twthmoses 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

^^Hello John.. I'm equally sorry to inform you that this is just rhetoric and the burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim, which is you. Given the most literal interpretation of policy there is no evidence of undue weight in light of the citations and reliable sources behind them. At the end of the day to avoid absolutes, it can simply be attributed to the source, but there is no undue weight, sorry. Simply because you claim it, doesn't make it true (please see Proof by assertion fallacy). Don't expect me to bicker over interpretation of policy either with out your full elaboration on why it applies to the citations presented and content, since that seems to be a constant theme on these talk pages.Taharqa 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, simply for purposes of information, once anything is challenged, it is the duty of the person who produced the information which is challenged to verify that the content is accurate. It very much seems to me that what was said above was a challenge to the content. This is not a matter of interpretation of policy. However, I acknowledge that it was not formally indicated as needing an explicit citation. As you know, anyone can indicate a citation is required at any time. If such citation is not produced, then the uncited content can be removed at any time. I believe that the statement above baasically constitutes such a request. However, considering the page is now protected form edits, the template cannot be added there directly. If someone on the talk page were to explicitly state that they believed citation was required for a certain part of the text, however, that would have to be taken as being the same thing, and would require the same sort of response for the text to remain in place. John Carter 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on Twthmoses' statement above "They were Egyptians (which I don’t even think translates to the common man). Contact with the south (Nubian, Sudan, Ethiopia) consisted of war (lots of war), trade and some settlements in Lower Nubian. After all Ramesses II did not built Abu Simbel to invite his fellow African over, but to make a statement “here begins the domain of Ramesses II, submit or die”. Contact toward (west) North Africa consisted of mainly war and contact with the Middle East, war, trade and settlements" First of all Egyptian Royalty is riddled with quite a lot of Nubian blood. For this I'll cite Petrie: W.M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt - Part Three, (1896), p. 308 states: ". . . . the kings of Napata represented the old civilization of Upper Egypt is clear; and it is probably that they were actually descended from the high priest of Amen, who were the rightful successors of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties. So far, then, as hereditary rights go, they were the true kings of Egypt, rather than the mob of Libyan chiefs who had filtered in the Delta, and who tried to domineer over the Nile valley from that no-man's land." Saying that Rameses II didn't invite his fellow African over is untrue. See the Nubian Medjay Warriors who were a major part of the Egyptian army for over a thousand years from the 11th Dynasty through the reign of Rameses IV www.homestead.com/wysinger/nubianarchers.html Saying that Egypt had a few settlements in Nubia omits the fact that Nubians ruled all of Egypt for seven decades during the 25th Dynasty. War between Nubia and Egypt was a war amongst brothers. Also Nubian Society predates the Egyptian Dynastic period. Here's the archaeological report titled "The Lost Pharoahs of Nubia" www.homestead.com/wysinger/menes2.pdf There was a Nubia without Egypt, but there was no Egypt without Nubia. Tom 11/01/07

population characteristics
The statement: In summary, ancient Egypt is thought by many scholars to have been a melting pot of various Nile Valley, North African, Saharan and Levantine peoples since earliest times. Is not supported by the sources as claimed. Both sources both claim that the ancient egyptians were primarily an indigenous group from the earliest times. It is true that Ancient Egypt would later become a melting pot but not from the earliest times. Hence I will proceed to rephrase the information. Muntuwandi 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It does, see on page 9 from the first study:


 * The source of any heterogeneity is thought to have stemmed from the makeup of the ‘‘proto-predynastic’’ (Keita, 1992, p. 251) founding population that may have comprised many biologically distinct peoples, including Saharan, Nilotic, and Levant groups (Hassan, 1988; Keita, 1990, 1992; Prowse and Lovell, 1996).


 * You see it cites more sources for that. It's mostly indigenous, but there was obviously influence from the Levant from the beginning. This is what you were saying "Scholars generally believe that the Ancient Egyptians were an indigenous African population and would only receive significant influence from the near east after the establishment of the Egyptian civilization"-that's hugely poving the article when it needs a lot less of that. I notice you're pushing to try prove that ancient Egyptians were black then changed after the beginning of the Egyptian civilization, and there is not reliable sources that say that at all, not even Keita who says that they are indigenous Africans but that doesn't mean they were black. See what he says about Egyptians and Berbers. Egyegy 21:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some theories have postulated that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East. Donald B. Redford apparently is a controversial scholar. However this theory should be classified as fringe because the consensus among scholars is that ancient egypt was primarily indigenous. Muntuwandi 07:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From his article: "Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies at Pennsylvania State University.". If he is fringe, then what do we call people like Diop & Co.? If there are different opinions from notable scholars, we are supposed to include them all. Egyegy 21:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument against giving equal weight to this particular scholar seems to be a statement that the consensus runs against him. For that to be verified, we would probably need some direct quotation which clearly and explicitly says that, or conceivably direct input from an expert in the field. The statement "...many scholars..." quoted above is not sufficient to indicate what the consensus is, as it does not in and of itself clearly state what the consensus is. I'm not sure under the circumstances that any real expert in the subject might not be questioned one way or another were a source to be produced, given that the precise definition of the subject here is open to question, but that doesn't mean we couldn't try to find one anyway. I know that it is possible to request expert attention on an article. I'm not sure if we have any recognized experts in the field available, but we could certainly file such a request, if such was agreeable to everyone involved. Given the importance and rather contentious nature of this subject, I personally think that filing such a request would be a good idea. John Carter 13:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuum
can some1 please explain to me exactly what is meant by this statement:
 * Egyptologists generally consider the ancient Egyptians to have been a continuum from the lighter northern population of Lower Egypt to the darker Upper Egyptians.

Thnx in advance.Scott Free 13:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's confusing, but lower Egypt refers to northern Egypt and upper Egypt to southern Egypt. The "continuum" means that northern Egyptians had lighter skin, southern egyptians darker and people to the north of Egypt even lighter and the south even darker.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

^Well, according to Yurco and others who this is attributed to, it means what wikidudeman is saying, but it is just a common view. It doesn't indicate that these peoples took melanine dosage tests, it's just an educated opinion. Though Nubianet's educational institute also says many southerners wouldn't in many cases be distinguished from "Nubians", while northerners probably related a lot to modern Berbers. Of course over time they all meshed with each other, and included foreign elements as well, but this is the view of many Egyptologists about the condition in Egyt during the classical period. Again, they are educated guesses.Taharqa 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My removal of the geographic orientation information
I removed the geographic orientation sentences from the Egyptian self-view section yesterday; since then, they've been reinserted by Muntuwandi, and must have been removed again sometime (as I don't see them in the article now). I guess I should more fully state my objection to these sentences.

Geographically, they viewed "south" as being "up" because the Nile flows south from Upper Egypt to north in Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt borders Nubia, where the ancient Egyptians obtained their gold. Thus the ancient Egyptians were oriented in their geopolitics toward the south and Africa, rather than the north.

I'm not saying these are inaccurate, as I'm quite sure they're correct. But this is original research in the context of an article on race, not geography, because the connection between these facts about geographic orientation have not previously been connected to the race of the ancient Egyptians by any reliable sources. The connection is being made by Wikipedia editors, which is not acceptable. Is it now clear why these sentences must not be included until a reliable source connects the facts stated within to the race of the ancient Egyptians? Picaroon (t) 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of Original Research in the article since I first rewrote it 2 weeks ago.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

wikidudeman; it was apparent that when you first started editing, a lot of the information you weren't even familiar with and you had to rely on us to know what and what was not actual quoted, cited, and reliable. The bit of original research, has nothing to do with this.

Also, I don't necessarily agree for the simple fact that geographic orientation is usually the main identifier of race. Race its self is an obsolete concept, but it's notable enough to have articles dedicated to it and geographic origin is one of the main identifiers of "race" so it is not original research and Muntuwandi has provided direct citations. I was honestly confused as to why you reverted him, but of course it does warrant discussion and not an immediate reaction in the form of reverting back the good faith edit in question. Though I will say that I understand your point as well, and if it is too contested maybe its inclusion should indeed be held off.. Muntuwandi has addressed this above in his own thread..Taharqa 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is not original research, then it is reasonable, and in fact requested by policy, that specific citations to support the specific points of contention are required. As the page is now locked, I believe it would be reasonable if Wikidudeman indicated below exactly which points he believes requires specific sourcing. If that sourcing is not specifically presented, it would be completely in agreement with established guidelines and policies for the statements to be removed. John Carter 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The truth is we are not going to find much material that deals directly with the race of the ancient egyptians because The egyptians did not construct race the way we do in modern times. Hence most of the information that we will have will be derived from indirect sources. For example we have included studies of egyptian mitochondrial dna, when we know that this tells us about ancestry but not necessarily about race since these mitochondrial haplogroups are shared by people who are black, brown and white. But mitochondrial dna will give us some information on origins. We keep mentioning the terms upper egypt and lower egypt throughout the article but we do not provide any context as to the terminology. The lead section mentions that the Upper Egyptians were darker, Surely then Egyptian orientation has relevance with regard to the Egyptian mindset at the time. It is interesting that though they did view themselves as a distinct people from the nubians, they still oriented themselves towards them and the rest of Africa instead of to the North.Muntuwandi 21:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, yes, but not that interesting. If there was an ocean in one direction and a neighboring kingdom I could trade with in the other direction, I'd point myself the latter way too. But that's not the point. The point is it remains original research to mention this geographic orientation info in the article, because it implies something about race. Regardless of the fact that it is hard to find good sources on the ancient Egyptian race, we can not settle for original research. Better no content than unprofessional content concocted by encyclopedia writers. Are there any reliable sources which have connected the direction the ancient Egyptians oriented themselves towards with their race? If so, please quote them here; I remain incredulous until I see source(s) which cover this issue. Picaroon (t) 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Egypt is still connected to the Near east at the Suez. In fact biogeographically North Africa is sometimes considered contiguous with Eurasia, hence the Egyptians could have oriented themselves to the North where lighter skinned people came from. Instead the oriented themselves in the direction of the darker skinned people. The statements just give background information, however they do not conclude that because the ancient egyptians oriented themselves to the south, then they were black. It is just some factual background information, hence it does not qualify as original research. What can be discussed is whether it is relevant, which I think it is in learning about the ancient egyptian mindeset. Many articles do provide background information to help in discussing the content.Muntuwandi 03:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was providential that Muntuwandi came forward with the geographical orientation of the Egyptians. It counted for them as the quotations made by Muntuwandi and by myself have proved. Now, we find in Plutarch something very similar. The Egyptians divided the world in four parts: East, West, South and North. Speaking about the South and the North, Plutarch says that Egyptians considered themselves as pertaining to the southern world which belongs to Osiris (Black of skin) while the northern belongs to Seth (Red of skin) and to the enemies of Egypt. Egyptians would avoid greeting people who are red. Egyptians think that Jerusalem and Judea are descendants of Seth. I have the texts in Italian. Somebody can search for the English translations. PLUTARCH, Iside e Osiride, § 31: "Ma quelli che riferiscono che la fuga di Tifone dalla battaglia fu fatta sul dorso di un asino e durò sette giorni e che, salvato in questo modo, generò poi due figli, Hierosolymo e Giudeo, mirano evidentemente, come provano i nomi stessi, a far entrare nel regno dei miti le tradizione giudaiche"; §32: "Ora, il Nilo - che scorre da sud ed è ingoiato dal mare a nord - a buon doritto è detto avere la nascita a sinistra e la morte a destra. Questa è la ragione che fa aborrire il mare dai sacerdoti, i quali chiamano perciò il sale 'spuma di Tifone'"; § 33: "Ecco perché, credendo che Tifone nascesse rosso di pelle e giallastro, s'incrontrano tutt'altro che volentieri con uomini di tale aspetto e non vogliono aver che fare con lore". "Osiride, d'altro canto, nacque nero di pelle". "Di più, l'Egitto ch'è quanto di più nero ci sia al mondo nel colore della gleba, essi lo chiamano, proprio come il nero dell'occhio, Chemia, e l'assomigliano al cuore. Perché è caldo e umido, ed è incluso e congiunto con la parte sinistra del mondo abitato, come il cuore è al lato sinistro dell'uomo". It is useless to think like John Carter that Egyptians ignored their origins. They were not stupid people. They had great scholars among them. I think it is easier to know one's origins than to project and then raise pyramids.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the regular derogation of the input of others which seems to be such a fixture of this discussion is almost certainly completely counterproductive. I at no point made any statements which even remotely qualify as indicating that the Egyptians "ignored their origins". I sincerely believe that the regular dismissal of opposing viewpoints and input is very likely one of the primary reasons this discussion has become as argumentative as it is. I note to everyone that official policy of wikipedia, including WP:CIVILITY, makes it quite clear that such I think knowingly false statements have no place here. I sincerely hope that all individuals involved cease and desist in such petty, pointless, counterproductive commentary on others. John Carter 14:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

^John, please note that your persistent false accusations will be under evaluation if they continue. Unnecessarily accusing people of ill intent when that isn't the cse is just as disruptive as anything else.Taharqa 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want documentation for the accusation, please note your own contributions of going so far as to use multiple adjectives at 20:00, 30 October 2007 here, 16;54 31 October 2007 here, 20:25 31 October 2007 (in which you seem to make it clear you don't even know the meaning of an insult you level against others) here, 16:51 31 October 2007 here, and your own post above saying these accusations were unfounded. That's five on this active page alone. And calling someone else guilty of false accusations is probably one of the worst violations of the code of conduct and civility possible. Thanks for giving me reason to point out the examples of your conduct, though. It'll be a start if we ever have to request comment on user conduct here. John Carter 15:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

^Hello John.. It is painfully obvious that you digging up old archives that don't even directly link to anything, in which you force people to search for these inane needle in a hay-stack comments, goes to show that your lack of substantiation for your position leads you into such foolish antics of false accusations and red herrings. So desperate that you evade your initial accusation which you weren't able to confirm as it was subjective, by posting up irrelevant links to dead issues that has nothing to do with what you initially accused me of, what you are accusing others above of now (which is what I addressed, not me), and whatever other sketchy nonsense you can drag up. Just be sure to stay on topic and not terrorize other editors during your campaign in searching for as much dirt as possible, because in he meantime, while I'm on this page, I'd really rather discuss the topic and not myself, which you seem more willing to discuss than me, as evidenced by your ridiculous post above.Taharqa 15:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They all clearly link to comments of derogation of others made by you. If you want to discuss the topic, then I suggest you do so, rather than continuing in insulting others as you did above. That would be in accord with guidelines and policies. As I have stated before, your own regular attempts to insult and diminish others, as well as similar attempts by others, are probably one of the primary causes of the degree of contentiousness which has been evident on this page since I first came here. The answer is simple, if you want to discuss the article rather than individuals, please do so. Thank you. I do note that you seem to be the one editor on that "side" who regularly cites sources, and I am grateful that there is such a party. I just hope that you can limit any future comments to the content of the article, rather than insulting others as you did in each of the links I posted to above. I have no doubt that such insults are one of the main causes of the tone of this discussion being what it is, and I think we would probably all agree that such discussion is at best useless here. However, should you choose to persist in calling proof of insulting others, an RfC on all parties, including me and you, could be requested. I would be willing to do it myself, in fact, regardless of any consequences I might face myself. Otherwise, I sincerely hope that all such comments on others cease now, as I had already indicated above. I honestly believe that an RfC would be the way to go if anyone chooses to respond further in kind with irrelevant personal comments, and am more than willing to file it. John Carter 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You've merely provide a link of an entire talk page, and then attribute this as proof that everything wrong with the page has to do with me. You bring up a completely irrelevant discussion about ME, after I merely asked you to refrain from making baseless accusations about OTHERS. Your hypocritical rhetoric, along with your unwillingness to elaborate and insistence on disrupting the talk page with your emotionally driven grudge, paints you in a bad light and makes you appear dishonest. Edit warring on people's talk pages while accusing anyone who happens to disagree with your points, of uncivilty, only makes a stronger case that you're actually trolling and this will be addressed if this sort of discourse continues. Vandalizing people's talk pages, while being repetitive with your overly generalized accusations (still haven't looked at proof by assertion fallacy), while accusing others of being the reason why a page is in so much contention is beyond trollish. Honestly, the page was a lot more calmk minus your intervention and you still have contributed nothing at all, only rants and accusations. So again, keep your baggage off these talk pages as it is clear that you've merely come here to vent after my deleting your messages off my talk page and warning due to your belligerence and edit warring/3RR...Taharqa 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * John Carter, Taharqa - please see that this mutual recrimination doesn't help anyone or anything, quite the contrary. If you must, I can Puro you each a punching bag, if that'll help..! :)--Ramdrake 16:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting point. If egypt originated in the south, or upper nile, why are there any ports in the medditerreanian? Wouldn't, geopraphically speaking, all trade with the middle east and India been more easy through shiping routes around the horn of etheopia, and saudi pennisula?--207.14.131.239 06:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, as far as the topic, I don't see how it's original research by any stretch as no one here has defined race yet and clarified on what exactly it involves. Does geographic origin not narrow down the field in the context of such a question? If someone is indigenous to say, Kenya, does this not hold any "racial" implications, regardless of the problems with the concept of race in general? More so, even when "race" is dropped from the general lexicon, biogeographic origin is always emphasized, so when someone is oriented to a certain place, meaning they identify more with a certain locations as having more to do with their "roots", than another?
 * They clearly do hold racial implications. However, we cannot say anything in wikipedia which is not directly sourced. In short, if the sources don't explicitly say something, neither can we. Yes, it can be a pain. It often is, particularly when dealing with matters about which there is little direct evidence. However, I beg everyone to remember that this article is probably one of the better articles available for any potential outside reviewer to use to indicate whether and how well the process of editing here at wikipedia works. Our own policies clearly and explicitly state that synthesis of material from multiple sources, which is what drawing "implications" is, and original research are explicitly forbidden. If we were to permit any variation from that standard on this, probably one of our more contentious articles outside of religion, we would not only be failing to abide by explicit wikipedia policy, and doing a great disservice to any of our readers who may come to this article, but also providing fuel for those who detract from our efforts in general. That's why I think that we have a particularly strong obligation to ensure that nothing which can even be reasonably thought to possibly violate policy make its way into this article, as it could, potentially, be used against not only this article, but wikipedia in general. John Carter 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

207.14.131.239.. To answer your question, no. Trade and an exchange of ideas has been conducted with the lower Sudan much longer and intensely than with the near east. So much so that in the pre-dynastic, their cultures were very similar. Egypt also had trade contacts with Ethiopia, punt, etc, as far back as the 4th and 5th dynasties where southern contact was very constant.

I suggest you read: Jack Phillips. Punt and Aksum : Egypt and the Horn of Africa, Journal of African History, Vol. 8, No 3. (1997), pg. 423-457Taharqa 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw Luka, good post! I'll have to see if I can fetch down that translation.Taharqa 16:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC) -- Taharqa your replie implies that lower, or northern egypt arrose before southern, or upper egypt. If the upper, or southern, nile were the origin of the civilization it would have much more public works and would engage in trade much more easilly via the india ocean than the nile. Oh and you finnally agread with me a from a pahge ago about how their were trade routes between egypt and etheopian southern regions. thank you--207.14.131.239 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Folks, please assume good faith!
Folks, it really pains me to see that this discussion is (again) starting to degenerate close to the point of name-calling. Can everybody concerned please keep in mind that we're all fairly intelligent people, that we're all here acting in good faith (in the sense that we all really think our position is what's best for the article), and if someone feel slighted by someone else's remark, I would please ask them to take everything in stride inasmuch as possible. Escalating snide remarks into insults is extremely detrimental to the atmosphere, especially on such a contentious article where it is (IMHO) of paramount importance to try to keep as open a mind as possible to other editors' viewpoints so that we can hopefully arrive at some consensus from so many diametrally opposed viewpoints. We're all fairly intelligent, as I said, and we're all fairly opiniated, but in the end we don't know everything, and we are fallible. Calling someone names based on our individual foibles is counterproductive in the extreme. So, I would like to suggest we all resist the temptation to act like temperamental 12-year olds (my apologies go to any of my fellow editors who might actually be 12 years old), and try to concentrate on the subject at hand while doing our best to ignore what may be perceived as baiting, as a lot of it strikes me as purely unintentional. Well, 'nuff said! Thanks for listening.--Ramdrake 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course this is usually the motto that I follow, though it is indeed difficult when you have people (ala John Carter) obsessively edit warring on your talk page, accusing you of absurdities, and then when you warn them for it, they bring it directly to an article discussion page. As insecure and childish as that seems. I for one, am not responding to one more contentious comment or shallow threat.. Thanx for addressing this..Taharqa 16:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The links have been placed above. Thank you for pointing out that I did not link to the specific diffs. I would have thought that indicating the times such comments were made should be enough, but evidently they weren't. And I sincerely hope that no one either responds to or instigates insults against any one else from this point forward, despite the multiple insults contained directly and explicitly in the post directly above. Actually, that makes at least six on this page alone from that party. John Carter 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)e
 * Folks, I understand, we're at this point all getting on each other's nerves. But the only honorable way out of this is to let bygones be bygones, concentrate on the article, each watch our own mouths, each take everything that might be taken personnally with the largest possible grain of salt, and carry on with improving the article. I very much think this is quite feasible for every editor involved. What say you?--Ramdrake 16:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
The current page is about 131 kb long. It is getting rather long. Suggest that we perhaps archive everything said to date, and start the next page which a subject on what the proposed scope of the page be. Several parties, including me, have already indicated that it doesn't make sense in their eyes to try to discuss the title until after the content is decided upon, and, as one of those parties, I think it makes sense to do so. Any objections? John Carter 16:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I'm not sure I agree. First, we started with a new draft of the article, then questioned the title, and now we are questioning the entire content and structure of the article, basically intent on rewriting it from scratch, while on the other hand, many of the objections raised by the various editors had to do with specific section, most often specific paragraphs, or even a single sentence. I don't think rewinding the article back to the beginning and starting all over will help alleviate the conflict, and IMO it may even widen it. While I don't oppose regular archiving of this talk page, I would like to point out that is was done less than a week ago, and that in my experience, this repetitious archiving may lead to the same questions coming back time and again needlessly, just because the previous answers keep getting archived. I would say let the talk page alone for a few more days before archiving again (maybe archive once a week?) and let everybody bring up specific points needing improvement. Reinventing the wheel all over will not prevent us from arriving at the same disagreements if we don't discuss and resolve them. I am aware that several editors have in fact been rather specific on points needing improvements, and I commend those. However, sweeping declarations of the ineptitude of this article really don't help at all.--Ramdrake 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree myself. My only reason for suggesting it was the length. 131 kB I've heard from others can be a bit long, and take some computers a fair amount of time to upload, which can potentially only make irritability increase. Having said that, I don't disagree with your points above. John Carter 16:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of people just like to argue and say they will rewrite articles but few actually do.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True. In at least one case, however, that's because he has a great deal of assessments to do for any number of projects before he really has time to write any articles. The fact that this article should already be tagged for the Ancient Egypt, Ancient Near East, Egypt, Anthropology, Ethnic groups, and History projects I think indicates just how much work needs to be done there. John Carter 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that the WP:SIZE guideline calls for 30-50 kb of text prose, not overall length, and that this article currently has 36 kb of text prose, so it's not really overlong to all intents and purposes.--Ramdrake 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that contributing editors take a look at the talkpages of other 'controvertial' topics (such as Talk:Abortion) and get an idea of how they have dealt and continue to deal with the kinds of problems that are plaguing this discussion at present. In particular, note the clear guidelines posted at the top of the page, which represent the present consensus in a tangible form which can be used as a ready reference-point. As has perhaps been noticed, I for one stopped paying attention to the particulars of the content of this article long ago, noticing that the approach the editors are taking to it is more than 50% of the problem. Get some clear guidelines set up if you want to coordinate this rather large group of contributors. Varoon Arya 18:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would only add that Abortion is a GA, and the similar Intelligent design is an FA, to indicate that such articles can reach high regard if editors are willing to work on them. That was one of the other reasons I proposed archiving this talk page, so that we could start on discussing what the content of the article would actually be and, with any luck, approach it with a fresh start. John Carter 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good addition, John Carter. Anyone who cares to look will notice that the Talk:Intelligent design page also has clear points of reference at its head which delineate how future edits are to be made. Really, this article should have had something like this long ago. Varoon Arya 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

sandbox
for how long is the page protected. Maybe we should return to a sandbox to try to reach a consensus. Though we are still having edit wars, I think the stability is getting better and the article is going for longer periods without protection. Muntuwandi 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I believe there already is one, right? John Carter 18:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll all for it too. More constructive, too, IMHO.--Ramdrake 18:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the existing sandbox is at User:Wikidudeman/Egypt race article. John Carter 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have copied the current version to the sandbox. We can start to work on the disputed sections. Muntuwandi 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. As indicated above, though, I think it might be a good idea to identify what we think the article should cover, and adjust the content accordingly, first, rather than adjust the article almost helter skelter and have the argument about what should and should not be included go resolved for much longer. John Carter 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't do that again. It was hard enough getting just 3 editors to stop edit warring on the previous attempt to rewrite it in sandbox last time, it would be impossible this time. Not to mention the fact that, as we can all see, the sandbox rewrite didn't work. If anyone here wants to attempt to do a rewrite then I can easily make a sandbox for that, but User:Wikidudeman/Egypt race article is being kept for reference purposes. Moreover, If a sandbox is done, starting from this protected live article wouldn't make any sense. We need to start from a consensus version, this live article is anything but.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For those truly interested in sandboxing it, Use User:Wikidudeman/Egyptdraft2.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikidudeman, please, take part to this new attempt. You seem to master the subject and Wikipedia's policies. Don't go backward when people need your presence. This is a humble but important service to humanity!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

^^Agreed. Though I feel more discussion is warranted to identify what exactly is problematic, a working draft starting of course with the current version should suit us fine if people can stop nit picking and using it as a medium to change drastically what is already contributed, without discussion. This was the problem last time, in addition to a lack of restraint (on my part as well).. Either way, I am optimistic about how things are moving along.Taharqa 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
I think we all know that the sandbox's content while it is still in the sandbox isn't a matter of extraordinary concern. Taking that into account, I wonder if the rest of you would agree to the following. We could use the sandbox to include all the relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced material anyone sees as being relevant to the article. If you honestly think this includes a picutre of grandma's three-toed cat or your kitchen sink, fine, include it. Possibly at the same time, we could discuss here exactly how much content the final page might have. I think it might be possible that some of you may have had content removed from the article, or conciously withheld including material in the article, based on thinking that it might give the subject undue weight. That shouldn't be a factor in the sandbox, though. And, if we do find that all the relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced material we have does make for more than one article, we'll have a better idea of how to split it up. If we find that we don't, then we'll probably have to use the hopefully contemporaneous discussion here as to what the content of the final article should include, and remove any content that might violate undue weight rules. Even there, though, that material could be shifted into separate articles on given individual books. I just want to ensure that everyone realizes that this doesn't have to be the only article regarding this subject, and that all the relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced material we can find on the subject is at least potentially eligible for inclusion. John Carter 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection
There are two strategies that we can use to get the article unprotected and try to keep it that way. Firstly we can either work on the draft and find some consensus. The problem with this is that even if we reach a consensus, as long as user conduct is not addressed, edit wars will persist. Unfortunately many of the edit wars have been over details that are not critical, some may say even petty.The other alternative is for all editors to agree on how users should conduct themselves when editing this article. It is my belief, that when an article is protected, everybody loses. As we can see, there has been hardly any activity on the talk page since the article was protected, yet the moment the page is unprotected activity will increase. I will discuss some of the issues that I have noted that are contributing to edit wars.

Edit war definition
Wikipedia guidelines indicate that an edit war has occurred when an article has 4 or more reverts in one day. I would recommend that editors take note of the edit history before deciding to revert and possible refrain if there have been already many reverts. This is because when an administrator notices a large number reverts in a short period, they will not hesitate to protect the article.
 * Suggestion: We should take note of the number of reverts and refrain from reverting if the revert history for the day is already high.Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag teaming
When two editors have an edit war the maximum number of reverts is six due to the 3RR rule. When we have two tag teams edit warring there can be up to 12 reverts before the 3RR can take effect on any editor. Tag teaming increases the revision history in a short time and attracts the attention of administrators who will quickly protect the article.
 * Suggestion: If two editors are edit warring and you support one side, instead of reverting, an editor can use the talk page to voice his or her support for the particular editors. This would keep the number of reverts low and help avoid protection.Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletionism or Inclusionism
It is my belief that the current article has still got a long way to go in its evolution. Libraries are filled with books on ancient egypt so there is still plenty of information that is not represented. Currently we are giving undue weight to a few scholars. The article feels like "race of ancient egyptians according to Keita and Brace". So I tend to favor including information rather than deleting information. I wouldn't object to someone discussing the red hair of rameses II, however there should also be no objection to the discussion Maiherpri's dark skin. Every now and then I hear calls to delete information on the sphinx.Censorship doesn't work because people will find the information from other sources.
 * Suggestion:- If new information is added and meets the standard of WP:RS and has some relevance to the topic, we should not rush to delete or revert if we disagree with the content. Instead we can use tags or the talk page first.Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If material is misrepresented or is totally irrelevant then it should be deleted.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the case in any article, however it is the process of determining relevance is what is of concern. We shouldn't rush to conclude that any material is irrelevant. Muntuwandi 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While I would agree, there is the possible problem of someone making a rush to conclude that information which no one else deems relevant is deemed by one editor as relevant, thus in effect gaming the system. John Carter 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

fast reverts
Wikipedia relies on volunteer editors. If an editor does some research online or from a library and presents the information to the article, and another editor disagrees with the content and reverts within 3 seconds, how will that make the contributing editor feel. The natural reaction is to edit war. Rushing to revert, especially without discussion tends to aggravate the situation and encourage others to revert.
 * Suggestion: Instead of instantly deleting new material we can consider the use of tags, such as the dispute tag and the talk page. Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary
The article is controversial, we know that there are "two camps" and some neutral editors who have interest in the article. In order to keep the article from protection, when we disagree, we should do so slowly. Instead of reverts we should consider other options such as dispute tags and using the talk page. The article is not going anywhere, so there is no need to be in a hurry to have one particular version represented. Wikipedia is not censored, we should avoid deleting material that we disagree with if it meets WP:RS. Neutral editors can have an important role because they can gain trust of all the warring parties.Muntuwandi 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - Any removed material could be added in situ to the sandbox, if the person who added it thought that it could be relevant. That would allow the content to be discussed as part of the article even if the sources, the probable reason for removal, weren't yet properly made. This would be provided that the content was deemed relevant to the article by at least one party other than the person who added it. John Carter 02:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As you mentioned earlier, we should add information to the sandbox. My concern is that since the article is protected, interest in the article and even the sandbox has reduced. Most of the usual suspects are nowhere to be seen, since there isn't much motivation. Though we should continue to work on the sandbox, we should work on our conduct as well. If the article is to be unprotected we need some sort of consensus on this. If we can reach an agreement on conduct, we can make a case for the admin to unprotect the article. Muntuwandi 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)