Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was complex.

The primary presented argument for deletion was that this constitutes a non-neutral fork of another article. While some counter-arguments have been presented, the top of Great_Sphinx_of_Giza makes them untenable. Despite its nonstandard naming convention, this looks like an article, appears in mainspace, and sidesteps editorial consensus that exists (or doesn't exist) at Ancient Egyptian race controversy. However, article development does not occur by magical elves working at night, and good-faith attempts to develop consensus though collective editting should be encouraged. Normally this should occur on the talk page of the relevent article.

Although userspace is a distant second choice and userfication has been mooted, the highly polarised debate combined with the quasi-ownership of articles outside mainspace makes it questionable that this method would result in a positive outcome: Less people would see the article, the same editors would in all likelyhood circle the wagons and re-run the same arguments.

For that reason, I submit that the rough consensus based upon the arguments presented is that this article should be deleted. I will of course selectivly restore references etc upon request.

brenneman 00:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

We don't do this sort of article. This is essentially a WP:CFORK of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, in fact re-using some of the content there. There is a need for the sort of coverage but, it needs to be properly split up into smaller articles with a less argumentative tone and properly framed as per WP:FRINGE. Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Partisan fork. Delete (or merge anything salvageable back into the main article). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) [Note: see below for an additional option]
 * Delete or merge: POV fork. Jofakēt (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not a fork of Ancient Egyptian race controversy – it is a spinoff which exists to allow all sides of a particular debate to be discussed neutrally, without breaking the UNDUE rule in the main article. I would have personally preferred to include this material in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, rather than create a spinoff, and indeed I have made several attempts to include it there, but the material was repeatedly deleted apparently because the “scope” of that article does not include these issues. If the “scope” of the original article specifically does not permit this debate, then what is the point of suggesting that the material be merged back into the original article????? I have included cross references so that readers will be able to get the full picture, and we can add as many more as it takes.
 * Certainly some of the material is duplicated, because that material is valid to this article too. However as this article is more complete, perhaps the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article should be seen as a spin-off of this article, as it has been pared down to describe only a very narrow section of the debate. Once we have got a proper article which properly presents these issues, a number of other related articles can be trimmed down and simplified.
 * The article has not been created to push a POV at all – the intention is to give readers all of the sides of a story which is far from cut and dried. Nor is it "partisan" – please make the effort to cite specific examples of "partisan" and I will correct them immediately. The article doesn’t take any particular viewpoint, and if you want to add more (valid) info to improve the balance then please do so. It is indeed fringe, but this has been clearly stated in the lead to the article, and each topic debated states the mainstream consensus clearly. Although the issues debated are valid I don't believe there is any danger of a reader confusing the fringe with the mainstream. However if you feel we need to be more explicit, then please add what is needed.
 * If you are unhappy with the tone then please modify it – this is a first draft and it certainly needs polishing. However demanding that it be split into a number of smaller articles is not appropriate – that’s exactly how we got to this point in the first place.
 * We could easily have had this discussion on the talk page, but somebody with a quick trigger finger jumped straight to a Deletion warning on the first pass – why? Why did that person not give the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith and make a constructive effort to first resolve whatever technical problems exist? This material has repeatedly been squashed in other articles for a variety of reasons – what is so threatening about this debate?
 * Wdford (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I also think it is terribly bad form to nominate an this for deletion considering it was only just created and that efforts to write this material into the main article have been consistently reverted. I don't think it will ever be a very large article, but it deserves mention in context of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, but that article is on probation, and as no one can reach a consensus on how to expand that article, I feel that for now the best course of action is to write this as a subarticle of Ancient Egyptian race controversy and we can merge parts of it back into the main article as appropriate at a later date. --Pstanton (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Oppose deletion for now, But in the future this content should be merged into Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, once there is a semblance of consensus.Wapondaponda (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the problem with the article lies in the title, which seems to indicate at the outset that the article will present arguments in favor of the "black ancient Egypt." Actually, if you read the article fully, it does not seem to present one particular point of view—in fact it seems to be fairly well balanced, presenting both sides of each argument. If the community decides to keep the article, it should be renamed to a more non-POV title. I agree with Wapondaponda (comment above) that the points made in this article should be covered in Ancient Egyptian race controversy. •••Life of Riley (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Mainly, what Pstanton, Wapondponda, and Lif of Riley said. Editors involved should consider forms of dispute resolution, such as WP:RFC, WP:3, the mediation cabal, WP:RFAr in order to collaborate together in order to write an encyclopedic article on this admittedly very controversial hypothesis/theory. ¨¨ victor  falk  06:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tag for Merger -- Whether or not this is a POV fork, it is clearly covering the same ground at the "controversy" article. On the other hand, this article has much fuller citations.  The appropriate course is thus for them to be merged.  However, this is not something that the closing Admin can be expected to do: it needs to be done by some one who knows the literature and can provide a NPOV merged article.  I appreciate that this is an area on whcih strong views are held.  I had understood that the acceopted view was that the Egyptians were a Mediterranean people with the swarthy skin colour typical of that region in contrast with negroid peoples from further south.  However, I am not a specialist and my opinion counts for little.  The probelm with this article is ultimately its title - "evidence for" inevitably implies a POV-basis for the article, something contrary to WP policy.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I oppose deletion for now. If later people like Moreschi and Woland come to understand the need for a balanced Ancient Egyptian race controversy then it can be merged with.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Extreme pov throughout this fork article, hardly anything worthy of salvage.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has only just been created, I think the majority understand that a brand new article is hardly perfect right from the start. The issue is the main article at Ancient Egyptian race controversy is highly contentious, and is actually on probation. This page exists to illustrate arguments in favor of the black egypt theory, and we hope that eventually a consensus can be reached on the Ancient Egyptian race controversy talk page on how this material can be merged into the main article. --Pstanton (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I recommend userfying the page so that it can be worked upon and eventually merged into the main article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestion, Mike. Please clarify what sort of userfying you require, and I'll get right on it. Please could you simultaneously lobby to have the scope of the main article broadened so that this content will be allowed in once we are all satisfied? Wdford (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about renaming the article "Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians" - would that be sufficiently neutral? If not, what title would satisfy, while we wait for the scope to be opened up at [Ancient Egyptian race controversy]]? Wdford (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of that title. It's very neutral and better than the current "controversies" title. There is some precedent for the title (see ). •••Life of Riley (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Theories" implies the existence of a position that can be argued in a scientific and evidential way. In this case, such a position does not exist in reality, and so it would be wrong to have a title that implies that these fringe opinions deserve to be classed as proper theories. Meowy 03:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - it is nothing more than a POV fork of the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" article, with a POV title, and any legitimate content that it contains would also belong in that other article. Meowy 03:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very dogmatic viewpoint - not at all neutral. There are many who believe the position can be argued in a scientific and evidential way, and this site seeks to air those various arguments. If they fail to convince then their poverty will be self-evident, but there is enough "scientific evidence" around to give the debate notability. If you believe you can prove that "such a position does not exist in reality", then please submit your evidence for consideration (with references etc, as normal).
 * We fully intend to merge the article into the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article as soon as possible, but meanwhile we would be interested in seeing your evidence please. Wdford (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wdforf and Mike in renaming the article into "Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians". Of cause those theories do exist. There are even more scientific evidence put forward in studies for a Black Egypt than for something else Egypt. One cannot like Meowy just make dogmatic statement. Let's work in a new vision and we will see which theories lak evidence. Of cause, we are not there to judge theories, but to report them.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can make statements, dogmatic or otherwise - what I can't do is claim that those statements are "theories". A theory, in the context of an encyclopedia entry, isn't just someone's opinion, or belief. There is no mainstream scientific evidence for a "Black Egypt", so nothing exists to justify a title having the word "theories". Meowy 18:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't do research in articlespace. We don't fork articles for research. We don't allow speculation in articles. Merge would imply that there were useful and uncontroversially-sourced material - however, if this were the case then said material would already be included in the parent article. This is pretty much a no-brainer.Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Chris, the reason the said material has not been included in the parent article is because an editor that side feels that the parent article should only be about the history of the debate, but should exclude the debate itself. This attitude has lead to the parent article being placed on probation. The said material is actually very notable and well-sourced. This article is not about doing research, its about reporting all the existing facts (with proper references)and allowing the reader to make an informed decision of their own. Have you actually followed this issue before giving your verdict? Wdford (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the parent page watchlisted, yes. I consider myself a good judge of how a Wikipedia article should be laid out to present an encyclopedic and neutral description of a subject, and don't consider the page in question to be an example of that. Instead, it is presented as an investigative piece which attempts to make a case to the reader. Wikipedia is not an appropriate host for such pieces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, you look to be making an interpretation. Ideology put aside, an encyclopedic article must report the state of the research. That is what we expect from the article on the race of the ancient Egyptians. But up to now, because of an administrator mainly, Moreschi, it is impossible. So the article is lame!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Ancient Egyptian race controversy. We need a specialised article that discusses these controversies surrounding Tutankhamun, Cleopatra VII and the Great Sphinx of Giza as well as the Afrocentric theory surrounding Kemet. Apparently it would be undue weight to discuss these issues in the respective articles. The article for this would be Ancient Egyptian race controversy (as it is currently called), if it wasn't for Moreschi, who, for reasons that I fail to perceive, objects to this.Zara1709 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Restricting Statement: Some of the content can and should be merged. However, since the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is highly disputed, other content can't be merged without a throughout discussion. See Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Zara1709 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of a “theory” is as follows:


 * 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another;


 * 2: abstract thought – speculation;


 * 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art ;


 * 4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action ;


 * 4b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase “in theory” ;


 * 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena ;


 * 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation;


 * 6b: an unproved assumption – conjecture;


 * 6c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject ;


 * I don’t see anything in there about “mainstream scientific evidence” being a prerequisite, do you? In fact, the dictionary repeatedly uses words like “speculation”, and “abstract”, and “hypothetical”, and “conjecture”, and my favourite – “an unproved assumption”. Clearly, using the word “theory” in the title of this article would be more or less perfectly appropriate.

Wdford (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Ancient Egyptian race controversy Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy delete as obviously unencyclopedic topic at a completely unacceptable title. No redirect necessary. --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge certain aspects into Ancient Egyptian race controversy, or set up as a supplemental working space -- a sort of sandbox, if you will -- for that article (and useful, perhaps, in the crafting of other, related articles. We don't need a separate article.  We need the editors currently involved in Ancient Egyptian race controversy to stay, slog it out, and come together to create something accurate, encyclopedic and informative. deeceevoice (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename. I think the article should stand. While still fairly flawed, at this moment it's a far better overview of the history of the debate over the "race"/ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians than the article it branched off from -- for many of the reasons I've stated elsewhere herein.  It's approach is broader, inclusive -- and it doesn't start off with Afrocentrism in the lead paragraph, which the parent article does.  Such an approach grossly misrepresents the nature/origins of the debate, severely limits the scope of the article and, therefore, ultimately fails sufficiently to inform the reader.  With, obviously, some work, this article should supplant the parent article -- for the reasons specified above.  deeceevoice (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone. Although there was substantial agreement to merge Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? into the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, it seems some people want a paragraph by paragraph referendum on such changes. As this approach is going to be tedious and time-consuming, I propose that we meanwhile build the new Ancient Egyptian race controversy article on the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? site, move it to a new name and then polish and build consensus there before merging the fully built and agreed article into Ancient Egyptian race controversy.
 * On this basis I have rebuilt the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? site. There is lots more to do. Comments and contributions please.
 * As the current name Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? is offending some people, would it be acceptable to move this entire process to a new site, called “Theories on the Race of the Ancient Egyptians”, or something similar, while we build agreement on the content and layout?
 * Wdford (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are proper theories regarding the racial origin of the ancient Egyptians and on the origin of the various dynasties that ruled ancient Egypt. And then there is this very marginal "Black Ancient Egypt" stuff. It would be incorrect to over emphasise the academic acceptance of the latter by giving it a title that implies it is part of those mainstream theories. Meowy 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per above. There is content in this article that should be included in the existing "controversy" article, because a comprehensive treatment of the subject should include the arguments of its most notable adherents. The subject obviously is fringe, but its article should clearly set forth the arguments of its adherents in a neutral context that also reflects that all of its positions have been rejected by mainstream researchers. If anyone wants a relatively uninvolved second opinion, feel free to drop me a note. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why we should be compelled to prance around with blatant pov-forks. If there is valid material, let it be presented at the long-standing, well-developed existing article. If this is a workpage used for collecting "evidence" or "arguments" by an interested editor, let it be userified. --dab (𒁳) 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is exactly our intention to merge the articles, as you would know from having read all of the above before commenting. Unfortunately, the so-called "long-standing, well-developed existing article" has been crippled by protections, edit wars and mass reverts, and is currently completely blocked. It is currently anything but "well-developed". And yet again, this in not POV - please give examples of POV and we will fix them. Please assume good faith. Wdford (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DB - what you're asking for here is what (I thought) I advocated. Merge the good stuff and move on. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * well, is there any "good stuff", who is supposed to do the job, and in what time-frame. Creation of content forks shouldn't be rewarded. We can userify this effectively private page, and leave it up to the user to "merge" whatever is acceptable in his own good time. No problem. There is no reason to keep this page in article space one minute longer. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We would love to merge and move on, but the original article is now crippled, shredded and fully blocked. That's why this site exists temporarily in the first place. Wdford (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete  clearly content forking with the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article this is just trying to side step the process at the earlier created article--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment. I disagree. Some editors decided that the Ancient Egyptian race controversy should have a scope limited to a discussion on Afrocentrism. Another article that had non-afrocentric material became warranted. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * May I assume, Wikiscribe, since you asserted at the Ancient Egyptian race controversy talk-page that the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article "is not a article to try and present proof of the race of the ancient egyptians", you now accept that this article is not a content fork? Wdford (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm assumeing that i was stateing that the article is not suppose to be a proof article there are not suppose to be any proof articles the only note worthy thing about this is the controversy itself what legitment Encylopedia tries to make such arguements and this article is trying to fork off that article to provide proof in which certain editors are trying to do to that article its called circumventing there is a reason why the aricle changed names from the race of the ancient egyptians this article is doing the same thing, i don't how familar you are but i know been around that article for almost 2 years now off and on--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, would you then be happy to support changing the name of that article to "History of the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy", so that the content agrees with the name? Wdford (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge I'd like to point out that POV is not a valid reason for deleting an article, and that this article isn't a content fork per se, as the material of which it is comprised in good part was explicitly deleted from Ancient Egyptian race controversy, therefore not duplicated. Although, I will concede two points: this article badly needs to be renamed, and its points need to be presented with more neutrality. It should not come across as trying to make a point for the reader. All that being said, I believe that this can be addressed without any need for deleting the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * pov-forks are a reason for merging. "Merging" means that the fork remains as a redirect. There is no reason to keep a title as obviously mal-formatted as "Arguments/Evidence for a Black Ancient Egypt"? as a redirect. You are damn right the article re-introduces material that was duly deleted from the existing article, after long and hairy disputes. That's what makes it a pov-fork in the first place. Ramdrake, you are not making any sense. I don't see how you, a self-declared "Experienced & Established Editor", can defend the creation of counter-articles re-introducing deleted material under a modified title. That's the very definition of "pov fork", and we can't have that. If the user thinks there is any case for re-introducing the removed material, let him seek consensus on the article talkpage, not go around creating counter-articles. This should be a speedy, the creation of this article was blatantly disruptive, and should have been dealt on an administrative basis immediately. I do hope the closing admin will have the guts to do this correctly after all. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, I question the neutrality of this viewpoint. We can easily change the title to something more acceptable - that can be done in seconds. The material in question was deleted (after disputes of whatever hairiness) because it was agreed (with much dissent) that the scope of the original article should be narrowed (at least that's the official reason.) This is therefore not a "counter-article" which duplicates another article with a different POV, it is the only article that carries this material and is thus "supplementary" rather than "counter". If the narrow-scope team continue to block attempts to build the other article or to merge these articles, then the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article will soon be a sub-article of this one. The creation of this article was not disruptive to anything - please explain what was disrupted (other than some attempts to suppress the material completely?) The Ancient Egyptian race controversy - where I agree this material belongs - was in the throes of an edit war based on differing ideas of scope, so moving this discussion to this article actually reduced the need for disruption at the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I also question your continued use of "POV" - please indicate examples of remaining POV so that they can be reworded. Wdford (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Wdford said. This would be content forking if the material was removed because it was unencyclopedic. The material was removed because the scope of the article was narrowed, even though the material was acknowledged as discussing a notable viewpoint. Therefore, there should be no prejudice against reintroducing the material somewhere else. Also, we all already agreed the article badly needs to be renamed. However, I believe I now understand better where Dbachmann is coming from.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe the intent of this "article" was for interested editors to withdraw temporarily from the main article in order to best formulate the information in support of a Black Egypt with a view toward later incorporating it back into the main article, properly sourced, properly cited. It was never intended as a standalone article.  I believe the difficulty here could be solved forthwith by simply making the "article" an adjunct sort of working page of the main article, leaving the involved editors free to raise certain points, debate their applicability/usefulness to the main article, make sure the information is properly sourced, and agree upon suitable language -- since this process has been stymied by, a dictatorial and threatening approach by, certainly, two administrators and the hand-off to a third and then a fourth, who precipitously locked the article for editing when, IMO, there was no need to do so. The current article has a lead which pigeonholes the entire subject into the framework of Afrocentrism -- which simply does not work.  On the other hand, the lead paragraph of the working page of this "article," on the other hand, is far more suitable and reads, '"The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times. The scarcity of 'hard' evidence has served to fuel the debate. The scholarly consensus outside the field of Egyptology is that the concept of "pure race" is incoherent;[1] and that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic.[2]."  From the looks of the lead, at least, seems to me the people working on this "article" have a firmer grasp of the appropriate way to approach the subject matter than those who've been riding roughshod over developments at the parent article. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And for the above reasons, I believe the article should be renamed to a less POV title and supplant the existing article at "Controversy over race of the ancient Egyptians" (or whatever the hell it's called). It definitely needs more work, but its approach is far more sound, and it shows promise.  deeceevoice (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as content fork. --Folantin (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Discreet merge and delete, odd, news-like title, but some sourced excerpts are worthy. Brandспойт 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.