Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy over racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians


 * 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 keep. It is strongly recommended that those disputing the article open a RfC on the matter. --Core desat  05:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy over racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians

 * — (View AfD)

This article violates the policies of this project on so many levels. It’s a quotations farm and this project is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Too many quotes and very small amount of discussion is non-encyclopedic and could be a copyright violation even if citations are included. Also, some things implied in the text are not found in the reference cited if you carefully check. Its topic is inherently pov and right now the article is too heavily focused on the Afrocentric pov. It has been singularly edited by User:Enriquecardova who is more or less intent on proving that Egypt was originally a Black African civilization and that it only later changed its racial makeup. I’m sure other people can come and point to other evidence. If you check out prior versions of this article, you’ll get an entirely different picture. It’s an endless debate and seems inherently pov however you slice it.

I noticed that the article noted the controversy in its title before, so I tried to change it back but he kept edit warring about it, claiming it’s not really a controversy even though the quotes he added to the article are all laced with a controversial tone. How can it not be a controversy, just have a look at the talk page? The article is basically a long polemic that doesn’t add to the encyclopedic value of the project. See “silly debate” comment No respectable encyclopedia has an article about the racial controversy of anything. I think the article should be deleted and some of the information merged with Afrocentrism and the genuine information can be integrated with general articles. Nebkaneil 00:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and use other avenues of dispute resolution This article has an established version history before the current dispute:. The topic does seem to be encyclopedically valid (though of course controversial). I don't see a need to bring the dispute to afd. User:Nebkaneil should try a Request for Comment and perhaps appeal for the involvement of WP:EGYPT members to generate consensus. Another path would be to ask for Peer Review of the article. User:Enriquecardova is an enthusiastic and prolific newcomer to Wikipedia who has made many knowledgeable contributions in his limited time so far. The amount of focus and ambition I've noticed that he brings to articles he's interested in is admirable (and also may be inadvertently a little intimidating for other users). Judging by his Amazon.com reviews and political blog comments, he is also quite opinionated. This is of course fine in itself, though perhaps he should take the time to familiarize himself more with Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NPOV. While most newcomers aren't that familiar with guidelines at a comparative stage, most newcomers haven't jumped into article editing with so much effort either. Anyway, I don't think this is one for AFD Bwithh 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was agreed that the article should be based on an established version and give only an overview about the history, concepts and the people involved in this controversy, then there should not be an attempt to prove one view or the other... Race is not a scientific concept, therefore it's impossible to prove in an objective way what "race" Egyptians were. Nor should it be a lengthy declaration of quotes about whatever findings/facts/claims some editors believe to have to support their position. I still think that this version should be set up for deletion and the legitimate information should go to Ancient Egypt topics. Nebkaneil 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep —  per User:Bwithh Dionyseus
 * Yes keep this article. I think the request to delete is just sour grapes by a user who has little to contribute, is upset that his favorite dynastic race theories do not stand up under the data put forward by mainstream scholars on this subject, and is now using administrative measures to kill what he doesnt like. This user's writing style is familar to one I have encountered before, and I believe he is hiding behind this one as a front. But regardless of what bogus user names he or she hides under, his or her assorted claims are baseless. He charges:
 * Too many quotes--- Such quotes are there for a specific reason. Due to the controversial nature of the subject, it is necessary for readers to determine for themselves exactly what scholars in the field say, rather than read endless unsubstantiated arguments and undergo endless edit wars. Indeed thisi s part and parcel of the topic. It is controversial, and as a result, readers need to know exactly who said what, and where it can be verified.
 * Copyright violations-- It would be nice if user "Nebkaneil" or whatever current name is being used would provide some evidence. But of course, none is forthcoming. If there are any of these mysterious violations, they can always be corrected.
 * POV- This is laughable. In fact the whole article deals with different points of view, and how they stack up against the evidence. We have Afrocentrists, manstream Egyptologists, critics like Mary Leftkowitz, neutrals who want to move away from race in anthropology, and other shades in between. They are discussed in the article.
 * Article different than before- lol. gosh... of course itis different than before. Its called Wikipedia.... and its called adding citations and scholarship. Ina ny event about 90% of the original information before the citations were addedis still there, even the King Tut picture, which by the way, sure looks like a "copyright violation." But I notice user "Nebkaneil" has nothing to say about that.
 * User Cardova "out to prove" certain things--- Actually, if their is any bias in the article, it is the opposite of what is charged. The bias toward the mainstream view, which sees Egypt as having a range of types, and which Afrocentrics attack as "racist." Indeed this is precisely why it is important to quote- so users get an idea of what is being said by "mainstream" scholars, rather than the common charge of "conspiracy" or "racism" thrown around by people dealing with this topic. As can be seen by quotes from Leftkowtiz and a mainstream Egyptologist like Yurco, the general consensus is that Egypt had a range of types that should not be pigeonholded. But then again, you would never know this if it were'nt for those "citations." Other have a different take, or a different angle. Other disagree. But that is scholarship.
 * As for redirects--- I requested that the redirector provide substantive reasoning to support the request to redirect rather than blanket statements of "controversy". To date, nothing substantive has been forthcoming, just arbitrary moves.
 * - I think user "Nebkaneil" or whatever alias he is currently using is related to one user, who was pushing a more "Aryan" point of view. When challenged to provide his data, he could not, but backed off. This is indeed ironic. One thing the article shows is just how bankrupt such "Aryan" points of view are. Bankrupt of both data and clear thinking, his next step is to go the "administrative" route, rather than conduct a robust debate. Following this will be vandalism, and edit wars. Of course, these will simply be reverted or adjusted as needed, and no doubt an assortment of Afrocentric supporters or even 'Aryans" can be rounded up to pile in. It would be nice if people did not have to resort to such vandalism, or bogus "administrative" requests. It might be necessary to request that the article be locked in view of such tactics, since more detailed information is being added in the weeks to come.Enriquecardova 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aiaiaiai, someone open a RFC... Bwithh 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but needs better organization.
 *  Very weak Keep. and revert to this version per Sandstein. This is more or less a very, very well sourced (and fairly well written) essay or "paper" promoting a POV. There is beyond a shadow of a doubt a wikipedia article in there but it needs to be rewritten for tone something fierce. The title of the article needs to be changed as well. I'm not really seeing way to fix this without an extreme amount of heavy work by those interested. The quotes need to go and be replaced by actual encyclopedic coverage of their topics. This is a quote farm, bad. I just can't quite bring myself to vote delete but my opinion could swing one way or the other with some more (outside) comments and thoughts. NeoFreak 02:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced, excess quotations can be removed and the remainder of the article could do with some wikification and copyediting for WP:NPOV, but deletion is not the answer. Has encyclopædic value, just needs some work. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs some serious clean up.  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable controversy in all its ridiculosity. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Malomeat 03:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This needs to be deleted and started from scratch. If this is an encyclopedic topic (which I'm not sure it is), the article as it stands now will never turn into one. Wipe clean, start it again if someone can make sense of this mess without a quotation dump. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the question of the suitability of "quotefarm" in whole or part, as I pointed out above, an established version of this article existed before the recent influx of quotations Bwithh 03:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then revert and we'll talk. Based on the current status of the article, my opinion is to delete. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleting an article means removing its history too, not just its current version Bwithh 04:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but cut wayyyyyy down, or revert to previous better version. Seraphimblade 03:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up to be more encylopedic: fewer quotes and more exposition about what this controversy is/was, which is what the article should be about. Heimstern Läufer 07:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and revert or cleanup to make it readable at least. ← A NAS  Talk? 11:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, revert to this older non messed-up version, cleanup from there. This is an editorial issue not suitable for AfD. Sandstein 14:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep too well-sourced to be deleted. TSO1D 15:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per others but needs "major" work. &mdash; Seadog 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - encyclopedic subject and interersting outside a narrow niche, clearly capable of being put into encyclopedic tone and format and with ample ability to obtain credible verifiable citations on this well-defined subject. AFD is not really the ideal recourse for encyclopedic-capable articles that just happen not to yet have been written according to policies as one would wish. Cleanup, sourcing, neutrality, RFC, and dispute resolution are more appropriate venues. FT2 (Talk 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic subject. Take the content dispute to RFC.   Mr Stephen 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but go through RfC and edit mercilessly to correct the POV and to remove any copyvios in the paragraph long quotes, and to cite without all the cut and paste. This reads like an essay from the period a few years ago when Afrocentric educators tried to push the POV that Clepoatra was black as were all the ancient Egyptian Pharoahs, that the Egyptians used electricity, that they flew around in gliders, and a host of other absurdities aimed at instilling racial pride in minority students in the U.S. . The question of their racial characteristics is encyclopedic, and can be addressed based on paintings in tombs and via physical anthropology based on bone structure, and historically based on the writings of ancient observers. Edison 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Complete cleanup and overhaul. Make sure the article clearly states that the leading scholarly belief is that the ancient Egyptians were of a multi-racial/Semitic appearance.  There's no good reason to believe that the Middle East and North Africa were populated with Black people just a few thousand years ago unless someone can come up with a plausible explanation for what caused such a rapid demographic change.  (I called a Black Studies teacher on this one and he couldn't.)  As with the Race of Jesus, claims that the ancient Egyptians were of a Northern-European appearance are clearly ridiculous, but claims that they were of a Sub-Saharan-African appearance are *just as ridiculous*.  Schlomanga5 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - This version, while far from perfect, is much better than the current article, and would be a good place to start from. Schlomanga5 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP The proposal to delete this article sees a abusive use of WP procedure, & a waste of time for us all.DGG 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * DELETE and replace it with this draft which is actually discussing the "controversy" instead of resuming the dispute CoYep 14:02, 14 December 2006 (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.