Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Dealing with bad faith, "melanchroes with woolly hair"

The following sentence is found in the article in the Black Egyptian Hypothesis section: Early advocates of the Black African model relied heavily on writings from Classical Greek historians, including Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, and Herodotus, wherein the Greeks referred to Egyptians as "melanchroes" with woolly hair.[10]:21[174] There are a couple of major concerns with this statement:

1. The text in the article does not accurately reflect any of the books cited. Wiki rules require quotes to be unedited, verbatim text, exact reproduction of the original source.
2. Wiki editors do not have the authority to correct the word 'black' to 'dark skinned' on behalf of the translator of major published works, such as Herodotus, the Histories, by Penguin publishing. These translators intentionally chose the word 'black' in the text and highlight in footnotes, notes pages, or elsewhere that there is a controversy around the translation. However, they do not print books with 'dark skinned/brown' in that section of text.
3. The text in the article is the minority view and not found in the majority of English language translations of the original Greek text
4. The text in the article missrepresents the position of the Black Egyptian hypothesis. In fact, the creators of the Black Egyptian hypothesis are diametrically opposed to the use of brown/dark skinned with woolly hair in this quote. In all books on the Black Egyptian hypothesis you will find this passage translated as "black with woolly hair", as it is also most often translated in the primary sources. Examples from secondary sources:

• Diop 1974, "black skinned with woolly hair"
• Diop 1974, "the probability of encountering men that are black skin and woolly hair, without any other ethnic feature common to Negroes, is scientifically nil"
• Diop 1974, "(melanos) the strongest existing in Greek to denote a black"
• Mokhtar, "black skins and kinky hair"

Primary source: Penguin Books publishing, Herodotus the Histories, "black skins and woolly hair"

I propose modifying the text to add a short quote of "black skins with woolly hair" to reflect the text in the cited books and the actual position of the hypothesis in the black egyptian hypothesis section of the article. I also propose adding a coherent paragraph to explain the melanchroes translation controversy, which is actually a critique or rebuttal of the black egyptian hypothesis, as opposed to an encyclopedic definition/explanation of the black egyptian hypothesis. If we can't reach an agreement, we will need to go to dispute resolution, as we can't allow editors to misquote books and misrepresent the authors.

Quotations vs. paraphrases

	Quotations	Paraphrases
Definitions	Verbatim text, enclosed by quotation marks or set off by other formatting elements (such as block-indenting)	Text based on a source, but rephrased in Wikipedia editors' own words
Verbatim text	Yes, usually an unedited, exact reproduction of the original source, with any alterations (such as corrections or abridgements) clearly marked as such	No, the meaning of the original source is faithfully preserved, but is restated with different words
Formatting elements	Yes, quote marks or formatting clearly indicate where the quotation begins and ends	No, paraphrases are not distinguished from the running text

EditorfromMars (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is also a problem of SYNTH by combining the melanchroes word from a Greek text with a phrase from an English language text to reach a conclusion that cannot be found in the cited sources above.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.EditorfromMars (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• The section already gives a neutral, balanced summary. Primary sources aren't needed as long as there are secondary sources that discuss and analyze it, plus the primary source you're talking about is already cited as a source that translates it as black. Simson Najovits sees that "dark-skinned" is the usual translation of the original Greek Melanchroes, and there are other sources that use it too. The section already gives more weight to Diop and his followers than they should get, because the article makes it clear that this position is adopted by Afrocentrists and largely ignored by mainstream scholars. Mohamed^Talk 06:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read the article. The Black Egyptian Hypothesis quotes are from secondary sources, Diop African Origin of Civilization and Mokhtar Gen. History of Africa. Primary sources are not in question here, other than the fact that they are quoted quite often by Diop and others. It is not neutral or balanced to misrepresent the text in a book and using SYNTH and pretend that it reflects the intent of the authors. There is not an English language book available that has the text "melanchroes with woolly hair." If English readers could understand the word melanchroes, they would not need a book translated to English from the Greek. The books state "black skin with woolly hair." This is a bad faith edit that improperly quotes the sourcesEditorfromMars (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please stop being polemical and focus on the point. Again, the primary source you mentioned is cited with the sources that translate as black. There is absloutely no synthesis of material here. There only needs to be a source for the first sentence, which I'll add. Mohamed^Talk 06:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I literally posted the secondary sources above, which use passages from a primary source as the basis of their secondary work. Therefore, you will need to find a copy of Diop's book or the Gen. History of Africa book that translates Herodotus as "melanchroes with woolly hair", or "dark skinned with woolly hair", which is impossible. Diop explicitly states that "dark skinned with woolly hair" is not his theory/hypothesis and that "black with woolly hair is the best translation." It misrepresents the intent of the author of a peer reviewed secondary source to change their thesis to fit the narrative of critics. We need to first present the actual hypothesis/theory and then discuss counterarguments for balance. Not misrepresent the hypothesis/theory and then present counterarguments.EditorfromMars (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

SYNTH = Black Egyptian hypothesis advocates use a statement, "Black skin with woolly hair" to explain their position. Critics use "dark-skinned with woolly hair". Critics say melanchroes = dark-skinned. therefore Black Egyptian hypothesis advocates use a statement, "Melanchroes with woolly hair" to explain their position in their books. Actually black egyptian hypothesis advocates don't use melanchroes or dark skinned and they explicitly state in their notes that they intentionally used "black skin with woolly hair." For example, Diop 1974, "(melanos) the strongest existing in Greek to denote a black"EditorfromMars (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• And where does the article claim Diop said otherwise?! Black quote is mentioned as according to diop, while the section elaborates below that the disagreement on the translation. What are you arguing for exactly? Mohamed^Talk 06:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Please read the article, "The Black African model relied heavily on the interpretation of the writings of Classical historians. Some of the most often quoted historians are Herodotus, Strabo, and Diodorus Siculus. According to Diop, Herodotus states the Egyptians were "black skinned with woolly hair", (about Greek Oracles) "by calling the bird black, they indicated that the woman was Egyptian", and "the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians are the only races which from ancient times have practiced circumcision". Lucian observes an Egyptian boy and notices that he is not merely black, but has thick lips. Diodorus Siculus mentioned that "the majority of Nile dwelling Ethiopians were black, flat nosed.." and Ethiopians were "originators of many customs practiced in Egypt, for the Egyptians were colonists of the Ethiopians." Appollodorus, a Greek, calls Egypt the country of the black footed ones. Aeschylus, a Greek poet, wrote that Egyptian seamen had "black limbs." Mohamed^Talk 06:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You are quoting an entirely different article. This is the talk page for Ancient Egyptian race controversy, not the Talk page for "the Black Egyptian hypothesis." The passage you excerpted is in a different Wiki article. This page is to discuss edits to THIS ARTICLE. The passage from this article is excerpted above at the top of this section on the Talk pageEditorfromMars (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• The lead of your section seemed to be about the other one. Attributed it to Diop with his translation. Mohamed^Talk 06:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The section in this article is titled "black egyptian hypothesis." The other article provides more details on the shorter section in this article.EditorfromMars (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• @EditorfromMars: The fact that Black Egyptian hypothesis is primarily maintained by Afrocentrists isn't only the view of critics, some of the sources don't criticise it at all, but give a describtion of their views and origins. Moreover, Asante's view that "Diop predates the concept and was not an Afrocentrist" is just his opinion, and contradicts multiple sources that describe Diop not just as an Afrocentrist but as "by far the most important figure in the development of what is now called Afrocentric thought". That's Undue weight, plus it has no direct relation to the preceding statement. Even if Diop wasn't an Afrocentrist, the hypothesis is still primarily adopted by his Afrocentric followers. Mohamed^Talk 18:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I will modify the critics part and leave the cited statement by Asante that it is impossible for Diop to be an Afrocentrist because the concept did not exist when he wrote about this topic.EditorfromMars (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because it didn't exist then, doesn't mean it doesn't exist now, and that he can't be classified as such now, or at least as the basis for much of Afrocentric thought. Mohamed^Talk 18:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Attempts to use Diop and Bernal uncritically as WP:RS "secondary sources" need to stop. Now. We all know better than this. --Calthinus (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you specifically suggest excluding them completely as sources? Dimadick (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

They should be used of course, because they are the core of the controversy, but as Calthinus said they shouldn't be used uncritically as reilable sources, such as the example below. Mohamed^Talk 19:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Again he's using the black translation as the only right one. the statement "Advocates of the Black African model relied heavily on writings from Classical Greek historians, including Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, and Herodotus who referred to Egyptians as "Black with woolly hair"" makes it seem that's indeed what he said not what they think he said. that's why there must by an attribution, which was given in sources. Mohamed^Talk 19:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It is an absurd proposal to exclude the most popular proponents of a controversial theory from an article about the controversial theories. It would be like trying to exclude the creators of the flat earth theory from an article about the flat earth theory because most people now believe the earth is round. Other's beliefs don't erase the fact that a black egyptian hypothesis exists and numerous peer reviewed books, articles in journals, etc. have been written about it. Should we exclude every author of the Eurocentric and Near East centric, debunked other theories. If so, there would be no article left to readEditorfromMars (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, you're not only challenging Diop, Bernal, etc. You're also challenging the translation of the Greek text into English by various publishing houses, which are cited as well for extra info. Your proposal is that we should not believe the translation in the most popular English language translations of the Herodotus the Histories (which all translate as black with woolly hair) and which Diop and Bernal quote verbatim in their books. Instead, we should believe the critics that never published a version of Herodotus the histories with the passage translated as dark skinned with woolly hair. The publishers actually speak to the melanchroes controversy in the footnotes and still chose to leave "black with woolly hair" in the main textEditorfromMars (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not the one attributing it to them, the sources are. There is a source that claims "dark" is the usual translation of the word. There is a controversy and disagreement over the correct translation, so every one must be attributed to each side using sources. It's that simple. Mohamed^Talk 20:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. Advocate, Diop states that "black skin" is the most common translation in a peer reviewed, secondary source. The critic, Najovits, claims "dark-skinned is the usual translation" in a peer reviewed secondary source and provides one example of a dark skin translation and one example of black skin translation. That hardly helps to prove Najovits' point. Instead, it shows that both translations are used. To Najovits' claim that only George Rawlinson translates as black skin, please see Selincourt from Penguin Classics.EditorfromMars (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

IT still is a claim of it being the usual translation in a reliable source, it's not our place to judge why he made the claim, because that would be original research. There are multiple other sources that use dark, and others that highlight it could be either. The current status is enough, as it should be as summarized as possible here. Mohamed^Talk 20:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the word many, as the reality is both translations are readily available in any bookstore, or at any bookseller (website)EditorfromMars (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"arguing that the ancient Egyptian language was related to Diop's native Wolof (Senegal)"

This is stated as a "supporting" argument. It is nothing of the sort. Actual respected linguists, of which Diop was never one, have a clear consensus: Egyptian is an Afroasiatic language akin to Berber, Semitic (Hebrew, Arabic etc), Cushitic (Somali etc) and so forth, while Wolof is a Niger-Congo language, and there is no known relation between the two language families. This is not some Eurocentric conspiracy, it is the effectively unanimous consensus among African linguists as well. The page should reflect this and not uncritically cite this as a somehow "supporting" argument. --Calthinus (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

At UNESCO, there was "a large measure of agreement." Diop and Obenga's reports "were regarded as being very constructive." The symposium "rejected the idea that Pharaonic Egyptian was a Semitic language." Therefore your opinions are not supported by the scholars at the conference where they were subjected to peer review.EditorfromMars (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. One, literally nobody claimed that Egyptian is Semitic. It is Afroasiatic. Just read Egyptian language and Afroasiatic languages. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct. The Egyptian language and Semitic languages (like Hebrew, Arabic, ancient Phoenician & Punic, etc.) form separate branches of the Afro-Asiatic language family. They are distantly related, but nobody classifies Egyptian as Semitic. It's certainly not related to Wolof. LOL. That is a hilarious fringe theory that's not even worth mentioning in the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

PericlesofAthens upon further investigation it may be worth mentioning, though in a rather different capacity than we do... as it appears this has been an acute part of the controversy. Highlights from Cheikh Anta Diop: Diop considered that it was politically important to demonstrate the cultural and linguistic unity of Africa, and to base this unity on the Egyptian past.[68]... Diop took an innovative approach in his linguistic researches published in 1977, outlining his hypothesis of the unity of indigenous African languages beginning with the Ancient Egyptian language... Diop devoted most of his study to the structural resemblances between one modern African language, Wolof, and Ancient Egyptian,[77] ...The same method was applied by four of Diop's collaborators to Mbosi,[78] Duala,[79] Basa,[80] Fula[81][82] and a few other languages... Ngom[85] and Obenga[86] both eliminated the Asian Semitic and African Berber members of Greenberg's Afroasiatic... Diop has endorsed the work of Obenga.[88]... The linguistic research of Diop and his school have been criticised by Henry Tourneux, a linguist specialising in the Fula language.[89] Tourneux notes that Diop accused previous linguists of being unscientific and obscuring the truth.[90] Tourneux's main criticisms are that many words in the lists used to make comparisons may have been loaned from unrelated languages (including modern Arabic), many of the claimed resemblances are far-fetched and that, when Diop transliterated Wolof words on the principles applied to Ancient Egyptian writings, he distorted them.[91] nDiop's own Wolof studies were examined by Russell Schuh, a specialist in the Chadic languages, who... concluded that Diop had assumed Egyptian and Wolof were related and then looked for ways to connect their features, disregarding evidence from other languages which might cast doubt on the resemblances claimed... In trying to remove Berber and Semitic languages from Greenberg's Afroasiatic family and ignoring real differences between African language groups, Diop and his collaborators have created an artificial language group. --Calthinus (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for editors to grasp that this is a controversial subject and every point, topic, etc. added to this article will be controversial. All of the theories/hypotheses are controversial. You should be shocked if you can agree on any topic/point/claim in this article, not the opposite. The obvious thing for you all to do is to post some really compelling critique of Diop's Wolof claim from some secondary source.EditorfromMars (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is a line. Most of the claims are controversial, yes, but some of them such as this one are extremely fringe, politically motivated and go against mainstream accepted language families, that it's even hard to find mainstream sources that bother to refute them. A lot of sources mention clearly that Diop was and still is ignored by the mainstream. Mohamed^Talk 07:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree to your suggestion and have deleted the Wolof references in the Black Egyptian hypothesis section and replaced it with affinities to sub-saharan african languages." I provided citations. My rationale is, that's a Diop specific viewpoint and doesn't reflect the view of the wider Black Egyptian advocate community. Most of Diop's other theories are also mentioned in the secondary works of other authors.EditorfromMars (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary, refocus and WP:Undue

I am starting a new section, because these issues are becoming scattered over multiple sections, making coherent debate difficult.

The problem with your new Table of Nations pic is that the caption is misleading. The caption lists the "races" depicted as the Egyptians, the Asiatics, the Nubians and the Libyans. However the pic you are now using shows the people in the order of Asiatics, Nubians, Libyans, Egyptians and more Asiatics. This is seriously misleading.

Petrie spoke of the blackness of Ahmose-Nefertari, but noted that her son was light-skinned as a Libyan, so theorised that she must have married a Libyan to account for her son's lightness vs her own blackness. However Ahmose-Nefertari actually married her brother, who should have been as light-skinned or dark-skinned as she was, and therefore ditto her son. More correctly, as per Gardiner, Ahmose-Nefertari had no black blood after all. Black skin was a common way of representing "deification", and Ahmose-Nefertari was well-known to have been deified after death.

Singer etc actually argued that her skin color is indicative of her role as a deity, rather than of her actual physiological appearance. To claim that the relative number of reproductions of this image is indicative of the actual physical appearance, when the author is making the opposite point, is ridiculous.

The section on Black Queens makes no effort to clarify that most (if not all) Black Queens were foreigners, who had been married for diplomatic linkages. There is no controversy about the existence of secondary wives who may have been black foreigners, the controversy is about the false claims that these black women were themselves typical ancient Egyptians. This dramatic difference in appearance is unambiguously depicted by the Kemsit panel, which clearly demonstrates that the Egyptian women were very different in appearance to the Nubian women.

Diop was indeed a trained doctor etc, but he was also biased, and on this topic he was wrong. Diop's melanin-testing was refuted by many experts of his day. In the 50 years since then, not one of the many Afrocentrist "experts" has replicated his so-called definitive tests, despite ample opportunities and huge incentive to do so. We could also add that Diop's "tests" were conducted on cherry-picked samples, which were not representative of ancient Egyptians generally.

Much reliance is placed on old-time "travel authors" from Herodotus to Volney. Firstly we have no idea which individuals they were looking at when they made their assessments, and thus we have no idea how representative these descriptions are of "real" Ancient Egyptians. In addition, these sources all speak authoritatively of Black Colchians, which is probably why they are seized upon by the Afrocentrists. These Black Colchians were supposedly the remnants of a military force lead by King Sesostris, which supposedly conquered a path into Europe. In real life there was no King Sesostris, and no real Egyptian king ever took an army as far as Colchis (modern Georgia). Thus there were no Black Colchians, and these "travel tales" have minimal historical value.

Re the 2017 DNA study, I said from the beginning that all we need here is a simple statement along the lines of "the population history of Egypt has been studied in detail, using the most modern scientific methods and techniques, and it has been determined that the Ancient Egyptians were neither black nor white as per modern American social and racial definitions." This would obviously be linked to the relevant article, where the detail resides. However there is a drive to exclude all mention of modern scientific discoveries. This section has now been snowed by a pro-Afrocentrist rant from authors who are clearly just rehashing the entire Afrocentrist case - such as it is – to protect their POV against this assault by actual science. Please note that:

• The 2017 DNA study was conducted by experts, on sound scientific principles using the latest reliable technology and techniques. In "rebuttal" the Afrocentrist authors point to the results of PCR tests done on Amarna royal mummies and on Ramesses III. PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests are notoriously prone to contamination, which is why this 2017 DNA test is so significant – it used high-throughput sequencing methods in order to "overcome the methodological and contamination issues surrounding the PCR method". However the Afrocentrist authors gloss over this important fact completely. Not good.

• The 2017 DNA study was published in a high-quality professional journal. The "rebuttal" of the Afrocentrist authors as cited here is not peer-reviewed.

• The Afrocentrist authors wail about the small sample size of the 2017 DNA test. The authors of that test openly and professionally admitted that it was a single-region sample. The Afrocentrist authors wailed about this at length, without ever conceding that their own "data" is based on samples even smaller - Diop's "melanin sample" was taken from a tiny group of cherry-picked mummies.

• The Afrocentrist authors wail about the DNA samples having perhaps been taken from individuals such as diplomatic marriages, traders, prisoners, migrants etc rather than from "real" Egyptians. However they cheerfully ignore that this could equally apply to their own "evidence" as well. In fact, Diop's "melanin sample" was specifically taken from the mummies of known foreigners.

• The Afrocentrist authors complain that the sampled mummies were from a "northern area", where people were less black than in the south. This seems like a concession that the Ancient Egyptians were not all the same homogenous "race" after all.

• The Afrocentrist authors point out that genetic markers are not reliable indicators, but they still quote extensively from markers that support their POV.

• The Afrocentrist authors again deliberately confuse "African" with "Black", to perpetuate the POV that all African peoples are black and that there were no non-black African peoples.

• The Afrocentrist authors claim that neither the symbolism found in the Naqada-era graves, nor the pyramids, were brought from Asia. However there is clear evidence that the Naqada II culture included much Mesopotamian influence, including symbolism – and this was strong enough to generate the Dynastic race theory. Similarly, the earliest pyramids were built in Mesopotamia, and they were step pyramids – similar to the "first" step pyramid of Djoser.

It is appropriate to include this so-called "rebuttal" in the article, because it does attempt to keep alive the controversy, but not to give it this much undue weight. This low-value Afrocentric "rebuttal" was added without consensus, and it needs to be thinned down and put into context. Wdford (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I generally agree. First of all, the caption of the table of nations pic should be accurately rearranged to prevent misleading the reader. About the Petrie quote, if the part about his claim of a nubian invasion must be added, it must be clarified that this is not what the vast majority of scholars and historians think, as the History of the New kingdom is very well understood, and there was never a nubian invasion that installed any rulers of Egypt untill the 25th dynasty. About Singer's claim, it was agreed on to summarize the irrelvant parts about the places and times in which she is represented with black skin, as the paragrah already makes it clear, that in most colored depictions, she was given a black color, the main point of the section is what the color actually meant. Moreover, too much undue weight has been given to the artistic depiction of Nubians and blacks in Ancient Egyptian art, in contrast to the point of the article (the race of ancient Egyptians), the artistic depictions of nubians should only be talked about when compared with those of Egyptians. Mohamed^Talk 14:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Point by point, here's my view:

• Let's reorder the caption in the table of nations pic. We're all in agreement.
• It is your original research that all members of a black immediate family need to be exactly the same skin color. I happen to be black (using the modern racial construct, American version) and my biological mother is jet black, while I am red/brown/tan and not approaching the color of my mother. My brothers are various shades of brown to black, like the various colors of brown to black used to show Nubians in Ancient Egyptian art. Please post a peer reviewed source to support your original research that all black people in an immediate family are exactly the same skin color.
• Is Ahmose Nefertari a secondary wife? In Singer's paper, Nefertari is described as "the most venerated women in Egyptian history." Is the Great Royal Wife Queen Tiye, a secondary wife?
• Do you have peer reviewed sources that state, "from the Kemsit panel we can draw the conclusion that all Egyptian women were depicted differently from Nubian women?" Can you, or anyone prove that Queen Tiye is not Egyptian? Please post the peer reviewed sources and I will post the rebuttals and critiques. It's impossible to prove that Queen Tiye was not Egyptian, or Ahmose Nefertari. For every source that you post saying they were foreigners, I will post two sources saying they were Egyptians.
• Much reliance is made on Volney and others, because they literally started this entire controversy. It was their publications that started the debates back and forth about the true race of Ancient Egyptians. When modern writers, such as Diop, write books about the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, they invariably spend entire chapters discussing Champollion, Volney, Champollion-Figeac, Denon, sphinx controversies, etc. If anything, the Volney/Champollion/etc. writers are not receiving enough weight in this article, as judged by the weight they receive in the peer reviewed sources.
• I support the simple statement approach to the 2017 DNA study and will not opposed alterations to the article based on this premise. I requested to move the 2017 study to the population article and was forced to add some balance to the numerous paragraphs about the 2017 DNA study. Your attempts to discredit the rebuttal leads us back to my original position, which is there is actually not a controversy about this 2017 DNA study, so it doesn't fit the controversy article.
• Do you have a peer reviewed source that labels Keita, Gourdine, and Anselin as Afrocentrists, or is this your original research? Their job titles seem pretty bland for afrocentrists. Your opinions on the rebuttal to the 2017 DNA study, are just that. Your opinions.
• We reached agreement earlier that if the 'exception to the rule' statements about a red Ahmose Nefertari were removed, we could also remove the statements added for balance demonstrating that it's actually the rule that Nefertari is shown with black skin in AE art. Authors can have theories about what that skin color means, but the fact that she's most often shown with black skin is a historical fact. There are two sides of that argument with numerous authors saying that the black skin represents her black race and others with various theories about symbolism, etc. Even Singer admits while proposing an alternative theory that other scholars say she is Nubian. We all get that it's a controversial subject.EditorfromMars (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The following paragraph in the history section provides the background for the Hamite and Black Egyptian hypotheses to follow later in the article. It's on this historical foundation that the Hamite and Black Egyptian hypotheses were built. I really don't have a problem providing citations and excerpts from more modern, peer reviewed sources providing the links between this history and 20th century controversies/hypotheses.

Foster summarized the early 19th century "controversy over the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians" as a debate of conflicting theories regarding the Hamites. "In ancient times, the Hamites, who developed the civilization of Egypt, were considered Black."[13] Foster describes the curse of Ham theory, which began "in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of oral traditions of the Jews, that appeared in the sixth century AD, that the sons of Ham are cursed by being black."[13] Foster said "throughout the Middle Ages and to the end of the eighteenth century, the Negro was seen by Europeans as a descendant of Ham."[13] In the early 19th century, "after Napolean's expedition to Egypt, the Hamites began to be viewed as having been Caucasians."[13] However, "Napolean's scientists concluded that the Egyptians were Negroid." Napoleon's colleagues referenced prior "well-known books" by Constantin François de Chassebœuf, comte de Volney and Vivant Denon that both described Ancient Egyptians as "negroid."[13]. Finally, Foster concludes, "it was at this point that Egypt became the focus of much scientific and lay interest, the result of which was the appearance of many publications whose sole purpose was to prove that the Egyptians were not Black, and therefore capable of developing such a high civilization."[13]EditorfromMars (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I missed a bullet point, the "low value, Near East-centric" 2017 DNA study that lumps Persians, Greeks, and Romans with New Kingdom mummies under the umbrella of 'Ancient Egyptians' (an absurdity) has undue weight in the article. It only used mummies from 2% of the country, in northern Egypt. It completely ignores the other 98% of the country, including such essential cities to the Ancient Egyptian empire as Thebes. It would be unscientific to draw such monumental conclusions concerning the Ancient Egyptian's race from such a small sample size, especially when the sample is contaminated with ethnically distinct Persians, Greeks, and Romans. It ignores the Old Kingdom (you know the period that built the Great pyramids at Giza) and the Middle Kingdom. I guess the Old and Middle Kingdoms are less 'Ancient Egyptian' than the Persian, Greek, and Roman periods. You know the Greek period when so few rulers actually spoke the Ancient Egyptian language that we can actually name the ones that spoke Ancient EgyptianEditorfromMars (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe these are the 'Ancient Egyptian' Greek mummies in the 2017 DNA study: it would be more likely for Cleopatra's father Ptolemy XII to be the first Ptolemy to learn Egyptian instead of Cleopatra (noting those like Rogers and Clarke never mention him),[102] who is the only member of the Ptolemaic dynasty known to have learned Egyptian in addition to her native tongue Koine Greek and eight other languages.[103] He goes on to say Cleopatra probably had not a drop of Egyptian blood and that she "would have described herself as Greek."[83][note 2] Diana Preston also writes that Cleopatra's paternal grandmother may have been part Syrian, continuing that even if Cleopatra had an Egyptian grandmother "it does not follow she was a black African" and that Cleopatra "almost certainly had olive skin and dark eyes."[84] Adrian Goldsworthy notes Cleopatra, having Macedonian blood with a little Syrian, was probably not dark skinned (he also notes Roman propaganda never mentions it), contending "fairer skin is marginally more likely considering her ancestry," and that she "was no more Egyptian culturally or ethnically than most residents of modern day Arizona are Apaches." [85] He further notes that Cleopatra's native tongue was Greek, that it was in "Greek literature and culture she that was educatedEditorfromMars (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Missed another bullet point. This is some quite interesting original research of yours that Egyptian pyramid building came from Mesopotamia. I thought mainstream scholars were in complete agreement that the Ancient Egyptian civilization and all of its culture, religion, architecture, etc. was indigenous to the Nile valley. Then, you go on to cite the debunked Dynastic theory, as evidence. Wasn't the Dynastic theory written at the height of racist, unscientific 'history?' There are plenty of peer reviewed, secondary sources that will disagree with your original research and see AE as an indigenous Nile valley development that didn't have any invasions, or large scale migrations from other areas since the protodynastic era. Finally, you cite Mesopotamian influence in Nakada culture. Nakada culture also traded extensively with Nubia. Maybe they learned pyramid building from Nubia, since the 25th dynasty took quite naturally to pyramid building when they rose to power. There are more pyramids in Sudan than Egypt. Are there some UNESCO pyramid sites that I can visit in Mesopotamia? I would like to see themEditorfromMars (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

My "opinions" stated above are all based in solid fact, as you well know.

• The inclusion in this article of the 2017 DNA tests is not based on the tests being controversial in themselves – the science was solid. The 2017 DNA tests are included because they are the first RELIABLE DNA tests thus far available to cast light on the controversy using reliable science as a basis. A handful of earlier DNA tests using the PCR method are regarded (by scientists anyway) as unreliable due to contamination issues. Obviously the Afrocentrics came out swinging, as one would expect, but a knee-jerk response in a non-peer-reviewed paper does not stack up against the quality of the 2017 DNA tests. Certainly the tests did not include every Ancient Egyptian who ever lived and died, but it is a start, and provided the representivity concern is disclosed (as it always has been), this study contributes reliable evidence. The Afrocentric response, based as it is on PCR tests and straw-clutching, should not be allowed undue weight, purely on the basis of quality. Balance means due weight, not allocating equal numbers of lines to every view, however fringe.

• It is common cause that offspring inherit their appearance from their parents, and accordingly it was noted by Petrie that, since Ahmose-Nefertari's son was pale skinned, if she really was jet black then her husband needed to be very pale indeed (unless her husband was not actually the boy's father). On balance, the "black is symbolic" view is more credible, although the Black Egyptian hypothesis is not really concerned with such niceties. On the other hand, Kemsit was shown to be fully black, while her Egyptian handmaidens IN THE SAME PAINTING were shown to be very light-skinned, in the standard manner generally used for Egyptian women. I prefer not to go into your family's personal history.

• Ahmose-Nefertari was not a secondary wife, and she was indeed venerated – even deified after her death. In Singer's paper (and others), Ahmose-Nefertari was not considered to be physiologically black-skinned, and her black colouration is attributed to her status as a deity – as you well know.

• Nobody today can prove that Queen Tiye was or was not Egyptian, although there are grounds to believe that her father Yuya was a foreigner. Equally, nobody today can prove that Queen Tiye was or was not black. Perhaps reliable DNA tests will be done soon on Tiye's mummy as well, which would tell us a lot more than studying the colour of the wood from which a particular sculpture was carved. Meanwhile, as has been pointed out to you many times already, the sheer head-count of "posts" pushing any particular view does not alter the reality.

• We cannot make definitive statements in Wikivoice based only on heavily-contested statements by fringe authors.

• I agree that Volney and his peers laid the groundwork for the controversy, and this must be mentioned. I agree that "modern" writers like Diop and other Afrocentrists place huge reliance on the Herodotus-Volney group, and this should also be made clear. However the historical accuracy of the writings of the Herodotus-Volney group is highly contested, as has been discussed at length. Herodotus claimed to have visited Giza, but he somehow never noticed the Sphinx. Both Herodotus and Volney describe the Black Colchians with confidence, although there never were any Black Colchians. Over-emphasising these highly-suspect "classical" accounts is not appropriate. If anything, we need more material reporting that the accuracy of these "classical" authors is rejected in many aspects, including their belief in Black Colchians etc.

• Being an Afrocentrist stems for advocating Afrocentrism. It has nothing to do with job titles. One of your authors is actually an expert on pig farming, but he is also an Afrocentrist in his spare time. Keita, Gourdine etc certainly qualify as Afrocentrists based on this paper alone.

• Quotes must always be correct. However different quotes seem to give different translations. Obviously Diop and the Afrocentrists will always use translations of Herodotus which say "black with woolly hair" – they would have no case otherwise. However many competent experts have contested the accuracy of that translation. Penguin Books are not the adjudicating authority on the topic, and neither is Diop.

• We should perhaps also mention that Diop's work was seldom submitted for peer review, and that he used a very wide definition of "black" – basically any colour or shape found in Egypt was per Diop automatically black as well. This approach was not accepted by many other experts.

• Mainstream scholars are still in complete agreement that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was indigenous to the Nile valley. However, mainstream scholars are also in complete agreement that the Naqada culture traded extensively with Mesopotamia, Palestine etc, and that plenty of influence was imported into Egypt as a result. This specifically included funeral symbolism and architecture, as well as livestock etc. The Dynastic Theory turned out later to not be correct, but it was originally developed in an attempt to explain the abundant evidence of this Asian influence – Petrie did not just suck it out of the air.

• I doubt the AE's got the pyramid idea from Nubia though – Nubians copied Egypt, not the other way around. The earliest Nubian pyramids date to only 751BC, so suggesting that the Egyptians got the idea for pyramids from Nubia would be akin to suggesting that the French got the idea for the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas. Once again, the fact that there are today a number of teeny weeny pyramids in Nubia does not mean that they invented the concept. There are plenty of UNESCO pyramid sites that you can visit in Mesopotamia – the locals call them ziggurats, and the Step Pyramid at Saqqara looks very similar. Watch out for landmines.

Seeing as how the whole controversy is merely an expression of racial affirmation, surely we should give some weight also to how the Egyptians "self-identify". Egyptians of today do not "self-identify" as black, and I remember Hawass himself getting a bit upset about Afrocentrists trying to "blacken" him so that they could claim to be the heirs of Egypt's past glories. And the experts now believe that Ancient Egyptians looked basically the same as modern Egyptians - i.e. Not Black. Wdford (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Rebuttal point by point, as it may help with editing the article:

• It's a controversy article. If there is no controversy, the 2017 DNA shouldn't be included. A biased person will look for confirmation of their biases and find them. In my opinion, including known Greek and Roman mummy samples in Egyptian DNA studies, or Ancient Egyptian race studies is as absurd as the claim that Cleopatra is black. We all know that Greeks and Romans did not build the indigenous Nile valley AE civilization and came at a point when it was in full decline.
• I don't think any secondary sources are arguing that Ahmose-Nefetari's husband couldn't be Libyan, or that there were zero mixed marriages in AE. Bernal said on page 242 that the 1st, 11th, 12th, and 18th dynasties could "usefully be called black." That allows for a lot of non-black people and leaders in AE. Diop said that anthropologists agree on some black admixture, usually 33% and then via euphemism they invent imaginary races, such as "dark red" race. In his opinion 33% black, 33% "dark red", and living in Africa from the beginning of time would be considered black using modern constructs of race. In America, Barack Obama was fully 50% white and is still unquestionably labeled black by everyone. It's a low bar to be labeled black using the modern construct that Europeans created.
• Singer wrote an entire paper full of images of a jet black ahmose nefertari to conclude that she's not black. Singer admits in that paper that other people hold the opposing view. Isn't it hypocritical to say AE color in art is symbolic for nefertari, but then claim that those same artists faithfully capture skin color in the table of nations, kemsit photo, and elsewhere. What's even more strange is the race of the country should be determined by the SERVANTS and not the NUBIAN QUEEN in the painting. Why didn't the king marry the servants?
• Okay, so you concede "Nobody today can prove that Queen Tiye was or was not Egyptian." Great! Thanks. What's the position of mainstream scholars? According to their Wiki articles, her parents are: "Tiye's father, Yuya, was a non-royal, wealthy landowner from the Upper Egyptian town of Akhmim,[1] and Tjuyu (sometimes transliterated as Thuya or Thuyu) was an Egyptian noblewoman and the mother of queen Tiye" Why don't these articles lead with "her parents are foreigners." if that's the mainstream view?????
• wikivoice reminder noted
• Glad that we can agree that the controversy between Volney and his detractors was no less vigorous than Bernal vs Lefkowitz. Diop literally leads with it on a page zero (frontispiece) image of the sphinx and Volney quote in African Origin of Civilization. You can't even get to the table of contents before Diop starts quoting Volney
• Neither is Najovits. Selincourt and Rawlinson are translators by trade and they chose black skin with woolly hair. Selincourt/Penguin even added to the chapter notes that they're aware of the controversy, but still went to print with black skin with woolly hair in their english language translation of the greek text. They could have chosen to print their widely available edition with dark skinned and they actively chose to use black.
• Since Petrie is so trustworthy on Mesopotamian influence, shouldn't we just believe Petrie when he says repeatedly that Nefertari and other venerated Ancient Egyptians were black on page 155?
• Why didn't the ziggurats ever advance to a true pyramid? Ancient Mexican cultures didn't seem to have a problem arriving at the true pyramid stage. Where are the examples in Mesopotamia of the true pyramids, like the numerous examples that we can find it the heart of Africa (Sudan) or Mexico? Surely the creators of the idea would have logically kept going to the true pyramid stage.
• Here's your land mine: https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/09/04/detroit-immigrant-wants-to-be-re-classified-as-black/ Also authors in their peer reviewed secondary sources point to waves upon waves of invasions altering the 'racial' composition of Egypt: Hyksos, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Mamelukes, Ottomans, British. That's a lot of fair skinned people moving to Egypt and yet the country still 'looks black' from Upper Egypt (of the venerated Thebes) and further South. The Nubians being there since the beginning of time are still to this day, jet black in Aswan and elsewhere. The Nubians in Egypt are black, par excellence. Quoting Diop, Nubians are so black that the term 'Nubian' is a synonym for black in common usage.
• Are these experts (Egyptologists), the same ones that wrote the ugliest, racist stuff imaginable over the last 200 years and had the gall to even print it in their books for posterity? or are these reformed mainstream Egyptologists? Are they the same ones, like Champollion the Younger, that said "black skin and woolly hair (and living in Africa since the beginning of time) do not suffice to characterize the Negro race." That's some 'scholarship'. Quoted by Diop on page 51 of AoC
• It's almost comical to watch editors try to characterize this theory as 'flat earth' style crazy talk when literally for the last 2500 years authors (Greeks, Romans, Medieval European painters, French explorers and their followers, Afrocentrists) have been saying exactly the same thing. Furthermore, there are plenty of black nubians in the Nile valley to satisfy mainstream author's consensus that AE is an indigenous nile valley developmentEditorfromMars (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

In the article Egypt–Mesopotamia relations, read the section concerning "Influences on Egyptian trade and art". Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't read most of this discussion, but about Ahmose-Nefertari, she wasn't just a queen. When she died she was deified. She was associated with the underworld, which is related to the color black. Even Nubians were most of the time depicted with dark brown, and rarely with a very clear black like that she was depicted with. The fact that in one artistic representation only her face was black, while the rest of her body wasn't darkened is a very clear sign for anyone who isn't biased. The claim of hypocrisy is weird considering that's exactly what Diop and his followers do, when they ignore skin color in many cases as symbolic, while judging who is 'black' by the shape of a skull or a nose, or in some other cases the shape isn't realistic, while the skin color is, whenever it suits them. See here Mohamed^Talk 10:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me summarize, some scholars say that Ahmose-Nefertari is shown with black skin because she is black. Other scholars say it's symbolic, while admitting that the topic is in dispute. There's an AE race controversy about Ahmose-Nefertari because since the 1800's authors have held two opposing positions about her race and defended their positions in their books. Here are some examples:

• George Rawlinson wrote, "Nefertari-Aahmes...is represented on the monuments with pleasing features, but a complexion of ebon blackness. It it certainly wrong to call her a 'negress;' she was an ethiopian of the best physical type; and her marriage may have been based upon a political motive. The Egyptian pharaohs from time to time allied themselves with the monarchs of the south partly to obtain the aid of Ethiopian troops in their wars..." From Rawlinson, we learn that he's racist as "pleasing" is followed by "but, she was shown as black" and "not a negress" was followed by this black skinned person "was an ethiopian." What's the difference? Book, History of Ancient Egypt, Vol. II, page 209
• Rawlinson cites as support for his position that "Wilkinson, Birch, and Canon Trevor agree in regarding Nefertari as black." He also mentions that Brugsch disagrees with him, highlighting the AE race controversy circa 1880 CE/AD.
• In Wilkinson's own words, "Amosis was succeeded by Amenophis I, a prince whose name occurs in numerous parts of Thebes...He married an Ethiopian princes, called Nefertari, a name common to many Egyptian queens." Book, The Ancient Egyptians, 1878, page 37
• In Birch's own words, "At the 18th dynasty...the negress mounts the throne." Book, Ancient Egypt from the monuments, egypt from the earliest times to BC, 1875, page 83
• In Osburn's own words, "an Ethiop in complexion and descent" Book, The monumental history of egypt, 1854, page 175
• In Maspero's own words, Nefertari is generally "painted black", Book, The struggle of nations, 1877 pages 98-99

Obviously, I could fill this entire Talk page with a list of modern authors that support the view that Ahmose-Nefertari was black, often based on Diop and DuBois' work. I won't bother because I think you know where the followers of Diop stand on this topic and the Wiki editors will only attempt to discredit the 'painstaking' work of these ph.D's trained at the world's best Universities, by calling them Afrocentrists. A truly unimpressive critique. A more impressive critique would be to actually provide data that refutes their theory, as opposed to resorting to somewhat juvenile name calling. The 2017 DNA study could have been a good example, if it had excluded mummies from non-indigenous Nile valley dynasties (Greek, Roman, etc.)EditorfromMars (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Listing obsolete views (from the 19th century scholars you insist were racist) isn't helping prove anything. Most of these views are merely describtions of her artistic depictions without any context or any evidence of her origins. The most recent views are in the article and they all suggest symbolism Mohamed^Talk 16:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Point by point, as requested.

• The 2017 DNA study is included, because it is the ONLY reliable DNA study thus far available, and it is thus the state of the art for modern scholarship on the point. The Afrocentrists are fully entitled to now use the same system to test other mummies as well. And I'm sure that will become the norm, in time. However we don't need to wait for the Afrocentrists to find some black mummies to test before we report the current state of the art – along with an appropriate caveat that the sample did not include every Egyptian who ever lived.
• You are the last person to be complaining about confirmation of bias, and nobody will ever think Diop was objective on the subject either.
• Yes, we all know that Greeks and Romans did not build the indigenous Nile valley AE civilization. Mainstream scholarship also states that the Nile valley AE civilization wasn't built by black people either.
• The secondary sources are arguing that Ahmose-Nefetari's husband was her brother.
• It may be a low bar to be labelled black using the modern American construct, but in the rest of the world we don't all use the modern American construct. Barak Obama would not be labelled black in South Africa, and Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black.
• Singer et al made their decision based on known artistic conventions on the representation of deities, and the fact that Ahmose-Nefetari was deified after her death. Kemsit is known to have been Nubian, and was never deified. Not hypocritical, just simple scholarship. As we have told you many times, science does not work on a "count the images" basis.
• The race of the country is not being determined by the SERVANTS. The king married the foreign Nubian woman to establish diplomatic relationships with Nubia. He had other wives as well, and he could sleep with his servants anytime.
• You complain that the 2017 DNA tests used a sample that excluded the pyramid-builders of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom. Did Herodotus, Diodorus, Strabo etc review the Egyptian population over its entire timeline, or did they only look at the people of their day - i.e. the same period as was covered by the 2017 DNA tests? Did Diop even stop to ask that question, or did he simply grab every little morsel he could find?
• Re Yuya, the "Origins" section of his wikiarticle also uses the phrases "origins remain unclear" and "appearance was not typically Egyptian", as well as mentioning that the writing of his name included the indicator telling that he was foreign. How did you manage to miss all of this?
• In any event, the city of birth does not indicate your race. Shona Rhimes was born in Chicago, as was Hilary Clinton. Barak Obama and Bette Midler were both born in Honolulu, while Vanessa Williams and Jay Z were born in New York, as were Barbara Streisand and Donald Trump. Yuya was most likely Asiatic or of Asian descent, which makes sense. And if Yuya was Asiatic, then Tiye was half-Asiatic, although Diop would doubtless consider half-Asiatics to be black as well.
• Diop's obsessive search to find any scrap of Afrocentric "evidence" is well known. That certainly doesn't make Volney a reliable source though – especially when Volney has been proven wrong on other things, such as the Black Colchians. Furthermore, did Volney examine every Egyptian across the land over a timeline of 3000 years before drawing a conclusion, or did he just remark on the appearance of the porters who carried his luggage in the 1700's?
• The melanchroes issue is very controversial, and we state this clearly. This matter will not be solved by counting how many Penguin books use each translation.
• The Mesopotamian influence in Naqada is visible to everyone – Petrie was merely the first high-profile person to write about it. Petrie also admitted that the black colour on paintings could be symbolic, and he speculated on how a jet-black woman could give birth to a fair-skinned son. He was a man of his time, Imperial and Christian, but he wasn't blind or stupid.
• There is no rule that says pyramid-builders have to "advance to a true pyramid". The average Mexican pyramid is also a step-configuration. The Sudanese pyramids copied Giza, millennia later, on a miniature scale.
• Your friend Mostafa Hefny from Detroit is a sad case of Americanism. He does not speak for Egyptians in Egypt. More important still, he makes it clear that he is applying for reclassification specifically to get access to USA affirmative action benefits. Especially sad, in a year when Donald Trump is fighting Kamala Harris to be leader of the free world.
• The Nile is a very long river, and there are many different peoples living along its length. The Nile River does indeed run through Nubia, as well as many other lands, and the Nubians are indeed very dark-skinned. However the most significant cultural determinant is language, and the language of the Nubians is not remotely related to the language of the Ancient Egyptians.
• I am an African, and I have been to Egypt. "Looking black" is a matter of subjective opinion, and is neither scientific nor scholarly. However we note your opinion, and your fondness for Diop.
• I respect your passion for your quest. However to an objective observer, the actual comedy is how Diop etc try to make a case by cherry-picking isolated points from a mass of contrary information, and then pretend that the rest of that information doesn't exist. The historical accuracy of Herodotus etc is heavily contested – and yet Diop uses Herodotus as his foundation? His present-day disciples savage the 2017 DNA tests for failing to test every single Ancient Egyptian who ever lived, and claim that as justification for deleting those tests from the record, but yet these same people desperately cling to cherry-picked melanin samples and obviously-symbolic paintings and isolated comments from Herodotus, who did not interview every Egyptian in the land either? Is this double standard not as obvious to you, as it is to everyone else?

Wdford (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with @Wdford:. EditorfromMars's claim that "authors in their peer reviewed secondary sources point to waves upon waves of invasions altering the 'racial' composition of Egypt: Hyksos, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Mamelukes, Ottomans, British" couldn't be more wrong and indicates a very superficial knowledge of Egypt and its history. Some of these invasions only lasted for a couple of years, some others were even characterized by mostly nominal control while Egypt retained autonomy. Fayyum mummy portraits, which according to research align more with the indigenous North African population than Greek or other later colonial European settlers are a clear indication of how Egyptians have always looked.

According to Hisham Aidi, "The notion of Arabs as invaders who drove North Africa’s “indigenous” inhabitants below the Sahara is repeated ad absurdum by influential African and Afro-diasporan scholars, despite evidence to the contrary ... most scholars concur that North Africans have always been multi-hued, and there is no evidence of a black North Africa obliterated by invaders". James Newman writes in his The Peopling of Africa: A Geographic Interpretation: “It was not that Arabs physically displaced Egyptians. Instead, the Egyptians were transformed by relatively small numbers of immigrants bringing in new ideas, which, when disseminated, created a wider ethnic identity". According to Bernard R. Ortiz De Montellano, Evidence for the racial composition of Egypt comes from a variety of sources which found "a remarkable degree of constancy in the population of Egypt over a period of 5,000 years". Professor Stephen Quirke, an Egyptologist at University College London, says that “There has been this very strong attempt throughout the history of Egyptology to disassociate ancient Egyptians from the modern population.” While there have been a number of influxes of people from outside Egypt, he suggested that the impact is over-stated, as thousands of soldiers had taken part in the Arab Invasion of Egypt in the 7th century, but they were still vastly outnumbered by the resident population of about six million. In the publication "Clines and clusters versus Race: a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile", American anthropologist C. Loring Brace discussed the controversy concerning the race of the Ancient Egyptians. Brace argued that the "Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations". Stephen Howe, professor in the history and cultures of colonialism at Bristol University,[46] writes that contrary to "Afrocentric speculation, depending on undocumented assertions that the relatively light-skinned people of the lower Nile today descend from Arab conquerers rather than earlier residents", The last major synthetic work on African populations confirmed that Arabs didn't physically displace Egyptians, but helped create a wider ethnic identity through the dissemination of relatively small numbers of immigrants. Even Cheikh Anta Diop has called the belief that Arab invasions caused mass racial displacement into sub-Saharan Africa a “figment of the imagination". Mohamed^Talk 16:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's bring this back to discussions needed to edit the race controversy article. Although it's entertaining, we're not supposed to be discussing our own theories on the Talk page:

• Do we all agree that there has been a consistent controversy over Ahmose-Nefertari's race with opposing camps holding opposing views and consistently publishing books with opposing views on her race? It doesn't matter what we think about their views.
• Do we all agree that there has been a consistent controversy over the race of the entire AE population with various authors publishing theories from both sides of the controversy? Do we all agree that it's not up to Wiki editors to determine which side is right or wrong, but to present a balanced history of both camp's positions?
• Do we all agree that there is at least a nationality controversy, if not a race controversy about Tiye's parents?
• I will state again for 10th time, I have never advocated for removal of the 2017 DNA study, just moving it to the population article, or presenting opposing views on the 2017 study to highlight the controversy. That's my position. I'm okay with either approach.
• Do we all agree that the melanchroes translation controversy is a part of the AE race controversy, as the two opposing camps have used this point to argue the race of Ancient Egyptians? Do we all agree that there is in fact a camp that has used the "black skin with woolly hair" English language translation consistently since the 1800's? See the Rawlinson example above. The pro black skin camp has detractors/critics/opponents, which highlights the controversy.
• I respect that you disagree with most everything Diop wrote, that's why there is a controversy. However, you must concede that pretty much the entire black egyptian hypothesis was built on his work in recent decades. I actually just read a quote yesterday, where a modern writer said as much. Therefore, he's central to the history of the race controversy, as sooooooo many people that support this hypothesis cite his work, quote his work, and build upon his work.
• I agree that whether or not the current Egyptian population represents the race of Ancient Egyptians is part of the controversy. There are opposing views on both sides. Then we have the position of modern scholarship, which is that race is not a scientific concept, so AE's can't have a race, as race doesn't exist.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Listing info from 19th century authors proves there was an AE race controversy in the 19th-early 20th century. Rawlinson/Wilkinson vs Brugsch opposing views. or we can refer to the French authors (Volney, Champollion, etc.). This is not a place for original research to prove which side is right or wrong. This is a place to prove that there was or was not a controversy about AE race. Clearly, there was an AE controversy in the 1800's until now.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Do we all agree that there is at least a nationality controversy, if not a race controversy about Tiye's parents?" No. Yuya is considered possibly Asiatic or of Mitannian descent due to his unusual name, unusual appearance, above average height, and association with the cavalry (which was still a relatively new import in Egypt). Tjuyu is considered likely to be herself a descendant of the 18th dynasty, and it has been suggested that she was a descendant of Ahmose-Nefertari. Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A controversy certainly does exist, based on all the points you mention, so we have an article, and it reports the issues with DUE WEIGHT.

I certainly do also agree that pretty much the entire Black Egyptian hypothesis was built on Diop's work, and that Diop is absolutely central to the history of the race controversy.

I maintain, as does the mainstream of scholarship, that Diop's Black Egyptian hypothesis is WRONG. And, because the Afrocentrist position is based on Diop, then the Afrocentrist support for Diop's Black Egyptian hypothesis is hopeless.

I agree with all your latest points, and I maintain that they are all covered in the article already, with DUE WEIGHT. Do you agree with us on that?

Wdford (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Yes. Consensus. We may have reached another stable state for the article and we can all go edit something else.EditorfromMars (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Wdford: There still remains the issue of due weight in the lead of "Black queen controversy", which you mentioned. The lead claims there were many black queens from the south, while sources such as this one state "there are almost no black women in the many wall paintings." Mohamed^Talk 18:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Davidson said, "married queens shown as entirely black." He used the plural word "queens." I've given 'painstakingly researched' examples of two raging controversies around the race of Ahmose-Nefertari and Queen Tiye. Queens, plural. I can keep going and provide even more examples, if you want me to fill this article with supporting evidence of raging race controversies. I will start with Petrie and Bernal that consider entire dynasties as "usefully black." Then I can post the race controversy about those dynasties.

• In Petrie’s own words, “an invasion from the south...established a black queen as the divine ancestress of the XVIIIth dynasty. Thus again a southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani IIIrd dynasty and the Galla XIIth dynasty.” The black queen Aohmes Nefertari...must have married a Libyan...This black strain seems to have come through the Taoa I and II ancestry...In any case the main sources of the XVIIIth dynasty were Nubian and Libyan, depicted black and yellow but not the red of the Egyptian.” Book, The Making of Egypt, page 155. I was looking forward to a new stable state, so that we can stop changing this article.EditorfromMars (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have no issues with the two examples, I'm talking about the first paragraph, which cites the view of one Africanist without showing other opposing views such as the one I mentioned. Mohamed^Talk 18:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The comment from Davidson in the "Black queen controversy" section is a direct quote. If you have a contradicting quote of equal quality, then we can add it too. Petrie was correct in stating that the XVIIIth dynasty came "from the south" when viewed from the Delta, but it has since been established that they came from Thebes, not all the way from Nubia. Scholarship does improve over time, and scholars today know more about some things than Petrie did. To pretend that Petrie's views have NOT been superseded, would be misleading. Wdford (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Ahmose I is considered the founder of the 18th dynasty. But he succeeded his brother Kamose, who is counted among the Pharaohs of the 17th dynasty. The two brothers were sons of Seqenenre Tao. Their probable grandfather was Senakhtenre Ahmose. Senakhtenre Ahmose is considered a likely son of Nubkheperre Intef. His probable grandfather was Sobekemsaf II. Sobekemsaf II was likely the son of Sobekemsaf I. Sobekemsaf I is thought to be related to dynasty founder Rahotep, but the relation is not attested in extant sources. Dimadick (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add more quotes and citations if you want. Apparently, you want even more black queen content in the article. There definitely is no shortage of authors calling these queens black over the last 2500 years, so will only take me a few minutes to add more detail.EditorfromMars (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• @EditorfromMars: Yes' I'm sure there are many afrocentric sources that repeat that claim, just like there are many others that refute them. The subsection is well balanced and is mainly about the two examples, I don't actually think the lead is even neccessary. it shouldn't get more weight than the main subject of Art in ancient Egypt, and it shouldn't present a minority view as a majority or give it more weight than it deserves. Mohamed^Talk 22:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I 100% disagree that the "most venerated Ancient Egyptian woman in Ancient Egyptian history, Ahmose-Nefertari, and the Great Royal Wife Queen Tiye, should have a shorter section than an ethnically/nationally Greek Cleopatra in an article about Ancient Egyptian's race controversy. This section is far shorter than the Cleopatra section and yet there is no less controversy over these 'indigenous to the Nile valley' queens than the controversy over the Greek Cleopatra.EditorfromMars (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• And no one said Celopatra should have a larger section. Two wrongs don't make a right. cleopatra did have a big controversy and it was agreed her section should be summarized . There isn't a controversy about "black queens" in general.. there are specific controversies about specific people who happen to be queens or kings. Your latest addition clearly isn't npov. Mohamed^Talk 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

To absolutely no one's surprise, none of the editors that are so passionate about editing this article took the time to condense the Cleopatra section, even after consensus was reached days ago to shorten it. Many editors are editing this article multiple times per day, but unsurprisingly never found the time to reduce the undue weight of the Eurocentric section about a Greek lady living in a foreign country, which implies to the lay reader that somehow the Greek lady's race must be a good indication of the race of the indigenous Nile valley population. Which is as absurd as the flat earth theory.

Name calling is juvenile. Diop said the entire society would be deemed black (using the modern construct), except for some Delta dynasties during intermediate periods and known invasions of foreigners, like the Hyksos, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. Bernal said the entire 1st, 11th, 12th, and 18th dynasties were black, including all of the queens. Hansberry said the 18th dynasty was black and has a pic of Queen Tiye's bust from the Berlin museum in his article, which is the third example of a published source using the same bust picture that's in this Wiki article and explicitly calling her black/African. To satisfy Eurocentrist leanings, I can supply quotes and citations from Europeans over the last 200 years calling these queens black, as well. Those are not hard to find. You just have to be prepared to read through all of their racist, bigoted gibberish to get the quote from their books.EditorfromMars (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that there was a book war between Bernal and basically the entire establishment. If Bernal said the entire 1st, 11th, 12th, and 18th are black. How long do you think it's going to take to find evidence of the controversy around that statement and rebuttals from people, like Lefkowitz. I actually have Lefkowitz book, so I can take care of the rebuttal quote and citations too.EditorfromMars (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• And the same applies to you when you didn't bother just now to explain what you described "the theories of critics" and didn't even cite any sources. Maybe the fact that the people who claim cleopatra as black are mostly related to the supporters of black Egypt hypothesis should tell you something.

Again, stop bringing obsolete views back to life and claiming they represent manistream egyptology, because they don't, they just represent their time.

You just said it "there was a book war between Bernal and basically the entire establishment", just read the article on Black Athena to see how many times it was criticised by mainstream scholars. Trying to make it seem equal to "critics" (mainstream scholars) can't happen.

You can't just make edits not agreed on and when they are removed you say "wait for consensus", that's not who it works. there hasn't been a consensus for your edit in the first place Mohamed^Talk 23:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you're qualified to edit this article if you can't understand that in an article on the HISTORY of the AE race controversy all time periods are appropiate as long as it can be demonstrated that there was an AE race controversy during that time.EditorfromMars (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• They ARE appropriate if added with context and due weight, not as equals to modern scholarship that rejects them. Mohamed^Talk 23:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not an article on the position of modern scholarship regarding AE race. It's an article on the history of the AE race controversy. Both sides of the controversy need to be provided, in addition to the position of modern scholarship. Otherwise, there's actually not a controversy, just an article about the non-controversial position of modern scholarship. Modern scholarship has stopped the racist practice of calling them white, so there's nothing controversial about that.EditorfromMars (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• The position of modern scholarship is a part of the controversy, it discusses it and gives answers. Trying to ignore the mainstream position and make the article only about the controversial claims is ridiculous. Do the articles on moon landing conspiracy theories for example only include the insane and controversial stuff? Modern scholarship is the main part of the discussion of these theories Mohamed^Talk 00:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight for Cleopatra section

In an article about the 'Ancient Egyptian' race controversy, there are at least 5 long paragraphs about Cleopatra, a Greek. This is absurd. She is not geographically, racially, or ethnically Egyptian. This is POV pushing. It literally states in the opening paragraph that "Cleopatra is generally not discussed in scholarly sources." However, on Wiki one would think the entire answer to the riddle of Ancient Egyptians race (using the modern construct) can be solved by reviewing discussions around a Greek woman. Compare Cleopatra's section with the sphinx, which started the entire AE race controversy with the writings of Volney, Denon, Champollion, etc. How is the controversy around a Greek Cleopatra much more heavily weighted than the sphinx or Tut?EditorfromMars (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Far too much, only needs a few sentences at most mentioning the controversy. She's at the very end of the AE period, and that's a bit of a stretch for some. Doug Weller talk 06:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it deserves at least a paragraph, considering the amount of attention this particular topic actually receives in academia, not just social media, blogs, or pop culture fluff piece articles and such. Off the top of my head I can think of two who mention it prominently, Stanley M. Burstein's Reign of Cleopatra (2004) and Prudence J. Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006). The current section could certainly be trimmed down, though. Don't go overboard with it, and keep the two images that happen to still be there, please. They are both mentioned in the current text. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @periclesofAthens. A paragraph makes sense. The sources are not scholarly, but it is often discussed in the media, in books, online. There is a controversy there, even though the controversy is ridiculous. We can always create a spin off article, if editors really want to discuss this somewhat silly controversy at length.EditorfromMars (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@wdford three editors above @dougweller @periclesofathens and myself already agreed to shorten the Cleopatra section. What's disruptive is your revert of a change that has agreement by multiple editors.EditorfromMars (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Consistent hypothesis subsection structure

Let's agree upon a consistent hypothesis/theory subsection structure. It appears that the current structure is:

• First define the hypothesis using the viewpoint of advocates, supporters. Paragraph structure: topic overview in first sentence, then supporting sentences
• Then, a paragraph listing critiques and position of modern scholarship. Paragraph structure: topic overview in first sentence, then supporting sentences

I do not agree to interruptions/critiques/criticisms of any hypothesis that are inserted mid-sentence or mid-paragraph while trying to define the position of advocates/supporters. Please group critiques, criticisms, and position of modern scholarship into a paragraph below the hypothesis definition paragraph. Point, counterpoint, point, counterpoint is unreadable and unintelligible. It's not a coherent paragraph or section structure

We also need symmetry throughout the hypothesis section. Non-specific critiques can be placed in the introductory paragraph. If specific critiques of any one hypothesis are added, then specific critiques of other hypotheses will be added for balanceEditorfromMars (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The hypothesis is defined, and since it is a fringe hypothesis, the mainstream view is stated immediately. Then we give a summary of who supports this view and their "justifications", with counterpoints etc. We don't hide the mainstream rejection under a welter of Diop-references. Wdford (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The mainstream view was moved to an introductory paragraph for the entire hypotheses section, since it applies to all of them. The mainstream view is that AE is indigenous to the Nile valley and race is anachronistic, so none of these older theories agree with the mainstream view. If you add a statement of the mainstream view to the black theory, I'm going to copy/paste that statement into every other theory for balance, in the same location (mid-sentence, mid-paragraph) and make the section harder to read.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

See my earlier comment that the point, counter-point, point, counter-point approach is much harder to read and understand than grouping like thoughts together in a coherent paragraph.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Diop specifically presented this hypothesis at UNESCO, and it was specifically rejected. This is important to mention up front, before readers go wading through all the mush. The detail given here is extra, and like thoughts are indeed grouped together in a coherent paragraph. If this section was as short as the other debunked theory sections, it would not be a problem to put the hypothesis followed by the rejection, but this section is very long and contains huge detail, so it is more understandable to have the rejection at the top. Perhaps we should thin down the detail a bit more? Wdford (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

All of these theories have been rejected by mainstream scholarship, so everything in the whole section is mush to an unbiased observer.EditorfromMars (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the other rejected theories have been summarised very concisely. For some reason the summary of the Black Egyptian hypothesis has not been done concisely, it has been filled with claims and "evidence". Wdford (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Your bias is showing. The Caucasian/Hamitic theory has 4 paragraphs, which is more than the Black theoryEditorfromMars (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree to @wdford 's introduction of criticism just after the intro to the Black Egyptian hypothesis. He and other editors have not used this paragraph structure for any other theory in the historical hypotheses section. @wdford 's bad faith Cleopatra revert (there's already agreement from 3 editors to shorten the Cleopatra section) tries to mask a sweeping rewrite that doesn't have consensus on the Talk page as a revert of the Cleopatra section only. Thus, I've introduced each sentence independently. Please wait for consensus before making any changes, per @wdfordEditorfromMars (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

afrocentrism vs eurocentrism

The note at the top of the editing window for the AE controversy article states this article is not a referendum on afrocentrism vs eurocentrism. There have been quite a lot of sentences added about afrocentrism recently. This will force editors to go through the article and add the words eurocentrists and eurocentrism for balance. It's better to just leave the discussion of afrocentrism vs eurocentrism out, as mandated by the note at the top of the editing window.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• One of the most important features of the afrocentric movement is Black Egyptian hypothesis, which is mainly adpoted by this school of scholars. There aren't a lot of sentences about it. just one that states what mainstream scholars believe and who are the main proponents of the hypothesis.. such as every other hypothesis discussed in the article. Mohamed^Talk 18:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Many of the scholars associated with this movement are open about it, and use it to describe themselves, it's not an insult. Mohamed^Talk 18:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the article already includes some accusations of Eurocentrism, 'hiding the truth' and 'misleading the public'. Mohamed^Talk 18:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

From my view, the note at the top of the article's editing window states that we shouldn't be discussing afrocentrism and eurocentrism in this article. I'm okay to add eurocentrism balance if other editors want to keep the afrocentrism content. Your choice. Not a problem for me, as there are numerous secondary sources highlighting the virulent racism and eurocentrism of Egyptologists over the last 200 years.EditorfromMars (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

which part of the article do you think needs more balance? The eurocentrism describtions are mainly directed at old theories and views such as the dynastic race theory, and the article makes it clear that it's not accepted by scholars, no problem in adding context to what scholars believe might have led to such obsolete theories. However, Eurocentrism shouldn't be used in response to the legitemate criticisms of Black Egypt hypothesis, because that's exactly what the note warns about. The addition of the Afrocentrists part is to state the main proponents of the hypothesis, with a label they often use for themselves. Mohamed^Talk 18:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is not a referendum on afrocentrism vs eurocentrism, and don't you try to make it so. This article is about a controversy which exists only because of Afrocentrists. The controversy is not a contest between afrocentrism vs eurocentrism, it is a contest between afrocentrism vs mainstream scholarship. Afrocentrists, who are on a losing track, then resort to playing the race card. This is really race politics rather than a scientific debate, and the article needs to reflect this reality. Since scholars recognize that the controversy exists only to boost Afrocentric wishfulness, using the term "Afrocentrist" is unavoidable here. Wdford (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The neutral moderators need to make a decision. Are editors free to debate afrocentrism vs eurocentrism in this article or not. If not, why are editors being allowed to add so many statements about afrocentrism and calling authors/scholars with ph.D's "afrocentrist", as opposed to Doctor, or professor? @wdford that isn't exactly a NPOV position. Your entire statement above reflects your bias. This controversy exists because of racist Eurocentric 'scholarship' that tried to rewrite Greek, Roman, Volney's, Champollion's, Petrie's, Rawlinson's, Trevor's, Birch's, Wilkinson's history and the consensus position of the last 2300 years to further their Eurocentric colonial ambitions. It's cute for the editors that have literally added the words Afrocentrists and Afrocentric throughout the article (against the note at the top of the editing window) to claim 'don't you try to make it so.' The height of hypocrisyEditorfromMars (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Many of the proponents of the hypothesis literally call themselves that. Dozens of reliable mainstream sources describe them as such. The hypothesis itslef is called the afrocentric hypothesis (or model) most of the time. They ARE the main proponents of this hypothesis, and it isn't accepted by mainstream scholarship. Mohamed^Talk 23:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The note from the moderators states "this is not an article for discussing afrocentrism vs eurocentrism." I'm not interested in your opinion. Just a ruling by the moderators on whether or not the rule that's displayed prominently at the top of the editing window will be enforced and enforced equally for all editors.EditorfromMars (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• It said "this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism", and the article isn't. It further states that "This is a history of controversy article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus". Academic mainstream describes the hypothesis as the afrocentric model, just like the proponents describe themselves. It doesn't get any simpler than that. We can wait for more opinions from other editors or take it to dispute resolution if you'd like. Mohamed^Talk 00:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Diop never referred to himself as an Afrocentrist. He predates the concept. He apologized for having to discuss race, but felt compelled to correct the monstrous falsifications of history by the racists that preceded him in writing about AE. Therefore, he is not an Afrocentrist. You can read that in the article about him. Secondary sources admit that Diop is not an Afrocentrist and he predates the concept. Human beings should not be defined using the words of their critics and detractors. They should be described in their own words, or at the very least objective words.EditorfromMars (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• He is described by multiple reliable sources as an afrocentrist, and in other cases the hypothesis is described as maintained by him and his afrocentric followers. Again, the afrocentrist describtion isn't only used by critics as we already discussed before, and is used by many of that school of scholars. Mohamed^Talk 01:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, we are not trying to debate afrocentrism vs eurocentrism in this article. We are specifically trying to AVOID any debate. The problem is that some editors are constantly striving to add every little afrocentric morsel to create the impression that the debunked Black Egyptian hypothesis still has life. THAT is a breach of the ruling. The controversy continues to limp along because Afrocentrists keep publishing articles, but the hypothesis itself is dead.

Using the label "Afrocentrism" is not a debate or a referendum, it is merely a Proper Noun which indicates that the contributor in question is not representing the mainstream view. We can use the label "Afrocentric professor" if it is more acceptable.

You cannot say with any authority that the "controversy exists because of racist Eurocentric 'scholarship' that tried to rewrite …. history and the consensus position of the last 2300 years to further their Eurocentric colonial ambitions." The consensus position has never held that the Ancient Egyptians were black – mostly because they were not black, and certainly didn't consider themselves to be black. There were never any "monstrous falsifications of history" on this point. Claiming that Australia was deserted territory when the British arrived, certainly was a "monstrous falsification of history". Claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were white, was clearly rubbish, but it never gained much traction. The colonials were massively racist, there is no doubt about that, but this is not going to be corrected by inventing a massive falsification painting blacks as the creators of civilisation, or claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were black. Wdford (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually I've provided examples from the 18th and 19th centuries demonstrating that clearly most 'Egyptologists' mentioned AE's blackness.

• 18th century, the celebrated Volney said in his book that was in every library, the Sphinx gave him the key to the riddle, "seeing that head, typically negro in all its features"[12]:27, the Copts were "true negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa"
• 19th century, the controversy continued as Rawlinson, Wilkinson, Birch, and Trevor wrote that Nefertari was black/Ethiopian/negress, while Brugsch indicated that this was not always the case in her monuments.[145]
• 20th century you have Williams, Hansberry, DuBois, Diop, Bernal, etc. DOCTORS with phDs from the best schools on Earth in Paris, Harvard in USA, etc., but instead of the common title that's given to people with a phD from the world's top universities (Doctor, Dr., Professor), we call them 'Afrocentrist' using the words of their critics. It's disgusting and unencyclopedic. The Eurocentric/racist label can be applied to basically every Egyptologist of the last 200 years. There's plenty of secondary sources calling it out. If you want that in the article, then leave the Afrocentric labels and I will balance.EditorfromMars (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The secondary source, Foster, does not agree with your original research that the white theory never gained traction. The entire history of movies about Ancient Egypt from the American film industry does not agree with your original research that the white theory did not gain traction.

In the early 19th century, "after Napolean's expedition to Egypt, the Hamites began to be viewed as having been Caucasians."[16] However, "Napolean's scientists concluded that the Egyptians were Negroid." Napoleon's colleagues referenced prior "well-known books" by Constantin François de Chassebœuf, comte de Volney and Vivant Denon that both described Ancient Egyptians as "negroid."[16]. Finally, Foster concludes, "it was at this point that Egypt became the focus of much scientific and lay interest, the result of which was the appearance of many publications whose sole purpose was to prove that the Egyptians were not Black, and therefore capable of developing such a high civilization."[16]EditorfromMars (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"The entire history of movies about Ancient Egypt from the American film industry does not agree with your original research that the white theory did not gain traction." Since when do film depictions count as evidence of support for a historical theory? The Cleopatra depicted in the Asterix franchise since the 1960s is dark-skinned (see here) but that does not indicate serious support for the Afrocentrist view. Dimadick (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Pop culture is a part of the history of the controversy (films, magazines, news articles, modern artist renderings, museum exhibitions, etc.)

Fixing Cleopatra

Please would somebody propose a summarised version of the Cleopatra section, which covers the main points and conclusions, without bogging down in debate? Wdford (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The current material is over 17kb already. If anybody cares, we can spin this off as a daughter article Race of Cleopatra of Egypt, and then have a short summary here with a link to the daughter article? Wdford (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Summarising this material is complicated by the extra "issue" of some Austrian claiming Cleopatra's half-sister might possibly maybe have been possibly a bit "North African", perhaps. I have made a first draft attempt at a summary here User:Wdford/sandbox8. Comments please? Wdford (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I would have kept the coin image combined with the bust, but that's just me. It looks like you removed the mentioning of the coin in the text, though. This is something Wiki user DougWeller was being a major stickler about, removing images that were to him irrelevant or tangential since they weren't directly mentioned in the text. At the very least we should keep the Roman bust of Cleopatra as you've done here, for some sort of contemporary artistic illustration of the queen. You've kept most of the pressing textual substance, though. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I still feel the same way. Readers need to be given a clear understanding of why an image is being shown. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The current text includes the sentences as follows:

• "Cleopatra's official coinage (which she would have approved) and the three portrait busts of her considered authentic by scholars (which match her coins) portray Cleopatra as a Greek woman in style, including the Greek chiton, Hellenistic diadem, and Greek chignon.[96][97][98]
• Francisco Pina Polo writes that Cleopatra's coinage present her image with certainty and asserts that the sculpted portrait of the "Berlin Cleopatra" head is confirmed as having a similar profile with her hair pulled back into a bun, a diadem, and a hooked nose.[97]
• Ernle Bradford writes that it is "reasonable to infer" Cleopatra had dark hair and "pale olive skin" by how she portrays herself as a "Eastern Mediterranean type" on her official coins, and that she challenged Rome not as an Egyptian woman, "but as a civilized Greek."[99]

Maybe we should include one or two of those sentences, and link it to either the bust or the coins images?

The second sentence in particular (Polo) refers to both the coins and the bust, in a short-ish and concise sentence? Wdford (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternately, we can paraphrase all of the above and say "Various scholars have noted that Cleopatra's coins and sculptures show her as a Greek woman", {ref},{ref},{ref, etc Wdford (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I like that solution, but perhaps keep all of this explanatory texts about contemporary Hellenistic & Roman depictions in a large footnote just in case someone wants to know the specifics of it? Footnotes don't hurt anyone and they don't add to the (already bloated) size of the main prose body of text. I think both the coin and bust should be retained this way with your suggested shorter sentence summarizing scholarly consensus on how she was depicted. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes are a brilliant idea! We can have one footnote containing all the material on the family tree discussion, one on the artworks and one more describing the debunking of the Afrocentrist position - pretty much as is. Does anybody disagree? Wdford (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There's already a Cleopatra section on the Talk page and in that Cleopatra section, 3 editors agreed to condense the Cleopatra section. Some suggested condensing it to one paragraph. I left 3 paragraphs in my edit to condense the Cleopatra section, per the agreement of multiple editors on the Talk page. Pics of the Greek Cleopatra will need to be balanced in the article by pics from other controversies. This isn't the only controversial person in AE history.EditorfromMars (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We agreed that the Cleopatra section needs to be condensed, but we did not agree on your particular version of condensation. We are now seeking consensus on the form which the condensed section should take. A suggested version has been offered, and is being discussed. Please contribute constructively. Wdford (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Like every other section of the article Cleopatra only needs one pic. Her controversy is the least scholarly of all AE race controversies. It's tabloid fodder.EditorfromMars (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A lot of people would say that the entire Black Egyptian Hypothesis is tabloid fodder.Wdford (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the proposed Cleopatra section at User:Wdford/sandbox8, as per the suggestions received. Please add further suggestions? Wdford (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You are too biased and your POV pushing makes your views of the black hypothesis irrelevant. There are numerous, scholarly books published about the black hypothesis and they weren't written by racists and bigotsEditorfromMars (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed Cleopatra rewrite by @wdford:

• It's too long at four paragraphs. Three editors already agreed to condense this section and two of three editors suggested one paragraph. This proposal conflicts with the agreement reached by three editors on Cleopatra section length. As stated before, only one pic, LIKE EVERY OTHER SECTION in the article.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: I agree with wdford's new version. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs could be merged in one. The new version isn't too long and the subject clearly created a major controversy discussed by multiple scholars such as Lefkowitz, Roller, Ian Shaw who cites Mary Hamer, who claimed that "Today controversy rages again over the body of Cleopatra and, in particular, over her race". She further states that "Black Nationalists lay claim to her in the pursuit of dignity and respect that have been denied to black families and their way of life". Mohamed^Talk 11:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the Notes section of the article is going to be used to continue the discussion on Cleopatra, then the Notes section of the article is also going to be used to discuss other controversies, like black queens, etc.EditorfromMars (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

In order to avoid the perpetual race-obsessive edit-warring centered around which section has the most paragraphs, pictures and quotations, I have created a spin-off article called The race of Cleopatra, exactly as I previously created Black Egyptian hypothesis, and for exactly the same reason. We can now thin this section down a lot on this side, with a simple link across to where the full detail resides. Please assist to clean up and build up the new article. Wdford (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that we don't need the footnotes anymore, I have thinned down the proposed Cleopatra section. Please see the latest version at User:Wdford/sandbox8. Do we have consensus yet to replace the existing section with this reduced section? Wdford (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have consensusEditorfromMars (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

read the article numbered 65 and it does not seem to match up in conclusion with the wikepedia claim

In 2011, the genomics company iGENEA launched a Tutankhamun DNA project based on genetic markers that it indicated it had culled from a Discovery Channel special on the pharaoh. According to the firm, the microsatellite data suggested that Tutankhamun belonged to the haplogroup R1b1a2, the most common paternal clade among males in Western Europe. Carsten Pusch and Albert Zink, who led the unit that had extracted Tutankhamun's DNA, chided iGENEA for not liaising with them before establishing the project. After examining the footage, they also concluded that the methodology the company used was unscientific with Putsch calling them "simply impossible".[65]

this shows to the reader, if my english skills arent interfering, that according to the citation which is to be just believed that the claim that tutankhamun is not actually of the r1b1a2 group. after all its simply impossible and unscientific. but thats not at all what the article actually states or shows, the article states, even in its own headline, that king tut is not related to half of europes men. ofcourse he isnt, but that doesnt matter, what matters is that even the scientific article states that he is of the group, that group that came from the black sea region. we may speculate about how this human group may have changed and all but that doesnt matter here either. what matters is that this citation and wikipedia piece is simply not in line with the article. tutankhamun is of that R1b1a2 group and its not impossible or unscientific according to the claims of the used citation.

atleast thats what i see here. i dont know much about how to edit wikipedia so maybe someone can do it for me?

https://www.livescience.com/15388-discovery-channel-tutankhamen-dna.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.143.95.85 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)