Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Previous 9 months

For nine months, the article is fairly stable, especially in light of what happens after this period of time. (diff) 2005-07-10 07:55 [1] to 2006-03-09 07:14 [2]. The above nine month diff is using Deeceevoice revisions at both points.

March 9th

2006-03-09 07:14 - Deeceevoice reverts (1st during this day) [3]

2006-03-09 07:56 - Deeceevoice copies material verbatim from the Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians article and places it in the upper section of this article [4]without any attempt to discussion this change on the talk page. One modified introductory sentence for this material was added at this time well. (version of talk prior to this time).

Deeceevoice starts denying that the article has anything to with controversy over race of ancient Egyptians several hours later while reverting a link to the article the content was copied from [5]. (Note: Deeceevoice is the same editor who had previously added this material to Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians 2005-10-16 14:37 [6]).

2006-03-09 12:07 - Stbalbach moves the content into a sub-section, adds a Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians link as well as more content. [7]

2006-03-09 13:16 - Deeceevoice reverts (2nd) [8]

2006-03-09 14:03 - Stbalbach reverts (1st) [9]

2006-03-09 14:11 - Deeceevoice reverts (3rd) [10]

2006-03-09 14:43 - Stbalbach reverts (2nd and last this day) [11]

2006-03-09 15:55 - Deeceevoice makes her first edit on the talk page [12]

2006-03-09 16:01 - Deeceevoice adds a note on Zaphnathpaaneah's user talk requesting help. Part says: "I'm dealing with an unreasonable "editor" who's playing the 3RR game" despite the fact that there is another editor involved. [13].

(NOTE: Zaphnathpaaneah may possibly have been on wikibreak from 2006-03-06 [14] - 2006-03-25 [15])

2006-03-09 22:18 - Deeceevoice reverts (4th) (See 3RR Rule Detail) and adds content [16]

2006-03-09 22:27 - Zerida reverts (1st and only this day) [17]

2006-03-10 04:59 - Deeceevoice reverts (5th) (See 3RR Rule Detail)and adds content [18]

March 10-17th

Edits per day with reverts, deletions, etc... rise up to 8x previously with a lot of back and forth reverts between the editors and Deeceevoice [19]

March 28th

2006-03-28 10:05 - Deeceevoice moves her material (as happened at the start of this issue and since that time) to the top of the page with "repositioned" comment [20].

2006-03-28 10:24 - That Guy, From That Show! reverts with comment to get consensus in discussion first [21].

2006-03-28 12:23 - Deeceevoice reverts with comment that it is fact [22].

2006-03-28 12:27 - That Guy, From That Show! reverts with a second request to get consensus [23].

2006-03-28 13:01 - On User_talk:Zaphnathpaaneah, Deeceevoice asks for help from Zaphnathpaaneah [24]

2006-03-28 13:06 - Zaphnathpaaneah (first edit on this article) Moves the article out of the theory section [25]

2006-03-28 13:08 - On User_talk:Zaphnathpaaneah, Zaphnathpaaneah replies that the change has been done and the section can be moved again [26]

2006-03-28 13:46 - On User_talk:Zaphnathpaaneah, Deeceevoice thanks for the help, but wants the material moved again [27]

2006-03-28 14:24 - 208.254.174.148 (Zaphnathpaaneah? [28]) Deletes the material [29].

2006-03-28 14:24 - 208.254.174.148 (Zaphnathpaaneah? ) Adds the material again but moves it up higher in the article [30].

2006-03-28 16:30 - Zerida reverts [31]

2006-03-28 16:34 - Deeceevoice reverts [32].

2006-03-28 16:37 - Zerida reverts [33].

2006-03-28 16:47 - On User_talk:Zaphnathpaaneah, Deeceevoice targets Zerida, asks for Zaphnathpaaneah to edit and Deeceevoice will watch to see what Zerida does and then Deeceevoice will take action. [34].

2006-03-28 19:22 - Zaphnathpaaneah deletes the material [35].

2006-03-28 19:22 - Zaphnathpaaneah reinserts the material closer to the top of the page [36].

2006-03-28 19:26 - Zaphnathpaaneah removes section "origin and identity" [37]

2006-03-28 19:26 - Zaphnathpaaneah reinserts "origin and identity" closer to the top of the page [38].

2006-03-28 19:31 - Stbalbach reverts [39].

2006-03-28 20:16 - Katefan0 protects the page from editing [40].

2006-03-29 01:59 - On User_talk:Zaphanthpaaneah, Deeceevoice blames Zaphnathpaaneah for the page protect

"Now ya did it. Your grandstanding pronouncement (though I, of course, understand where you're coming from) was impolitic. You pretty much invited page lockdown. You gotta play the politics of this hell hole, man. I had already set the stage for the inability of Zerida (and other other editor) to revert a subsequent return of the article to your last version -- or certainly a version with the ethnicity issue being taken out from under "Alternative theories." Read my comments to Zerida. I called them on their editing and challenged them to come up with supporting information. Later today, I was going to revert the piece, watch what happened and take appropriate action. Put simply, you blew it. Deeceevoice" [41]

2006-03-29 02:07 - On User_talk:Zaphanthpaaneah, Deeceevoice asks Zaphnathpaaneah to use email [42]

Comments about the data provided above

Please comment below.

-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 05:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A response

First, this is not the appropriate place for this. (See below.)

But I will respond brliefly. I've gone back and reviewed the diffs and cannot find an instance of me violating the 3RR. Not one. In instances where I reverted text, I did so only twice within a 24-hour period. Any subsequent edits were different changes -- an attempt to reorganize the piece to make it more acceptable, to add information, or to delete information I deemed superfluous or that people complained about, to clean up language, either sloppy/unencyclopedic, or simply blatantly POV, or speculative. Further, there is nothing wrong with calling in someone to provide their take on a discussion. It's done all the time. Playing the politics of Wikipedia? Absolutely. That's how it's done -- as Stbalbach (sp?) noted in an edit note: "2 for u, 2 for me," when referring to reverts. Once I had reverted text twice, I took a break and let things develop and then came back later to see where things stood.

My challenge to you involved disproving the information provided in the text of the article -- not an invitation to continue your fixation on personalizing this discussion. In fact, I've repeatedly urged you to desist from the snide remarks and personal attacks, which you initiated from virtually the very start and stick to the task at hand, which is improving the article. However, you seem obsessed with excoriating me. Fine. But if you have such complaints against me, this is not the place for them. There are more appropriate avenues for pursuing complaints against editors. You hsould be familiar with them, having referred to them earlier in your snide remarks about me. Stop cluttering this space with your incessant whining and complaining. You have yet to offer anything sustantive with regard to the article since prematurely running to have it protected. I'm still waiting.

Lastly, you have completely mischaracterized the sequence of events. You running off to request page protection was not precipitated by any revert by me. I was under the impression the argument had been settled; you had just agreed to remove the "identity" information out from under the subhead "Alternative theories." The only subsequent edits to the article before page protection were made by another editor involved in the discussion -- and then a wholesale revert by User:Zerida, who had not recently participated in the editing, or the discussion -- a revert which was in opposition to the agreement just reached and which has resulted in the article being locked in the blatantly POV status we had agreed was undesirable.

And those are the facts. Deeceevoice 07:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2006-03-28 13:06 - Zaphnathpaaneah (first edit on this article) Moves the article out of the theory section [43] to the DESCRIPTION section. Reason: Ethnicity is a part of the description.

2006-03-29 02:07 - On User_talk:Zaphanthpaaneah, Deeceevoice asks Zaphnathpaaneah to use email [44]

Oh and Zaphnathpaaneah somehow magically telecommuted the email into Deeceevoice's mind without actually giving her an email address. Here we go with the silliness. I don't know or have her email address nor does she have mine. the only way she would have the ability is for any of you to see it as well. Bust her, bust me, tell me what is her or my email? I'm right here, come on, whats the email??? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as email, she asked you to email her. I included the link where she asked for email communication and I did not say or imply anything at all beyond that fact .[45].

You seem to be a reasonable person and it is my opinion that you weren't aware of the situation you became involved in. In fact, from all indications I have seen, you were sincerely trying to help another editor. My post above was because Deeceevoice requested proof of her actions and you were only in there because it was a part of what she did. I was not aware that you two knew each other until I spent 30 minutes putting that post together with my software collecting Deeceevoice's actions.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-31 21:10Z

I Do not know her personally. Even now I do not know her email. Deeceevoice and I approach each other from time to time regarding inconsistencies with Wikipedia articles. She is more into dealing with the individual's responses to her comments than I am, and the fallout from that. I am more into how the procedures in Wikipedia are used inconsistently to uphold an inconsistent view. What aggrivated me was that someone (yet again) moved content to a place where it did not belong, without a justifiable reason, and worked unilaterally to maintain it. I still do not know DeeCeeVoice's email. You guys are really much more closer to DeeCeeVoice than I am, yall spend hours, weeks, months collecting evidence against her whenever she reflects an accusation against her (someone accuses her of violating a policy, she reminds them that they did the same, they then try to find another way to censure her without censuring themselves). The only reason I do not get too involved to the point of an edit war with you or anyone else is because I do not feel like it. You DID take my comments and edits out of context, and (with a lack of transparency I may add) refuse to note WHY I did what I did (which is incredible). --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I spent 30 minutes which is one reason I didn't editorialize much, and I'm not able to specifically say why someone does specific actions unless it's obvious or part of a pattern of behavior.

In any case, I'll be concentrating on the article much more.

Regards, —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-01 03:32Z

ETHNICITY IS PART OF THE DESCRIPTION

What, do you think people are too dumb to understand that the ethnicity of a person is a part of the basic description? Bring the moderators and administrators in here. i want THEm to explain to me how they are going to redo all wikipedia articles about individuals in history and move their ethnicities out of their description sections. This is going to be interesting. Yep I'm moving it back. JUSTIFIABLE REASON: "ETHNICITY IS A PART OF THE DESCRIPTION" --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See let me help you guys understand something. I am not just an afrocentricist here trying to create falsehood. I am instead someone who notices the procedural inconsistencies within wikipedia. for example, I pointed out the obvious contradictions in the Caucasoid article regarding Ethiopians. I also busted someone who critisized me for using a capital "B" in Black in the Black_People article, yet the same person used and condoned the use of capital "W" in the White_People article.

Here I saw something interesting, no where else is a person's ethnicity put into a theory and out of context of their identity other than with the egyptian articles. Why? Answer: The concept of anyone in Egypt being black is such a disdainful thought to some, that they conjure up alternate ways to cope with the thing. "Alternate THEORIES"? COME ON. Guys, don't even try to spin the reason. Put the ethnicity into the description, if you want to explain how it's not unanimously conclusive, fine, but dont try to drop the issue out of its proper place. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The proper way to handle the article is to keep the Ethnicity attached to the description and then to offer the alternative explanations for it. I told you guys a while back as soon as article locking began, it would be a tool to unilaterally maintain what the white people want in issues where whites and blacks differ sharply. You have no "compelling" evidence for why the "ethnicity" should be at the bottom as a "theory". --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've asked on the article protection page about the next step, because this is going nowhere. ThatGuy seems to be taking a page from JustforaSecond and has totally abandoned even complaining about the article; now he's just fixated on me. The others haven't offered any new information or any justification for keeping the "identity" information under "Alternative theories," a section reserved for theories about the age of the Sphinx, lost civilizations, navigation patterns for spacecraft, astronomy, etc. -- in a word "pseudoscience." If you'd like to call in an impartial administrator, I'd welcome it. I'm sick of wasting my valuable time dealing with these people who have nothing constructive to offer -- just whining, carping and throwing around personal opinions based on nothing but ignorance and bias, which they apparently think people are stupid enough to accept over expert opinion and scientific method. Call 'em in. Please do. Deeceevoice 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, please remain civil. It looks like you are picking on That Guy because he disagrees with you. Accusing editors of "whining...based on nothing but ignorance and bias" is uncivil. We did have an expert, FrankWSweet, who you alo treated uncivilly. I think he may have departed thanks to your edit warring. Remember, you are on wikipedia probation.

It is clear there is no academic agreement that the Sphinx is "black", which you have never defined anyway. If there were you wouldn't be digging up quotes from novelists like Flaubert and using them as "expert opinoin and scientific method". Please keep the controversy on the controversy page, not spread all over the place. As for pseudoscience, well...you've been actively citing an author who believes in alien civilizations and so on. And remember the time one editor insisted melanin was a superconductor and that wikipedians were involved in some sort of conspiracy to conceal it? Those were the days! Justforasecond 01:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to define it. The meaning in the context of the findings reported is obvious. Further, it is quite clear from the article who the experts are -- and it is not Flaubert. Finally, the business about melanin, as I've said before, was a one of those editing slips that happens online. I wrote the article on black supremacy in predominant part, and it is useful and informative -- as well, many segments of the article on melanin. In fact, I introduced the segment on organic electronics and melanin-based bias. Bottom line, JFAS, you haven't come anywhere near the quality or number of my contributions to Wikipedia. I won't address whether you are even capable of doing so. Suffice it to say you'd rather engage in cheap shots and edit wars, trying to drag Ronald Dellums through the mud. Your edits to that article have been obliterated time and again. And as long as people care about objectivity and fairness, your edits will continue to be expunged. :p Deeceevoice 21:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cmon deeceevoice, if there were any academic agreement you wouldn't be quoting a novelist. You'd quote someone respectable. You wouldn't quote that guy that believes in aliens (who also thinks the sphinx is a woman). You'd find someone that has some credibility. And you haven't -- but not for lack of trying. There just isn't anyone with credibility that comes to the conclustion you want. What you have done is taken bits and pieces out of context -- one researcher coming here yourself and calling you on it. You've used obviously distorted images from websites like "returntoglory.com" and it is just getting old.

FYI, I wrote most of the Ron Dellums article and made it balanced. You've assumed I've inserted only negative information for what reason I don't know. Justforasecond 02:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Someone respectable"? Like, perhaps, the most preeminent forensic artists/detectives of his time? Like a published Harvard professor? Done.

Your POV approach to the Dellums article has placed it on the watch list of several administrators, and the blatantly POV text you keep inserting has been repeatedly reverted. "... for what reason I don't know?" This from your user page: "Ron Dellums: 26 years in Congress, didn't accomplish much for his district (fought the big battles...apartheid, the steal bomber). immediately became a corporate lobbyist upon retiring. forced an expensive special election rather than finish his term." Your bias against Dellums is announced right up front -- and has been clear in your treatment of the article. You're fooling no one and is there in the edit history for all to see. *x* Deeceevoice 03:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your "Harvard professor" believes the sphinx is female. He also believes the earth was populated by alien civilizations. He is an outcast. So your best sources are a quack professor, a french novelist and a police forensic sketch artist who DON'T agree with each other...and by no means the sort of sources wikipedia strives for. But it doesn't stop there, you've added distorted photos on multiple occassions, quoted researchers out of context (even after they've objected), and taken bits and pieces from afrocentrist websites and used them as fact. And anyone who objects you label a racist? It's almost enough to make me think there's trollery going on here. Justforasecond 04:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't even read the article -- unless you don't know the difference between Boston University and Harvard. And what? No criticism of Domingo and his forensics expertise? Further none of the scientific information provided in the article came from an Afrocentrist web site. However, even if it did it'd take more than that label to make the information presented invalid. It stands. Finally, I haven't pointed to one person in this discussion and called them a racist, but I stand by my comments about Wikipedia. The site is dysfunctional and racist. What? Finally given up edit warring on Dellums? All the reverts finally getting to you? It's about time. :p Deeceevoice 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is how the process should go:

1. I moved the ethinicity to the description section. 2. SOmoene moves it back. 3. I move it again with a reason. 4. Someone moves it back with a counter reason (not done) 5. We then discuss it here (done for my part) 6. If a reason is given that ethnicity should be considered more a part of "theory" than of "description" then it is adopted. 7. OTher articles should be thus changed accordingly.

Or 6. If a reaason is not given, then ethnicity remains. 7. The issue is resolved.

This did not happen. The policy was violated once the ethnicity was moved back. Still no comments are shown in this page reflecting why, in a compelling way, that makes "theory" more appropriate for ethnicity than "description".

The execution of Wikipolicy has failed in neutrality for this article. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

It is my opinion that the article should be unlocked and have indicated so here

Any editor here can go to that page to ask for article lock removal. As mentioned on the page "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies".

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-31 20:45Z

sure is quiet here...

just the sound of crickets chirping in the distance

Justforasecond 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Negroid

If I ever do see any so-called "Negroid" people anywhere, y'all be some of the first to know! Seriously - how the hell can a statue have a "race"? Who cares!?!? Perhaps all refences to "race" mshould be removed from the article and the reader should be allowed to make their own inferences - which, btw, really is all "race" is actually about: people inventing theories to pretend that there are substantial genetic barriers between people from different places, and then trying to come up with Scientific methods of determining these "differences" after the fact. It's all so silly! People from different places look the same, no need to pretend there is some fundamental Genetic basis for that. Are Arabs the same "race" as Europeans? Are the Bantu languages speaking people a different "race" from the people of the Nile? Are "Negroids" the same "race" as "Aborigines" (they look the same - don't they?)? Race does not exist. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what Zyxoas, I'm going to answer this silly question of yours. When someone speaks of someone being Black, they are not necessarily talking of a "puritanical race". Black people, as you surely know (even IF you lived in a cave all your life), do not look as narrowly defined as whites. Although modern scientific INTERPRETATION (not science itself) will lend credence that White people have magically become the most phenotypically diverse people in the world, the truth is, it is not so. why? Because Whiteness still excludes people who are also mixed with non-white black ancestry. that is not due to some Black evil "reverse racism", the kind of crap that is spouted nowadays by white conservative smart------. No. The fact is, the white family still statistically does not want membership of mixed race children in the same "white" context as they. The white police officers in New Jersey and Staten Island for example, still will harass the heck out of a mixed race person because he "still looks black enough"... in essence "his black african negroid heritage is still visible in his face".

Well now, what does this mean? This means that genetics and barriers are not created by those who are kept out. We all know that race does not exist. The issue here is treating people differently because of what they look like. The Pharaoh on this article looks like a black man, but because he is a PHARAOH of a great civilization, we don't want to imagine him in the CONTEXT of being a black man, so we say "race doesn't exist and the Egptians were neither black nor white". Ok fine yay.

Let me recontextualize it. The Ancient Egyptians, and this Pharaoh especially is visually and contextually in the black group. Now, if you saw him walking down the street and you DIDNT know he was Egyptian. You would say "race doesn't exist, and oh hey there's a black guy." Ok? Big fat deal. He's a black guy. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zyxoas. Also, IMO, the statements are not accurate:

"According to Robert M. Schoch of Boston University, Domingo determined that the face has "a distinctive 'African,' 'Nubian,' or 'Negroid' aspect which is lacking in the face of Khafra." [7]" As far s I know, Domingo didn't determine the "race" of the Sphinx. Domingo's conclusion was that the Sphinx and Khafre are two different persons. The "Nubian" aspect was the conclusion of Schoch. Further, if you compare the original illustration (Reconstructed Face of the Sphinx Compared with that of Khafre, After Domingo in West, Serpent in the Sky, Appendix II, pp. 230-1 [46]) one doesn't look more or less distinctive "Nubian" than the other. IMO, if included at all, Domingo's findings belong into the "identity" section.

"The New York Times subsequently published a letter submitted by orthodontist and then Harvard University professor of dental medicine Sheldon Peck, who concurred with Domingo" I would like to know where it says that Peck is a Harvard professor. While the NY times published his opinion, they only mentioned that "The writer is an orthodontist" [47] CoYep 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your "as far as I know" conclusion is not borne out by the NYT article and other sources. Your original-research conclusion is not relevant here. deeceevoice 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with Zaph that the information belongs under "description," I support moving the info to "identity" as a compromise. It certainly doesn't belong where it is currently situated. deeceevoice 03:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a letter to the editor, not really a legitimate source. Sheldon's use of "Black African" is curious, I've only heard it from one other person.... Justforasecond 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it curious? Why is it when "caucasoid" is used to describe ancient Egyptians, you guys will let it be posted (heck every magazine will let it be shown in their article) almost unconsciously. "Oh this Pharaoh was a caucasoid from the such and such dynasty, and it's a bygone conclusion that he was caucasoid, just look at his face!" (something to that effect).

But when its mentioned that the guy was negroid in appearance (except the 25th dynasty) all of a sudden it doesn't matter and why are we posting this and whats the big idea? Oh heavens to maybelline, lets just erase that! Oh for goodness sake, why do we play the dumb-conservative-race-doesn't-exist game? The statue looks like a black man, gawd. Some of you think your whole human existence will crumble if you accept that the Egyptians were black. Put the ethnicity in the right place, and stop gerrymandering the article! --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, will you support a move to the section dealing w/identity? deeceevoice 10:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take a straw poll to build consensus, that's a great idea; but don't gang up and engage in edit wars when there is no consensus. It's been shown there are more people against the move than for it. Last time the article was locked down, please don't repeat. -- Stbalbach 14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh. Assume good faith, Stbalbach. deeceevoice 15:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I love WP:BIAS (sometimes). Note how Zaph says that "mixed race" people are considered "black". I believe they call that the "1 drop theory" (eg Mariah Carey is considered "black"). Have you heard of "the pencil test"? Apartheid officials would put a pencil in the hair of a "mixed race" individual and assign a "race" depending on whether or not the pencil fell out (I kid you not). The only reason why people would believe this race nonsense would be if they feel they have something to gain from it (the same with all other pseudo-sciences and crazy beliefs). THAT'S the problem with this article - the individual editors' egos. Has anything good and elevating ever come from racialism? About me being a liberalist, please take a look at my user page (or perhaps even my talk page, if you want). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with the identification of the Sphinx as being a portrayal of a Negroid/black African -- any more than the accurate identification of the ethnicity or gender of any other work of art. deeceevoice 14:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. People have been working on this article for a very long time. Lately, however, not a whole lot of info seems to have been added to it (I'm probably wrong) as various parties have been fighting over adding racial descriptions to it. It seems logical to me that if everyone was following NOR, NPOV, and CITE then there would be no problems, but there are. Would not this article be better off (have a better chance of constantly improving) if everyone agreed to simply not have "race" descriptions. I know it would make it look more professional if such info was included but it doesn't seem (to me) like there's any way that could happen in a manner which pleases all parties involved in this dispute. Just a humble observation by an outsider. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No. The information regarding the description of the Sphinx depiction adds information and is adequately/properly sourced. Deleting it would be a form of censorship. deeceevoice 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it could move to Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians? Most of it is cited, but borderline notable. For instance, french novelist Gustav Flaubert is famous, but this isn't really his field, an orthodontist isn't really an academic, etc. As well, most learned individuals don't break the ancient world into black/white like afrocentrists do. The other problem with it (and this is a wiki problem in general) is that almost no one has cared enough to come to conclusions about this, but there's no way to cite information saying "most anthropologists have not given this issue any attention". Justforasecond 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe some of the information is already included there; however, the information is, first and foremost, about the Giza sphinx itself and is perfectly appropriate here. The quote from de Volney presented here was edited specifically so as not to present the (accurate) conclusions he draws about the Egyptian people being "negroid." Let people speculate about the sphinx's significance -- or lack thereof -- elsewhere. This information should stay put. deeceevoice 07:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

AAA statement on "Race"

The American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998).

We believe that it [the statement] represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.

This should be worked into the article somehow, to clarify that any discussion of "race", from a scholarly view, is considered non-mainstream by the worlds largest body of anthropoligists.

--Stbalbach 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just plain silly. This isn't about the validity of "race" as a concept. This about the ethnic identity of a figural image. It's no different from describing the Venus de Milo as the figure of a woman, a figure in a Japanese wood block print as that of an Asian (or "Mongoloid"), etc. The Giza Sphinx is clearly a representation of a black person -- a "Negro." deeceevoice 09:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

...and like all black people, the Sphinx has 4 legs and a tail. What is "plain silly" here is the idea that so many people can spend so much time trying to ascribe a "race" to the sculptural representation of a mythical abstraction. --Gene_poole 03:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please. Your argument is absurd on its face. Clearly, when ascribing an ethnic/racial designation to the human portrayed by the Giza sphinx, observers are referring to the human portion and not the remainder of the body. deeceevoice 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bull

I once saw a TV programme claim that the Sphinx was carved from a much earlier statue of a bull which itself was made by an earlier bull-worshipping civilization. This explained why the sphinx's head is too small in relation to its body. Bull or Bull bull? Quirkie 19:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on location of ethnicity section

Deeceevoice said (in edit comment):

if there is no consensus, then this version is as good (better, I contend) as the other. would you like to place it on the admin notice board & open it up for comment?)

The reason is, the majority of people who have commented on thus far say it belongs in the theories section. If you think otherwise, then follow normal procedure and start a RFC and any number of other standard procedures to establishing consensus. Taking it to the admin notice board is when people don't follow the rules and when it reaches that step no one cares about the content issue anymore. -- Stbalbach 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll do just that when I have time -- because there is absolutely no justification for placing the information in a section that treats outlandish, discounted speculations; it belongs in either the section treating the monument's identity or "observations." deeceevoice 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image side-view

removed this side-view image:

Side view of head showing apparent prognathism

The reason is Original Research and unverifiable. "Apparent" is original research. Plus the image could have been doctored, or taken at an angle or lighting to enhances a certain effect. When I look at other side-view images such as this one it doesn't look like the one posted at all. It's easy to cherry pick images and come to "apparent" conclusions. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This objection is absurd. For all we know, any image on Wikipedia could have been "doctored," including the one at the beginning of the article. And, yes, the image connected to your link does, indeed, clearly show a prognathism -- a forward-slanting facial profile, as do all of profile shots. deeceevoice 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is not connected with any scholar. No scholar has commented on this image. It is original research to present it as "proof" of a theory. A more clear cut case of OR can not be found. And yes, the two images look very different, one is markedly more pronounced-looking. Thus it is suspect, either intentionally or not, images are like statistics, easily mis-interpreted. I bet I could find images of George W. Bush that show he has a prognathism. -- Stbalbach 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether the image is "connected with any scholar" or not is not a prerequisite for the insertion of images into an article. You're making this stuff up as you go along. Further, any profile shot of the Giza sphinx will show a forward-projecting profile, or prognathism -- and the reference to the existence of the prognathism has been cited time and again by several scholars. deeceevoice 02:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't trust the picture, I think it mis-represents the statue. As evidence I point to [this picture (from a neutral source) that shows a different profile. There is simply no way to verify the picture is an accurate representation for the purposes of determining prognathism - the only person that has said this picture is evidence of prognathism is yourself, which is original research, no scholar is associated with the picture in saying it represents prognathism. So it fails on two counts, un-verifiable and original research. -- Stbalbach 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your objection to the photo is utterly groundless. I clicked the link to the photo you reference, and it, too, clearly shows a pronounced prognathism. Sorry, but either you don't understand the term, or you're just wasting our time on purpose. The jaws of the sphinx in the photo you've presented clearly and in an extremely pronounced fashion protrude beyond the plain of the forehead. deeceevoice 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The racial issues would be best hashed-out in the controversy over race of ancient egyptians article, which a short blurb here to whet the appetite. It contains a lengthy section on the sphinx, much of which is very similar to this article see Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians#The_Great_Sphinx_of_Giza . For what its worth, the editor that uploaded the photo doesn't seem to have much of a bias in what he uploads, so on the surface of things it doesn't seem like he would have manipulated it. However, the photos at the "returntoglory" website, which have been used here before by a still-active editor, *are* manipulated. As far as original research, yes, it probably is. 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you this image has not been doctored or modified in any way. The image you link to is not a perfect side-on view, but taken at an angle; notice the other eye is visible. You can change the image description to whatever you think is most suitable, but I don't see why the image should be removed from the article altogether. Mgiganteus1 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In the archived discussion, this charge was levelled at another photograph,[48] because it came from a website titled "returntoglory.org". They complained it as an "Afrocentric" website (when the author of the site is actually Jewish -- ha!). Then someone offered an alternative photo[49] (the link in the text referring to the prognathism goes to it) that is virtually identical, posted by (presumably a non "Afrocentric"?) white guy on the web -- and the person who offered this image was one of the primary people bellyaching about the rtg photo. Just silly/hilarious. This is a common ploy used by certain people as an excuse to remove images clearly showing the Sphinx's African features. These are the people who nonsensically insist on placing the factual description of the Giza sphinx as "Negroid" under a section devoted to crackpot theories about spaceships and other such lunacy, instead of under sections treating its "description" or "identity", where it more properly belongs. It is plain this photo isn't doctored; it hasn't been Photo Shopped any more than was the rtg one. They have abslutely no evidence that it has been altered in any way; theirs is a specious and ridiculous claim. It is, in fact, wholly in keeping with other profile images of the monument. We could just as well level unsubstantiated, ridiculous charges about every other image in the article. This one deserves to stay. (Note also that other photos from the rtg website,[50],[51],[52] absent the fact that the image is not so enveloped in shadow, present an object identical in form to that of this, contested photo.) deeceevoice 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll regarding location of information on ethnicity

copied from "Current surveys" entry

• Great Sphinx of Giza. Where in the article should the information contained in the subsection titled "Ethnicity"[53] appear? It is currently under "Alternative theories," which treats "crackpot" theories. The lead paragraph reads in part: "In common with many famous constructions of remote antiquity, the Great Sphinx has over the years been the subject of numerous speculative theories and assertions by non-specialists, mystics, pseudohistorians, pseudoarchaeologists and general writers.... Egyptologists and the wider scientific community largely ignore such claims...." Or, does the information regarding the ethnicity of the human form depicted more properly belong elsewhere, under, say, "Description"[54] or "Origin and identity"[55]? This issue has been discussed on the article talk page ad nauseam, with no resolution. Sorry. I can't refer you to a specific subheading, but it recurs at various points on the page -- and I think the matter here, when regarded objectively, is a straightforward editorial one, decided easily enough without reading all the talk page give-and-go (but if you have the time and patience, you're certainly invited to do so.) Please let us know your thoughts here. Thanks. 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.