Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Draft I found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taxico/drafts/Egypt

It has some sources we might want to check out. futurebird 12:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is terrible! Of cause, these people have some nice pieces there. But instead of creating confusions, there could have joined the main article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's creator, Taxico, has been inactive since March. That might have something to do with the recently found draft. It might be a good idea to see how, if at all, they could be merged though. John Carter 20:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Been gone for a minute, so couldn't contribute to discussion as frequently over he weekend. But that's a pretty good draft, though it is very reminiscent of the article, origin of nilotic peoples, and is formatted very similar though but should still serve as a good model. Glad to see conversation seems more progressive. Good sign.Taharqa 02:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa was surely speaking about the article Origin of the Nilotic peoples.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

is the discusion page protected also?

Just a question. This is the longest I have seen the discusion page void of rampant deletions. I have have been reading for about two months now. Bango though, that is a feat on this discusion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.131.239 (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm

Confucius say when all your sources of wisdom come from one source "Shomarka O.Y. Keita"something not right

--Mikmik2953 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Fox right? That sattelite comedy station rocks man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.131.239 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nordic Egypt??????

Why is there the "white" supremist tearjerking sympathy and "ooh that bad white man" term solelly uttilized? There are many "white" people that hold that "interesting" belief that are not white supremists. The sole association of one with the other is inappropreate, and should be listed ALSO with the eurosentric beliefs. After all no association of any of the afrocentric beliefs (a wholey inappropreate term due to africa being a geographically scientific term in my opinion) with "black" supremists or "black" power groups. In so far as I have seen.--207.14.131.239 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I regret to say I really haven't a clue what you're saying. Maybe you could be a bit clearer? John Carter 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sentence 1 is a question relating to the title of the discusion section. Sentence 2 is an example of why the sole use of "white"supremists is inappropreate. Sentence 3 re-affirms the innapropreate use of the term as the only association with "Nordic Egypt" and offers a suggestion on the correction of the problem. Sentence 4 questions the structure and design of the section "Nordic Egypt" in the first place, as a subversive and sumblime attempt to POV discredit any form of non"black" ancient egypt by using a "hot" issue word, such as the N word for example.--207.14.131.239 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to take a shot at answering: the hypothesis of Ancient Egyptians as a people descended from Scandinavian (or Northern European) stock is a hypothesis with very few adherents (possibly because of its highly anachronistic nature), and is rather typical of the discourse of, indeed, white supremacist works, such as "March of the Titans". If you have reliable sources that these theories are seriously entertained in circles outside of these, please bring them to this talk page for discussion.--Ramdrake 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me as I have been reading this discusion page for awhile, they already have been brought up out side the context of the "white"supremist realm. The problem is that as I was pointing out earlier they are being megered (incorrectlly in my opinion). I do not claim to asscribe to such beliefs, however the merging as a technique of descreditation seems to be the problem I was addressing. It shows a lack of unbiased objectivity that reduces the credability of the article. I will however see what I can do.--207.14.131.239 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I got much of that. The question that we're facing regarding that subject is WP:Undue weight. While the sources are probably notable, the degree of attention and credit the idea is given will also be factors in the discussion. The so called "Afrocentric" ideas have been given a lot of attention lately, which qualifies them as significant enough for specific attention. The question here would be how much space in the article to give this theory, and which article to place that content in. It is possible that maybe the Hamitic article, or some other article, might be a better place for such content. I don't know. What would need to be established would be the current view of the theory, and/or how many people hold it now. John Carter 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the very tone and words used by the editors in the writing of the article are heavly laden with POV and a lack of objectivity. On this very disscusion page taharqua pointed out that hawas, the as of late golden boy of egyptology, does not adhear to the "black" afrosetric views that seems to contradict your statement that the so called afrocentric ideas are the most popular and given the most attention and that there for they should recieve more attention on this article. The point I am making is that the article is writing in a POV tone as opposed to being an unbiazed objective article.--207.14.131.239 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say that "Afrocentric" hypotheses are given more weight than "Nordic" hypotheses here because the "Afrocentric" hypotheses have adherents with some credible scientific background, whereas I don't think the same can be said of the "Nordic" hypothesis. Besides, it's a bit of a false dichotomy, as the "Afrocentric" and "Nordic" hypotheses are only two of several hypotheses to explain the origins of the Ancient Egyptian people; there are others. NPOV does not require that all viewpoints be given equal attention; it only requires that each viewpoint be given attention commensurate with its importance "in the real world".--Ramdrake 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And that can include even "non-scientific" importance as well. I know locally where I live these theories are discussed regularly. Several people support it, others oppose it. But the amount of attention they receive has to be factored in as well, and right now the "Afrocentric" theories receive a lot of attention. That might change if and when the amount of attention it receives changes, but we can't write the article to abide by terms we don't know yet. John Carter 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This would be why the "creation vs evolution" debate has at least three key articles: one Creation-evolution controversy for those who want to know about the controversy per se, the Evolution article for those who want to know about the canonical scientific theory, and the Creationism article for those who want to know about the religious aspect of the controversy. If there was enough material in this article to split it three ways, I could recommend that something like that be done so as to be fair for everyone; however, with only 36kb of prose, I don't see that this would do much of anything except yield three stub-quality articles. However, there is the added difficulty that I seem to perceive that some positions in the debate which are ascribed to "Afrocentrists" in fact come from recognized researchers who have some credibility within the sphere of Egyptology, so while the debate is in good part outside the sphere of Egyptlolgy, I don't perceive it as being altogether out of it.--Ramdrake 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So your saying that the inclusion of the single word "eurosentric" and at most three more words arranged in the scentence are far to much script and memory than can be spared from the rest of the article. The inabillity of this discusion to come to a consise logical end long before this time lead me to again believe that certian editors of the article are only concerned about proliferating their POV as opposed to even endevouring to write an Article that is readable as unbiased and objective--207.14.131.239 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, please present references that warrant the hypothesis that "Nordic Egypt" is much more widespread, and we may review this position.--Ramdrake 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactlly how many reference would I need for 4 words that indclude the word "Eurosentric" so that "nordic egypt" should be "allowed" to be associated with "white" people that are not "white" supremists. Keeping in mind that the point of the discusion was and is subversive POV merging of one theory with another. In example non "white" sumpremist "Nordic Egypt" "ideas being merged with "white" supremist " Nordic Egypt" "ideas" in an attempt to discredit one by association with the other more unfavorable line of though. Just as an example it's kind of like associating "black" people with jews because some "black" people are jews, although not all of them are, some are catholioc, some muslim. A benign example but an example none the less--207.14.131.239 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just present whatever references you have and we'll see.--Ramdrake 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, please note that no one but admins can edit the article right now, and that it's probably the case that any proposed addition will require some display of consensus. I don't myself oppose adding content such as you propose, but we would need to see some references and a draft of the proposed addition before we could request one of the admins to add it. John Carter 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking into account that europe and egypt both have the ep phonetics in there names. That Nordic is actually a word for northern in many languages ( I believe in Latin it is based as Norton), and as such that would mean that the "Nordic Egypt" is really a statment about "northern Egypt" as opposed to "white" supremisists. I see what references I can find.--207.14.131.239 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please see what you can find. However, AFAIK, "Nordic Egypt" refers to the hypothesis of Egypt having first been colonized by invaders coming from the Scandinavian regions, more or less.--Ramdrake 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what you believe however you don't take into account is the "Nazi" author's ,of SOME of those books, affinitous LOVE of all things rome. In the translation and disection of Roman texts subversive mergeing of one idea with another can take place. Which mind you is what the disscusion at hand is about. --207.14.131.239 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that translations can be and are problems. I deal with a lot of religion articles. Believe me, I 'know translations can be problems. However, you also seem to be saying that the term "Nordic Egypt" refers to something other than what most of us associate with the term. If that is to be accepted, then you will have to produce some source to verify the existence of the alternate contention. I regret to say that I am personally unfamiliar with any other use of that term. So, again, we would need to have some source which meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS to add such content to the article. This is particularly important because all of us non-admins are going to have to ask an admin to make any changes for us. So, we'll need to see some source to verify any changes proposed to the article. And that applies to everybody, including me and Ramdrake and everyone else. Those are the rules when only admins can change articles. John Carter 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would take more than just twentieth century writings to convince of a Nordic Egypt. It would take Archaeoligical findings, images and Nordic writings in Egyptian styled temples that exist in the areas from which the Nordics originated. It would have to be information that represents the vast rather than the small of evidence. There would have to be dynastic and pre dynastic pharoanic evidence, temple not cave drawings, royal tombs etc. There were light skinned Egyptians that can be sourced to Egyptian hierchy, but Nordic is a stretch. Genetics flow one way by Mendels law. Dark is dominant light is recessive. You can get the recessive from the dominant, but not the dominant from the recessive. This proves that Nordics could not have been dynastic founders in Egypt. Tom 11/21/07

While I agree on almost all your points, as far as skin color is concerned, skin color doesn't really have a "dominant" or a "recessive" form, contrary to say eye color (where darker colors are dominant over lighter colors). Just an FYI.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking of skin color within a certain ethnic group. Using Mendel's law and out of Africa research (not by afrocentrics) the Nordic's are in the flow of earths population and not the catalyst of the earths population. Their history or existence isn't contempory with the Egyptians and could not be, not for just geographical reasons, but genetic reasons as well. As far as an intellectual society goes, the Nubians are proven to predate Egyptians with the Nordics gaining intellectual capabilities many centuries later. All of mans DNA can be found in all men. Genetic flow can travel from Nubian to Nordic, but not from Nordic to Nubian. It is not so much that the Nordics did not create the Egyptians, it is more that they genetically and chronologically could not have. This I believe is supported by all forms of historical, archaeological and genetic research. Tom 11/23/07

Hey Tom what exactlly does skin color have to do with the argument that nordic egypt "Nazi" writngs were influenced by Roman historical text about the Norton (latin for northern) egyptians? The point that I am trying to make is that both "Nordic Egypt" and "Afreca/n Egypt" are being preyed upon by POV people and agendas that utilize geographical scientific terms for their own desires to subversivelly and inappropiatelly merge two or more contrary statements and bodies of evidence into on supposedlly "factual" piece of information. Did you read the section? If you were approching the section objectivelly I believe the section is not that hard to understand. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article I for one believe it should at least endevour to attempt to pass for an encyclopedia article. And their is also that other problem you have Tom all of the afrocentric writing are right around 20th century writings. As it has been pointed out the walls of egypt have more that one color representing the egyptians. I am not even argueing the belief that the "Norse" nomadic tribes supposedlly originated from the eastern mediteranian which would place their land of origin by this point in time under the mediteranian. As for chronology whats to say the nubians made egypt they are not etheopia {which much like europe is a phonetic play on the word egypt, or persia which has the ep phonetic in the title stateing their emperial lineage.) Nubians do not have the same genetic composition as Etheopians or even Kenyans. They are all mostly black true but it is quite evident Ethiopians and Kenyans had not only some egyptian ansestreal fathers and mothers but some other "ethnicities" as well, which both set them apart from nubians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.51 (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Skin color was the small of the statement used to describe Mendels law. The point that I was discussing requires the culmination of all of the examples, Mendel's law included. Oh by the way, Mendel is 19th century. I'm also not referring to any research that is from anyone that can be remotely labeled an afrocentric. A Nordic Egypt implies not that Egypt has Nordic offspring, but rather Nordic ancesters. Which isn't true by any research that I'm familiar with. The 20th century writings that indicate a Nordic origin for Egypt need to be archaelogically verified in contrast to the wealth of archaeology currently in existence. It would also have to represent the vast rather than the narrow. This at a minimum should be required because this is an encylopedia. As for Nubia's influence on Egypt, copy and paste the link and read the archaeological report "The Lost Pharoahs of Nubia" www.homestead.com/wysinger/menes2.pdf Tom 11/26/07

You brought up Mendel's law thats the point. This point of discusion has nothing to do with skin color. This point of discusion has to do with the inappropriate uttilization of scientific geographic terms by editors in an attempt to subversivelly and inappropriatelly merge their racial POV with "accepted" archeological and historical documentation by "scientists". It has become appearent that "afrocentrisim" is guilty of the same "crime" or flaws that people mock, berate, and denigrate "Nordic" egypt for. The inappropriate "merging" of the scientific geographic terms "Africa/n" & "Nordic" with only a certian group of people while either term is indicitive of a great many people different from certian editors "preffered" POV. And yes their were also pharohs in the south that is well known. However Nubia is neither Egypt or Etheopia. There were pharohs in Persian that much is even in the bible.--207.14.129.51 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC

I haven't berated any group of people. Mendel's law is not so much about skin color as it is about the basic laws of heredity and genetics and is applicable to all life on the earth. Do you have any Nordic Pharaonic evidence that you would like to present? Do you have anything that shows that Egyptians were genetically descended from a Nordic seed. If so, then let your very next comment include it. But please don't use the label of "afrocentricism" to avoid discussing or presenting "accepted" archaeological and historical evidence. Persian hierarchy post dates rather than predates Egypt and is not relevant here. Present predynastic Nordic information so that we can move forward in this discussion. Tom 11/28/07

Tom did I claim you were berating "Nordic" egypt? No. Furthermore why exactly are you trying to "guide" the discussion away from the non-genetic based point of discusion, which mind you happens to be the inappropriate utillization of scientific terms, in an attempt to manipulate data and research, sometimes opposite of their intended meanings and findings, in an attempt to further POV in a subversive innappropriate manner. The aformention "practice" is not only destructive to the article in question but to future articles that may very well reference this article some day. Race has nothing to do with the discusion point. So why do you keep bringing race up???--207.14.129.51 (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I ask again, do you have any archaeological evidence to support the claim of a Nordic Egypt. What is the historical foundation for your belief. I didn't bring up genetics, you did. You cannot claim a Nordic Egypt without connecting them genetically. Either the Nordics were having sex and birth the Egyptians or they did not. Which is it? This is an opportunity for you to correctly and appropriately utilize scientific terms to dismiss the foolish claims of the afrocentrics as well as the white supremists. This is your chance to accurately display Egyptian history. Tom 11/28/07

In my opinion you are a wacko nut that is trying to change the subject in an attempt to believe you are clever and take attention away from the discusion at hand, that apparently you can not approach objectivelly. Apparently I have brought something to light that you feel uncomfortable dealing with and you attempt to change the point of the disscusion into a realm you belive you have mastered. What I am saying is both "Nordic" (northern) and "Africa/n" are geopraghical scientific terms being inappropreatelly manipulated by editors in an attempt to further their propoganda point of views. So go ahead ask again for the next twelve years your question has nothing to do with the discusion at hand and anyone reading this could see that. Your attempts to "cleverlly" change the subject into a realm you believe you mastered are pointless. Oh as for archaeological evidence I seem to remember hearing once egypt occupied an area and that area had north ("NORDIC" "NORSE" "NORTON" and many similair variations in many languages), south, east, and west portions to it, in example egypt was not a dot on a cartesian plane. It is a problem of innapropriate use of symantecs. Thats the point and many historical evidences are being compromised. Hey Tom, after all Africa even before the Roman empire had many different ethnicities and the geopraphic scientific term/s "Africa/n" are deviod of stateing OR implying one single enthnicitie. That is just a fact the editors have to start dealing with.--207.14.129.51 (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your statement "Oh as for archaeological evidence I seem to remember hearing once egypt occupied an area and that area had north" etc. Where can this archaeological evidence be found? What editors are you citing that are inappropiately manipulating this information. What writer, book, etc. Let's address these editors directly. Let's go right to the heart of your point and stop these editors from doing this. You only have to tell wikipedians who they are and in what books their writings can be found. No one's dodging dealing with this. Where did you read it? I'd like to read it too. Produce it and it will get dealt with. Also you can call me wacko all you want, I'm not going to lower myself and attack you back. I will however, address any statements that you make. Tom 11/29/07

Uhh Tom dude, they are called maps. You can by one at a gas station the have orientations on them that show north, south, east, and west. There is a "north" England no really I am not yanking your chain really there is. And north is a geographical scientific term used to identify that region of England. In latin it would be reffered to as something like Norton Britainia. If a german were to translate that map they might come to the "off the wall" conclusion that their where a "Norse" or "Nordic" England. And that mind you is the same problem "Afrosentic" egyptology authors are suffering from right now. Well fine I do think your a wacko that backed yourself into a corner and is attacking me right now with such ludicrous requirements that are outside the dinamic of the discusion point. Oh here is one instance the subversive placement of the article within the Pan-African section. An all "Black" section that in-and-of-itself defies the true meaning of the word Pan-African.--207.14.129.51 (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm primarily interested in archaelogical and literary information declaring a Nordic Egypt. Do you have anyone that you can cite? Tom 11/29/07

What in god's name does that have to do with this discusion at all?????? This point of the discusion has nothing to do with the proving or disproving of either shaka zulu or eric the viking being egyptian. You are running around in circles trying to change the subject of the discusion, you are frantically looking for a door out so your pride won't have to admitt you may have made a mistake lashing out at this valid point in the first place. You want litterature on "Nordic" egypt there are quite a few text that actually have validity if keep in mind the translation taking place just google the subject, BUT this discusion is about the inapropreate uttilization of scientific terms in an attempt to sebversivelly merge and manipulate data.--207.14.129.51 (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropiate utilization of scientific information by whom? Since there are quite a few, name the one that you think is the most blatant so that it can be referenced. Tom 11/29/07

No NO sure why not lets go ahead and use up all the space so you can get this archived and out of the way real quik-like. Your inablitity to even follow the discusion where the question you just ask was previouslly answered show a sincere lack of concern for the structure of the article and no desire to have it even pass for something even remotely deviod of propoganda "Shmack". Go ahead keep asking the same question, even though it has already been answered. Your really impressing everbody with your ability to handle problems and your intillectual prowess in aproaching the discusion logically and without even bothering to understand what is going on. Kind of like an Ostrich hiding its head in the sand. Good for you.--207.14.129.51 (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

When you make statements that cannot be referenced through a verifiable source, you run the risk of being labeled a fraud. Anyone with proof of their claims will render it. Most people without proof will resort to bashing the person who's asking them for proof. As you have. You may be passionate about your claims, but without verifiable sources it becomes difficult for others to join you in your passion. One has to assume at this point that your claims are without merit and that you are unable to contribute insight to the "Race Of Ancient Egyptians" as this page is titled. Tom 11/29/07

The placement of the article in the Pan-African section hello, hello. You already got an answer to your question. You entered the discusion thinking you had guns a blazing dude you just insulted yourself. The Pan-African section is an all "black" section deviod of the other ethnicities of Africa of which there are more than "black" yes even indiginous ethinicies that aren't "black". Your the one that started firing off racial tirads about mendel etc. completelly trying to change the subject of the discusion. What are you "clever" or somthing all of a sudden you get called out for blazzing racial guns where ,oddly enough dealing with this page, they have NO relevance what so ever. What are you the "victim" all of a sudden. You continually attempt to redirect the discusion away from the point of discusion and now you leave a post like that. WOW--207.14.129.51 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not the Pan African or afrocentric hypothesis that you're being asked for. It's the Nordic hypothesis that you're failing to follow through on. I'm also not the only one herein who's asked you for your references to that effect. It appears that you are your own source. Tom 11/29/07

Tom can't you even grasp what is going on right now. Nobody is argueing for Erik the viking or Shaka Zuklu either being or not beening Egyptian. If you by this point in time if you can't grasp the discusion, as simple as it is, maybe you should spend your time in other endevours. And Yes Tom like it or not, be pained by your blind passion or not, the "afrosetric" placement with "Pan-Africanism" in an innappropriate uttilization of geographic terms to define race is part of the disscusion. You yet again try to change the subject to pretend I have been cornered to produce some sitation that has nothing to do with the point at hand. A problem, as you have pointed out, some other people also fell into.--207.14.129.51 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no Nordic Egypt. It should never have been brought up. The very concept is fiction to anyone who has any knowledge of Egypt. There was no Nordic society, recorded history, or existence contemporary with pre-dynastic Egypt. You cannot produce what doesn't exist. I'm amazed that you actually want other truth seekers to join you in this folly. It is not an encyclopedic endeavor. You run the risk of being guilty of the very thing that you accuse others of. You are trying to get people to embrace a fictional concept and you're frustrated when they will not. It qualifies at best for a novel. You asked earlier how many times would you have to present it to qualify for discussion. So far you haven't gotten past the title "Nordic Egypt" because the facts simply don't exist. Please present some non-fictional research or admit at best a nebullous concept of which you may be the largest perpetrator. Tom 11/30/07

I even pointed out that I was NOT arguing the case for "Nordic" egypt Tom. I even pointed out before this has to do with people inappropreatlly associating race with geography. It is extremally easy to understand the problem I have pointed out. You again react in a fashion similair. You attempt to change the subject trying to associate, in an innappropreate attempt to subversivlly merge, geographic realities with a subject you believe is ludicrous and you believe would in and of it self discredit the point of interest I am bringing to light. Thank you Tom over the last day or so you have been extremelly helpfull in proving my point.--207.14.129.51 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That is another good point you brought up Tom! Why is "Nordic" egypt even on this page at all. There isn't even a "Nordic" egypt page on Wikipedia. Did you know that Tom. Which oddly enough bring us right back to the opening paragraph of the discusion but with even more validity to the question then there was before, and yes mind you Tom there was and is validty to the point of discusion. Thanks again Tom, it did not even cross my mind to search for a "Nordic" egypt page on Wikipedia till you decided to help me prove my point.--207.14.129.51 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What validates a point for discussion in this matter is research that can tie that point to an actual historical event. You want to discuss opinions about an event that never happened. You want the equivilant of merging The Wizard of Oz with Meet The Press. You want to talk about Dorothy's opinion of Tim Russert. The problem is you won't present the facts of Meet The Press and can't find the Script to The Wizard of Oz. Your interest is more in winning a contest here that expounding truth. There is no way that we're going to intellectually meet because our goals are completely different. Perhaps you'll find someone who wants to indulge in Nordic fiction. Oh by the way, you can't create a "Nordic Page" without something to put on it. Based on your lack of presented information herein I doubt that that will be happening. There's no archaeological meat to your claim in either a Nordic Egypt or those who inappropiately and subversively use the concept/lie to further their own myopic views. Tom 12/01/07

Yes thank you again for continueing to passionatelly prove my point. Truth??? You want truth yet you can't even handle dealing with the truth of this matter. Inappropreate subversive merging of ideas and data. Thanks again for being there so my illumination of the subject is not quite so abbstract. Your the evidence Tom. You have argued my point. Truelly thank you.--207.14.131.183 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

sandbox

for how long is the page protected. Maybe we should return to a sandbox to try to reach a consensus. Though we are still having edit wars, I think the stability is getting better and the article is going for longer periods without protection. Muntuwandi 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I believe there already is one, right? John Carter 18:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll all for it too. More constructive, too, IMHO.--Ramdrake 18:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the existing sandbox is at User:Wikidudeman/Egypt race article. John Carter 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have copied the current version to the sandbox. We can start to work on the disputed sections. Muntuwandi 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. As indicated above, though, I think it might be a good idea to identify what we think the article should cover, and adjust the content accordingly, first, rather than adjust the article almost helter skelter and have the argument about what should and should not be included go resolved for much longer. John Carter 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't do that again. It was hard enough getting just 3 editors to stop edit warring on the previous attempt to rewrite it in sandbox last time, it would be impossible this time. Not to mention the fact that, as we can all see, the sandbox rewrite didn't work. If anyone here wants to attempt to do a rewrite then I can easily make a sandbox for that, but User:Wikidudeman/Egypt race article is being kept for reference purposes. Moreover, If a sandbox is done, starting from this protected live article wouldn't make any sense. We need to start from a consensus version, this live article is anything but. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For those truly interested in sandboxing it, Use User:Wikidudeman/Egyptdraft2. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, please, take part to this new attempt. You seem to master the subject and Wikipedia's policies. Don't go backward when people need your presence. This is a humble but important service to humanity!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Oh by the way.

Here is one for all you anti everything but "black" egypt people. It's all real man the powers of Pharoh in the bible, the gods of egypt having power and being refered to as gods in the bible ,by god mind you, not witches or charlatins. My name is Egypt, my name is Pharoh, My name is even Rome I got power people that aint no thing. Hey I'm a white guy. How are you gonna deal with that, living prof?--207.14.131.183 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The rampant deleter strikes again.

Odd isn't it an eitire section pointing out the long period deviod of rampant deltions was recentlly deleted. To bad I guess they just can't control themselves.--207.14.129.82 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern mixed race people resemble Egyptians [Alicia Keys,Zoe Kravtiz,Maya Rowell etc]

This case could easily be closed just by adding modern images of mulattoes and quadroons,both my parents were mulattoes - and I look like a mirror copy of ancient egyptian women [only fairer]and more Mesopotamian,sumerian etc.I have no doubt they were mixed race.One thing is for sure they were not from the germanic tribes of europe or the ancient iberians of the british isles from which most of the "west" now descends! 210.50.137.2 04:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you deal with Christopher Reves or Yul Brener? Two very egyptian looking people that do not have melatto parents. Sure Superman didn't shave his head but he was closer looking to an ancient eyptian that any of those people dressed up during the Tut Tour. Maybe that is what throws you people off we don't always shave our heads anymore. I will admit that some of the mixed race women out there are winding up looking real nice and some of them even quasi-egyptian but I have also noticed that there male counterparts, unless "breed" from preexisting "stock" in other word preexisting family lines, don't look egyptian. What is the deal with that should I bring God into the discusion and ponder the ethical ramifications of certian "Endevours" and sub cultural dimanics that began to take place a mear generation or two ago when certian ancient civilization became common knowledge and truelly this discusion began.--207.14.131.183 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reeves (RIP) doesn't strike me as ancient egyptian at ALL. He looks like one of those Roman or Greek gods you see in marble statues. Yul Brener is an interesting addition and I see his likeness in some ancient egyptian depictions (particularly priests). I figure if Egypt was as much of a melting pot as many historians would have us believe, many of the men and women would end up looking like modern Black Americans. Distinctively African facial features (lips, cheeks) but with lighter tones. Black Americans of course aren't homogenous in appearance, but I'm talking about browning/orange skin tone (as opposed to how our darker ancestors looked). I guess the reason many Afrocentrists champion the idea of "black" ancient egypt is that no one today would call Halle Berry, Will Smith, Lenny Kravitz or Tiger Woods "white". They all usually called "black" whether they are full-blooded black like Will Smith or mixed like Halle Berry. One may find many pictures of ancient egyptians who resemble these people. You won't, however, find too many Brad Pitts and John Waynes. Scott Free (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

howard kosel, yes he is part slavic, Tele Savalas, Uncle Fester from the Adams Family television series, denzel washington and the entire cast of "Fallen" are all people that are part egyptian dude. Danny Kaye and that guy from "the shakiest Gun in the West" the one with ching-chang the asian cash register. Sid Ceaser. They a have egyptian characteristics and bloodines. They are not all part black. You may be inappropreatlly associating shaved heads with egypt. Even Brad Pitt carries the name P of egypt I son of T son of light (az or set) we still carry the names of our ancestors and you "probbible" carry the name of yours many subsaharan african do to, but they are not all names of the egyptians, as with some europeans. Its the hair dude it must be throwing you off there is nothing that requires us to shave our heads in day to day life unless certian profesions are undertaken. We just went and united the world in trade and if you look carfull at a globe you can see the name of egypt spelled across the continents. You people are argueing against a still exsisting reallity obllivious to the world you live in, and in my opinion wasting your time. And time is at times a valluble commoditty. Yeah it's a shame what happen to Christopher Reeves. Even his name is a play on the term Rea or Re' or Ra, however your trying to spell it this week, and the eve , from adam and eve, and then s signifieing waining light of the moon of eve, born as the moon approached a new moon. It is how we are. I would not so much say that ancient egypt was a melting pot so much, maybe ancient egypt had a large family and extended family would be more correct.--207.14.129.82 (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

this is a common myth perpertrated by aforcentrics that ancient egyptians are all just a bunch of mulattoes or the other train of though in afrocentrism is all the native black egyptians fled an arab genecide. no proof of the latter theory what so ever, i have traveled to egypt and i have studied this subject for some time and frank yurco touched on this subject ,he also stated that yes (some) african americans of biracial background might see some egyptians who may look like them,but that same arguement can be made if you travel to the near to yemen saudia arabia or bahrain e,t,c many people in these countries could look mulattoe also ,that argeument is grasping at straws and playing pin the tail on the donkey and is has no scientific or common scence rashional,it's basically it's trying to claim cultures and civlizations because of interracial encounters in america for the last 500 years,plus on top of that im involved in the national geographic genographic study and human beings did not migrate out of africa through north africa meaning the sahara but through sub sahran africa east coast. north africa did not start geting heavily populated until the people who left africa thousands of years earlier started to popualte north africa through a east west flow through via asia because egypt is connected to asia,you know why this is because of the sahara early sub sahran man knew it would be bad idea to try and cross this gigantic desert ,and north africa at best could have been sparsley populated at best before the sahara was there.thats why it is best to state egyptians as a distinct people who should not be called black or white ,they were not sub saharan africans nor were they northern europeans,brace is right the egyptians are egyptians and have been in place since the pleistocene and have mainly remained unchanged by invasions by other peoples,i.e greeks romans nubians and arabs". At best they resemble near east people like the rest of north africa and this is the view by most and that is why afrocentrist are always complaining that tut is not being portrayed as being black in tv specails because when they make these special they used modern day egyptians to play the part not people from england,and the meaning that ancient egypt being a mixed race society is not to incur that ancient egypt was a mass interracial orgy of people haveing sex and making mulattoes but they were a people who exhibted many skin tones and facial features and hair types, i mean go to pakistan you might see people who are darker than mya or lenny kravitz but does that mean they are black. the people mentioned above look the way they do is not through natural selction but interracial encounters.--Mikmik2953 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying "the people mentioned above" as in your statment or the previous paragraph? . Have you ever noticed though that an Egyptian arab has a distict different appearence than many of the other arabs in middle-eastern and north african countries. I mean there was the advance of the ottoman/persian empire, after Cleopatra the Tallamae and Marc Anthonies Rome fell, into egypt,but then again my findings is that the medeteratian is a satuarated culture of the solar diety and the children their in of. From way out in Morroc, to empirial Rome, Greece, Egypt, Persia, and as far as Persia extended, even as far south as Etheopeia. They all are in their own way nations and empires within the egyptian, or more preciselly solar diety, empire.--207.14.129.82 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"And yeah I have seen some hindi people on TV and hear and there that are WAY darker than your average "black" african, but they lack similarity to the "black" african in many ways".

that statement that you made above says volumes and it funny a friend of mine is a south indian and she was watching a video on youtube by an afrocentric and the title of the video was beautiful black faces and the video was showing like ethipoians congo people and such but than it started to show south indians and my friend she started to bust out laughing than felt insulted and this goes back to the statement that you had made about a lack of similarity.but back to the race of th article ancient egyptians the critics of the reconstruction of tuts likenes and all hell got raised by afrocentrist about they were trying to make him look white when in fact that was his facial features are what they are and can be reconstructed that is what he looked liked, but eye color and exact skin color will never be known when in fact tut skin in the reconstruction is brown not white and yet it is possible that the reconstruction of tut might have been to dark he could have been lighter or could have been darker they used computer matching of the average or most common skin color of north africans it's the median color of north africans ,and even if you did make his skin as dark as a black african from the congo basin he would look like a strange looking black person it would not look right,and that goes back to the earlier statement that you had made.all i can say is egyptians in my observation look like middle eastern people with various skin tones and that race is more than just skin color and that is part of my argument that people who are biracial saying i see some egyptians who are darker skinned than me as makeing that as an arguement for trying to perpertrate ancient egypt as being a black civilization is wrong and way off base --Mikmik2953 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is an exchange of ideas and opinions regarding the subject and not an argument, so I will try to keep it as such. The ancient egyptians appear black to my eyes. This is based on the facial structure of the monuments left behind. I don't see a middle eastern connection. There is an ancient diagram displaying libyan-nubian-egyptian-hittite characters. Anyone with functioning eyeballs can see the egyptians resemble the nubians more than anyone on that diagram. There isn't much detail on the faces, but the egyptians are farther away from middle eastern people in skin color than anyone else. There's no reason for egyptians to be middle eastern. Berber makes sense since they were on the SAME CONTINENT. Even still, culturally the Berbers are so far away from the Egyptians. They didn't build or even imitate egyptian pyramids. When one looks at movies, we see middle eastern people cast as egyptians, but this is just playing into what we EXPECT to see and not facts. Lips, cheek bone and non-whig depictions of hair point a strong negro/black heritage. I doubt the egyptians anyone sees today can be an honest guage of the ancient egyptians cuz they are predominantly ARABS. If Egypt was an indigenous civilization, the people of that civ must have been nubian, berber or a mix a both. I myself believe they were a mix and the limited amount of research done on egyptian bodies seems to point to this. Scott Free (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On another note, black africans are not homogenous in appearance. Some are dark (central africa) some are light (ethiopians). Berbers are indigenous Africans and look a lot like middle eastern people (tho who is to say this isn't because of intermarriage with arab invaders). you have africans who are mid-range in color in west africa like Ghana and they definately weren't mixing with arabs and berbers. I think we need to redefine what is African so that eurocentrists stop gagging when someone calls the ancient Egyptians AFRICAN. The Middle East however has no claim to ancient egypt or at least no more than the Kushites or Berbers who lived a heck of a lot closer. Scott Free (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tha's the thing Scott I live in The U.S.A. but we live in Egypt the names of the continents are a sublte, at best, play on the word Egypt. Then everybody is indeginous. Look the faces on the temple of Karnak of Ramseas the Great the temple of Seti sure Magic Johnson has a "similair" face but they are not predominentlly "Black" african in appearance. I have seen in one of my college texts ,an art history text, a friging statue of an egyptian that looks like a friging Chinamen no one has posted that picture here, and I don't have a scanner. Don't take this the wrong way but I have seen on this page people fighting over something that isn't even theirs to fight over dude its "ours" I have witnessed a cadrey of propoganda and selfishness designed soley for vanities sake, at least that is what I see it as. Dude I carry the family name of Seti like milions and millions of other people of many ethnicities I don't need this page for vanity I am not a hippocrite Scott. I don't consider my self the ancient egyptian appearance. But logical deduction from the remaining children of the households can bring about insight to the question this page is trying to answer. Scott did you notice the written part about the descended nations? Your claim about on the same continent also works in favor of the medditeranian theory and beliefs that egypt could have been founded from there. "Supposedlly" there are port cities far enough under water in the mediteranian right now that are deep enough for large ships to travel right over and not disturb. The geographic lay of the land was slightlly different quite that while ago. And I have seen the links to the carving you spoke about their was a large discusion, which I don't remeber taking part in, and the original unretouched carving acctually has the face of the egyptian smashed and unidetifiable. The berbers themsleves, as wikipedia has them, appear very part greek or part roman or part quite a few medditerranian "ethnics" or then again maybe vise versa.--207.14.131.172 (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott now that's interesting I thought the great afrocentric professor Leonard Jeffries said that the black gene is dominate and all other genes from all other populations are recessive ,and when black genes mix with other genes it all goes to black.But for some reason for the sake of claiming ancient Egyptians as among the "black races" which is how Clarke and Diop put it which sounds very much like racist statements eerily similar to that of types made by racist groups through recent history that shall remain nameless.But I realized something Saudi Arabia has a similar climate to that of Egypt it's a hot dry desert climate but gets very chilly during the winter season because Egypt only has two seasons maybe they look like this not because of invading populations but because of physiological changes to there climate and conditions .but no maybe you are right maybe those Greeks romans and Arabs just could not contain themselves and spread there seed all over the place had sex with the whole population,and eliminated the pure black race but than that would mean professor Jeffries is wrong ,or no maybe the reason why some Egyptians exhibit dark skin is because the Nubians who ruled for 70 years and who were invaders to and maybe did what the Greeks , romans and Arabs do had sex with everybody or maybe why some Nubians exhibit very light skin is because the Egyptians had invaded Nubian and were having sex with the whole population I mean ancient Egypt conquered Nubia down to the 4 th cataract.But this is wrong read any genetics books or take a class conquering populations are much smaller than the native populations and there genes are very diluted thus not changing the make up of the population and ancient Egypt had a very large population at times it had the population of modern day London very large for ancient civilization . Egyptians looked the way they looked now as they did 6000 thousand years ago .Egyptians are Africans the word Africa does not mean to me what it does to you Africa comes from the Latin meaning sunny land or Greek meaning place without cold and sub Saharan Africa was called Ethiopia meaning burned faces and that applied to anywhere below the first cataract .Africa as it is referred to today came in later centuries Africa in a way is not unlike Asia I mean you have Indians living in one county but got china with it's own very distinct peoples.kind of like sub Saharan Africa and north Africa.If African Americans want to find out about there own culture you are looking in the wrong place and need to investigate the culture of Senegal,the Gambia,Mali,Liberia,Ghana, e.t.c because that are where African Americans culture comes from not Egypt Tunisia or morocco and this is not to say you wont see any black folks in theses countries Arabs were taking slaves from black Africa long before the Portuguese started up the Trans Atlantic slave trade in the 1500's I believe. read this in a book called islams black slaves by Ronald seagal--Mikmik2953 (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to keep this conversation non-combative. The person whom responded immediately following made some good points and seems to have his or her head on right. Mikmik seems to be lacking in the reason department. I'll make a couple of points and then unwatch this article as it seems too much negativity is floating around here.

• Claiming that a people are black or white is not in itself racist. No one calls me a racist for calling the Romans white or the Yoruba black.

• The climates between what is now Saudi Arabia and Egypt are similar now and likely were similar then. However, the proximity of the ancient egyptian populations to nubians (they are right next door for crying out loud) would explain any differences in appearance pretty easily.

• i've never claimed anything as hair-brained as your rather disgusting comment about invaders being uncontrollable sexual beasts determined to breed out other civilizations. People migrate and intermarry. That's the natural order of things. In America, only 30% of the African-American population can be traced back to a white male ancestor. Despite the overwhelming amount of African DNA in black american populations, they look radically different from black african populations because of intermarriage with blacks from other ethnic groups (Igbo men with Wolof Women or African men wih Native American women). Casual interbreeding over even such a short period of time (400 years is nothing in historic times) produces drastic results. Egyptian civilizatin was around much longer (3000 years if you count from old kingdom to Roman rule). Seeing how everyone and their babysitter conquered egypt at what time, it doesn't take too much imagination to forsee soldiers laying down roots even after they were defeated. No single invading population could have drastically changed egyptian appearance or culture. But a large concentrated population living just south of them (like the nubians) or even a scattered and small population living very close to them (like the berbers) could make a significant difference over such a long period of time. Considering that the egyptians themselves claim to come from the south, nubia becomes a pretty strong candidate for at least some if not the base of ancient egyptian ancestry.

• No people stays the same in appearance or culture over 6,000 years. Egypt's position on the nile made them a major trade hub which attracted people from all over the ancient world. Trade generally leads to intermarriage and migration. If it didn't, egypt would be the first place that ever happened in recorded history. If there ever was an egyptian ethnicity (and I really doubt there ever was one since being egyptian really only required adopting the customs), it probably would not have been recognizable to an old kingdom egyptian if he or she was transported to the New Kingdom period. No sane person can say today that the Egyptian nationals today are similar in appearance let alone the the same population as ancient egyptians. That is just false and maybe Mikmik needs to leave the peacepipe alone for a while.

• I know where the etymology of Africa comes from but that hardly has anything to do with this discussion. Stop putting out useless facts and stay on topic.

• Mikmik, don't make assumptions or blatant insulting statements toward black people. No one has come here to disrespect any race. To assume that any black person that puts forth the idea of ancient egyptian being a black or negro civilization is only doing so to find out about their own identities is absurd and paternalistic. You only need look at my profile page to learn that I am very educated on West African history and its connection to the African diaspora in the New World. You are not talking to an uneducated person. I might wonder about your level of education after laboring through your poorly written statements. Also keep in mind that African-Americans are not the only people who posit ideas of ancient egypt being an indigenous African civilization. This is a pretty commonly held fact by all but you for some reason. Nor are African-Americans alone in believing that the ancient egyptians were "black" or "negro", though they are in the minority right now regarding that dispute.

In closing, several decades ago the scholarly community was positive ancient Egypt was an imported civilization (see Dynastic Race theory). Today, mainstream scholars are positive it was an indigenous civilization, though they refuse to come right out and say it was "African". In another fifty years, scholars will have to concede yet again the increasing (and for some odd reason frightening) blackness of the ancient egyptians. The afrocentrists whom were mocked in the past have been proven right on many of their beliefs. As the mainstream becomes less prejudiced to the idea of a black egypt (as they are already becoming now), the current "afrocentrists" will be proven right on many of their principles. Look at Great Zimbabwe or the original ideas on the spread of iron technology in Africa. Both were originally thought of as the works of outside "superior" peoples. Now we know that both are the creations of indigenous Africans. Until the concept of black africans (regardless of skin-tone) as inferior people is removed, egypt will be put conveniently outside the realm of African civilizations until the naysayers see the truth. I hope you are not so angry at these statements that you don't learn anything. PEACE Scott Free (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott MikMik just got you to reveal something. As a hobbist historian I believe the major problem "black" "afrocentrics" are having right now is that their endevour is tanamount to the following situation, Someone entering a room during a British empiral historiacal debate and delcairing themselves the Queen of England come to rebuild the British country even though there already is a Queen of england and the British Empire occupies a significant percentage of the globes land, primarally through the commonwealth of nations now. There are "black" egyptian's I am not stating that their aren't. That isn't what this is about.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott calling me stupid because of grammar shows your anger and fraustraion with my sound statements which obviously hit the funny bone because i live for fact not a fake utopian african existence based on a inferiority complex african americans have ,i did not make personal attacks on you but you did on me, my statement reaked of sarcasim but not personal attacks. i guess if im unintelligent because of poor grammar than maybe west africans must have been stupid because they did not even have a written language.You are trying desperately to show some kind of cultural link between sub saharan africa and egypt when it was nubia who accepted egyptian culture not the other way around and the nile was not used as this mass ferry system to bring sub saharan africans from south to north and is using early farmer intermingleing as just cause to call egypt black is laughable , your trying to use the fact that egypt is close to sudan (which the arabs named look up what the name sudan means in arabic) to try to blackenize them, is it not a fact that india borders china but these countries exhibit a distinct people and did not melt into each other, dont you think this could ocur in africa or thats right africa means black, but that is why that is why i pointed out the meaning of the name to show where it comes from and has nothing to do with race,also you keep going back to the whole arguement that sub saharan people are not just one skin tone without intervention from other races which is true not all black africans are as black as lets say michael jordan i know this its not news to me. But we revert back to the other statement by the isp number its simularities not only skin color is what makes up a people and this goes back to the likeness of tut he was portrayed with brown skin,but he lacks the similarities that make him what would be considered black ,that is why afrocentrist complained they said he did not look black and was being portrayed as white, but yet he had brown skin those were tuts facial features no doubt about it. He had features typicaly found in north africa the near east and europe period, lets take alicia keys who is mentioned further up in this article take her out of america forget that her father is black put her in traditonal dress of say a iranain women suddenly she is middle eastern and would not be questioned if she was black because alicia keys though is half black does not exhibit black features and has light brown skin so should african americans claim the persian empire as theres to be cause some could be called light skinned blacks in america, black americans are trying to make claims of egypt strickly because geography innuendo and social views of the united states which is the most ignorant place on earth.Futher more egyptian culture was as different to west africans as it was to norse people they had nothing in common what so ever, and to touch on the dynastic theory i dont believe it and the majority of egytologist discount it as well but that still needs to be looked at because maybe there might a new finding to make that true.The egyptians were a distinct native north african culture just like the berbers.Egyptians and Berbers look the way they do is because of enviorment which is desert as you agreeed is not unlike that of saudia arabia and just like near east people europeans adapted to there envoirments Egypt climate is like other north african and near east climates.Also i agree with with isp nobody is saying there were not any black egytpians the question is it being called a black civilzation which has been over stated by afrocentrist the vast majority of pre dynastic and dynastic people show caucasoid remains a much smaller precentage show negroid features but this is not a silver bullet to describe race .Some people who are obviously black get classified as cacasoid but no science is perfect and never will be. But afrocentrist also discount how often it is right and makes the proper judgement of racial types like that of tut.Tut did not look like what we would call a black man and afrocentrist agreed just with there protest of it--Mikmik2953 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Distorted view of Nubians, Somalians and Egyptians as non-African.

Addtional notes on:

Sub-Saharan Africans are treated as a monolithic, and biological African groups such as Nubians, Somalians and Egyptians are viewed essentially as non-African for having a craniometic pattern more similar to that of non-African populations.

210.50.137.2 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Finno-Ugric people [estonia,finland,etc]and even the Balts who differ widely in craniometric pattern than the rest of europe are never declared non-european210.50.137.2 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That is because, in my opinion, European tribes have, to a small extent, been celebrated as different tribal people that came toghether to form the modern europe. European "tribal" history has been well documented and researched from the "fall" of Rome to the migrations and empires and nations that followed. It is just common knowledge that the tribes have unique chromosonal dinamics that set them apart with-in the european pantheon. And as I have noticed within this page and discusion certian editors endevore to destroy that reallity within africa so-as to place themselves somewhere they do not belong. Yeah subversive merging of data rears it's ugly head one more time.--207.14.131.183 12:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone please explain to me how anyone from the US or from the British Isles may claim any alliance with the Ancient Egyptians? The people of the British isles and there descendants in the US share almost no DNA or lineage with the Romans/Greeks/or Egyptians. There ancestors were overwhelmingly of Celtic stock along with other tribal groups [Picts etc] - extensive DNA studies have been done on this.Yet African people may not at any time claim alignment with the Ancient Egyptians whose African blood and continent they share.That to me is hilarious. 210.50.72.127 (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

' "European "tribal" history has been well documented and researched from the "fall" of Rome to the migrations"''

Sorry but European tribal history has not been as well documented or researched as other areas of European history,because A/ Those people were largely illiterate and left no records [The Lithuanians didnt even learn to read or write until the 16th century] and because B/Modern Europe has always sought to project it's populace as the unified bearers of not the borrowers of civilization.

Secondly I just love how they now call the Barbaric Invasions the Great Migrations - hilarious.The Africans are still called savages,but the European tribes historically known and refered to as Barbarians are now refered to as migrants.They should have just stuck with the term The Dark Ages it was the perfect foil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.72.127 (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First off the Roman emipre had many ethnicities within its army, including egyptian, secondly Rome extended to the border of the Scotish Highland on the british isles, well north of london, thirdly when the city of Rome fell the armies were not all recalled leaving many of the centurions, and legionars that occupied the garrisons whear they where within the empire. from the Rhine, to Hadrians wall, south into the lands of the river nile, greece, iraq, jordan, lybia, spain, morroco, Jarusalem, etc, etc, etc. There is a difference between the barbarian hords that sacked the corrupted City of Rome and the migrations that followed. Many eroupeans carved as the egyptians did there history. And the catholic church a VERY litterate group of indiviualls was rampanttly acctive through europe, even before the Lutherans learned the latin languagein script, as court scribes and priests and emisarries from Rome. Bearing the burdon of civilisation as you put it.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

These are all well documented points of european history.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That does however bring up an interesting point. Since Rome and Rome's footprint have been well document how could anybody honestly state that somewhere such as Britian was devoid of certain genetic links. One possible reason is that through Vanity an arbitrarry assignment of gentic "standards" were placed upon people that were in fact not whom they were identified and assigned to be.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please edit the article

No I'm serious 13,000 Kb have been added to the talk page. I'm not saying that the discussion isn't productive, but I really think we need to start adding sourced information to the article, let's let the sources settle the points of debate. I've been watching this talk page grow all week, anticipating some kind of great new idea for improving this subject, but I don't know, are we going in circles? futurebird (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait the page is *still* protected? Wow. Why? Is there any process in place to get to the point where it can be unprotected? futurebird (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because no one has requested that the page be unprotected? You'd want to read Wikipedia:Protection policy#Unprotection to see how to get the protection lifted. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have been working alone on User:Wikidudeman/Egyptdraft2. Where was John Carter? (Just to make you laughing a bit!).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I been slacking off big time in all sorts of areas lately. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mummy reconstruction section/Controversies Section

{{editprotected}}

The following statement from the controversies section( Hawass, in a 2007 publication of "Ancient Egypt Magazine", also asserted that none of the facial reconstructions resemble Tut, claiming for example that the French reconstruction ended up with a person that looked French, whose features do not resemble any known Egyptians. He asserts that in his opinion, the most accurate representation of the boy king is the mask from his tomb.[92])Unfournately i cant confirm the comments no where on the web and the magazine is a very obscure U.K magazine and the statement seem to be totally opposite of what he said in the national geographic website which is already a source in the section in where Dr. Hawas makes this statement("In my opinion, the shape of the face and skull are remarkably similar to a famous image of Tutankhamun as a child, where he is shown as the sun god at dawn rising from a lotus blossom," Hawass said. so i am asking for the comment to be taken down or this one be added to the section.

Now from the mummy reconstruction section the article read as follows (Though modern technology can reconstruct Tutankhamun's facial structure with a high degree of accuracy based on CT data from his mummy, but due to lack of facial tissue and embalming issues, correctly determining his skin tone, nose width, and eye color is nearly impossible.[56])i checked the source which is national geographic and it reads more like this(Some aspects of the king's appearance, however, are destined to remain mysterious. The shape of the top of his nose and of his ears, as well as the color of his eyes and skin, cannot be determined by CT scan skull data. These features are likely to remain forever unknown.)they do not make reference to his width of his nose it says the shape of the top of his nose--Mikmik2953 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

N Declined. There is no sufficiently specific description of the edit request. Please try to express yourself more clearly. Sandstein (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

please add

Egyptians themselves called for the inclusion of Egypt in Du Bois's early drafts of the Encyclopedia Africana. The director of the United Arab Republic Cultural Center in Accra wrote to praise Du Boise for having "maintained faith in the African character of Egypt's achievement," and urging that the Encyclopedia Africana keep Egypt within its Afrocentric focus.

We might want to add this when the article is unlocked. futurebird (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good piece!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone please change "King Tug" to "King Tut" in the Tutankhamun section? Corvus cornix_talk 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. There is a mistake. But the article is still protected! For how long? Big mystery!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a mystery, it's due to constant edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit has been made since it was uncontroversial and no one disagreed with it (in accordance with WP:PROT). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What make you think the article is going to get unlocked?

Certian editors engage in consensus and discusion only to "passify" other editors and then turn around and do what ever they will. I have seen editors delete poritons of the discusion that are unflattering to there own propoganda and views, in an attempt to present themselves as correct and unfaltering in there "view". The wikipedia "process" has been mocked and sullied by you individuals. And you believe the article is going to be unlocked so you can run rampant with your unacademic agenda.

That is not an argument that is a statment. And I would like to thank you for helping prevent any self rightous "Trolls" from responding. I read the same things being brought up on this disscusion page all the time, their veiws are right everybody else is wrong, no room for science or logical approach to the data let alone the article. The whole thing comes across as a sad farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.217 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just please stop trolling. It won't work here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your placement of the troll tag, as I have seen you claim it about me, is trolling in and of itself, an abuse of the system and a means in your opinion to quite a voice that you don't agree with, which mind you has not argued for or against content so much as the sad form in which has been presented. A witch hunt of modern online proportion. Yet another attempt to clear this page of all but a few, seemingly mentally inbreed, agenda driven editors. If you don't belive me just go ahead and read the archives its all there.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to offer constructive suggestions for editing the article, otherwise I don't see how your posts are helping anything. In other words: please stop trolling. futurebird (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my previous statments. None of you want this page to be anything more than propoganda "Shmack" in my opinion. You people know nothing of egypt that is let alone egypt that was. You need to stop stalking my family, I am a desendant of the egyptian pharohs, for your own personal gain.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the page is still locked. I have visted a few others bringing as I have to this discusion viable intelegent points of interest and "scholar". The main difference I have noticed is that most, if not all, of the other pages are not "gaurded" by ,in my opnion, mentally inbread propoganders that have only the sole intention of furthering their leacherous, parasitical affinty for the subject at hand. Nice increase on the size of the troll signs. Your most definitelly a hypocrite in my opinon as I have been reading the discusion page these days but have not chimed in. Looks to me like someone ,other than myself, is out there , as it has been all along, trolling for an argument to hide behind manipulated data in a letcherous parrasitical fashion.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemma

Not that I assume, editing of this article can re-start anytime soon, but can anybody explain in simple terms what's the article is intended to be about and why this strange lemma was choosen?

If the article should center on the anthropology and (reconstructed) population genetics of the ancient Egyptians, there seems to be no place for the outdated concept of "race" in the lemma, as the near consensus view in both disciplines denies its usefullness and explanatory power.

If the article should center on some public controversy (which may happily use the term "race", as in some parts of the world it is still used by the media and the general public), some quotation signs and "controversy" in the lemma would make this clear.

--Pjacobi (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article deals with both aspects.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is written through an afrocentric view, much of it must be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.102.136 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another edit request

Please replace all instances of 'King Tut' with 'King Tutankhamun'. 'Tut' is too familiar/slangy - this article is supposed to be encyclopedic in style! 86.133.214.216 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just did. See also discussion at Tutankhamun talk page. Rien Post (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's time

This may be a new revelation to some but this page has been locked for what 6 months maybe it is time for it to be put out of its misery if it can't be edited anymore,maybe its time for it to get nominated for a speedy deletion--72.227.238.252 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be deleted and any relevant information should be merged with the Ancient Egypt article.--Woland37 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of putting the material in this article is that editors didn't want massive disruption of Ancient Egypt with the racial stuff. I can think of several reasons not to put any of this in the main article, aside from the disruption it would cause:

• Undue weight: mainstream Egyptology and Ancient Egypt sources do not cover the topic, or at least only do so in passing. Racial questions have not been around long enough to have them well-studied, and this is not the place to right the alleged bias of Egyptologists of the past.
• Everyone can agree that the society was not a homogeneous racial mixture, with immigrants coming from North, South, East, and West. It's a bit like asking "What race are Americans?"
• Does not add significantly to our understanding of the history and culture of the ancient Egyptians. There are many more important things to say about the ancient Egyptians.
• The field of DNA science is only beginning to address the question; future research may help answer some of these questions in the future. We have no deadline, so why not wait until the dust settles?

I honestly don't care about the race of the ancient Egyptians. I get satisfaction enough admiring their achievements, and I just want to avoid the huge disruption this issue causes. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

no me myself agree, i just feel this article be deleted period nothing from here would go there to the feature article--72.227.238.252 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, I just wasn't sure if there was anything worth salvageable and thought that there should be some discussion. The Ancient Egypt article is long enough as it is and since this topic is basically not studied in Egyptology it does not deserve its own article. Unfortunately it doesn't fit the standards for speedy deletion.

--Woland37 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For what ever it is worth. I myself am in favor of deletion. The entire article, in my opinion, has some valid points ,yet, however in totality the article comes aross as one large vandalistic piece of propoganda, with references , Herodotous comes to mind, that contradic what the editor is claiming the reference means. An attempt ,again in my opinion, to fly under the radar, as it were, that failed fully and wholey and completelly.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

- I doubt this comment will matter in the long run, but... I think the idea behind this article is very interesting, & would hate to see it just deleted. Before I saw this page I had no clue that the ethnicity was disputed. Maybe it just needs to be cleaned up a little? 22.1.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.105.112 (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Psalms 78:51 ; 105:23-27; 106:19-22 refer to Egypt as the land of Ham. Noahs black son.

Unprotected

Per a request at WP:RFPP, since this is now under ArbCom probation, I unprotected it. Fair warning that the ArbCom remedy now gives wide berth to block disruptive editors. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wknight94! Let's hope that this time we are going to work peacefully.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And how is the reading public to know that "any uninvovled" administrator is as objective as they are supposed to be and approaching the subject with science in mind. I have seen on this page "sympathetic" Junior administrators that appear to have approached the subject "predetermind" and quite possibly biased. Just as with the chime ins on the troll section. If the material is not constructive to "there argument" it is mearlly trolling or vandalism.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Relations with Nubia

I have added a section on Relations between Ancient Egypt and Nubia. In the past, it was Muntuwandi who suggested the creation of this section.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That section needs some serious cleaning up and/or rewriting. I was going to try but I can barely understand what its trying to say(no offense).--Woland37 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It wants to say that Egypt originated in Nubia and that Nubia, despite some clashes with Egypt I have not mentioned, kept a privileged position during all the Egyptian history.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If thats what you're saying then 1) It would seem to be original research (which pretty much all of this article is, even though it has 'sources') and 2) by not mentioning "some clashes with Egypt" you are not keeping with the standards of NPOV. If I recall these 'minor clashes' were actually entire campaigns by several Pharaohs.

I really don't think that this article needs to become more bloated than it already is. --Woland37 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my dear brother. I haven't been to this article space for quite some time, but I'm coming back. First, I have to take a look at the status of the article and see what's what -- but let me know how I can be of assistance. I'm thinking also we might want to visit the article on King Tut and do some work there. Remember that stuff I wrote a long time ago about all the evidence which clearly pointed to Tut as a blackman? I think it's time to resurrect it. ;) Peace 2 u. deeceevoice (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. I was reading National Geographic for 2.2008 and came across the acrticle on Pye.I added it to the relations with Nubia section since the Nubia king conquered Egypt for 75 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.238.25.82 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good! But why did you not summarize the article of National Geographic? Now the quote has been removed because it is too long. Besides, this section: Relation with Nubia needs also a picture. Does anyone know a good one?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the whole section deleteable. It is not very good. It is not at all about the relationship between Nubian and Egypt, but rather another mixmas of selective quoting to demonstrate that ancient Egyptians are black, which is itself not bad, but should reside in the sections that deals with that (pretty much all others)

• Nubian is not the Ethiopia of the Greeks. Ethiopia of the Greeks is a much larger area and its stated right there in the same book that is quoted from several times in the text (Diodorus Siculus, iii). Let me quote Strabo (xvii,2)

The lower parts of the country on either side of Meroê, along the Nile towards the Red Sea, are inhabited by Megabari and Blemmyes, who are subject to the Aethiopians and border on the Aegyptians, and, along the sea, by Troglodytes (the Troglodytes opposite Meroê are a ten or twelve days' journey distant from the Nile), but the parts on the left side of the course of the Nile, in Libya, are inhabited by Nubae, a large tribe, who, beginning at Meroê, extend as far as the bends of the river, and are not subject to the Aethiopians but are divided into several separate kingdoms.

• Quoting Manetho is not only a near futile endeavour; it is also bound to be heavy interpolation. Manetho is a lost work with a tortures chain of reconstruction.

• Diodorus Siculus does not say that the Ethiopians think Egypt is one of there colonies, he say that Osiris "drew" from them for the colony. i.e. the original population in Egypt came from Ethiopian, not that its "their" colony. What conveniently is forgotten in the quote and immediately followers this text in Diodorus, is that this happened before there even was a Nile! when Egypt was water, at the beginning of the world. What Diodorus describes is the Recent African origin of modern humans, long before the founding of Ancient Egypt.

• Selective quoting ("Diodorus Siculus notes that the Ethiopians have black skin and wooly hair"). Yes Diodorus does indeed say such a thing, but there is much more too it. Let me quote the whole part from where this was taken.

These are the laws of those Ethiopians that inhabit the capital city and the island Meroe, and those tracts that lie next unto Egypt. But there are many other Ethiopian nations, whereof some dwell on both sides the river Nile, and in the islands in the river; others border upon Arabia, and some are seated in the heart of Africa. The greatest part of these, especially those in and about the river, are blacks, flat faced, have curled hair, exceeding fierce and cruel, and in their manners like beasts, not so much in their natural temper as in their studied and contiived pieces of wickedness. Their whole bodies are filthy and nasty, and their nails long like wild beasts, and cruel one towards another. They have a shrill voice, and in regard they are never taught by any how to lead a more civilized course of life, (in that way of education as others are), they mightily differ from us in all their manners.

• Ta-Seti (Land of the bow), might indeed refer to some part of Nubian (Egyptian 1st Nome), but the fact remains we do not know. There are many different names used in ancient Egypt to refer to Nubian or parts of Nubian, some for sure, some not so sure. Ta-Seti is one of those not so sure. It is Egypt’s first Nome and covers Aswan to about Edfu, and it might a one time have been part of some Nubian land. But we don’t know.

• Jean-François Champollion did not "reveal" anything; he proposed a theory, not unlike many other people over the years. Here –again- we find an excellent example of quoting out of context, which is not only a problem in this section, but is repeated all over the article. For Champollion does indeed state that he believes that the first tribes in Egypt came from Abyssinia or from Sennar. But the writer once again, conveniently, - just like in the case with Diodorus Siculus, - forgets to quote the follow-up text. Because Champollion is talking about the exact same thing as Diodorus and the timeframe is, to use Champollions own words "excessively ancient". He says;

But it is impossible to fix the time of this first migration, excessively ancient. The former Egyptians belonged to a race of men completely similar to Kennous or Barabras, inhabitants’ current of Nubian. One finds in the Copts of Egypt none features characteristic of the old Egyptian population. Copts are the result of the confused mixture of all the nations which, successively, dominated over Egypt. One is wrong to want to find on their premises the principal features of the old race. (comment by me; Interesting isn’t? cause is that not exactly what is done in many places in this article? Apparently Champollion is good enough to quote sometimes, but not every time) The first Egyptians arrived to Egypt in the state of nomads and did not have residences more fixed than the Bedouins of today: they had, then, neither sciences, neither arts, nor stable forms of civilization. It is by the work of the centuries and the circumstances that them Egyptians, initially wandering, was occupied finally of agriculture, and were established in a fixed and permanent way.(Comment by me; Just like Diodorus, Champollion is talking about long before ancient Egypt as we know it, even before the time of agriculture, 7-8.000 BC)

The last part of the section, about Thutmose I, is the only part that actually deals with the relationship with nubian. Twthmoses (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Template and Deletion

I and a few other users have discussed the deletion of this article, mostly because we seem to feel that it is completely unencyclopedic and essentially a 'made-up' topic. So I added the unencyclopedic template in the hopes of generating discussion with people who think that it does belong in an encyclopedia.--Woland37 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would dare say it is far more encyclopaedic than the average Pokémon, which all have their Wikipedia articles. While it can indeed use some improvement, I don't think calling it unencyclopaedic or calling for its deletion (please see previous AfD - the result was 'Keep by a landslide) would help much in this matter. The fact of the matter is, the racial characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians are the subject of a contrversy, which controversy is mostly in the popular rather than academic circles (even though it is also debated in academia), but doesn't prevent it from being encyclopaedic.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i have added to this article recently but i agree with woland and am in agreence this article should be deleted it is a mess and is useless--Mikmik2953 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Then, go ahead, nominate it for deletion, and see what happens.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

me i would nominate it myself but i am not that wiki savy and dont know how it works so i was hopeing that a more experienced wiki person might give it a try who agreed--Mikmik2953 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think we are at a point where this should be nominated for deletion. I did read the AfD a few days ago and I definitely see Ramdrake's point. At first I thought I was simply unaware of this 'controversy' but after looking through the references this really does seem like a made-up issue that the existence of this article has given undue weight to. I still haven't made up my mind entirely and would like to hear more from the 'keep' side. --Woland37 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please define more fully what you mean by made-up? This controversy definitely exists, although it may be an obscure one to a lot of people.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic is "obscure" only if one were living in a cave when Lefkowitz came out with Not Out of Africa and again in 2005, when the National Geographic magazine -- both referenced in the article -- came out. The issue has blown up repeatedly in recent years -- and will again. Clearly, the topic is far more worthy of addressing in an encyclopedia than a lot of the list and fan cruft one sees around the site. And, yes, imminently more worthy than a lot of the stuff on Pokémon and anime and all sorts of annoying pop-culture trivia/idiot fodder. Basically, IMO, I think what this is about is the fact that people are presenting documented information and legitimate scholarship that fly in the face of the pablum/lies lots of people have been fed their entire lives. For those whose cherished assumptions are challenged by the article and who, as a result, are offended/outraged it, the "solution" is to obliterate it. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. A visit to What Wikipedia is not reveals it has no relevance whatsoever to this article. The "unencyclopedic" template should be removed immediately. deeceevoice (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome contribution! You may want to read up on such guidelines as Good Faith and Civility. --Woland37 (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm well acquainted with both, thank you very much. Nothing uncivil at all about my response. As for assuming good faith? It's a little difficult to do when the "unencyclopedic" tag has absolutely no apparent application to the matter at hand, and the suggestion of deletion is absurd. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't Feed the Trolls.

Trolling by user at IP addy 207.14.129.217 deleted. deeceevoice (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no real grounds for deleting this article, there are many journal articles, books, etc. that talk about this topic. I'm really surprised that this is even being put on the table. futurebird (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed trolling by user at IP addy 207.14.129.217 -- without reading most of it. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trolling is not a tool for you to hide behind in your "discusion" and your not cute so don't try to be. It is inappropreat in this setting. You asked for enlightenment deeceevoice you got it and then you run scared to some rediculous slander coupled with deletion.quit emberassing yourself.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned. Repeatedly. Stop trolling. Stop using the article talk space to attack other editors. Stop altering the talk page record. deeceevoice (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment to 207.14.129.217. Seems like a perfectly straightforward discussion to me. Do you have any thoughts on the actual subject of the discussion? Pinkville (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deeceevoice you seem to be confusing me with yourself I am not the one attcking and threatening people, but then again I am an egyptian so you confusing yourself with me seems to be something you do all the time. As for pinkville yes but deeceevioce's "campaign of terror" uttilizez the delete fuction quite a bit so it would seems that subject actually germain to the discusion have been "lost" thanks to deeceevoive and the appearent blind noblity that drives his/her cutesy wootsy vanity. Oh yes delete the whole thing for resons I am sure you can deduce from my previous statment. The article is a sham riddled with manipulated data, again heroditous comes to mind, that contradics what the "editors" use the refernces to infere, much like many of their other sources, to be sure. --207.14.129.217 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

207.14.129.217, let's try to keep this conversation on topic and avoid making personal attacks as you just now have done again. It is perfectly reasonable to remove comments not related to improving the article from the talk page. futurebird (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see now that some people here are too weird to have an open and honest discussion so I'm removing the template and getting as far away from you people as possible. For the record I didn't come here pushing a POV about the Egyptians or about 'race'(its really just a cultural construct anyway). I just noticed that after eight years of studying anthropology and egyptology this topic has never come up in any journal articles I've read (race does not equal population genetics). Then after reading the references only a couple mentioned this 'controversy.' Personally I just didn't think that this topic was notable enough for its own article. Yes, there are many Pokemon articles but each article should be judged on its own merit. Peace-out and be well.--Woland37 (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else removed it without discussion. Woland37 (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More edit wars?

My watchlist is showing an increasing number of reverts on this page. Do we need to go back to indef full protect? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of cause no! Important changes must first be discussed here in the talk page. But, there are people using IP to make significant changes. How to deal with them?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So what about "Nordic Egypt"

I was just reading through a book that appears to be the best available work on Nordic theory in Germany when I stumbled about this sentence:

"Behauptungen wie die des norwegischen Rassenhygenikers Alfred Mjöen, die Nordrasse habe 'die herrschenden Klassen" im "alten Ägypten, ja sogar in Peru gestellt, richten sich selber."

Translation: "Allegations like that of the Norwegian race hygienist Alfred Mjöen, the North-Race had provided 'the ruling class' in 'ancient Egypt' and even in Peru judge themselves (i.e., they are totally ridiculous)." Source: Hans Jürgen Lutzhöft (1971):Der Nordische Gedanke in Deutschland 1920-1940. (in German) Stuttgart. Ernst Klett Verlag, p. 121.

Now, since there actually is an article on the Race of ancient Egyptians I would suppose that this is relevant. Of course, this kind of speculation is pure ideology, but I currently don't see why it shouldn't be included with one or two sentences in this article. I checked the archives of this discussion, and has already been an issue [1]. Zara1709 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very assumtive to believe that is what the author intended. However I have noticed that level of assumtion has been a hallmark of this article and discusion page.--204.118.241.100 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, from the context it is clear that Lutzhöft assumes that the claim that the ruling class of ancient Egypt was white is in such a way ridiculous that any reader will see this and he doesn't need to debate it further: The Nordicists were led,...

"..., auf der ganzen Welt versprengte Nordische zu vermuten und letztlich das Vorhandensein von Menschen dieser Rasse zur unabdingbaren Vorraussetzung jeder Kultur zu erklären. Diese Tendenz klingt schon bei de Lapouge an und erreicht bei Rosenberg ihren Höhepunkt. "

"..., to assume Nordic [people] dispersed on the whole world and finally to make the existence of people of this race the necessary condition for any culture. This tendency is already reminiscent by de Lapouge and reached its climax by Rosenberg."

Lutzhöft then brings the obvious argument against this ("white" doesn't equal "Nordic") and mentions the most blatant claim (about Egypt) with the sentence quoted above.

Well, as soon as I have figured out how to word it, I write two sentences on this in the article, unless someone has concerns about this being wp:undue here. Zara1709 (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but quite honestlly the quotes you have shown only state, for example, that something (an idea) exists their is no diffintive condemnation or approval of the "idea" only the lead in that you should read the material for yourself and that ,at the time of publishing, others had similiar writen ideas, eg. "...the tendency is already reminiscent..."--204.118.241.242 (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you have any experience with this kind of history books, but historians and religious scientists have a certain difficulty when they are dealing with 'beliefs' that are totally absurd. I mean, what about the claim that the Aryan race originated in Atlantis? Now, since this is a discussion page, I can be so honest to say what I think about this and what the historian would say if he could bring in his own opinion. It is not that relevant, anyway, since I couldn't think yet of a way to get this into the article. Zara1709 (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Many civilizations have been attributed to "atlantis" singling out the arayans while not pointing out that at one time many though egypt was or had its roots in atlantis would not be right. Even the greeks had similair legends, at the time of the printing such a concept may have been seen as very valid in some comunities of science. If you into such things Grham Hancock has a wonderfull History chanel series posted at you tube by someone. It deals alot with egypt and quite a few other civilizations that have been atributid to "atlantis", which I think translates from latin as "from here we begin again". I don't know how to do the links though sorry.--204.118.241.242 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess you just disqualified yourself from this discussion. A lot of 'nations' have some kind of mythical homeland. Vergil attributed the origin of Caesar's family to Troja (in the Aeneid). But as soon as this "myth" involves lost lands, every modern reader should strongly be inclined to disbelieve. After all, we are living in an age in which the bottoms of the oceans are being mapped. If we would be dealing with a racial myth that claims that the Nordic race had formed the ruling class in ancient Rome, it would be somehow difficult to disprove it. It should still be obvious, however, that the only reason for such a claim is the need to express the belief of oneself in one's own racial superiority. But here we are dealing with a myth that claims that the ancient Civilisations of Egypt and Peru would not have been possible, if they hadn't been ruled by people with white skin and blond hair. The ideological reason for this claim should be obvious. We don't really need to debate whether it is true. The only reason I started this section on the talk page was the question, whether this would be relevant for the article. But I have come to the conclusion that it is.

I would have assumed that is is trivial that the Egyptians had a darker skin. I actually wondered if that would be a sufficient reason for an afd, only that I would not have gone through all the effort of actually nomination the article, for wp:snow. But since there are still people out there who don't see what's wrong with those typical racist myths, we apparently need articles to debunk them. A whole article on the question how BLACK the ancient Egyptians were should be helpful against the absurd kind of white race theories (that feel the need to attribute the ability to rule only to white people). Zara1709 (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

dude just check out the special by graham hancock. And egypt at one time was a "mythical" civilization the sands only receded about 300 to 400 years ago. No trace of its existince save a spinx head that should have been complete eroded away by the time they found it even most of the pyramids were consumed by the sands. Most of the temples under sand and out of sight. A stange mystical "mythical" land. The ottomans while effective and capible governors of egypt and the trade routes were not exactlly big on maintaining "pagan" temples and infastructure.--204.118.241.242 (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

BLACK EGYPTIAN EMPIRE

• Content Removed per WP:SOAP & WP:TALK; this is not a discussion in relation to improving the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This actually funny you said white Greeks and then you mentioned that Cleopatra is black she is Greek from both sides of her parents. Most of the Pharaohs mummies don’t actually shows Negro features and you can check Ramses mummy picture. The Copts are the closest genes to the ancient Egyptians and they are not black. Arab is not a race it’s a classification based on Language and not race. Nobody said they were Europeans or white but it seems you don’t like how the modern Egyptians look despite the studies that show that both Muslim and Copts are very close genetically. Only Egyptians can claim their ancient civilizations. Civilizations have nothing to do with race. --24.136.160.78 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

dont waste your time it is obvious kan13st is trolling his comment is aimed at provokeing an emotional response and is essentialy not trying to improve the article its obvious this is just more afrocentric rhetoric and should be removed by an administrator--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Which it has been, and it should not be replaced. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I though Muslim was a religious state of being not an ethnicity.--204.118.241.242 (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Art

Why no images of Egyptian art? Why are there no images here from the Tomb of Menna, Nakht, Sennefer, Thutmosis IV, Amenhotep III and many others? The ancient Egyptians left so many convincing images of themselves, yet none of them are visible here on a page about the appearance of the ancient Egyptians. Such images in and of themselves provide definite evidence that cannot be denied easily. Actually a section on ancient Egyptian artwork should be created, saying that the Egyptians created a large number of images of themselves which covered most of the tombs and temples along the Nile. Many of these images, especially those in the tombs and some temples, still are well preserved with the colors intact. Show some of the images then note how some people attempt to disagree over what these images represent, from being symbolic, to tanned. A good place to go would be flickr, however many of these images are not licensed for Wikipedia:

[2]

Osirisnet is another good reference:

[3]

In fact not only should there be a section on it with some images from these tombs in these pages, but the page on ancient Egyptian art should be updated to show more than faded statues with no paint. The problem being that most of the full color images from the Egyptian tombs and temples are never shown in more than piece meal fashion, which means the public only gets a distorted view of Egyptian art. There are thousands of full color images from the Egyptian tombs covering old to new kingdom and yet these images are hardly ever published for the public. Some tombs have thousands of images by themselves and these are hardly ever shown in a complete fashion to the public. That is unless they travel to Egypt and see them in person. In this day and age of digital photography and online distribution, there is no excuse for this. Especially since many museums and research institutions have tons of high quality images of all these tombs, at various stages of restoration and/or decay, which can and should be made to the general public. The fact that these images are not being shown, versus the usual unpainted, damaged, restored or faded versions of Egyptian sculpture says a lot about the way ancient Egypt's image is being shaped by those with an agenda.

At the very least we can add some of links to such imagery on these pages.

Big-dynamo (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Several reasons. We can't be sure that they were accurate. In fact, we have some good evidence, mostly relating to imagery related to Ikhnaton, that the majority of ancient Egyptian art presented very "idealized" views of Egyptians, which often had little real relation to their true appearance, and thus they cannot be seen as being particularly relevant to the matter of their factual appearance, rather than what they, for whatever reason, perceived as being "fashionable". Unfortunately, we can't know what their motivations if any were, although we do have evidence that the majority of the imagery is not what we today would call truely representative, so the images are at best unreliable sources as to what the Egyptians really looked like. Also, frankly, multiple, generally redundant, images don't necessarily add anything particularly valuable. There may well be other articles where those images would be relevant, and I wouldn't have any real objections to seeing them there. But overloading the page with images which don't necessarily add anything unique isn't particularly useful, and probably ultimately counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What ancient art isn't idealized? That never stopped Greek art from being included in a discussion about ancient Greece. No scholar in their right mind would make such a claim about any discussion of history. How on earth could anyone supposing to be a historian omit something like the artwork of an ancient culture from a discussion on that culture? That is why I made the statement. Omitting Egyptian images is omitting facts and that is all there is to it. You cannot discuss the views and identity of any ancient culture and not include their artwork. That is how they established their identity. If ancient artwork is idealized and irrelevant then why are two images of Greeks on a page about ancient Egypt? Why is THAT relevant? Don't play games with me and try to talk your way around omitting relevant data because it goes against the nonsense that some people are putting out. If you want to be unbiased then be unbiased, but don't try and play silly games with me like I can't see through it. Of course Egyptian art is relevant in a discussion on the appearance of ancient Egyptians and Akhenaton is only one pharaoh and one tiny part of the artwork that spanned over 2,000 years. Big-dynamo (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

i am going to revert the edits by bigdynamo they are to long winded , dubious and irrelevent,you are welcome to shorten and rewrite your edits in a more encyclopedic fashion--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole page is dubious, long winded and irrelevant. The "race" of the Ancient Egyptians itself is dubious because modern scholars NO LONGER think in terms of "race". If you mean were the Egyptians medium to dark brown, then that would be a better topic, but still dubious, as almost all ancient artwork shows the Egyptians as medium to dark brown. This page focuses more on modern controversies than the facts and basically a bunch of he said, she said between one group or another. The page should be called the "debate over the skin color of ancient Egypt". What is missing is facts and details from Egypt itself, not hearsay. There is nothing encyclopedic about covering the debate of Afrocentrics versus "established" Eyptologists and such a debate is not proof of anything other than that there is a controversy on the issue. This isn't Jerry Springer and pushing such debates as some sort of "Encyclopedic" information is nonsense. The proof is in the facts from Egypt and the reason why such facts are so "long winded" is because this page has so little of it. I mean you have a picture of Herodotus on a page about the race of the ancient Egyptians, what does his picture have to do with it? Almost nothing on the page actually discusses facts from Egypt, as opposed to discussing the what one group has said versus what another group has said based on their own "interpretations" of the facts. That isn't Encyclopedic. Encyclopedic means putting all the evidence on the table and letting people make up their own minds. In fact, by putting the debate as the center of discussion, which should only be limited to one section, you are validating the opinions and views of both sides, as opposed to staying focused on the facts, which are too few and in between. There are no mummy images, no images from Egypt and so forth.

How isn't the fact that Kings from Ta Seti took the throne in the 11th/12th dynasty not relevant in a section called "Relations with Nubia", especially when the same section it quotes a scholar who says that Ta Seti means "Nubia"? How is that irrelevant? I don't see it. I see this as an omission of facts. In fact, why are relations with Nubia relevant in a page about the "race" of ancient Egypt? If it is, then why isn't there a section on the "Relations with Asiatics" or "Relations with Lybians". It is not relevant to begin with. But if it is going to be included, then why only present half the facts? Either remove it or put all the facts in it. The ancient Egyptians did not have a word called "Nubian" that they used for Southerners. The name they used was "Nehesy", just like they didn't call Northerners whites, they called them "Asiatics". If you are going to complain about something being too long, then the whole page is too long after the first major section.

I was trying to be nice by not deleting what was already there, because most of it is irrelevant and dubious to begin with.

So what was dubious and irrelevant? Care to be specific?

I can list out the points and I want you to show me how they are dubious and irrelevant:

1) The images of Tut and other royals are quite dark and not pale tan like the image from National Geographic. Those are facts not opinions.

2) Egyptians never called anyone "Nubian" and "Nubian" did not mean black, Kemet means black. Again those are facts from Egypt itself.

3) Southern black pharaohs have been ruling Egypt since the very beginning of the Egyptian state and such pharaohs had important roles in the Middle and New Kingdoms. Again, facts not heresay.

Sounds like if you cannot see where this is relevant, then it is because you are not interested in facts, you are interested in stupid debates and Jerry Springer antics devoid of any facts from Egypt itself.

And if I reword my stuff, the whole page will get rewritten because the whole page needs to be rewritten. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry John Carter, but you argument is not valid. If you have a reliable source that says that ancient Egypt art can't be used because it is to idealizing, then add it, so that the article debates both sides. Otherwise leave it. Zara1709 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry as well. However, please note that the article is explicitly about the current controversy, as per the first sentence of the article. The facts of the ancient art are at best of dubious relevance to the current controversy, unless that relevance is itself established by references in the literature about the existing controversy, which it does not seem to be. As such, I believe, as I and others have indicated, that that content is of at best dubious relevance to an article which is explicitly about the current controversy. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're are saying that this article is intended only to debate the controversy about the Race of ancient Egyptians, without mentioning what "Race" the ancient Egyptians actually were? Aside from the point that the whole concept of Race is probably nonsense anyway, the controversy about this issue exists apparently only in Afrocentric circles on the one side and in Nordicist circles who are still living in the first half of the last century on the other side anyway. So if we can get is established in the article that from the perspective of academic Egyptologists the ancient Egyptians had "quite dark" skin, we should be fine. And then the article can take a look at all the other views. I wonder if there is anyone who considers them to be "yellow" or "red". On a white-to-black scale, it seems every colour has been proposed. Zara1709 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The numerous previous discussions regarding this article, and the ArbCom, came to that conclusion, that this article is about the current controversy, yes. I agree with you personally that the question of race according to modern science is possibly a moot one, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been a lot of discussion regarding the often genetically consistent ethnic characteristics which the ancient Egyptians may have possessed. I think the word "Race" was chosen for the title primarily because it says more precisely what it took me rather more words to say explicitly above. While the factual race, if there were only one race, of the ancient Egyptians is relevant to wikipedia, discussing that involves so many other matters, beyond the high-profile media coverage the subject has recently received, which is the central focus of this article, that it would basically require an entirely separate article, and even then all it would basically come down to is "dunno, but there are a lot of ideas out there." But the previous discussions agreed to limit the scope of the current article to discussing the recent controversy. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

First off the additions bigdynamo made to the kmt and nubian sections are to long winded and poorly sourced and in many statements essential have nothing to do with the race of the egyptians and are irrelevant,here are some examples of poorly sourced and where bigdynamo makes a pov statements than sites,

"It is doubtful that this skin color simply means fertility or death. More likely it represents renewal of the institution of kingship and the throne from the South and Southern rulers, who were supported by allies from the South, which is a strong statement for blackness. And the idea of Southerners symbolizing the refreshment and renewal of the royal line from the South is not new, as the same thing happened in the 11th and 12th dynasties as well" and here is the source for this statements.White Chapel of Sesostris I with images of Min he makes that statement than sources pictures

more falcies from bigdynamo additions from kmt and relations with nubia section section

Southern people were not always treated as enemies in Egypt and there are notable cases of Pharaohs and noblemen with Southern roots claiming the throne of Egypt, long before the 25th dynasty. During the 12th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom, a line of Pharaohs with roots in Ta Seti came to the throne of Egypt. One of these kings claimed to even be fulfilling a prophecy. The King is Amemhemaat I and the legend is called the Prophecy of Neferti and here is the source for this statement

the problem with the above statement is the source is mythology but is authored in a way that is fact,and once again is long winded like all of bigdynmos edits,and the fequent use of southern people is misleading being nubians were not know as southern people or southerns(authors pov)

here below is another case of authors pov.he just makes his own pov unsourced statements

It is from this time period that the roots of divine authority passed into the legends that eventually stirred the invasions of Egypt by the Kushites in the 25th dynasty, thereby restoring one last glimpse of the glories of the ancient Empire.

here are more examples below of unsourced and biased statements from kmt section

Therefore, all of this indicates that the black skin color of the gods is not simply a symbol of the fertility of the earth but also the male seed and the first creation, which could be a symbolic reference to the first creation of humanity that occurred in inner Africa from the black man and woman of the Nile and the Origin of the Nilotic peoples of Egypt.

the egyptian art section that was created makes zero sence it is authored original work with its sources are pictures,also being the art aspect is already covered in the egyptians self view section which already has several different opinions covering all views

and also i have to question the validity of having a section based on egypts relations with nubia what does that have to do with there race anyway--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, may I suggest that you add (citation needed) tags and (summary-style) wherever you feel they are needed? I feel it would be more constructive and less POV-seeming than just blanking numerous additions. I too feel that the additions are tool long-winded, but I think removing them just isn't the solution; summarizing them would be much better.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

this is an highly controversial topic unsourced and or poorly sourced statements should be removed and i sited examples and ramdrake i reverted because there was blatant pov statements hidden behind bogus sources and unsourced, than left a message saying that the author could rewrite the statement to fit into the article better lets face it the edits he/she made could be cut down to a a few sentences,and also i said what does the relation with nubia have to do with the race of the ancient egyptians any way tht section should be removed period leaving this section leads to innuendo rather than fact--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The passages you object to constitute only a fraction of the additions by User:Big Dynamo, and I don't think they warrant the wholesale removal of what looks like a lot of work. If you feel their total inclusion is unwarranted, you can suggest changes you feel will be more in line with NPOV, but I still think wholesale removal is unwarranted. In any case, we now have about two weeks to achieve consensus on an acceptable compromise.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ramdrake it was removed because either way it is going to have to be re written valid arguements have been made but the arthuor has refused to do so maybe instead of badgering me you should ask big dynamo why he had refused to re work his edits unless you have a horse in this race? ,and i gave a few examples plus on top of that i gave valid reason for the removal of the art section as did john carter ,also as i stated now that this mess has been bough tup what does the relations with nubia have to do with the race of the ancient egyptians,and i am insisting that the section relations with nubia be removed altogether from the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Long winded and rambling

I have no problem removing and rewording what has been added that is long winded. It wasn't my intent to start an edit war, but to fill in some gaps in what was already on the page. But the page itself is a bit winded anyway and probably should be split to put the issue of the debate into another age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big-dynamo (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As it seems we have a few days to cool off from the article, would you mind reworking your additions and putting them on the talk page? That way, they can be properly discussed and we can hopefully achieve some consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point and I am not against that. My issue is with the whole idea that this page is about the Afrocentric debate only. You are talking about a debate on a civilization that lasted over 3,000 years. It is impossible to expect to fit in all the arguments from either side into one page. Therefore I don't think it really serves any purpose to have the page titled as is, because it really doesn't portray what is being discussed. And who determines what is relevant and what isn't? Everything is relevant because everything about ancient Egypt is being debated, as the evidence can be used by one side or another in this "debate". Either this page is to present the facts and details fitting the title or it is a waste of time and misleading to say the least. What is the point of just hashing out what has been "debated" in the media over the last 2 years or more and not really addressing the facts? Also, the core issue of the debate is omission of facts and distortion of the facts to begin with. Therefore, it is hard not to be positioning yourself on one side of the debate or the other by trying to determine what "fits" into the debate or not.

That certainly does not befit something that is supposedly "encyclopedic" if it limits the data and facts available for discussion.Big-dynamo (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to clear up a few things: this article is baiscally about the phenotypic makeup of the Ancient Egyptians, period. "Race" is shorthand for "phenotypic makeup" here. The debate isn't solely about the Afrocentric views, although the debate is certainly more important in Afrocentrist circles (but that's just a statement of fact). Lastly, WP:NPOV decides what is relevant here or not. If you're reporting a notable, sourced opinion about the subject matter, it should definitely go in. If you're reporting facts that have been claimed in support of a notable viewpoint on the subject, it also goes in. If you're reporting your own viewpoint or conclusions on the subject, that's OR and not allowed. I have no problems with the insertion of your content, except maybe its relative wordiness, and possibly a couple of sentences that do come across as your own conclusions (maybe for lack of sourcing those specific sentences). If you can address these issues, I don't think anybody can oppose the inclusion of your edits based on WP policies. Hope I've answered your questions.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ramdrake. I guess I should have expected this as it is a controversial topic. I do agree that some of the text I added is wordy and I am certainly willing to rephrase it. In the next day or so I will post my edits here for discussion. Certainly I do think it is all about making these pages as informational as possible. Big-dynamo (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

more and more edit wars

The whole thing really is ridiculous. Our conception of "race" is a construct of 16th and 17th centuries that justified the trade and keeping of slaves by men who were supposedly Christian. The way we look at race simply did not exist before then. All the trappings and words we associate with this whole topic are so horribly loaded that they are practically useless in relation to real, productive discussion about how peoples of the ancient world dealt with differences of physical appearance. That there was a certain amount of "hey, they look different, so let's kill them" is almost a given, but this broad-brush "race" concept is a product of the modern age. Any sort of genocide, or what we would call "discrimination" would occur along religious or what we would call "ethnic" lines. Getting onto the subject at hand, it would seem to me that there was considerable variation among the egyptians, even their pharohs. Tutankhamun, look similar to a berber or arab, whereas Huni, for instance, looks more Nubian. People need to grow up. -- 69.104.228.30 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

it seems many afrocentrist are coming on here under isp numbers and are blanking parts of the article that they dont like--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand that to be a request for semi-protection of the page, to ensure only registered users edit it? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

i think that would be a good idea--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a few ip vandals being reverted in the last month, one to a legitimate anon contribution. I notice there is a ip engaging in discussion above. Where is the rationale for semi-protection? cygnis insignis 08:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that, I see absolutely no reason for semi-protecting this page. There is maybe 50 edits by anonymous ips in the last 6 month!, and 15 of these within the last 3 month. This is nothing, nothing at all! Try pages like Great Sphinx of Giza or the Nile, where there is nothing but vandalism going on by anonymous ips, a dozen or more, daily. Twthmoses (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a controversial subject and to prevent sock puppets from blanking pages/paragraphs and omiting sourced infomation that he or she dont like it should be semi protected to protect the intergrity of the article,this has gone on it was raised not to long ago by another administrator wknight94,it is not unusal for conterversial subjects to remain semi protected to avoid the annoyance of the isp user being disruptive to the article it also will encourage people who want to contribute to this article to make up an account and maybe make useful changes ,to me the only people who would have a problem with this are the sock puppets themselves and the disruptive isp users mainly the whack jobs from stormfront and the wacky afrocentrics,also maybe the sphinx and nile should be semi protected as well ever think of that twthmoses--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Right from the KauKaKians mouth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kan13st (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've restored the previous semi-protection of the article. The article has recently been removed from full protection, but at the same time the pre-existing semi-protection was removed. Given the fact that the article has drawn a good deal of dubious IP edits historically, I think it is reasonable to restore the previous semi-protection. If anyone wishes to contest semi-protection, please do so below. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

seriously

How about trying to turn this into a serious discussion on the "origin of Egyptians"? The "race" question is an "Afrocentrist" red herring. There is some actual research into the genetic history of Ancient Egypt and Nubia, at present stashed away under Egyptians#Origins. How about we re-define the scope of this article as "origin of Egyptians", and relegate the Afrocentrist blather to Afrocentrism? dab (𒁳) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that in any way, shape or form a "neutral" perspective? On the contrary, your comment is very biased, not at all neutral. 70.105.52.50 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And who are you? I presume this isn't your first time on Wikipedia, although this is the first edit by that IP address. Dbachmann is asking that the article be based on the real research, and I guess you can say that asking for an article to be based on scientific evidence is biased, but then that's what Wikipedia calls for.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on that... 70.105.52.50 (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Dbachmann I have a different approach to such topics. (When I first stumbled across the old Nordic race article, he would have liked to redirect it to North Germanic languages if I remember correctly. After I had added academic references for the use of term "Nordic Race" 1900-1950, that wasn't an issue. In the meantime we even got the "racialist POV-Pusher" who made balancing that article extremely difficult to confine himself to rants on the talk page and could finally removed the POV between Nordic race and Nordic theory.) The controversies about so-called "Races" are notable as such. This doesn't mean that we need an article Race of ancient Germans, where we would then depict debates about question like the one whether the ancient Germans were peasants from Scandinavia or nomadic warriors from Iran; not to mention the whole stuff about the origins on Atlantis or those fears of interbreeding and weakening the Aryan blood. Since we have already a lot of material with this article here we might as well keep it, though it will be difficult to find reliable secondary sources for the controversy after 1950; the Nordic part should now be sufficiently debated now.

I am very well aware of the possibility that someone disagrees with my contributions, actually I expect it. I don't know anything more about Egyptology, but working on such topics for some time now, I know quite a bit about racist ideologies. The huge problem when having an article about ideologies, modern myths, fictional secret organisations, etc. is that you are writing about something that is not true. Basically, you need to have an article that disagrees with its subject, but which at the same time needs to be an encyclopaedia article. This is already difficult when writing an academic article, but on WP it requires quite some effort. A sentence like: "Unusually it should not matter what skin colour a person has," doesn't really sound encyclopaedic. There might be better sentences to express the same issue, but I couldn't think of any at the moment. So please, don't just blank the section out if you disagree with it, but discuss it here first (and use tags were appropriate). Otherwise we just get our next edit war here. Zara1709 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, months after being silenced, it seems you are back to bring disorder to the article. I am a bit upset about so many changes made to the article without looking for consensus. Many of us are too busy with other things to react immediately. But this doesn't mean that we agree with every change happening to this article, like the disapearance of the section: Relation with Nubia. What next? Dbachmann, you better read Jean-François Champollion before stepping your feet in a subjet about Egypt, an ancient African civilization. I am speaking about Champollion because in the section Relation with Nubia, he was quoted saying that Egyptians are from Sudan or Ethiopia. Were ancient Ethiopian and Sudanese White people to think that their descendants, the ancient Egyptians, living quite next to them, were? Many of us must go back to elementary school!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I’m quite happy to see the section go. It was not very good, full of selective quoting. Champollion is an ok read, but as I already stated in an earlier thread (now moved to archive) selective quoting is the doom of this article (and a lack of direction). Champollion does not talk about ancient Egypt, in relation to an origin from Sudan or Ethiopia; he talks about a time before agriculture. That’s not ancient Egypt, that’s 4-5000 years before ancient Egypt! (counting ancient Egypt’s start as 3000 BC) Even for the Middle East this is still in the Stone Age, with pre-dynastic Egypt infinity far in the horizon. It’s the exact same thing Diodorus Siculus talks about (a time before there even was a Nile!), yet these apparently “minor” time issues are just ignored when quoting. That was not only a problem in the now deleted section, but all over the current article. All kinds of evidence are mishmashes in between each other and lending support to each other, with 1000 of year’s difference.Twthmoses (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

the relations with nubia section disapeared because it has nothing to do with the race of the egyptians, i.e because the egyptians had friendly relations with nubia does not mean they were black like the nubians or because for the most part the history of nubians in egypt was slavery does not mean they were not black like the nubians,in other words it was becoming a section based on innuendo and propaganda about the race of the egyptians not fact now genetic affinities between the egyptians and nubians are welcomed and would fall under population charateristics, relations with nubia is a section served best on the main article because has nothing to do with race,and i also suggest anything pertaining to mythology be removed also being mythology is called mythology for a reason and thus leads to just more innuendo and not facts--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe and Twthmoses. It seems to me that you are speculating out of your sadness of seeing an ancient great civilization in the African continent. It is clear to me that you have never read Jean-François Champollion. So, please, go and read the following before discussing further: Jean -François Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, pp. 455-460; Jean-François Champollion, Lettres d'Egypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829, pp. 429-430. If you don't know French, ask some friends to make translations for you.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually stated previously that the relations with Nubia section was OR and should probably be removed. The problem with it was that it dealt only with primary sources and didn't have secondary sources that related it to the topic of the actual article. Also please do not accuse people of racism with comments like "your sadness of seeing an ancient great civilization in the African continent." Please try to assume good faith. --Woland (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at the Nubian stuff. It's clearly OR and certainly the references I noticed (touregypt, for instance, which is great for planning a trip there) weren't all RS. It shouldn't be in the article.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For the 100 time Lusala, I do not care whether the ancient Egyptians are black, white, yellow, brown, red or green. It is absolutely of no importance to me. I do care about the correctness of statement and the lines that are drawn from them. Tone down the paranoia hidden agenda attitude; just because some questions a few lines of text, it is not about a black empire vs. white supremacy. This is about the correctness of quotes and text. It’s all I care about. Note that I have example not removed the highly incorrect statement “The Egyptians viewed the Land of Punt in the south as their ancestral homeland”, in the article. Primarily because I don’t edit the article, but also because someday I hope someone will ask what is the original source for this? They will quickly find there is none, because the Egyptians never wrote that. It’s a highly dubious transliteration that has been circling in books (with no source) for 50 years, repeated over and over again. There is only about two handful of docs about Punt written by Egyptians, and none of them says this line.

• Lettres écrites d'Égypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829 by Champollion le Jeune, APPENDICE No1 November 1829. Direct Babel Fish French to English translation (first four paragraphs)

The first tribes which populated EGYPT, i.e. the valley of the Nile, between the cataract of Osouan and the sea, came from Abyssinie or Sennaar. But it is impossible to fix the time of this first migration, excessively ancient. The former Egyptians belonged to a race of men completely similar to Kennous or Barabras, inhabitants current of Nubie. One finds in Coptes of Egypt none features characteristic of the old Egyptian population. Coptes are the result of the confused mixture of all the nations which, successively, dominated over Egypt. One is wrong to want to find on their premises the principal features of the old race. The first Egyptians arrived to Egypt in the state of nomads, and did not have residences more fixed than the Bedouins of today; they had neither sciences then, neither arts, nor stable forms of civilization. It is by the work of the centuries and the circumstances that the Egyptians, initially wandering, occupied themselves finally of agriculture, and were established in a fixed and permanent way; then were born the first cities, which were not, in the principle, which small villages, which, by the successive development of civilization, became large and powerful cities. The oldest cities of Egypt were Thèbes (Louqsor and Karnac), Esné, Edfou and the other cities of, above Dendérah; average Egypt became populated then, and Low-Egypt only had later of the inhabitants and the cities. It is only by means of great work carried out by the men, that Low-Egypt became livable.

He talks about a time before agriculture (7000-8000 BC), when did that become ancient Egypt?(3000 BC). It might indeed be that the original people he says came from Abyssinie or Sennaar 10000-7000 BC still was exactly the same 4000-5000 years later when ancient Egypt “starts”, but I would not put my head on the block for that (and note Champollion does not himself state that this is the case). The fact still remains we do not know. Twthmoses (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are indeed bad, I move that that line be stricken. Unfortunately I suspect that there are several places in the article like this.--Woland (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one would need to have a reliable source to claim that the populations of Egypt circa 7000-8000 BC were different than those circa 3000BC to make the point. Otherwise, dismissing the cite on the basis that they were different is both OR and POV. The default assumption should be that they weren't that different (that's just common sense). Has someone documented migrations in or out of Egypt in that timeframe, which would support a change in the population makeup?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The only documentation from that time period is from the archaeological record, which shows completely different cultural patterns. I'm not sure that I have access to the sources for this. I could ask the resident expert on this on my campus but I'm pretty sure he'll look at me like an idiot, which I'm not up to during finals week.--Woland (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, a culture can become radically different in four millenia, without the population makeup changing significantly (look at the cultural changes in Egypt between the start of Ancient Egypt and today, which is a comparable span). So, you'd need a firmer basis, such as evidence of significant migrations in or out of Egypt. Also, you'd need a WP:RS that actually claims these were different populations. I'm not aware of any, but then I'm not an expert on the question.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good points, I think. The problem I seem to be having is being able to even think about populations in terms of racial categories, especially since racial categories of the past probably don't match the ones that cultures have today. Too many anthro classes maybe.--Woland (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not dismiss Champollion as a source, so absolutely not. He is definitely an authority on various ancient Egyptian matters. I dismiss hands down, when people do not cite (or rewrite) the full text, and especially, in the context in which it is made. That was exactly the case here, along with Diodorus Siculus‎ who also was talking about an “excessively ancient” time, when he made similar comments about the original population coming from Ethiopia (a time before there even was a Nile). At no point was it made clear that what Champollion and Diodorus talks about pre-dates ancient Egypt by many millennia, and point more towards an early understanding of Recent African origin of modern humans, that a knowledge of the Egyptian population anno 3000 BC. I have no problem with the writing of neither these two guys, nor an insertion in the article of their texts (both are primary sources on several subjects), but I do want the inserter to apply the proper context to their statements, - they themselves supply, and not selective quote from parts of it, that suits you. Diodorus Siculus was selective quoted several times, in the now deleted section, which I already pointed out 3 month ago. Twthmoses (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Woland, I'll grant you that, absolutely. This modern debate would probably look specious, even ridiculous to the Ancient Egyptians. My only concern is that we shouldn't confuse WP:NPOV with WP:TRUTH. All opinions need to be presented, in accordance to their weight in the real world, including those we feel might be wrong. As someone who firmly believes that race is purely a social construct, I agree that some of the arguments here sound like radial tetracapillectomy but NPOV demands that they be presented, if they are backed by reliable sources.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. It just seems like the burden of proof (or WP:V if you will) in this article is unduly placed on the mainstream. I guess I feel like this article should focus more on the documented controversy (using only sources directly related to said controversy) and less on what I see as original research using the primary source documents. It would also help if people stopped accusing others of racism. --Woland (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your observations. But unless the debate becomes a bit less emotional on the subject, it will be hard to get there. I've been observing this article for a number of months now, and what I've seen is mostly POV-pushing from both sides of the argument, and fairly little in the way of an attempt to reconcile the two positions. Last time both positions were reconciled, somebody was again hacking into the article to make it more mainstream within a few weeks, if not days.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys haven't been visiting this page that much have you .the orginal poster may very well have been baiting or trolling an argument because the orginal poster feels they have information germain to the "destruction" of the opponits in the disscusion of "Black" origins of egy[tians. And you all came down on dab so harshlly and very unwelcoming. Of course the posting might have been dab's true intention, But be ever so wairy they are oh so tricky and wiley on this page I get scared some time when I come here no really I do. I say that most sarcasticlly. --204.118.241.239 (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that discussion is like two months old dude.--Woland (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

uh dude so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.118.241.239 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)