Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Black Egyptian Hypothesis

Black Egyptian Hypothesis

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Andajara120000 (talk · contribs) – filing party-WITHDRAWN I WISH TO PROCEED WITH AN OR ANI
2. Wdford (talk · contribs)
3. Aua (talk · contribs)
4. Dailey78 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Black Egyptian Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis#ArbComm: Editing Lead and Body - 4 Proposed Edits- Adding Sentence on Continuing Importance of Phenotype and Genetic Affiliations in Lead, Removing UNESCO from Lead into Own Section in Body, Adding DNA Studies Section to Body, Adding Photos to Body in Appropriate Sections and earlier discussions on the talk page between the same parties.

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

• Proposed Edit #1-The addition of this sentence: /ref> However, the question of the phenotypical characteristics (skin color, facial features, hair texture) and genetic affiliations of the ancient Egyptians in relation to Black Africans remains a point of study, discussion, and debate.[11] because currently it does not indicate that even if race is seen as a social construct and that is all well and good, the phenotypical characteristics and genetic affiliations are still highly important to many people, especially in African scholarship. The UNESCO conference said just as much.

• Proposed Edit #2 (see above discussion)-Removing the information of the UNESCO conference-which was 40 years ago before the proliferation of DNA and other archeological studies and as a vote of a non-professional non-Egyptology or Historical association political body on a historical subject hardly representative of current consensus of scholars or the general population today out of the lead an into its own section under "History"

• Proposed Edit #3-Adding a section on the recent DNA studies of the Ancient Egyptians from 2011 and 2012 which was not available to earlier scholars of the Black Egyptian hypothesis

• Proposed Edit #4- Adding photos of Ancient Egyptian Art that is specifically used by proponents of Black African hypothesis in the "Art" section and in the "Sculptures and Sphinx" section and in the "Artifacts" section.

• Proposed Edit #5-(from earlier discussions)-including this in the lead:"Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "blacks", while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.”ref name="Donald Redford 2001 p. 27-28">Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28"

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Andajara120000 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)-Yes I agree.-WITHDRAWN 1/5/2014 I WISH TO PROCEED WITH AN OR ANI

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• I note that a request has also been made at WP:DRN on this same issue. I have asked the filing party to clarify their intentions. Sunray (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Note the filing party's withdrawal of this application, above (diff). He's now made an application at ArbCom. Though I rather suspect that he's going to get bounced back to content dispute resolution, this ought to be closed for the time being. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC) (Committee member)

And the requesting party has now also been indefinitely blocked. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reject. Substantial attempts at prior dispute resolution are a precondition of formal mediation. This case would have been rejected due to inadequate attempts to resolve the matter via other means. However, as the filing party has been blocked indefinitely, this is now moot. Sunray (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)