Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:56, 29 September 2005

Talk:Afrocentrism Archive1
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive2
Talk:Afrocentrism Archive3

Observation

Isn't it interesting of how much work has been done to debate Afrocentrism, yet the Eurocentrism article is so light. I find it interesting that those that oppose Afrocentrism put their energy in debunking it, yet Eurocentrism receives very little attention.

While on the other hand, the Caucasoid article has been extraordinary strong in debate about placing Ethiopians into the definition of "caucasoids", yet the Negroid article shows very little content except the offensively exaggerated skull.

That to me is why Afrocentrism is so important. It does not impose it's will onto the minds of unbiased people, where as Eurocentrism tries to impose their will onto the minds of everyone. Europe isn't even a continent, yet it's seperated as such to seperate the whites from the non-white.

I just wanted to know if anyone else in here can see the forest through the trees.

Afrocentrism may not be so keen to impose its ideas (and I doubt it) because of the dubious value of many of them (such as that phony theory on the African "origins" of Olmec civilisation, to which I would be happy to see an Eurocentric counterpoint that is not dismissed by Eurocentrists as pseudoarchaeology). D,

Interesting.. that someone trying so hard to sound smart, would misspell civilization

Interesting that someone trying to sound so smart does not know that it isn't a misspelling. It's the correct UK spelling. Paul B 14:28 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, as many Eurocentric ideas are equally dubious but have received widespread acclaim throughout the ages. The Curse of Ham, and the scientific parallel of African intelligence inferiority. The use of skulls to conclude that Africans are less intelligent. The dubious theory that Africans never ventured out of Africa in historic times unless a white or asian owner brought them is widely accepted in academia even now. The dubious theory that black "caucasoids" in Ethiopia(a paradox) are more closely related to white europeans than to Black africans in Kenya is widely appreciated in Eurocentric and scholarly circles. The dubious theory that everyone with round eyes and skin color lighter than jet black is a "caucasoid" by default is accepted. The theory that white people have a virtue of human insight that is lacking in asians (which translates to Asians being more technically adept but less insightful and balanced than a white) is also widely accepted. And so on and so on and so on...

Recent changes

• National Geographic: Corrected incorrect caption - the National Geographic shows the reconstruction of the French team, not the Egyptian reconstruction. Now, which one is the "controversial" reconstruction? The French? Or the Egyptian?

• Drusilla Houston: Corrected incomplete and out of context quotation. Drusilla Houston distinguishes between ancient Egyptian, Ethiopian, Nubian and Cushites. She argues in her book that in early ages Egypt was under Nubian domination, and NOT that Egyptians ARE Nubians.

• • What? No one ever said that Eygptians and Nubians were the same. They were two distinct kingdoms, often sharing peoples in common. deeceevoice 15:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Australoid people: Completed quotation, eventhough I don't see why it was included into the article first place, since Huxley differentiates between "Australoid" and "Negroid".

• • Truncated overly long quote back to the way it was. Huxley refers to "Australoids," describing them as essentially "Negroids"/Africoids -- with the only difference being their relatively straight hair -- meaning those peoples we commonly refer to today as (some) Nubians, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Eritreans -- in a word, (many) Nilotics -- etc., and the Tamils/Dravidians of the Indian subcontinent, Australia. Check the distribution map. All the other verbiage about Australia and the eye sockets, etc., is superflous and simply makes the block quote intolerably long. The point is he describes and identifies the Australoids as also populating the Nile Valley. deeceevoice 15:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Additional note:

Studies in craniometry are dismissed as scientific racism, that should be mentioned in the article. Pharlap 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not "craniometry" as it has been used to justify trumped-up, silly contentions about inherent inferiority or superiority of certain groups of humankind. The article mentions well-known and widely accepted "racial"/ethnic facio-cranial characteristics in the context of forensic science and forensic anthropology -- areas of scientific inquiry and professional practice where they remain in use today as highly accurate indicators of ethnic identity. Witness Anton's dead-on conclusions -- absent any geographic context whatsoever. You're grasping at straws, and your complaint simply does not hold up. deeceevoice 10:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Highly miscegnated?

At 2 points, the article says that Afrocentrists would use the term "highly miscegnated" to describe the modern Egyptian population. It is not reasonable or acceptable to use this term to describe any population, this is offensive to the modern Egyptians. This confirms my suspicions that Afrocentrism, at least in the form put forward here, is a form of racism by a section of the population of the main imperialist power against the population of a 3rd world country. The article should be edited to take account of these issues. PatGallacher 11:29, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

Also, Niger and Nigeria do not derive from the Latin for black, they derive from a Tuareg word for river (and so are unrelated to the word we all want to avoid). The Hyksos did bring the chariot to Ancient Egypt. I find all this stuff with diagrams of skull types rather disturbing, reminiscent of material from the Third Reich, I am not sure it has any place in a Misplaced Pages article. PatGallacher 14:31, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

See the article on the Niger river for the derivation. The Taureg word is a possibility. I agree with you about skull types and the stuff about 'misecegenation'. This aspect of the content is courtesy of User:Deeceevoice, whose insult-laden methods of debate and POV I find so uncongenial (to put it mildly) that I have withdrawn from involvement. However the article needs a big overhaul. As it is, it has drifted unpleasantly close to the kind of 'racial theory' that should have died out half a century ago. Paul B 15:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Now, now. Just because something is blatant 19th-century style racism doesn't mean we can't have an encyclopedia article about it. — Phil Welch 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What? The Niger River? I never wrote anything about the derivation of "Niger" or "Nigeria." U b trippin', PB. deeceevoice 22:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

I have added the "clean up" flag because, although the article is important and large parts are OK, in places it gets bogged down in discussion of the minutiae of ancient Egyptian skulls, and does not properly address the assumptions which might lie behind such a discussion, see some of my earlier comments. PatGallacher 15:32, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

• I've removed the cleanup flag, which gives the impression the article is sloppily written. If you disagree about the content of the piece and you think something is included which is superfluous, then this is where such matters should be hashed out. I happen to think the discussion is entirely on point. deeceevoice 15:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It sure the heck needs some work to be half-way respectable from any scientific point of view... AnonMoos 23:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the cleanup flag because I think the article is sloppily written, see my previous comments. I support the proposal to shift some stuff to "Egypt and black identity" or something along these lines. I will look at Eurocentrism to see if there are any problems. PatGallacher 16:57, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Photo Great Sphinx

The proposition that the Sphinx could be up to 10,000 years old is a so called theory advanced by Graham Hancock and several others of his ilk. It isn't accepted at all by main stream archaeologists. It is obvious that deeceevoice is a proponent of the Afrocentrism theory that suggests that Egypt was a black African culture and that the Hellenic civilization which followed robbed from them. Judging by the more academic links on the page, this is ill accepted by the most notable Egyptologists.

The issue and objecvitity of this article "Afrocentricism" is that it disputes the most notable Egyptologists, because their conclusions are said to be biased by Afrocentric scholars. For example, the MET has two busts (reserve heads) of old kingdom people. One looks very semetic/caucasoid while the other looks very black/negroid. The negroid bust WAS assumed to be the nubian wife of the tomb owner (i.e. they assumed someone from nubia traveled from their non-egyptian native ground to giza). BUT, they subsequently concluded... once they put their bias/assumption/default-white mentality aside that the bust was the tomb owner.

http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm

"Although each reserve head has characteristics that make it unique, this example stands out from the group. It is one of the largest and is the most perfectly preserved, exhibiting none of the intentional damage found on others. Excavated in a shaft with another head, this one was originally identified as the Nubian wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb. Although the face has affinities with later depictions of Nubians, it also bears a striking resemblance to statues of Fourth Dynasty kings and undoubtedly represents an Egyptian. The variations among reserve heads probably reflect the diversity in Egypt's population."

This is why there is Afrocentricism, without it, the mentality of the notable Egyptologists would not be checked and people would be assuming this is a slave or something other than the actual original owner of the tomb way up in the north.

Now the only problem left is that people will assume, no doubt, that this is an isolated example of Black Africans in the north. Which again is why Afrocentricism is so concentrated on Egypt.

It would be great if Afrocentrism was just an attempt to introduce more fairness into Egyptology or whatever. But it isn't. It's swinging the pendulum in the other direction, and in many ways it's less defensible, because we know more now than they did when they were claiming that the Egyptians were white and so forth. Correcting one falsehood with another won't cause the truth to show up. Afrocentrism is based on identity politics and the like, it isn't based on taking a good and balanced look at everything. The argument of "Oh the mainstream Egyptologists just believe that because they're white" is amazingly disingenous, is it supposed to be plausible that in a matter that in many ways pits black vs white, that blacks are going to be any more honest?

And the excuses for Afrocentrism along the lines of "Well the racist white Egyptologists used to believe this" sees a trip into a childish land where it's all about paying back past wrongs, not about trying to get things right. It is impossible to solve inequalities against one group, or against one scientific theory, or whatever by inequalities against another group or theory or whatever. Yet the idea that this is possible seems rather common, even though it's basically the belief that the best way to solve a wrong is to commit the opposite wrong. --Edward Wakelin 20:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentricity

Afrocentricity covers the same ground. If the terminology is used differently or by different people, this can be explained in the intro or a subsection on terminology. Rd232 13:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no particular value in a separate article on Afrocentricity. Perhaps the contributor Spence, who initiated the piece, can elucidate. Frankly, I object to the narrow approach to the subject in that piece. It refers to "the Afrocentric project" as though there is some central council or authority over afrocentric scholarship with a singular direction and aim -- which is simply not the case. Nor did the Afrocentric approach begin with Asante. Some of the most important scholarship in Afrocentric thought predates Asante by several decades. Indeed, one of the foremost so-called "afrocentric" historians alive today, Ivan van Sertima, rejects the term completely. I certainly do not think Afrocentrism should be merged into it. If anything, it should be the converse. The common form of the word is "Afrocentrism," just as its counterpart is commonly called "Eurocentrism" -- not "Eurocentricity." In fact, a search of this website reveals an article on the former -- but none on the latter. deeceevoice 14:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to participate in the Afrocentrism entry earlier. I stopped because I realized that there was a distinct difference between the entry I was participating in--Afrocentrism--and the concept as used by scholars actively engaging in the literature in the field. To wit, the entry "Afrocentrism" deals largely with the race of the Ancient Egyptians, and the counter-claims of scholars such as Mary Lefkowitz or the late Allan Bloom as well as the work of historians writing in the early 20th Century. These are very contentious arguments, with strong supporters on both sides. But these arguments do not reflect the type of arguments scholars are actually dealing with "in the academy". Furthermore, there is a lack of precision in the Afrocentrism entry that is problematic. Ivan Van Sertima for example is NOT an Afrocentric scholar. Neither is Martin Bernal. People outside of the academy may lump them with scholars such as Theophile Obenga and Maulana Karenga for a number of reasons...but scholars within the academy would not consider them Afrocentric scholars. More importantly, neither Bernal nor Van Sertima consider themselves Afrocentric scholars. Similarly no scholars currently publishing academic work are interested in the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians. Rather than fight these battles within the Afrocentrism entry I thought it important to create a separate entry that reflects the difference between the academic understaning and the non-academic understanding. --Lester Spence 02:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because as a movement Eurocentrism doesn't currently exist, as it can only exist as how Afrocentrism exists: Misguided attempts by scholars among a victim-group to create a positive mythology: It is far easier to say "Things were great for us before we got ripped off" than to actually sit down and try to make plans for the future. --Edward Wakelin 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What's your hack philosophizing got to do with the price of rice? Eurocentrism need not exist as a "movement"; it's already arrived. It's been the status quo for centuries. Further, correcting the historic record is preparing the way for the future -- and it's far blacker and brighter than the past. :p deeceevoice 23:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Eurocentrism should fall because of objective re-analysis of the past. It shouldn't fall because it's been replaced with more subjectivity. And what hack philosophising? I am pointing out that Afrocentrism is the easy way out, appealing to imaginary good old days rather than to try and make good new days: That is hardly an uncommon thing, it is seen every time somebody whintes about how public schools suck now and used to be better, instead of saying "gee maybe we should put more money in the public school system". --Edward Wakelin 03:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To put it a different way: How is it a substantial improvement to replace incorrect, skewed history by whites, with incorrect, skewed history by blacks? --Edward Wakelin 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whom you're reading and whom you believe. As an African-American, I think the history of my people and of blacks, in general, stands on its own. There's no need to appropriate the history of others. But am I an Afrocentrist? I suppose you could call me that. But, first and foremost, I'm a student of history. Judging from your posts, we likely come down on different sides of certain issues -- but that has nothing to do with a desire to embrace that which is not true. I traded e-mails with Susan Anton and spoke directly to the fellow on the French team. And based on those contacts, I am more convinced than ever (though I wasn't in doubt, based on considerable reading I'd done before) that King Tut was a black African. So, don't assume less than honorable motives simply because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you. deeceevoice 03:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. I think the problem is that when the mindset is "claiming" King Tut or Cleopatra or some other Egyptian figure as being black or white or whatever will not really create the proper atmosphere for objectivity to flourish. Then of course is the fact that the population of Africa is quite varied. Plus: Do we really know enough about Egypt to talk about its ethnic makeup? People spend way too much time pointing at skin colours on old murals: The Egyptian style of drawing people was very stylised, how are we to know if they tried 100% recreation of reality with skin colour? . And it isn't helped by the fact that the modern population of Egypt is very different in terms of ethnic makeup than Egypt was back in the day. And recreating ethnicity or race through facial measurements and the like is quite imprecise: There was an article about this in Harper's (I think) specifically about bodies that might be Aboriginal or might be European: It pointed out that variation between individuals, or over time, could explain a lot of difference of things like facial measurements. --Edward Wakelin 04:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a theory, by the way, that many ancient Egyptians were in fact members of an ethnic group that doesn't really exist any more? --Edward Wakelin 04:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

God. I really don't want to rehash old arguments. I think the information I've presented in the article is compelling enough. (I've written the majority of the piece, particularly from "Egypt and black identity" to the end.) They were (and remain) predominantly black Africans. With regard to your last question, there are also theories that aliens came to Earth in spaceships and built the pyramids. The theory you write of is sheer hogwash. There's absolutely no evidence that would point to some mass extinction of the ancient Egyptians. Their progeny are alive and well today. Peace. deeceevoice 04:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Just sayin' there's a theory, no idea as to its validity. I don't know if the Egyptians were black, they're certainly not white, though. Light-skinned Africans I can buy, probably with some degree or other mixing from the Middle East, which is right next door.

The Eurocentric Egyptologists basically based their "they must be white!" theory on the idea that anybody not white couldn't have done what the Egyptians had. This is the same reason, basically, as the "aliens did it" theory: They have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that people thousands of years ago could do some really nifty things with stone. So the Eurocentrists were wrong. This doesn't make the Afrocentrists right: Even if Egyptians were Africans of one type or another, it still doesn't prove the theory that the Greeks just ripped off the Egyptians, for one thing. And I don't think that who "owns" the Egyptians matters: European culture doesn't depend on King Tut or Cleopatra being white.--Edward Wakelin 05:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything I have to say on the matter I've said in the article. I have no intention of rehashing things here:

"Afrocentrists, however, contend that race as a social and political construct still exists. They argue that the racist untruths propounded for centuries– that blacks had no civilization, no written language, no culture and no history of any note before coming into contact with Europeans– make the racial identity of ancient Egypt an important issue. Further, such lies have been applied to a particular, broad category of humanity based on the same "racial" phenotype and lineages used by Afrocentrists in refuting such myths. However artificial and discredited a construct, the matter of race became an important and enduring issue, Afrocentrists argue, when whites and others pronounced an entire segment of humanity inherently inferior on the basis of it. Further, such biases still exist today. As a result, Afrocentrists contend, it is important to set the historical record straight within the context in which the history of human civilizations heretofore has been framed, taught and studied--and that is the context of race." I'm done. deeceevoice 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyhoo: If there's gonna be any merging, it should be afrocenticity into afrocentrism, instead of vice versa, if only beccause "afrocentrism" sounds better, and more regular when it comes to ideologies (who, after all, is a believer in feminicity?, or Communicity?)--Edward Wakelin 04:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion above, then read the Afrocentricity entry. Afrocentrism can be referred to as an ideology...and the battles around this entry are as fierce as those around Neo-Conservatism. Afrocentricity? A different bag. What we--and when i say "we" here I mean people who actually perform research and publish in Black Studies--are interested in is a very simple question. What is the best way to study black subjects? The more I read the arguments around Afrocentrism (battling about race, rants about victimology) the more I am convinced that a simple entry differentiating the academic component from the ideological one is necessary. I would not want Afrocentrism merged into Afrocentricity...and I would not want the reverse either. --Lester Spence 02:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Egyptians

About 50% of this article treats the relatively obscure question of the skin colour of the Ancient Egyptians. Shouldn't that be exported to its own article? I understand that the question is of some importance to Afrocentrists, but to treat it in such detail here seems like a red herring. The actual question of genetics/history/archaeology should be treated elsewhere, and its importance for agendas of black superiority can be examined here (the role of the "black Egyptians" meme in this context seems clear, regardless of the veracity of the individual claims). dab (ᛏ) 13:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell said anything here about "black superiority"? The article treats the subject in depth, because it the black identity of ancient dynastic Egypt is a central issue in Afrocentrist historiography. I like it here it is. Other articles can -- and do -- link to it. deeceevoice 18:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How much Afrocentrist stuff is non-Egyptian in focus? --Edward Wakelin 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of contemporary Afrocentric scholarship ignores the racial question. Some are interested in studying the relationship between ancient African civilizations--including Egypt. But most deal with contemporary problems in Black Studies. How exactly did various African loan words travel across the Atlantic? What are the components of a contemporary African composite culture, if any? How do Afro-Brazilians use the language of race to mobilize against poverty? --Lester Spence 02:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

that would be "Misrocentrism" then. Seriously, Egypt does not exactly equal Africa, does it? I suggest exporting the section to Egypt and Black Identity, leaving behind a summary, but sparing this article the more intricate details of the debate. dab (ᛏ) 16:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course it should be moved to a new page. I suggested the same thing back in May . Even back in March it was obvious it was getting so long that it seriously overweighted the article, creating a text that has now become a travesty of a discussion of the pros and cons of Afrocentrist thought. It was because kspense despaired of getting in any discussion of Asante's thinking and its modern offshoots that he created Afrocentricity, though there are some arguments for keeping a separate page. The obsessive concentration on discussing the "blackness" of Egyptians is down to one editor's relentless fixation on the subject. One reason for creating a separate page is that the race issue is starting to affect other Egypt-related articles. It seems silly to have sections on various pharaohs debating what their skin-colour was – we'd be recapitulating the glory days of the worst kind of "race theory". Any such discussion could be directed to the newc article. Paul B 20:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Think what you will. You're not black. Black folks generally don't see it as a "fixation." We see it as an important correction of the much sinned-against historical record. Further, it's not my "fixation." The topic has been treated fairly and thoroughly. YOu can bet if any editor had any credible comeback for the information presented, it would be there. The thing is they don't. The truth is the truth. :D deeceevoice 22:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Blunders

Egypt is most definitely NOT "located squarely within the African continent" -- it's in the northeastern corner. And I think it would be valuable to include a list of certain of the Afrocentric "urban legends" or egregious blunders, which continually keep resurfacing, despite being objectively factually ascertainably simply wrong -- such as when Cleopatra (basically of exclusive Macedonian/Greek ancestry) is claimed to be "black"(!?) -- AnonMoos 23:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you see anywhere in this article where there is any claim that Cleopatra was black? And, yes, Egypt is a part of the continent of Africa, though geopolitically and in the minds of many, it is part of the "Middle East." deeceevoice 03:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as it is also partly Asian, as the Sinai was traditionally part of Asia. Therefore, I too would consider squarely to be inappropriate. Snapdragonfly

Darlin', if you wanna niggle about an adverb and wanna remove it, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that ancient dynastic Egypt was BLACK. :p deeceevoice 09:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking just as much as those who would claim Egypt to be all white. Moreso, all your darlings get frankly tiresome. Finally, I would like to note that an article on Afrocentrism doesn't mention even ONCE Zimbabwe or Axum, and Nubia hardly more than in passing; this is just an Egypt obsession; what more, modifying an adverb is not niggling, since these words have a slight tendency to modify sense (of course I should assume you knew it, right). Snapdragonfly

Sorry, darlin', if you find me tiresome. My raison d'etre is to keep you entertained. :p This article addresses the blackness of ancient dynastic Egypt, an ongoing subject of major debate vis-a-vis Afrocentrism. Fortunately, there are no great debates about the blackness of Timbuktu, the racist (and ridiculous) myth about it having been built by some lost, wandering tribe of white people having been tossed into the dustbin of Eurocentric bullsh*t lies long ago. I call yours a "niggling" change, because with all the other stuff I've contributed that die-hard dynastic critics of Afrocentrism try to debunk has remained essentially intact -- because the information is correct and irrefutable. Your tweaking is inconsequential. Ancient dynastic Egypt was no more Semitic or Middle Eastern because its territory at one time extended into the Sinai than ancient Rome was English because it once occupied portions of Britain. And, no. I never claimed ancient dynastic Egypt was all anything, black, white, Semitic, Asian or purple. deeceevoice 08:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But this article is NOT Demographics of Ancient Egypt or Blackness in Ancient Civilisations, it is Afrocentrism, and should not avoid mention of such things as the other African civilisations. And if you never claimed it so, why do you insist on its blackness as a defining characteristic. Surely you must be aware of the existence of Coptic, an afro-asiatic language, therefore related to Berberic and Semitic languages, which is the current day descendant of Egyptian.

he original Berbers are black, Nilotic, (East) Africans -- not the Berbers of the Maghreb. And, again, the discussion -- of the essential black identity of dynastic Egypt is a fundamental, and certainly one of the most hotly contested issues/questions in debates regarding Afrocentrism. It is appropriate that it be included here. This piece is not meant to be an overview of black/African history. And Semites are nothing but the result of Africans and Asiatics (some of them already Afro-Asiatic, like the Semangs and other aboriginal blacks once found throughout Asia), mixing and, later, Caucasoid peoples. After all, even W.E.B. Dubois wrote that the "Asian" influence/presence in Egypt was also likely to some significant degree Africoid. deeceevoice 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

um, not to nitpick with the actual content, but can we move the section to Egypt and Black Identity now, or are there objections? Regarding your statement, isn't Nilotic really a linguistic term (i.e. Nilotic should redirect to Nilotic languages)? Of course the vast majority of Nilotic speakers will be black; it is still not correct to identify linguistic and genetic classification; that would be like saying "English people are white", meaning speakers of the English language. That may have been mostly true up to 1600 AD or so, but certainly isn't true any longer. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No. "Nilotic" has become, and has been for a very long time, associated with a particular ethnic phenotype: dark skin; long, very slender limbs; etc., etc., like Watutsi, Dinka, etc.). It's no different from the way "Semitic" is used, which originally referred to a language group, but which commonly is used to refer to essentially Jewish (and sometimes Arab) people. deeceevoice 18:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And, actually, I have no real problem with there being a separate article on "Egypt and black identity." However, I'd like to see what of the language is to remain in this article before the change is made. deeceevoice 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

far from "commonly is used to refer to essentially Jewish (and sometimes Arab) peoples", Semitic is still a purely linguistic term. It is only "Anti-Semitism" that has acquired a narrowed cultural meaning. "Anti-Semitism" by convention refers to "Anti-Judaism", while "Semitic" remains a purely linguistic term. This is related to the crackpot ariosophy usage for which "Semitic" was a sort of occult/spiritual term. I am unaware of any similar development of the term "Nilotic" as meaning 'dark skin; long, very slender limbs' or similar. That would be just as bad as using "Semitic" to refer to "crooked nose, red hair, large feet" or similar. dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No. I use the term in that manner, and I hear all the time people referring to "Semites" and "Semitic peoples" as a kind of an in-between "racial" group -- meaning non-black, Middle Eastern peoples. I'm amazed to hear you make such a contention. If you're in the U.S., you must be in Alaska, or Kansas, or somewhere. Kansans, Alaskans, don't start excoriating me. It's just, uh ... weird/kinda provincial. deeceevoice 18:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Naming stuff

All stuff about Afrocentrism being right or wrong or whatever aside, maybe it would be best to cut it up between Afrocentrism, and Afrocentric (ist?) Egyptology? Which could include black-Egyptian stuff? Or perhaps just shove it all into Egyptology and have a section on Egyptian racial issues? --Edward Wakelin 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Akhenaten

Not "Akhenaton".

(Petrograd 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

Miscegnated

This is not just a question of terminology, it is the whole concept which many would now object to. The term "highly miscegnated" occurs at 2 points slightly earlier. What alternative term would anyone suggest? PatGallacher 09:32, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

I wrote the passage(s?), so I obviously have no problem with the term. You do. What would you suggest? deeceevoice 10:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And I have removed the passage AGAIN, because it is a commentary on the use of a particular word -- and not of the content itself. Such discussions belong here -- and NOT in the body of an article. "Miscegenation" is a perfectly valid word and does not mean a corruption of "racial purity."

miscegenation: a mixture of races; especially : marriage or cohabitation between a white person and a member of another race; - mis·ce·ge·na·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

Matters of race and ethnicity are treated regularly on Misplaced Pages. Regardless of whether or not the notion of race has scientific validity, it exists as a social and political construct. deeceevoice 10:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I quote the Misplaced Pages entry on miscegnation:-

"Miscegenation is a pejorative describing sexual/romantic relations, intermarriage, and/or the production of offspring between members of different races (sometimes religion). As such it necessarily involves controversial assumptions about race and sexuality."

Also, do we know that the racial composition of the Egyptian population has changed all that much over the centuries? Maybe the Ancient Egyptians would have looked a bit like Arabs.

I will consider how to deal with these issues, I would prefer not to get into a revert war. I have decided to raise an NPOV flag for the time being. PatGallacher 13:50, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't authoritative -- far from it. And I've consulted numerous references, and there is absolutely nothing in any of them which identifies the word as a pejorative. Not in Merriam-Webster, not in American Heritage, not in Encarta. Yes, the word often has been used by racists, but so, too, do racists, presumably use words like "ignorant," "presumptuous," and "idiot." But that doesn't necessarily make them pejorative, now, does it? The POV tag is removed -- unless you can point to an authoritative source that identifies the word -- which you seem sufficiently unfamiliar with that you've misspelled it repeatedly -- as inherently pejorative. I am an African American and a student of the history of my people. I am thoroughly familiar with the word and am not at all aware that the word is considered inherently pejorative. You have voiced the objection. You have been invited to change the word to something more to your liking, yet you've refused. From where I sit, you have absolutely no cause to place a POV tag on something which some people may erroneously believe to be pejorative. It's gone. Change the word to something of your liking -- or stop bellyaching. Far too many people have worked very hard on this article for you to slap a POV tag on it on so flimsy a pretense and on such a wrongheaded assumption. deeceevoice 16:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is generally and widely accepted by authorities of all stripes that skin tone of the general Egyptian population has lightened and darkened over time due to miscegenation and historical events. Only the degree to which that is the case from one dynastic period to the next is in question. About ancient Egyptians looking like Arabs? Not even remotely likely. See the information regarding the Book of Gates. The Arabs are the "Namu," the "people who travel the sands." They didn't arrive in Egypt in significant numbers until almost 4,000 years after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. deeceevoice 16:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I can only answer some of these questions briefly, I may respond in some detail later:-

1. Yes, I did misspell it, maybe that's because the word has fallen out of favour these days, as a result of e.g. the struggle of Afro-Americans, that people are not familiar with the correct spelling.

2. English words beginning in mis- generally do have negative connotations e.g. misleadership, mismanagement.

3. It's not just the word, it's the underlying concept, that on the eve of civilization there were "pure" races, which have since become mixed, and where they have this is a bad thing, rejecting the idea that racial diversity without clear divisions has been with us since the year dot.

4. "Generally and widely accepted by authorities of all stripes" can you give us chapter and verse on that, not just that this might have been accepted by some authorities.

5. I am aware that the Arabs only conquered Egypt in the 7th century BCE, but this could be collapsing racial and linguistic issues together. Most Afro-Americans speak English, it does not mean they are of white European ancestry.

6. I feel that this section should be substantially rewritten, I have offered a form of words which would deal with some immediate problems.

7. I continue to detect an attempt to impose an American paradigm on the Old World (i.e. sharp division between blacks and whites) and a streak of racism towards the modern Egyptians. PatGallacher 21:35, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Your points 2 and 3 are ludicrous on their face. Please, spare me your ill-informed etymological attempts at an explanation of the term. The root of the word is the Latin "misc," which means to mix -- as in "miscellaneous" and "miscellany." Further, words in the English language which are pejorative, as you have charged, have explicit notes to this effect which accompany their definitions in the English-language dictionaries. I have been unable to find a single such reference that labels "miscegenation" as pejorative. And unless you can produce an authoritative source that says as much, your "argument" is specious and exceedingly flimsy. It just won't fly.

That you would even question the commonly, virtually universally accepted notion that the color and ethnic mix of Egypt changed over time is ludicrous. Even white supremacists who swear that ancient dynastic Egypt was a Caucasian/white civilzation at its inception will admit to that.

Your "detection" of a "streak of racism towards the modern Egyptians" is about as on-target/accurate as your grasp of etymology. Furthermore, as I pointed out in an earlier edit note, "racism" relates to bias against "racial" or ethnic groups -- not nations. deeceevoice 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me to be bad practice to remove NPOV flags without giving people reasonable time to resolve or address these issues, I will reply in more detail later, but I will ask for this page to be protected. PatGallacher 07:50, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

I quote the Misplaced Pages article on Racial purity:-"Miscegenation is a term for people of different human races producing offspring; it is used almost exclusively by those who believe such "race mixing" is inherently bad." PatGallacher 08:09, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

The article is incorrect if it characterizes the word as pejorative. I and others use the term because it is convenient shorthand for "people of different ethnicities/'races' screwing and producing offspring." People used to use the word "intermarriage"; however, that is completely inaccurate, because it implies, most importantly, a consensual pairing and also a legal one, when, particularly in an American, black-white context, such a thing most frequently occurred as the result of rape and nowadays, even when obviously consensual, continues to occur absent a husband-wife relationship. Like I said, got a better word? Feel free to use it. deeceevoice 09:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an authoritative source and cannot be used to verify its own information

You're like a dog chasing its tail. Again, Misplaced Pages is not authoritative. The information (or dis/misinformation) it provides can be edited by any ignorant hack or crackpot with a computer and an ISP. Misplaced Pages is not to be used to verify its own information. I have checked authoritative sources. Again, there is absolutely no mention of "miscegenation" being inherently pejorative, and it has no relation to the words you cited: "misleadership" (if that even is a word; if it is, it's an ugly/clumsy one) or "mismanagement." Check your dictionary. "Misc" refers to mixture; "gen" to "gen" to "people." It's a mixing of different peoples. Your entire argument is completely groundless and utterly without merit.

IMO, no reasonable administrator would protect this page or honor the POV label. Far too many editors have parsed and negotiated and reconsidered and researched to make this article as accurate and objective as possible for you to slap a POV tag on it behind some crap that easily could be cleared up if you would just crack a dictionary. deeceevoice 08:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Distorted picture

deeceevoice, if you're going to revert my changes, plese say something in the talk page or at least in your comments as to why. Jim Apple 11:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to claims of possible image "distortion," I draw your attention to the fact that the photo is provided as an example of Tut's facial features -- not his ears, or anything else peripheral to the face. (I've changed the caption -- which I thought I had already done -- to conform with that in Tutankhamun.) Note that the same characteristics of the nose and mouth of the mask, as well as the prominent alveolar prognathism, are also visible here and , as well as in numerous other photos -- including the one you provided. Quite clearly, they are not all extremely close-angle shots. It can be argued that the secondary image of the mask you have provided in juxtaposition to the National Geographic shot doesn't look anything like the images of the mask on these pages, either. Again, it's all about lighting. Any experienced photographer knows that the brighter the light, the flatter the image. If you really want to see the contours of an object, then you use a filtered or dimmer light source. These potographs show the actual contours of the mask much more accurately -- as, again, does the photo you took the time to find and, which, incidentally, I prefer because it shows the buzzard/cobra crown and is simply a more beautiful, very moving photograph. Further, it also does not have the Freeman Institute copyright information superimposed on it, which makes for a "cleaner" image. It cannot be charged that the "wallpaper" shots are on the website of a "radical Afrocentrist cult," either. (Freeman is a Jewish professor specializing in cultural diversity training.) Further, here's a link to a photo of the mask on the Discovery Channel website. The image looks very black African -- and not at all like the image you inserted. Note that the ears are not flattened, and the lighting is such that the contours of the mask are clearly visible. I'm really not very familiar w/Wikipedia image use policy, but if there is some way this image could be inserted in place of the Freeman Institute image under "fair use," then I would be amenable to that -- this one or your really cool, dramatic pic.deeceevoice 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Ludicrous? Moi? I have restored the NPOV flag for various reasons, among them:-

1. Misplaced Pages should not be treated as an authoritative source? This is highly POV, and will come as a surprise to many Wikipedians. I cautiously suggest that Deeceevoice should raise this on the relevant pages.

2. Deeceevoice quoting white supremacists to back his case is quite a good example of the problems here. A POV which they may share is still a POV. That is like saying that because Hitler and Stalin did not agree on very much, but they did agree in 1939 that Poland should not be an independent country, therefore they must have been right.

3. The idea that we can automatically assume that the racial composition of the Egyptian population has changed substantially over the centuries is not one which I found in a couple of books on Egyptology I had a look at earlier today, not one I have come across much before, and not found in the Misplaced Pages articles on History of Ancient Egypt, Egyptology, or Unsolved problems in Egyptology, so this is definitely POV.

4. The Oxford English Dictionary may not say in so many words that miscegenation is pejorative, but most of the quotes have negative or problematic connotations.

5. A word may be etymologically unobjectionable, but it may still acquire negative connotations, e.g. the "n-word" ultimately derives from the Latin for "black". PatGallacher 21:24, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

No. Few people would be surprised that Misplaced Pages is not to be treated as an authority. A case in point. I can log on to Misplaced Pages any day of the week and click on any number of articles pertaining to my own people and read things like, "The only good nigger is a dead nigger," "All niggers should be slaves," or, "Nigger is any black person who can't speak English nor pay the electric bill and cares more about having expensive clothing than the necesities of life." My first encounter with Misplaced Pages which caused me to become involved in this project was some ridiculous contention that the slaves used to call their white, rapist fathers "motherfucker" instead of "daddy." Anyone who treats any open-content website like Misplaced Pages as an authoritative source, which anyone can edit at any time and say anything ought to have his or head examined.

You're merely being obtuse. Your characterization of "miscegenation" as pejorative doesn't hold water. Virtually any dictionary will include, along with a proper definition, the informaton that "nigger" is pejorative. The same cannot be said of miscegenation, which essentially means "race mixing." Why? Because it isn't inherently pejorative. You have absolutely nothing to lend credence to your claims.

By way of illiustration, this from an online article on the Houghton-Mifflin website, "Reader's Companion to Women's History: Miscegenation":

"The word 'miscegenation' was invented during the 1864 presidential campaign (from the Latin miscere, "to mix," and genus, race) when Democrats claimed that Lincoln's Republican Party advocated sex and marriage across the color line. Like 'mulatto,' probably derived from the concept of mules and hybridity, 'miscegenation' was pejorative in its historical context.'

As I said, racists have used the word.

However, at the end of the article, Houghton-Mifflin uses the word outside the historical context of racism to mean, essentially "people of different races screwing and producing offspring" in a neutral fashion:

"The ongoing legacies of the legal and social history of miscegenation are apparent in issues ranging from the influence of racist ideology in sex crimes or alleged sex crimes, to ambivalence or antagonism on the part of both white and Black communities toward marriages and relationships across the color line."

Another online article in "Christianity Today" is titled "Books & Culture Corner: In Praise of Miscegenation. Racial categories don't mean what they used to. Hallelujah." And at slate.com: "Miscegenation -- an official trend: The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a seemingly important taboo-busting story on the increase in black women dating white men. The evidence of this trend is not only anecdotal -- AJC's John Blake says."

Simply because you and others may be unfamiliar with the use of the word outside of its racist context does not mean it is not used frequently and without negative connotations by others. Time for a reality check. Drop it. deeceevoice 23:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My POV objections are by no means confined to this one term. If some of the quotes above ever did appear on Misplaced Pages then I would assume they were removed pretty quickly, it would be a bit of an insult to Afro-American Wikipedians to suggest that they were not. This may raise some questions about the whole Misplaced Pages project. I am aware that Misplaced Pages articles are not always reliable. However if Deeceevoice (or anybody else) objects to the content of the miscegenation article (or any other article) then this should be raised under that article not here. Until then, any challenge to the content of that article must, at the very least, be regarded as POV. PatGallacher 09:24, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

There is all kinds of misinformation on Misplaced Pages. I just made a change to the cultural appropriation exhibited in Janis Joplin, but if someone had visited that article before I did so and taken it as authoritative, they would have been misled. Again, any hack with a computer and an ISP can edit here. That fact in and of itself should be enough to give any sensible person pause about the reliability of information on this website. If you've spent any time as an editor, you must know that. Further, you must be aware that vandalism is not always detected immediately. And certainly the same can be said for erroneous information. No one in any kind of position of authority on Misplaced Pages would ever suggest that it is an authoritative source. And, no. You've challenged this article's NPOV status on the basis of my use of the word miscegenation, so it was wholly appropriate for the matter to be discussed here -- as we both have been discussing it. It was you, in fact, who brought the flawed article into this dicussion in the first place. It is quite clear you were in error with regard to the purported inherently pejorative nature of the term. And, yes, I already have deleted the erroneous information in miscegenation. And, no. A challenge to content is of an article is not POV if it is supported by authoritative sources. And, clearly -- as herein demonstrated by documentation -- the content of that article was certainly incorrect. I only skimmed it -- but from what I saw, the article actually did NOT say the term was inherently pejorative. It seems you were incorrect about that, too. deeceevoice 11:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"Any hack with a computer and an ISP can edit here." Indeed. As Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a single encyclopedia, not a collection of stand-alone articles, I suggest it would be sensible for any challenges to the content of the Miscegenation article to be dealt with there, not here. By the way, if people are concerned about Afro-American issues, what do they think of the article on The Confessions of Nat Turner? PatGallacher 18:21, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

About changes to miscegenation: as I said, I've already been there, done that. deeceevoice 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had another look at miscegenation and I still don't see any recent relevant changes by deeceevoice or anybody else. The most recent change was 8 September and not relevant to these issues. PatGallacher 22:06, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Are you blind? Take another look. My first changes were minimal, but substantive. I removed the language that identified the word as a pejorative. After your post, which I'm just reading, I later returned and did some further editing of the first few paragraphs -- but haven't bothered to read the entire article. I see that at least one other person raised the issue before me of the fact that the term is not inherently pejorative. deeceevoice 01:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Highly POV article

The NPOV tag is not only necessary for the reasons in the section immediately above but because the article completely is written in an attempt to advance the viewpoints of Afrocentrists at the cost of ignoring facts, expert oppinion and so forth. The "close up" Tut photo is extremely misleading, the claims about racial charactersitics of Egyptians are mostly nonsense, there is no list of objections to Afrocentrism, nor list of false claims they make (like Cleopatra mentioned above), nor the highly important mention that mainstream experts in all the various areas reject the views of Afrocentrists as being advanced by social identity concerns over using facts. This is one messed up article. DreamGuy 03:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be overly opinionated

...but, I have just peeked around a bit and I have seen that an editor (i.e. Deeceevoice) has been confronted by other WikiEditors not appreciative of her work. I personally think the article addressed very significant topics, and would be better if people would let DC finish the damn thing before all this crisis builds up. Yeah, I back deeceevoice on this one. Molotov (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur, SqueakBox 19:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. Deecee is not the owner of this article. It makes no sense to talk about her "finishing" it. She has no more right of to claim it than anyone else does. If you bother to check through the archives you will see how deecee has bullied and verbally abused other editors from her very first appearence here. Paul B 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is important, but that does not absolve ourselves of responsibility to make sure it is handled in a way that follows NPOV policy, and this article is not even close. "Finishing the damn thing" is not a criteria for allowing blatantly highly opinionated side-taking in an encyclopedia. Lots of editors are "not appreciative of her work" because it doesn't add any encyclopedic content but only is being used to advance an editorial view that the author holds, supporting this viewpoint and ignoring the large amount of criticism. This article is just the same as if a member of Scientology took over that article, claimed it was correct and uncontroversial and then did not allow a more accurate and fair (i.e. encyclopedic) overview of the topic. Deeceevoice has a clear agenda here, with edit comments here and elsewhere clearly indicating that she is a true believer that Egyptians were black and etc. This is not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. DreamGuy 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please assume good faith,SqueakBox 00:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith does not mean that when you see an editor post comments specifically indicating in no uncertain terms that he/she is adding certain things to articles to advance a clear agenda (in this case, that Ancient Egyptians were black, etc.) that you can just ignore it. A large number of editors have noted deeceevoice's bias here and especially on Ancient Egypt and Tutankhamun, while this article is a pure distillation of all the POV pushing he/she was trying to get away with there. If you would bother to go look at these conversations you would see this. I get that feeling that you and Molotov just showed up because you two have a history of false complaints against me. It's a shame that your bias would get in the way of looking clearly at what's going on here. Take a good hard look at the comments above, Talk:Ancient Egypt and Talk:Tutankhamun and then try to say what you are saying. Assuming good faith does not mean turning a blind eye to clear violations of NPOV policy, and frankly your comment is a llittle bizarre. Maybe you should assume good faith about my comments here. DreamGuy 04:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thinking I am here because of you is both arrogant conceit and shows bad faith. I have had this article on my watchlistr for 5 months, and I have hardly been stalking you all over wikipedia, SqueakBox 04:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW I have never made a false complaint against you, SqueakBox 05:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Therein lies the misconception that deecevoice carries with her with all the articles she "writes." That she has to "finish" them and other people are "getting in her way."

Misplaced Pages is a group effort. She doesn't want it to be. She wants the group effort to be minions sweeping up after her.

Trying to contribute to an article in and of itself is not a bad thing. Dancing all over the place with words because you're afrocentric is another.

Lockeownzj00 09:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because you say I operate in a particular manner, Lockjaws, does not make it so. If you didn't have such a bug up your azz about the truth and were not such a relative newcomer to this article, you would know that I have worked with contributors with differing viewpoints and even edited/clarified/improved portions of this piece that specifically address positions at odds with what I know to be the truth. It's called balance. Why don't you stop b*tching like some petulant child and behave like an adult? This is not about me. I have no power here. I am not an administrator. I am not a sysop -- or any of the other people with special positions or privileges on this website. I am simply an editor. And this piece is no different from any other article on Misplaced Pages. So, stop farting in the wind and come up off it. State precisely what your objections are to the article, and on what grounds you base them -- or shut the f*** up and move on. Your "afrocentrist" mantra is beyond tiresome. And you're beyond boring. As I repeatedly have done with other articles, I will attempt to address your specific concerns. I'm really busy at the moment, so if and when you come up with something substantive, don't expect an immediate reply. But this is an open invitation -- since you seem to think you need one.

So, shut up, bwoi, or come own widdit. Jes' brang it, dammit. deeceevoice 10:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole argument is pointless. If DreamGuy or Lock have a problem with the article they should (and freely can) edit it. This vague criticisms of alleged behaviour by one editor is thoroughly unpleasant and does not in any way contribute to bettering the article. The way these 2 non contributing editors have framed their arguments is little short of trolling. Breaking POV policy (if occurred) is not an excuse to launch an attack on another editor. DreamGuy seems to imply we must attack anyone who violates said NPOV policy, though I would like to see where that is policy, SqueakBox 16:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that this article is horribly biased and needs a thorough looking at, one that I do not have the time to adequately do. I was putting my support behind those editors who said that the article is extremely messed up. It's unfortunate that we have editors falsely trying to depict this as an effort against a person as compared to an effort against bad articles. In fact I think your actions here would far more accurately be described as trolling as the other comments, as you jumped in to protect some editor without knowing the facts and ignoring a very real problem with the article just because you have a personal problem with me. DreamGuy 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been following this article for 5 months. Your assertions are ridiculous, so let me state it clearly; my being here has nothing to do with our spat over the Girlvinyl Rfc. Please don't keep insinuating the rubbish that my being here has anything to do with that. To claim I am trolling for trying to protect an editor from unnecessary personal attacks is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the article and everything to do with not tolerating vague personal attacks against an experienced and good faith editor who has suffered racial abuse on this talk page in the past (why I put it on my watchlist). Stop thinking wikipedia or my contributions to it revolve around you, and do so now, SqueakBox 18:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I have been involved with this article for a long time (actually I created it in the first place, not that that means anything), but the emotional stress of trying to engage productively with Deecee given her ultra-aggressive manner and unrelenting POV has made every single editor who has attempted to involve themselves in the article withdraw. Racial abuse has been her stock in trade from the beginning. Check it. If you can find any contributors who have been as offensive as her in comments on this page, please feel free to find them. Paul B 22:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The tags were absurd in the first place -- and I've simply removed them. This article has remained virtually completely unchanged since the so-called "clean-up" tag was affixed to it a month ago. Why? Because the article is a quality one. It was sour grapes, to begin with -- as was w/Pat Gallagher's POV tag. And a glance at the talk page of Afrocentricity reveals substantial sentiment that the two articles should remain separate. There's been absolutely no credible challenge to any of the substantive information presented therein. Why? Because it's dead-on accurate. Poof. They're gone. deeceevoice 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just more deeceevoice disinfoming POV. Any MINOR change is reverted by deeceevoice almost immediately. Who would come in here and rewrite this things just to have it wiped out...over...and...over...again. Case in point, the fish-eye/macro lens King Tut Death mask. I hate to get into finger pointing, but deeceevoice was informed *numerous* times that it was not only POV (photographed to accentuate lips and nose and various proganthisms), but that it was copyrighted and therefore not allowed on wikipedia. Yet, deeceevoice continued to willfully post it, again, and again, and again, on more than one article, with repeated justifications that had already been proven illegitimate. So please, spare us the self righteousness. This is POV-pushing by perhaps the most prolific POV-pusher on wiki and is appropriately labeled. --155.91.19.73 01:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing but excuses

I offered other images of Tut for comparison which showed precisely the same features of the now absent Freeman Institute image and, later, the image offered by another editor, but ultimately accepted the image which now appears in the article. It is, after all, still clearly that of a blackman. :p And who made the change? Check the edit history, jerk. I did. And still no substantive changes to the article? Just some foolish attempts to change "pale" to "medium-tone," when, clearly, if the range of skin tones of indigenes for the region is from blue-black to dark brown to red-brown, brown and then to, possibly, tan and dark olive-toned (if they're mixed with outsiders), "medium-tone" would be -- and I'm being extremely generous here at least tan. Your remark in an edit note was precisely on point: this is the part of the "world where Charles Barkley is pale." And Charles Barkley is considerably darker than the pale Tut reconstruction. And guess what? I'm not the only one reverting such silly changes. Again, check the edit history.

For the last time: put up or shut up. Your infantile whining, your weak excuses, your groundless complaints and silly assertions are wasting our time. *x*deeceevoice 08:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Living in Honduras my perspective on skin tones has substantially changed from what it was living in White England. As we are an international encyclopedia dealing with an African issue we should keep the different perspectives of different communities in mind in our descriptions. We are not substantially writing for white Americans and Europeans, so I agree with Deecee on this point, SqueakBox 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the skin tone is 'middle' in some absolute sense in terms of world populations, but the fact that the creators of the image chose a "mid tone" in terms of the Egyptian population, as determined by experts in the field. You are not such an expert. Neither am I. Neither is Deeceevoice. Instead of trying to disprove the decision of the experts we should present the conclusions of those who are best qualified to judge what is a mid-tone in this context. If other experts disagree, we should report on that fact too. Paul B 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in to this argument, but I have been looking at the articles of king tut and still don't see how any picture of tut's death mask helps the people who complain about deeceevoice. It still looks like a black guy and people who say the Afrocentrism article is wrong than put what you think is right. The problem is that you can't refute truth and deeceevoice only speaks the truth otherwise people who think ancient egyptians were white would of refuted her long ago. You need to stop being a baby dream guy. You say what she put in the article is wrong than put something that is right. I have watched from the sidelines of people attacking deeceevoice from the king tut article to afrocentrism article and I realize that people who speak truth that people don't like to hear will be targeted by people like dream guy who are to stuck in what they believe to see the truth. Misplaced Pages needs more people like deeceevoice who puts nothing but truth forward. I see now the tags on afrocentrism have been removed and not any changes have been made except to put up a diffrent King Tut picture. Why complain so much about the article and then only change the picture, it seems that since you can't change what the article says people will grasp at anything just to feel good about themselves and complain about the picture. Just so people know any picture of the death mask looks like a black guy so if the people who think ancient egyptians were white feel more comfortable with that picture good for you, but it still looks like a black guy. When is people going to realize that you cannot argue the ancient egyptians were white using the 18th dynatsies as proof. Everything about this dynasty is black. The whole argument against deeceevoice is that she is pushing an agenda, well if pushing truth is wrong than I don't know what to say. Like I said before their is more evidence pointing to a black egypt than to a white egypt.

Flags

Flags like NPOV or Cleanup should not be lightly removed, I would remind all parties of the 3-revert rule, I may apply for this page to be protected. See comments from a while back for explanation of Cleanup flag. I will go into this in more detail later. PatGallacher 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you go into detail now about the clean-up tag. I can see no reason to include, and whereas there clearly is a dispute going the article is not clearly in need of a cleanup. In the midst of an edit war it seems somewhat provocative to place it there, SqueakBox 21:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You've tried with the clean-up flag, and it was removed. The flag was there for weeks, and no substantive changes to the article occurred -- because it doesn't need "cleaning up." The NPOV tag is equally groundless. Absolutely no one has come up with any substantive challenge to the fact presented therein. No one. You wanna call in an impartial admin to take a look? Be my guest. But as far as page protection? Protection of WHAT? There's no edit war going on. Just some sour-grapes grumbling and a totally unsubstantiated NPOV tag -- -- which I, yes, have removed again. There should be a penalty for its gratuitous use. You can't in good faith slap a clean-up or an NPOV tag on something because someone is saying the world is round and you think it's flat and have absolutely nothing to back it up and will not cannot provide an argument to support your views. The whiners have been invited repeatedly to come to the table with other, hard information that refutes the information provided in this piece. And they've come up with nothing but more whining and ad hominem attacks. Again, put up or shut up. Don't abuse/trivialize the wiki process. *x* deeceevoice 22:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just asked for protection to stop the endless reverts. It would give those who believe there is a genuine conflict to give details of their problems (disliking another editor is not enough) and those detailed objections can be answered, or if there are none the tag can be removed, SqueakBox 22:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately both DreamGuy and Deeceevoice are blocked over the 3RR. I have withdrawn my protection request. Please can we only put the NPOV flag on if we have substantial reasons for doing so, and express those reasons here on the talk page. I agre with Deecee that there don't appear to be any substantial debates about content going on that would justify an NPOV tag, SqueakBox 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is anything but quality. It's full of factual errors which I have not involved myself in trying to correct because of the sheer hassle of trying to get anything past. It also gives a completely distorted view of Afrocentrism, since it is almost wholly obsessed by the Black Egyptian concept to the exclusion of discussion of anything else. These points have all been raised here. Paul B 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To deal with the various issues here in what may be order of importance. I note that both Deeceevoice and DreamGuy have broken the 3RR within the past 24 hours. If either of them breaks it again then I will report this at the appropriate place and call for this article to be protected. As for the cleanup flag, it was me who placed this, as I did a few weeks ago. The reason was that in my view the biggest problem with this article is taking up a large amount of space raking over e.g. the details of Egyptian mummies is unbalancing what is overall a useful article. I suggest that we split this off into a seperate article "Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians" or something like that. I realise that this is a fairly drastic step, which is why I did not want to take it without general agreement, although if this step is taken I would be prepared to remove the cleanup flag, I am open to persuasion about how we proceed. As for the NPOV flag, I don't like to see this flag being removed lightly, it seems to me that other Wikipedians have put forward reasons for this, but I will study this dispute more carefully. PatGallacher 00:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with the structure of an article is not a reason to put a cleanup tag on it. That is a misuse of what a cleanup tag is for, SqueakBox 00:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW Deecee is blocked and DreamGuy didn't break the 3RR rule. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:DreamGuy, SqueakBox 00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Nubian wig

OK, I apologise for saying that Deecee made up the concept of the Nubian wig. It clearly is a term used to describe a common type of wig. However, I don't think it is correct to say that Tiye is depicted wearing one. As I already wrote - quite a while back - the brown colour that appears on the surface of the "hair" is in fact a glue that was used to keep a series of blue tiles on. In other words it is not a wig in a conventional sense, since it was intended to be a blue-coloured head-dress. Only a few of the tiles survive on the head-dress today, at the back. Paul B 22:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

in response to current events

deecee, you are in repeated violations of wiki policies. statements like For the last time: put up or shut up. and characterizations as infantile do not belong here any more than your previous comments about asian genitalia. now i see you have violated the 3R policy. please follow wiki policies if you'd like to contribute. your statements above should close any debate about the civility of your behavior.

to an earlier anonymouse editor, i am not pushing the view that tut was white -- i don't really CARE what race some teenager 3000 years ago was. egyptians had amazing technology, art and engineering, and there's no question they weren't lily-white. sub-saharan africans, europeans, asians, and meso and south americans also had amazing cultures, and, have ALL contributed to each other and everyone here knows that (australians didn't really come up with much other than the boomerang and didgeridoo) beyond that, I haven't done enough research to be confident in saying that he was one color or another, or if it is even possible to come to a conclusion on his skin tone. this area of wiki is especially helpless in this regard. deecee pushes her pov to such an extent it is hard to sort through what facts there are. you seem pretty confident that tut was black (as in sudanese), but that's really just a point of view. The wiki process is to state all POVs within reason, not silence dissent. within reason could be argued, but the typical example of things that are *not* within reason are people that believe the earth is flat.

the points about the death mask -- and you'll have to read the history and discussions to see this, not the article as it stands -- are that 1) it was POV-pushing. A *distorted* photo was used to emphasize features. The original mask may look like a sudanese man, or not, but if using a fisheye lens makes the nose and lips become larger, etc. It's common sense that undistorted images should be used. No one denies this image was distorted, but deecee continued to advocate its use, claiming many other photos that exist are distortions. In the process, she smeared photographers she knows little about that were probably taking the best photographs they could. 2) the distorted photo was copyrighted. wikipedia does not allow copyrighted material, that is indisputable. the point of this is so wikipedia content can be used by all sorts of organizations, including for-profit and print-media, without complications involving copyrights. deecee claimed the author allowed it on wiki, and maybe he did, but he wanted to maintain copyrights to it. when informed, deecee continued to post the image several times. i believe the image was finally deleted for copyright reasons. 1) alone should be enough to make you reconsider your statement about deecee only pushing truth.

as to this article being clean -- heck no it isn't clean. its all about egypt, from the sphynx at the top to the complaints about national geographic. there's more to afrocentrism than that.

why is it just the mask photo that has been getting attention? to me it was just the most obviously POV-pushing thing on the page. i thought it would be a pretty straightforward change to make -- the picture was *copyrighted*, for jimbo's sake -- but even this simple changed required a substantial, no TREMENDOUS, effort. deecee's pugnaciousness makes improvements nearly impossible.

i hope this makes sense. objections to deecee are not based on claiming that tut was white, but that she is pushing her POV, not facts, and stomping on wiki policies in the progress. specifically, posting copyrighted images *repeatedly* and acting in an uncivil manner towards anyone who opposes that POV. i expect many editors -- outside a core afrocentrist team whose identities are not difficult to discern -- feel the same way

--71.112.11.220 06:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Bullshyt. My responses are in the context of endless whining, ad hominem attacks and utterly groundless accusations of POV this and POV that. People impugn my motives and engage in such behavior, and I'm supposed to play nice? Ha! In ya dreams.

Get off the personal tip and deal with the article. You got anything substantive to add or change? We're all still waiting. And waiting. So far, again, you got nuthin'. deeceevoice 00:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is clean. It may not be how you like ity (there is an NPOPV trag) but to claim it needs cleaning up would mean it needed to conform to wiki layout, needed linkinhg properly, or something of the sort. If there is more to be added about Afrocentrism (and there may well be) that is a POV dispute, it is not a sign that the article needs a clean up tag, the only effect of wehich will be to asttract some poor editor who thinks the article needcds cleaning up, and will have to waste theior precious time until discovering that the cleanup notice is entirely bogus, SqueakBox 15:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki formatting does not make a clean article. Organization and relevancy are equally important. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Cleanup --71.112.11.220 15:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The "something of the sort" in this case is that a large amount of the article is taken up raking over the details of e.g. Ancient Egyptian mummies, which is unbalancing what is on the whole a useful article. For example, if the "History of Spain" article devoted an unduly large amount of space to the life of General Franco, I think most Wikipedians would accept that the best approach would be to give General Franco his own article. I propose to create a new article "Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians" or something similar, and shift the bulk of the relevant material there. If this step is taken then I am prepared to remove the cleanup flag. I realise that this is a fairly drastic step to take, so I will not do so immediately, but leave a week or so for people to consider this. However if we get into a revert war then I will call for this page to be protected. I notice a number of people have recently broken the 3 revert rule, I will raise this if they do it again. PatGallacher 23:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)