Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:18, 3 April 2006

This recent addition was made: the sphinx is a very cool thing as you get to see it

Some claim by hermetic calculation that a concomitant chamber exists under a Paw of the Sphinx which will reveal beyond doubt the validity of the Leo origen . This theory is associated with stellar declination measurements following a c 22,500 cycle and the inference has therefore been made that this function as giant clock could be the guide to the true message of the Sphinx . Associated claims that equally spaced temples above and under-sea around the globe of the Earth compose a clear single message from the Ancients :that Man must understand above all the extreme variation in climatic conditions caused by the earth's orbit from the sun .The supposed chamber in the rock under the Paw of the Sphinx is hollow and , they claim, out-of-bounds .

I've moved it out of the body to disscusion for these reasons:

1. "Some claim.." is suspect. It needs a source so we can see if the people making the claim are academic and notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages. Who makes this claim?
2. It doesnt make sense: "This theory is associated with stellar declination measurements following a c 22,500 cycle and the inference has therefore been made that this function as giant clock could be the guide to the true message of the Sphinx". I can't tell what this means or is saying.
3. "hermetic calculation" .. this needs more explanation on the use of the hermetic which has multiple meanings, or a link.
4. "They claim".. who is they?
5. "Out of bounds" Out of bounds from, or for, what/who?

--Stbalbach 02:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is the largest single stone statue? Isn't it a sculpture? What's the difference? When the Crazy Horse Monument is completed, is that going to be the largest single stone statue? How about Rushmore? Also, isn't there many stones on the Sphinx now, owing to poorly done refurbishments?

6000BC -- earlier or later?

In regards to this sentence:

it could have only been built no earlier than 6,000BC

Grammatically speaking, this sentence means the sphinx could not have been built before 6,000 BC (ie. it could not have been built in 10,500).. in the context of the rest of the paragraph, this makes no sense. Please explain the revert of the word "later" to "earlier". Stbalbach 05:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was reverted by an anonymous contributor, and I see no reason why we should allow it to remain phrased that way. Alexander 007 06:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Winter Solstice claim

"In 10,500 BC on the day of winter solstice the sun would have risen exactly between the paws of the sphinx". I've cleared up the grammar of the sentence, but I still don't understand its meaning. What point of view would cause the sun to appear to rise between the paws -- the point of view of the sphinx itself? Jpers36 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the entire passage, which is completely unsourced, as well as being confusing- it adds nothing informative to the article, and "some people say" is not really good enough. It read:

The lion shape may be in reference to the constellation of Leo. In 10,500 BC on the day of winter solstice the sun would have risen exactly between the paws of the sphinx. It was also the time when the equinox point was in the constellation of Leo. Some have speculated that the Great Sphinx was built to commemorate this event, though this would date the Sphinx at about 12,500 years old rather than the more commonly accepted figure of about 4,500 years old. Some people who believe this theory say that the Sphinx was originally a lion statue whose head became damaged somehow, and that the head was replaced thousands of years later by the Egyptians, which could explain why the head is disproportionate with respect to the body, and markedly less eroded.

Anyone wishing to reinstate could you please at least come up with some sources here first so that what is actually being claimed can be understood.--cjllw | TALK 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Khafre/Khufu

I've removed the following passage pending explanation:

" shares more physical similarities with it and was built by his son. When compared with statues of Khafre at the Cairo Museum, it is evident that the face on the Sphinx is different from the face on the statues."

What was built by his son and how do we know what "physical similarities" were shared by Khufu? AFAIK, we do not have his mummy or any known statue of him. Paul B 13:00, 28 June, (UTC)

Correction - there is a single tiny ivory statue. Hardly sufficient evidence on which to base a theory of facial resemblance. Paul B 14:30, 29 June, (UTC)

comments

deeceevoice.. adding edit rationales here since the comments will run out of room

1) resized image to fit with the others, i used a laptop screen so big images tend to mess up formating, its in line with the size of the other images on the page. 2) the largest and thought to be the most widely recognized monumental sculpture in the world. Who exactly thinks this? What about the statue of Sitting Bull, or Mount Rushmoore? Changed to less definitive. 3) After ordering the monument defaced, legend has it, the religious zealot was promptly hacked to death by outraged locals. .. ahh the famous "legend says".. its possible to say anything on Misplaced Pages with a "legend says". In fact there is a "Legend Says" prize awarded to article that use the phrase (as a joke of course). Can we remove this until it is sourced and given more context? What legend? Who said it? When, where? Has it been debunked? Stbalbach 17:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Alien origins

Anon user mentioned "some have speculated on alien origins". That may be true, but we need to expand that a bit with citations and qualifications if its to be included. Stbalbach 03:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Differentiating between water erosion and panleonine theories

The paragraph on water erosion seems to lump the geological theory in with the Panleonist theory, & I'd like to correct that. I'm listing the nature of the changes I'm making here so as hopefully not to spark any contorversy.

As it stands, the paragraph says that geologists have claimed the water erosion patterns demand a construction date no later than 6000BC, and then uses this to corroborate the panleonine date of 10500BC (implying, at least to me, that these geologists would agree with that). In reality, Egypt's last wet period ended sometime during the first thousand years of the dynastic period (Schoch, the leading water erosion theorist, says between 3000 and 2350BC; Encyclopedia Britannica says by the "end of the third millennium BC"). Based upon this date, I have seen geologists date the construction of the Sphinx to fifth or sixth millennia BC, and I have also seen panleonines such as Graham Hancock co-opt the geologists' water erosion evidence to buttress their own date of 10,500BC; I have not seen any geologists claim there is any geological evidence for a panleonine construction date (or even a date prior to 6000BC). In my view no mention of the panleonine dates belongs in the section on water erosion dating; any attempt to use water erosion dating as evidence for the panleonine theory should be confined to the panleonine section.

In addition to rewriting the water erosion paragraph, I'll also be adding Schoch's book as a reference and adding a link to this site about the relationship between the two theories. Also, the caption on the photograph in the Missing Nose section says the Sphinx is commonly thought to have been constructed in 4500BC; I'm guessing this is meant to say "4500 years ago" and will be changing it to such. Binabik80 00:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sphynx's nose

An older version of this article had this to say about how the Sphinx's nose was removed:

The Egyptain historian al-Maqrizi, writing in the 15th century, attributes the vandalism to Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr, a Sufi fanatic from the khanqah of Sa'id al-Su'ada. In 1378, outraged at the life-like representation of the human form, which is forbidden in Islam, Sa'im al-Dahr had the nose destroyed.. One account has it that Sa'im al-Dahr was set upon by enraged locals, hacked to death, and then buried near the Sphinx.

A more recent edit changed it to this account:

The Egyptain historian al-Maqrizi, writing in the 15th century, attributes the vandalism to Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr, a Sufi fanatic from the khanqah of Sa'id al-Su'ada. In 1378, upon finding the Egyptian peasants making offerings to the Sphinx hoping to increase their harvest, Sa'im al-Dahr was so outraged that he destroyed the nose. According to the same account, the enraged locals, who regarded the Sphinx as their god, lynched Sa'im al-Dahr.

Which is supported at this page. However I think we need an actual copy of Egyptain historian al-Maqrizi's text to verify what exactly he said as there are some discrepancies and its not possible to know for sure which is "correct". Hacked to death or lynched -- burning offerings or human images.. -- Stbalbach 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Afrocentric" section

It is well known that certain Afrocentric proponents use the Great Sphinx to support their theories of a Black Egypt. It is relevant to this article, along with the other theories contained in the article. This article is much more than just a description of the Sphinx, it also includes alternative theories about the Sphinx both current and historical, we even have a section already created listing other alternative theories, it fits in nicely. -- Stbalbach 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The additional sections all relate directly to the Sphinx. If you'd like to try your hand at editing the quote to remove de Volney's extrapolations about a black Egypt, then feel free. I have no objection. But including the business about the debate over the racial makeup of ancient Egypt in an article on the Sphinx is ridiculous and completely off-point. There's no more reason to include it here, than to include a discussion about the racial/ethnic makeup of the U.S. in an article about Mt. Rushmore. deeceevoice 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What policy exactly are you referring to? If you read our very own article Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians#Artistic arguments there is clearly a tradition of discussing the G Sphinx in these terms. Further a google search will verify a plentitude of websites that confirm it. It is notable, not original research, and verifiable. I'm not sure what other Misplaced Pages policy you want me to quote, that covers most of them. The example you gave of Mt. Rushmore is original research. But if something like that did exist outside of Misplaced Pages, than it would certainly be allowed in that article, per the rules of Misplaced Pages. -- Stbalbach 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about a "policy." I am speaking of what reasonably should be included in an article about a statue, a monument such as the Sphinx. The scholarly descriptions of the Sphinx as "Negroid" are accurate and valid and belong in an article about the Sphinx, just as descriptions about its height, length, composition, etc., are appropriate. If one were to read an article about, say, Mount Rushmore that described the countenances of the presidents --even in racial/anthropological terms, one would not expect a section in that article devoted to the racial/ethnic makeup of the United States. It simply has no bearing. Again, if you'd like to take a shot at editing out Volney's extrapolations regarding the racial identity of the Egyptian people of the time (which from my readings are, indeed, accurate) because you think they misrepresent the nature of dynastic Egypt, then have at it.

Now, about the last edit note: "If we're going to cover suppositions re 'racial identity', I don't see why it is 'irrelevant' to state that consensus allows a multi-racial profile, or that the alt view is minority op." The heart of the Volney and Schoch quotes is a description of the Sphinx itself, which is perfectly valid. I'll return to the text and see if I can make a decent edit, excising Volney's comments about "all Egyptians." I kind of half-heartedly attempted it when I made the initial insertion, but it read pretty badly, so I thought better of it. Too lazy, I guess. And if you don't like what I come up with -- again -- you're more than welcome to give it a shot. deeceevoice 15:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think the current version works, because it sticks solely to the description of the Sphinx and completely excludes Volney's observations about the rest of the Egyptian populace. I have no interest in getting into an edit war. If you still have a problem with the passage as it reads, kindly state your objections here and the rationale. Thanks. deeceevoice 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The scholarly descriptions of the Sphinx as "Negroid" are accurate and valid. The Volney quote by its self means nothing, it's just one non-specialists non-scientific views from 200 years ago, the Sphinx hasn't changed since then, it's of zero significance other then in the context of the Afrocentric debate. The quote has no scientific bearing. In fact without the Afrocentric context, on its own the quote is misleading. The other quote by Robert M. Schoch doesn't belong in the mainstream egyptology section of the article. Schoch is not an egyptologist and his views are generally not accepted as mainstream, he believes in a "lost civilization" and some other out-there ideas. If you want to include his quote in the Afrocentric section that's fine. It is plainly obvious your intent is to promote as fact the Afrocentric views that ancient Egyptians were black, rest assured that any such attempt will find its self wrapped securely in the context of Afrocentricism. -- Stbalbach 15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your response is ridiculous. The typical response of Eurocentrists to any mention of blackness in dynastic Egypt is met with cries of "Afrocentrism." There are numerous descriptions/characterizations of the Sphinx as "Negroid." No one can reasonably deny it. Here is another description, this one by Flaubert:

We stop before a Sphinx ; it fixes us with a terrifying stare. Its eyes still seem full of life; the left side is stained white by bird-droppings (the tip of the Pyramid of Khephren has the same long white stains); it exactly faces the rising sun, its head is grey, ears very large and protruding like a negro’s, its neck is eroded; from the front it is seen in its entirety thanks to great hollow dug in the sand; the fact that the nose is missing increases the flat, negroid effect. Besides, it was certainly Ethiopian; the lips are thick....

What makes the head of the Sphinx strikingly Africoid is the pronounced prognathism; the person portrayed could be a classic Dinka. The prognathism is clearly photographed in the photos featured in the photo gallery (taken by a white man, incidentally) that repeatedly has been deleted from this article completely without justification. (I note also, and with no small degree of amusement, that two photos in the second photo gallery, which was inserted repeatedly in place of the first, are virtually identical to two in the first gallery -- and show very clearly the prominent prognathism of the obviously Africoid head. One photo is, in fact, so nearly identical to another, that I had to compare the photos from both galleries side by side and search the shadowing in order to confirm they were taken by different photographers.)

I find it amusing that even Eurocentrists readily will admit that dynastic Egypt was black in its beginnings, but some become positively apoplectic when a monument of a black man dated, at the latest, to the Old Kingdom (and possibly earlier) is accurately described as "Negroid." Why is that -- when any respected scholar these days understands that dynastic Egypt certainly at least in its beginnings was, indeed, black African? And, hell. Not even Afrocentric scholars contend that dynastic Egypt was an all-black civilization all the time. But assuming the perfectly logical and evident presence of black people in an African nation, what's the big deal about describing a single monument/structure accurately as that of a black man? Somebody please 'splain dat 2 me. deeceevoice 15:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil, deeceevoice. Implying that other editors are "eurocentrists" and calling them "apoplectic" is not acceptable. Uncited judgements of prognathisms are inappropriate original research. Justforasecond 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. There's nothing incivil about my comments. What? They can call my perfectly reasonable additions Afrocentric, but I can't refer to a Eurocentric mind-set? Please. I've made no mention of prognathism in my edits in this particular matter. Further, "uncited judgements " and "inappropriate original research"? The prognathism of the Sphinx isn't a judgment call any more than seeing a circular object and calling it round is a judgment call. Prognathism is what it is, and it is what makes those who see it identify the Sphinx as clearly Negroid. Flaubert says as much, specifically describing the head as "protruding like a negro's." Further, I have worked to reach consensus in this regard and have made the necessary edits, when all the others have done is revert, revert and revert. You might do well to turn your critical eye in the opposite direction. deeceevoice 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any other editors calling you "apopletic". Others may mention Afrocentrism, but that is probably because of your insistence on inserting links to websites to known afrocentrist sites such as "returntoglory", containing skewed photos. Your discussion of matters on the talk page appreciated, but the reality is you've actually reverted at least as much as any other editors. Keep in mind that a revert war requires at least two editors. You are right that all editors need to remain civil. Justforasecond 01:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And who says the photos on this page are skewed? There's absolutely no basis to reject the photos included in the Sphinx photo gallery -- none.

And, "Others may mention Afrocentrism"? That's funny. Of course they do -- and they do it dismissivly, as though it's some kind of indictment, when the fact is I know of no credible Egytologist today who denies that the Sphinx is clearly Negroid in appearance, or that Egypt was, indeed, a black civilization at the presumed time of its construction. Further, it was I who grew tired of the constant reverting, even after remonstrating with the other editors on this talk page and receiving no response, and started to make accommodations in the text. Check the edit history. Clearly, a reality check is in order here. I'm done discussing this matter with you. Deeceevoice 17:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Black African theory

The issue is more simple, it is that some people see negroid features in the Sphinx. The implications of that are irrelevant to this article. However, not everyone sees negroid features in the face, it is a minority view. To that end Ive made some changes:

1. Removed the reference to "forensic studies" because they were not forensic studies. Unless there is a forensic report that can be shown, the phrase "forensic study" is original research.

• I have no problem with this change; I didn't write the verbiage. deeceevoice 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Removed the side profile picture that showed an elongated face, it is a manipulated image. Anyone who has seen the Sphinx in person knows it. The image source is not reliable per the reliable sources guideline.

• This image is virtually duplicated in the second photo gallery (discussed above), and are other images elsewhere, in 19th-century artists' renderings and contemorary photographs, which show the marked prognathism of the Sphinx. The image is restored. deeceevoice 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is there an image from a neutral source? That would remove reliable source issues. There are thousands of images of the Sphinx on the web from libraries, why pick one from a POV controversial website? The 19th C drawings were artistic embellishments based on prevailing racial and historical ideas of the time, when history was written on "pure race" lines and anyone who was from Africa was a "black African" - we know those drawings to be inaccurate because the Sphinx has not changed since then (other than restoration work). -- Stbalbach 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• The "returntoglory" (as if the name wasn't enough to hint at what you'd find...) photo appears to be stretched and the same website has been the source of other distorted photos that deeceevoice has inserted. Google for "sphinx profile" and many images come back. The ones I've looked at appear far less elongated. Here's one:

Justforasecond 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read your above comments in detail, but I'm laughing out loud at this photo. I love it. It's virtually identical to that on the RTG website. Both show a prognathism which juts at about a 60 angle. Classic Africoid. (In the classic Caucasoid phenotype, as well as in virtually all Caucasians, actually, there is a virtual plumb line from the skeletal upper lip area/root of nose to the base of the lower lip/the chin. In the Caucasoid phenotype, the plumb line actually extends from the bridge of the nose, through the root of the nose/upper lip, through to the chin line.. Note the "retreating zygomatics" line A and extend it upward to the bridge of the nose.) So, oh, do link to it, please. The image has both a maxillary and an alveolar prognathism, both highly pronounced, and is clearly -- clearly of a blackman. Just take a look at jutting profile. :p (See also photos of the classically Dinka face of Sudanese super model Alek Wek.), Same face, broad across the nasal area -- note the curve of the cheekbones -- same 60-degree prognathism. The only reason I used the image link from RTG in the text is because it's a close-up of the Sphinx profile that can be isolated, that the reader doesn't have to hunt for on a page with other images. If you want to change the link to to this one, hey, go for it. :) Done. I've already incorporated the link into the text. Gee, thanks, Justforasecond. I never thought I'd say this, but I guess you're good for something after all. :) deeceevoice 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Removed the "expressed astonishment" .. POV.

• The POV crept in because de Volney's reaction was characterized in such a manner in the source materials. Frankly, I don't doubt de Volney was astonished -- and a longer excerpt might have provided such evidence. But such text, if it exists, was not made available. So, that's cool. I have no problem with your change. deeceevoice 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Moved to a new header "Black African theory" since not everyone believes it to be the case it is a minority view, along with the other minority view theories.

• Who says it's the minority view? Show me reputable sources (not Stormfront websites) that say the Sphinx face isn't Negroid and photos that show otherwise. I've restored this info to its original place, more or less, and tweaked changed the subhead somewhat to accommodate it deeceevoice 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  The proof is on you to show whose view it is. The only evidence provided is a controversial American geologist and a 200-year old French explorer and "scholar", both of him were under the same out-dated polemic racial influences mentioned above. Neither are mainstream egyptology, they are minority views. -- Stbalbach 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely! And I have done so, attributing the observations presented therein and also providing links to applicable sources. You (or whoever wrote the language) characterized the "Negroid" nature of the Sphinx as a "minority view" -- without any source or reference, without any supporting documentation whatsoever. You would do well to heed your own advice. Deeceevoice 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No really it is you who has proved it's a minority view, all your sources are minority view sources. Majority view would represent mainstream egyptology in 2006. If your going to make these claims as being majority view than you need to back it up with majority view sources. -- Stbalbach 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the Negroid view is, as far as I know, the majority view. After all, a facial projection 30 degrees from vertical is pretty hard to overlook. :p I've provided quotes and citations. And there are others, but those are the ones I've provided, because they are convenient. Where are your authoritative, "majority" views to the contrary? :p Deeceevoice 22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

5. Removed characterization of Robert M. Schoch as a "notable sphinx scholar" - notable how? he is in fact a American geologist with no formal egyptology training and his work with the sphinx is highly controversial and even characterized as pseudo-science. He is notable for those reasons.--Stbalbach 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• That's fine. I found the guy on a couple of websites and references to some of his fairly pedestrian scholarship regarding the Sphinx and noted his affiliation with Boston University. deeceevoice 00:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The race speculations

The article HAS in fact been turned into an Afrocentric propaganda tract! The information about the "Negroid nature" of the Sphinx is now integrated into the text very casually as if it's part of commonly accepted scholarship! The piece by Schoch from which the quote in the article is taken was published in 'Fortean Times', which according to its site "is a monthly magazine of news, reviews and research on strange phenomena and experiences, curiosities, prodigies and portents." Not exactly a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Another quote is taken from a site dedicated entirely to the idea of a "Black" Egypt. Not exactly NPOV.

And the pictures of the Sphinx from the site by the guy who describes himself as a "workshop facilitator", "mentor to pro athletes", and "Corporate trainer," among other interesting things, most certainly HAVE been reworked to make the face look wider. The bottom five close-ups of the Sphinx's face at the Guardian's site are taken from different angles, and they are obviously not skewed toward any particular look. Judging by the photographs, it could reasonably be interpreted as any and each guess is as good as the other. Here's a shot of Schoch in front of the Sphinx . Here's an older picture

And what on Earth is this remark about: "This is based on direct observation of the Sphinx's facial features"? What "facial features" if half of them have been erased?? It's also said in such a way as to make these travelogue trivia anything special; as if the Sphinx hasn't been "directly" observed by countless others!! Besides, this is entirely in the eye of the beholder—it is a personal judgment based on a modern Western "observation". Much like the whole obscene "debate" over the race of the Egyptians!

I am reverting the page back to where the question of the Sphinx's "race" belongs to the Alternative Theories section — Zerida 06:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so. I visited the Guardian Sphinx photos. In the absolute side/profile shot of the Sphinx (full-body shot) on the left side of the page, the face is blurred, because the photo is taken from a distance. I copied and pasted the image and enlarged it. I invite you to do the same. I laughed aloud. You will see a blurred image -- yes -- but one that is undeniably Africoid. Check it out. Also, immediately under the "YOU DECIDE..." text in red, there is a profile shot that is clearly Africoid (again, the pronounced prognathism), and then underneath that there is a group of photos side by side. Of the top two, the one on the right is the closest to a profile shot, and it, again, clearly shows the prognathism -- as do several others, not so much by the angle from which the photos are taken (because there aren't many profile shots), but the shadowing clearly indicates a protruding face. I chose the link to the RTG photo gallery because it contains several close-ups of the Sphinx's head from different angles and several profile shots taken, presumably, with the express intent of accurately demonstrating the obvious and undeniable prognathism or "protruding" face (à la Flaubert's observation). They are most illustrative of the point made because they emphasize the head. Deeceevoice 18:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Sphinx's pronounced maxillary and alveolar prognathisms haven't been erased. Enough remains of the outlines of the lips to ascertain that they were full, and the face remains broad across the nasal area -- all tell-tale signs even forensic experts look for when determining racial/ethnic identity. What? You think all of the observations over the ages by all sorts of people about the Sphinx's "Negroid" appearance are hallucinations/fabrications? Hardly! Deeceevoice 18:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that people have been accustomed to Europeanized images of the Sphinx over the years and to a whitewashed approach to Egyptian history. Images of Europeanized sphinxes and the bombardment with fake Egyptian images have been ubiquitous, resuming in earnest with the Egyptomania of the 1920s, after the unearthing of Tut's tomb. And it hasn't stopped. Seen the sphinx at the Luxor hotel & casino in Vegas? The whitewashed French reconstruction of Tut with nearly white skin and hazel eyes? Remember white comedian Steve Martin's song about King Tut, his "favorite honky"? People are so accustomed to this pop culture crap/pap, that when confronted with the real deal, they scream "Afrocentrism." It's the difference between McDonald's and a real restaurant: feed versus food. Tragic that, given a choice, people prefer junk food to food for thought. Deeceevoice 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

racial identity

Some observers have characterized the Sphinx as "Negroid". Geologist and Boston University professor Robert M. Schoch observed that "…the face of the Sphinx apparently does not pertain to the same race as the face seen on statues of Khafre (the Sphinx has a distinctive 'African,' 'Nubian,' or 'Negroid' aspect which is lacking in the face of Khafre.)" Schoch notes the "Negroid" features of the Sphinx, but at the same time assumes that Khafre is of a different, unspecified race. However, William Petrie (1853-1942) identified Khafre as an Oromo, who are black African peoples.

There are several problems with this

• The context of Shoch's statement is ignored completely. This half-sentence is barely even relevant to the essay it comes form, which is Shoch recounting the controversy he claims to have caused with redating the Sphinx. Shoch was not concerned with the racial identity of the Sphinx -- he is trying to establish the Sphinx is not Khafre.

Whether the focus of the Schoch is primarily related to the dating of the Sphinx rather than its ethnic identity is not irrelevant. The point is this specific section is, and the Schoch passage in which he writes that it has a "Negroid aspect" is directly relevant. All that garbage about Khafre isn't particularly relevant, and I didn't introduce it; someone else did. I edited it out, and it was reinserted. So, rather than get into an edit war about it, I addressed the misinformation its addition introduced into the article -- that Khafre and the man portrayed by the Sphinx were somehow of different "races." The fact is, they are both black. Khafre is Oromo (Cushitic), and the Sphinx likely Dinka (Nilotic). I'm glad the entire passage about Schoch's silly theory about Khafre and the related Petrie stuff is gone. I agree. Utterly irrelevant. Deeceevoice 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• The statement from Petrie has little value. The point of the paragraph is to say 'The Sphinx has "negroid" characteristics, unlike Khafre' Adding Pietre's speculative information about Khafre adds nothing to the Sphinx characterization. It belongs in the Khafre article, if anywhere.

Complete agreement (see above). Deeceevoice 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• The "however...oromo...black African" presumes that Shoch equates "negroid" with "black African", but these terms are not equivalent. I haven't seen "black African" used much other than by deeceevoice, but she uses it mostly as sort of an all-encompassing term for anyone with dark skin from Africa, regardless of features of typical "negroid" features.

Uh, well, yeah. LOL Indigenous Africans with dark skin are black people. And that includes Ethiopians, Kenyans, Sudanese, Egyptians, etc. Particularly if you've got: enlarged incisors, alveolar and/or mandibular prognathism, rounded eye sockets, a dolichocephalic head. Hair texture and nasal indices vary among Nilotic blacks; but no one in their right mind would argue that the Cushites, Nilotics (like the Oromo, like the Ethiopians, like the Sudanese, like the Dinka -- who are throughout North Africa) aren't black peoples, aren't "Negroes." They certainly aren't Mongoloids, and they damn sure aren't Caucasians. Deeceevoice 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Shoch did not make this statement from any of his research, he is quoting a police "forensic expert" Frank Domingo. He later says the point, whether correct or not, is irrelevant to his conclusions

"This statement" is what? I don't know what you're referring to, but it's a moot point. The salient fact is he made a statement, or clearly agrees with the statement, that it has a "Negroid aspect."

• According to Shoch, the Sphinx was refurbished on multiple occassions, and that determining who the face resembles does not prove who constructed the Sphinx.

The issue in this section isn't who constructed the Sphinx; it is who the Sphinx depicts. And it obviously depicts a black man. Deeceevoice 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whoever inserted this information has completely ignored the meat of Shoch's work on the Sphinx. The reference to a prehistoric date for Sphinx construction, which is his primary concern is mentioned only ever so breifly. This seems, at the least, disingenuous. It reminds me of deeceevoice's inserting a distorted image link, and her previous insertion of a distorted image of king tut's golden mask.

The image link was not distorted and is virtually identical in every respect to the one I happily substituted from another website -- chosen by another editor. I didn't write any of the text related to dating. Get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers. :p Deeceevoice 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Shoch is described in terms that make him sound scholarly. The sphinx essay seems good enough, but the other quackery he's put online makes him a questionable source. Notice how a certain editor thinks he Shoch should only be described in terms that imply credibility.

No. That "certain editor" thinks Schoch's affiliation with a mainstream university should be duly noted and that whatever Schoch believes about erosion theory, or Khafre being of another "race," or Bush's foreign policy agenda, or the possibility of life on Mars, Brangelina, or the price of rice is simply needless clutter. Deeceevoice 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

haha. we had a run of agreement going for a while there. the man writes about aliens, crop circles and lost civilizations....well anyway, since it wasn't schoch who decided the sphinx was "negroid" (it was apparently NY forensics expert frank domingo) and since this isn't really what he was working on, maybe we could remove his name altogether and just refer to the primary source. Justforasecond 05:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I saw the man's name in connection with the Sphinx only and his BU connection. But the Africoid characteristics of the Sphinx confirmed by a forensics expert? (Not some "Afrocentrist" black person with an agenda?) I won't gloat, but I told you so. :p Again, if you want to see what the Spinx looked like with its nose, take a look at Alek Wek: classic Dinka. And, yep. I'm for using the original source. After all, forensics is a science and, from what others say, Schoch is, uh ... "outside". Deeceevoice 08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Shoch's essay about the spinx(not the essay about the essay) is here:

-Justforasecond 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made the appropriate changes in this section, excising all reference to Schoch -- including his silly speculation that Khafre is of a different "race" than the subject portrayed in the Sphinx. I dug up some info on Domingo, as well as a Harvard professor and orthodontist to corroborate Domingo's findings. Deeceevoice 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

material about khafre

This theory is based on the circumstantial evidence that Khafre's pyramid is behind the Sphinx when approched from modern Cairo. Further, the political center of ancient Egypt was Memphis, south of the Giza plateau, and so when approching from Memphis, the Sphinx is seen in profile in front of the Great Pyramid of Khufu.

This seems as an attempt to prove that the sphinx is Khufu, not Khafre, but by wiki policies this needs to be researched by someone else and preferably cited. Even if the part about the profile is true, it is irrelevant unless some reliable source has used it as proof that the sphinx is a rendering of Khufu. And of course, even if this exists, it should be used in a balanced fashion. A quick google search seems to indicate the predominant view is that the Sphinx is Khafre or his older brother.

As ethnicity seems to be a recurring issue here, I wouldn't be completely surprised if the Khufu claim is being used because he has been described as more "negroid" (than his own sons!)

Justforasecond 06:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Afrocentrists around every corner editing with nefarious intent, eh? :p Don't know about that theory, JFAS. Why don't you ask the person who introduced the information months ago? Better yet, why not ask Vassil Dobrev?

And about your ridiculing the notion that Khufu was "more 'egroid (than his own sons!)": what? You mean like O.J. Simpson and his fair-skinned, blond children? Of course, that's impossible! No reputable scholar on the planet of whom I am aware pretends that Khufu was anything other than a black man. He is of the Old Kingdom. His mother was from Dhashur in the South. But Khufu had, if memory serves, three wives, one thought to be from Syria. So, a Negroid black man can't produce less Negroid-looking children? What? Just look around. It's happening every day. :pDeeceevoice 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I didn't catch they were different names (Khufu/Khafre), removed. -- Stbalbach 07:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an issue with a previously blocked/Arbcom subject making mischievous edits in this and other ancient Egypt related articles. Users who can watch this article, closely related ones, and help watch for subtle (POV, "original research" edit creep) edits over a period of time would help quite a bit.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-13 07:39Z

(Gasp) I've been blocked!!? Before the Arbcom? Gee, maybe I should take a number and get in line.... :p Some advice: try sticking to article content, which is the matter at hand. Deeceevoice 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason King Khafre is thought to be the person behind the Sphinx is mainly because Tuthmosis IV's stele actually mentions him by name . This is not indicated in the Misplaced Pages article as far as I can see. So while it's not known with certainty (and probably never will be), indeed, the most widely held view by Egyptologists is that the Sphinx represents Khafra, and so it's not frequently debated except by the new age crowds and other fringe groups. It's believed that Khafre ordered the construction of the Sphinx using the blocks of stone left behind during the quarrying of the Giza Plateau for King Khufu's pyramid. Also, the article doesn't seem to mention that the Sphinx came to be identified thoughout much of its history with the god Horemakhet (Horus-on-the-Horizon). I'm tempted to added this information to the text and also include the Maqrizi quote that was earlier requested, but in anticipation of the page being hacked beyond pale soon thereafter, it's probably not a wise idea. It's sad that in the last few days the only contributions made have been about the extremely tired and offensive subject of the "race" of the Sphinx and ancient Egyptians. — Zerida 08:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that you'll add what you can to this article despite the problems with a couple of people who on occasion drop by and disrupt this effort. I've previously noticed and responded to your helpful contributions to articles related to this (no objections here whatsoever!) and hope that the periodic "interruptions" to these articles don't dissuade anyone from doing their best to make them as accurate and informative as possible despite the chance that creeping POV can cause "bad" reverts.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-13 08:49Z

"Assume good faith." Watch it, guy. Keep it up, and you'll be before the Arbcom. :p Deeceevoice 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are around 1,000,000 (yes, '1 MILLION editors') and I have no idea of why you would think that chance or your self-importance would make you important enough to be specifically targeted because a few minor edits.

It is good advice in my opinion to not believe everything said about a person unless the listener is that same person and knows that they are true.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-14 09:39Z

Whew. Well, gee. That takes a load off my mind. I'm so glad to know that you're not obsessing. :p Deeceevoice 12:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I also hope you will add it. I've watched this article for about a year and have not seen any serious vandalism, that section about background is at least a year old. The current activity with alternative theories on ethnicity is allowed under Misplaced Pages rules, but the main part of the article really could be improved on by someone who knows more about it. -- Stbalbach 15:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The section treating descriptions of the Sphinx is perfectly in keeping with an article on this subject. Further, the black identity of the Sphinx isn't seriously in question. Ubiquitous Europeanized depictions of the monument aside, the ethnicity of the Sphinx is so obvious to those who know what to look for, it isn't even a matter of debate these days among respected Egyptologists/historians. I'm still waiting for a contemporary, "majority" viewpoint stating otherwise. :p Deeceevoice 06:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

the black identity of the Sphinx isn't seriously in question - what's in question is, what "black" means. Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined. There is more genetic diversity in some cases between villages than in all of Europe. We know this from genetic analysis. This idea of a people who are "black", from 3000 years ago, is meaningless and fruitless from a scientific standpoint; it only has significance to 21st century politics for some groups. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Black" as in being a dead ringer for a modern-day Dinka. "Black" as in human beings haven't changed a whole hell of a lot in 3,000 years. "Black" as in indigenous, pure black African, as in "black" before Semitic invaders. Blue-black-"black" as in a lot of the Nilotic peoples of the Nile Valley today, still. And, yes. The blackness of the Sphinx still has relevance as long as there are racists, like Zahi Hawass who, with the imprimatur of the Arab Egyptian government, continues to attempt to whitewash Egyptian history and sell us on a pale-skinned, hazel-eyed King Tut. While an Arab government keeps the indigenous blacks of Egypt -- the Fellahin -- like third-class citizens, with Arabs shouting racist insults at visiting Africans in the streets. As long as there is the Arab slave trade in black Africans, as long as Arabs (many of them, in truth, black Africans themselves) who have internalized the sickness of white supremacy and race hatred as self-loathing and victimize other blacks; as long as a single one of their miserable victims views their blackness as a curse, a stigma; as long as there are people weaned on Eurocentric lies and Europeanized/whitewashed images, who feel compelled to scream "Afrocentrism" at any mention of blackness in dynastic Egypt; and, hell, as long as there is a desire for the truth, there will be a need to set the historical record straight. And, like it or not, that's why I'm here. Deeceevoice 20:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now now, it isn't polite to go around calling people racists. I saw Hawass on TV, he seemed to be a well-informed and behaved quite gentlemanly. As Arabs have been in Egypt for at least a thousand years it's probably time to acknowledge that they are Egyptian.

What? You think all racists are inbred rednecks? Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson were all white supremacists, and two of them were slaveholders -- but I don't think they were known for being crude or impolite. White southerns here in the U.S. were known for their "southern hospitality" -- but they, too, held slaves and some treated them most cruelly. What's your point? And of course Hawass is Egyptian. I never said he wasn't. "Egyptian" refers to a nationality -- not ethnicity. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If the face of the Sphinx depicts a black man I don't see any problem mentioning it, though it doesn't seem there is really enough evidence to say, and I don't see a lot of argument on pages about other statues arguing over their ethnicity.

The evidence is there in plain sight -- as numerous observers through the ages have recorded, and for us to see for ourselves. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- A novelist deciding the Sphinx is obviously Ethiopian thousands of years later hardly proves anything. He's a NOVELIST

Then, what do you have to say to the forensic expert referred to above by JustforaSecond? Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- Eminent academic Schoch thinks the Sphinx is Nubian. He also thinks the Sphinx is female. He also believes in aliens.

You haven't read this discussion in its entirety -- have you? Obviously not. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- Police forensic experts aren't really trained in the art of determining ethnicity of vandalized 3,000 year old statues. The Kennewick Man episode illustrates that even highly trained folks can disagree for decades about ethnicities.

Again, the facial projection, or prognathism, of the Sphinx hasn't changed across the millennia -- and that is the critical element in the ascertainment of race. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- We don't know that the sphinx depicts anyone in particular, let alone accurately.

No, we don't know who it is, but it's certainly possible to say what it is -- and that's a black man. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

- Here's what the Sphinx would have looked like if it were an accurate depiction of Ramses. Is this a "black african" profile?

I've seen this website. This guy's an idiot who doesn't know anything about Egyptology. Clearly, the nose doesn't fit the face -- at all. He's stuck a hooked nose with a narrow nasal index (of the type found in many Nilotic blacks) on a sculpture which is clearly classically Negroid (as in the classic Negroid phenotype). Put Alek Wek's nose on the thing, and we're in business. That makes sense. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just revisited this website (I hadn't before I replied above). And, frankly, the side profile of the statute does, indeed look like a black African profile. I know and have seen plenty black people with this sort of profile. And check the face, wide across cheekbones. Classic Africoid. Most definitely. :p But I'd still bet money that the Sphinx's nose was closer to that of Wek. Deeceevoice 13:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case it is an interesting discussion, just try to steer clear of incivility, original research and speculation. And please, deeceevoice, don't attempt to insert distorted images or links to them such as the Sphinx profile and the King tut death mask. It just discredits you and causes unnecessary conflict. -Justforasecond 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing distorted about the images here. You've produced absolutely no information to suggest that they are -- just a groundless accusation. You would do well -- again -- to heed your own advice. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Richard Wright once wrote "No American Negro exists, who does not have his private Bigger Thomas living in his skull." Wright might expand to include the Sphinx too- even if there was conclusive proof the statue is Nubian/Negroid/Bantu/Coloured, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the unfortunate situation in Africa with human rights abuses. -- Stbalbach 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read anything by Wright, but I can tell you that Baldwin made similar statements. Any person who has been despised, ignored, targeted, hated, discriminated against, downtrodden, denied opportunity unjustly because of his race (or any other reason/excuse) has the potential for anger and violence. That was Bigger Thomas -- but he has nothing to do with this discussion -- and certainly not with the Sphinx. There was a completely different historical, social and political dynamic at work in a black African nation (in the Sphinx's time) ruled by black Africans. I may miss your point, but from what I can see, there's no connection whatsoever.

My comments speak simply to the reclamation of a people's history -- for its own sake, but also to the importance of a people knowing their own past -- and their inherent, innate right to know and to claim that past. This is particularly important for a degraded and despised people, because one gains strength, vision, purpose and a sense of self from, in part, the example set by one's ancestors. Plain and simple. I had a discussion w/an Egyptian cabbie about this very issue. He looked kind of like a dark-skinned Omar Sharif (only more Africoid) and was known as a "fellah" in the country of his birth. He spoke despairingly and surprisingly openly of the "inferiority complex" he and his countrymen have under the Arab regime. He had a kind of inchoate sense of the truth of his people's history, but felt overwhelmed by the crush of propaganda and at a loss as to what to do about it. Sad as hell when a people don't know fully their own history or understand the means by which they can empower themselves. Deeceevoice 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

voice of restraint

This looks more like a debate group or forum than an encyclopedia, but I´d like to add my input. It doesn´t really matter whether the one depicted in the sphinx was a Negro, since the ancient Egyptian population and even now, has always been mixed and there have been all kinds of "racial types" in it, equally wrong are Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists, both extreme and unreasonable positions.

I suggest the material in

http://www.geocities.com/duarta/index7.html

might be useful to clarify things,someof it is in French, most though is in English. I sign: A VOICE OF RESTRAINT. —This unsigned comment was added by 201.217.142.139 (talk • contribs) .

The distinctly Africoid characteristics of the person portrayed are significant, because many images of the Giza sphinx have been misrepresented/Europeanized. Further, to provide such descriptive information is as legitimate and reasonable (as with any other monument/work of art) as providing any other factual information, such as the subject's gender, the length and height of the structure, etc. It is descriptive -- nothing more. What one chooses to infer from that information is another thing entirely. But to deliberately omit (or delete) it would be unwarranted. That has nothing to do with "restraint" or being "reasonable," but everything to do with censorship. Deeceevoice 14:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how you guys will pre-emptively strike deeceevoice down, i will take this issue up. Firstly. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the african/africoid aspects of any people, group, or scuplture anywhere in the world where the tendacy exists. The sphinx definitely shows those characteristiscs. There is no reason to cry out for restraint regarding something that in an unbiased perspective, requires no restraint due to its mere mention. She had a good reference. Put it back, and her comments. Stop with the "anything mentioned as black is a lightning rod of controversy in Egyptian history" routine. It's old, it's tired, its annoying. - Zaph --208.254.174.148 05:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The old tired game

what's in question is, what "black" means. Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined. There is more genetic diversity in some cases between villages than in all of Europe. We know this from genetic analysis. This idea of a people who are "black", from 3000 years ago, is meaningless and fruitless from a scientific standpoint; it only has significance to 21st century politics for some groups. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (partial quote taken from thread above)

I am so sick and tired of this silly game. If you white racists want to take ownership of a culture or legacy, your definition of black becomes more restrictive. If you have disdain for an individual or a group of people, your definition of black becomes more nebulous. It's certainly meaningless, however in the context of Egypt, you can't explain the similarities between Egyptians and Nubians and Kushites and say "oh what a coiencidence, those non-black Egyptians have characteristics that other black people have too." Why don't you guys debate Dienekes Pontikos who swears that the Greeks are white Indo-Europeans. The issue is clear, Egyptians are a part of a Nilo-Saharic group, not a Semetic, or European group. The Nilo-Saharic groups are a predominantly Black-Negroid group. Not a Caucasoid group. But of course Caucasoids have been redefinied (from their original Azerbaijan/Georgian origin) to encompass people from RWANDA to East India. So those groups with their 20th and 19th century politics, are the ones who really need correction. Don't make me come back in here. - Zaph

Suggest taking it up at Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians, sounds like a bigger problem than the Great Sphinx. -- Stbalbach 07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that is not working out. Although there are innumerable pictures of sculptures, mummies, and frescoes of Egyptians that look obviously Black, others contend that this is due to "marfan's syndrome, symbolism, tanning, and everything else but the obvious". This is why I believe the Eurocentric position is one of a psychological nature and not an objective disagreement. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zaph, have you noticed that they keep moving the subject of the Sphinx's ethnicity down the page to the section under the subhead "Alternative theories"? It's ridiculous/sick. The section deals specifically with a descriptive element of the sphinx and is not a "theory." The section belongs squarely under "Description." Deeceevoice 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Race that ruled Egypt

I can't understand why you are arguing about the facial features of the Great Sphinx. The really interesting fact is that Ancient Egypt was ruled by a race with the heads like humans and the bodies like lions. Rich Farmbrough 17:10 27 March 2006 (UTC).

Funny. Deeceevoice 19:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

More seriously the citeation seems to be back to Sgt. Domingo's findings, in West's, Serpent in the Sky (1993), pp. 230-232.. Perhaps someone has access to this? Rich Farmbrough 14:34 28 March 2006 (UTC).]

I don't -- which is my I used the source I did. Either way, I'm confident it says the same thing. It's a blackman. :p Deeceevoice 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The sphinx's ethnicity an "alternative theory"? Not!

Again, there is absolutely NO REASON to place this section under that subheading; it properly belongs under "Description," because it deals with descriptions of the physical likeness.

If this is a so-called "alternative theory," then someone please kindly state for me the corollary theory -- with citations. Otherwise, it's going back under "Description." Deeceevoice 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As you well know, because you have participated, there are many variations of theories at Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians, the Talk there as well as the talk archives and . There are many citations there for the differing views that you can review.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-28 18:18Z

Excuse me. Discernment. This article is about a single monument. It doesn't have jack to do with the race of the ancient Egyptians -- any more than an article about, say, statues of flying pigs in Cincinatti automatically says that Cincinnati (or the U.S. at large) is a nation populated by flying swine. What about that is so hard for you to grasp? Now if people (correctly) want to on their own extrapolate from the existence of a huge, honking statue in North Africa glorifying an obviously very Africoid person that ancient Egypt was black, hey, I'm certainly not going to stop them. Because it's true. :p But nowhere -- nowhere -- does the article make that assertion. So much for that "alternative theories" nonsense. Deeceevoice 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed a couple of equal signs and now the Ethnicity section is a SEPERATE section than the Alternative Theories. If someone else wants to force the Sphinx's ethnicity to be itself an "alternate" theory, they will have to bring a compelling reason to do so first. We all know that the racial issue regarding the Egyptians is not "alternative".... this isn't about Aliens, or Atlantis. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't push it because it is splitting the difference, is a good compromise with Deeceevoice, and not a major issue to me because I actually don't have anything specifically against that theory.

Hopefully we can now move on and improve the article in general.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-28 18:28Z

And how is it a compromise? Your insistence -- and that of others -- on placing it under an "alternative theory" as if it's some crackpot notion, designed to discredit the fundamental and obvious blackness of the image was the central issue. And you were flat-out wrong. As I stated before, there was absolutely no justification for it being placed under that subhead -- except, IMO, those with a problem with what its existence implies: a black Egypt. And you persist in calling it a "theory" -- when it is no such thing. The bottom line is that the information I introduced -- along with a link to a very Africoid photographic image -- is well-documented, and it stands. *x* And you haven't produced a scintilla of evidence to support your previous position. "Compromise"? Hardly. Deeceevoice 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling me racist is bad enough. Making things up to support that serious accusation is much much more bothersome to me. To top it off, I've been attempting to work with you, not against.

I have made 9 edits to this article. 2 of them were general clean-up edits without content change. 1 was a vandalism revert. 1 was a revert of your change in the picture size at the top of the article. 1 was a revert where I was then reverted by someone else and then you switched the article back to my last version. 1 revert was my removal of the Black African section with the comment rm section, it should not be seperate, belongs in the parent section because I felt that it needed to be worked into the main section as well as be written less negatively. 2 other reverts were were the ones I did today where all I asked is that you come here to talk about this issue. 1 edit was removing = from the Missing Nose to move it into the main body of the article.

In summary, instead of discussing the issue about your wish to move that section to the top of the article, you instead attack me by trying to use false information to make it look like I've been purposely doing racist edits in this article.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-28 20:08Z

And who the hell called you "racist"? Exactly where have I used that word in this piece? And where have I used it to describe you? Further, you earlier charged me with purposefully inserting POV material into articles related to ancient Egypt here on this page -- and then proceeded to go along with a highly POV categorization of the information about the sphinx's ethnicity as an "alternative theory." And who is engaging in POV edits here? Certainly not me. You make up a charge I did not level -- and still you haven't even tried to produce any justification for sticking the info about the Sphinx's clearly Africoid appearance (which I had to fight to include at all) at the bottom of the page under some b.s. title that essentially labels it a crackpot theory. No. You will not use some trumped-up label of your own making to distract from that central issue. Your edit in this regard was POV here and totally without merit. Not mine. There was no compromise here -- because your position was grossly incorrect and decidedly POV. Deeceevoice 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And who started off on the wrong foot here with the catty/b*tchy allusions to the Arb Com, etc? Certainly not I. And you're the one making the POV edits here -- again, not I. You wanna complain that you've somehow been wronged? Tell it to someone who cares. "Racist"? Ha! You didn't read it from me. But POV? Hell, yeah. And "... written less negatively"? What? Further, you reverted my edits, claiming some sort of bogus "consensus" which was never reached; it was simply two separate editors with an agenda -- and, like you, absolutely no justification -- ganging up/tag teaming to revert my edits to avoid a 3RR violation. You should know better. Deeceevoice 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Your only response is to complain that I interrupted your comments? ROTFLMAO. Deeceevoice 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My friend, the discussion ABOUT his ethnicity is not a theory. A theory is something that is presented that has no precedent before it (hence it is THEORIZED). There is no theoretical position to take in regards to whether or not his face looks like a black man's face. We can all see the sloping cheeks, the forehead and what not. I don't care either WHERE in the article it is, I care that it is not considered a "theory" because, the discussion of his ethnicity... well it's not a theory. It is a sub-topic all in itself. In fact, you just made me realize. This issue of his ethnicity is far more appropriate under the section regarding his origin. Obviously that relates much more than about some wacky theories. Deeceevoice isn't being unreasonable. Please don't move it back. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In light of Deeceevoices racial accusations vs my actual edits in this article, do you really believe that Deeceevoice is being reasonable?

Is is possible that what you wrote above was in any way effected by the belief that I have been acting in a racist manner here?

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-28 20:20Z

My "racial accusations"? Another falsehood. Stop attributing words to me I clearly did not write, Guy. I wrote no such thing. Crying wolf to distract from your utterly unjustified POV editing of this piece won't work. You were in the wrong in the way you approached my edits here from the git-go. And you were wrong in putting the material on the sphinx's blackness under "Alternative theories." You haven't offered any credible justification for it -- because you can't. Period. Deeceevoice 21:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"This issue of his ethnicity is far more appropriate under the section regarding his origin."

I agree with your view on this matter regarding placing it under the origin. The article flows well and more coherently with this overall ordering of the sections.

Thanks, —-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-28 20:48Z

I am pasting my comments here as well. There is no consensus if the claims are based on detective Domingo, who also thinks Khafra is "proto-European"!!! Find a mainstream Egyptologist who corroborates this stuff. It shouldn't be hard if true, since several Pharaohs are known to have both Egyptian-Nubian origins — Zerida 22:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The opinions of Domingo and Peck qualify as expert opinions, as their findings deal with skull morphology and racial/ethnic identification -- and nothing else. If the sphinx were located in France, their conclusions regarding the faciocranial characteristics of the sphinx would be the same, so your insistence that the expert opinion come from an Egyptologist doesn't hold water. Domingo and Peck's opinions and their qualifications are documented in the piece. Again, if theirs is an "alternative theory," as the subhead alleges, then you must state convincingly, and utilizing also expert opinion, why this is so. Unless and until you do, the information is correctly placed separate and apart from that subhead. So far, there are three contributors who agree on the matter: Zaph, Guy, and me. That leaves you clearly outvoted -- and with no legitimate basis for your objection. Unless and until you have additional information to bring to bear on the matter, the passage should remain where it has been agreed it should remain.

Further, I would argue that even in the highly unlikely event you are able to find a credible source that refutes the findings of several observers throughout history, some utilizing modern scientific knowledge and technology to come to their conclusions, such information still would not place this information under "alternative theories." This is about the appearance of the monument and is a matter of objective observation. It doesn't theorize anything -- not about age, or origin, or identity, etc. You cannot dismiss expert opinion simply because you disagree with it. Again, bluntly put, "put up or shut up." Deeceevoice 22:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that I am not part of any group against *whoever* and am not voting. My edit history here and in the article back up that assertion. My wish is to get this article at least somewhat stable compared to how it has been.

My view is that we need to work from a basic layout agreement and then work on the details of each section. Going back and forth from the details to the Big Picture is only making this article a much more problematic mess than it needs to be.

It's just my opinion, but IMO it's at least a planned strategy instead of reverts of details as well as major layout revisions, rinse, lather, repeat over and over again.

We are close to getting a basic layout settled. Let's get that done and then deal with separate section details that might be disputed.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-29 00:11Z

That Guy: "I'd just like to mention that I am not part of any group against *whoever* and am not voting. My edit history here and in the article back up that assertion."

Excuse me? Check just a few lines up and you will see:

"This issue of his ethnicity is far more appropriate under the section regarding his origin."

I agree with your view on this matter regarding placing it under the origin. The article flows well and more coherently with this overall ordering of the sections.

Thanks, —-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-28 20:48Z

What the hay-o? Deeceevoice 20:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the sphinx, or anybody for that matter is not something to be considered as an "alternative theory". I will hold vigil on the article and restore the position indefinitely and report the three revert rule to the moderators. His ethnicity is a part of his origin and background, it is not a part of an unrelated "theory". I do not care if the user reverting is a modern day Egyptian or not. Being a white american does not make one an expert on Native American history. --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"... close to getting a basic layout settled"? And you accomplish that aim by sneaking off to administrators to request that the page be protected while pretending here to be satisfied with a "compromise"? So much for reasoned discourse and "work together and get back to improving" the project. *x* Deeceevoice 08:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrators do not take page protection lightly and even requests for the much lesser semi-protection are regularly denied.

Editors can use this time to calm down and try work together in a much more productive manner.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-29 09:28Z

Still nothing from you of substance about your actions, huh? I expected as much. Further, there has been absolutely nothing in the way of substantive information added to the discussion -- and certainly nothing by you -- central to this issue since well before the page was locked down. Absolutely nothing has changed. You haven't offered any credible explanation for your earlier POV revert, nor has the edit warrior Zerida done so. You haven't explained, or had the integrity to recant, your utterly false accusation that I called you a racist. You entered this discussion with catty/b*tchy comments about me and the ArbCom and groundless charges of "Afrocentrism." Your deliberate use on the Request for Protection page of a word I immediately edited out of my own earlier comments, because you wanted something to whine about was a cheap shot, because you're grasping at straws. Your action, which was to ask for page protection after feigning "compromise" has done nothing but inflame the situation. So much for productivity. IMO, you've got zero credibility in that regard. Deeceevoice 09:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about Afrocentrism except for that word in this sentence. A simple text search shows that you are making that up.

• Fact: you are the one who has been deceitful about wanting to work out a consensus.
• Fact: You want to shove your specific version of the article down the throat of every editor here.

This article has major problems primarily because of you actions. That is a Fact.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-30 19:29Z

Facts:

• If you will check the edit history, I have repeatedly worked with editors here to improve the article.
• YOU are the one who started out with the the veiled, catty, b*tchy personal attacks on this page, referring to the Arb Com and charging me with making " mischievous edits in this and other ancient Egypt related articles."
• YOU are the one who flat-out lied about me calling you a "racist."
• I introduced the extremely interesting information about the ethnic identity of the sphinx -- which adds immeasurably to the information and interest of the article -- and I have withstood constant attacks about it, because it is important and noteworthy. And I have provided expert opinion, as well as historical observations to back up that information. All the detractors have done, on the other hand, is carp and whine and point fingers.
• YOU agreed to a change (stating, "This issue of his ethnicity is far more appropriate under the section regarding his origin.") and then not only backed away from it, ran to have the page locked and then claimed you weren't "voting". What? Are you now trying to pretend you never agreed to the relocation of the "ethnicity" information at all?
• This article has been vastly improved by my additions. The problem is the obstructionist behavior of a few edit warriors who seem to have major objections to the mention of a massive, ancient monument to a blackman in an African nation. Hey, not my problem. All I can do is present the facts and documentation and, when confronted, challenge the critics and POV edit warriors to do the same. That they haven't risen to the challenge says volumes. :p Deeceevoice 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I had previously tried to work on getting a consensus going by agreeing to two different versions of the page. Now, I realize that you intentions oppose a consensus and I am considering some other page version options to enable the article to get it back on track.

You are edit-warring to force your version of the article. That is a fact. You have been deceptive about wanting consensus. That is another fact.

You can dispute those facts until the cows come home but they are absolutely true.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-30 21:17Z

Contrary to your bogus assertions, I have been perfectly fine with any reasonable changes. Have at it, and let's see what you come up with. :p But this page will not go into a debate about the ethnicity of ancient Egypt (there's already a full article devoted to that subject), nor will the "ethnicity" section be put into "alternative theories" with other notions considered crackpot theories. Deeceevoice 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They are not bogus, they are facts.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-30 21:46Z

Like you lying about me calling you a racist? :p LOL I'm still waiting for someone to contribute something constructive: documentation that it's an "alternative theory," that it's fiction -- anything. Let's have it. Deeceevoice 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You want to dodge around the facts about you trying to force your own version of the article on everyone by edit-warring as well as being incredibly ingenuous about wanting to work on a consensus.

I cannot force you to deal with these serious issues and the facts that support them. It's your choice to keep diverting attention away from them. But, the facts are there for everyone to see no matter how much you dance around them. In fact, the evidence here supporting that is overwhelming and it reflects on you very badly.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-30 22:25Z

(*sigh*) Still waiting for something constructive from you, Guy.... :p Deeceevoice 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have but it's useless to wait for you to address the hard cold facts about the serious problems you are causing (mentioned above) but it seems that's not likely :)

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-30 22:40Z

"I am considering some other page version options to enable the article to get it back on track ." Seems you're the one who's sidetracked -- in a rut of personal attacks. I'm still waiting for something constructive. Deeceevoice 22:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring · Katefan0/poll 01:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

We need quotes from verifiable sources. Below are some of the key sources for the debate:

• Archeology

"Ethnicity in archeology" by K. Kris Hirst. This is an excellent introduction to the question and problems of archeology and ethnicity, with an extensive list of modern sources. It would be wonderful to see modern academic sources such as these used in the article. Does anyone have access to these books?

• Afrocentricism

For pro-Black views on the Sphinx's ethnicity, why is there no mention of the pioneering works of George James's Stolen Legacy, and Cheikh Anta Diop's African Origins of Civilization? Much of the current article seems to be taking quotes that originally appeared in Jame's book. There is also Molefi Asante's Afrocentricity. A more recent work by (white) author Martin Bernal Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization is also probably relevant. Certainly all of these books mention and discuss the Sphinx?

• Anti-Afrocentricism

There are people who do not agree with the Afrocentric view. These include Mary Lefkowitz who has written a number of essays countering Afrocentricism ("The Afrocentric Myth" in New Republic), and the book Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History, and a response to Martin Bernal's book above in Black Athena Revisited. Others who may have something to say regarding the Sphinx include Diane Ravitch, Henry Louis Gates who called Afrocentricism "Romantic and chauvinistic" and Issac Julien (critic) has been critical of it in Black Pop Culture calling Afrocentricism "homophobic" and "nationalistic". Since the Sphinx is a key part of the debate I'm some or all of them discuss it somewhere in their works.

--Stbalbach 04:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources already have been quoted and cited. Unless and until someone brings forth conflicting information, the information presented should stand -- and not as a theory -- alternative or otherwise. To my knowledge, no one today -- not even rabidly Eurocentrist mainstream historians -- argues that the Giza sphinx is anything other than a black man. In fact, rather than address the issue, they ignore it, because to do so, they'd have to admit the obvious -- thus playing directly into the hands of those who would assert a powerful, distinctly black African presence in ancient Egypt. Lotsa luck finding a credible, contemporary source that asserts a different ethnic identity of the Giza sphinx. :p It's so obviously a black man, even white folks traveling to Egypt expecting to see something entirely different (more like that ugly, white-looking thing at the Luxor Hotel and Casino in Vegas) have been shocked speechless by its countenance. It's not gonna happen. Deeceevoice 11:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok so if mainstream historians and scientists won't comment on the race of the sphinx (because, according to Afrocentrics, doing so would undermine the Eurocentric myths of civilization), then that is a notable part of the controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians. You can't have cake and eat it too, you can't claim a factual determination that the Sphinx is "black", while ignoring the very real controversy over the race of the Egyptians. Besides they are not all silent, see some of the anti-Afrocentrics above. And once you acknowledge there is a controversy, it becomes, well, controversial, and belongs in the alternative theories section. Otherwise you presenting the Afrocentric POV on the Sphinx as fact, and ignoring the controversy, as well as other POVs.

Also it's a strawman to say that, "if the Sphinx is not black than it is white", who said that? The Sphinx is Egyptian (it was built by an Egyptian civilization), and again, that leads back to the controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians. -- Stbalbach 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's a notable part of Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians, then by all means feel free to include such information there -- if you can source it. Again, this article is about the Giza Sphinx and the Giza Sphinx only. It is one structure, one monument. Again, there is no argument that I know of about the ethnicity of the Giza Sphinx. People may debate what that ancient monument to a black man means in terms of the ethnicity of Ancient Egypt, and that's fine. But that debate doesn't belong here. My God. What about that is so difficult for you to get? Jus' day-um! Further, again, if you can find a credible, mainstream source that says the Sphinx isn't an image of a black man, then by all means include it in the article. But that information would still belong under "Etnicity" or "Ethnicity under "Description" and not under "Alternative theories." The information about the ethnicity of the Giza sphinx presented in this article is accurate and well sourced/cited. You seem to want to place it in some sort of provisional dubious status while you and other doubters scurry around, looking for additional information to discredit it. That is not how Misplaced Pages works. The information here is the result of well-documented expert opinion -- and as such is solid enough to stand on its own. Like I said, good luck searching. I seriously doubt you'll find anything -- for obvious reasons. The Sphinx is black. Most people with any modicum of judgment, powers of observation at all can readily see that. Deeceevoice 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Sphinx is black.

1)The Sphinx is not a person, it is a statue carved from sandstone. There is no direct factual evidence that tells us what ethnicity the sculptors of the Sphinx were representing, we don't even know if it was modeled on a real person or a fictional one. It is conjecture and based on indirect evidence and personal opinion to suggest any ethnicity.

2)There is also the problem of relevancy, of even mentioning ethnicity at all, and putting this into context. We know for a fact slaves were typically brought up from the equatorial regions of Africa to trade with Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures and those slaves sometimes reached positions of power and influence (many stories of eunuchs reaching power, or secret lovers of court ladies, or overt lovers of queens, or through their children) so it's not at all an impossibility to see someone with a "black countenance" in Egypt in power, but it's also of no relevance on it's own outside of the larger debate about the ethnicity of the Egyptian people as a whole. You just can't say "the sphinx is black" and not put it into the context of the controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians. It suggests to the reader all Egyptians were black, and that is controversial.

3)Finally there is the problem of what "black" means. I've seen "white people" with "black countenance", and vice versa, but that is just based on where I grew up and how my culture defines black (skin color and hair type are usually more defining than facial feature). Some cultures take an even more narrow view based on birth lineage no matter what you look like. The article should say exactly which group it means, someone mentioned here "Nilo-Saharic", is that what you mean?-- Stbalbach 22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should also note that the subject of the "race" of ancient Egyptians is not debated in this manner among respected scholars in the field . The *controversy* results because of claims made usually by Black/White supremacists. Egyptologists either voice exasperation at these claims or ignore them altogether. The only time the controversy was taken seriously at all was when Bernal, who's a Sinologist, dabbled in the subject. Before that, it was largely 19th century European archaeologists who made references to the ancient Egyptians' "race", but their claims have long been dismissed except by the white extremist groups and their equally comical black counterparts .

As far as the Sphinx is concerned, again unless there is peer-reviewed evidence published in an academic journal about its "ethnicity", this quackery is unfit to be included on Misplaced Pages regardless of who makes the claims. Besides, the only reason there is an issue right now is because some it seems just feel the need to sink their teeth into something whenever the editing quiets down. It's their whole raison d'être here; not any serious interest in Egypt or its civilization! There will always be something else, because it never ends with one thing. The whole "ethnicity" section is already a joke by academic standards based on its sources , . Integrating it into the rest of the article just adds insult to injury. — Zerida 06:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"...based on its sources..."? The New York Times deemed the findings notable enough to print -- and the follow-up letter as well. And whether you agree with it or not, forensic science is not "quackery." I don't see any connection whatsoever between the links you've provided and the factual information set forth in the article. This is the best you can do? Not good enough -- not by a long shot. The information presented in the article is credible, sourced and cited. And you haven't produced any information of similar standing that refutes it. Because you can't. Deeceevoice 06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, you've got it backwards. Skin color and hair texture may be what everyday people use to make snap appraisals of people they encounter, but in actuality they are among the least definitive/scientific means of determining ethnicity. Faciocranial structure comprises the most definitive standards by which such judgments/determinations are made, and this is why Domingo took measurements of the sphinx head. Chief among these characteristics is prognathism, but there are other aspects, as well. Search prognathism online, and you'll note that there are several metrics involved in determining racial/ethnic identity using human remains and, most particularly, the human head/skull. But all this has been said before. Deeceevoice 06:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

About Nilotic, etc.? The article very clearly says what it says. If you want to add information, then I invite you to do the research. Deeceevoice 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, while the Giza sphinx may be an iconic representation of Egypt, in reality it is one monument, and almost certainly the likeness of one deceased human being. Simply because an article mentions a monument to one black man, that does not, ipso facto, mean it also makes or even implies a broader statement that rest of Egypt was all black or, for that matter, all male. The same can be said of any work of art anywhere. For this article -- which deals specifically with the sphinx and nothing else -- to be conflated into a discussion regarding the ethnicity of ancient Egypt would be like taking an article about the Venus de Milo and then launching into a ridiculous discussion about whether all contemporaneous humans in Greece were female and ran around half naked with no arms.

And, again, this information has nothing to do with "alternative theories" about the sphinx's age, or aliens, or lost civilizations. You've presented absolutely no credible argument to support keeping the text where it is now situated; it simply doesn't fit the category and should be moved to the section pertaining to description or identity. Deeceevoice 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you just chosen to not address the fact: 1)The Sphinx is not a person, it is a statue carved from sandstone. There is no direct factual evidence that tells us what ethnicity the sculptors of the Sphinx were representing, we don't even know if it was modeled on a real person or a fictional one. It is conjecture and based on indirect evidence and personal opinion to suggest any ethnicity is being portrayed on the statue. There is simply no direct factual evidence of what race the sculptors were trying to represent, if any at all. A NYC forensic expert is conjecture, and outside of mainstream egyptology. Your assertation that race can be determined scientifically reveals a hidden agenda - no serious scientist says that race can be scientifically categorized in any meaningful way see "Ethnicity in archeology". No matter what, saying anything about the race of the statue is controversial, that is very clear by this discussion page and the many links therein. -- Stbalbach 01:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And who made you the expert? Forensic scientists, forensic anthropologists, doctors of orthodontic medicine would argue otherwise. Determination of ethnicity based on faciocranial characteristics is done in forensics labs every day. The article cites published expert opinions, and what you personally think of the findings matters not one whit. You and the other people who've wasted considerable time and space carping and whining incessantly about my additions been asked repeatedly to come up with something authoritative to discredit their findings -- or even a modern, authoritative source that takes issue with them -- and so far, you've produced zilch. Come up with something that meets Wiki standards, and then we'll have something to work with. The text stands. Again, again, again, it is attributed, sourced and cited. I've even had a friend of mine check the New York Times cite in the article -- and it's dead-on accurate. :p Deeceevoice 04:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How you can deny there is controversy? The Sphinx is an image of an Ancient Egyptian, whose race is controversial (in the sense that race can be quantified at all, scientifically), therefore the race projected on its face is controversial. Want proof? Here: "Ethnicity in archeology". I'll be happy to quote this in the article if needed to show the controversy. -- Stbalbach 20:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Afrocentrism/anti-Afrocentrism argument is utterly irrelevant here

Neither Afrocentrism nor Eurocentrism has anything to do with the ethnicity of the sphinx itself. Where the hell in this article has anything been said about Afrocentrism? And who are the "Afrocentric" historians being quoted?" This is utter bull -- and a classic example of the way Misplaced Pages works to reinforce the lies perpetrated by Eurocentrists. And the usual, throwaway disclaimer about how the page protection doesn't "endorse" one view or another is just pro forma. The fact is the page is frozen in the version that is unencyclopedic, POV and decidedly not the consensus of the current editors. Deeceevoice 06:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll repost here a few comments I made earlier in this regard:

I find it amusing that even Eurocentrists readily will admit that dynastic Egypt was black in its beginnings, but some become positively apoplectic when a monument of a black man dated, at the latest, to the Old Kingdom (and possibly earlier) is accurately described as "Negroid." Why is that -- when any respected scholar these days understands that dynastic Egypt certainly at least in its beginnings was, indeed, black African? And, hell. Not even Afrocentric scholars contend that dynastic Egypt was an all-black civilization all the time. But assuming the perfectly logical and evident presence of black people in an African nation, what's the big deal about describing a single monument/structure accurately as that of a black man? Somebody please 'splain dat 2 me. deeceevoice 15:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. Discernment. This article is about a single monument. t doesn't have jack to do with the race of the ancient Egyptians -- any more than an article about, say, statues of flying pigs in Cincinatti automatically says that Cincinnati (or the U.S. at large) is a nation populated by flying swine. What about that is so hard for you to grasp? Now if people (correctly) want to on their own extrapolate from the existence of a huge, honking statue in North Africa glorifying an obviously very Africoid person that ancient Egypt was black, hey, I'm certainly not going to stop them. Because it's true. :p But nowhere -- nowhere -- does the article make that assertion. So much for that "alternative theories" nonsense. Deeceevoice 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The implication is there, the elephant is in the room. You can't just say the Sphinx is Black without addressing the implications, at the very minimum but pointing to the controversy article. The only reason you don't want the controversy article linked too in this article is so you can say the sphinx's ethnicity is non-controversial and move it out of the theories section. -- Stbalbach 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the Giza sphinx is not a subject of controversy. Again, there is no credible authority I know of -- have you found any? -- that states it is anything other than a representation of a black man. The controversy is about the ethnicity of ancient Egyptians. This article is about the sphinx -- again, a subject about the ethnicity of which there is no credible, informed controversy. It's black. Readers who wish to read about the controversy of the race of ancient Egyptians and Afrocentrism easily can go to those articles, where such matters are dealt with. Deeceevoice 23:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that the Giza sphinx represents anything other than an ancient ethnic Egyptian - as even the most cursory observation reveals. The amount of space devoted to alternative/conspiracy/alien theories already takes up far to much space in this article, and is in need of some drastic surgery. --Gene_poole 04:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Racism, systemic bias and where we stand

The information presented about the ethnicity of the image itself is that it has been described as decidedly "Negroid" throughout history. Some of those accounts are presented in the article and cited. The image also has been analyzed by one of the most well-known (at the time) forensics artists in the U.S., utilizing his professional expertise and computer graphics to reconstruct the head. Further, a noted and well-published Harvard professor in orthodontics has concurred in the forensic artist's findings, as well as supported the means by which those findings were reached. Both accounts were printed in the New York Times. These things are not disputed. This information has been presented in a perfectly dispassionate manner and sourced.

The information about the appearance of the Giza sphinx belongs with other, similar information about the sphinx's appearance. It is not a "theory," and certainly not an "alternative theory," such as are the matters of water erosion, "lost civilizations," et cetera. The information, again, springs from objective observation and careful, even scientific, analysis and deduction.

Those who have sought to place the information under the subhead "Alternative theories" have done so with clearly POV motivations and have advanced absolutely no credible rationale for their position. The arguments about Afrocentrism are merely a smokescreen. There is nothing Afrocentric about the information presented in the article; it is objective and indisputable. From a purely journalistic point of view, the information clearly belongs elsewhere. It's a no-brainer. Again, even if those who have opposed the inclusion of this information from the beginning manage to produce credible, sourced, scientific information which says the Giza sphinx is not the image of a black man, that information still would not belong under "Alternative theories." This matter, again, is all about what the monument looks like -- its description.

IMO, the request for page protection was utterly disingenuous. It was made by User:That Guy, From That Show! -- after he agreed to what he termed a "compromise" here, on this very page -- and with absolutely no indication that such was his intent. Such an action was clearly, IMO, in bad faith. User:Zerida's subsequent arbitrary and disruptive revert easily could have been dealt with without resorting to such a measure.

The fact that the article has been frozen in its current unencyclopedic and POV state is, IMO, emblematic of the anti-black bias of this website when it comes to such matters. I have not used this term on this page before, but I will use it now. Misplaced Pages is racist to the core. This is a perfect object lesson in how its systemic bias works. When obstructionist elements cannot refute objective information, they work to label it, mischaracterize it, smear it. "Afrocentrism" is one of those red herrings that gets tossed around a lot here. This is unmitigated bull -- and emblematic of the racist dysfunctionality of this website. And this is supposed to be an encyclopedia -- and one that Jimbo Wales wrote in his funds appeal that he wants to make available to children in Africa? ROTFLMAO. *x* Deeceevoice 06:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the The Wrong Version. — Matt Crypto 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, do not alter the above post again. The link is a concise and appropriate rebuttal to your assertion that the protection of this page was somehow, *cough*, "emblamatic of the racist disfunctionality of this site", or that it shows how Misplaced Pages is "racist". Furrfu. — Matt Crypto 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your post isn't " emblamatic " of anything -- except, IMO, poor judgment on your part. It's just a smart-aleck remark that wasn't appreciated. Let me quote editor Yom's edite note when he removed the image: "I'm going to be bold here and remove the 'Wrong Version' image to minimize the antagonism between the disputing parties." I notice you didn't reinsert it. Did you? Why? Because it was inappropriate and inflammatory. Let me give you some advice: if it's not constructive, adds nothing to the discussion and inflames tensions, then keep it to yourself. And that applies to sysops, admins, etc. And that means you, too, Crypto. And, yes. What happened with the lockdown of the page in the POV version demonstrates precisely how racist and dysfunctional this site is. Deeceevoice 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, Deeceevoice, how can you have posted the grandparent comment and then have the audacity to tell me that: "if it's not constructive, adds nothing to the discussion and inflames tensions, then keep it to yourself"? Did you ever considering following your own advice? You made the very grave — and extremely inflammatory — accusation that the page protection was a racist act, and therefore the entire website is "racist". As usual with such charges about page protection, it's obvious nonsense: the protecting admin just protected whatever page he or she came across, and nothing more sinister. You typically make implausible leaps of reasoning that suit your worldview: e.g. "admin protects page at a version I don't like" = "Misplaced Pages is racist", "people file RfCs and RfArs when I don't follow Wikiquette" = "Misplaced Pages is racist" or "Jimbo deletes my obscene and offensive userpage = "Misplaced Pages is unable to answer my charge of racist bias", etc etc. It's very sad that you view Misplaced Pages through the lens of racism. I'm sure Misplaced Pages does have much work to do to become NPOV in the area of race, but you see bogeymen in the wrong places. — Matt Crypto 08:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, Crypto! :p I did not say the person who locked down the page, even that they had ulterior motives. You should learn to read what a post says -- not what you think it says, or want it to say in order to confirm certain assumptions. "You typically make implausible leaps of reasoning that suit your worldview: e.g." What? Like that the Shinx is black? ROTFLMAO. What? Try again.

And your "so you're another one" is your only explanation for deliberately inserting that stupid, inflammatory tag? (So inappropriate, by the way, that you didn't contest it when another editor removed it.)

Finally, you're a white adolescent. You treat a "grave" charge of systemic bias flippantly, mockingly and dismissively. It's inflammatory -- so much so that another editor removes your post. It showed exceedingly poor judgment, Crypto. And you really think you're qualified to tell me what I should or should not find racist? In your dreams. Deeceevoice 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection talk page

The WP:RFP page is not to be used to discuss users, etc... so I will reply here instead.

"I just read Guy's allusion to "serious ArbCom incidents." Let me say that it is GUY who has taken the tacky tone in the talk page discussions and introduced the unfounded challenge of "Afrocentrism", and so far, to my knowledge, no one has reverted violated the 3RR. Deeceevoice 13:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I never introduced "Afrocentrism" here (cite, good luck).

Second, it's not exactly a big secret that you are the one who violated 3RR to edit-war your view of what the page should be as well as pretending to want a consensus about this article.

The first is easy to prove by editors doing a text search on this discussion page. The second is also easy to prove. You did violate 3RR and is what started what turned into the situation we are in now. Claiming that you don't know about 3RR violations when you are the one guilty of it is very deceitful and doesn't help the situation.

Those are facts that can't be avoided.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-30 23:28Z

If you want to waste your time nattering on and on endlessly about my purported conduct, when yours has been immeasurably worse from the very start, then be my guest. It's a shame you'd rather whine than stick to your agreement, or lift a finger to try to improve the article. I'm not going to continue to respond. We both know what you wrote -- and, yes, it's here to read for anyone who wishes to do so. Deeceevoice 04:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You have now claimed that it is "purported conduct". Yes, I can refute your claim and will be responding shortly.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-31 04:51Z

Evidence requested of That Guy, From That Show! by Deeceevoice

Please do not chop my post into pieces and obfuscate this time-line. It needs to remain intact for clarity. Quote and reply below this post like any other comment.

Deeceevoice has denied that there is evidence regarding my declaration that Deeceevoice has violated 3RR. This 3RR is a part of her attempt to edit-war her own version of the article and she has been deceptive about wanting a consensus as well. This conduct sparked a revert/edit war that escalated and was eventually stopped by article protection .

I have kept the editorializing to a minimum and have provided a cite for every comment so that no one must take "my word for it". Readers can directly view the events.

Previous 9 months

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

March 9th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 10-17th

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

March 28th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006-03-28 16:30 - Zerida reverts

2006-03-28 16:34 - Deeceevoice reverts .

2006-03-28 16:37 - Zerida reverts .

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

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

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

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

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

2006-03-28 19:31 - Stbalbach reverts .

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

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

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

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

Comments about the data provided above

Please comment below.

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

A response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-31 21:10Z

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

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

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

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

ETHNICITY IS PART OF THE DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how the process should go:

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

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

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

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

Page protection

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

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

—-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-31 20:45Z