Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.112.11.220 (talk) at 22:24, 30 October 2005 (→Artistic arguments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It's all yours -- have at it

Things that would be nice to see

- more organization. I gave subject headers a shot, but the paragraphs were intertwined somewhat, making it difficult

- timeline indicating when artifacts were created illustrating black-or-not-blackness in relevance to various egyptian historical events (pyramids built)

- any evidence that egyptians were NOT black. this came from the afrocentrism page so it provides mostly evidence egyptians were black.

- discussion of importance--why are people arguing about this?

- discussion of difficulty in ascertaining race

- names for the different factions. afrocentrists is a much different characterization than just that believing egyptians were black (I'm somewhat in the latter, but wouldn't call myself an afrocentrist). the "other" camp doesn't have a name at this point.

POV fork?

Is this article a POV fork of Afrocentrism? Friday (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

not sure what a POV fork is (whether that means this page is POV, or whether it was taken out to avoid too much POV-fighting on the afrocentrism page). About 60% of the afrocentrism page was devoted to this issue, it was causing too much trouble over there and we/I moved it over here. I expected it to be noisy over here but its been basically dead since then. --155.91.19.73 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

DNA sequence analysis

I've removed the info about DNA sequence analysis. It's uncited -- no scientists/journals named -- and based on content on the users page and the racist undertones seems to be trolling. It posits that Ancient Egyptians were black (usually an afrocentrist statement), but also that they were and "less evolved" and more ape-like than Caucasians (likely race-baiting).

--Archier 18:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

External links

Who determine and what are criterias to say site is racist or not. Site in question http://www.white-history.com/egypt.htm. Where else we can expect to see an opposition to afrocentrism, if not in erocentrist sites ? AlV 08:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

yes, please refrain from calling others "racists" either directly or through innuendo (e.g. saying a link is to a "racist" site). Alv, I've put the link back. You may want to make additions to the article *other* than links too. A common tactic by users who just want to stir the pot is to add links to the bottoms of several pages, without any content additions, so your actions may have been misconstrued --71.112.11.220 17:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The link says that

there were Semites and Blacks present in that country from the very beginning. No one claims the contrary - in fact, this was the very reason why that civilization fell, as it was eventually overrun by Blacks and Semites - if there had been none of those racial groupings present, the Egyptian civilization would still be going!

Any reasonable person calls that racist. Jim Apple 22:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked for criterias by witch the judgement is made, so other (black, blue, green, red, yellow) racist links (or content in articel itself), can be eliminated by using set of guidelines. Now the sentence itself

there were Semites and Blacks present in that country from the very beginning.

. Nothing racist here as it is a simple fact.

if there had been none of those racial groupings present, the Egyptian civilization would still be going

This point to theory, that as percentage of nubians(blacks) and mixed race increased, the acient Egyptian civilization ceased to exist as we know it, and become a nubian one. Where is racism there ? This is as racist as to say 'South-American civilizations ceased to exist because they teritory was overrun by white race'. The maya are still there, but not their civilization. AlV 09:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I was looking into wikipedia policy, however i did not find a policy where removal of "racist" links are required. AlV 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that is racist. My bad. I posted at the village pump to see what policy is regarding such links http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#racist_links

  -155.91.28.231 19:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

the consensus at the pump is that this link is allowed. it may actually be *required* to maintain NPOV. -71.112.11.220 02:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

original research (alveolar prognathisms) -- don't do it

Again, original research has made its way onto this page. If you can't provide a citation for a claim, please do not include it. When uncited content isnt obvious to other editors, it doesn't belong here. This is an official wiki policy. See WP:NOR for details --71.112.11.220 17:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This isn't "original research." Any photo of the Great Sphinx in profile clearly shows prognathism. Saying so is no different from describing a spherical object as "round." It is what it is. deeceevoice 19:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

new additions -- great. they still don't mention prognathisms but otherwise verifiable, relevant, cited content. -71.112.11.220 04:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is crap. There are all kinds of anti-black-Egypt assertions included without any citation whatsoever. And you want me to provide citation from something the casual reader can actually see with thir own eyes? Bullcrap. I've reinserted the reference. The prognathism is evident from the photo. deeceevoice 11:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to self: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/blackegypt101.html. Stopped reading at "... pharaohs and their queens." deeceevoice 11:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is original research. I've asked around and even in a very small survey I'm not the only one. I've removed this again, please reconsider your viewpoint and refrain from profanity. -71.112.11.220 14:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding. "Crap" may not be polite, but it is certianly not profanity. The toilet, after all, was named after Thomas Crapper. And it is NOT original research. Calling an object that is round "spherical" or an item of some height "tall" is no different from identifying a prognathism as such when it manifests itself. And if you don't believe your own eyes, simply google "Giza Sphinx Prognathism" and see what you come up with. It is restored. Further, if you decide to conduct a poll on something under discussion, kindly do so on the discussion page, where those involved/interested can weigh in and their comments can be SHARED. Otherwise, your poll has no credibility, validity whatsoever. Peace. deeceevoice 14:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And did you take a close look at the edits I made before reverting them wholesale? The writing was sloppy, unencyclopedic (colloquial) and verbose. E.g., "... controversy revolving around" (ugh) and, "The few Ancient Egyptian corpses available are thousands of years old and do not permit the sort of I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it racial categorizations common in everyday experience." I mean really! I simply edited it the way I would edit any other piece. I think it's an improvement. At least consider the changes before reverting them wholesale. deeceevoice 14:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

we don't need a formal poll to determine what is original research. if there is no citation and the first four people i ask don't think its obvious, it meets the wiki definition. original research is not about majority rule. "crap" is offensive, uncivil, vulgar, a four-letter word....profanity. please be civil. -71.112.11.220 02:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, google it. You'll find it repeatedly. Furthermore, four people on Misplaced Pages doesn't mean jack. There is no indication how your inquiry was worded, whether the respondents read the passage in context, if they even understood what prognathism is, etc., etc., etc. And, no. There is a big difference between a crude/indelicate word and "profanity". To contend that they are the same is just, er ... crap! :p Again, the prognathism of the Sphinx is an obvious and striking feature of the piece. It's what Volney and others have seen that convinced them the face of the sphinx is that of a "Negro." deeceevoice 08:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Copts?

I didn't bother reading the whole article, but I couldn't find the word copt in this article, as some copt friend of mine told me that copts were the decents of ancient egyptians (and he finds afrocentrist theories about ancient egyptians quite laughable actually, but I guess that's not an argument)

By the way, do we really have to leave the word race in the title? I guess that american people use it without any problem, but in other places of the world we may want to avoid talking about races.

And are links to non-english wikipedia pages on this topic just lacking or is it that only complexed american afrocentrists really care about it?

"Race itself is an unscientific concept; skin color varies over a continuous spectrum of shades, rather than the handful listed on government census forms"

What governement? Are we supposed to understand that it's the american governement? It really sounds like this article has been written in order to be read only by americans. And then I don't think it's usefull to have something in this article to tell us what "race" is or is not.

And then, how can anyone care about what Diop could say, he was an afrocentrist, he wasn't gonna do some test and find out that ancient egyptians weren't black.

And the bottom link to the white-history site contains two mispellings --SuperBleda 02:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You and your friend are welcome to edit this page. Copt information is definitely fair territory. Non-english wikis probably have not covered this topic yet. They are much smaller and this is a recent article, but if you see it covered in one of them please link to it!

This article started as a section in the afrocentrism page which became way too long and contentious. It may show remnants of its history. Additions and rewords will eventually/hopefully minimize this effect.

If Diop was known for mispresenting facts that should be noted, but he seems to be held in high regard by many (in particular afrocentrists). To excise his work would not be holding to the wiki NPOV policy.

-71.112.11.220 04:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, I know too few about Copts to write anything about it, and then, I've already tried writing bits of articles on wikipedia, but I can't get to write something in the style of wikipedia. Fortunatly, wikipedia has an article about them Copt so if anyone wants to get informations from it and put it here... --SuperBleda 00:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm only just now seeing SuperBleda's comments in this section. I actually edited out the language about government census forms -- for the very same reason, and also because it was unnecessary. And, yes, I do believe race should remain in the title. It goes to the heart of the controversy -- particularly when Zahi Hawass flat-out lies to the press and pronounces that the teams who participated in the recent reconstructions of King Tut found that he was a Caucasoid North African. Racial terminology was and is still used -- and used prominently and frequently by Hawass and his ilk to this day. It is as a result of the whitewashing of history that the issue of ancient Egyptian identity is viewed in the context of race and remains a hotly contested issue to this day. deeceevoice 18:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

please do not use terms such as "whitewashing", they are offensive. thanks. -71.112.11.220 02:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You said you edited out the language about gov. census forms, but I don't see whate dit you're talking about. anyways, dear deeceevoice, could I know why you titled your edit on the "Copts?" section as (→Copts? - ridiculous)???? what's ridiculous about talking about Copts in an article about Ancient Egyptians can you explain me? Or are you just so sure that Ancient Egyptians were black that it makes any other idea ridiculous? btw, what is whitewashing?? And by the way, "Ancient Egyptian identity" is not an issue in my country, surely only in your country and other countries were most blacks are decents of slaves --SuperBleda 00:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, gee, I can't help it if you're offended by the truth. Whitewashing. It's what they did. Plain and simple. If your sensibilities are so delicate, perhaps you should frequent another venue, because your objection is ridiculous. deeceevoice 08:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

race based on phenotype?

However, race is not based on genetics; it is based on phenotype.

race is not based on phenotype or genotype solely. according to one-drop theory, a person that does not appear (phenotype) black is still black, as long as he has a black ancestor (genotype) -71.112.11.220 02:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Race isn't based on genotype at all, which is what the article claimed, and which was my point. The notion of race predates genetics by several centuries. And racial categories are based on phenotype -- certainly not genetics. But you are, of course, correct that lineage is also a factor. deeceevoice 08:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

the article claimed no such thing. actually, it said the opposite, that no genetic test can determine race (because it is not genetic). race is a fuzzy concept -- part phenotype, part genotype, part which region of the world you live in. jason kidd wouldn't be black in sudan. it is part genotype because retarded ideas like one-drop theory posit that there is something being passed down from generation to generation. there are genes being passed down, but its a ridiculous way to classify people. -71.112.11.220 15:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

power behind the throne

please provide citations for additions of content.

Artistic arguments

Using observation Herodotus (5th century BC) or observations of 1783 cannot be used to determine race, because at that time Egypt was already overrun by black Nubians, that text should be removed as inaccurate. Great Sphinx represents either Khafre (http://i-cias.com/e.o/khafre.htm), who do not look negroid or sun god Harmachis, in this case Sphinx cannot be used to determine race of population. AlV 11:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi AlV, please read the wiki policies on NPOV. Whether or not an editor or large group of editors agrees with something is not as important as whether it can be cited that some "notable source" outside of wikipedia does. Apparently some afrocentrists think the Sphinx is black. If there is any dissent on the matter or if it is not obvious to a passerby, it should not be phrased as fact "the sphinx ix black", but rather that "so-and-so believes the sphinx is black" and a citation included.

The other half of NPOV is that the other viewpoints deserves to be mentioned. So if there are folks that don't believe the sphinx is black, include it (with a citation of course). There is also some complexity about not mentioning things that are believed by only some small number of crackpots.

There is some debate about who the Sphinx represents, but I think th article states this reasonably. You can get more information about it in the Great Sphinx of Giza article.

As far as Herodotus, many people would still consider the 5th century BC "ancient", though the pyramids were built much earlier. Part of the difficulty with this subject is that much of the opposing evidence occurs thousands of years apart. A timeline would be helpful. Sportscar articles often have these (see Ferrari#Road_models)

By the way, the term "overrun" usually has negative connotations (marauding hordes of barbarians overrun things) and is inflammatory. Please refrain from using it here when possible. -71.112.11.220 14:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

AIV, The general consensus is that Giza sphinx represents Khufu. The Giza sphinx is distinctly Negroid in appearance. Here's Khafre, Khufu's son, who does look Cushite Negroid. Here's Kafre's half-brother Redejef, who is distinctly Nilotic Negroid in appearance. Further, your use of the "March of the Titans" page from the racist, white supremacist Stormfront website is hardly convincing or credible. I've deleted it. deeceevoice 13:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This has come up so many times -- it is not "distinctly negroid". It is very weatherworn, has been vandalized, and I just don't see what you are talking about. If you find references to it, put them in but it is not indisputable fact.

The link to the 'eurocentrist' site -- which does seem racist -- was discussed less than two weeks ago both here and at the village pump. Removing it is POV. -155.91.28.231 00:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, you've removed this again. We had this discussion two weeks ago, if you want to remove it please explain why here. Even white supremacists have points of view. deeceevoice, I'm not sure why you refer to "stormfront", that is not the link that you keep removing -71.112.11.220 21:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? And what is www.white-history.com? It's Ostara Publications, a neo-Nazi, white supremacist group with links to the Klan and just about every anti-Jew, anti-black -- in fact, anti-nonwhite, white nationalist organization in existence. deeceevoice 18:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to be reasonable here, which wiki policies are in violation here? As I said before, I posted at the village pump and sought advice -- the consensus was that the link needs to remain. I don't know about "stormfront" or "ostara publications". I went to this website and there is a lot of material there. Biased, yes. Racist, sometimes. Relevant to this subject? yes. -71.112.11.220 22:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Black Egyptians (sources for later inclusion)