Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Volney and Afrocentrism

I am currently trying to figure out a compromise for the lead to propose. But since Volney is brought up, you might find this interesting:

"As I shall illustrate, concern with ancient Egypt as a feature of African American cultural ideology did not begin with Martin Bernal's Black Athena, which is only the latest in a series of works by white authors cited by African Americans in their attempts to authenticate a tie to the monumental history of dynastic Egypt. In the nineteenth century it was Count Constantin Volney who was most frequently cited by Afrocentric enthusiasts." (Moses, p. 6)

In his Introduction, Moses discusses the relation between Afrocentrism and the "concern with ancient Egypt" to some extent. And since it might be helpful in this discussion, here is another quote.

"Much silliness and ill will has been spewed forth by the likes of Mary Lefkowitz and the black nationalist polemicist Maulana Karenga, who represent two sides of the same hateful coin. As a result, it has become almost impossible for most persons to engage in analytical, dispassionate discussion of the various expressions of those movement - both intellectual and emotional - that constitute what we today refer to as 'Afrocentrism.

Radical polemicists of the Lefkowitz-Karenga ilk have assiduously avoided a systematic definition of Afrocentrism, confusing it not only with Egyptocentrism but with affirmative action, multiculturalism, black nationalism, and whatever other issue they may wish to adress at any given time. Under the guise of promoting historical objectivity, they spew out whatever tendentious trash they wish to include on a wide vareity of subjects, reflecting nothing more than their own racial and political biases."

If Wilson J. Moses already has this opinion of academics like Lefkowitz, I guess the way the discussion is going here is no surpriseZara1709 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Unauthorised Major Edit

I just logged on again now, to see that Zara has put a block on the article while she makes major edits. I don't recall any consensus being reached on any major edits, or any agreement that Zara should make any edits at all. This article is still under probation, is it not? <redacted> Wdford (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've placed the inuse tag there because I was about to propose a compromising version of the lead, which however, is turning out increasingly difficult because I don't simply want to make something up on my own and the literature is quite extensive. It is definitely wrong to say that "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times.", and it is totally unsourced. What is sourcesd in the article is that: "The roots of Afrocentrism lay in the repression of blacks throughout the Western world in the 19th century, most particularly in the United States.", but I am currently asking myself whether this might actually be a misquotation. If you really think that I am keeping this article from making progress, then ask for some admin intervention. Because all that I can see is that Wapondaponda has restored a very substantial edit which was already reverted by me last Tuesday. If this material now is restored, without my objections being taken into account, obviously in the five days since then we didn't make any progress in the discussion, even though I really think that I've tried. I've you don't bring in the patience for a discussion of this issue (which, admittedly is extremely difficult to discuss), then we are better of if we have this article fully protected and seek whatever resolution process Wikipedia might have for this issue. Zara1709 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Zara, we have been massively patient while you have been dawdling around, posting huge amounts of "discourse" on the talk page but not contributing to the progress, and calling through-out for a lock-down. That's not how the project works, is it? You revert other people's contributions because they don't please you, you call for more discussion and then you attempt (for over an hour) to make a unilateral edit. Shame on you!

Seeing as how Zara is prepared to move forward now, I propose the following as a draft lead:

The racial identity of the ancient Egyptians continues to be the subject of controversial debate from academia to modern pop culture, and it’s a major issue within Afrocentrism.

Today many people agree that the ancient Egyptians did not fit neatly into any of the modern racial classifications, and a growing consensus dismisses racial classification as a social rather than a biological construct.

Although the ancient Egyptians clearly distinguished themselves from the Asiatics, the Nubians and the Libyans who lived around them, their depictions of themselves in their surviving art and artifacts are not always realistic, and this absence of conclusive evidence adds fuel to the debate.

We don't have to include every detail in the lead, but this at least outlines every issue that will be discussed in more detail in the body of the article. Can we assess the level of rough consensus please, in the hope that progress might yet be possible? Wdford (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you have been making any progress. If you had made any progress, you would be able to give me a reliable source that can be used as referencefor the lead version you propose. However, in the interest of moving forward, I could accept your new proposal for a lead for now, although it still needs some tweaking. It's not better or worse than the current one, but I can agree to it, since it doesn't include anything that is, to my knowledge, definitely false like: "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times." Zara1709 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree wtith this lead but without the word "clearly". In many depictions Egyptians look just like their cousins, I mean the Nubians. That is why Erman and Ranke said that the Egyptians resemble more the Nubians than the Libyans and the Semites (cf. La civilisation égyptienne, 1952, 1988, 1994, p. 46: "Il semble que le peuple qui se rapproche le plus des Egyptiens soit leurs voisins du sud, les Nubiens").--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(I would also like the "it's" to be replaced with "constitutes". That would be more encyclopedic language. Also, please use either "controversy" or "debate". "Controversial debate" would mean that some people object to the question being debated, which I don't think is the case. Otherwise, I'm fine with it too - recognizing that the lead may change again once we're done with the rest of the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

recurring problem in the writiing of the article.

In both the big and small versions of this article, I've noticed an irritating as hell behavior. Stop using ONLY last names to identify people. Although writing in the general tone and manner of an academic paper or journal article is fine, the presumption that any person who reads the article will know who you're talking about is foolish. We have people of all stripes reading here, and should be using full names the first time they appear in the articles. ThuranX (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree fully - once the rewrite of the article is underway we will pay attention to that as well. Thanks Wdford (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

You must be kidding. Talk. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, with all due respect, an admin is already watching this page and we are already talking. I don't think protection is necessary, at least not indefinite. This is likely to only stall discussion, as paradoxical as it seems. Please discuss with Aaron Brenneman. I think most of us would like you to reconsider. Never mind, saw the protection is only for 24 hours. I believe everyone can take a break - or live that long without touching the page. Regards,--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hope this break helps. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, please!

Can all of us please leave the main article alone until we have consensus? I know you like to be bold, but this will only result in getting the article protected - repeatedly, as just demonstrated. Trying to rush this will only slow down resolution.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Ramdrake here. If any of you feel you must make changes to the article, we have in the past made a copy of the article in userspace and made the proposed changes there. So far as I can remember, that worked rather well, and didn't lead to the article being protected by anybody. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Lead Section

Great. We now have general consensus that the scope should be fully open to all issues that address the title of the article, including unsubstantiated opinions from notable sources. It has also been clarified that imposing any restrictions or biases on that scope would constitute POV.

Now we need to agree on a lead section. We have substantial consensus on a draft, as follows:

The racial identity of the ancient Egyptians continues to be the subject of controversy from academia to modern pop culture, and it constitutes a major issue within Afrocentrism.

Today many people agree that the ancient Egyptians did not fit neatly into any of the modern racial classifications, and a growing consensus dismisses racial classification as a social rather than a biological construct.

Although the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from the Asiatics, the Nubians and the Libyans who lived around them, their depictions of themselves in their surviving art and artifacts are not always realistic, and this absence of conclusive evidence adds fuel to the debate.

Please can we agree on the final tweaks that would be essential before we can post this in place of the current version. Concise and constructive comments only, please, we have had enough lengthly discourses already. This is just the lead - you can elaborate on the details of your case in the body of the article. Wdford (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, is it possible to mention in the lead that "while many people agree that the ancient Egyptians...some desagree"? In this way, the lead will be more balanced. Besides, instead of the past tense "did not fit", I prefer the present tense "do not fit". Because the race of the ancient Egyptians is approached according to the standars of our days. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking another stab at it

My very first impression is that the wording could be improved upon, simply from a mechanical standpoint. More importantly, however, I think in light of the information Luka and I (and others) have presented here on the talk page, the lead could go something like this.

The debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt is rooted in disparate physical depictions of the Egyptian people in the archaeological record, and in conflicting perceptions and portrayals from the Classical era forward. Against the backdrop of the beginnings of academic Egyptology and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the issue of race and dynastic Egypt erupted into full-blown, international controversy in the 1790s. In the more than two centuries since, the matter has been ongoing, with Afrocentrism as an approach to the study of history serving in recent years to raise the profile of, and further fuel, the controversy.

I think it's more immediately informative and serves to place the controversy in proper historical context -- as opposed to jumping feet first into Afrocentrism. (I can't believe we're back there again.)

The next paragraph then could address the thorny issue of "commonly" held beliefs in the matter, blah, blah, blah.

I realize this is a major rewrite, so I almost hate to do it. It may, in fact, throw a monkey wrench into things and stymie the progress we've made so far with the lead. So, I'll understand completely if people simply just don't wanna go there. But I think it gets the job done and fairly clearly presages what's to come. deeceevoice (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Deeceevoice. I see what you're saying. It seems to me that a lot of your emphasis is on the history of the controversy (rooted in this, backdrop of that, two hundred years ago etc), so I am wondering if most of it wouldn't fit better in the history section? Could you perhaps insert a clause or two into the lead to balance it as you see fit, and put the bulk of this material into the history section somewhere? Just asking please? Wdford (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for your comments. Since the intro references Afrocentrism, to my way of thinking it's certainly necessary to frame the controversy more fully at the outset. From reading the lead, it seems that the most important thing about the controversy is that some Afrocentrists think it's important -- and that's not terribly informative. With the language I've put forward, followed by the second paragraph in the article as it now stands, I think the two would comprise a credible and comprehensive lead. Article lead-ins should serve to: 1) state clearly the topic under discussion and 2) provide a preview as to the scope of the article.

I could very well be wrong, but I thought we decided that the article would focus on the history and nature of the controversy, outlining some fundamental arguments with some examples, rather than concentrating on making arguments, ad nauseam, pro and con. And that means a nod to the history and nature of the controversy in the article lead -- which is what I tried to accomplish. Stating that the subject is a matter of "controversy from academia to modern pop culture" certainly completely fails to put it in historical context, and it is critically important to do so -- because far too many people are of the impression that the debate began with Afrocentrism (which the article lead as it is currently written really does nothing to dispel). And I have no idea how that lead emerged from the exceedingly lengthy talk page discussion; I find it surprising and really quite disappointing. If my understanding of what we were attempting to do is correct, IMO, the present iteration falls abysmally short of the mark. deeceevoice (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we agreed that per Wiki policy the article should include every significant input on the controversy from a verifiable and reliable source, and that any attempt at restricting that scope would be POV. Obviously when a point is made the contra-points (if there are any) should be mentioned in appropriate detail for balance, otherwise it would again be POV.

If you want to add more so as to emphasise that the debate preceded Afrocentrism, then go ahead and fix up the lead. (Don't revert it, fix it). If you want to add extra paragraphs to any section, then again, go right ahead and add them. With proper references etc, obviously. But if you disagree with what already stands then add in "other people think the opposite, namely that ... " rather than deleting material you don't like and thereby giving ammo to the POV Police. I'm sure you realise that if you push Afrocentrism too far from the centre stage, a certain editor will revert it and call for a lock-down while you engage in more lengthly discourse. Let's get the material into the article for starters - once the article has been built we can all polish and tweak together. Wdford (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! I don't think we have a disagreement scope. Do we? I've been a proponent of a broader approach from the beginning of my involvement here. What about the lead I've suggested is not broad? It is, in fact, broader than the one that exists. It mentions the foundations of the debate in dynastic Egypt, as does the current lead, and in the Classical era -- which the current one does not. It refers to the time the controversy actually first surfaced (as near as we can determined), in the 1790s. The current lead does not. The language I've suggested refers to Afrocentrism within the context of an ongoing controversy -- a continuum. The current lead does not; it jumps straight into Afrocentrism. Where's the difficulty with scope? And as far as pushing Afrocentrism too far, my lead doesn't give it any more mention that the current lead, just within historical context. deeceevoice (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Please add the extra clause or three as per your suggestions above. Please don't delete anything that's already there. Once we have everyone's content we can smooth and polish the wording etc. Wdford (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Question

I'm seeing a lot of debate (some of it potentially off the topic) about what does "Afrocentric" really mean.

I'm an African - I was born in Africa, I have lived in Africa my whole life, and I still live within 20 minutes drive from the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site in Africa. May I ask, just out of personal curiosity, how many of the editors who are working on this topic are actually Africans living in Africa? Wdford (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am an African from DRCongo living for some years now in Italy. In the past, I lived in or visited countries like Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Congo-Brazzaville, Zimbabwe. But to come back to the lead. I find misleading the sentence: "If anything Egypt could possibly be considered the first multiracial or multicultural society.[3]". It really depends on the epoch. Egypt went from a Black society to a multiracial or multicultural (But are not mixed people with black blood Blacks in the standard of our days?). The turning point could have been the invasion of the People of the Sea during the 2 millennium BCE. At that time, the Egyptian culture, as we know it, was already in place. The pyramids and obelisks were already standing! Who put that sentence and for conveying what message?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The ability to contribute knowledgeably to an article certainly doesn't depend on one's nation/continent of birth, or where they reside, so I don't understand the relevance or motive behind the question. But to answer yours, I am an African-American, a New World African, a "daughter of Africa" by bloodlines, history and culture. Less accurately/more ambiguously, I am a diasporic African. I'd ask you what your point is, but I don't want to get into another, IMO, unnecessary back-and-forth (like the one regarding the use of "Negro").

So, please, people, let's stay on point and not take this any further. We've got enough on our plate already.

And I'm with Luka. That language about "multiracial ... multicultural society" is definitely misleading and inappropriate where it's been placed. deeceevoice (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop this. Now.

This is the second time Zara has slapped an "in use" tag on the article and edited unilaterally and extensively. I suggest we stop this behavior, and that we do it now. Zara's behavior needs to be dealt with. She clearly has no respect for the process of collaboration and is determined to see her language prevail.

I suggest we come to a very clear consensus here and now that any such further conduct on Zara's part will result in a request for a content ban. I am reverting the present text to that which existed while we all worked toward building a consensus on article scope. At least then we all will know where we're starting from. deeceevoice (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice if you look at the page history, you will see that Zara did her edits after Wapondaponda also edited the article to put back the original lead, which I don't think we were finished discussing. Under those circumstances, it would be unfair to scold one editor and not the other for two equivalent but opposite actions. However, I do agree that at this point, the use of the {{inuse}} tag is certainly not the best idea, as it is more likely to incense editors than anything else.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this was not a helpful way to move forward on Zara's part. However, can I ask that slightly less inflammatory language be used? Even if you think someone is, err, "really bad" and even if they are "really bad," right now this article's talk page is nearly unusable. (Not making an acutla stand on Z either way, of course, just hand-waving.) If it's required that some behaviours get pushed over to discussion in a dispute resolution thread rather than here, that's probably a good thing at this point.

brenneman 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't gotten around to looking at Wapondaponda's edits when I made the revert. What I saw first was the complaint in the talk page space, and I went to the edit history and saw what Zara had done. In Wapondaponda's defense, however, it seems to me that his edits were at least in line with the consensus that seemed to be developing on the article talk page. And he did not, for a second time arbitrarily slap an in-use tag on the article. Once again, Zara did not write one word on the talk page to justify her edits before doing so and had not weighed in on the discussion or "voted" in the latest poll regarding the overall scope of the article. She is not collaborating, but going cowboy. It's disruptive and arrogant. And if she does it again, she needs to be dealt with. Certainly, her conduct in both instances is far more egregious than mine, which netted me a (subsequently overturned) content ban. deeceevoice (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's currently the "presiding" admin on this piece? Is it you, Aaron? If so, then why aren't you taking an actual stand on Z either way? Isn't that the kind of thing you're supposed to do? Certainly, this kind of conduct is far more detrimental to the development of a quality article than talk page snippiness, and you clearly seem concerned with that. Either her conduct is acceptable or it is not. Either it militates against collaboration, or it does not. Either it is disruptive, or it is not. Either someone will take a stand on this kind of behavior in order that it does not happen a third time, or they will not. I'm taking a stand. And I'm saying if it happens again, I'm taking it elsewhere. deeceevoice (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, with all due respect, why is it so hard to just comment minimally (or better - not at all) on other editors' behaviour? I know you're upset by Zara's revert and use of the inuse tag; so am I. However, all that talk page arguing over othe editors' behaviours, motives, etc. isn't appropriate for the talk page. To all: can we just keep the talk page to discussing the article, please? All these reciprocal calls of disruption of the talk page are disruptive themselves. What is so hard to understand about this? OK, 'nuff said.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had my say. I certainly wasn't going to revert Zara's edits without explanation. And I made a big deal of this -- yes -- because it's the second time it's occurred, and we all know how that makes us feel: disrespected. If she didn't learn from the reaction the first time (Why should she? The only thing that happened was that I got slapped with a content ban! lol), perhaps she'll learn from this one. Doubtful. She's already run straight to the AN/I[1], calling for (yet another) "uninvolved admin ... [to] take a good look at the issue." I've responded, hoping to avert another article lockdown. deeceevoice (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you got a content ban, and she still feels you're not listening, who can blame her for finding assistance, and what does it say about your ability to understand who got in trouble? You're certainly doing your best to antagonize her and inflame the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly worthy of a comment. So, I won't. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You guys are killing me here. I'd note that one of the often-argued failing of Wikipedia is that there is no such thing as an "official" adjudicator of a page, just whomever rocks up. And, yes, right now that's me.

• DVC - I have expressed to Z that I think that her edit was unproductive, both here and on her talk page. I've also asked you to please try to be less emotive. (Although, considering the number of times I've totally blown my top, I wouldn't blame you for throwing a pinch of salt my way.)
• Thuran - That wasn't helpful.

If there are behavioral problems with this article, this is not the place to solve them. This page is not part of dispute resolution. I'll resist the urge to bold and underline that. Please, comment solely and succinctly on the edits. Talk about them like they were done by magic. Say things like "I think that the edits of 12:35 were not founded in consensus." Edits have no provenance, so forget the history of all this for now. Otherwise we'll just repeat it. brenneman 14:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem a fairly measured, temperate soul, Aaron. Fine, if that's the just way you roll. But what I was asking you for was not a comment on her "edit," but some forceful comment on her exceedingly disruptive behavior in order that it not occur again. We all know it's not just some one-time "edit" that is the difficulty here. That said, I'm done discussing it. (I don't envy your role. ;) ) deeceevoice (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to amplify a bit: I do understand that the problems with this article stretch back, and that frustrations are currently very high. I'm getting the slight sense that stronger action was expected with respect to Z's edits. And I've handed out a few "formal" warnings in the last few hours, but Z didn't get one, just a slight rub-up. So I do see that this could be seen as less than even-handed.

But you guys are making me work so hard on the talk page here that I'm barely getting a look in on the actual article, or its history. And, however one views Z's recent edits to the article, I haven't seen her getting any kicks in on the talk page. (Please, for the love of dog, don't point them out to me if I mised them!) In the absolute opposite to how things should be working I care more right now about what goes on here than what goes on there.

That's not good. It's not good for anyone who is trying to work here as an editor, because it saps energy that should be spent elsewhere. It's not good for the article, that's for certain. And It's not good for the Encyclopedia, seeing as how it's made up of articles written by editors and all. And it can't go on. Unless things start getting better, the probable outcome will be that this article get protected again, and possibly even trimmed down to whatever stub that there was consensus for. Which right now I think would be "Ancient Egyptian race controversy: It existed."

No one wants that, so let's see some more nice. Smile, however much it look like a mask of death. Find some common ground that eveyone can actually agree on. And I'm going to bed.

brenneman 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I was done with this until I read your above comments -- and, yes, I'd already read your "rub-up" of Zara. :/ You say you're concerned that you haven't been able to pay any attention to what's happened in the article main space for all the heat and noise occurring here. But when the discussion here deals directly with something very important that just happened in the main article -- something that negatively affects both the article itself and the potential for us working as together as a team collegially and collaboratively to continue to improve it -- not only do you not really deal with that; you don't concentrate on the importance of the process, what I/we are jumping up and down about, trying to get you to pay attention to; you choose to focus and comment instead on who, or who has not (and, yes, you've certainly missed it) has been/is being "nice." In effect, "Zara may be editing unilaterally, disrespecting the efforts of the other editors and being massively disruptive -- but, hey, at least she's being nice." (Not!)

H-m-m-m.

I'm honestly trying, Aaron -- and maybe I'm missing something -- but I'm just not feelin' you on this.

Okay. Now I'm really done. Back to the subject matter.... deeceevoice (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff, Deeceevoice. Now, please could you give your attention to our proposed lead, and let us have your constructive suggestions for further improvement, so that we can make progress with the article itself. In case its gotten lost, here it is again:

The racial identity of the ancient Egyptians continues to be the subject of controversy from academia to modern pop culture, and it constitutes a major issue within Afrocentrism.

Today many people agree that the ancient Egyptians did not fit neatly into any of the modern racial classifications, and a growing consensus dismisses racial classification as a social rather than a biological construct.

Although the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from the Asiatics, the Nubians and the Libyans who lived around them, their depictions of themselves in their surviving art and artifacts are not always realistic, and this absence of conclusive evidence adds fuel to the debate.

We will add the references once the lead is published, and the article itself will support the lead with its referenced content, so let's just agree the lead for now. Even Zara is happy to go with this as a start, so please let us have your final inputs. Wdford (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's wanting, Wdford. But I've already spent way too much time on this today, trying to keep track of this matter at AN/I. (One of our editors has been very active there regarding this article. ;) ) I'll take a good look at the discussion and let you know something sometime tomorrow. deeceevoice (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Now Zara must say if the proposed lead is good or not, if there is something to add or to remove. It is time to move forward for replacing the existing lead.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The version Wdford has proposed isn't any worse or better than the current version. Questions of style or readability are secondary, what is important is that Afrocentrism is mentioned in the first (or probably second, if you like) sentence and that the controversy is not simply explained as resulting from the difficulty of the sources. I would tackle the issue differently, though. Zara1709 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing at AN/I

Meanwhile, Zara's reverted the text to where it was before Wapondaponda's edits -- which is fine with me. I think it's a good thing -- something I probably would have done had I realized the changes (even though, from a cursory glance, it appears he was editing in accordance with a developing consensus; whereas Zara certainly was not). At least we're back to where we were during the ongoing discussion about article scope, which was my stated objective in reverting Zara's "in-use" edits.

FYI, while she hasn't posted her intentions here, Zara's written a good deal at AN/I, including that she intends to call for full protection for up to three months, if her reversion of Wapondaponda's edits triggers an edit war.

So, be forewarned, kiddies, and play nice. :p

There are other revelatory statements at AN/I as well that I find disturbing, that involve a seemingly inflexible, "come hell or high water" kind of "proxy" editorial approach. But I won't comment further here. I urge that everyone involved in the article visit AN/I[2] and read up. deeceevoice (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, I certainly agree that "disputed" and "balance" tags should be replaced on the current version. deeceevoice (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We should stop moving around in circles and begin to make some hard progress. I have input some information in the article. I wouldn't say its set in stone. I don't have a particular version in mind. So I am putting up the information for the scrutiny of the other editors. I don't own the article, so I am open to suggestions, improvements. We cannnot be held hostage to the objections of one editor, who has not articulated any rationale for a limited scope, or has provided any suggestions. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: The discussion at AN/I has now been archived here: [3] -- just in case we need to go back to it for any reason. ;) ) deeceevoice (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Negro"

It's bad enough that whoever is using it often doesn't capitalize it. (Do you know all the crap we went through just to win that small victory?) "Negroid" is fine when describing a phenotype, because, frankly, there's little way of getting around it. But can we please not use this word? *cringing* "Negro" is so 1950s. It's the 21st century, people. We're Black. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to rub it in, but most of us are varying shades of brownish. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Deeceevoice, lets not use "Negro" unless it is part of a quotation. --Pstanton (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. However, some context, though black is the preferred term, it only became so in the late 1960s after Kwame Toure and James Brown popularized the term( ie black power, Say It Loud - I'm Black and I'm Proud). For at least 150 years 'negro' was the term of choice. Dr King Malcolm X an Du Bois used it extensively. Basically, most documents from the 19th and early 20th century use negro, so the term inevitably pops up in many historical quotations.Wapondaponda (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Varying shades of brownish"? Stephan, you know perfectly well what I'm saying. And, Wapondaponda, please. Stokely helped popularize the slogan "Black power" -- not "Black"; it was already heavily in use at the time. And James Brown was behind the times. He came out with "Say it Loud" only after politicized Blacks deluged him with a storm of criticism for the lame, patriotic "America is Still My Home" while we were in the midst of massive urban poverty and a war in Vietnam. He was trying to salvage his street cred and came out with "Say it Loud." He also did a song called "How Ya Gonna Get Respect (when you haven't cut your process yet)?" And we all know where that went.... And I'm not talking about quotes here. They are what they are, and when "Negro" is used with a lower-case "n" in such cases, the word should remain lower-cased. I'm clearly talking about editors writing and themselves using a term, here and now, that's been outdated for the last half century and more.

Get with the times, people. deeceevoice (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I have to spell it out. What I object to is the implied (consciously or not) "I'm a member of a disadvantaged group and therefore I'm right" - which is both unsubtle and a logical fallacy. I don't think I've used the word "Negro", except in a clinical meta discussion such as this, in my life. I also think it needs to be pointed out that the "black as a term of pride" concept is very US-centric, and that your "we" needs a qualifier, because if it refers to all people who have been covered by the term "Negro", I would dispute very much the existence of such a group identity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, but, no, you don't need to spell it out. We're getting sidetracked on something that shouldn't even bear discussion. Stephan I clearly used "we" in the context of Wapondaponda's erroneous comments, which had to do with African-Americans, Blacks in the U.S. And if you check the press, certainly in the "developed world" (as opposed to the underdeveloped one), the word "Negro" is very much on the way out, if not out already. I haven't read anyone even halfway enlightened calling Obama a "Negro" in public -- have you? Most politically conscious/progressive peoples of African descent today do not use the term; it has come to be regarded as a throwback to the bad, old days when Black folks had to shuffle to survive. So, let's drop this discussion here and get back to the article -- and stop using that particular "n"-word. deeceevoice (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. No harm. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a tendency to skim people's comments, and I'm just returning to yours. '"I'm a member of a disadvantaged group and therefore I'm right'"???? And "group identity" -- where did all that come from? This isn't the place for you to go off on a jag about wholly irrelevant (not to mention incorrect) stuff that just pops into your head. Because if we're going to be at one another's throats here (and I certainly hope that won't be the case), I'd prefer it to be regarding something at least marginally relevant to the subject matter at hand. deeceevoice (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hotep=Peace!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

17th century and 18th century sections

I'll be working part of this week and, possibly, next week to flesh out the period from the 1760s to the early part of the 1800s involving Bruce and Volney. deeceevoice (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good news!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Red-brown?

The photograph of the male statue is nowhere near red-brown in color. If anything, it's a light tan. And that's fine; surely some Egyptians were that color. But the caption says "red-brown," and he's clearly not. The Tut mannequin and lotus bust pictured earlier in the article are examples of the color/shade commonly referred to as red-brown. deeceevoice (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you use a pale rendering and say it is "typical," then that flies in the face of what I've seen and read about the Egyptians typically depicting themselves using red-brown pigment. By using a lighter-skinned example, you're essentially saying that Egyptians were fundamentally mixed-race people -- and that simply is not the case, if we're talking during the dynastic period. There was, indeed, some miscegenation among groups, but that was not the predominant case. We should either use the photo as an example of the range of skin tones depicted -- which is entirely appropriate; there should be such examples in the article for the sake of balance -- and/or find another, darker example as a more typical one. The tomb paintings clearly show what "red-brown" is -- and he's just not it. deeceevoice (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This guy Rahotep was a big cheese at the time the Pyramids of Giza were being built - the head of Khafra's army (or something). He does look a little bit non-black, and his wife looks decidedly European. Hence the "controversy", yes? Wdford (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it seemed convention for the Egyptians to portray women in lighter colors than men. Though sexual dimorphism in skin color is universal in all populations, it seems the Egyptians may have been exaggerating. It is possible that the skin color differences between Rahotep and Nofret were at least partly symbolic. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was always that the men were shown darker because they worked all day in the sun (and the sun in Egypt is a b*tch - have any of you been there?) The women were shown lighter because they were more "in-doors", and thus had less of a tan. I can't remember right now where I read that, but its something I've always "known" since childhood. The picture of Rahotep is maybe not the best resolution, but its the only one the Wikicommons had of the guy. See also http://cv.uoc.edu/~04_999_01_u07/percepcions/rahotep.gif and http://lh4.ggpht.com/_cyk8wqlSuWQ/R69N96bNPvI/AAAAAAAABZY/dG-qxSjWLB8/RahotepNofret.jpg for comparison. However, I doubt they would have made the women so pale if they were actually black (or even brown) so hence the controversy. Wdford (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like revisionism to me. Assuming that was the case, then what's the rationale for the portrayals of the royals (including the women) as red-brown? They didn't work in the sun. And unless one knows more about the individuals portrayed, it's impossible to know one way or another with Rahotep and his wife. Even Afrocentric scholars who contend dynastic Egypt was an essentially black civilization, no one contends that it was 100 percent Black African. So, even assuming a Black Egypt, it's not surprising that there would be the occasional (relative to the majority population) tan or Eurasian-looking person. deeceevoice (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In looking at Rahotep's wife, though, it looks more like a case of gender dimorphism. Her face is broad across the cheekbones, and she has full lips -- and a not-so-narrow nose. She looks Black to me. deeceevoice (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In early writings, the egyptians were thought to have been white skinned and only depicted themselves as red brown because of working in the sun. This view is no longer widely accepted. Many many modern egyptians are indeed red brown.Wapondaponda (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an old, old fiction that's not even being pushed anymore (thank goodness for small favors). A quick look at the peoples of the region will tell you that. That's as bad as my fourth-grade social studies teacher telling me back in 1960 (when I asked him if the Egyptians weren't "Negroes") that, no. They only painted themselves brown because those were the only pigments they had. (Yeah. Right.) ;) And if you're asking me, Rahotep looks Black! The man has a short Afro and looks like an Ethiopian/Eritrean. (He's considerably darker in the photo you've provided, Wdford.) deeceevoice (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No No there are sources that agree with Wdfords statement, The penguin historical atlas of of ancient egypt by bill manley says exactly that on pg 83 and if rahotep looked black deeceevoice why would fringe afrocentrics sites try and say rahotep is a fake perpertrated by the germans ,please dont try and say that certain statements made by reliable sources are not excepted because that would fall under WP:OR--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that some sources still propose the "tanning theory", but it is not widely accepted. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how old that work is, but I doubt that notion has much credibility these days. And just because it's in print doesn't make it so, Wikiscribe. All sorts of fiction/speculation has been written about the ancient Egyptians. I've already stated that there was some miscegenation -- more in some periods than others. That's pretty much universally agreed upon. Some of these same people talking that "suntan" smack also will try to say the Giza Sphinx isn't the image of a Black man, which is absurd on its face (no pun intended). And, no. OR applies to original research. And there's nothing "original" about my observation -- besides, I haven't put it in the article and don't intend to.

About the article itself, there's ample space in the article for varying viewpoints, and this article should include them. So far, though, aside for some niggling, little clean-up here and there, I've only written the lead paragraph -- which I think does a pretty darned good of stating the premise and scope of the article without being POV one way or the other. And I got rid of the blatant POV string of citations that was there before. So, please. Don't start tryin' to sweat me about OR -- unless you see something I've written in the article main space that you think violates it. deeceevoice (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

DCV the atlas i'm looking at is harldy from 1890 it's from 1996 also statements such as i don't intent to include such iformation because you don't agree with it or you think it's not true is a violation of NPOV--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You're funny. Or, maybe it's because English may not be your first language, so there may be some difficulty on your part on that score. If so, my apologies. But I was referring to my comment that you were labeling "OR." I have no intention of putting my personal observation in the article. Read my comment again. I also direct you to, "About the article itself, there's ample space in the article for varying viewpoints, and this article should include them." Stop trying to pick a fight where there is none. Chill. deeceevoice (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

images of tut and others

if we are to remove the images of rahotep and his wifey for the reasons deecevoice suggested fine same would apply to tut ,im not going to let you only show historical figures in ancient egyptian history who appear black to you and cut out two historical figures from the 4TH DYNASTY(you know when the pyramids were being build) on some sort of technicality please adhere to a NPOV--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem if you want to include rahotep and nofret. I think deeceevoice felt tomb paintings were more representative than the statues of Rahotep. That does not mean that it is policy to not have any statues. I think this is being petty. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikiscribe is reacting to what he feels is the over representation of dark-skinned images, and I understand that perfectly, but his solution isn't a good one. The image of Tut is legitimate, as it serves to illustrate the section on him. The image of Rahotep's wife is a good illustration of the pale-skinned images of women. One or the other image, of the tomb paintings or the image of Rahotep would suffice to illustrate the red-brown color of the males; however, the photo of him as it is doesn't do a good job of that -- as I mentioned before. If the photo of the same statue offered on the talk page is free of copyright restrictions, it's a decent alternative. I certainly should have left the photo Rahotep's wife. (I thought about it afterward and intended to come back later today to rectify it.) Either way, we don't need more than one image serving to represent the red-brown color of men. Frankly, I like the tomb painting image, but the caption itself is redundant.

Also, an additional image, of another ethnicity represented in the art of the Egyptians, would be helpful in terms of balance. I intend to add one as the article takes shape. As it is, it's pretty heavy on the Black Egypt side. And, overall, the article could stand a good going-over -- but I think we all realize it's far from finished and is still very much a work in progress.

Wikiscribe, I think your approach to the article thus far, and the way you've been relating to the other editors, could stand some improvement. It's possible to have a different perspective without being combative and playing tit for tat. I don't think the article is very balanced at the present. Feel free to contribute text where you feel appropriate. My approach likely will be to concentrate on adding information with which I'm most familiar first -- which will be that supporting a Black Egypt. I'm less inclined to research alternative viewpoints, because it's not an interest of mine and something I'm not, again, terribly familiar with. But I will, if I take a look at the article further down the line and feel it's still unbalanced. I urge you to take a more constructive, collaborative approach to the article and assume good faith. deeceevoice (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, you are missing the point just a little bit. The purpose of this article is not to “prove” that the Ancient Egyptians were black or were not black, the objective of the article is to illustrate the controversy. All the assertions from Afrocentric professors, and all the skull-measuring and grave-analysing is well and fine, but only the Ancient Egyptians themselves really knew for sure. Part of the controversy, as was clearly indicated in earlier versions of the lead section, is the fact that the only “hard” evidence we have is the art of the Ancient Egyptians themselves, and that this evidence is ambiguous. These statues don’t have to be representative of ALL the AE’s, they just have to be representative of the controversy – which is why I included them in the first place.

As this evidence is so central to the debate, I would actually like to broaden the section to give lots more examples of murals and statues etc. I would in fact like to create two main sections in this article, to give the “ancient” evidence at least equal weight against the “modern” evidence (and unsubstantiated opinions too, of course). I will meanwhile put back all the deleted illustrations, and I fully support adding lots more. This section is about ancient art, after all, so I feel its appropriate to include lots of examples of ancient art.

Lastly, I see lots of comments about my "POV" references. These references were intended to support the assertion that a controversy exists and that it is broader than Afrocentrism, and thus some of them will obviously be POV - that's what a controversy is. The assertion by some that the Ancient Egyptians were from Atlantis is part of the controversy too - surely that should also be included? Look at the illustration of the Book of Gates - do those Libyans look "Eurasian", as euphemised by DCV, or do they look like typical Atlanteans?

Wdford (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG. We've got someone here who thinks they came from Atlantis. lol Well, all right, then. If there's any credible scholarship to that effect, then insert it. *getting a headache* deeceevoice (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than clutter the article with images, I suggest we create a photo gallery to accompany the article. Right now, we have a situation where the page looks incredibly cluttered and messy with text superimposed on top of text. Pretty tacky/untidy. This is just gross, totally unacceptable! And, Wdford, I don't know who's been referring to your POV references -- certainly, not I. I've only said that, on the whole, the article seems not to cover the non-Black side sufficiently in some respects/subject areas. The issue is one of balance, to my way of thinking -- not POV. deeceevoice (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the article is missing the point -- though I admit so far I've only skimmed. I don't think it's gone into great depth about any one approach; it seems fairly succinct. Of course, my appraisal may change as the article develops, but I don't think the article is trying to "prove" anything. And, Wdford, I removed the business about "hard evidence" because it utilized some language I contributed that I thought put to better, more general use in the lead. If you'd like to reinsert some permutation of the language you're referring to in the section dealing with skin color, I, of course, have no objection. (I thought I had done so -- moved gist of that language from the lead farther down the page, but if it's not to your liking, then you're certainly free to have at it. deeceevoice (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort at cleaning up the page, Wdford, but this[4] is what I mean by a "gallery." It actually may be a better tool for showing comparisons, allowing the positioning of photos side by side, also with explanatory text, but uninterrupted by the text of the article itself. I've never set one up, so I can't help you. In fact, I tried adding an image to the Sphinx gallery without success. So, if you or anyone else knows how to format .jpg files to fit, that'd be great. deeceevoice (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, cool! How'd you do that?!!! (I see we're on the same page; my comments here are crossing with your changes to the article.) Looks good, Wdford. Thanks for adding the gallery. :) deeceevoice (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It gets hard to assume good faith when some are playing games with sources also i propose a set limit on the gallery or lets erase the whole article and just call it art of ancient egypt--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to put a limit on the gallery - provided the pic is related to the controversy then its valid. General pics that add no value should be culled, but beware unconscious POV. Beware also weasel captions - there are too many "thought to be's" here.

I'm surprised at the identification of Tiye - that head-dress is usually seen on Isis or Hathor, not on a human who is a mere mortal and not even a pharaoh.

Looking at that Armana princess really makes one suspect that perhaps the "Aliens" really did visit Egypt after all.

Wdford (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

for the tiye headress i put citation needed also i suggested a limit for the pics say like 16-24 to avoid having all pics and no article--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

i suggest we move the gallery and art section to the last section for continuity sakes so we dont have this big gap of pics in between sections also i agree with the changes wdford just made to the gallery it was becoming an arguementive bicker fest--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiye was a beloved queen who was much revered -- as much as a pharaoh -- so the headdress is no surprise -- and it's now sourced (which was my intention all along).

Well, that's Amarna art for you. They exaggerated the naturally dolichocephalic heads (Blacks known as "long heads" during ancient times) of the Tutmosid line: Meritaten, Tut, Akhenaten, etc. FYI, dolicocephalism is a "Negroid" trait.) deeceevoice (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are not for casual illustration, they directly address the important and relevant section of "eye-witness evidence". I don't think they are an interruption (at least not yet) and I don't agree they should be shoved to the bottom. However we need to ensure the gallery does not get out of hand, and if it reaches 24 items then perhaps some culling will indeed be required. Wdford (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the gallery should appear at the end of the article. That certainly was my intention in suggesting it. And I think that's usually the way it's done here. And, Wikiscribe, I had every intention of adding citations for the text accompanying the photos. I just got distracted, and it took me a while to hunt up sources. Had I known it would take me so long to do so, I would have placed a "fact" tag on the text (as I did with the info in the lead). I don't have a problem substantiating my contributions. The contentiousness is yours, and has been. Please adjust your attitude. This won't be a "bicker fest" if we don't make it one.deeceevoice (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DCV,I'm not going to debate you about the race of the ancient egyptians lets stick to the content of the article please--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If any images are removed from the article, can we have them archived in a talk page gallery here for future reference? --Pstanton (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Queen Tiye

Queen Tiye's statues look very African. But her supposed parents Yuya and Tjuyu are more caucasoid. What could be the reason for this discrepancy.Wapondaponda (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed. At first glance, they don't look terribly "Negroid" -- do they? I've spent quite a while looking around on the web for some other photos. It seems the mummies were remarkly well preserved. Here's a series photos of both of them (scroll down the page).[5]. The profile shots are very revealing. I saved both the images and enlarged them. They're fuzzy, but certain things jump out at me. The dolichocephalism of both -- extremely exaggerated in the case of Yuya, who seems to have rather full lips, particularly allowing for contraction of the soft tissue due to the embalming process and simply just, well ... death. Thuyu has a classic "Negroid" profile: maxillary prognathism and a slightly receding chin line -- which is a likely indicator of also alveolar prognathism, which are "Negroid" characteristics. It's hard to tell about Yuya because of the angle of the photograph w/regard to maxillary prognathism, just a slightly receding chin line -- which, again, may be evidence of alveolar prognathism. But he's got a rather broad nose on him, a pretty big honker, and it looks like it has a hump. So, there may be a Semitic bloodline there somewhere.

Thuyu also seems to have an undulating jaw line -- which, again, is a "Negroid" trait. And neither has a bilobate chin (a Caucasoid trait).

The hair of both is straight, but that's not conclusive one way or another. Many Blacks of the region have straight hair as a natural phenotypical variation among Black people (think Australian aborigines, who have straight and kinky hair). Also, the embalming process could have altered hair texture in much the same way concoctions today are used to straighten very curly/kinky hair. Also, if you look closely at the hair of Thuya, the tangle of hair down her back (off her head) appears to be quite thick and, possibly, coarse and "nappy." It looks like braids or twists.[6] It looks completely different in texture from the hair on her head. But, again, this is could be false hair (a wig/extensions), covered in ochre or some other cosmetic substance, or a misperception on my part.

If you look at Tiye, their daughter, she is clearly Black and very much in an Equatorial African ("Negroid") sense, seemingly unmixed.[7] There's another view on this page of the enveloping wig. This one isn't twisted; it's a straight-up Afro wig, like the huge Afro wigs shown in the Discovery Channel documentary on Nubia that aired a couple of years ago. And if you look at Amenhotep III, her husband and their daughter Sitamun[8], she is also very clearly Black.

For someone like Tye to come from that union, certainly at least one of them had to be very much a Black person.

The upshot? For my money, Thuyu is definitely Black, likely unmixed. Yuya might have some Semitic ancestry, but if so, he was likely Afro-Semitic. Additionally, in statuary he has a face that is quite broad across the cheekbones -- another "Negroid" trait. deeceevoice (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just double-checked to be sure. And, yep. That would seem to be in keeping with the common perception (beginning with the observations of W.M. Flinders Petrie, the Father of Egyptology) that the 18th dynasty was primarily Nubian. deeceevoice (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Frank Yurco,[9], this family is a disparate group, unlike most other Egyptians. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on which individuals you're talking about -- doesn't it? I'm at a loss when Yurco says "Egyptian" features. What does that mean? I'm guessing he's referring to the peoples of the African Horn, but I can't be certain. The link goes on to say that Egyptians and Nubians were the most similar in terms of ethnicity. (But we knew that -- didn't we? ;) ) I have to wonder about Yurco's characterization of Tiye was having thin lips. (One of the problems with forensics -- and Yurco is a forensics guy -- is soft tissue approximation). Tiye generally is not portrayed with thin lips -- quite the contrary. In fact the earlier link to those sensual, voluptuous, jasper lips I posted?[10] It's speculated that those belong to her (possibly a younger portrayal than than of her in the Afro wig).

Anyway it's late here, and I'm sick of dynastic Egypt right now. I'm shutting down my computer and calling it quits for the night. Peace, Wapondaponda. :) I'm out. deeceevoice (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Something else occurred to me as I went to bed last night -- something very obvious. I was thinking about how the American Tut reconstruction team had such thin lips on their model -- as opposed to the French and Egyptian teams. Certainly a mistake.

Frank Yurco, like the police detective on the French team who performed one of the three reconstructions on Tut -- the team who gave him fair skin and hazel eyes -- is a criminal forensics guy. Yurco may know absolutely nothing about the indigenous Black peoples of the region. The French detective certainly didn't. I called him in Paris and traded e-mails with him and was disappointed to learn he was operating in a knowledge vacuum. So, that easily could lead to the kind of possibly wrong-headed, off-the-mark presumptions/assumptions we've read and seen in both cases. deeceevoice (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Armana princess

Apart from looking ever so slightly alien, this Armana princess looks a lot like Angelina Jolie. Don't you think?

[[11]] [[12]]

Wdford (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Angelina Jolie is brachycephalic. And, like a lot of women in Hollywood, she's had her lips done. Also, Angelina Jolie has a flat profile and a narrower nose. The woman portrayed in the bust is seriously dolichocephalic, even allowing for the Amarna exaggeration. It's a family trait (like Akhenaten, like Tut). She also has an obvious maxillary prognathism -- if you've seen the other views of this same bust -- and very full lips that are, in form, unlike that of most Caucasian women, Jolie's augmented lips included. So, no. The bust is clearly "Negroid" in form, and Jolie is a very white White woman. Please, Wdford, don't waste our time, or talk page space, with this sort of silliness. deeceevoice (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jolie is famous for her large lips, a characteristic Negroid trait. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Amarna period piece. These are highly likely lips of a Black woman. [13] And this image[14] is of a Black man. (Note, again, the prognathism and the full lips.) It's Akhenaten. Both of these images, like the "alien" image to which you refer are from the Amarna period. deeceevoice (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Are the opinions on the appearance of this bust, authoritative in any way? Regardless of the opinion you hold? --Pstanton (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Google "Negroid phenotype," "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" and compare: full lips, dolichocephalic, prognathism, receding chin line. And that nose. It's not Asian, and it's a big wide at the base to be Caucasoid. No question. She's clearly "Negroid." Simple observation. deeceevoice (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So far

Okay. So, I haven't been able to get to any writing on the 1790s yet. :/

There are a few things about the article that jump out at me, though, at first glance. It's still got quite a ways to go.

1. The modern popular culture segment, it seems to me, is totally wrong. That's not what at least I had in mind when I mentioned it. I was referring to depictions of dynastic Egypt in film, in manufactured items, artists' depictions, etc. -- the kind of stuff that has shaped public perception/impressions -- like the Luxor Hotel in Vegas. Pop-culture schlock. The Giza sphinx actually belongs under "art" or, perhaps, in a section all its own.

2. There's an entire segment on the affinities between Egyptian culture and the other Black cultures of the African continent that has yet to be addressed/written. I'm not entirely certain how that would go without getting into arguments, pro and con -- which we don't want to do. But it certainly should be addressed.

3. The section addressing Khmet probably could/should be expanded to deal with the issue of linguistics, generally, as a source of contention.

4. And then, of course, the general copyediting that needs to be done.

5. Maybe there needs to be some discussion about the images selected for the gallery. Are there more appropriate/useful ones? Are they balanced?

6. There probably should be at least a nod to the crackpot Nordicists.

Comments? deeceevoice (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice thinking! But as we are dealing here with a sensitive matter, we will have to go slowly, step by step, allowing people to follow the progess.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? We tip-toe? You're kidding -- right? As it is, the article is stagmant. Not much has been happening. If anything, if the article remains in this condition, it's ripe for intervention. deeceevoice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I don't agree with having quotes by Zahi Hawass in the lead because Hawass is not the focal point of the debate. He made one statement during the Tut exhibition and that was it. He may be the Sanjay Gupta of egyptology, but he is not an authority on this controversy. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

True Hawass is not an authority on this controversy, but as a leading member of Egyptology (and a leading Egyptian at that) his opinion is very notable, and Hawass is quite passionate on the subject. The question of "who built the pyramids" is a big deal in Egyptology and a sensitive matter of Egyptian national pride, and therefore I think the "Hawass team" is a substantial point of view in this controversy. To leave it out of the lead makes it look like the debate is between the Afrocentric view and the view that race doesn't feature - there are meanwhile other views as well which are significant to the debate. We can modify the Hawass sentence, but the "Hawass viewpoint" cannot be airbrushed out on the grounds that he is not an expert in identifying race. Wdford (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, mentionning Hawass in the lead distorts it. To balance it, one has thus to put in the lead the opinion of Diop according to which the ancient Egyptians were Blacks despite the fact that modern Egyptians are mixed because of the invasions of non-Africans into Egypt. The opinion of Hawass can be put somewhere inside the article but not in the lead without completing it by another opposed view. Let's be very careful while making changes to this conflitual article! In short, I completely agree with Wapondaponda to see that comment by Hawas be removed from the lead.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I speak here only as a reader

I came to this entry more or less randomly, and started reading it. The section on "definition of race" is well-written and interesting, however it seems to be rather long and preachy. It does a good job of demystifying and contextualizing the discussion of race that follows, but at the same time, it seems unnecessary. I am not an expert in this area, and would not like for my remarks to be given any special weight, I simply wanted to weigh in as a reader and convey how I experienced this article for the first time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section on race is slightly off-topic. A link to the article somewhere in the page would suffice. A detailed discussion on race is not necessary here. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a detailed discussion on race is not necessary here, but the definition of race is definitely an important part of the controversy. Many African-Americans seemingly regard the Egyptians as "Black" merely because they are not "White". African-Africans, on the other hand, have a different definition of "Black" and feel equally strongly about it. Barak Obama would not qualify as "Black" in South Africa, and I wonder how many of the Afrocentrist scholars would qualify either. If we accept that the Egyptians were "neither black nor white", as per their own definition of themselves both in modern times (per e.g. Hawass) and in ancient times (per e.g. the Book of Gates) then there would be no controversy to begin with. The controversy only exists because some people (primarily those of the diaspora, it seems) cling to a different definition of "Black". As this is actually the crux of the controversy, it must surely be a core part of the article? Wdford (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there are many aspects of race that are social constructions. Who is defined as black differs from place to place. There are various definitions of who is black in the US, Brazil, latin America, the Caribbean and of course Africa. Articles such as Race_(classification_of_human_beings)#In_Brazil or Black people deal with these social constructions in detail. By looking at the those pages, the subject of who is and who isn't black has effectively been beaten to a pulp. Whether Tiger Woods, Mariah Carey or Halle Berry are black are tired and recycled questions. We shouldn't regurgitate that debate here, but we should focus on the Egyptians. I also don't think it is fair to psychoanalyze any of the people involved in this controversy. Even mainstream egyptologists admit that at least some Egyptians would have been black by today's racial classifications. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, I do also think that the issue should be addressed here too, because the controversy would not exist if everyone used the same definitions - one way or the other. I will try to produce a smaller and less "preachy" section. Wdford (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I agree with Paul and Anaxial's analysis above. Having a broader scope makes the article more interesting showing when the theories started and what acceptation had at that time, but it must be balanced so that it's not used to "endorse" views that have later become fringe. There's also the danger that those old views are used as WP:COATRACK to give extra space to the fringe views instead of being explained on their own merits. Also, it would be nice to explain why those theories became fringe (new archeological excavations, discovery of DNA, DNA markers, more papyrs discovered, better analysis of history, discredit of phrenology?) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has progessed massively since this talk-point was last discussed, Enric. The edit-war was resolved, and this is no longer a contentious issue. What is your intention in de-archiving it after all this time? Wdford (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, damn, I didn't know that. It appeared in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography as an active request, so I thought that it had been archived by mistake by an o ver-enthusiastic archival bot, as it happens sometimes. Just archive it back manually. Sorry for the mistake. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Trim and Polish

On reflection, the 19th Century section actually is a bit bloated with non-relevant stuff. The issue of slavery being based on assumed inferiority is obviously core to the controversy, but there is also a lot of waffle including arbitrary observations and one guy who merely quoted Herodotus in his dictionary. This section is basically the longest in the article, and it thus gives undue weight to stuff that is not really core. I propose to thin this section down to focus on the controverial issue around slavery. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Herodotus is in the Classical section and is quoted from Du Bois. Regarding the length of that 19th section, I have no comments for the moment. Actually, I see other sections with the same length.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

DNA

There has been some material added, I read through some of the references and I could not see any reference to the Ancient Egyptians. As this article has been subject to accusations of original research, we should try to avoid going off on tangents.Wapondaponda (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Soupforone has included the following statement "A number of DNA studies on modern Egyptians indicate that there has been significant gene flow from Asia and, to a lesser extent, Sub-Saharan Africa. " In none of the references is this statement supported.

• [15]
• [16]
• [17] is about lebanon, Egypt only mentioned in passing as having conquered lebanon.

At prima facie the statement appears to be original research. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's clearly original research. Meanwhile, he removed previous statements supported by references. What does he want to prove?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't add the DNA info on modern Egyptians to this article. Some other editor did. What I did was correct several inaccuracies that were already in place. There are also plenty of sources which indicate that Egyptian DNA has more in common with that of Eurasians than Sub-Saharan Africans. The majority, actually. Here's a sampling:

• Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza. 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. -- compared populations from throughout the world using extensive genetic data. The North African populations grouped with West Eurasian (European, Middle East) populations rather than sub-Saharan Africans.

• Di Rienzo, A., et al. 1994. Mutational processes of simple-sequence repeat loci in human populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A. 91(8):3166-70. -- studied the relationship of three samples (taken from Egyptians, Sardinians, and sub-Saharan Africans), using mitochondrial DNA and simple sequence repeats. In terms of genetic distance, the Egyptian sample was closer to the Sardinian sample than to the sub-Saharan African sample.

• Hammer, M. et al. 1997. The geographic distribution of human Y chromosome variation. Genetics 145(3):787-805. -- used seven different methods to compute population trees of world populations, using Y-chromosome data. All seven methods grouped the Egyptians with the non-African populations rather than with the sub-Saharan Africans. Egyptians' genetic profile resembles that of South Europeans more than the other regional groups in the study.

• Poloni, E. et al. 1997. Human genetic affinities for Y-chromosome p49a,f/TaqI haplotypes show strong correspondence with linguistics. American Journal of Human Genetics 61(5):1015-35. -- Egyptians and a few other African populations (Tunisians, Algerians, and even Ethiopians) showed a stronger Y-chromosome similarity to non-African Mediterraneans than to the remainder of Africans mostly from south of the Sahara.

• Bosch, E. et al. 1997. Population history of north Africa: evidence from classical genetic markers. Human Biology. 69(3):295-311. -- using classical genetic markers, calculated Egyptians to be genetically very close to Mediterranean Asians and Europeans. (journal abstract)

That's for modern Egyptians. For Ancient Egyptians, besides that one St. Louis study which found the tested mummy to be maternally European, there is currently a dearth of DNA studies on them for a variety of (mainly political) reasons. This, however, appears to be changing since Zahi Hawass and co. have tested, are in the process of testing, and have promised to test several mummies and AE remains. It remains to be seen what their results turn out to be. Soupforone (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes a Mummy from 30BC to 150 AD, during the Roman period, ie after the end of the Dynastic era.Wapondaponda (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Soupforone. The above info is interesting, relevant to the title and should be added to the article. Why don't you write it up and add it in?

Wdford (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the above information if it is relevant. I read through all the references which Soupforone added, and in each case the Egyptians are mentioned only once. No information stating that the Egyptians had limited gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa is mentioned in the article. Soupforone, if you would like to modify the DNA section, please provide quotes from your references, either on the talk page or in the article, to back up your research. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, let soupforone respond to you're claims first before trying to enforce you're own spin, you did not add the content soupforone did ,there is no fire in the theater now chill out--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would wait for soupforone to respond, but I read through all the references and I suggest you do so too, and in some references there is completely no reference to the egyptians at all. I am adding quotes from the previous content to justify it. At prima facie, soupforone is making stuff up. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the material which is being deleted and being replaced with no explanation. The first reference is from Krings et al the following are a selection of quotes.

To assess the extent to which the Nile River Valley has been a corridor for human migrations between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, we analyzed mtDNA variation in 224 individuals from various locations along the river. Egypt and Nubia have low and similar amounts of divergence for both mtDNA types, which is consistent with historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia.

We conclude that these migrations probably occurred within the past few hundred

to few thousand years and that the migration from north to south was either earlier or lesser in the extent of gene flow than the migration from south to north.

Wapondaponda (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

These are quotes from Lucotte et al

We analyzed Y-chromosome haplotypes in the Nile River Valley in Egypt in 274 unrelated males, using the p49a,f TaqI polymorphism. These individuals were born in three regions along the river: in Alexandria (the Delta and Lower Egypt), in Upper Egypt, and in Lower Nubia. Fifteen different p49a,f TaqI haplotypes are present in Egypt, the three most common being haplotype

V (39.4%), haplotype XI (18.9%), and haplotype IV (13.9%). Haplotype V is a characteristic Arab haplotype, with a northern geographic distribution in Egypt in the Nile River Valley. Haplotype IV, characteristic of sub- Saharan populations, shows a southern geographic distribution in Egypt

Haplotypes V, XI, and IV are the main Y-chromosome- specific haplotypes in Egyptian males detected in the present study. Haplotype V is characteristic of Arab and Berber populations of North Africa (Lucotte et al., 2000), where it defines a major similarity among coastal populations in a one-dimensional pattern: the frequency of haplotype V is 53.4% in Tunisia, 56.7% in Algeria, and 57.9% in Morocco, reaching 68.9% among Moroccan Berbers where it is in the wide majority; the frequency of haplotype V is 44.7% in Libya, and was established to be 40.4% in a previously studied population of 52 males originating from the northern part of Egypt (Lucotte et al., 2000). Haplotype XI is one of the three most important haplotypes found in Ethiopia (Passarino et al., 1998; Lucotte and Smets, 1999), where it attains 25.9% in frequency. Haplotype IV is characteristic of sub-Saharan populations in Africa (Torroni et al., 1990; Spurdle and Jenkins, 1992), where its geographical distribution can be an indication of Bantu expansion: for example, in Central Africa (Lucotte et al., 1994), the frequency of haplotype IV is 55.2% in Cameroon, and reaches 80.3% in Zaı¨re and up to 83.9% in the Central African Republic.

Wapondaponda (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Hold your horses. That's a very old study you cite above. It dates back to a period when the E1b1b Y DNA haplogroup to which most Egyptians and many Eurasians belong and the overwhelming majority of Sub-Saharan Africans do not hadn't even begun to be differentiated yet by researchers. Put differently, all the mutations which we now know separate Egyptians, North Africans, and many Eurasians from E(xE1b1b)-carrying Sub-Saharan Africans weren't even discovered yet. Mutations such as V12, V13, V22, V65, M281, etc. Just haplotypes such as those you've enumerated above. In fact, this is so old a study that it harkens back to a time even before when E1b1b used to be referred to as E3b (the study used the old "HG21" or "Haplogroup 21" terminology!). This is extremely significant because mutations take on average thousands of years between occurrences. And with all the new mutations Underhill et al., Cruciani et al., and other teams of researchers have discovered (and continue to discover) since the late 1990's when the study you cite above was being put together (it was only published in 2003, not conducted then; this is why, among other things, the study still uses the long-obsolete "HG21" and "Haplotype IV" etc. type terminology), that's a considerable and ever-widening gulf of time to when Egyptians/North & Northeast Africans/Eurasians with E1b1b last shared a common ancestor with Sub-Saharan Africans (TMRCA->Time to the Most Recent Common Ancestor). Fact is, the E1b1b haplogroup has exploded in size and continues to do so. Karafet et al. made this clear when they remarked in their big 2008 paper (the one where they pushed back the TMRCAs for all sorts of haplogroups, including E1b1) that 83 different mutations now make up the clade whereas researchers had only uncovered 30 such mutations as recently as 2002! This makes haplogroup E by far the most mutationally diverse of all major Y chromosome clades, and each of its sub-clades/mutations (such as E1b1b & its sub-clades) define distinct haplogroups of their own, 56 in total so far and counting:

"There are a total of 83 polymorphic sites that mark lineages within this clade, compared with a total of 30 internal mutations in 2002. This makes haplogroup E by far the most mutationally diverse of all major Y chromosome clades. These polymorphisms define 56 distinct haplogroups"

So when you're insisting that we include a study in the article that lumps Egyptians with Sub-Saharan Africans as though this were still the late nineties and we didn't know of the existence of countless Y chromosomal mutations which, again, separate Egyptians from Sub-Saharan Africans (they don't unite them; most Sub-Saharan Africans don't even have any E1b1b mutations) and by thousands of years, you are doing readers and the institution of honesty a huge disservice. Soupforone (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could i ask why any info that don't conform to an afrocentric theory on ancient egypt is some how needled to death than disregarded? i am very close to reporting both wdford and wapondapnda to an amin for pov pushing and not using proper wiki policy channels to a content dispute--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not true, there is a lot of information in the article that isn't Afrocentric. The problem is pushing information that is not supported by referenced reliable sources. If yourself or anyone else has information that is backed by reliable sources, feel free to present it on the talk page or to add it to the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats you're opinion let the dang editor who added the content RESPOND FIRST,you and wdford are trying to make up you're own rules please this article is under probation and can be protected indefinately at anytime if edit warring breaks out and also please assume good faith on the part of user soupforone who added the content--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The dang editor has had two days to respond and on each occasion, he continues to make stuff up. The whole purpose of using references is to ensure that any editor can verify the information independently. We shouldn't have to wait eons for anybody. The prior information is on the table for any editor to read and verify the accuracy. Thats how it is done on wiki. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikiscribe. This "dang editor" agrees with you that certain other editors seem positively terrified of readers getting wind of the fact that most genetic studies such as the ones I've quite clearly enumerated and summarized above and only a few hours ago (not "two days", as the inexplicably hostile Wapondaponda has claimed) assert the established fact that modern Egyptians have more genetically in common with Eurasians than with Sub-Saharan African populations. Soupforone (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could provide quotes from the articles. I have read them, information you have added is not consistent with the sources. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I doubt you've read the studies, here are a few quotes:

Rienzo et al.:

• "Genetic distances based on mtDNA sequences (Table 2), along with other results from nuclear markers, suggest that the divergence between African and the other two populations is larger than the divergence between Sardinia and Egypt."

• "Further analysis of mtDNA sequences suggests that the Egyptian population shows admixture with sub-Saharan Africans".Wapondaponda (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And? No one said Egyptians have no relation whatsoever to Sub-Saharan Africans. The authors of that study above certainly do not. What they do say and what has already quite clearly been stated on this talk page and in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article proper is that Egyptians are more related to Eurasian populations than to Sub-Saharan Africans. Like it or not, that is exactly what is indicated in the sources you yourself just asked me to quote for you. Soupforone (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Poloni et al.:

• "Non–sub-Saharan African samples are all grouped on the right-hand portion of figure 2, together with the southern-African Lemba sample and the Ethiopian Amharic sample. Ethiopians are not statistically differentiated from the Egyptian and Tunisian samples, in agreement with their linguistic affiliation with the Afro-Asiatic family... "

Bosch et al.:

• "An extensive bibliographic search was conducted to compile all available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations. The data were then synthesized to reconstruct the population's demographic history using principal components analysis and genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. Both analyses identified an east-west pattern of genetic variation in northern Africa pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, but a Mesolithic or older differentiation of the populations into the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand this genetic picture. Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers, the most isolated groups, were the most differentiated, while Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small." Soupforone (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that the modern populations of North Africa and Middle East are predominantly caucasian peoples. This article is about the Ancient Egyptians not North African or Middle Easterners. Even modern Egyptians sometimes do not consider themselves to be arabs, see Egyptians#Identity. Arabic speaking people after invaded Egypt around 600 AD.Wapondaponda (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That arguement is totaly off the mark you're just pov pushing you're afrocentric idealogy that the ancient egyptians were wholly displaced by invadeing arabs,genetic studies on modern egyptians is totaly relevant because the modern day population is related to the ancient and it clearly states that these studies are done on modern and not ancient egyptian mummies--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Studies of modern egyptians are relevant only if the studies relate to ancient egyptians. Nobody denies that Arab invasian of Egypt left an important genetic imprint on the Egyptians. This article is about the Ancient Egyptians, and any references must be directly connected to them per WP:GNG. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern Egyptians supposed self-conceptions are beside the point. The fact remains that its been repeatedly shown that modern Egyptians are very closely related to ancient Egyptians. There was no wholesale displacement of a local population by invading Arabs or Europeans, as Afrocentrists love to claim. And the article does clearly indicate that the DNA studies refer to modern Egyptians because studies on Ancient Egyptians are few and far between (again, it has to do with politics). Soupforone (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that we should not use North Africans or Middle Easterners as a proxy for the Egyptians. North Africans themselves are a diverse group. Using any study about North Africans in this article would border on original research, as WP:GNG states that sources should directly discuss the topic, and no original research should be necessary to extract information. With regards to population movement, Lucotte et al 2003 states:

Numerous postdynastic population influences,corresponding to additional migrations documented during the Ptolemic (300–200 B.C.)—Alexandria being a Macedonian city—Roman (since Egyptian annexation by Augustus), and later Arabic, Mameluk, and Ottoman times, are also likely to have contributed in a complex fashion to the current distribution of Y-chromosome haplotypes along the Nile River Valley.

Wapondaponda (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Section Break 2

I don't know why you would claim that (Krings et al 1999) and (Lucotte et al, 2003) are outdated relative to (Di Rienzo, A., et al. 1994) and (Poloni, E. et al. 1997) (Bosch, E. et al. 1997). Please explain.

Nonetheless there are number of problems with using these sources. WP:GNG states:

Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive

WP:SYNTH states

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or are not directly related to the article subject, the editor is engaged in original research.

• Rienzo et al , 1994 Mutational processes of simple-sequence repeat loci in human populations unrelated to the Ancient Egyptians

And the two studies on modern Egyptians that you champion are? Give me a break. Soupforone (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bosch et al Population history of North Africa: Evidence from classical genetic markers, this article is about North Africans in general and includes studies of Berber population who are unrelated to this subject.

No, the study above is about the genetic relationships or (lack thereof) of various North African populations including Egyptians with each other, with European populations, and with Sub-Saharan African populations:

"An extensive bibliographic search was conducted to compile all available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations. The data were then synthesized to reconstruct the population's demographic history using principal components analysis and genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. Both analyses identified an east-west pattern of genetic variation in northern Africa pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, but a Mesolithic or older differentiation of the populations into the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand this genetic picture. Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers, the most isolated groups, were the most differentiated, while Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small."

You're really reaching here. Soupforone (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Human Genetic Affinities for Y-Chromosome P49a,f/Taql Haplotypes Show Strong Correspondence with Linguistics this article is about linguistic groups and their genetic affiliation, No mention of the Ancient Egyptians here, modern egyptians are mentioned only briefly.

Not true. Modern Egyptians are among the populations studied in the paper, both in terms of multidimensional scaling analysis (Figure 2) -- the Afro-Asiatic cluster overlaps the Indo-European one, not the Niger-Congo and Khoisan ones in the right hand portion of the figure -- and in the discussion proper. And overall, Egyptians are much more genetically related to the Eurasian populations than to the Sub-Saharan African ones:

"Non–sub-Saharan African samples are all grouped on the right-hand portion of figure 2, together with the southern-African Lemba sample and the Ethiopian Amharic sample. Ethiopians are not statistically differentiated from the Egyptian and Tunisian samples, in agreement with their linguistic affiliation with the Afro-Asiatic family... "

Soupforone (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Contrast these articles with the following

• Krings et al 1999, mtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations: A Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration Deals directly with Egyptians only and it the article is written in the context of Ancient Egypt.

Errr, this is already included in the article. No one removed it, so what's your point? Soupforone (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Y-Chromosome Haplotypes in Egypt G. Lucotte et al 2003, This article deals directly with Egypt, once again in the context of the Ancient Egyptians.

Again, this is an outdated study that dates from a period when many mutations/polymorphisms which define the manifold and disparate haplogroup E sub-clades hadn't even been discovered yet. I've already very plainly and meticulously explained this to you only a few hours ago. Kindly stop beating a dead (and I do mean dead) horse. Soupforone (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How can this study be outdated when it is from 2003, and Bosch, Rienza and Poloni, your sources are from 1997 and 1994. If anything your sources are outdated. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The studies I cite are relevant because they don't rely on old Y DNA data for which new polymorphisms/mutations are constantly being discovered that alter the originally perceived relationships between the studied populations (and which are consequently subject to obsolescence if they're not updated). The Cavalli-Sforza paper, for example, uses classic autosomal markers, not old Y DNA data. Furthermore, the Lucotte et al. study you champion was actually conducted in the late nineties ("Venous blood was obtained from a total of 274 unrelated adult males, living in Egypt during 1995–1999."), not in 2003. It was only later submitted for publication in 2001, and belatedly published in 2003. In 2001, the outdated HG21/Haplogroup 21 and Haplotype nomenclature was still in effect. At the time, this HG21 terminology was actually still pretty new, since it was a part of Zerjal et al.'s nomenclature from their 1999 paper. And it's this old, poorly-resolved nomenclature that the Lucotte et al. study you cite uses. To put things in perspective, E1b1b and E1b1b1 hadn't even been distinguished yet then; that only came after Cruciani et al.'s 2004 paper. Again, countless new mutations have been discovered since the Lucotte et al. study was conducted and submitted for publication which separate Egyptians from Sub-Saharan Africans, as opposed to uniting them. I've already very meticulously explained this to you here. The reason why you have clung on to this particular old Y DNA study with such fervor is because it's the only one that groups Egyptians to some degree with Sub-Saharan Africans on the Y chromosome. And the only reason it groups Egyptians with Sub-Saharan Africans in this regard is because it dates from a period when the numerous mutations which separate Egyptians from Sub-Saharan Africans (and which continue to even further separate these two populations since more polymorphisms are constantly discovered and announced) hadn't even been discovered yet. That's not very honest on your part. This is especially true when one considers the fact that there are actually modern Y DNA studies on Egyptians that are readily available, such as the Cruciani et al. (2004) and Zalloua et al. (2008) studies that I personally added to the article and which you of course removed. Good going. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically this article is always the subject of accusations of original research. We should not begin to use tangential sources to advance any position, but use sources that directly deal with subject of the Ancient Egyptians. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very ironic statement coming from someone exclusively championing studies on modern Egyptians. Very ironic indeed. Soupforone (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is about ancient Egypt. Anthropologists are aware of the fact that populations of Lower Egypt are not representative of ancient Egypt. They trust only research made in Upper Egypt as relevant for ancient Egypt. Egypt moved south-north. Eurasians are not indigenous to Egypt. We learn this from Chantres: "Mes recherches anthropologiques sur les peuples anciens, comme sur ceux des temps actuels, ont porté presque exclusivement sur la Haute-Egypte (...). La Basse-Egypte, véritable boulevard de tous les peuples de l'Ouest, ne peut apporter, en effet, qu'un mélange inextricable de types étrangers" (Cf Aboubacry Moussa Lam, L'affaire des momies royales, p. 63).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Luka, Today Most Egyptians live in the North. Cairo the capital of Egypt, is the largest city in Africa, the largest city in the Arab world, and one largest cities in the World. Cairo is in the North by the delta. But in Ancient Egypt, the capitals were located in the South such as at Thebes.

Modern Egyptians are predominantly caucasoid

Nobody disputes that modern egyptians have traditionally been classified with other caucasoid populations. It is not rocket science if any DNA studies find a connection. But the article is entitled Ancient Egypt race controversy, not Modern Egypt race controversy. All material that makes no mention of the Ancient Egyptians is thus irrelevant and constitutes original research.Wapondaponda (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Stable version

I would suggest we maintain the stable version of the article for now. In addition I would suggest any major or controversial changes be discussed first. Otherwise there will be unnecessary and avoidable edit wars and protection. For all those who would like the article to remain unprotected, I would recommend using the talk page first. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of work has been added to the article since this version, and it looked to me that most of it was useful and constructive cleaning up and fine-tuning - nothing "major or controversial" except for the DNA section. I personally had no objection to any of it, although I am not an expert on DNA studies. I understand you are unhappy about the DNA section, but reverting an entire article is not appropriate. I suggest we put all the DNA studies into that section together, in date order, and let the readers decide what is out of date. However threatening a lock-down reminds me of Zara. Things have been going "normally" here since she left, so lets not throw the toys out the cot just yet. Please? Wdford (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What I can say is that soupforone is pov pushing and is either making stuff up or he does not understand the genetics. I follow closely human genetic studies, not only with the Egyptians, but worldwide. What soupforone is pushing is blatant distortion, I can provide all the details if anyone is interested, though it would clog up the talk page, and would be a bit technical. I am not calling for protection like Zara, I greatly dislike protection. My concern is that there have been so many edits in the last couple of hours, but I haven't seen any discussion on the talk page. You have done a good job of cleaning some of the stuff up, and I am not against that. Its just that there was too much change in short time and its difficult to track what changed and why. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

i would suggest leaving out all dna studies would be the only stable version because one of you're mantras were the relevance of dna on modern egyptians--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I know nothing about DNA analysis, but it seems the various DNA studies are contradicting each other, and who knows what the next study might show? And even if we could get consensus about the DNA of modern Egyptians, there will then come an argument about how relevant is this to the ancient Egyptians anyway? And even if we get a definitive study on verifiable ancient DNA, we still need to find a definitive interpretation of what those results mean for the race controversy. That's work that can be done off-line if you have a passion for it, but is it worth it? I have added a one-liner to the Race section to cover the DNA issue in the meanwhile, but let's maybe leave it out altogether until we have something definitive. What do you think? Wdford (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The DNA studies on the whole actually do not contradict each other. There are some disputes about finer details but overall there is little contradiction that DNA profiles are structured along clines in Egypt and everywhere else in the world. I'll give a brief explanation of the DNA. There are three types of DNA used for studying human populations, Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y-chromosomal DNA and Autosomal DNA. Each are used for different purposes. Both Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA can be used for dating historical migrations. With the current technology it is still almost impossible to use Autosomal DNA to track historical migrations. What this means is you can use mtDNA or Y-chromosomal DNA on modern populations to learn about migratory history of the population. MtDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA are not useful indicators of admixture, A blond blue eyed person can easily have African mtDNA or a Y-chromosome, it just means that one of his or her ancestors way back in time was African, and one can use the DNA to date approximately when the ancestor lived. On the other hand Autosomal DNA can be used to determine the admixture of person, ie whether a person is 50% white, 30% asian and 20% African, But you cannot use it to date when that admixture occured with the current technology.

To claim that "MtDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA are not useful indicators of admixture" is blatantly false. For example, wherever the haplogroup E1b1a/E3a has been observed outside of its native Sub-Saharan Africa, its presence is almost always said to have been the product of slave-era miscegenation since the clade originated with and is largely confined to Sub-Saharan Africans. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes mtDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA are evidence of admixture, but they do not provide any information on admixture proportions, since these are passed down whole from generation to generation. Ancestry informative markers, mostly found in non-coding DNA (junk DNA) autosomal DNA are what are commonly used to determine admixture proportions.Wapondaponda (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important when referencing studies on the Ancient Egyptians, that the type of DNA test is clearly specified and that we do not compare apples with oranges. We should not compare Autosomal DNA studies such as Rienza et al with mtDNA/y-chromosome studies.

And who is? Cause last I checked, the Y DNA studies were quite clearly labeled as Y DNA studies, the autosomal studies as autosomal studies, and the mtDNA studies as mtDNA studies. Stop insinuating that which does not exist. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is mtDNA/y-chromosome studies on modern population that led to the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. By using the very same techniques Lucotte et al and Krings et al used studies of Modern Egyptians along the nile valley from north to South. Not only did they find clinal patterns indicating migrations and gene flow from South to North and vice versa, they were able to estimate when these migrations occurred, and their estimates fall within the Dynastic period of Egypt. That is why the studies are relevant. What soupforone is doing is simply to cherry pick any article about the genetics of modern egyptians, and use the information out of context in which the journal was prepared. He is taking advantage that many do not understand genetics and is trying to confuse other editors.

That's a load of rubbish. First of all, you keep bringing up the Krings et al. study when no one has disputed its validity or attempted to remove it from the article. You've already been repeatedly told that it's the Lucotte et al. study that's the problem because it dates from a period when countless haplogroup E and E1b1b mutations hadn't even been discovered yet, including many of the ones that define modern Egyptians. You've added this particular study because you know that only old studies from this period group Egyptians with Sub-Saharan Africans on the Y chromosome since all the modern studies such as Cruciani et al. (2004) and Zalloua et al. (2008) (which I added to the article in place of your old Y DNA study, and which you unsurprisingly removed) indicate that the E1b1b haplogroup (along with some Eurasian clades) is the dominant Y haplogroup among Egyptians; not E1b1a or any other Sub-Saharan African haplogroups. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For instance he soupforone wrote[18]

"Several recent Y-chromosome studies of modern Egyptian males by Cruciani et al. (2004) and Zalloua et al. (2008) have shown a prevalence of the circum-Mediterranean haplogroup E1b1b, with northern Egypt typically demonstrating a higher frequency of the clade than southern Egypt."

It is blatantly false to claim that E1b1b is a "circum mediteranean haplogroup". Read Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Origins and it is obvious that E1b1b is in fact an African haplogroup. Soupforone is trying to take everyone for a ride. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Gonçalves et al. 2006 source describes E1b1b/E3b as "circum Mediterranean", not me. I've simply relayed this well-established fact. However, I'm sure said authors would be absolutely devastated to learn that certain Wikipedia talk page warriors think their assertions are "blatantly false" and that they're "taking everyone for a ride". Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And whether you like it or not, E1b1b does have a considerably higher frequency in Northern Egypt than in Southern Egypt. Both Cruciani et al. (2004) and Zalloua et al. (2008) have demonstrated this in their studies, with Zalloua et al. actually showing about a 20% higher frequency of E1b1b in the North than in the South. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and E1b1b in Africa is largely confined to North and Northeast Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. It is therefore not an "African" haplogroup, but a circum-Mediterranean and Horn African one, just like Gonçalves et al. 2006 state. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Haplogroup E-M78.png

Spread of haplogroup E-M78 from East Africa

e1b1b is probably of little relevance to this article since it is estimated to have emerged some 20,000 years ago. Nonetheless, you conveniently referred to it as a circum-Mediterranean, when the study you site Goncalves et al states "E3b consist of lineages that are typical of the circum-Mediterranean region or Eastern Africa". The part you left out is the most important, that E1b1b is very likely of of Eastern African descent. I thought that was quite disingenuous.Wapondaponda (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "Eastern Africa" is of very little relevance in the case of Egyptians because the sub-clades of E1b1b that Egyptians belong to (E-M81; assorted sub-divisions of the E-M78 depicted in your map such as V12) all originated in North Africa according to Cruciani et al. 2007, the authority on E1b1b. Still, I can't say I'm surprised that you'd protest that E1b1b is not relevant since it does, after all, have a patently non-Sub-Saharan distribution and evolution. And it is considerably more prevalent in Northern Egyptians than the "darker-complexioned" (your term, not mine) Southern Egyptians. Something tells me, however, that had the Egyptians predominantly belonged to the Sub-Saharan E1b1a haplogroup, you'd have fought tooth and nail for this little factoid to be included in the article. Soupforone (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold up ,it clearly states these are dna studies on modern ancient egyptians ,i might want to remind you one of the dna studies that were added made reference to a sub saharan african dna being the result of the nubian invasion ,though there was no mention of that in the authorship of the paragraph, could you be guilty of the same thing you are accuseing others of ,please don't call the WP:kettle black--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ah "modern ancient egyptians" could you be more succint. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, its actually quite interesting. From what you briefly outlined above, it seems the genes spread north-south and south-north simultaneously (more or less), which agrees with what was added in the Race section about neighbouring populations inter-marrying over time. Does this tell us anything specific about the race of the ancient Egyptians, or add to the controversy in any definite way, or is it just supporting the contention that the ancient Egyptians were a mixture of black and semitic races even back then, as was claimed by some of the experts quoted in the Afrocentrism article? (Yurco I think?) Wdford (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

MtDNA and Y-chromosomal studies won't tell us exactly what race the egyptians were, but both studies show that they were migrations of Sub-Saharan DNA into Egypt and the Migration of Eurasian DNA into Nubia. The authors of the study say that this is supportive of Nubian conquest of Egypt and the Egyptian conquest of Nubia. It is also supportive of the fact that the Nubians were the closest culturally and genetically to the Egyptians. I don't see why those studies should be removed, they are relatively recent and they were not done by Afrocentric scholars. They directly relate to ancient Egypt and its population history. The studies are also consistent with several other studies. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

These two dna studies should certainly be of some interest [[19]][[20]]--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern Egyptians

I guess the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Here are some pictures of Modern Egyptians. I would think most of them are probably from the south, judging by their dark complexion. Someone suggested that there was only minimal gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa. Doesn't make any sense to me Wapondaponda (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

waponda stop you're grandstanding you seem like your WP:SOAP, also how do we know these people are not nubian in origin just as you try and claim light skin egyptians are arab or other asiatic and european in origin stop you're pov pushing this sort of addition is not attempting to help improve the article ,it's more disruptive than anything--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what their origin is, these are Egyptian people dark skinned, and are of Sub-Saharan descent. How can anyone claim, despite mountains of evidence that their is only a minor Sub-Saharan genetic influence in Egypt. I will proceed to re add the information from Krings et al and Lucotte et al. The information is not controversial in any way. Krings et al is cited by at least 100 scientific journals. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

and the grandstanding continues?please note the article is on probation not only does that mean it can be protected from editing at anytime indefinatley, disrutpive editors can be blocked off the article and all i'm seeing from you is disruption and trying to use the article to advance you're agenda.Please work to improve the article not use the article talk page to soapbox i.e PLEASE STOP VIOLATING THIS POLICY WP:NOTADVOCATE --Wikiscribe (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

also three of these pictures that you put up in you're soapboxing tirade probalay would not be considered black--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Once again, that is a subjective judgment, but nevertheless the Egyptians are a heterogeneous population, some are light skinned, others are black, many in between. The reasons are simple, genetic exchange between Africa and Asia. This has been confirmed by a myriad of genetic studies. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Kefaya demo.jpg

Modern Egyptians are indeed a heterogeneous population. However, this is not because of genetic exchange between Asia and Africa, but because of genetic exchange between Asia, Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa with Egypt's own indigenous North African population (the reddish-brown-skinned people depicted by Egyptians themselves in the Book of Gates). A few of the images you have posted in the gallery above are also by no stretch of the imagination representative of the average modern Egyptian. I'm referring in particular to the first image on the top row and the third image on the bottom row. With regard to the latter, you quite literally cherry-picked the least Caucasoid images you could find in an attempt to prove your (dubious) point. But as has already been pointed out to you, there are many so-called "Egyptians" who are actually Nubian immigrants to Egypt. Some southern Egyptians also have Nilotic admixture, and it shows in both their physical appearance and DNA (Sub-Saharan mtDNA). I find it amusing that you would take the trouble to name an entire new section of this talk page "Modern Egyptians are predominantly caucasoid", yet can't seem to help yourself from falling back on that old Afrocentric standby, the cherry-picked Negroid image. Do you think we were born yesterday? To the right is a group image of typical modern Egyptians, and it has very little to do with your soapboxing. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

People, in the two thousand-odd years since the conclusion of dynastic times there has been a lot of migration, and huge numbers of "non-ancient-Egyptians" have moved into the Nile valley. The DNA presently found there, and the appearance of the modern people, cannot be said to be a RELIABLE indicator of what the ancient Egyptians really looked like. There is no doubt that Nubian people migrated up and down that valley in ancient times, and there is no doubt that slaves and captives and merchants and traders and soldiers and fishermen etc etc of all races moved back and forth continuously, leaving traces of their genes along the way. None of this really helps the article. The article is not to establish what race were those ancient people, merely to highlight the various aspects of the controversy and explain why they are controversial in the first place. The fact that the various DNA studies indicate that a range of "races" spread around in various directions over thousands of years is excellent proof of why there is still a controversy, and it should be included in the article. However there is no value in supporting one study over another, because clearly the scientists themselves are not able to be certain about something that happened so long ago and with such fluidity. Let's give a statement that the DNA studies are inconclusive, that some support one story and others another, and leave it at that. We are not going to be able to finalise the race issue here. Wdford (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the thing about the DNA studies done so far, they were not designed to conclusively prove what race the ancient egyptians were. That cannot be fully ascertained using mtDNA or Y-chromosomes DNA because these are relatively inconsequential fragments when it comes to determining a person's full genetic profile. The best way to do that is to extract autosomal DNA from Egyptian mummies. Because DNA deteriorates rapidly in hot weather, the scientists have struggled to retrieve meaningful amounts of DNA from Egyptian mummies. They have had much more success with remains from Europe because of colder weather. At some stage in the future there will be some conclusive DNA testing on mummies and it will go a long way in resolving the debate. In short Krings et al and Lucotte et al were not designed to learn exactly what race the egyptians were, but they were designed to learn about the population history of Egypt.

Traditionally the dividing line between caucasian populations and black african populations has been the Sahara Desert. The argument has been that the Sahara desert was a barrier to gene exchange between sub-saharan Africans and North Africans. Henceforth there was little interbreeding between Blacks and North Africans. There may be some truth to that for many other parts of Africa except for the Nile Valley. The Nile begins in East Africa, one tributary in Rwanda runs through tanzania, kenya, uganda sudan then to Egypt. The other tributary from Ethiopia to Sudan then to Egypt. So while much of inner Africa was cut off from North Africa, there was still a safe corridor along the Nile along which Africans could migrate north to Egypt. The purpose of Lucotte et al and Krings et al was to determine whether Africans were travelling along the Nile to Egypt or not. The conclusion was based on the genetic profiles was that Africans were traveling along the Nile up to lower Egypt. The estimates of these migrations likely took place during dynastic times, and possibly even earlier.Wapondaponda (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - that makes perfect sense. Wdford (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added fresh material in new sections, including the most comprehensively referenced statements I've seen on wikipedia. If anybody has conflicting material, please add it as well, so as to give a fully balanced view. Wdford (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Coptic Language

Thanks for adding the references. However your reference for the extinction of the Coptic language does not make sense - please could you recheck it? Also, in the article on the Coptic language which is linked here, it says in the lead that people still speak the Coptic language today, and I have met Copts who still speak that language among themselves. While I certainly agree that most modern Egyptians speak Arabic, I would therefore take out the statement that Coptic is extinct. Wdford (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually its reference 65 that's got a problem - the one that refers to Coptic being extinct. I think its maybe a typo. Wdford (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

DNA part 2

Lucotte et al is not outdated, it is referenced by number of scholars such as Keita 2005. These is what Soupforone advocates and this is are the reasons I oppose

Although DNA data from the dynastic period is not yet available, a number of DNA studies on modern Egyptians indicate that there has been significant gene flow from Asia and, to a lesser extent, Sub-Saharan Africa.[87][88]

This is simplistic, because gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa is significant in Southern Egypt per Krings, and Lucotte and others. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

One study by Krings et al. from 1999 revealed two mitochondrial DNA clines: one Eurasian mtDNA cline running from northern Egypt to Southern Sudan, and a second cline of Sub-Saharan mtDNA extending from Southern Sudan to Northern Egypt. The results suggest significant bidirectional gene exchange between Egypt and Nubia within the last few thousand years.[81]

Other studies based on maternal lineages link Egyptians with people from modern Eritrea/Ethiopia such as the Afro-Asiatic-speaking Tigre,[89][90] who are characterized by the haplogroup M1, which is believed to have originated in West Asia.[91]

Yes M1 originated in West Asia, but the time depth is significant, on the order of 20,000-30000 years[21]

Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) compared populations from around the world using extensive autosomal genetic data, and found that the North African populations, including Egyptians, grouped with West Eurasian (European, Middle Eastern) populations rather than Sub-Saharan Africans.[87] This finding is supported by another study by Bosch E. et al. (1997). Using classic genetic markers, Bosch et al. studied several modern North African, Middle Eastern, European, and Sub-Saharan populations and found that Egyptians and Libyans were the shortest genetic distance away from the European populations. The authors suggest that the genetic similarity between the studied Egyptians and Libyans with Europeans might be due to a demic diffusion (population movement) from the Near East during the Neolithic period. They also found that "the genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small."[88]

Nobody disputes that modern populations of North Africa are primarily caucasoid and of Near Eastern Origin. As mentioned the Sahara Desert was a genetic barrier separating North Africa from Sub-Saharan Africa, east to west, with the exception of the Nile Valley per Krings, Lucotte et al. Furthermore, some of those statements are gross oversimplifications. For Example Cavalli Sforza states" The present population of the Sahara is caucasoid in the Extreme north, with a fairly gradual increase of Negroid component as one goes south"[22]Wapondaponda (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A study by Poloni et al. (1997) sampled 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt. They found that Egyptians and a few other African populations (Tunisians, Algerians, and even Ethiopians) showed a stronger Y-chromosome similarity to non-African peoples from the Mediterranean than to Sub-Saharan Africans. They also suggest that paternal lineages of North African populations date to Neolithic migrations from the Near East.[92][93]

Though Egyptians are included in the article, it is about North Africans in general. Once again nobody disputes that North Africans are recent immigrants from the Near East.Wapondaponda (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Several recent Y chromosome studies of modern Egyptian males by Cruciani et al. (2004) and Zalloua et al. (2008) also have shown a prevalence of the circum-Mediterranean haplogroup E1b1b, with northern Egypt typically demonstrating a higher frequency of the clade than southern Egypt.[94][95][96]

Once again this Zalloua et al refer to this as circum mediterranean and East African, with an origin in East Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Drawing of a fresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting (from left): Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, Egyptians. The Ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from other other North African peoples, such as the Libyans

Not one of you're arguements are valid and you are engaging in WP:OR, it's not for you to decipher the the dna studies as long as they are written within the spirit of the dna abstract and are relevant to the subject matter and it's not up to YOU to decide if egyptians of today are the result of post dynastic and dynastic intrusion which is what you keep POVING, also egyptians are north africans so studies on north africans belong particulary when the abstract mentions Egyptians and states this "Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East". ,now please wapondonda stop needleing everybodies contribution to the article because you disagree with content ,it's obvious you have a horse in this race, if you want to try and prove that ancient egyptians were all sub saharan africans than find studies that propose that stop trying in you're original research way to disqualify items you disagree with because it seems you have a problem with anything that does not show a sub sahran african connection.One more thing just because one or more studies say one thing and other studies contradict that study does not mean the study that has the minority view gets left out particulary when it's not considered WP:FRINGE that there was a large sub saharan dna contribution to ancient egypt or not, it's an ongoing debate based on many different scientiffic studies going in many directions,also the origins of m1 is certainly relevant to the article because another abstracts site a connection to this haplo group,so please read this WP:Undue,also stop useing the talk page for endless debate and try and imporve the article not needle it to death because wikipedia is not based on WP:TRUTH but on reliable sources--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to draft an elaborate response to Wapondonda's latest attempts to suppress studies on the non-Sub-Saharan components of Egyptian DNA, but I see Wikiscribe handily covered it. Soupforone (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is about ancient Egyptians, not modern Egyptians. The DNA section speaks mainly about modern Egyptians! It could be meaningful if it concludes about ancient Egyptians. For instance, as one can notice, modern Egyptians in the north tend to go with Europeans and Asians, and Egyptians in the south with the other Africans (Nubians...). Knowing that ancient Egypt is primarily the south, the conclusion could be that ancient Egyptians were Blacks. The DNA study of modern Egyptians can only be legitimate if it gives conclusions about ancient Egyptians. Those conclusions are lacking in the section which by the way is too long for nothing! For now at least, this DNA section is not really at its right place.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes this article is titled "Ancient Egypt race controversy". Therefore any study must be related to the Ancient Egyptians. If the articles that Soupforone is proscribing make a direct connection with the ancient egyptians, I would have no problem including them. Otherwise we are in original research territory. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right! I don't know if Soupforone agrees with this latest observation. There is a need for quotations making conclusions for ancient Egyptians from those DNA studies.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at it another way: if we were to make the same studies in another locale, say tthe state of Louisiana in the USA, and conclude based on genotypic studies of contemporary Louisianians that "Ancient Louisianians" of 4000-6000 years ago were of primarily European and African descent, we'd rightfully get laughed at. Over millenia, waves of immigration have changed the entire balance of the population. Other, similar waves of immigration occured over Egypt in the last 6000 years. Unless we find documented consensus that experts agree that the makeup of the Egyptian population hasn't changed in 6000 years, coming with contemporary studies and applying them blindly to explain the genetic origins of ancient populations is pure OR.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ramdrake on this. North Africans are not a homogeneous ethnic group, there are Berbers, Bedouins, Arabs, North African Jews, Tuaregs etc. So we shouldn't assume that study on North Africans is the same as a study on the Egyptians. Studies of modern egyptians will always be on shaky ground. But there are at least two studies done on Nile Valley populations that are done with the goal of trying to explain the population history of Ancient Egypt. I find those studies acceptable, but I will leave that up to the community. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake what you're failing to realize that modern egyptian is the spark of the whole controversey i.e they are certainly relevant to the article, though what you are doing right is stateing you're own hypothesis and you are encourageing original reasearch, also one more thing wapondaponda for example is infavor of having dna studies but only ones that conform to his POV,what say you ramedrake? and ramdrake read this dna abstract and please read the ending (for example) [[23]] the source itself states these ancestrial genes are the result of migrations from the neolithic you do know what the neolithic is don't you ramedrake so explain how that is or--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, the only thing I'm saying is that assuming that modern Egyptians have the same genetic makeup as the Ancient Egyptians is an unwarranted assumption, unless you can demonstrate that this assumption is the consensus among experts in the field. Studies on modern Egyptians may or may not give similar results than the same studies on Ancient Egyptians; to the best of my knowledge, nothing warrants the assumption that they will give the same results, i.e. that they are the same population even though they share, over time the same locale. Having read the abstract you point to, this study just says that it supports demic expansion from the Middle East into North Africa. It says nothing on the possibility of a demic expansion from the south to the north of Egypt; it doesn't rule it out. An object may be red; it doesn't say anything about it being striped or not, for example. Unfortunately, it looks like you're interpreting too much from those studies.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting, i was merely stating that is in fact what the abstract said i.e the shit was not made up off the cuff,i dont have a horse in this race ramdrake i did not add one study to this article so im not an advocate, but other editors are citeing sources and you're citeing you're own theories,please ramdrake i hope you're intensions are npov and you did not join this disscusion to cause disruption--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The only thing Wapondaponda is interested in is ensuring that studies he personally approves of are included in the article. This became painfully clear when, after having complained and complained about us including studies on modern Egyptians (and only after having added some of his own), he removed all the cited studies, only to personally reinsert them later in a preferred version. He also removed for no reason whatsoever a reference specifying that limb elongation, such as that observed in Ancient Egyptians, is, in fact, an adaptive trait (hmmm... I wonder why that is?). That's the kind of POV editing we're dealing with here. Soupforone (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is science ramdrake you are not going to find a consensus for anything it's scientiffic studies not wikipedia studies,thats why you allow all studies relevant to the article in, now i'm not trying to censor waponda studies for instance but the ones added by soupforone he is trying to censor, now i can understand the arguement about modern egyptians and ancient egyptians but it clearly states these studies are on modern ones not ancient ones.Now as you stated you are against any studies on modern day egyptians, Ramdrake. So lets see if the consensus is with you or agaisnt you lets give it time for other editors to chime it--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine. RfC on whether this assumption is OR, anyone?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake nobody is assumeing anything the studies are reliable sources but yet you keep accuseing people of trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, please spear us you're lame sarcasm, it lacks in all departments--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is claiming the Ancient Egyptians were the same people as modern Egyptians. It's quite clearly stated in the article that the DNA studies concern modern Egyptians only and that studies on ancient Egyptians for the moment aren't available. In saying that studies on ancient Egyptians aren't available, we're letting readers know that the DNA studies of modern Egyptians are mutually exclusive from those of ancient Egyptians and consequently that the former don't necessarily jibe with the latter. If they did match perfectly, it wouldn't be necessary on our part to draw a distinction between the two as we've done. This whole non-issue is therefore strictly a question of relevance, not OR. You did, after all, state that your reason for adding the OR tag was that the studies concern modern Egyptians as opposed to ancient Egyptians. Soupforone (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but by mentioning at length the studies on modern Egyptians in the article about ancient Egyptians, you are misleading the reader in thinking that studies that apply to one population also apply to the other. Otherwise, these studies would be totally off-topic in this article. Problem is, we barely mention that the two are different, and then we go on in a very lengthy section about a subject which is of dubious relevance to the topic, as if it belonged. There is a definite logical flaw in this.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

DNA part 2 section break

I don't mind an RFC. However I think this is straightforward. WP:GNG states:"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." For this article, sources should directly address the ancient egyptians. I do not object to studies of modern Egyptians, as long as the studies relate to Ancient Egyptians. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. While the studies that soupforone added are certainly important, they make no connection with the Ancient Egyptians or for that matter the controversy over the race of the ancient egyptians. If they did, I would have no problem including them. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth to Wapondaponda: The studies you added to the article were and are on modern Egyptians too. In the interests of non-hypocrisy, perhaps then you should be lecturing yourself on policy. Soupforone (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Krings et al and Lucotte et al are on modern egyptians. However, the study is on Nile Valley populations. The whole goal of the study is determine whether during ancient Egypt, there was gene flow accross the Nile. It is Krings et al who suggest that the admixture of the Egyptians could have been a result of Nubian conquests. For example Krings et al states

Nonetheless, we can infer that the migration of northern mtDNA types to the south is older than the migration of southern mtDNA types to the north (or that there has been less gene flow from north to south than from south to north along the Nile River Valley) and that

Egypt and Nubia have had more genetic contact than either has had with the southern Sudan. Moreover, we can tentatively infer that these migrations occurred recently enough to fall within the period of the documented historical record of human populations in the Nile River Valley. Thus, it is tempting to try to relate these migrations to specific historical events (Shaw and Nicholson 1995). For example, the migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991–1785 B.C.) and

more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490–1437 B.C.). The migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730–655 B.C.), when kings from Napata in Nubia conquered Egypt. Of course, additional migrations documented during the Ptolemeic, Roman, and Arabic times are also likely to have contributed to the current distribution of mtDNA types along the Nile River Valley

[24]

Wapondaponda (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm correct. And that paper is still a study on modern Egyptians, not ancient ones. I repeat, no Ancient Egyptian DNA was studied; only that of modern Egyptians. Hypothesized migration routes aren't DNA. Sheesh. Soupforone (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Needless to say, for the umpteenth time, mtDNA studies on modern populations can be used to construct historical migratory patterns. This is the same technique that scientists have used to conclude that Mitochondrial Eve lived in East Africa 150,000 years ago, even though her skeletal remains do not exist. The same techniques are used for the Recent African origin model, yet no DNA from the ancient populations is available. This is not to say that they are 100% accurate, far from it, but it seems the reliability is increasing as the technology improves. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's for the first time. And I'm not disputing that mtDNA or Y DNA studies can be used to reconstruct migratory patterns. I'm well aware of that as well as its irrelevance to the present discussion. What I wrote was that the migratory patterns described above tell us absolutely nothing about the DNA background of the Ancient Egyptians and therefore about their race (the subject of this article). They only suggest who the Ancient Egyptians may have had contact with, not which haplogroups defined AEs (not to mention at what frequencies) or even said people AEs had contact with. Nubians, for one thing, had considerable Eurasian DNA as well as Sub-Saharan DNA. One can only guess what the genetic profile of the Egyptians was because the study above on modern Egyptians certainly does not tell us. All it tells us about is the DNA of 68 modern individuals from Egypt, 80 from Nubia, and 76 from the southern Sudan -- not Ancient Egyptians. Soupforone (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A person's DNA profile isn't created spontaneously, it is passed down from generation to generation during which it evolves with time. By using the molecular clock, the dates of specific mutations can be estimated. Using chimpanzee MtDNA as a reference point, any set of MtDNA mutations can be dated. Why this study is relevant is that dates span a period of 6000 years, well into the dynastic and predynastic period. In other words, by 6000 years ago, Eurasian mtDNA was already in Southern Sudan. Also that the separation of Egypt from Nubia is a recent event, on the order of 1500 years. If the people in the Nile valley are indeed descendants of ancient egyptians, then this is evidence of their genetic profile, in lieu of egyptian mummy dna.

One more thing, I don't oppose and will not oppose any scientific study that is contrary to the Afrocentrist point of view, as long as the study meets wiki standards for inclusion ie WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. What is disappointing is when users do sub-standard research, present false information, pov push and edit war to have information that is blatantly false. This is easy to do for subjects that are quite complex like genetics because many users may not understand some of the details. Soupforone keeps on insisting that haplogroup E1b1b is a "circum-Mediterranean" haplogroup, when the source cited states it is "circum-Mediterranean and East African"[25]. See Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Origins for details. This is either sloppy or disingenuous. We can avoid all these conflicts, if users do adhere to the guidelines, instead of bringing garbage material and POV pushing.

Dragging in random scientists like Cavalli-Sforza who have nothing to do with Ancient Egyptian controversy is also disappointing. He is the father of human population genetics, but having read his recent books, he makes no mention of whatsoever of Ancient Egyptian genetics. He has detailed studies on African population genetics, but his statements should not be taken out of context to support one position of another. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You're clearly living in a parallel universe, Wapondaponda. How many times must you be told that the studies you cite are on modern Egyptians too? ALL of their samples were taken from modern Egyptians, not ancient Egyptians. This is no different than the studies that I, Wikiscribe, and Wdford have cited. A study which hypothesizes things about the movements of a given ancient population (not their DNA, much less their race) based on the genetic study of modern populations, does not miraculously transform that study into a genetic study on said ancient population; it's still a study on the DNA of the modern population in question. The Krings source, for example, states point blank that "whole blood, serum, or head hairs were obtained from 224 individuals, including 68 from Egypt, 80 from Nubia, and 76 from the southern Sudan" -- not ancient Egyptians. Don't be a hypocrite about this; you'll only succeed in making yourself look foolish. And don't remove sources again, while only retaining the ones you wish readers to know of. Soupforone (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Soupforone thanks for bringing that to light, the fact that the only study that wapondaponda wants to include has people in it other than egyptians, when he was against the inclusion of this study[[26]] because it included non egyptians in the study,has he cited in his typical pov-ish statement further up the article"Though Egyptians are included in the article, it is about North Africans in general.Once again nobody disputes that North Africans are recent immigrants from the Near East"wapondaponda caught in hypocrisy and pov bliss yet again--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nubia comprises the southern part of Egypt and the northern part of the SudanKrings Wapondaponda (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Still Southern Sudanese?and have you ever looked at the demographics of modern sudan, wapondaponda[[27]] also you are confuseing geography lines with ethnic ones those studies are not done on all ethnic egyptians obviously, i ask again please stop with you're OR, of trying to connect a to b to c so you can come up with d,the real arguement here is the arguement of the inclusion of any dna studies on modern egyptians--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you would like to test the relationship between egyptians, nubians and southern sudanese, your not going to just test Egyptians alone, you have to test all three. The goal of the study was to determine the relationship between the inhabitants of the Nile river valley. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)