Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/12/10. The result of the discussion was keep.

Please edit the article

No I'm serious 13,000 Kb have been added to the talk page. I'm not saying that the discussion isn't productive, but I really think we need to start adding sourced information to the article, let's let the sources settle the points of debate. I've been watching this talk page grow all week, anticipating some kind of great new idea for improving this subject, but I don't know, are we going in circles? futurebird (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait the page is *still* protected? Wow. Why? Is there any process in place to get to the point where it can be unprotected? futurebird (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because no one has requested that the page be unprotected? You'd want to read Wikipedia:Protection policy#Unprotection to see how to get the protection lifted. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have been working alone on User:Wikidudeman/Egyptdraft2. Where was John Carter? (Just to make you laughing a bit!).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I been slacking off big time in all sorts of areas lately. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mummy reconstruction section/Controversies Section

{{editprotected}}

The following statement from the controversies section( Hawass, in a 2007 publication of "Ancient Egypt Magazine", also asserted that none of the facial reconstructions resemble Tut, claiming for example that the French reconstruction ended up with a person that looked French, whose features do not resemble any known Egyptians. He asserts that in his opinion, the most accurate representation of the boy king is the mask from his tomb.[92])Unfournately i cant confirm the comments no where on the web and the magazine is a very obscure U.K magazine and the statement seem to be totally opposite of what he said in the national geographic website which is already a source in the section in where Dr. Hawas makes this statement("In my opinion, the shape of the face and skull are remarkably similar to a famous image of Tutankhamun as a child, where he is shown as the sun god at dawn rising from a lotus blossom," Hawass said. so i am asking for the comment to be taken down or this one be added to the section.

Now from the mummy reconstruction section the article read as follows (Though modern technology can reconstruct Tutankhamun's facial structure with a high degree of accuracy based on CT data from his mummy, but due to lack of facial tissue and embalming issues, correctly determining his skin tone, nose width, and eye color is nearly impossible.[56])i checked the source which is national geographic and it reads more like this(Some aspects of the king's appearance, however, are destined to remain mysterious. The shape of the top of his nose and of his ears, as well as the color of his eyes and skin, cannot be determined by CT scan skull data. These features are likely to remain forever unknown.)they do not make reference to his width of his nose it says the shape of the top of his nose--Mikmik2953 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

N Declined. There is no sufficiently specific description of the edit request. Please try to express yourself more clearly. Sandstein (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

please add

Egyptians themselves called for the inclusion of Egypt in Du Bois's early drafts of the Encyclopedia Africana. The director of the United Arab Republic Cultural Center in Accra wrote to praise Du Boise for having "maintained faith in the African character of Egypt's achievement," and urging that the Encyclopedia Africana keep Egypt within its Afrocentric focus.

We might want to add this when the article is unlocked. futurebird (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good piece!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What make you think the article is going to get unlocked?

Template:Trollshere Certian editors engage in consensus and discusion only to "passify" other editors and then turn around and do what ever they will. I have seen editors delete poritons of the discusion that are unflattering to there own propoganda and views, in an attempt to present themselves as correct and unfaltering in there "view". The wikipedia "process" has been mocked and sullied by you individuals. And you believe the article is going to be unlocked so you can run rampant with your unacademic agenda.

That is not an argument that is a statment. And I would like to thank you for helping prevent any self rightous "Trolls" from responding. I read the same things being brought up on this disscusion page all the time, their veiws are right everybody else is wrong, no room for science or logical approach to the data let alone the article. The whole thing comes across as a sad farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.217 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just please stop trolling. It won't work here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your placement of the troll tag, as I have seen you claim it about me, is trolling in and of itself, an abuse of the system and a means in your opinion to quite a voice that you don't agree with, which mind you has not argued for or against content so much as the sad form in which has been presented. A witch hunt of modern online proportion. Yet another attempt to clear this page of all but a few, seemingly mentally inbreed, agenda driven editors. If you don't belive me just go ahead and read the archives its all there.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to offer constructive suggestions for editing the article, otherwise I don't see how your posts are helping anything. In other words: please stop trolling. futurebird (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my previous statments. None of you want this page to be anything more than propoganda "Shmack" in my opinion. You people know nothing of egypt that is let alone egypt that was. You need to stop stalking my family, I am a desendant of the egyptian pharohs, for your own personal gain.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the page is still locked. I have visted a few others bringing as I have to this discusion viable intelegent points of interest and "scholar". The main difference I have noticed is that most, if not all, of the other pages are not "gaurded" by ,in my opnion, mentally inbread propoganders that have only the sole intention of furthering their leacherous, parasitical affinty for the subject at hand. Nice increase on the size of the troll signs. Your most definitelly a hypocrite in my opinon as I have been reading the discusion page these days but have not chimed in. Looks to me like someone ,other than myself, is out there , as it has been all along, trolling for an argument to hide behind manipulated data in a letcherous parrasitical fashion.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemma

Not that I assume, editing of this article can re-start anytime soon, but can anybody explain in simple terms what's the article is intended to be about and why this strange lemma was choosen?

If the article should center on the anthropology and (reconstructed) population genetics of the ancient Egyptians, there seems to be no place for the outdated concept of "race" in the lemma, as the near consensus view in both disciplines denies its usefullness and explanatory power.

If the article should center on some public controversy (which may happily use the term "race", as in some parts of the world it is still used by the media and the general public), some quotation signs and "controversy" in the lemma would make this clear.

--Pjacobi (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article deals with both aspects.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is written through an afrocentric view, much of it must be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.102.136 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone please change "King Tug" to "King Tut" in the Tutankhamun section? Corvus cornix_talk 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. There is a mistake. But the article is still protected! For how long? Big mystery!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a mystery, it's due to constant edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit has been made since it was uncontroversial and no one disagreed with it (in accordance with WP:PROT). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another edit request

Please replace all instances of 'King Tut' with 'King Tutankhamun'. 'Tut' is too familiar/slangy - this article is supposed to be encyclopedic in style! 86.133.214.216 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)