Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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

The visibly Biased tone of this Article...

There is just a very unequal and biased representation of the different views, and here I am talking about the words used to describe the of the different sides of the controversy.

There is an over abundance of the use of the word "claim" when it come to proponents of a "Black Egyptian". Please recall that "claim" is an absolutely biased verb meaning: "to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." or as a noun "an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt." (oxford dictionary). This wouldn't be a bother if that word was equally applied to proponents of the other theories, who instead get the benefit of more neutral if not positive words like: "say", "wrote"/"write", "assert" etc... Just use Ctrl+F and see for yourself.

Hoping changes can be made as soon as possible for the sake of presenting all sides with as much neutrality as possible. No need to exhibit biases so clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.207.61.253 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The article reflects the tone of the majority of sources on the topic; if there generally appears to be more evidence supporting the ancient Egyptians as being mostly non-Negroid, that is how the article should be written. If you have new reliable sources to add, or evidence against established sources, feel free to edit the article accordingly. JordanGero (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What is 'non-Negroid'? Is that 'not negro-like'? Ramses III's haplogroup is E1b1a, which is connected to the Bantu Expansion. Tutankhamon's dna is most like the people of Southern Africa today. Does that make them 'Negro' or 'Negroid'? MrSativa (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, neutrality on Wikipedia simply means reporting what reliable sources say, and the presentation of that information adjusted per the expertise of those providing the information. We do try to present it, as far as the prose, in the most neutral way possible. But sometimes the wording can be a bit more "blunt" when dealing with what are generally regarded as fringe claims. We don't try to give equal balance to all views, or presenting them with vocabulary that would give the impression of all such views being equally credible, plausible, or generally accepted by expert sources.

I pretty much am echoing what JordanGero said: If you have reliable sources that amount to more than a claim, and other reliable sources treat it that way, then you can adjust the weight / wording. The fact is that, with certain exceptions (especially with those Egyptians of Nubian origin), the scientific consensus is that most Ancient Egyptians were not what we would generally describe today as "black", and essentially resembled their modern-day descendants- namely, the Copts. The claims regarding those ancient Egyptians rulers who were of Ptolemaic descent are especially regarded as fringe, as they descended from Macedonian Greeks and we can account for most of their genealogy. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

By doing that we are being arbiter of the validity or truthfulness of the sources one over another. And this is where we are bringing our own biases to the article, because we view as true the sources affirming that the ancient Egyptians were mostly non-Negroid doesn't mean that we are supposed to say so.We can simply write A says/writes "Statement A" but B refutes it with "rebuttal B". The Objective of the article is to state the facts and back them up with sources. That's it. We are not here to personally imply that This Scholar or that Scholar is more or less wrong than another. State the Facts, give the sources. No ? We have to show what side we think is right ? If the a view is not credible, plausible, or generally accepted by expert sources we can simply state so.

Let us remember that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Come on now and tell me that a book published by a University professor gets to not be a "reliable source" as outlined by Wikipedia and hence should not be presented with a NPOV.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.207.61.253 (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Quinto Simmaco answered your most recent objection regarding the article's neutrality. NPOV does not mean allotting equal weight to all perspectives on a given subject, but rather representing such perspectives proportionate to their acceptance by scholars and evidentiary conditions in the field. The reader is thus presented with the prevailing state of research and ideation on the question and is free to formulate his/her own conclusions. There are usually always theories or positions, especially in history, that are contrary to a prevailing perspective, but presenting those positions in the format of "A says X but B refutes X and says Y instead" belies the different levels of support between each perspective. JordanGero (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested in seeing why it's written this way, the relevant guiding policies and guidelines are WP:WEIGHT, WP:IRS, and WP:FRINGELEVEL. We don't state the truth. We state what reliable sources say, and present them in relation to one another (or rather, with due weight). That's the cornerstone of NPOV, and really the foundation of how Wikipedia works, to be honest. We generally only state what a preponderance of reliable sources say in Wikipedia's voice. It's not editorialising, as we don't decide what's "true". I'm not sure what you're referring to with the book, but simply being a university professor doesn't make one a reliable source. Notability is one thing; weight is assigned by reliability. We can state notable dissenting opinions from independent sources, of course, but in the context of how reliable sources contextualise such claims. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I still think that there is manifest editorializing in this article. That is a clear lack NPOV because simply from reading one can clearly see what the opinion of the contributors on the matter is, and that is not okay. But let's take an example maybe I will get more clarity on this.

As an example let's look at this portion:"Other points of the hypothesis include claimed cultural affiliations, such as circumcision,[123]" We clearly have a reliable source, it's a book written b a scholar in the field. This particular Hypothesis is not given undue weight, merely a sentence. But there is simply no neutrality because of the use of the verb "claim". "Claim" here is presented as the word of the editor, not the academic community.

Now on the other Hand, when presenting "the Asiatic Race theory", there is no use of the word "claim" or any other wording that puts that theory under a bad light. As erroneous as it may be the Author simply goes on and details the current level of acceptance among the relevant academic as the guideline on fringe theories recommends. And that Theory was dropped altogether by the relevant academic community.

How is using depreciating words when editing the hallmark of a NPOV, I don't get it, seriously though..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.207.61.253 (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. All of the older theories have been debunked, but the article is written in a fashion to make the lay reader believe that only the black egyptian theory is in question and that the older theories are based on sound scientific evidence (which they are not). This has been covered in detail over the last couple of years. I encourage you to read some of the older versions of this article from 2012-2014 when it was more balanced.Rod (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I also remind people that this article is NOT about the race of the Ancient Egyptians. As it says at the top of the article, that's a different article. This article is about the history of the controversy'. Doug Weller talk 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite true, Doug, and thank you for that reminder. The use of secondary sources, and sources contextually linked to one another, is doubly true in a controversy article in which the arguments develop over time. I would point out that I cited FRINGE as it still falls under that purview, in addition to the IP editor bringing up the thrust of the controversy itself. But I agree, it does start to veer into the WP:NOTAFORUM territory after the user's editing concerns have been addressed. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, It is almost common sense that egyptians were populated by Arabs and Africans. Niether of these groups are white. Although in America, the whites claim that north africans and middle easterns identify as white for ethnicity, like when doing a standardized exam in school. The arabs sometimes do this, sometimes they put Asian, even if they put white, most of them never identify as white, as they are usually enemies of the whites. Whites shoulds strictly be restricted to Europe, with the exception of maybe the Berbers and the Lebanese. If anything, Egyptians range from dark brown to tan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daspd (talk • contribs) 14:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Common error. The article isn't about the 'race', it's about the controversy, ie a history of the controversy. We have an article on the demographics of Egypt. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Two common errors. It's typical for an American to assume that there are only two races, black vs white, and that anybody who is not pure white is thus automatically black. Outside of America, people self-identify with a much larger range of "races". In Africa, Egyptians do not self-identify as either black or white in the American sense, and neither do Arabs. Wdford (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090220012527/http://dsc.discovery.com:80/anthology/unsolvedhistory/kingtut/face/facespin.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/unsolvedhistory/kingtut/face/facespin.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131224100006/http://books.google.co.za/books?id=AR1ZZO6niVIC&pg=PA194&dq=Qustul+burner&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Lo7-UITgFYqa0QWNnYDYDA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ to http://books.google.co.za/books?id=AR1ZZO6niVIC&pg=PA194&dq=Qustul+burner&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Lo7-UITgFYqa0QWNnYDYDA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Qustul%20burner&f=false

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

UNESCO, The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of Meroitic Script, January 28-February 3, 1974 (Paris: UNESCO, 1978)

"Although the preparatory working paper sent out by UNESCO gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professors Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently a real lack of balance in the discussions.” (Peopling Page91)This article makes it seem like Diop's and Obenga's argumentation was successfully refuted at UNESCO when it was not as this quote from the Official UNESCO report attests to. Like always bias and obfuscation in another Wikipedia article ho hum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmouktar (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We've covered this ground in the older versions of the article from 2012-2014. I would encourage you to review them. Many of the scholars at the conference agreed with many of Diop's points and cited examples were given in the older version of the article. In my opinion, it's POV pushing to write the section in a way to make the lay reader believe that no one at the conference agreed with Diop or even that people at the conference could mount a credible defense, since they were woefully unprepared.Rod (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Haplogroup R1b

Haplogroup R1b is not entirely uncommon in the Nile Valley, as it is found at moderate frequencies among the Siwa Berbers. However, whether the pharaoh Tutankhamun actually carried the clade is uncertain since the haplotype markers weren't released [1]. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Gebelein

The notion that ancient Egyptians inhabiting Upper Egypt were markedly darker than those in Lower Egypt is speculation. In actuality, old notarized contracts from the Gebelein nome indicate that most in that southern nome were of a honey complexion [2]. Soupforone (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

From a peer reviewed secondary source: The British Africanist Basil Davidson stated "Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south (from what a later world knew as Nubia): while the Greek writers reported that they were much like all the other Africans whom the Greeks knew.Rod (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Davidson was alluding to the conventional hue range within the ancient Egyptian art. As to actual racial origins, based on cranial analysis, he believed that predynastic Egypt was multiracial, with "Negroes" constituting around a third of the population [3]. Guessing aside, what is certain are the legal testimonies within the Gebelein notarized contracts. Soupforone (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: 'Rod' is topic banned from this subject, shouldn't be posting here. And knows it. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213002414/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iB6u3XEMp9IrJfl-kH6FHNgZCg_A to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iB6u3XEMp9IrJfl-kH6FHNgZCg_A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204042121/http://www.robertschoch.net/Great%20Sphinx%20Controversy.htm to http://www.robertschoch.net/Great%20Sphinx%20Controversy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213002414/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iB6u3XEMp9IrJfl-kH6FHNgZCg_A to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iB6u3XEMp9IrJfl-kH6FHNgZCg_A
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.co.za/books?id=AR1ZZO6niVIC&pg=PA194&dq=Qustul%20burner&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Lo7-UITgFYqa0QWNnYDYDA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Ancient Egyptians weren't from Africa.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/scientists-map-the-genome-of-ancient-egyptian-kings-and-they-werent-from-africa/

90.184.72.43 (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)