Talk:Cheikh Anta Diop/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mass removal of content

Per WP:BURDEN, anybody restoring the content will be taking responsibility of its accuracy and verifiability. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Secondary RS about Diop and linguistics

I have "salvaged" the secondary sources in the deleted subsection "Languages and African cultural unity" for a rewrite without OR and relying on primary sources:

• Schuh, R. G. (1997). "The Use and Misuse of Language in the Study of African History". Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies, 25(1): 36–81. doi:10.5070/F7251016656
• Tourneux, Henri (2010), "L'argument linguistique chez Cheikh Anta Diop et ses disciples", pp. 79–104 in Fauvelle-Aymar, François-Xavier, Chrétien, Jean-Pierre and, Perrot Claude-Hélène (eds), Afrocentrismes: L'histoire des Africains entre Egypte et Amérique, Paris: Editions Karthala, ISBN 978-2-8111-0409-2.

I don't have time to handle this now, but the earlier version clearly should not be restored to its previous shape (this also holds for the other sections that have been TNT'ed by TrangaBellam, AFAICS). –Austronesier (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The introductory paragraph should be re-wrote as it presents the author in a negative and misleading light. It has one reference to his impact on cultural bias vs a condensed paragraph on criticism of his work. Diop was on UNESCO committee member and contributed to the initial Chapter of the authoritative text, UNESCO History of Africa Chapter II. Also, the nuance should be directed at the criticism from the sources listed below do refute explicitly his historical, anthropological, archaeological evidence on the origins of Ancient Egypt in an African context specifically but rather political attempts to homogenoise African nation-states and argue that European civilisation was derivative of Ancient Egypt. This would present a much more neutral and balanced view of the author as several concerns about neutrality of this article was raised in the pastWikiUser4020 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

@WikiUser4020: Um, do you really want us to write about his contribution to the UNESCO History of Africa? What do you want us to say about it? And could you clarify what you mean by " the nuance should be directed at the criticism from the sources listed below do refute explicitly his historical, anthropological, archaeological evidence on the origins of Ancient Egypt in an African context specifically but rather political attempts to homogenoise African nation-states and argue that European civilisation was derivative of Ancient Egypt." Right now it doesn't make a lot of sense. You seem to be arguing that Diop has been refuted. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Wilks described Volume 2 as having "less thematic unity" than the first volume, singling out Cheikh Anta Diop's "shrill" chapter on his "idiosyncratic" views of Ancient Egypt and the unusual step of the editor providing a warning to the reader on this particular chapter.Wilks described Volume 2 as having "less thematic unity" than the first volume, singling out Cheikh Anta Diop's "shrill" chapter on his "idiosyncratic" views of Ancient Egypt and the unusual step of the editor providing a warning to the reader on this particular chapter. The note says "»NOTE BY THE EDITOR OF THE VOLUME The opinions expressed by Professor Cheikh Anta Diop in this chapter are those which he presented and developed at the Unesco symposium on 'The peopling of ancient Egypt' which was held in Cairo in 1974. A summary of the proceedings of this symposium will be found at the end of this chapter. The arguments put forward in this chapter have not been accepted by all the experts interested in the problem (cf. Introduction, above). Gamal Mokhtar" Doug Weller talk 15:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, let’s discuss each area of dispute systematically.

Do you really want us to write contribution to the UNESCO History of Africa ?. What do you want us to write ?.

Yes, to provide a comprehensive and unbiased view of Diop. The introductory paragraph or sentence should clearly state Diop wrote the chapter on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians in the UNESCO History of Africa, Volume II. He was noted for his “painstakingly research contributions” compared to the other scholars at the UNESCO symposium.

He presented anthropological, historical and linguistic evidence to support his hypothesis that Ancient Egypt was “peopled, from its Neolithic infancy to the end of the native dynasties” (p35) by Black Africans. This included evidence such as the shared blood group between modern Egyptians and west African population, negroid bodily proportions of ancient Egyptians, microscopic analysis of melanin levels in mummies from the laboratory of the Muse de L’Homme in Paris, primary accounts of Greek historians and shared cultural linkages between Egypt and Africa in areas of totemism along with cosmology (p1-35)

His theories had varying degrees of support depending on the nature of inquiry. On the one hand, some scholars agreed that “Egypt was African in its way of writing, in its culture”, migrations from the Sahara (p47) and all members rejected the view Egypt was a Semitic language. On the other hand, there was still strong disagreement on the peopling of Ancient Egypt which was viewed as “very premature” and need for “separate, precise studies”.

In response to your second question on criticism of Diop

The critics listed in the main article did not criticise the quality of the evidence mentioned above (anthropological, etc) in relation to Egypt in an African context but rather other aspects of Diop’s theories such as the cultural unity of African peoples and the extent of Egyptian influence on Greece. Hence, my use of the term “nuance” as the criticism is applied to specific areas of his theories and not his core thesis that Egypt derived from an African context via Sahara and Sudan. Yet, even these critics are themselves challenged by other reviewers who argue they misrepresent Diop’s work (read the source here). This source and Diop’s response to his critics in his work (source) are not included in the “Critique of Diop” sub-section which presents him in a very biased view. (At least a paragraph outlining Diop’s response to his critics or reviewers to present a balanced overview).

Also, proponents of Diop’s work are omitted from the introductory page with some scholars noting his innovative, multi-disciplinary approach. Only stating the views of his critics presents a misleading view.

Wilks review

-That is one reviewer who does not refute Diop based on factual historical, anthropological, linguistic evidence. He describes him as peculiar and not unreliable or factually wrong as the other scholars at the 1974 UNESCO symposium noted his "painstaingly researched contributions" as mentioned above. The contents of the book highlights there are varying levels of agreement between Diop and other scholars depending on the enquiry i.e linguistic rejection of Egypt as a Semitic language and migrations from the Sahara.16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)~~

Here is the main issue with this as far as I see it. Diop's view that ancient Egyptians were Black misconstrues "Black" as a natural category rather than a socially constructed one. This was a common error in his time, but it's important that Wikipedia does not perpetuate it (per e.g. WP:FRINGE). Ancient Egyptians did not use this category because it had not yet been constructed; that would happen much later. That said, Diop did contribute significantly to dismantling the equally spurious suppositions of White archaeologists like Flinders Petrie that Egyptians were somehow removed from their African context, or were somehow a "White" civilization. Not only was that supposition wrong-headed, it was also profoundly oppressive. It seems clear to me that Diop's contribution moved the discourse in the right direction in certain ways, even if we now have to recognize its fundamental conceptual shortcoming: the racial essentialism it shares with the White-supremacist worldview it sought to oppose. This article certainly needs to be improved with more substantive discussion of Diop's contributions, but it needs to be careful to do so in a way that is consistent with WP:FRIND. Generalrelative (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Diop certainly made significant contributions. We mustn't ignore that anymore than we should ignore the problems with his ideas. And we must not use sources to produce original research or some sort of WP:SYNTHESIS. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

In agreement with both of you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that Gamal Mokhtar was wrong? Igore Ivor Wilks as well? And, in contradiction to them, say "He was noted for his “painstakingly research contributions” compared to the other scholars at the UNESCO symposium."? Is that the symposium where it says "Numerous objections were made to the ideas propounded by Professor Diop. These objections revealed the extent of a disagreement which remained profound even though

it was not voiced explicitly." "The conclusion of the experts who did not accept the theory, put forward by Professors Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga, that the Nile valley population had been homogeneous from the earliest times until the Persian invasion, was that the basic population of Egypt settled there in neolithic times, that it originated largely in the Sahara and that it comprised people from the north and from the south of the Sahara who were differentiated by their colour. In opposition to this theory, Professors Diop and Obenga submitted their own theory to the effect that the valley was peopled uniformly by black people and that the movement had been from south to north." And of course he has no conssenus about Egyptian not being Semitic. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

General Relative presents a more reasonable position. In relation to Doug Weller, it states explicitly in the UNESCO History of Africa Volume II that all of the participating scholars rejected the notion that Egyptian language was Semitic. This had been the dominant strain in Western historiography with racist hypothesis such as Dynastic Race Theory representing them as a civilizing force from the East rather than a localised, indigenous African population with origins in the Sahara and the Sudan. Gamal Mokhtar does not take a critical approach to Diop, only states the position of the UNESCO participating body, which comprised of largely Western historians on a contested subject. In fact, Egyptian language is now classified as Afro-Asiatic with similarities noted with a range of localised, African languages such as Chadic and Cushitic. I have just stated tha there was varying levels of agreement with scholars at UNESCO depending on the nature of enquiry ranging from linguistics, mass migration, cultural uniformity and ethnic classification. The sources are clearly listed and to state "no consenuss about Egyptian not being Semitic" despite it clearly been stated in the specific page of the UNESCO source provided, reflects your judgement and bias. I will no longer edit or make comments on Wikipedia as it is public source not an academic publication, other readers can take the recommendations I have made to make a more constructive, non-biased representation of the Ancient Egyptian race debate, genetic evidence and respective arguments in historiography.17:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)

@WikiUser4020: It's unfortunate that you intend to stop contributing to Wikipedia since I think you are here for the right reasons. But you are mistaken about Doug Weller (e.g. here), whom I know to be one of the most committed anti-racists among Wikipedia's admins, and a very knowledgeable person on this topic. On a technical level, note that Afro-Asiatic is the larger language family to which both the Egyptian language and the Semitic languages are recognized to belong. Clearly the independence of Egyptian from Semitic had not yet been established as scientific consensus in 1974, and perhaps Diop played a role in eventually establishing this. It would be very interesting to find out. But to do so we'll need reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources discussing the matter. It seems to me that your familiarity with this literature could be an asset to the project, so I ask you to reconsider and agree to assume good faith on the part of those who may disagree with you at times. Generalrelative (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hell no, no sane linguist in the 20th century argued that Egyptian was Semitic. This is a complete straw argument. Starting in the mid-20th century, scholars noted correspondences between Egyptian, Semitic, Cushitic, Berber and Chadic, culminating in Greenberg's Afro-Asiatic proposal which is accepted by all mainstream linguist working in the area. Diop didn't play a part in this. He wanted to show that Egyptian is not related to Semitic at all, but instead tried to link it to western African languages such as Wolof, which belongs to a completely different language familiy.

But this isn't even notable. Diop's work as fringe linguist should remain a footnote. His record of merits and achievements lies in other fields. –Austronesier (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Generalrelative (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, the actual intended addressee (the one who repeated that thing four times further up) seems to have left the discussion anyway. Sorry GR if you have taken it for being directed at you. –Austronesier (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Austronesier. I shouldn't have assumed that the independence of Egyptian from Semitic had not yet been established as scientific consensus in 1974 based only on the preceding discussion. A cautionary reminder that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Generalrelative (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Generalrelative they made two edits an hour later, one to an article, on to the article's talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that some very useful material has been removed and should be reinstated. Wasn't there a late quote from him, where he distanced himself very clearly from essentialist concepts of "race"? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the quote came in a section that followed the section that had the following 1985 quote: "The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality. And this appearance corresponds to something which makes us say that Europe is peopled by white people, Africa is peopled by black people, and Asia is people by yellow people". Apart from the fact that this is flat out dehumanizing (if really articulated by him), it shows the very problem with using primary source material: we can quote anything said/written by Diop ad libitum to prove a point, either the point that he was actually not a racialist, or to the contrary the point that he just wore the Eurocentric racist jacket inside out. But what we need is non-partisan secondary sources for an assessment of his legacy, and if there is no mainstream consensus about Diop almost 36 years after his death, we will have to present a balanced view of the exisiting adulations and criticisms. –Austronesier (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Generalrelative,

How does the inclusion of other scholars violate the Fringe rules. I have provided the relevant sources as it states on page 31 on UNESCO History of Africa Volume 2:

"Professor Vercoutter remarked that, in his view, Egypt was African in its way of writing, in its culture and in its way of thinking"

Professor Lecant, for his part "recognised the same African character in the Egyptian temperament and way of thinking".

pg 38, "Professor Lecant began by stressing the African character of Egyptian civilisation"

Page 46, "Professor Lecant noted that important palaeo-African features in the cultural life of Egypt"

Page 47, "Professors Diop and Vercoutter agreed that the populations of the Egyptian reaches of the Nile Valley was homogenous as far as the southern extremity of the Delta".

"Professor Habachi unresevely supported the thoery of migrations from the Sahara on the basis of known studies. Professor Save-Soderbergh considered that the majority of Neolithic cultures in the Nile Valley belonged to a techno-complex of Saharan and Sudanese cultures"

The consensus on the talk section aside from Doug Weller did not provide any refutation based on sources. All of the quotations are listed from Chapter 1 and Annex to Chapter 1: Report of the symposium.16:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)17:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)

What does "African" mean here in a NPOV context, especially for people who do not subscribe to racialism and pan-ethnic ideologies? Egypt lies in Africa, its civilization has emerged and reached its highest peaks in situ; even in periods when the Egyptian empire straddled two continents, its seat of power was in Africa. So these are all trivial statements.

You have to spell out what Diop actually talked about, especially the bold assumptions about cultural connections of the Egyptian civilization way beyond its core area in present-day Egypt and Sudan.

Yes, Diop had a very legitimate cause to counterweigh and debunk Eurocentric theories about a non-African origin of Egyptian civilization, but his core counter-proposal for these theories (which have long been discarded) remains fringe. –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The scholars cited clearly emphasise and agree with Diop's theory that Ancient Egypt shared strong, cultural affinitites within Africa as has been stated above. Professor Habachi reinforces the original position of Diop that Ancient Egypt had clear ties with the Saharan and Sudanese cultures. I have made no "bold assumptions" but clearly listed the quotations, pages and authoritative source. Those are the exact words from the scholars that agreed with Diop and I was incorporating that into the article. Diop remains widely influential in African historiography, with many scholars still advocating his multi-disciplinary approach and critical approach on Eurocentric, colonial representation of African history, so it cannot be easily dismissed as fringe otherwise why would UNESCO want him as a committee member and writer of the opening chapter ?. Elements of his counter-proposal were disputed but this was in relation to the modern cultural unity of Africa/confederation of an African state rather than the African origin of Ancient Egypt which has much wider support. You have not provided any explicit sources17:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk).

Austronesier has cited WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, which are entirely sufficient here. No additional sources are needed. WikiUser4020, on the other hand, appears to be operating under a fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. We are not here to indiscriminately list things that have been stated by sources. We are here to present mainstream knowledge about a given topic, where each aspect is given WP:DUE weight. Simply citing more outdated, cherrypicked sources agreeing with or praising Diop is unlikely to convince anyone. Instead, I suggest a change of course. @WikiUser4020: this article still lacks a great deal of information about Diop's career after he completed his studies in Paris. For example, according to the Oxford University Press Encyclopedia of Africa (2010) he founded the radiocarbon laboratory of Dakar, which specialized in the dating of Africa’s oldest archaeological and geological materials. Continuing his scientific work during the 1960s, he published Le Laboratoire de Radiocarbone de l’IFAN (1968, The Radiocarbon Laboratory at IFAN) and Physique Nucléaire et Chronologie Absolue (1974, Nuclear Physics and Absolute Dating). In these works he discussed IFAN, his scientific work there, and diverse methods of dating archaeological and geological samples, especially those used in research at IFAN. [1] That's interesting. That's worth discussing in the article. I am sure there is much more along those same lines to look into and write about. Perhaps instead of trying to add more and more laudatory quotations or WP:PROFRINGE statements to the article, work to build up the "Career" section with reliably sourced discussion of Diop's concrete achievements. Generalrelative (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not “cherry picked” any quotes but provided a range of scholars that partially agreed with Diop on issues I.e mass migrations and cultural linkages. The problem is this information would have been omitted and given public readers the impression that Diop’s theories were uniformly rejected at the UNESCO Symposium. That is misleading at best and disinformation at its worst. Wikipedia is a public source of information so omissions, unbalanced discussions (entire paragraphs on criticism without any substantial discussion of his achievements) are harmful. Those quotations are directly from the UNESCO Symposium report so are highly relevant to the specified paragraph. As I stated previously, the article prior to me raising an issue was heavily unbalanced with only substantive criticism of Diop noted and the neutrality of the article having been on alert since 2016. I partially agree that further information about Diops achievements should be included. Austronesier makes a number of assertions without any supporting evidence which makes any discussion exchange limited. The assertion that I was making a “straw mans argument” when it is explicitly stated in the UNESCO Volume II, page 32, “The symposium rejected the idea that Pharaonic Egyptian was a Semitic language”, Professor Abdullah p39 “concluded with that the Egyptian language was not a purely African language; it belonged to a proto-Semitic group”, page 54 The conclusions of the Symposium outline “The Egyptian language could not be isolated from its African context and its origin could not be fully explained in terms of Semitic”. Presenting evidence is critical for any exchange of discussion otherwise asserting a particular view is “fringe” without substantial evidence is dependent on personal, subjective judgementWikiUser4020 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

On a separate point, what are considered “mainstream sources” and fringe sources ?. All the sources I have listed are from peer reviewed journals and scholars featured in the UNESCO Symposium report. I have not included anything “fringe” but reliable sources. Reading the guidelines is still open to interpretation and requires a degree of subjective judgement, hence the level of disagreementWikiUser4020 (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you need to actually read the WP:FRINGE guideline. It's not very long. And while you're at it, I strongly suggest sitting down with the WP:NPOV core policy. Had Wikipedia existed in the 1970s, the UNESCO proceedings would have been a mainstream source. But this is 2022, and mainstream scholars no longer say things like the same African character in the Egyptian temperament and way of thinking. That's not even wrong because it presumes the existence of an "African character" and an "Egyptian temperament". On the other hand, no mainstream scholars today dispute the fact that ancient Egypt was an indigenous African culture. Diop played a role in building the foundation for that consensus. Let's give him the credit he deserves without fawning over him or giving him a pass for the conceptually flawed racial essentialism he shared with his Eurocentric contemporaries. Wikipedia cannot and will not present that aspect of his thought uncritically. Generalrelative (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not presenting the information uncritically, but including further information for context and to present a balanced view. I have read and re-read the Fringe and Neutral sub-sections and none of the sources I have listed are unreliable or promoting a fringe theories hence my earlier point about subjective judgement. Can you explicitly state why the quotations does not qualify as reliable ?. UNESCO Vol II is a primary account of the Symposium debate and the varying views among scholars hence its relevancy to the paragraph as I have stated beforehand. However, to only state that "Several scholars at the symposium voiced strong objections to Diop's conclusions" would be misleading from the UNESCO source as several scholars did share partial agreement with Diop on cultural linkages and mass migrations with other regions of Africa. Those quotations are primary sources, otherwise if I paraphrase or incorporated another recent source that could be perceived as "original research". I have never stated to give "undue praise" but have emphasized a balanced discussion due to the overly critical tone of past article versions. An example was the introductory paragraph in the previous article described Diop as "greatly controversial" when that is never stated in the linked source (Diop, The Cultural Unity of Black Africa). That is misleading and I had to point this out repeatedly along with omissions and unequal weight of discussion. The whole reason why we are having this entire conversation is because the neutrality of this article has been disputed since 2016 and I had to raise this over recent weeks.17:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)

Um, the NPOV problem with the article before was that it presented Diop too uncritically. That was only fixed by a massive deletion of material, which is why we now have gaps to fill with NPOV content. Aside from the fact that the "Criticism" section is a bit repetitive and could use some consolidating copy edits, do you really believe that the article as currently written is too negative toward Diop? With a single sentence in the lead and a single short section describing criticism? If so then I'm afraid we may not be able to come to an agreement about much of anything and will need to fall back on WP:1AM to explain to you why your preferred edits will not stand. That's unfortunate because constructive dialogue on the basis of shared understanding is always preferable. Generalrelative (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article had been raised since 2016 which is 6 years ago. The deletion occurred recently because I pressed Doug Weller repeatedly on the clearly biased tone of the article. The introductory paragraph in the previous article described Diop as "greatly controversial" when that is never stated in the linked source (Diop, The Cultural Unity of Black Africa). I had to make several revisions to other articles on Ancient Egypt and race controversy due to the clear bias and Doug Weller has largely/reluctantly accepted those changes. In relation to Diop, the criticism featured 5-6 scholars in a single paragraph whereas the tribute section had a brief reference to an award from GPLA 2015 without any proper referencing. The mainstream source you quoted derives from the Encyclopedia of Africa which even refers to Diop as "one of the greatest scholars in the twentieth century". How can extensive criticism be listed and all constructive appraisals of Diop from a range of historians be conveniently omitted and this article be described as seriously neutral ?. This is not a serious discussion at this stage. I have made sufficient edits to make the article at least partially neutral. I think it is pointless when you overlook the points I have raised. 18:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)

I agree that this is no longer a serious discussion, since we don't even seem to be referring to the same article. Thank you for agreeing to drop the stick and move on. Generalrelative (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we're back to adulation. If we really want to do good service to the legacy of Diop, we shouldn't have things like "He said that the Egyptian language and culture had later been spread to West Africa". This is part of his lesser output and essentially rubbish, not supported by any serious-minded scholar of African linguistics. As I have suggested before the adulation was reinstated, either we add mainstream voices about his fringe speculations, or we don't mention them at all. Being a great scholar doesn't infer that all one's output is valid and citeworthy over time. –Austronesier (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a couple of books coming through interlibrary loan that will help me add some criticism by actual experts, and discuss some of his positive contributions in a manner consistent with NPOV. Unless anybody else has access to the full text of Collins and Burns' History of Sub-Saharan Africa or Hughes-Warrington's Fifty Key Thinkers on History (or other sources that discuss Diop dispassionately and in depth), let's remember that there is WP:NODEADLINE and exercise some serenity on the matter. On a related note, do we have anyone other than Robert Todd Carroll referring to Diop's work as "pseudohistory"? If not, we may need to tone down that claim, since that source is only borderline reliable. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Collins and Burns' History of Sub-Saharan Africa is readily available for editors with access to the WP library[2]. I have got hold of Hughes-Warrington's Fifty Key Thinkers on History; her chapter on Diop is very inspiring. Quote: "History and politics can never be disentangled. For this reason, it is important to understand not only what Diop writes, but also why he writes." It is easy in retrospect to pooh-pooh his reductionist narratives, but one has to keep in mind the kind of scholarship (especially the ghosts of earlier colonial-age scholarship) he encountered in his formative years, which was equally reductive and often – directly or indirectly – had served a suprematist purpose. But he essentially just turned the jacket inside out instead of discarding it; Hughes-Warrington cites serveral scholars who emphasize that Diop's thinking was deeply entrenched in Western constructs and categories. –Austronesier (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. I haven't much used the Wikipedia Library but now I see that I should check it when my own university library doesn't carry a copy. I agree completely with your assessment of Hughes-Warrington's Fifty Key Thinkers, of which I was able to read a portion on Google Books. Let's work on adding material from those sources when we have time. Generalrelative (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Odd... When I click on your link I get a message that says We are sorry, but your account does not have access to this resource. And when I tried to search all I found was a review rather than the book itself. So I suppose I'll have to wait for my paper copy. Generalrelative (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My dumb, I forgot that CUP (unlike OUP) is not part of the default library package, but has to be applied for individually. –Austronesier (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for letting me know. I should probably apply. Generalrelative (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I've got an email earlier today announcing that Cambridge University Press is now available as part of the WP library bundle. Just in case you haven't applied yet or are still wait-listed. –Austronesier (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks for letting me know! I've actually had the paper copies of these books piled up next to my desk for weeks, just been too distracted by other things to get to it. I appreciate the heads-up though for future reference! And I'll try to get back to this article soon, since Diop deserves a decent article. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Another book we might want to get ahold of is Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes by Stephen Howe, which discusses Diop at length and –– from what I can see on Preview –– quite evenhandedly. Generalrelative (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Another book that gives some space to the assessment of Diop's work is We Can't Go Home Again: An Argument About Afrocentrism (2001) by Clarence E. Walker. Not fully neutral, also caustic and passionate ("Afrocentrism is Eurocentrism in blackface"), but with great respect for Diop. –Austronesier (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent source. And having been a TLS International Book of the Year should add to its standing. Generalrelative (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see quite a bit of Howe's book in preview.[3]. If you can't, try a VPN if you have one and locate to the UK. It's take on the UNESCO conference is interesting. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

African Origin of Civilization Exhibit at the New York Met Museum

Would it not be important to add information about the exhibit in Diop's honor currently being housed at the The Metropolitan Museum of Art?

Link: https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2021/african-origin-of-civilization

Africologist (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It would if we can find WP:SECONDARY sources covering it. Which should be easy for a major exhibition. Generalrelative (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You would think that would be easy but as far as legitimate news outlets I have only found a New York Times article on the exhibit and Diop isn't mentioned once in the article. Africologist (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a real shame. Generalrelative (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)