From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ancient Egypt (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Africa / Egypt / Sudan (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Egypt (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sudan (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Catalan Article[edit]

That Catalan article does look really good. No one here from Barcelona? :)

Worth mentioning that some of the versions from before the edit wars in March were pretty good and seemed well-sourced as well. There are certainly things to salvage without a full-scale revert. -LlywelynII (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


I moved the following bit out of the article:

However, "results [of a recent genetic stu[to the] dy] suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution" [1].

First, there is nothing 'however' about this; there is also solid linguistic evidence that the Nile-Nubians originally came from the south/southwest (see Nobiin language#History). This study sure seems to be relevant to this article, but we should find a better place for it — it was placed in the prehistory section for no apparent reason. I'm parking it here because its phrasing and placement were potentially misleading.

Some additional info: the timeframe of the northward migrations of the Nuba people is not pinned down yet, though Greenberg (as cited in Thelwall 1982) calculated that a split between Nile-Nubian and the Nubian languages in central Sudan has occured at least 2500 years ago. This could be correlated to the overthrowing of Kush by the 'Noba' people. On the other hand, the linguistic data shows that the Nubians most probably came in several waves of migrations. — mark 23:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added the population genetics study back in, along with some extra info on the linguistic evidence. — mark 23:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverted some edits[edit]

Hi, I've reverted these edits, because the user who made them had vandalized just before and after making them, if someone wants to check the facts out, perhaps they are correct.  siroχo 00:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Is it worth noting the fact that Nubia is the setting for 'Aida'? I don't believe that Aida is based on much fact, but it might be worth at least adding a link. --TangentIdea 04:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitely worth pointing out, yes. Or at the very least including in the See Also list. -LlywelynII (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nubian pyramids[edit]

This article needs a picture of Nubian pyramids. --Revolución (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Or several, plus one of the site. -LlywelynII (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That photo?[edit]

Yet another picture of lightskinned people over-represented as the default type of another ethnic group. Those nubians look more Arabic than Nubian. But of course "nubian" will be redefined to mean "those who look Arabic, only slightly darker". Or my favorite "they always looked that light". Anyone want to show other pictures that don't violate the copyright violation? I would go there myself, take a few dozen pictures, come back and post them, but I don't have the time or money. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The southern, black origin of the Nubians is not disputed. I'd suspect that they have blended with Arabs (intermarriage?) at some point in their history, though I really should look up some sources on this. And yes, they do not all have the exact same skin hue. — mark 08:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever been to Aswan? I too was expecting Nubians to have jet-black skin based on their depiction in ancient Egyptian artwork, but for whatever reason the Nubians of today do in fact look like the individuals in that picture. All of the locals I talked to said that intermarriage with ethnic Egyptians meant exile from the Nubian community, but based on phenotype it was rather apparent that there were a fair few Nubians with Egyptian or Arab heritage, and more than a fair few ethnic Egyptians with manifest Nubian ancestry. In Luxor in particular most of the population self-identified as Nubian, but straight or curly rather than tightly coiled hair, and lighter shades of brown skin, were both prevalentWormwoodpoppies (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC).
Zap, what are you talking about? With the exception of the guy in the middle, all the "Nubians" in that picture look black. What's wrong with you? Peace out. 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "look more Arabic"? Arabic is a language. The people who speak it are Arabs. Their ethnicity is Arab, but their skin colour ranges from as white as a typical European to as dark as a typical sub-Saharan African. Manormadman (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not all Nubians were as dark as you think they were. Some times Egyptians depicted them as the same reddish or dark brown as themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nubia overlooked[edit]

nubia has been ovelooked [for] egypt

This is true, and Nubia had more pyramids than Egypt! Well when the light skinned Arabs claim Nubia for themselves then Nubia will be acknowledged. It's like deje vu, same thing happened to Egypt.

(NitaReads 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

That is true, and the mess in this article isn't helping. It could really use some cleaning up. One place would be to salvage some of the previous versions of this page from before Taharqa's revert war in March. Another would be to work on creating better maps. We need a series for the different periods and we only have a few, all of which are pretty general and uninformative. We could also use better photos. Finally, we need an extended section, or even another page, for the feud about the Nubians' origins. -LlywelynII (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nubia Preceded Egypt[edit]

Here is the link for the Archaeological report concernng Nubia's existence before the Egyptian Dynastic period. It's titled "The Lost Pharoahs of Nubia" Tom 10/29/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the Peoples of Nubia and Lower Egypt[edit]

Is the upper Egyptians' origin seperate from the lower Egyptians' origin, I am painfully ignorant on this matter and would appreciate some expert to make a statement here (if the above statement about the related origins of upper Egyptians and Nubians is accepted (I have no opinion on that matter)) or on the Egypt page. Seeing as upper Egypt and lower Egypt were two seperate regions, and their unification was apparently a big event, I would not be suprised by seperate origins.

Clearly Nubians were and are Black people. There has to be a politic way of showing this. Verbally or through the use of photography.(NitaReads 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC))
Who says "Black" has to be an all-or-nothing thing? I can't tell from your statement whether you're an Afrocentrist or a European racist, but either way, you're clearly blinded by ideology. The Nubians were and are descended from a mix of Black and non-Black people. In fact, the same is true of the Egyptians--and, for that matter, the Europeans, if you go far back enough--but it's especially true of the Nubians.
The primary stock of the ancient Nubians probably migrated from the southwest, on the outskirts of the Sahara, and were related to central African peoples with similar origins. However, the Nubians are a large ethnic group with who have lived for thousands of years near both "White" north Africans and "Black" but non-Nubian east Africans, and for much of that time they were heavily involved in (at times central to) long-distance trade. Over the millennia, there has been extensive intermarriage, not to mention conquest and suppression in both directions, as well as later migrations from the Sahara, invasions from Ethiopia and the Arab world, and modern forced resettlements.
The result is predictable: modern Nubians are a widely diverse ethnic group who do not easily fit into traditional stereotypes of "White" or "Black." As silly as racist labels are in general, they're even sillier for the Nubians. While it might in principle be possible to use genetic testing to determine what percentage of the genes in modern Nubians come from ancient Nubians, other Blacks, and non-Blacks, what would be the point?
All of this is clear in the article as written; if you want the article to say "Nubians are mostly-nigger mixed breeds" or "Nubians are a shining example of pure African superiority over the White Devil" (again, I'm not sure which is your position) it's not going to happen. -- 12:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nubians came from the South[edit]

Bruce Williams is a well established research professor at the University of Chicago Oriental (oriental meaning east of Europe, not strictly East Asia) department. He has a plethora of information regarding the ORIGIN of the Nubians. And like the (upper) Egyptians, he has shown that they did not originate with Northern or Asiatic or Semetic or Europeans. It is first important to know that the Nubians developed with other cultures in the Sahara before it completely dried up.

"The first continuous agricultural tradition in Africa, the Sudanese-Saharan Neolithic, developed almost ten thousand years ago in country west of Nubia that is now desert."
"Most surprising, evidence that early pharaohs ruled in A-Group Nubia was discovered by the Oriental Institute at Qustul, almost at the modern Sudanese border. A cemetery of large tombs contained evidence of wealth and representations of the rulers and their victories. Other representations and monuments could then be identified, and in the process, a lost kingdom, called Ta-Seti or Land of the Bow, was discovered. In fact, the cemetery at Qustul leads directly to the first great royal monuments of Egypt in a progression. Qustul in Nubia could well have been the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty."

One thing that is annoying is that anything that is discovered to support a Black origin is firstly labeled "Afrocentric" then it is labled "false by Afrocentric association". Bruce Williams as far as I know is not an Afrocentricist. Even if he were, his facts are consistent with the studies I myself did in college with the A-Group and C-group origins of the Nubians and Upper Egyptians. I expect this article to become "afrocentrized" and then straw manned into rejecting the Black origins for it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't exactly get your point. Is the southern, black origin of the Nubians disputed in this article? At the top of this talk page you can see some linguistic arguments for a south-western origin. Over at Nobiin language I've brought in linguistic facts that show quite clearly that the Nubian languages at least split off at least 2,500 years ago from a common Nubian ancestor more fuckkk you

to the southwest (other Nubian languages are still spoken around Darfur, and in the Nuba Mountains.) — mark 08:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit for now, because I think it was misleading. The source you gave, [2], didn't support the statement you added. Additionally, you seem to have overlooked the last paragraphy of the Kush section, where more evidence is given for a southwestern origin of the 'Noba' peoples. — mark 08:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
As to the earlier writer (Zaphnathpaaneah) who said "One thing that is annoying is that anything that is discovered to support a Black origin is firstly labeled 'Afrocentric' then it is labled 'false by Afrocentric association'.": There is actual scientific evidence that supports a largely Black origin for the Nubians (e.g., the relationship between Nobiin and Saharan languages), and this is well represented in the article. There's no need to rely on marginal extremist Afrocentrist ideologues to try to "strengthen the case"--in fact, that will only have the effect of weakening the case. -- 12:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lower Egypt came from Nubia[edit]

I find this entire article to be fallacious. Nubia and Early Egypt were contemporary societies that shared a common past in black Africa. In fact, linguistic and archaeological evidence indicates that Nubia preceded Egypt. Early Nubians migrated to what then became Ancient Egypt. Archaeological research in both areas discovered evidence of early communities whose religious practices revolved around sacred priests who provided leadership and guidance. It is believed that these sacred priest performed such ceremonies as the ushering in the Moon every month. Thus, Nubia and Egypt share common linguistic origins, common religious origins and common cultural origins. Due to many factors, including geographical location, Egypt became far more prosperous than Nubia. Egyptian wealth led to the development of a highly complex, multistrata society that drew immigrants from far away as servants and employees. Nubia, on the other hand, retained much of original cultural practices and ethnic composition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

(Welcome to Wikipedia! I moved this bit out of the article since discussion should take place on talk, not in the article itself). I can't comment on everything you are saying, but it is certainly not the case that Nubia and Egypt share common linguistic origins, as you are saying. The Ancient Egyptian language belongs to the Afro-Asiatic family, whereas the Nubian languages are of Nilo-Saharan stock; indeed, linguistic evidence shows that the Nile-Nubians have come to there from the southwest (see Nobiin language#History and references cited there). Concerning your other remarks, it would be great if you could substantiate your statements by providing reliable sources according to our 'cite your sources' policy. — mark 10:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
How democratic a process is this? Because my comments do not suit you, you have moved them. Apparently, you alone define what is included in the article and what is not. That makes for a pretty presentation but does not reflect the principal that this encyclopedia purports to be based on – that anyone can contribute to the process of acquisition and distribution of knowledge. Furthermore, you insist that I include references when you yourself have not included references that document the ideas in question. Thus, (very politely) you are setting conditions according which are merely intended to exclude, isolate, and above all hierarchicize. I find your article to be unconscious of and indifferent to Black African values. I hope that the author is not an adherent of Mary Lefkowitz and her gang trying to eradicate Afrocentric revision and reimpose Eurocentrism. It is rather insidious of the author to try to bypass all the debate which is ongoing in this domain by surreptitiously posting a self-satisfied article in Wikipedia which espouses Eurocentric values. Ok, I'll play nice. I'll just say that the languages which are currently spoken in Northern Africa are not a reflection of those languages spoken in ancient times. The current languages reflect the harsh syncretic absorption which is a by-product of a long history of brutal racist practices. Since ancient times, this area has known constant aggression and incursion including the Persian and Greeks occupations during which Black skin was anathema. Not to mention the brutal Arab and Transatlantic slave trades. As for the linguistic differences: can anyone claim that there is no similarity between the Egyptian language and the meroitic language? Additionally, physical evidence and genetic investigation exists that both the Nubians and the Egyptians commonly derived from people south of the Sahara. That is to say that both the Egyptians and Nubians were originally Black-skinned people who came from Black Africa. Your article stresses their current physical appearance and implies that even the earliest Northern African inhabitants were non-blacks. You lead readers to conclude that Nubians and Egyptians emigrated from Asia or (hopefully) further north and were European. None of this is possible in view of the recent physical evidence that has surfaced. Therefore, your article should not insinuate otherwise. Some relevant references:
Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90;

S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54. VL

I agree completely with Mark that you comments were inappropriate for the article. I also agree with him that your positions are not held by serious scholars. I have not read Keita, but Trigger certainly would not support the changes you are trying to make to this article. - SimonP 14:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a reminder, Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a battleground. Anonymous, you might better contribute to the situation by signing up and possibly appropriately proposing an alternative view in the article, rather than attacking the current information. --TangentIdea 18:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with anonymous. And encourage him bringing more information to this site. (Nita) 9:11pm CST July 27, 2006
The wars, conquests and cohabitation between Nubia and Egypt were no different than the same between Iraq and Iran. The border between them being only geographic, not Ethnic. Tom 06/22/07


The Pre-History chronology either has typos or is confused? It goes from 3100 BC to 65,000 BC to "early-28th" century BC. What kind of chronological progression is that? (I think "early-28th" should be "early 28th", unless the entire date is a typo.) Kofannon

"The earliest cultures of Nubia left no writings and are unreported in the annals of other nations." I am removing this first sentence from the site--most early culture has left no writings and are unreported in the annals of other nations. That is given in the pre-history of nations. The comment is eurocentric--illustrates a tendency to restrict and obscure african accomplishments.


I'm using a textbook that is used in an AP World History class, and it states that the Kerma era is counted as part of Kush. Does anyone have a citation for a different periodization? I also find that the Kush section is very weak. Even a general overview it should mention Napata and Meroe and their respective eras. I mean they're on the map, what is the point of that map if you're not going to mention the important cities on it.

Weasil Reference[edit]

This reference is posing as legitimate. It is pushing a point of view. The Egyptians could not be black. Only the Nubians could be class as black.

Jesus, who put that retarded tag on the article? Since when is PBS considered biased towards blacks? WTF happened to Wikipedia? It seems they only elect eurocentrist to their editing team.

To the Jesus commentator
I think you are retarded or have not read the article. PBS the organization did not write the article,
Timothy kendall wrote the article. He is affiliated with PBS. He has affiliated afrocentrism with racism. He seems to feel that Eurocentrism and racism has gone away from writing of Egyptology and Nubia. Very powerful claims and unsubstantiated. The Jesus commentator would accept everything from PBS as sacred.
Timothy kendall writes:
"White racism" in scholarly circles disappeared with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, but it was replaced with a virulent new "black racism," which many African-Americans adopted as a belated response to the former, even before the rehabilitation of ancient Kush. This spawned the discipline called Afrocentrism, which interpreted ancient African history through the anger of the modern black experience, and which vaunted Egypt as a "black African" culture and even the fountainhead of European civilization
Is this not Timothy Kendall's opinion? This is obviously an opinion.
I will repaste:
"This reference is posing as legitimate. It is pushing a point of view. The Egyptians could not be black. Only the Nubians could be class as black."
If you want to argue, please indent your responses (with colons, as I did) and sign them (with two hyphens and four tildes) so people can tell who is who.
Meanwhile, the idea that Wikipedia "... only elect eurocentrist to their editing team" is so far off the deep end it's hard to comment. Wikipedia doesn't "elect" anyone to an "editing team." Anyone can edit any article; the "editing team" is made up of millions of people from around the world, and (unfortunately) includes both rabid white supremacists and rabid black supremacists, but (fortunately) is balanced by vastly more sane people than insane.
As to the opposing statement: "The Egyptians could not be black. Only the Nubians could be class as black." The Egyptians were (and are) certainly partly Black; a millennia-old trading culture that's incorporated (and intermarried with) everyone from Greeks to Jews to Ethiopians to, yes, Nubians is not going to be pure anything. And the Nubians were (and are) certainly partly non-Black, for the same reasons. Trying to classify either one as "Black" or "White" is just silly. Are Egyptians "less Black" than Nubians? Well, genetically they probably have a lower percentage of central-African haplotypes, and superficially they're clearly not as dark or generally "negroid" in appearance--but so what? Race is unscientific nonsense, and the fact that Afrocentrists (and neo-Nazis) are so obsessed with applying it to some of the most ethnically diverse peoples in the world (not just Egyptians and Nubians--look at what the neo-Nazis post at Talk:Moors) is especially ludicrous. -- 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

nubians helped build ABU SIMBEL[edit]

nubians helped build ABU SIMBEL —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes? And? -LlywelynII (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A note[edit]

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia editable by anyone. The views expressed by the writers of Wiki articles are not necessarily those of Wikipedia and sponsors.


"By the 100th millennium BC" the people of Nubia were full participants of the Neolithic revolution? That should at least read "10th millennium BC", at the earliest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparent article ownership[edit]

Please explain your edits, Taharqa. They have all the appearance of article ownership. You reverted 18 months' of article improvements and expansion by other editors to the version of 2007-10-01. This is suspiciously close to the last version that you edited. In the process, you removed the semi-protection notice, quite a bit of added content, and several added source citations. All this under the guise of reinstating a "stable version", when there's no evidence the edit history or on this talk page of any instability in the first place. You then proceeded to edit-war when your edit was reverted. Reverting to your own version from all that while ago, erasing content and sources added by other editors along the way, with incorrect edit summaries (It was you, not others, who "blanked over sourced material".), and then edit warring to keep the article that way, has the hallmarks of article ownership. Please explain your edits. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G.. Your protecting the page was unnecessary and misguided in my opinion, namely your claim that an "edit war picked up right where it left off".. This is due to oversight. Me and Truheir worked it out and his subsequent edits were small and based on compromise. I've explained everything to him. If anyone else intending on contributing to the article has any more concerns, I'd be happy to discuss with them in the same way. Why would I presume to own a "wiki page".. I simply objected to a lot of the more arbitrary/superficial statements made in the article, along with the format and coherency. These were my objections and my actions were based on them, albeit those actions being in bad taste. We've both made concessions since... You simply overlooked this otherwise duly noted fact.Taharqa (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dougweller and his Eurocentric POV[edit]

Reverted [3] this disciple of Hitler person whose mission is to delete or tag all Black African related subjects. Believe it or not, he is an administrator.

Here is the original text:
"Nubia is the homeland of one of Africa's earliest black civilizations, with a history which can be traced from 2000 B.C. onward through Nubian monuments and artifacts as well as written records from Egypt and Rome. Nubians were depicted by Egyptians as having very dark skin, often shown with golden hooped earrings and with braided or extended hair."

And here is Nanjira text (p 82):

"In early history, Nubia became the homeland of one of Africa's earliest black civilizations—their monuments, artifacts, and writtn records eventually reached Egypt and Rome." [4]

Similar but the above has been paraphrased and more detail. Besides no one has monopoly to the term "black civilizations". It was this phrase which led to the removal of the content by this Eurocentric POV pusher (User:Dougweller). Damn how this person became an admin beats me. Tamsier (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove the stuff sourced to the image, and I don't mind that being returned but it has no source. The first sentence still breaks our copyvio policy as it is clearly lightly paraphrased from the original. To other editors, this is clearly a result of Tamsier's unhappiness with me and 2 other editors for challenging his use of sources in articles which he created. Claiming I am a friend of Hitler let's me invoked Godwin's Law, I believe. And it was not the phrase that led me to the removal of the copyvio. It's pretty obvious from my edits elsewhere that I am anti-racist and, for instance, argue against those that claim that Great Zimbabwe was not an indigenous black civilization. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You didn't mean to remove... but you removed. I am also surprised why you find the need to relay every detail to this editor [5], and another [6]. I am sure you have the capability to argue your case without canvassing for opinion. Or can't you argue your case without canvassing others? And after your recent edits I decided to go through some of your edit history and here I found something very similar as regards to your view /edits on African related articles. Surprised? Not in the least.Tamsier (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with this article. Drmies and I are both debating you over articles you've written, and your attacks suggest that the issues that led to your blocks in the past haven't changed - and continuing this after you've been warned by an uninvolved administrator confirms it. I'm getting tired of these innuendos and threats. Whatever you think you've found (and I have no idea what it is), it doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait--"disciple of Hitler"? Drmies (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Besides that (a matter for a different forum), there's this: the text is copied verbatim from Our Long Hairitage: Bringing Peace and Health to Your Head, copyrighted 2011. The reference given in this edit is bogus anyway--an image without context can never verify the statement. What Tamsier's beef is here is unclear. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't want to start an editwar and I do not think that insults lead anywhere. However I note that the text:

"Nubia is the homeland of one of Africa's earliest black civilizations, with a history which can be traced from 2000 B.C. onward through Nubian monuments and artifacts as well as written records from Egypt and Rome. Nubians were depicted by Egyptians as having very dark skin, often shown with golden hooped earrings and with braided or extended hair"

is pretty much factual, 'except' for the terms "earliest" and of course "black civilizations". Thus if you write simply:

"Nubia is the homeland of one of Africa's early civilization, with a history which can be traced from 2000 B.C. onward through monuments and artifacts as well as written records from Egypt and Rome. Nubians were depicted by Egyptians as having very dark skin, often shown with golden hooped earrings and with braided or extended hair"

Then you've got a statement that is undoubtely true (although a citation for the 2000BC is needed) and unbiased. There is no need to insist with the "black civilization" since eveybody knows Nubians were mostly black africans and furthermore the term "black civilization" is racially connoted and does not have any definite meaning (what is the colour of a civilization ? aren't they people of various skin colours in any civilization ?). Therefore I believe the statement I wrote above could be kept in the article: it is neutral and factual. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Except that it was a copyright violation. So no. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I reverted due to the copyvio. I then started to look for reliable sources for Egyptian depictions. Remember, the source for the depictions was an image, and when you start looking into the facts they are a bit more complicated and will need a paragraph at least just for that. I've been mulling over the rest, as it is copyvio and it's hard to write that sentence without it being copyvio. However, the problem is thinking that it needs to be one sentence, where it is. In fact, the article should make it clear that Nubia is one of Africa's first black civilization. That should also be clearly, probably prominently, in the lead. I'm not at all sure that the sequence of sections is correct and it may be, at least partially, too Egyptian-centred. What the article should be doing is tracing Nubian "history ... from 2000 B.C. onward through Nubian monuments and artifacts as well as written records from Egypt and Rome" - am I really off base in thinking that? And of course if we did keep that sentence, which we can't unless we quote it which is probably not what we want to do, it would belong in the lead. Sorry, I'm tired, real life has kept me busy today (went to the cinema with my granddaughter, etc) but those are my slightly muddled thoughts. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I did not no what copyvio was, thus I perfectly understand that the sentence cannot be kept. I also agree that the article being about Nubia (and not Egypt), it should be centered on Nubia and Nubian monuments and artifacts, while how the Egyptians or Romans saw them could be addressed in a section of the article. Of course the trouble here is that it is a bit unnatural to draw a clear boundary between the two since they clearly influenced each other. So I entirely agree with you and I think the problem can only be settled through serious editing work (i.e. not just one or two sentences). To conclude, I would nonetheless advise that the term 'black civilization' be avoided since it is racially connoted (imagine if we were to write that the Romans were a white civilization or the Chinese a yellow one ?!) and counterfactual. Finally, note that the earliest local culture in Nubia is the Nubian A-Group around 3300 to 3100 BC. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The term "black civilizations" is problematic, and I am pro-African (I have to state this to frame my statements so that other users understand I am not Hitler or def not Eurocentric). I think Tamsier would do better to leave the hostility alone, cuz the points can be made without the insults, I am surprised how tolerant the admin is of it. I am not sure what Iry-Hor means by counter factual. But it would be strange to put Rome was a White civilization. for obvious reasons it is un-encyclopedic. black is a modern term. But saying that we know how Africa was washed out of history, so that is why I think Tamsier is pushing for it -- I agree with that principle. Because next thing you will hear is "Africans have no history, KMT is not African, and Great Zimbabwe is not African, .." that is what he is fighting to stop. But "black" is not the right term. Native African would be better as a compromise. Because no way we can deny academic racism, and we have not got so advanced in scholarship that we can deny it is happening right now. What I also find Eurocentric is the notion that black skin = a true native African. One trip to South Africa and you will see native people of lighter skin color than most Gulf Arabs and Indian people. --Inayity (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Some good points, thanks. Indigenous is also a good word, possibly better than 'native African'. And as you say, skin color varies considerably throughout Africa. Tamsier says he has retired after the discussion about him at WP:ANI (and he was blocked last year several times for harassment, "disruptive editing: permanent ideologically driven edit-warring; battleground POV attitude", etc. He seems to have only come here because of me. I hope someone takes some of my suggestions above seriously, I've got several other articles I have promised myself I'll work on that are more within my main fields of interest. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the lead paragraph as per the consensus here.DanJazzy (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:DanJazzy, User:Drmies, User:Inayity, I'm not sure that this is far enough from the original text. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll have a look. In the meantime I revdeleted Tamsier's edit summary for that 2012 edit--don't know why I didn't do that before. Sheesh. Who says such shit? Drmies (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

some sources for the first para in the prehistory section[edit]

[7] [8] [9] [10] Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)