Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This is less an article about Ahmose-Nefertari than it is an article about the geneology of the early thutmosids. So I'm going to add some more relevant data. Thanatosimii 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahmose-Nefertari. 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/20070307081552/http://www.philae.nu/akhet/Queens.html to http://www.philae.nu/akhet/Queens.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ahmes nefertari2-2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

November 2020 edits

Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena you were asked by Wdford to start a discussion here before proceeding with your edits. Anyway, you are claiming that Gardiner recognized Ahmose Nefertari as a Nubian when he actually said the opposite; and you gave no reasons for the removal of the mention of the blue skin, also raised by Gardiner. Bernal's work is widely criticized by mainstream scholarship as pseudo-historical, and emphasizing his ancestry from the much more authoritative Alan Gardiner does not increase his authority in the field. The source you added are a re-edition of a 1906 book by Budge - not exactly the most modern view on the issue - and an article with no mention of Ahmose Nefertari at all. To me, it seems that you needs something better than that, something which is reliable and specifically tackling the Ahmose-Nefertari issue. Khruner (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating the discussion here (I had not noticed it was originally asked by Wdford). The article from Gestoso Singer (also cited) seems to indicate disagreement over what Gardiner suggested : "In tombs and stelae, her skin has been painted black as well. Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry". Since Gestoso Singer does not show agreement with Ahmose-Nefertari's Nubian ancestry, I took her assessment of Gardiner's work to be reliable. I procured a copy of Gardiner's book and I will review it for sections on Ahmose-Nefertari shortly to confirm. I did not remove the mention of the blue skin as you suggest, I put it at the end of the article to make the paragraphs more homogeneous (the latter paragraph discussing alternate interpretation of the black color, as well as including alternative, less frequent colors, i.e. blue and red : all of which together cast doubt over a literal dark human skin as well as Nubian origin). The book by Budge seems especially relevant given the point I have raised, which is that Egyptians depicted different human skin colors in artworks. I am not exactly sure what you mean by "most modern view". The Book of Gates is an ancient Egyptian funerary text. Are you at odds with the idea that it refers to the different races of humanity known to the Egyptians (do you disagree with the book itself)? The other article I reference is not intended to refer to Ahmose Nefertari, it provides further evidence supporting the point I have raised, which is that Egyptians depicted different human skin colors in artworks. "it seems that you needs something better than that" for what purpose? The issue is, contributing to this article by adding the element that Egyptians depicted different human skin colors in artworks. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Concerning Bernal's work as widely criticized by mainstream scholarship, quite frankly I was a bit baffled with even the mention of his book in the context of the page (although I thought it would be best to remove the least possible). If the book is controversial and perhaps even unreliable, why include the mention at all in the context of the page? Emphasizing his ancestry was merely to show filial consistency (which I believe is relevant, I personally would have liked to know before forming an opinion while reading the page). Gestoso Singer, as mentioned previously, seems also to bundle Bernal and Gardiner's claims together. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my fault about the blue issue (and totally missed the pre-existent red one). About Budge's book, there must be some misunderstanding. I assume that the work is an analysis of the Book of Gates written by Budge, or at least a translation of the original texts complete with commentary, and that Budge found evidences that ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks. If so, then, although recognizing Budge's authority, it should be considered that after 114 years his opinion may be out of date, hence my request for a more "modern view". About Gestoso Singer, indeed she reports that Gardiner, along with Bernal, recognized Ahmose Nefertari as of Nubian descent. This puzzles me, because Gardiner said a complete different thing (see here, p. 175). While I find that your two sources fits well in Nubia, I would have preferred something less tangential and more focused here on Ahmose-Nefertari, in order to avoid any possible implication of synthesis, but on second thought this doesn't seem to be the case. Khruner (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for accusing you of removing the blue issue. About Bernal, I do feel that he does not belong here. I guess he was added to further emphasize the polemics surrounding the queen's ethnicity. Khruner (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Budge's book is the reference used on the page concerning the Book of Gates. I would be pleased if a more modern, and most importantly superior view emerged. In the meantime, the translated labels and their respective depictions associated with the Book of Gates appear common sense to me. Concerning Gardiner, I retrieved the passage and interpreted Gestoso Singer's article. Gardiner expresses himself thus : "Special prominence was here given to Queen 'Ahmose-Nofreteroi, depicted for some unaccountable reason with black countenance, but also sometimes with a blue one; if she was a daughter of Kamose she will have had no black blood in her veins". An interpretation consistent with the text itself and the writing of Gestoso Singer, is that when Gardiner sees the queen's "black countenance", he instinctively associates it with "black blood" (a few words later). Indeed in the text, Gardiner is surprised, as he does not expect the daughter of Kamose to display evidence of "black blood". You will note that Gardiner's words are quite consistent with the idea that ancient Egyptians depicted different human skin colors in artworks. Furthermore, Gestoso Singer goes further by interpreting Gardiner words as indication that "black blood" is synonymous with Nubian ancestry. Therefore based on their own respective statements, both Gestoso Singer and Gardiner appear to support the idea that ancient Egyptians depicted different human skin colors in artworks, and could be added as reference (satisfying your own criteria as "something which is reliable and specifically tackling the Ahmose-Nefertari issue"). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no qualms whatsoever about anyone removing Bernal entirely from the page. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

About Bernal, no problem for me. I have more reserves about Gardiner's statement, which might be due to my imperfect knowledge of a foreign language. I have always interpreted his claim differently: once assumed that Ahmose-Nefertari was Kamose's daughter, and that Kamose surely wasn't of Nubian ethnicity, the fact that she was depicted black, or even blue, is inexplicable (at least ethnically). Or was he rather doubting about Kamose being her father? Khruner (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To respond to your comment, it seems to me your reserves about Gardiner's statement are founded on conjecture. Gardiner does not assume Ahmose-Nefertari was Kamose's daughter and I quote (again) “if [and only if] she was a daughter of Kamose”. Another conjecture would be for example, to claim that perhaps Ahmose-Nefertari was depicted as other Nubians were and was adopted (which easily could explain the fact that she was depicted as someone with “black blood in her veins”). Once again, there is no definitive answer in Gardiner’s statement, and I dread conjecture. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not accept the false generalisation that the "ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks". For example it is well known that the convention was to depict Egyptian men (and boys) with red skin, and Egyptian women (and girls) with yellow skin. That was a universal standard, which clearly does NOT represent actual human skin color "faithfully". Other races were depicted with other skin colors. Wdford (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This statement by Mark directly under the 'Realism in Color' section of his article might be of interest to you, "Each color was created by mixing various naturally occurring elements and each became standardized in time in order to ensure a uniformity in art work. An Egyptian male, for example, was always depicted with a reddish-brown skin which was achieved by mixing a certain amount of the standard red paint recipe with standard brown. Variations in the mix would occur in different eras but, overall, remained more or less the same. This color for the male's skin was chosen for realism in the piece, in order to symbolize the outdoor life of most males, while Egyptian women were painted with lighter skin (using yellow and white mixes) since they spent more time indoors." (https://www.ancient.eu/article/999/color-in-ancient-egypt/). I think "clearly does NOT represent actual human skin color "faithfully"" is a strong statement considering the above, and in fact verges on opinion. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

What Gardiner actually said was that (pg 175) Ahmose-Nefertari was "depicted for some unaccountable reason with a black countenance, but also sometimes with a blue one; if she was a daughter of Kamose she will have had no black blood in her veins .." Your quote is thus highly misleading. Wdford (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by my "quote is thus highly misleading". I quoted Gardiner directly from his work. Also as stated before, the interpretation is seconded by Gestoso Singer and I quote "In tombs and stelae, her skin has been painted black as well. Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry". Do you also disagree with Gestoso Singer? Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Bunson, in her Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, at pg 17, writes that "the unusual depictions of Ahmose-Nefertari in blue-black tones of deification reflect her status and cult." Nothing to do with actual skin color at all.

Betsy Bryan, writing in Ian Shaw's The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt at pg 213, states that "the factors linking Amenhotep I and his mother with the necropolis region, with deified rulers, and with rejuvenation generally was visually transmitted by representations of the pair with black or blue skin – both colours of resurrection." Nothing to do with actual skin color at all. Wdford (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Nothing to do with actual skin color at all." is again another very strong statement and contradicts what others have claimed as also cited in the page itself. If you value Bunson and Bryan's opinions, I believe it would be sensible to add them to the page. There are many other symbols of resurrection in ancient Egyptian religion, and according to evidence human black skin has been depicted black in ancient Egyptian artworks (as I have shown with reliable sources). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I am therefore removing your misleading edits. Please achieve consensus on the talk page before you try to insert any of it again. Wdford (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Please allow us to achieve consensus on the talk page before you try to undo any of my changes again. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

First, you made controversial edits to a stable article. It is therefore incumbent on YOU to obtain consensus for your changes, not to make changes at will and then demand consensus to correct them. You are now edit-warring. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 

"Controversial edits"? According to whom? I supported my statements with reliable sources. Also as evidenced above my edits were precipitously reverted from the beginning, despite being sourced appropriately. This stroke me as very odd. In fact the other editor reverting my edits apologized to me.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Second, please don't intersperse your comments in between those of other editors. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 

If you don't mind, I prefer to intersperse between your comments (and I might follow the preference of other editors, at their convenience and after evaluating on an individual basis). You bring up many points (not always coherent, see below) and long-winded, uninterrupted answers will make our conversation, at least for me (I suspect others as well, including potential editors), difficult to follow.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

We note that you are a newly-registered editor, having been live only for a few days under this name, and that you have focused on this article. We note also that you are edit-warring over the issue of race. This has been done before by other editors, on this and other articles. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 

Who is this "we"? And I must say I feel intimated by you characterizing me as a 'newly-registered editor'. Why is this relevant to our conversation? And I'm not sure where "race" came into play here. First of all, I personally do not recognize this concept of "race", although this is far besides my intent. I was concerned with making this article more readable and adding relevant content concerning human skin color and its depiction in ancient Egyptian art. I'm not sure if I understand the term "edit-warring" and why I am being accused of this. Let me remind you, that my edits were initially precipitously reverted followed by an apology. And once again who is this "we"? It's very odd to use plural first-person in a one-on-one conversation by the way.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Gardiner is a reliable source. You changed the statement from Gardiner to support your POV. You have made the statement that Gardiner "suggested that her skin is a sign of her Nubian ancestry", whereas in this reference Gardiner actually said that she was "depicted for some unaccountable reason with a black countenance, as well as that she "will have had no black blood in her veins". That is the opposite of the words you are putting in his mouth here. Rather than paraphrasing Gardiner, let's just quote him directly, in his own words. I will make the correction now. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 

No I did not "change the statement from Gardiner to support my POV". "suggested that her skin is a sign of her Nubian ancestry" is almost a direct quote from Gestoso Singer. The previous way the bit about Gardiner read (and in fact the whole section) was very awkward. I sought to make this better. I agree with quoting sources directly. I added the statement by Gestoso Singer to add relevant content.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You removed the fact that Bernal is not a highly regarded scholar in this field, and that his race-based book "Black Athena" was rejected by reliable sources in the field. You then added the irrelevant fact that Bernal is related to Gardiner, thereby trying to give Bernal some undeserved credibility. This will be corrected also. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 

No (you assume a lot by the way), I removed the term controversial appearing before Bernal because it seems to support a POV (that he is controversial). I don't believe the distinction (which frankly could be assigned to any other work, specially if there is no reference to support it) is needed. I do believe it is very relevant that Bernal is related to Gardiner. As I mentioned previously it shows filial consistency (which someone could easily see as depreciating his credibility). Therefore to deem that it gives him more credibility is an opinion.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You have cited an article by Joshua J. Mark, who is not an Egyptologist or an archaeologist, but rather a fiction and travel writer and a "part-time philosophy professor". Hardly a reliable source on this subject. On top of which, Mark writes that the red-painted colour of Egyptian males was chosen "in order to symbolize the outdoor life of most males, while Egyptian women were painted with lighter skin (using yellow and white mixes) since they spent more time indoors." Please note carefully the word "SYMBOLIZE". If we consider what he is actually saying, the women were pale-skinned, while the men were also pale-skinned but were shown as being symbolically sunburned. That does not actually support your contention that the skin-colours were realistic. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 

Not unlike how you have characterized me as a 'newly-registered editor', your treatment of Mark's credential is ad hominem (at best). The 'Ancient History Website' follows academic standards, and is recommended by Oxford University among other educational institutions. I must say however, that your statements are as disturbing as your treatment of Joshua J. Mark's credentials. I am alarmed by the fact that you seem to be directing the conversation towards a conjecture of whether ancient Egyptians were actually "pale-skinned" or not (which by the way, contradicts your previous statement). Let me cite your previous statement, "it is well known that the convention was to depict Egyptian men (and boys) with red skin, and Egyptian women (and girls) with yellow skin. That was a universal standard, which clearly does NOT represent actual human skin color". This is in sharp contrast with the view expressed on the 'Ancient History Website' which follows academic standards. As stated by Mark, "color for the male's skin was chosen for realism in the piece".Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand Gay Robins, a Professor of Art History at Emory University, writes in Women in Ancient Egypt at pg 180, that Egyptian art is stylised, and that it is not intended to be realistic at all. See here [1] Robins also writes that mature male officials were shown with unburned skin to symbolise their seniority, i.e. the fact that they now only work indoors and out of the sun. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 

I must emphasize the fact that you are contradicting one of your previous statements again here. That "mature male officials were shown with unburned skin to symbolize their seniority, i.e. the fact that they now only work indoors and out of the sun" is in sharp contrast with your previous strong view that depictions "clearly do NOT represent actual human skin color". I provided sources to support one of the views about the depictions of human skin color by ancient Egyptians (not "race" mind you). So which is it for you? Are they symbolic or do they reflect realism (as sources following academic standards indicate)?Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The section being edited is called "Deification and iconography", not "Fringe views about race". The ordering of the material should properly reflect that. I will correct that now. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 

Once again I am not sure why you are bringing the concept of "race" into this. I see historical depictions of human skin color by ancient Egyptians as relevant (as did various authors throughout history, who remarked upon it). Also, I am afraid you're confusing the date of an author's publication with its relevance. I adjusted the structure of the section back to closer to its original form which I feel was easier to read.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring, and first seek consensus for your controversial edits on the talk page. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 

I intend to exercise my right to edit a resource which I use frequently, and I reject having my honest contributions being precipitously deleted (as the other editor has done also, and apologized for above). I am also prepared to discuss my edits after having made them. By the way I am finding your tone very accusatory and intentionally intimidating (using the pronoun 'we', characterizing me as a 'newly-registered editor', labeling my referenced edits as 'controversial', accusing me of 'edit-warring' and directing the conversation towards the topic of 'race'). I hope this type of behavior is not encouraged on this platform.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules. One of them is that you need to get consensus before you make changes. Please stick to the rules. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a false statement and I suspect you're being dishonest (which is consistent with you having been accusatory and intentionally intimidating, using the pronoun 'we', characterizing me as a 'newly-registered editor', labeling my referenced edits as 'controversial', accusing me of 'edit-warring' and directing the conversation towards the topic of 'race'). Allow me to re-iterate the rules exactly as they as appear WP:CON, "After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Another rule is WP:SYNTH, which states that you cannot "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The sentence you added reading "There is evidence which supports the view that ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks" does not mention Ahmose-Nefertari, and is thus an attempt at SYNTH. Furthermore, WP:V states at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations that "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." None of the sources you included here for this sentence mentions Ahmose-Nefertari, or says that "ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks". These rules apply to you too. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your concerns are inconsistent with previous ones and you seem to be shifting priorities as it suits your POV. Previously you did not accept the (according to your own words) "false generalization" that the ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks. Now that reliable evidence has been provided, and it has been established that you seek to discredit sources ad hominem, you are shifting your attention to synthesis.

I do not agree with your assessment of my contribution as original research by synthesis. To the point, I did not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". As much as you might like to discredit views expressed on the 'Ancient History Website' which follows academic standards, Mark is once again very clear, for e.g., "color for the male's skin was chosen for realism in the piece". I used the word 'faithfully', and a word closer to Mark's would have been 'realistically'. If you prefer I can use 'realistically'. They are synonyms. Helping to put content in proper context by incorporating relevant and directly related (already published, not original) information is not original research by synthesis. The other sources include evidence (as the statement claims) which directly support the statement.

I am repeating myself, Gestoso Singer said "Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry" following Gardiner linking "black countenance" with “black blood in her veins". The opening statement of the paragraph directly introduces this view.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your attempts to pretend that I am contradicting myself on this point are further evidence of POV-pushing. I was (and still am) totally clear that Egyptian art is heavily symbolic rather than realistic, as is attested by all quality sources. I wait to see if you can find quality sources that state the paintings are supposed to be realistic reflections. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not an attempt. Let me reiterate exactly how you contradicted yourself : "mature male officials were shown with unburned skin to symbolize their seniority, i.e. the fact that they now only work indoors and out of the sun" (which you quoted) is in direct contradiction with "does NOT represent actual human skin color". Or perhaps you can provide an explanation of how burnt skin is represented symbolically. Is it blue?Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement by Mark about skin colour includes the phrases "each became standardized in time in order to ensure a uniformity in art work", and "in order to symbolize the outdoor life of most males". This is far from supporting your claim that the paintings realistically represented skin colour. Mark also makes no mention at all of Ahmose-Nefertari. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(repeating myself) Beside the section title itself and the whole paragraph, Mark is very clear, e.g. "color for the male's skin was chosen for realism in the piece".Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The citation to Budge refers to pages 1-42. That is too broad to be a source. I do not see any mention of Ahmose-Nefertari in those pages, or even a sentence saying that "ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks". Please provide the specific quotation, and the specific page number, otherwise this "source" is invalid and will be removed. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have explained exactly above how the opening statement of the paragraph directly introduces content by Gestoso Singer, Gardiner and other authors. Arbitrarily establishing a criteria for which content suits your views, and declaring content invalid otherwise is consistent with your accusatory and intentionally intimidating behavior. Once again I reject having my honest contributions being precipitously deleted. I welcome discussion although you seem to favor invoking false rules and shifting strategies to justify your statements and behaviors.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The citation to the Genius Loci paper is also invalid. It is 15 pages long, but nowhere do I see any mention of Ahmose-Nefertari in those pages, or anything saying that "ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks". Please provide the specific quotation, and the specific page number, otherwise this "source" is invalid and will be removed. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It is evidence that Nubians are depicted with black skin. When I only provided links to images, I was told to provide sources which I also did. Here you intentionally did not provide the entire quote. Let me provide the entire quote : "There is evidence which supports the view that ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks". Key "There is evidence", I am providing evidence which is not required to suit your arbitrary criteria, as established previously.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Gardiner never said was that Ahmose-Nefertari had Nubian ancestry – this is well established. Gestoso Singer did not ascribe such an interpretation to Gardiner either. Singer merely cited that Bernal had inferred this in his own work, and in the very same sentence she disagreed with Bernal's inference. In addition, the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, Volume 3, Issue 1 - Volume 4, Issue 1, 1990, at page 100, actually states: "Although Bernal cites Gardiner ( 1961 : 213-214 ) to support the quoted statement , the interested reader will discover that, on those pages Gardiner says nothing whatsoever about members of the royal family of the 18th Dynasty being Nubian". Bernal is known to be an unreliable source – this is one of the reasons why. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry" -Gestoso SingerCharles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Gardiner is a recognised expert in the field, while Bernal is a discredited nonentity. Mentioning that Martin Bernal is related to Egyptologist Alan Gardiner is thus a misleading attempt to give Bernal unearned credibility. You falsely claim to be providing "filial consistency" – there is no such thing. Bernal's wild assumptions were totally contradicted by the scholarship of Gardiner. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry" -Gestoso Singer. Once again, censorship based on your opinion of what constitutes added credibility is improper. I am not sure what you mean by there is not such thing. Please read Gestoso Singer's quote. The authors are related and according to the quote provided, there is consistency in their views.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Bernal's hypothesis is indeed "controversial". See the wiki-article Black Athena#Criticism for all the many sources, and there are more besides. To leave out that qualification misleads readers to mistakenly assume that Bernal is a quality source who should be taken seriously. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That "To leave out that qualification misleads readers to mistakenly assume that Bernal is a quality source who should be taken seriously" is a matter of opinion. Bernal's passage was present before my edits and I am not opposed to anyone removing controversial sources (which could be inferred of other sources which according to you, have more or less merit based on the date of publication). I question the relevance of including a source and calling it controversial. There is further matter for consideration below.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Placing the views of non-Egyptologists like Diop and Bernal ahead of the actual experts is again an attempt to allocate a misleading amount of credibility to non-reliable sources. If they are to be mentioned at all, it should be done in a way which shows the proper context. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

While I do not personally ascribe to the concept of "race" which you invoked previously completely unsolicited (making assumptions about POV, and using accusatory and intentionally intimidating language to suppress my contributions), I do recognize that discrimination and oppression of information based on physical appearance of persons has been problematic historically in many fields and areas of the world. It makes it surprising and interesting that previous authors independently (except for Bernal, where there is filial consistency) entertained the possibility that human skin color was represented faithfully in the case of Ahmose-Nefertari. It also seems fitting that the opinion of such authors, or of their own persons would be heavily questioned (regardless of truth in their views). I think that your attempts at discrediting sources based on your own criteria of what constitutes expertise, specially in the context of this conversation is misguided and dishonest. It is also consistent with some of your previous statements and behaviors (directing the conversation towards "race", and unsupported conjectures of whether ancient Egyptians were actually "pale-skinned" or not). I do command you for willingly carrying this important conversation. And I am prepared to continue to justify my contributions.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are well-familiar with rules that you think support your POV, but you completely ignore rules that don’t support you. Re WP:CON, see specifically Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus, which says that "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."Wdford (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I cited rules. "commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" is not a rule it is a possible outcome. I fail to see your point here.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attacks are a standard tactic of edit warriors. You accuse me of "shifting priorities". This is a lie. I have always stated that the colour schemes are not intended to reflect actual skin colours, as is agreed by the reliable sources. I have never said that mature males were represented with accurate skin colour, I clearly used the words "symbolize their seniority". I do not need to provide "an explanation of how burnt skin is represented symbolically" - the reliable sources have made this perfectly clear already. Of course you know all this already, and you are merely being tendentious.Wdford (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not attacking you ad hominem. With regards to my added statement, you did shift your priority from disagreeing with its truth and therefore removing it on the basis that it is false, to wanting it removed on the basis that it constitutes synthesis. It is a fact which can be ascertained by your statements above. I am not being 'tendentious' (good word), skin that changes color with exposure to the sun is not symbolic and saying so does not make it so. Depicting someone in blue, or green, which are not naturally occurring human skin colors is symbolic (in the way you intended when you said and I quote : "clearly does NOT represent actual human skin color").

I am adding referring to me as 'edit warrior' to the list of accusatory and intentionally intimidating behaviors which you have displayed from the start our conversation (using the pronoun 'we', characterizing me as a 'newly-registered editor', labeling my referenced edits as 'controversial', accusing me of 'edit-warring' and directing the conversation towards the topic of 'race')."Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You state that "reliable evidence has been provided". In fact, you have done no such thing. The reliable sources are clear that the colour schemes used in ancient Egyptian art are not intended to be realistic. Your chosen source Mark (who is not an expert in any of these topics) openly uses the words "standardized", "uniformity" and "symbolize", which are the opposite of realism. You totally ignore all of this. Furthermore, nowhere did Mark mention Ahmose-Nefertari. Ergo, this is a contravention of WP:SYNTH.Wdford (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Mark (on Ancient History Encyclopedia, which follows academic standards) is very clear, let me quote him more fully, "This color for the male's skin was chosen for realism in the piece, in order to symbolize the outdoor life of most males, while Egyptian women were painted with lighter skin (using yellow and white mixes) since they spent more time indoors." There is absolutely no semantic ambiguity with the word 'symbolize' in favor of your previous statement here that an ancient Egyptians depiction "clearly does NOT represent actual human skin color". The quote says the opposite, that "color for the male's skin was chosen for realism".Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Re Singer, she did NOT say that Gardiner suggested Nubian ancestry, she said that Bernal said that Gardiner suggested this, and she then immediately refuted Bernal's ridiculous suggestion. In addition, we also have Gardiner's own words, where he clearly said no such thing. Gardiner actually said Ahmose-Nefertari would have NO black blood in her veins, and he never mentioned Nubians at all. This is not controversial. Your blatant attempts to twist the words of both Gardiner and Singer are dishonest, and increasingly tendentious. Why should we record a "view" which we all know to be false? Gardiner and Bernal are NOT in agreement at all. The only person who made this false suggestion was Bernal, and the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology has specifically pointed out on the record that Bernal lied about this claim.Wdford (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not twist any words. Let me quote Gestoso Singer again, "Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry". Now as to address your claim above, "she did NOT say that Gardiner suggested Nubian ancestry", yes she did, and I quoted her.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In response to your weaseling about Budge and the Genius Loci paper, I repeat: Please provide a specific quotation from each source stating that ancient Egyptians depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks, together with the specific page numbers where this is stated. Until then, these sources are invalid, and will be removed. This is not an arbitrary criterion or a false rule, this is core wikipolicy – specifically, WP:V. Wdford (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no 'weaseling about'. Once again Budge and the Genius Loci paper contain pieces of evidence (in addition to the very relevant ones I offer links to) "which support the view that ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks". There is no need to frame the validity of the sources, as requiring them to state specifically "that ancient Egyptians depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks" (yes that is arbitrary). In both cases Nubians are identified, and are depicted with black skin, as opposed to other persons also included in the artwork. I agree with specifying the specific pages and I intend to do so (although even if I did not, or do not, it would make the source less verifiable, not unverifiable or therefore invalid, which is a very important distinction).

Now all previous statements considered, you insist on a peculiar premise. Let me take a step back to consider what you are suggesting. Do you see sources where Nubians and Egyptians are clearly identified, and are depicted with black skin and reddish-brown skin, respectively (to use Mark's terminology) in ancient Egyptian artworks, as inadmissible evidence of ancient Egyptians depicting human skin color faithfully? That is to say, in the case of the Book of Gates for e.g., do you see the shades of skin colors in associated images (black, reddish-brown, fair, etc.) labelled (as Nubian, Egyptian, Libyans etc.) as entirely unintended and symbolic? (I am curious about your common sense here, beyond actual sources which I have relied upon thus far). And do you see the evidence (e.g. Egyptians clearly identified, and depicted with reddish-brown skin) as contradictory to the view "that ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks" held on Ancient History Encyclopedia or specifically to Mark's statement that "color for the male's skin was chosen for realism in the piece, in order to symbolize the outdoor life of most males, while Egyptian women were painted with lighter skin (using yellow and white mixes) since they spent more time indoors."?

When you look at the shades of human skin colors of the modern Sudanese (the "Land of the Blacks") or the many shades of the modern Egyptians, what colors do you see? Setting aside Mark or the possibility that I am bigot, do you see mere coincidence? Do you still stand by your original statement that color in Egyptian artworks "clearly does NOT represent actual human skin color"? Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We are making good progress here. You have now admitted that you don't consider yourself bound by the rules. Nice. Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no place for selectively citing Wikipedia best practice and your interpretation of them and their enforceability, to silence honest contributions.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You continue with the lie that I "shifted priorities", from "removing it on the basis that it is false", to wanting it "removed on the basis that it constitutes synthesis". Synthesis and false are not mutually exclusive, and in this particular case, you are using synthesis in an attempt to support a statement which is not supported by reliable sources, and which is actually contradicted by reliable sources. Twist away. Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You did shift your priority from disagreeing with the truth of my statement (your words were, "clearly does NOT represent actual human skin color"), and therefore removing it on the basis that it is false. After published evidence and a source which follows academic standard is provided directly supporting the statement (not synthesis), you want the statement removed on the basis that it constitutes synthesis.

Whether a reliable source is contradicted by another reliable source is not relevant. Both sources can and have been included.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You have made it increasing clear that your POV is to include a statement that Ahmose-Nefertari was of Nubian descent, i.e. "black" or "negroid". Because the reliable sources don't agree with you, you are reduced to synthesizing the position, in contravention of Wikipolicies. You have now admitted that neither the Budge source nor the Genius Loci paper actually support your statement, and that you are citing them merely because they include images where Nubians are portrayed with much darker skin than Egyptians. You are clearly working toward the basis that "if Nubians are portrayed with black skins, then everyone portrayed with a black skin must be Nubian." This is blatant synthesis. It is even more pathetic since the reliable sources have openly and unambiguously stated that the black skin in the case of Ahmose-Nefertari is symbolic not realistic – however you persist. Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not take a stance or side by a POV. Unlike how you have behaved from the beginning of our exchange (with accusatory and intentionally intimidating behaviors, citing supposed rules and shifting your concerns to justify your censoring behavior, referring to me as 'edit warrior', using the pronoun 'we', characterizing me as a 'newly-registered editor', labeling my referenced edits as 'controversial', accusing me of 'edit-warring' and directing the conversation towards the topic of 'race' and unsupported conjectures of whether ancient Egyptians were actually "pale-skinned" or not), I do not seek to silence you. I despise attempts to obscure or seek to discredit well sourced statements and evidence in favor of the views expressed. You will note that I encouraged your edits to add support to the view that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted "black" symbolically. I do not believe there is a need to interfere with either views. They are both well supported.

I did not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The other sources include evidence (as the statement claims) which directly support the statement.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: The genius loci paper uses the words "symbol", "symbolic", "symbolize" etc a total of 31 times. It uses "colour" once, "realistic" or "realism" zero times, and "painting" just once. It makes no mention at all of Ahmose-Nefertari. Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look at the evidence. Once again, I find it important to note that arbitrarily establishing a criteria for which content suits a view ('making mention of Ahmose-Nefertari'), and declaring content invalid otherwise is improper. In the paper Nubians are depicted with black skin, and the Egyptian with reddish-brown skin.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable sources you continue to cling to Mark, pulling the single word "realism" out of context and ignoring the phrases "each became standardized in time in order to ensure a uniformity in art work", and "in order to symbolize the outdoor life of most males", as well as the fact that Mark makes no mention at all of Ahmose-Nefertari. Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the published evidence contributed (not synthesis), Mark is a reliable source which follows academic standards. Thank you for describing the reference; to use color to "symbolize the outdoor life of most males" supports the statement "ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks". This is a well, reliably supported statement. Once again, I prefer to quote Mark directly because he is very clear, e.g. "color for the male's skin was chosen for realism in the piece". Also, I find it important to note that arbitrarily establishing a criteria for which content suits a view ('making mention of Ahmose-Nefertari'), and declaring content invalid otherwise is improper.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Singer, your desperation is beyond sad. You persist in trying to include a claim that Gardiner said Ahmose-Nefertari had Nubian ancestry, even though we know beyond doubt that he said no such thing, and in fact he said the exact opposite. You persist in claiming that Singer supported this ridiculous claim, even when she was merely noting that Bernal made the claim, which claim she immediately refuted in the same sentence. Here is a more clear version of her paper, as published on an academic website – [2] Here Singer states: "In tombs and stelae, her skin has been painted black as well. Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241-242; and wrongly according to Bernal 1987: 384, n. 40, also Gardiner 1961: 213-214) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry, but we believe that it was because black skin meant new life to the Egyptians." We also have the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, Volume 3, Issue 1 - Volume 4, Issue 1, 1990, at page 100, actually stating: "Although Bernal cites Gardiner ( 1961 : 213-214 ) to support the quoted statement, the interested reader will discover that, on those pages Gardiner says nothing whatsoever about members of the royal family of the 18th Dynasty being Nubian". Since it is absolutely clear that Gardiner made no statement about Nubian ancestry, the only source for this ridiculous suggestion is the much-discredited Bernal. Are you going to accept reality, or are you going to continue to push this blatant POV? Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said Gestoso Singer supported the claim. She did interpret his statement as him suggesting that her black skin is a sign of her Nubian ancestry. Thank you for providing the full quote. The key portion of the quote is as follows, "Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry".Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

In the same paper, Singer also speaks of two statuettes of Ahmose-Nefertari. She states that: "One of the figures shows her with a black face, though the arms and feet are not darkened. This suggests -as Vassilika (2009: 78-79)- that there is an iconographic motive underlying her coloring and not a genetic one." Even more clear, yes? Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes I agree with you, Gestoso Singer's position is very clear. As is her interpretation of Gardiner's statement as him suggesting that her black skin is a sign of her Nubian ancestry : "Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry".Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Barbara Lesko wrote in 1996 that Ahmose-Nefertari was "sometimes portrayed by later generations as having been black, although her coffin portrait gives her the typical light yellow skin of women." Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting passage shedding light on Ahmose-Nefertari's depiction on her coffin portrait as opposed to other depictions, thank you.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Finally, in a section about deification and iconography, we find the incongruous sentence "In 1974, Cheikh Anta Diop described her as "typically negroid." POV's don't get any more obvious than that, do they? Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, following Mark's statement and assuming that skin color would be "chosen for realism in the piece" in ancient Egyptian artworks, then this appears to me to be a very plausible view. I believe very dark skin and a nose "not in the least prognathous" as Petrie described it, are indeed features consistent with the use of the term "negroid". I am keeping in mind that this is of course, one of the views, and other views which should not be deemed any lesser in value, have been expressed.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hello folks, I just want to make it known that I've requested a dispute resolution in the hope that some experienced editor not involved in this dispute could help to achieve consensus. Khruner (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

No power can the impenitent absolve; Nor to repent and will at once consist, By contradiction absolute forbid. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet another blatant ad hominem attack – you really have no shame. Are you seriously suggesting that a doctor of Egyptology would alter a published paper to suddenly espouse the opposite view, merely to facilitate a Wikipedia content dispute among total strangers? Or are you just being tendentious again?

I had no trouble understanding Singer's original wording to mean that she was citing Bernal who was citing Gardiner. However I was intrigued by Khruner's apparent concern that the sentence was ambiguous and so, because Singer is still academically active, I emailed her to ask for clarification. It was done out of personal curiosity, and I was not expecting her to update her paper as a result. However I suppose that is what reliable sources do – they seize every opportunity for further improvement?

Gardiner did indeed comment about "black blood in her veins", although Gardiner specifically said that "she will have NO black blood in her veins". That is the polar opposite of stating that she had Nubian ancestry. He also stated that the reason for the black pigmentation in the paintings was, to him, "unaccountable". That is not the same as saying that he actually thought the black pigmentation was a realistic portrayal which was linked to her rumoured Nubian ancestry. To therefore speculate that Gardiner may have "possibly" shared Bernal's fringe opinion, which Bernal only published more than 25 years after Gardiner's death, is WP:OR.

There have been zero "shifts of priorities in the attempts to discredit the introductory sentence of context." That sentence is a false generalisation, it is synthesis, the sources cited do not mention Ahmose-Nefertari, and it is not the position of mainstream scholarship. Even your own source Mark stated that skin colours in Egyptian art were based on standardisation, uniformity and symbolism. Perhaps you would admit to there being a bit of ambiguity in that source? PS: Joshua J Mark really is "not actually an Egyptologist or an art expert", whatever other qualities he undoubtedly possesses. This is just simple fact - you can find his bio here [3]. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that he really believes that Egyptian men stayed red all their lives due to sunburn, as even fair-skinned northern Europeans will tan after a month or two of exposure, and Ancient Egyptians were probably not fair-skinned northern Europeans.

Your suggestion that Bernal could have been de-ligitimised by being linked to Gardiner is ludicrous. Bernal's "scholarship" has been denigrated by many mainstream scholars, on the record. Unlike you, I do not speculate, I cite reliable sources. If you insist on keeping Bernal in the article, then it needs to be made clear that his Black Egyptian theories have been rejected by mainstream scholarship. I am happy to restore the word "controversial", but if that is somehow not possible, then we can instead add a dozen or more reliable sources to give readers the full picture.

Shall we remove Bernal from this article, or should we put his theories "in context" – using reliable sources? Wdford (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed your comments elsewhere in our discussions. I do not concede to the alteration of the paragraph in which I concentrated my honest efforts, unless my previous comments are addressed directly. I also intend to closely monitor the page for impartiality. Thank you for your consideration. (please refer to [4] and [5] for before and after versions of the aforementioned Gestoso Singer paper, respectively. Alterations are acknowledged in the now closed Ahmose-Nefertari DR/N) Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained to you before, when you make changes the onus is on you to justify them. This requires more than just your personal opinions.

Per WP:V, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

You cannot insert a statement into an article based on your own observations and conclusions – this is WP:OR.

Your personal observations of skin colours in other paintings are being included here to create the impression that the skin colour in paintings of Ahmose-Nefertari should be taken as her literal physical colour. Since the sources you are using to support your observations do not mention Ahmose-Nefertari, this is WP:SYNTH.

"Impartiality" does not mean that all sources are automatically considered to be equal, and the reliability of a source is not judged according to whether or not they happen to support your personal POV. Bernal is "controversial" at the very least, as has been confirmed by many reliable sources. This was noted in the article previously, so that readers are aware that mainstream scholars do not accept his fringe hypotheses and conclusions as valid. You have not given a valid justification for removing that qualification, so it will be corrected.

Adding the relationship between the expert Gardiner and the debunked Bernal needs to be justified better than your speculative musings to date, otherwise it is irrelevant at best.

Your Bernal statement in the article says that Bernal "regarded her skin color in paintings as a clear sign of Nubian ancestry." I don’t see that statement anywhere in the book, nor any mention of Ahmose-Nefertari. Please reword this statement, or it will need to be removed. Wdford (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. The Bernal statement was replaced with direct quotes. Other comments have been addressed elsewhere in discussions (including the suggested correction, which I oppose).Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The iconography section still suffers the kind of synthesis, quotefarming and general bloat that often afflicts controversial topics. All this section needs to do is state that Ahmose-Nefertari was often portrayed with black skin and mentioning the other colors that were used for her as well; state that figures such as Diop and Bernal have argued that the black color means she was of Nubian ancestry; and state the reasons why Egyptologists are skeptical of that assertion. The sources for the claim that skin colors in Egyptian art were realistic don't even mention Ahmose-Nefertari, so that text in the article is synthesis and must be removed. The comments from Petrie, Brugsch, and Maspero about Ahmose-Nefertari's race should also be excised—the "racial science" of the 19th and early 20th centuries is even more discredited than Bernal. A. Parrot (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, that differing views should be expressed and reflect contributions of previous editors and to the benefit of any interested reader. To seek to remove relevant material on the basis of 'All this section needs to do', and 'general bloat' seems unjustified and bias. There seems to be a peculiar, and very strong insistence and animosity on this topic in particular (of a figure of ancient Egypt depicted in black), to seek to cloud a particular view (without such insistence being displayed to the detriment of the other views). In light of this (and frankly worrying behaviors, please see now closed Ahmose-Nefertari DR/N), I believe content relating to this particular view should be maintained, to the benefit of readers, who can use their own enlightened judgement given the content as to whether to espouse this view or not. With respect to the arbitrary need for all content sources to specifically mention Ahmose-Nefertari, this has been addressed before in discussion (there is no such need, and such need was even shifted previously from the concern that a statement made was false). While I personally do not care for "Brugsch and Maspero", Petrie's view expresses phenotypic characteristics based on common depiction which do not have to be construed as 'race' (human skin pigmentation is a biological reality, while race and ethnicity are social constructs). It is peculiar to want to have it 'excised'. Quotes were introduced as a result of previous comments and inadequate paraphrasing (such as presently suggested).Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis is a bright line. Sources that discuss Egyptian art in general but do not mention Ahmose-Nefertari should not be used to imply anything about Ahmose-Nefertari, which is clearly how they are used here. A. Parrot (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis is not a rigid rule (WP:What synthesis is not). Once again, there is no need to frame an arbitrary requirement for all content sources to specifically mention Ahmose-Nefertari. Context is provided which improves the article. The sources directly support the statement of context.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit stunned to see all this controversy on the talk page, since I'd say that the article text looks pretty good at the moment - it identifies the matter at issue, provides a history of the different interpretations (with quotations so as to avoid putting words in people's mouths), and (mostly) signposts those that are controversial or out-dated. I don't think it's bloated. It would be objectionable to use sources that discuss how skin colour was used in Egyptian art without mentioning Ahmose-Nefertari to draw a conclusion about the issue, but it cannot be objectionable to use them to provide relevant background. Might the editors involved in the discussion above, who are clearly knowledgeable and interested in this issue, consider collaborating on an article on Skin colour in Ancient Egyptian art ? Clearly there is the material for such an article. Furius (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. Your weighting in is most welcome. I sincerely feel honest efforts were made to incorporate all views and maintain impartiality and legibility of the page. It also seems to me that this is reflected in the article in its current form. I quite like your suggestion, and I believe an article on Skin colour in Ancient Egyptian art would be very valuable (I saved the link). I must admit I fell on this page completely by chance and upon reading it, I felt that the section dealing with depiction seemed deliberately one-sided (to put it mildly). Some of the behavior I observed (including repeated attempts to direct the discussion towards social constructs) have confirmed a few of my worst suspicions. I intend to give and sustain particular attention to this page as there appears to remain a peculiar effort to cloud one of the views it provides.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Providing relevant background is good, but it's not acceptable to use SYNTH to prop up a fringe theory which is not supported by mainstream scholarship. WP:V and WP:SYNTH are NOT arbitrary requirements, and WP:What SYNTH is not does not over-ride that requirement. Once again you are claiming exemption from the rules. In Wikipedia, the view of mainstream scholarship gets precedence, and fringe theories come at the end. This is an article about Ahmose-Nefertari, not another opportunity to push the Black Egyptian hypothesis, or to pretend that Bernal is taken seriously. Wdford (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, of course the section dealing with depiction "seemed deliberately one-sided". The more reliable sources emerge, the more the claim that Ahmose-Nefertari had literal black skin in her lifetime seems to be wp:fringe, and is mainly supported here by Diop (a revisionist pan-africanist), Bernal (a non-mainstream scholar whose expertise did not encompass Egyptology at all), and good ol' Petrie who in the very source cited aknowledged that at the time there were already alternative hypotheses explaining A.N.'s skin color. The concept of "impartiality" trumpeted here seems only a convenient Trojan horse for establishing an obvious false balance. Khruner (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Very true. I have added the extra line from Petrie, as suggested. I am thinking that the "bloat" issue can maybe be dealt with by moving the quotes into footnotes, and then just summarizing in the text the mainstream viewpoint and the pair of fringe commentators etc. All the detailed info would still be available with a mouse-over. Would that maybe help? Wdford (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think so. In mentioning bloat, I was partly just expressing frustration at a general Wikipedia phenomenon, whereby the opposing sides in a POV dispute keep adding details to support their side in the argument and the general picture is obscured. It's something of a problem here, but not a huge one. A. Parrot (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to details which emerged from the now closed Ahmose-Nefertari DR/N for an independent assessment of Wdford, Khruner, and A. Parrot's views on what constitutes reliable sources and mainstream scholarship.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wdford, Khruner, and A. Parrot have made my editing experience on Wikipedia very unpleasant WP:HARASS. Please beware of Khruner and A. Parrot's apologist tendencies with respect to blatant displays of conflict of interest WP:COI (in the present case by Wdford; see details from the now closed Ahmose-Nefertari DR/N). I would like to inquire from all of you about your thoughts on the newly created 'Headdress' subsection. I must say I am quite proud of the new subsection, although I realize not everyone appreciates my contributions. Be none of you outrageous.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The interested reader of this talk will note that in Deir el-Medina, named the "Place of Truth" in ancient times, the so-called "most venerated woman in Egyptian history" has been depicted abundantly, and with a very dark complexion. If you look closely and sample the different tones of the closeup of her upper body [6] from tomb TT359 using imaging software, you will note that in original ancient Egyptian artwork the color of the skin is not actually quite black, as some modern artist’s rendition [7] suggests. In comparison to the outlines of her hair, which is proper black, and the hair itself which appears dark gray, her skin color is rather a very dark mix of brown and burgundy, with hints of purple (not unlike the skin tone of many modern Sudanese [8]). Similarly, and unlike one modern artist’s rendition [9] which colors it entirely black, in original ancient Egyptian artwork the iris is a dark brown shade (a phenotypically accurate tone), which contrasts against the white sclera, and her skin and hair colors described above (sampled tones from the original artwork [10]). As the saturation of the image is increased, so does the contrast between the various tones comprising her face and hair. One might even entertain the absolutely absurd and fringe idea (also entertained by pioneering and famed Egyptologists, among others including kin), that she was indeed a woman one might call (in comparison to the many other dark-skinned Egyptians and Nubians depicted throughout the ages), realistically dark-skinned.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:V and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE for details on what constitutes reliable sources and mainstream scholarship.

The newly created 'Headdress' subsection is fine. The on-going Black Egyptian fringe hypothesis POV-pushing is not.

You must surely realise that analysing photos of 3,000 year old wall paintings using imaging software is a perfect case study of WP:OR, do you not? Surely?

You are aware that in paintings made before she was deified, Ahmose-Neferari is painted in the standardized pale beige skin tones of Egyptian women, are you not? Surely?

Wdford (talk)

Thank you for having a look at the 'Headdress' subsection. I am glad you like it. Please refer to [11] and [12] for before and after versions of a source you have attempted to influence in favor of your personal views (as confirmed by an independent assessment), and which does not constitute a reliable source or mainstream scholarship, and rather is a display of conflict of interest WP:COI.

I have noticed a pattern concerning your insistence on labelling others supporters of what you call 'Black Egyptian fringe hypothesis' (and further justifying reverts, and suppressing information with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE). I am wondering, the Egyptology consensus seems quite clear that ancient Egyptians in general and royals in particular displayed a variety of phenotypes (including dark skin). Having discussed the topic by now it seems to me that the evidence in favor of a variety of phenotypes (including very dark skin) is significant (not fringe at all). Of course to claim that all ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned or light-skinned would be pseudoscience (not even fringe). So I wonder, how exactly does incorporating evidence that an ancient Egyptian might be realistically depicted in dark skin tone constitute a 'Black Egyptian fringe hypothesis'? What exactly do you mean by 'Black Egyptian fringe hypothesis'? I am curious, do you disagree that ancient Egyptians in general and royals in particular displayed a variety of phenotypes (including dark skin)?

And no, as much as it might seem convenient to label it as such, emphasizing colors in artwork using MS paint in discussion is not original research WP:OR. Fortunately, emphasizing it does not change the color in the original artwork. For the sake of this discussion and as you appear to favor a symbolic skin color interpretation, given the elements I have emphasized above I am honestly curious (in good faith) if you (or anyone else) could produce a painting of a god or goddess, aside from Ahmose-Neferari, depicted all in proper black and where the eye color differs from the skin color (with a phenotypically accurate tone)? I myself could not find such a depiction. Thank you for your consideration.

Concerning the much less frequent paintings from before "Ahmose-Neferari was deified", I agree that it can and should be mentioned. It does not take anything away from the fact that she was most frequently depicted with a dark skin tone in the "Place of Truth" and elsewhere (we should consider ourselves lucky her nose is intact). You must surely realize this.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I have NOT "attempted to influence" Singer. You suggested there was ambiguity in her published paper, and I asked her for clarification. I did not expect her to update her paper as a result, but the outcome was not a change of her position, it was merely a clarification of an apparent ambiguity, and her actual position as originally stated remained unchanged – namely that the "black skin meant new life to the Egyptians". Everyone knows Gardiner did NOT suggest Ahmose-Nefertari was Nubian, everyone knows Bernal lied about saying he did and Bernal has been called out for it on the record, so this hardly constitutes "influencing" a source. No professional scholar is going to completely change their scholarly position in a published paper to humour a Wikipedia content dispute – your insinuations are insulting to me and to Singer, they are probably a contravention of WP:BLP, and they are a sign of your desperation. Wdford (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

To claim 'I have NOT attempted to influence Singer' does not make it so. If we hold independent assessment accountable, the exact words used (by the independent assessment here [13]) were "We may also have Wdford manipulating sources to their benefit, which would be an admin matter." The wording "this hardly constitutes influencing a source" is problematic. Whether it was done, or "hardly" done seems irrelevant. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Bernal's position on this topic is fringe because mainstream scholarship has declared that it is fringe. To give you all a flavour: "Bernal's work has been almost universally rejected by Egyptologists, archaeologists, linguists, historians, and other scholars best acquainted with the material evidence. Most regard it as beyond the boundaries of legitimate scientific inquiry." Sounds quite conclusive actually. Wdford (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

By mainstream scholarship do you mean single author papers edited in matter of days as a result of action by Wikipedia editors? Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarship at present holds that Ahmose-Nefertari was not black, and that her later representations symbolise her deification. We edit according to reliable sources, not wishful speculation and personal manipulations of MS Paint. Wdford (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There does not appear to be consensus actually. A cited consensus statement would be useful if you could produce one. There seems to be confusion about the use of the term manipulation here. I have sampled the colors already present in the original artwork. Another use of the term is found here [14] ("We may also have Wdford manipulating sources to their benefit, which would be an admin matter.") Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is yet another source: "She (A.N.) was known as "Mistress of the Sky" and "Lady of the West" and in this context is often shown with black skin. Contra to some views, the black skin does not mean that she was of southern African descent, but rather the colour is symbolic of the annual regeneration of the Nile, as befits a goddess of resurrection. The god Osiris, too, is frequently shown with black skin, and on some coffins mortal individuals may be shown alternately with both pale and black skin". Wdford (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a great source. You seem to have ignored my previous statement : For the sake of this discussion and as you appear to favor a symbolic skin color interpretation, given the elements I have emphasized above I am honestly curious (in good faith) if you (or anyone else) could produce a painting of a god or goddess, aside from Ahmose-Neferari, depicted all in proper black and where the eye color differs from the skin color (with a phenotypically accurate tone)? I myself could not find such a depiction. Thank you for your consideration. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please respect the Wikipedia polices, the reliable sources and the consensus. Wdford (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I have thus far. Recent independent assessment of your behavior on this platform has suggested otherwise. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You haven't answered my honest questions Wdford. You have accused me (also stealthily, elsewhere on this platform [15]) of supporting the 'Black Egyptian fringe hypothesis'. Once again, the Egyptology consensus seems quite clear that ancient Egyptians in general and royals in particular displayed a variety of phenotypes (including dark skin). Having discussed the topic by now it seems to me that the evidence in favor of a variety of phenotypes (including very dark skin) is significant (not fringe at all). Of course to claim that all ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned or light-skinned would be pseudoscience (not even fringe). So I wonder, how exactly does incorporating evidence that an ancient Egyptian might be realistically depicted in dark skin tone constitute a 'Black Egyptian fringe hypothesis'? What exactly do you mean by 'Black Egyptian fringe hypothesis'?

Most importantly, do you disagree that ancient Egyptians in general and royals in particular displayed in artworks a variety of phenotypes (including dark skin)? You did initially hold the strong view that depictions "clearly do NOT represent actual human skin color". Do you maintain this view although it does not reflect consensus? Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A. Parrot, like Khruner [16] I am very grateful for the suggestion. I also speak French. I fixed the paraphrasing on the page as it did not quite reflect the content. Kind regards.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We have detailed articles on the Black Egyptian hypothesis and the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, as you know. We also have articles on Cheikh Anta Diop and Martin Bernal, which detail the criticism of their theories – as you also know.

The subject of skin colour in artworks is off-topic here, but anyway – I have been to Egypt, and I saw many Egyptian men, and none of them were reddish in colour as per the artworks. The men are basically the same colour as the women, they vary slightly in shade depending on genetics as well as exposure to the sun etc, but I never saw any reddish men (or women). They were all different shapes and sizes, but in the artworks they seem to all be of a uniform size and physique. Real Egyptian men almost all have facial hair to some degree, but in the artworks they are virtually all clean-shaven, with identical haircuts. I have also met many modern "Caananites", and they are the same colour as the modern Egyptians, although the ancient artworks differentiate them quite markedly from Egyptian men. I therefore totally accept what the reliable sources say, including Joshua Mark – the skin colours in the ancient artworks were UNIFORM, STANDARDISED and SYMBOLIC.

I see you have now added part of the speculations of Norman Davies. We could also usefully speculate that the black paint was added over the original colour because A.N. had been painted symbolic red (as in other examples) to indicate something special, and the artist was subsequently instructed to use symbolic black instead, maybe when she was deified. Who knows? Alternately, the extreme PH in the lime plaster might have reacted with the paint chemicals over thousands of years, and maybe some of the colours no longer look as they originally did. Speculating is fun, but Wikipedia uses reliable sources. "Might could possibly" indeed.

"Common depiction realism" does not really make sense as a sub-heading. If you must have sub-headings, please choose one that makes sense, and which properly reflects the content. Wdford (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Off topic

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I was accused of attacking other editors and threatened with the possibility of being blocked from editing. Unfortunately, my comments regarding this accusation (and others which followed) were censored elsewhere on this platform. Since it became apparent that my views are not open to discussion and may be censored, I no longer wish to contribute to Wikipedia, the page, or take part in this discussion. I saved a version of the page in its current state for my own reference. I offer you Wdford, Khruner and A. Parrot, my most sincere thanks for an enlightening talk, and I wish you all the best with your editing. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Bollocks. On my talk page and in reference to the DRN case, you said "an independent assessment determined the editors in question were in fact, indeed being dishonest)". The DRN moderator, again on my talk page, said ""Nothing is backing Nzakimuena's statement that editors are being dishonest." You came back to my page with another accusation of dishonesty and I reverted it, as is my right. That's not censorship. There wwas some Oversighted material but that was about personal information that had inadvertently been revealed during the discussion. But it's true tthat I was considering blocking you for the personal attack I've mentioned in this post and others. Leaving obviates the need. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC) @Doug Weller: thank you for your message. I am replying although I did find unsettling your insistence on threatening me as an administrator of this platform, on a basis that you do not seem to wish to open to discussion. It also greatly distracts and discourages honest contributions to what I consider to be an important topic. I see that like my comment after I was threatened by you, you removed the section about this topic on your talk page. I must remind you, that I did not seek your involvement on this matter, or Tsistunagiska's, or Seemplez's, although I am more than willing to continue to carry a conversation with them and yourself, which can only be achieved of course, if my words are not removed ("reverted", or "censored", whatever term one deems suitable). Regardless of my interpretation of his words and his of my own, the DR/N moderator Seemplez, whom you are referring to in your message, was very clear in his statement regarding this very discussion, "We may also have Wdford manipulating sources to their benefit, which would be an admin matter" [17]. I insist on holding Seemplez accountable to his own convictions, unless he wishes to withdraw his own statement. I am required to, and I take great pride in conducting my interactions with honesty and the best of intentions. When users on this platform openly observe that an interaction is unpleasant, or intimidating, and appears to reflect bias (which can be defined as prejudice in favor of or against something usually in a way considered to be unfair, which I believe to be the case here), it seems hardly suitable, and conductive to meaningful discussion, to remove their words, frame the claims as personal attacks, and threaten to block them. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena, users, apart from things like block notices and warnings, can remove whatever they want from their talk page, with or without your consent. Doug Weller, is this an oversight breach by CBN? Seemplez {{ping}} me 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Seemplez thank you for clarifying that warnings on user's talk pages should not be removed, unlike any other content (what is "an oversight breach"? WP:BITE). Can one's views and facts regarding the warning, or the outcome of the warning itself be openly expressed on the user's talk page (or do you discourage users from sharing the information)? I was also wondering if the status of the person issuing the warning matters? Can warnings issued by non-admin users be removed? I am asking because I have seen such warnings be removed without the removal being addressed. I did not claim that my consent or its absence is required or relevant, or that an individual is not within their right to remove content on their user's talk page (until very recently I was not even aware of talk pages, WP:BITE). Once again, I observed that when an interaction is being highlighted as being unpleasant, or intimidating, and appears to reflect bias, it seems hardly suitable and conductive to meaningful discussion, to frame the claims as personal attacks, to remove words addressing the claim and its framing, and threaten to block the originator of the words. I did not seek your involvement Seemplez, or Doug Weller. I would very much like to continue to edit this important article and its bias, without being intimidated and threatened with blocking (because I remarked upon interactions as being unpleasant, and interpreted your own words regarding the behavior displayed). Thank you for your consideration. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Seemplez The information I reviewed in WP:REMOVED appears in direct conflict with your statement that "users, apart from things like block notices and warnings, can remove whatever they want from their talk page". Rather, it appears that "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages" and also that "any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters". I was wondering if you could clarify the content in WP:REMOVED. If you do not, or do not object to it, I would like to request to you, or proceed with removing content on my talk page again, exercising my right as others have done with the content I posted on their own talk pages. Thank you. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Seemplez there was a breach of WP:OUTING at DRN which was oversighted by User:Primefac. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena what this means is that someone posted personal information about an editor which the editor had never stated on Wikipedia. This is strictly forbidden and if done with the knowledge that it is forbidden leads to an automatic block. There are two ways that material can be deleted from history. One is revision/delete which leaves material visible to Administrators but not editors. The other, which we always use for outing, is oversight, which suppresses the material so othat only a handful of editors, myself included in that handful, can view it. The outing in question seems to have been innocently done and no one is being blamed. Of course, it must not occur. Never link editors to activities offline is the best policy. By the way, mentioning oversight without explaining it is not biting. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Doug Weller Thank you. I was referring to a warning that was issued by you on my user talk page in response to me having remarked upon interactions as being unpleasant and interpreting the DR/N moderator's own words regarding the behavior displayed. You do not seem to be referring to the warning now, and if the warning no longer valid, I am eager to return to editing, with a focus on content. Concerning your present message, it is not clear to me in your message, if by "someone posted personal information about an editor which the editor had never stated on Wikipedia", an action which was "innocently done", you are referring to myself and are implying that you spared me from being "automatically blocked" with your good judgement. It is not clear to me if you are threatening to block me again on this basis. If that is the case, I am wondering if you are suggesting that it is appropriate for editors who wish to remain anonymous, to (Redacted) As pertains to WP:BITE, thank you for your clarifications, for “avoiding excessive Wikipedia jargon” and “assuming good faith” on my part. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Oh leave it out. You're intentionally trying to skirt the outing rules in which you are now well aware, and it's my turn to say "bollocks" to the idea that you don't know what you're doing. Next time you give step-by-step instructions on how to out someone, you will be blocked. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Article clean-up

I propose that Bernal be removed from this particular article. Not only are his theories heavily discredited, but he never actually mentions Ahmose-Nefertari.

I also feel that the mention of the wall paintings of the Book of Gates etc is not relevant to this article, as they do not depict Ahmose-Nefertari, and that mentioning them here at all was an attempt at WP:SYNTH. I propose that this be removed as well. Wdford (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, also Robins should be avoided for the same reason, IMO also Diop needs some contextualization. I also find that all that overabundance of quotes could be trimmed a little. Khruner (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If the comment on "realism in art" and the Book of Gates etc are removed, then Robins is not critical anymore. I think we could put all the quotes in individual footnotes, so they are all present but not cluttering up the article. I will practice how to do that. What do you propose to do re Diop? Wdford (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind about Diop, I remembered a quite different context, but I've just re-read the original source and yes, the queen is plainly put together with a heterogeneous group of Egyptian royalties united in being of "typically negroid feature". Khruner (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

once an acceptable version is achieved, it could be condensed further in order to update the Nubia article too. Khruner (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have moved a bunch of stuff into footnotes, as discussed. Now I have a Cite error. I have tried everything, but I can't figure out where the error is. Suggestions please? Wdford (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue seems to be in Riggs' reference which indeed does not appear in reflist, but I don't understand why. There is probably something wrong with the efn/notelist syntax. Khruner (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not the Riggs reference per se. If I change the order of the citations, then it keeps the Riggs reference quite happily but it then blocks the new last reference - whatever it happens to be.

It also seems to think that the Flinders Petrie footnote appears twice in the text, although it very definitely appears only once. That is probably the source of the cite error, although I cannot see any coding to account for it. Curiouser and curiouser. Wdford (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorted the first referencing problem - it seems that the 35th reference gets blocked, whoever it is.

The software still insists that the Flinders Petrie footnote appears twice in the text, although it actually appears only once and the software itself cannot find the hypothetical second instance either. Wdford (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Article neutrality

All observations within my statement are related to the present actionable proposal. As it has been highlighted on my user's talk, talk pages provide a place for editors to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article. In addition, the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions and editors must follow guidelines and be especially careful to avoid disruption. In this direction (specifically avoiding disruption), I have not myself initiated outside involvement regarding the present article. Outside involvement did result in conclusions being reached. As my inquiries regarding the conclusions reached were either not allowed or answered, and my intentions were assumed, I can only claim my own honesty and good intent in this regard. Therefore to avoid previous threats being enacted as a result of my actionable proposal, I would like to state that I am issuing the present proposal in the spirit of abiding by the best possible standard of conduct. I hope that the section and the present proposal will not be removed and result in my being blocked, for reasons which have not been made clear to me. Thank you for your consideration.

As now pertains directly to the proposal,

(1) In the above 'Article clean-up' section, actions were taken to relegate content relating closely to realism in depiction of the subject of the article to the 'Explanatory notes'. Two views are contrasted in the article. There is the view, which seems relatively widespread and held by notable figures, that the depiction of the subject of the article was realistic. Another view is held by some others, and in conflict with notable figures, and claims that the depiction of the subject of the article was exclusively symbolic. It would be sensible to include, as I have done previously, subsections to properly structure the section of the article. I intend to restore the 'Explanatory notes' section content which includes important elements about realism in depiction to the main body of the iconography section. I intend to add a 'Depiction realism' subsection and a 'Symbolism' subsection. If quotes were the issue, as has been claimed, then I can paraphrase the content.

(2) In his work, 'L'épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary (1981)', Gitton says, 'nous n'avons jusqu'a present aucun portrait contemporain de la reine.' Therefore, it is inaccurate to claim 'He pointed out that there is no known depiction of her with black skin during her lifetime'. Rather, he pointed out that 'there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime' (period). I intend to fix the view attributed to Gitton.

(3) As it has been highlighted, editors who are unable to collaborate with others and follow guidelines and policies are topic banned to prevent disruption. In this sense, there is an important consideration which I believe should be discussed. I wondered previously if one could produce a painting of an Ancient Egyptian god or goddess, aside from Ahmose-Neferari, depicted all in proper black and where the eye color differs from the skin color (with a phenotypically accurate tone). I myself could not find such a depiction. Continuing to ignore this element hinders collaboration. I would like to add that in the absence of the existence of such a depiction, claims that the skin tone of the subject is realistic should prevail (suggestion claiming the contrary, albeit defended, are not supported by the evidence at hand). As a result, I intend to ensure that the realism view, supersedes the symbolic view in terms of ordering (unless the evidence can be provided).

(4) I believe the content discrediting Bernal is unnecessary and should be removed. The views expressed in relation to Ahmose-Neferari specifically are not only his own. From what I read, with regard to the 18th Dynasty, Petrie appears to have held similar views as Bernal. The views could be combined into a single statement and supported by both authors. I intend to proceed with this change. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

And around we go. Please remember to obtain consensus before you make controversial changes to a stable article.

As has been clarified exhaustively, "neutrality" requires that all viewpoints be given DUE prominence, it does NOT require that all viewpoints be given EQUAL prominence. A fringe view is a fringe view.

There is no justification to resume the push to create sub-sections giving apparently equal prominence to the fringe view.

I leave Gitton to the French-speaking editors to agree upon.

Since Ahmose-Nefertari was depicted in earlier murals, and in her own coffin, as a light-skinned Egyptian woman, there is no possibility that black skin could have been a "realism depiction".

The original research into a "proper black" photo with a "phenotypically accurate tone" is not useful, and does not in any way indicate that "the skin tone of the subject is realistic". NB WP:OR

The views of the mainstream scholars do not "conflict with notable figures". Diop was never an Egyptologist, he was a politician with a strong racial program. Bernal has been thoroughly discredited due to his ridiculous claims and theories. Any mention of Bernal in this context needs to clarify that his viewpoint is rejected by scholarship, otherwise it would create a false impression of credibility, which would not be at all neutral.

The observation of Petrie concluded that her portrayal included "an aquiline nose, long and thin, and was of a type not in the least prognathous", which is Victorian code for "not negroid". Petrie himself further balanced this by stating that "a possibility of the black being symbolic has been suggested". Petrie cannot be used to provide a veneer of credibility to Bernal.

Wdford (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments in response to them. Thank you for your comments.

- To answer “remember to obtain consensus” and concerning the proposal, I personally intend to continue to seek consensus when editing, and I also strive to favor discussion over measures which prevent editor expression (as I described previously).

- To address your use of the term “fringe view”, if what you refer to as “fringe view” is that Ahmose-Nefertari (AN) “was sometimes portrayed by later generations as having been black”, it is not fringe, rather it seems to be well established (there is no statement that it is considered fringe, to claim that it is fringe a citation would be needed). This view is directly cited from the page in its current form and was held by Barbara Lesko. Statements by Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, Alan Rowe and others reflects this view. Flinders Petrie’s passage was present in the iconography section of the page before I suggested modifications. I am wondering why the passage and the entire view was relegated to explanatory notes, when more and other interesting passages have been found which agree with the view.

- I am a French speaking editor and concerning Guitton, I said, and it was confirmed below that Guitton claimed of AN, that “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime” (period). The current statement, “He pointed out that there is no known depiction of her with black skin during her lifetime” does not reflect the cited material.

- To answer your statement that AN was shown “in earlier murals, and in her own coffin, as a light-skinned Egyptian woman [and therefore that] there is no possibility that black skin could have been a realism depiction”, this is invalidated by clear content on the page itself in its current form which states that “the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived” and “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime”. When the practice was later adopted, it is said that one of the version of her most frequent depiction, in purplish black “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”. The possibility of the black tone being phenotypically accurate and related to African ancestry was observed (no original research is necessary).

- I did not introduce the figures you are referring to (Diop and Bernal) into the page. It is true that Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, and Alan Rowe (in addition to the figures you are referring to), have all suggested the possibility of the black tone being phenotypically accurate and related to African ancestry.

- Concerning Flinders Petrie, of the 17th dynasty he said that it “would seem to have been descended from a part of the royal Egyptian line which had taken refuge in the far south to escape from the Hyksos oppression; and was there mingled with southern blood, and became of the dark Berber type. As the Hyksos power decayed, this southern family fought its way northward again, and so laid the foundation of the 18th dynasty.” and “Of the first eighty years, or so, we have no names remaining; perhaps they should be sought in Nubia rather than in Egypt, as there is no allusion to tombs of the predecessors of the Seqenenras at Thebes.” The following passage is also relevant as it clarifies what Petrie refers to when he uses the term Berber, “As Seqenenra was Berber, Nefertari might be three-quarters black; while Aahmes, if son of an Egyptian husband, might be three - quarters Egyptian, thus accounting for the difference.” Once again, in isolation this to me appears consistent with the statements, “It is generally, and reasonably, agreed today that if the members of the royal family of the 18th Dynasty were foreign, they were Nubian” and “from their portraits they would seem to have been Blacks.” Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In weighing sources, it is important to note that Petrie was never formally educated. Most modern scholars admit that his work reflected the inherent racism and bigotry of his time. The idea that the opinions of Cheikh Anta Diop should be overlooked in favor of Petrie is laughable. @Wdford at once argues that depictions are symbolic and then quotes a man who has never set foot in a classroom to back a contrary position that her portrayal is realistic using outdated and rascist characterizations such as an "aqualine" nose. Yet his juvenile equivocation goes unchallenged. The changes proposed by @Nzakimuena reflect a rational scholarly perspective and to see how other editors here are turning a blind eye to basic common sense and logic is more than unfortunate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.72.225.209 (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments in response to them. Thank you for your comments. While I am personally only familiar with some of Flinders Petrie’s work and cannot judge whether his characterizations reflect an ideology, what is clear is that he consistently refers to AN as black. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not doing yourself any favours, Charles. I know it's you, as you have the same problem grasping the meaning of the word 'symbolic'. For examples, see Charles' comments (timestamped: 16:48, 22 November 2020 and 18:01, 23 November 2020) where he fails to grapple with the fact that sunburn is not a skin colour. Struck for: it has been confirmed that the IP and Charles are distinct individuals.

While article talk is intended to focus on content, everything noteworthy I have come across has been about conduct. For example, Charles' repeated insistence that Bernal 1987: 241-242; and wrongly according to Bernal 1987: 384, n. 40, also Gardiner 1961: 213-214 has the same meaning as Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961. Intentional misrepresentation of sources? Lack of competence? Either are conduct issues.

Regarding the proposals: 4 is untenable. Excising scholars from the field to favour an unreliable source is tendentious editing transparently geared towards POV push. 3 isn't an actionable proposal, not to mention it hinges on original research. 2 I leave to French speakers. Iry-Hor, if you are around, there could be nobody better to ask than yourself. 1 hinges on Bernal and Diop. Their views can be summarized and the problems with those views and their rejection stated. Key word there is and. That is to say, that A. Parrot already offered the most appropriate solution to this dispute.

The significance of views is not arbitrarily decided by Wikipedia editors, but by their prevalence in scholarly literature. Significantly, neither the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt nor the OEAE give even passing mentions to Bernal's or Diop's theories. In the former, Betsy Bryan states only that [t]he factors linking Amenhotep I and [Ahmose-Nefertari] with the necropolis region, with deified rulers, and with rejuvenation generally was visually transmitted by representations of the pair with black or blue skin—both colours of resurrection. The same quote Wdford offered on 13:23, 21 November 2020. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments in response to them. Thank you for your comments. I believe it would be preferable not to ascribe “intentional misrepresentation of sources”, “lack of competence” and “displaying conduct issues” to other editors, especially without supporting the statement and actually referring to content (I am personally left wondering what exactly you disagree with and why). Thank you for reading the proposals.

Concerning your response to (1), it is not exact to associate the statement with the figures you are referring to (Diop and Bernal) which I did not introduce. Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, and Alan Rowe (in addition to the figures you are referring to), have all suggested the possibility of the black tone being phenotypically accurate and related to African ancestry. The view is well established by those figures and should be restored from the 'Explanatory notes' section to the main body of the iconography section.

Concerning your response to (2), I am a French speaking editor and it was confirmed by myself and below that Guitton claimed of AN, that “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime” (period). The current statement, “He pointed out that there is no known depiction of her with black skin during her lifetime” does not reflect the cited material.

Concerning (3), I am wondering what you mean by, it “isn't an actionable proposal”. The proposal is that “the realism view, supersede the symbolic view in terms of ordering”, which is actionable. I believe the proposal is justifiable in the absence of evidence that phenotypically accurate tones were used symbolically (such as purplish black skin which “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”). Beyond the justification, we know that the article discusses a real person, which was most frequently depicted black, and often purplish black skin which “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”. It seems only appropriate to approach the subject of iconography with the most frequently depicted color and its meaning. The ordering is likewise supported by the fact that “the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived”, and “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime”. I support prioritizing images where AN is actually depicted, over ones where is she not depicted (given that there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime”).

Concerning (4), regardless of the reliability of the one source, of the 17th dynasty Flinders Petrie said that it “would seem to have been descended from a part of the royal Egyptian line which had taken refuge in the far south to escape from the Hyksos oppression; and was there mingled with southern blood, and became of the dark Berber type. As the Hyksos power decayed, this southern family fought its way northward again, and so laid the foundation of the 18th dynasty.” and “Of the first eighty years, or so, we have no names remaining; perhaps they should be sought in Nubia rather than in Egypt, as there is no allusion to tombs of the predecessors of the Seqenenras at Thebes.” The following passage is also relevant as it clarifies what Petrie refers to as Berber type, “As Seqenenra was Berber, Nefertari might be three-quarters black; while Aahmes, if son of an Egyptian husband, might be three - quarters Egyptian, thus accounting for the difference.” Once again, in isolation this to me appears consistent with the statements, “It is generally, and reasonably, agreed today that if the members of the royal family of the 18th Dynasty were foreign, they were Nubian” and “from their portraits they would seem to have been Blacks.” While the views of one author may not be deemed as reliable as the views of a different authors, in this particular case the views appear to be supported by both of them. If a combined statement is constructed, it does not seem relevant to discredit only one of the supporting authors based on his “central thesis”, or his work in general. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding point 2), all I can do is translate faithfully what is said : "nous n'avons jusqu'a present aucun portrait contemporain de la reine" means "we have not yet found any contemporary portrait of the queen", note that from this it follows that there is also no portrait of her with (or without) black skin, but it is also true that the author does not specifically point to the lack of black skinned representation of her, rather he is pointing to the general lack of known portrait of her dating to her lifetime. Well this makes fully sense: imagine I am saying "I have not yet received any letter from him". Sure, I am not saying that "The stamps he puts on his letter are always blue" just as I am not pointing out anything about the color of the stamp because the basic prerequisite for such an observation (namely having received a letter) isn't fulfilled, so rather I am pointing out how this basic requirement isn't met. It is the same here. To me this sentence of Gitton just says that we have no portrait of her dating to her lifetime, hence we cannot infer anything on her skin color by such portrait, but this is just obvious.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments in response to them. Thank you again for your faithful translation, indeed Guitton claimed of AN, that “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime” (period). The current statement, “He pointed out that there is no known depiction of her with black skin during her lifetime” does not reflect the cited material currently on the page. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Iry-Hor, sorry to bother you again, there's more to that passage than the one line and a whole lot more to the same source. I should have sought out the source first before asking.

The paragraph from which Charles quotes in full reads:

Le fait qu'A. Ν. était de pigmentation claire infirme définitivement l'hypothèse d'une ascendance nubienne fondée sur des représentations, d'ailleurs très postérieures (infra, Seconde partie, ch. XVI § 8), d'A.N. avec les chairs noires. On aimerait comparer ses traits avec ceux des statuettes votives qui lui sont consacrées (infra, Seconde partie, ch. IX). Malheureusement nous n'avons jusqu'à présent aucun portrait contemporain de la reine.

It is available here on pg. 23. under 'La momie d'A.N. (183)'.

There is also the issue that our article cites Gitton (1973) but references Gitton (1981). For example, our article reads In 1981 Gitton called the issue of Ahmose-Nefertari's black color "a serious gap in the Egyptological research, which allows approximations or untruths".[14]:2. There is no page 2 in the 1973 work, but there is a page 2 in the 1981 work. I believe the relevant paragraph is:

Il n'en est que plus urgent de combler une lacune grave dans la recherche égyptologique, qui laisse se perpétuer des approximations ou des contre-vérités, comme celle qui concerne la couleur noire attribuée aux chairs de la reine (9). L'intérêt de cet étude dépasse largement, nous semble-t-il, ce qui lui a servi dans notre cas de point de départ, l'institution des Epouses du Dieu ; elle devrait permettre d'éclairer entre autres les rapports des successions dans les premiers règnes de la 18ème dynastie, le rôle personnel des reines, la remise en route du culte après la période hyksos, le principe des fondations funéraires.

The same cite mentions pages 74–75, for which I have queries about:

Nous savons déjà qu'elle est inconnue de son vivant (dans la tombe de Tétiky, elle a les chairs claires comme les autres personnages) et qu'elle ne sera jamais systématique. Ainsi sur trois tombes de Deir el Médineh et Drah Abou el Neggah datant de Ramses II:

une (TT 2) lui donne des chairs claires.

une (TT 46) des chairs dorées.

une (TT 10) des chairs bleu-noir.

and

Par contre, nous pouvons essayer de déterminer la première apparition de la couleur sombre. Il semble qu'on puisse dater les premiers documents qui la comportent (ch. I, 34 ; III, TT 161) du règne d'Aménophis III ou au maximum du règne de Thoutmosis IV.

The tombs TT15 (Tombeau de Tetiky) and TT161 are specifically named in our article.

The source is a whole monograph about Ahmose-Nefertari, entirely in French. Based on the above, I think our use of Gitton needs to be scrutinized. I'd like to excise anything that does not faithfully represent Gitton's views. In our article there are citations to pages 2, 14, 23, 74–75, 84 (this one was likely intended to be Gitton 1973). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments in response to them. Thank you for your comments. To further scrutinize the use of Gitton as you recommended, the sentence by him which translates to “The fact AN was of clear pigmentation definitively invalidates the hypothesis of a Nubian ancestry”, is based on the identification of the mummy. As the page in its current state reflects, the identification of the mummy in TT 320 has been challenged in modern times. The challenge is consistent with statements from figures (Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, Alan Rowe, etc.) who described AN as black, Berber, or related to African ancestry based on her iconography (where she is shown with purplish black skin which “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”). Unlike the mummy, as far as I know the iconography is not challenged.

Once again, I am a French speaking editor and it was confirmed by myself and another French speaking editor that Guitton claimed of AN, that “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime” (period). The current statement in the page, “He pointed out that there is no known depiction of her with black skin during her lifetime” does not reflect the cited material. The remainder of the passage is consistent with what already appears on the page itself and which states that “the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived”. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh and thank you for that translation. One last note, there is entire section in Gitton's work that deals with Ahmose-Nefertari's skin colour starting pg. 74 titled 'La couleur de la peau'. That would be the most relevant. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments in response to them. Thank you for your comments. The section in Gitton's work that deals with Ahmose-Nefertari's skin colour has been provided below and I answered the comment. The passage provided omits what is also included in the section (concerning the skin color of AN) which translates to, “Davies estimates the proportion of dark representations in relation with light representations to be 4 to 1”. In other words, Gitton acknowledges that AN is represented black (including purplish black which “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”) 4 times more frequently than she is represented with light skin. He also claims he cannot give a “general figure” himself, as he did not himself “check the colors on site”. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Herewith from Gitton as per Google translate:

Le fait qu'A. Ν. était de pigmentation claire infirme définitivement l'hypothèse d'une ascendance nubienne fondée sur des représentations, d'ailleurs très postérieures (infra, Seconde partie, ch. XVI § 8), d'A.N. avec les chairs noires. On aimerait comparer ses traits avec ceux des statuettes votives qui lui sont consacrées (infra, Seconde partie, ch. IX). Malheureusement nous n'avons jusqu'à présent aucun portrait contemporain de la reine.

The fact that A. Ν. was of clear pigmentation definitively invalidates the hypothesis of a Nubian ancestry based on representations, moreover very posterior (infra, Second part, ch. XVI § 8), of A.N. with black flesh. We would like to compare his features with those of the votive statuettes dedicated to him (infra, Second part, ch. IX). Unfortunately we have so far no contemporary portrait of the queen.

Il n'en est que plus urgent de combler une lacune grave dans la recherche égyptologique, qui laisse se perpétuer des approximations ou des contre-vérités, comme celle qui concerne la couleur noire attribuée aux chairs de la reine (9). L'intérêt de cet étude dépasse largement, nous semble-t-il, ce qui lui a servi dans notre cas de point de départ, l'institution des Epouses du Dieu ; elle devrait permettre d'éclairer entre autres les rapports des successions dans les premiers règnes de la 18ème dynastie, le rôle personnel des reines, la remise en route du culte après la période hyksos, le principe des fondations funéraires.

It is all the more urgent to fill a serious gap in Egyptological research, which allows approximations or untruths to be perpetuated, such as that concerning the black color attributed to the flesh of the queen (9). The interest of this study goes far beyond, it seems to us, what served as a starting point in our case, the institution of the Brides of God; it should make it possible to shed light, among other things, on the reports of successions in the first reigns of the 18th dynasty, the personal role of queens, the resumption of worship after the hyksos period, the principle of funeral foundations.

Nous savons déjà qu'elle est inconnue de son vivant (dans la tombe de Tétiky, elle a les chairs claires comme les autres personnages) et qu'elle ne sera jamais systématique. Ainsi sur trois tombes de Deir el Médineh et Drah Abou el Neggah datant de Ramses II:

• une (TT 2) lui donne des chairs claires.
• une (TT 46) des chairs dorées.
• une (TT 10) des chairs bleu-noir.

We already know that she was unknown during her lifetime (in Tétiky's tomb, she has light flesh like the other characters) and that she will never be systematic. Thus on three tombs of Deir el Médineh and Drah Abou el Neggah dating from Ramses II:

• one (TT 2) gives him light flesh.
• one (TT 46) of golden flesh.
• one (TT 10) blue-black flesh.

Par contre, nous pouvons essayer de déterminer la première apparition de la couleur sombre. Il semble qu'on puisse dater les premiers documents qui la comportent (ch. I, 34 ; III, TT 161) du règne d'Aménophis III ou au maximum du règne de Thoutmosis IV.

On the other hand, we can try to determine the first appearance of the dark color. It seems that the first documents which include it (ch. I, 34; III, TT 161) can be dated from the reign of Amenophis III or at most from the reign of Thutmose IV.

I would obviously also greatly appreciate a proper translation from a person who can read French, if possible please. Wdford (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments in response to them. Thank you for your comments. As a highlighted, the passage you provided and which translates to “The fact AN was of clear pigmentation definitively invalidates the hypothesis of a Nubian ancestry”, is based on the identification of the mummy. As the page in its current state reflects, the identification of the mummy in TT 320 has been challenged in modern times. The challenge is consistent with statements from figures (Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, Alan Rowe, etc.) who described AN as black, Berber, or related to African ancestry based on her iconography (where she is shown with purplish black skin which “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”). Unlike the mummy, as far as I know the iconography is not challenged.

The remainder of the passage lists the different colors used to represent AN in iconography. It is followed in the source by a passage (concerning the skin color of AN) which translates to, “Davies estimates the proportion of dark representations in relation with light representations to be 4 to 1”. In other words, Gitton acknowledges that AN is represented black (including purplish black which “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”) 4 times more frequently than she is represented with light skin. He also claims he cannot give a “general figure” himself, as he did not himself “check the colors on site”.

Therefore, from Gitton it can be determined that he assumed that AN was of light pigmentation based on the identification of the mummy in TT 320 which has been challenged in modern times. He claimed of AN, that “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime” (period). Once again, the current statement in the page, “He pointed out that there is no known depiction of her with black skin during her lifetime” does not reflect the cited material. Finally, he agrees with the estimates of the proportion of dark representations in relation with light representations to be 4 to 1, conceding that he cannot himself provide a “general figure” as he did not “check the colors on site”. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments in response to them. In summary, as pertains directly to the proposals and in answer to comments,

(1) It is not exact to associate the statement AN “was sometimes portrayed by later generations as having been black” with specific figures (Diop and Bernal) which I did not introduce. This view is directly cited from the page in its current form and was held by Barbara Lesko. Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, and Alan Rowe (in addition to other figures), have all suggested the possibility of the black tone being phenotypically accurate or related to African ancestry. Flinders Petrie’s passage was present in the iconography section of the page before I suggested modifications. I am wondering why the passage and the entire view was relegated to explanatory notes, when more and other interesting passages have been found which agree with the view. The view is well established by the figures listed and should be restored from the 'Explanatory notes' section to the main body of the iconography section.

(2) I am a French speaking editor and it was confirmed by myself and another editor that Gitton claimed of AN, that “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime” (period). The current statement, “He pointed out that there is no known depiction of her with black skin during her lifetime” does not reflect the cited material. The paraphrasing attributed to Gitton should be fixed.

(3) The statement according to which AN was shown “in earlier murals, and in her own coffin, as a light-skinned Egyptian woman [and therefore] there is no possibility that black skin could have been a realism depiction”, is invalidated by clear content on the page itself in its current form which states that “the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived” and “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime”. When the practice was later adopted, it is said that one of her most frequent depiction, in purplish black, “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”. The possibility of the black tone being phenotypically accurate and related to African ancestry was observed (no original research is necessary). Furthermore, the proposal that “the realism view supersede the symbolic view in terms of ordering” is actionable. I believe the proposal is justifiable in the absence of evidence that phenotypically accurate tones were used symbolically (such as purplish black skin which “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”). Beyond the justification, we know that the page discusses a real person, which was most frequently depicted in black, and often purplish black skin which “might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”. It seems only appropriate to approach the subject of iconography with the most frequently depicted color and its meaning. It is precisely the black color which Gitton first deems essential to address in his own section dealing with the “skin color” of AN. The ordering is likewise supported by the fact that “the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived”, and “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime”. I support prioritizing images where AN is actually depicted, over ones where is she not depicted (given that “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime”). Therefore, once again, the realism view should supersede the symbolic view in terms of ordering (unless evidence which was not challenged can be provided).

(4) Concerning Flinders Petrie, of the 17th dynasty he said that it “would seem to have been descended from a part of the royal Egyptian line which had taken refuge in the far south to escape from the Hyksos oppression; and was there mingled with southern blood, and became of the dark Berber type. As the Hyksos power decayed, this southern family fought its way northward again, and so laid the foundation of the 18th dynasty.” and “Of the first eighty years, or so, we have no names remaining; perhaps they should be sought in Nubia rather than in Egypt, as there is no allusion to tombs of the predecessors of the Seqenenras at Thebes.” The following passage is also relevant as it clarifies what Petrie is referring to as the Berber type, “As Seqenenra was Berber, Nefertari might be three-quarters black; while Aahmes, if son of an Egyptian husband, might be three - quarters Egyptian, thus accounting for the difference.” Once again, in isolation this to me appears consistent with the statements, “It is generally, and reasonably, agreed today that if the members of the royal family of the 18th Dynasty were foreign, they were Nubian” and “from their portraits they would seem to have been Blacks.” While the views of one author may not be deemed as reliable as the views of a different author, in this case the views appear to be supported by both of them. If a combined statement is constructed, it does not seem relevant to discredit only one of the supporting authors based on his “central thesis”, or his work in general. Once again, the content discrediting one author’s central thesis and general work (rather than the statement), is unnecessary and should be removed.

Thank you for your comments and consideration. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If there are no further concerns with the proposed changes, I intend to proceed with them as soon as I get a chance. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There does seem to have been an error in the Gitton translation. I have corrected it.

Bernal and Diop are not reliable sources for this particular issue. Giving focus or emphasis to their views in the article is POV-pushing. Including them in a footnote is already a compromise.

The observations and speculations of early 20th century archaeologists are historically interesting up to a point, but not reliable enough or notable enough to open a POV in the main body.

Petrie made a big contribution, but much more has been discovered since his day, and many of his "interpretations" are no longer valid. Using Petrie to "overturn" modern experts is unsupportable.

The issue of the black skin being symbolic has been evidenced comprehensively. Painting black over red would NOT have been the logical way to produce a purple-black tint, so in view of all the reliable sources supporting symbolism, this speculation is also unsupportable.

Having a separate sub-section for the fringe "realism" view is WP:UNDUE.

Wdford (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

1- You removed content attributed to Gitton in your edit. I put it back as you removed it without first achieving consensus.

2- Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, Alan Rowe, and others all hold very valid points of view (founded on evidence of the black tone being phenotypically accurate or related to African ancestry), which is consistent with the current scientific consensus that Ancient Egyptians showed a variety of skin phenotypes including dark skin. In the case of Flinders Petrie, you relegated his content to explanatory notes without first achieving consensus. I intend to put it back where it was located before the change was made to restore consensus. I believe that it would be best, and more conducive to collaboration to avoid characterizing others as "POV-pushing".

3- Your statement, "The observations and speculations of early 20th century archaeologists are not reliable enough or notable enough" is inconsistent with the remainder of the article in its current state. The authors cited (such as Gitton) rely on early 20th century evidence and refer to it. You seem to favor the presence observations and speculations from the early 20th century when they support a particular view which is not neutral.

4- Petrie was in the main body of the article previously. You relegated his content to explanatory notes without first achieving consensus. I intend to put it back where it was located before the change was made to restore consensus.

5- Your speculation, "black over red would NOT have been the logical way to produce a purple-black tint" is inconsistent with the literature. If you disagree it would be preferable if you provided citations (preferably in peer-reviewed journals; preferably without interfering with the content). Also, it would be useful if you could provide a citation that purple-black skin is symbolic. So far you have produced none.

6- I think it is important to emphasize that there is a consensus that Ancient Egyptians showed a variety of skin phenotypes including dark skin. To claim that Ancient Egyptians were depicted exclusively with light skin, or that dark skin is always purely symbolic is inconsistent with literature and is not conducive to collaboration. I believe it is important to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to views which are inconsistent with the literature.

Thank you for your comment. I provided evidence previously. Most of your statements were unsupported by the literature. It would be best, and most conducive to collaboration to discuss actual content, and avoid unsupported broad sweeping claims.

If there are no further concerns with the proposed changes, I intend to proceed with them as soon as I get a chance. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Besides repeating your points, you haven't addressed the concerns about your proposed changes.

Addressing the above immediate comments, I am not sure what your concern with removing and that the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived is, when the earliest black skin depiction appears in tomb TT161, circa 150 years after her death appears shortly after in the same sentence. Appears redundant, no?

In the case of Flinders Petrie, you relegated his content to explanatory notes without first achieving consensus. I intend to put it back where it was located before the change was made to restore consensus. - This was discussed several sections above and resolved on December 5th. You didn't comment in the section (entitled Article clean-up) and I cannot find where you have challenged these changes previously. You repeat the same assertion in point 4.

Your speculation, "black over red would NOT have been the logical way to produce a purple-black tint" is inconsistent with the literature. If you disagree it would be preferable if you provided citations (preferably in peer-reviewed journals; preferably without interfering with the content). Also, it would be useful if you could provide a citation that purple-black skin is symbolic. So far you have produced none. - This is in part demonstrably untrue as both myself and Wdford pointed to the same passage in Oxford History of Ancient Egypt which explicitly states that depictions of Ahmose-Nefertari with blue or black skin are symbolic of rejuvenation and resurrection. You haven't cited any peer-reviewed journals. You cited Gestoso Singer, whom does not support the view ascribed, as from her article: [t]he color black was associated with rebirth, fertility, death and Egypt itself and the god Amun was also depicted with black skin. Her black skin was a symbol of fertility and a reference to her position as the mother of Egypt, also known as Kemt, the fertile "Black Land".

Now, if you'd cite a specific 'peer-reviewed journal' (that is a limitation you have proposed) to support your changes, that would help resolve the impasse.

As an aisde, do you want me to request an admin to rev-del the IP edits to the article for privacy concerns? Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

1- As far as I know I have addressed all concerns. If you do not agree that I have addressed all concerns to the proposed changes, it would be useful if you highlighted the specific concern or concerns I have not addressed. I can reiterate how it was addressed. Once gain, it would be best, and most conducive to collaboration to discuss actual content, and avoid unsupported broad sweeping claims (such as, "you haven't addressed the concerns about your proposed changes").

2- "the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived" and "the earliest black skin depiction appears in tomb TT161, circa 150 years after her death" are exclusive statement. For example, "the earliest black skin depiction" does not imply that "depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived". The distinction is important as the latter case explicitly suggests that actual black skin depicted as light skin is a possibility (the former case carries no implications in this regard).

3- I was involved with the article before the change was made and when there was consensus, and I am commenting and challenging the changes now.

4- Yes, the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt is a reference and I agree that it should be included (like other relevant references, in the main body of the article). I support neutrality. And yes once again I believe the speculation, "black over red would NOT have been the logical way to produce a purple-black tint" should be supported by literature and preferably deserves peer-reviewed scientific scrutiny (in literature currently, the opposite is true). I personally supported my statement with references. Do you disagree as well with the literature without supporting your statement? I cited Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, and Alan Rowe (in addition to other figures), and the view that AN's depictions may have reflected a dark skinned complexion is well supported.

5- In addition to the publications I already mentioned which support my changes, statements in the peer-reviewed journal 'Yearbook of Physical Anthropology' are in agreement with the scientific consensus that Ancient Egyptians showed a variety of skin phenotypes including dark skin (e.g. "in the pharaonic period Egypt was a racially mixed society with a higher incidence of negroid phenotypes in Upper Egypt").

6- That would be kind of you, thank you for your suggestion. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"I cited Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, and Alan Rowe" I would advise you to re-read Age matters: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." Flinders Petrie died in 1942, and there has been additional research and theories in the intervening 80 years. The journal you cite addresses the matter of phenotypes in ancient Egypt, but does it actually cover Ahmose-Nefertari as a topic? We should avoid a synthesis of sources. Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also advise you to re-read Age matters: "With regard to historical events, older reports tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing." If I understand you correctly (and in spite of Age matters), you favor 21st century authorship over 19th and 20th century authorship (approximately 100 years apart), concerning historical evidence which is estimated to be more than 3000 years old. Allow me to put your view in perspective : you are carefully selecting the views of authors expressed within less than a tenth of the age of the evidence. It seems to me that your approach reflects recentism and (strong) bias.

Based on your broad sweeping statement which does not address the specifics of the proposal, I was wondering if you disagree with the literature. For example, are you challenging the supported statement that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted in dark (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions? Are you suggesting the statement constitutes synthesis? If so, on what basis? If you disagree with the literature, could you specifically name which statement you disagree with and provide a source which supports your disagreement? Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments and actions in response to them. Doug Weller, you undid all of my recent edits on the basis that "you don't have consensus yet for this" (the edits were significant). Some of the edits were done in response to edits which were performed previously without consensus. Additionally, the edits included important content which was not present on the page before. I was wondering which parts of the following edits you disagree with :

It has been estimated that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted in black (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions. (reference) Gitton, Michel (1973). "Ahmose Nefertari, sa vie et son culte posthume". École Pratique des Hautes études, 5e Section, Sciences Religieuses. 85 (82): 84

Phenotype (as Iconography subsection)

Members of the 17th and 18th dynasties of Egypt have been described as black and as belonging to the dark Berber type, with possible Nubian families ties.(Explanatory notes) Of the 17th dynasty, Flinders Petrie said that it “would seem to have been descended from a part of the royal Egyptian line which had taken refuge in the far south to escape from the Hyksos oppression; and was there mingled with southern blood, and became of the dark Berber type. As the Hyksos power decayed, this southern family fought its way northward again, and so laid the foundation of the 18th dynasty.” and “Of the first eighty years, or so, we have no names remaining; perhaps they should be sought in Nubia rather than in Egypt, as there is no allusion to tombs of the predecessors of the Seqenenras at Thebes.” Ahmose-Nefertari is most often depicted in black (including purplish black) skin tones(Explanatory notes) According to Norman de Garis Davies, "the employment of a black complexion in preference to yellow or red is about four to one." and as such she has been described as black, and as having African ancestry. (Explanatory notes) In the early 20th century, Flinders Petrie spoke of "a black queen", Ahmose-Nefertari, who was the "divine ancestress of the XVIIIth dynasty". He described her physically as having "an aquiline nose, long and thin, and was of a type not in the least prognathous". He added that, “As Seqenenra was Berber, Nefertari might be three-quarters black; while Aahmes, if son of an Egyptian husband, might be three - quarters Egyptian, thus accounting for the difference.” He also stated that "a possibility of the black being symbolic has been suggested". In 1925, Norman de Garis Davies observed that the tone of the queen's depicted skin is not always coal-black, but also "a purplish black, reached by painting black over red". He added that, "it might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt". In 1940, Alan Rowe believed that the queen's black skin tone on some depictions could be traced to African ancestry. According to Flinders Petrie, her father Seqenenre Tao was Berber and therefore she "might be three-quarters black" Norman de Garis Davies distinguished between coal-black and purplish black depictions of Ahmose-Nefertari's skin, and indicated that the latter is achieved by painting black over red. He added that the purplish black skin may reflect the very dark complexion which was frequent in Egypt in his day. Alan Rowe suggested that the black color of the queen's skin could reflect her African heritage. In 1974, Cheikh Anta Diop described Ahmose-Nefertari as "typically negroid."

In the controversial book Black Athena, Martin Bernal inferred that Ahmose-Nefertari was black.(Explanatory notes) Bernal stated that: "many of the most powerful Egyptian dynasties which were based in Upper Egypt - the 11st, 12th, 18th - were made up of pharaohs whom one can usefully call black." In the same work, he added that, "It is generally, and reasonably, agreed today that if the members of the royal family of the 18th Dynasty were foreign, they were Nubian." According to him, "from their portraits they would seem to have been Blacks." According to historian Christina Riggs, "archaeology, Egyptology and classical scholarship rejected much of Bernal's evidence and, implicitly or explicitly, his central thesis." Lefkowitz and Rogers wrote that, as a consequence of his lack of scholarly method, "Bernal's work has been almost universally rejected by Egyptologists, archaeologists, linguists, historians, and other scholars best acquainted with the material evidence. Most regard it as beyond the boundaries of legitimate scientific inquiry."

Symbolism (as Iconography subsection)

Alan Gardiner indicated that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted with black skin, and sometimes also with blue skin, a popular color symbolizing fertility, birth, rebirth and life and usually used to depict water and the heavens.(Explanatory notes) In 1961, Alan Gardiner wrote of the paintings of Ahmose-Nefertari that she was "depicted for some unaccountable reason with a black countenance, but also sometimes with a blue one; if she was a daughter of Kamose she will have had no black blood in her veins."

All information is supported by the literature, and in some instances changes made the content more consistent with the literature. I am left wondering why the changes were undone in this case, and why they were not undone when the changes consisted of relegating content related to Ahmose-Nefertari's dark skinned phenotype to explanatory notes. There seems to be a bias regarding which content is allowed on the page without achieving consensus. I also don't believe that Wikipedia administration should demonstrate bias, and use authority to enforce it. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've put a ref-talk template below so that the citations here don't go floating around. Though it might be easier to remove the cite templates from talk. I have no qualms with both views being presented ('phenotypic' and 'symbolic'), but the prominence given to each viewpoint needs to be balanced by their prominence in available sources. I.e. the most prominent view is represented most prominently. I'll respond to your points to me below.

1: First, and a small nitpick, but you mean 'conducive' not 'conductive' (which relates to heat/electricity). But second, [t]he significance of views is not arbitrarily decided by Wikipedia editors, but by their prevalence in scholarly literature. That concern has not be assuaged. It is plain even from the article changes you made that the 'symbolic' argument has wider sourcing. The last paragraph is also sourced exclusively to 21st century scholars and writers.

2: That the earliest depiction of Ahmose-Nefertari with black skin is dated 150 years after her death does suggest that there were no depictions of her with black skin during her lifetime (or at least, that any such depictions have been lost). Also, that actual black skin depicted as light skin is a possibility is according to whom?

3: You may dispute those changes, though the article should be retained at status quo ante. It'd be one thing if you were disputing a recent change, but the article was stable for a month and half in that state. For what it's worth, I don't have an issue with reinstating the text from footnote b into the article proper.

4: I do not disagree with the literature. I disagree that the apparent minority viewpoint ('phenotypic') should receive prominence over the apparent majority viewpoint ('symoblic').

5: There is no dispute that ancient Egyptians had a racially mixed society, but we are discussing an individual in that society, not the society itself.

6: I'll see who is around to effect the rev-del. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this later I hope. Doug Weller talk 13:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments and actions in response to them. Thank you very much for not censoring citations in the talk page (as you have in the article page). There seems to be a misunderstanding here which deserves clarification. The interpretation of iconographies as 'phenotypic' and 'symbolic' do not have to be framed as conflicting views. Why frame them as conflicting, or seek to balance them if they are not conflicting? Both are supported and they should both be given prominence. Indeed, I am glad you agree that both views ('phenotypic' and 'symbolic') are valid and should be presented, although your statement seems contradicted by the fact that you undid the changes providing a summary of phenotypic observations including important content which was not present on the page before. If you do not disagree with the statement, “It has been estimated that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted in black (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions” (which is supported by the literature), why remove it entirely from the section dealing with iconography? Personally, I feel that it is beyond common sense to feature a statement indicating the most common depiction of the subject of the article (black including purplish black skin complexion) near the very top of the iconography section.

1: Thank you. Irregardless, the interpretation of iconographies as 'phenotypic' and 'symbolic' do not have to be framed as conflicting views. Why seek to balance them if they are not conflicting? Both are supported and they should both be given prominence. Also, it appears beyond common sense to feature a statement indicating the most common iconography of the subject of the article (black including purplish black skin complexion, as opposed to clear skin complexion) near the very top of the iconography section.

2: No, precision is important. Here are much more precise statements encompassing all relevant elements (and which is entirely supported by the literature) : “It has been estimated that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted in black (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions” and “the earliest depiction of Ahmose-Nefertari with black skin is dated 150 years after her death”. According to Gitton, “the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived”, and “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime” (period).

If you like the specific statement, “there were no depictions of her with black skin during her lifetime”, it would be useful to cite a reference which directly supports it (as I have done with the statements I have issued).

3: That the article should be retained at status quo ante on the basis that consensus was not reached for a month and half is an arbitrary decision. Only undoing changes on the basis that consensus was not reached when those changes express a view supported in literature demonstrates bias. It does not seem fair (to me and to other editors), for Wikipedia administrators to use their authority to enforce bias and arbitrary decisions.

Thank you for agreeing with reinstating the text from footnote b into the article proper, where content was located when there was consensus. I believe your agreement demonstrates good judgment.

4-5: There is no minority or majority viewpoint. The interpretation of iconographies as 'phenotypic' and 'symbolic' are not necessarily conflicting views. Why seek to balance them if they are not conflicting? If you like to claim that “there is a minority or majority viewpoint”, you should support the claim. I personally have made no such “minority or majority viewpoint” claim. What is certain is that based on the literature, “It has been estimated that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted in black (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions”. Once again, it seems logical to feature a statement indicating the most common iconography of the subject of the article (black including purplish black skin complexion, as opposed to clear skin complexion) near the very top of the iconography section.

6: Thank you, you are very kind.

You seem to agree with the literature (your words were, “I do not disagree with the literature”), including the statement that Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted in black (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions. You also agree with reinstating the text from footnote b into the article proper (your words were, “I don't have an issue with reinstating the text from footnote b into the article proper”). You have not suggested specific modifications or challenges to my proposal (which is supported by the literature). Unless you can provide actual specific modifications to the proposal (instead of broad sweeping statements such as “I have no qualms with both views being presented ('phenotypic' and 'symbolic'), but the prominence given to each viewpoint needs to be balanced by their prominence in available sources”), I would like to proceed with the changes. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The current form of the article is appropriately neutral and balanced and well-supported, as well as stable. It has been clearly stated that the instances of black skin are symbolic of a subsequent deification, so it doesn't matter how many instances thereof have been found. There is no need or justification to continue with this attempt to push a racial POV. Wdford (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The article in its current form is not neutral, balanced and well-supported and does not reflect consensus (and previously established consensus). Do you disagree that the article should reflect editor consensus? Unlike the article in its current form and your statement, my statements are well-supported. That Ahmose-Nefertari is depicted in dark (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions is supported. Ignoring my proposals in favor of a view, or portraying other editors as "pushing a racial POV" is not conducive to collaboration. If you do not directly address the proposal (agree or disagree with the literature and support your disagreement), or can provide actual specific modifications to the proposal, then there is effectively no challenge to the proposal. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

although your statement seems contradicted by the fact that you undid the changes - I have not once edited the article during these disputes nor am I an admin. You are confusing my statement, for Doug Weller's brief statement that they will hopefully get to this later. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I was addressing Doug Weller. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Your concerns have been dealt with repeatedly already. This persistent POV-pushing is becoming tendentious.

As per WP:Notability and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Thus not every printed statement deserves to be reproduced in Wikipedia – you would need to properly justify these proposed additions please.

Yes the surviving paintings show Ahmose-Nefertari with black skin more often than not – so people about to die wanted a supportive deity to be represented in their tombs. SO? The article already states that representations of Ahmose-Nefertari in other people's tomb paintings had the black skin of a deity more often than not. What message would you be trying to send by adding a sentence stating that it was black four times as often as other colours? Please be specific.

Your "purplish-black" fixation has also been dealt with repeatedly already. What are you trying to achieve by emphasising this factoid? Please be specific.

10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)@Wdford: too many tildes! Doug Weller talk 13:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - my bad. Wdford (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Wdford, I properly justified the proposed additions. It's unfortunate to dismiss concerns by claiming they have been dealt with or to dismiss valuable sourced statements as POV. It's also unfortunate to misrepresent statements (such as the fact that you are unable to provide evidence that any other deity has been depicted purplish-black, which is a natural skin color and is identified as such in literature, in the case of the subject of the article). To be specific, the "black skin of a deity" as you like to represent it, is not the same as dark (including purplish-black) versus clear (red and yellow) human skin complexions, as Norman de Garis Davies intended it as stated (and Michel Gitton referenced from Norman de Garis Davies). The article does not currently reflect this understanding. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break - this discussion needs to be more granular

This discussion is getting too long and repetitive, so let's reboot a bit. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena perhaps you don't realise it, but repeatedly starting your posts with "All observations within my statement are related to the actionable proposals and comments and actions in response to them." is irritating and I'm sure inadvertently makes you sound pompous. You'd do better to drop that, we've got it now. "Thank you very much for not censoring citations in the talk page (as you have in the article page)." sounds passive-aggressive, at least to me, and suggests a lack of the good faith we need for productive discussions. Also, you've only made 87 edits to articles, maybe you have something to learn from more experienced editors.

You're trying to do too much at once, see WP:TLDR. Let's start with what you think is the most important edit you want to make and discuss it. Also, please answer Wdford's question in the section above. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller while it does not appear to be the case currently (thank you), previously in instances when I identified behaviors in this discussion which I found to be inconsistent with civility or fairness and expressed it (as it related to my editing), there was an accusation of personal attack, posts were removed, or there were statements that one could be blocked from editing. As an attempt to address the possibility and to remind others and myself to seek to only make observations related to the actionable proposals (in spite of any other concerns I may have), I added the statement. So far, the statement appears to have been effective. I did not use it this time as you directed (and I do feel slightly vulnerable). I hope my response to your comment will be deemed appropriate and maintained.

I can assure you in good faith that I was genuinely very thankful that the citations you are referring to were kept on the talk page. I hope they can be maintained. As for (granular) citations which were removed and are not currently featured on the article (no ill-disposition intended), they are as follows:

According to Norman de Garis Davies (in the case of Ahmose-Nefertari), "the employment of a black complexion in preference to yellow or red is about four to one."

Of the 17th dynasty, Flinders Petrie said that it “would seem to have been descended from a part of the royal Egyptian line which had taken refuge in the far south to escape from the Hyksos oppression; and was there mingled with southern blood, and became of the dark Berber type. As the Hyksos power decayed, this southern family fought its way northward again, and so laid the foundation of the 18th dynasty.” and “Of the first eighty years, or so, we have no names remaining; perhaps they should be sought in Nubia rather than in Egypt, as there is no allusion to tombs of the predecessors of the Seqenenras at Thebes.”

“As Seqenenra was Berber, Nefertari might be three-quarters black; while Aahmes, if son of an Egyptian husband, might be three - quarters Egyptian, thus accounting for the difference.”

The most important edit (besides the above content): A phenotype subsection (slightly above the symbolic subsection). Either that or two separate articles entirely. One of Ahmose-Nefertari, the real woman with purplish-black skin (for the most part). One of Ahmose-Nefertari, the symbolic multicolored goddess. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerning what I have learnt from more experienced editors (and the Wikipedia community) in my short tenure as editor, I find Wikipedia to be an extraordinary resource and I cannot hide that I have great admiration for the sustained efforts and passion (yours and others') that continue to make it the wonderful project that it remains. You, Doug Weller, and other experienced editors are remarkable individuals.

At the beginning of our discussion I was not aware that ancient Egyptians depicted natural human skin complexion in very dark tones. Other editors opposed the notion vehemently (and referred to my observations as original research) until I found that it was stated explicitly in the literature, specifically concerning the subject of the article. Editors have claimed that some observations are not as recent or abundant as other sources. They require original research reiterating long established observations. By definition, reiterations of long-established observations about evidence do not constitute original research.

Google provides the most popular search engine in the world, and wikipedia has the great privilege and responsibility of being one of the resources google leverages to answer searches. You and other experienced editors must be aware of this fact. If I searched the skin phenotype of the subject of the article currently, I might be told that she was "sometimes portrayed by later generations as having been black, although her coffin portrait gives her the typical light yellow skin of women." You must be aware (as I am now), that the literature indicates based on direct evidence that Ahmose-Nefertari was depicted with naturally dark human skin color (black and purplish black) four times more frequently than naturally clear human skin color (red and yellow). She was not portrayed black "sometimes", neither does the supported statement refer to deification or symbolism. Likewise, that "her coffin portrait gives her the typical light yellow skin of women" is a misleading statement. You must also be aware (as I am now) that “the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived” and “there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime”. The statements (supported by literature) seem logical as her period follows Hyksos rules, and the Hyksos were foreign rulers who as far I was able to observe, have been mostly depicted with clear skin.

It seems undeniable that Ahmose-Nefertari was represented symbolically (e.g. blue) in some instances. Likewise, it seems undeniable that she was most often portrayed as having dark human skin (not symbolically, not indicating deification). Perhaps I am privileged. Regardless, I was thought to recognize colors before I entered kindergarten. Indeed, Ahmose-Nefertari's portrait shows her with natural purplish black skin complexion (as the literature supports) and lighter brown eyes. I have stated my proposal previously and I support maintaining the view that Ahmose-Nefertari was represented symbolically. I also support sharing what I believe to be the best and most accurate information about her iconography as indicated by literature. I would hope that experienced editors feel the same. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

As has been explained before, NO deity was ever depicted purplish-black – not even Ahmose-Nefertari. The original painting in these two cases used red paint for her skin, presumably symbolising power and vitality etc, and then in a second phase it was painted over with black paint, symbolising deification. Perhaps the black paint was too thin, or it was affected by the chemicals in the rock, or whatever, and now (3000 years later) the red colour shows through a bit. If they wanted "realism depiction purplish black" on purpose, they would have carefully blended red paint and black paint into the required shade before painting it on.

No actually-black person was ever painted with "purplish-black" skin - just this one case, where coincidentally the symbolic red skin was painted over with symbolic black paint after deification.

Norman de Garis Davies was an artist, not an Egyptology expert – he said what he saw, but he wasn't qualified to guess the underlying facts. However, more seriously, the quotes currently in the article are seriously incomplete, as you presumably realised when you added them. To fill out the picture, here are a few more things that Norman de Garis Davies wrote on page 33:

• "Nofretari is by no means always painted black."
• "She is of black hue again in tombs 49 and 161, both of the late XVIII dynasty, but not in the early, and perhaps contemporary, tomb no 15."
• "The tone is not always coal-black, as here, but a purplish-black, reached by painting black over red; the black having sometimes almost disappeared, careful observation is necessary, (Tombs 49, 54)."

He then goes on to explain at length that the black colour is possibly symbolic of deification. He finishes with your chosen portion of the quote "it might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt", but the last sentence reads "no negroid features are associated with the dark colour in this case". It seems that you have been very selective indeed with extracting "evidence" from Norman de Garis Davies, and that he does not actually hold as strong a racial position as you would have the readers believe.

Gitton wrote in 1981 that there is no known depiction of her painted during her lifetime, and Barbara Lesko wrote in 1996 that Ahmose-Nefertari was "sometimes portrayed by later generations as having been black, although her coffin portrait gives her the typical light yellow skin of women." New things get discovered over time, and knowledge expands. This is why we give more credence to the more recent sources.

Re Flinders Petrie, there are numerous issues which reveal the lack of knowledge under which people of his time laboured.

• The 17th dynasty did not take refuge "in the far south" to escape from the Hyksos – they only went as far south as Thebes – as did the 16th Dynasty before them.
• There is no reason to suppose that royalty would have "mingled with southern blood". Egyptian royalty tended to avoid "mingling" with anybody.
• Mingling Egyptian blood with "southern blood" would not produce "the dark Berber type." Berbers were a separate ancient race entirely, and are not a mulatto race.
• There is no evidence that "Seqenenra was Berber".

This is why we put huge reliance on Petrie for his accurate measurements of pyramids, but zero reliance for his evaluations of race and ancestry.

There is thus no basis for your conclusion that "it seems undeniable that she was most often portrayed as having dark human skin (not symbolically, not indicating deification)." This is your own deduction, based on a single non-expert source a hundred years ago whom you have quoted very selectively indeed. Wdford (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for comment expressing your opinions concerning literature. It remains peculiar to refer to yourself as 'we'. I personally support sharing the best and most accurate information about Ahmose-Nefertari's iconography as indicated by literature (over uncited opinions contradicting or misrepresenting literature in favor of a view).

You did provide a few quotes. If you feel that the additional information is valuable, I believe it should be included as well as other important sourced information which I highlighted.

Specifically concerning your quote (fully here) "it might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt, and be the echo of some early representation which recorded this. The Berber of the Nile, it may be remarked, is not black, and no negroid features are associated with the dark color in this case." It has been said that with the rise of modern genetics, the concept of distinct human races in a biological sense has become obsolete. Indeed in this case it would appear that modern science is not in favor of statements such as "no negroid features are associated with the dark color in this case". Modern science does acknowledges phenotypes. Dark skin color is a phenotype, and the observation about evidence that "it might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt" is valuable and remarkably consistent with the evidence (unlike uncited opinions contradicting or misrepresenting literature in favor of a view). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wdford advocates censorship of sourced material about the subject of the article (the object of my proposals). I do not. If the Wikipedia consensus of editors, including experienced editors, is in agreement with censorship of sourced material about the subject of the article, and if administrators enforce it, I can only express my disagreement. I hope that in the future Wikipedia consensus shifts away from censorship, and in favor of providing sourced material about the subject of the article. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I have sought to address all concerns. If there are no further comments (aside from uncited opinions contradicting or misrepresenting literature, as well as broad sweeping statements) and consensus is achieved, I intend proceed with the most important referenced edits as previously stated as soon as I get a chance. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your proposals. You are simply pushing a POV, which is not supported by the reliable sources. Wdford (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We aren't getting anywhere here and I am beginning to doubt the good faith of this editor, particularly after the comments "Wdford advocates censorship of sourced material about the subject of the article (the object of my proposals)" and any suggestion that something that doesn't meet our policies and guidelines is censorship. That's just an attack. And Wdford is clearly not referring to himself as "we", "we" is the Wikipedia community that has developed our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As relates to my proposals, I don't believe it's necessary to doubt my good faith. Also, as an honest contributor and member of the Wikipedia community, I personally do not "put huge reliance on Petrie for his accurate measurements of pyramids, but zero reliance for his evaluations of race and ancestry". If your clarification is correct Doug Weller, then the Wikipedia community is not unanimous in its considerations of Petrie (and the use of the first person plural was not adequate). I am not pushing a POV and as part policies and guidelines, I favor an NPOV WP:NPOV, from which "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written", and "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The subject of Ahmose-Nefertari's natural skin color is very significant WP:NOTE, and has been discussed extensively by many reliable sources (in all instances which I referenced notable enough to have articles of their own, i.e. Flinders Petrie, Norman de Garis Davies, Alan Rowe, and some even already present in the article). As far as I could tell no reference ever denied that Ahmose-Nefertari was a real person. Notable sources have weighted on the natural color of her skin as well as the symbolic color. I believe that any editorial bias of omitting aspects of the discussion of a very significant topic concerning the subject of the article (her natural skin color, with valuable quotes which could be paraphrased) should be avoided in favor of a neutral perspective. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the OEAE (2001) – a three-volume encyclopedia dedicated to summarizing the most important aspects of all significant ancient Egyptian subjects – despite having an entry dedicated specifically to Ahmose-Nefertari (vol 1, p. 47) (which is atypical even for pharaohs) does not offer even a single syllable on Ahmose-Nefertari's skin colour betrays your assertions. Finding modern secondary sources that offered up comments on her representation in black was difficult:

Aidan Dodson-Dyan Hilton (2004) refer to her as 'one of the most important figures of the period' (p. 128) but say nothing about her skin colour, only a brief comment next to an image (caption p. 125) that reads '[h]ere she is depicted ... with the black skin of a deity of resurrection'

Barbara Lesko (2003) – which has already been cited several times in these discussions – makes a similar brief comment in the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt

Nicolas Grimal (1992) references her half a dozen times and dedicates a whole page exclusively to summarizing her role (p. 201–2) but says squat about her iconography

The sources that I've collected on ancient Egypt are geared towards the Old Kingdom and pyramid-building, so I don't have an impressive library on New Kingdom subjects. But, the fact that within the article currently, all of the 21st century sources cited point to the same conclusion 'black or blue skin [of] a goddess of resurrection' is just demonstrative that you're pursuing a minor, if not fringe, viewpoint.

You've presented several sources to back your perspective: Diop (1974) and Bernal (1987) whom are fringe/unreliable ; Petrie (1896), Davies (1925) and Rowe (1940) whom are at this point very dated sources. Point to some modern scholarship by recognizable experts in the field. You cited Singer (2011) at one point, 'till it was demonstrated that she does not support the view presented.

Moreover, you've contradicted yourself and flipped positions. For example, well above you write that I believe very dark skin and a nose "not in the least prognathous" as Petrie described it, are indeed features consistent with the use of the term "negroid". Immediately above however, you refute Wdford's summary of Davies whom says that no negroid features are associated with the dark colour in this case, because [i]t has been said that with the rise of modern genetics, the concept of distinct human races in a biological sense has become obsolete. So it's okay to reference 'negroid features' to conclude in favour of x, but not against x. Inconsistent reasoning is a red flag for POV push. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the sources I preferred to reference, i.e. Petrie (1896), Davies (1925), Rowe (1940). While carefully selecting the views of authors expressed within less than a tenth of the age of the evidence seems to reflect bias, modern secondary sources that offered up comments on her representation in natural black skin (in addition to symbolic) exist beyond the sources you have collected. To point to some modern scholarship by recognizable experts in the field (finding them was not difficult),

Gitton (1981) references Davies and acknowledges his estimate that AN is depicted in natural black (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions.

Barbara Lesko also did say of AN that she was "sometimes portrayed by later generations as having been black, although her coffin portrait gives her the typical light yellow skin of women." Of course, Gitton was aware of contemporary portraits of AN (where she is depicted like all other characters), and further emphasized that "the practice of depicting the face and visible body parts black was inexistent while she lived" and "there is no known depiction of her during her lifetime".

While I provided modern secondary sources, you will note that the sources merely reiterate long established observations about the probable natural color of AN’s skin. Reiterations of long-established observations about evidence is not original research and it seems counter to common sense to seek the most modern sources possible. The fact that Singer (2011)’s article was modified during the course of the present discussion (in favor of a particular view) indicates that reliance on modern scholarship should be scrutinized. In this sense, I tend to value long established, notable observations about the probable natural color of AN’s skin.

I don’t feel it is necessary to interpret my statements out of context and assert that I “contradicted myself and flipped positions”. The interpretation is interesting, as when considered in context, an editor found it useful previously to ascribe the characterization of AN in the literature as "typically negroïd" as reflecting obvious POV. The editor in question then proceeded to cite Davies statement about AN that dark skinned Berber "it may be remarked, is not black, and no negroïd features are associated with the dark color in this case" to support his view.

My views are consistent and from the beginning of the discussion I questioned and opposed the insistence of other editors (including the aforementioned editor) to direct the discussion towards race and ethnicity. It should not be surprising that many authors (including notable ones and even modern ones, such as Barbara Lesko), have used the terms black, negroïd, and dark Berber to describe AN. The terms are all associated with phenotypical characteristics (i.e. dark skin). To reiterate the consistency in my statements, while the terms black, negroïd, and dark Berber type were obviously used historically to express when phenotypes (such as natural dark skin) were present, the concept of distinct human races in a biological sense has become obsolete.

Indeed, the distinction between the terms black, negroïd, and dark Berber type (which have also been used interchangeably by some authors) is not very useful, and unlike other editors I have not insisted on the distinction (or favored terms, or ascribed POV to their use, or used the distinction to support a view). My proposals are concerned with the natural skin color of the subject of the article, and the above terms are all associated with dark natural skin color (a phenotype). They are useful in this sense. The OEAE (2001) is an encyclopedia about Ancient Egypt, and the present article is concerned with AN specifically. When it comes to AN specifically, the subject of natural skin color is very significant as it was discussed by many reliable and notable sources WP:NOTE. The assertion is well supported.

I don’t deny that Ahmose-Nefertari has been represented symbolically, in addition to being represented with a natural skin tone, as several sources (including modern ones) corroborate. The article currently deliberately conflates symbolic representation and natural representation in a way that reflects bias. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Phenotype is influenced by genotype. Concerning the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt which you mentioned as a reliable source, I believe it would be useful to highlight the “pure genealogy” of AN, and also hence her family ties to the 12th dynasty of Egypt. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is becoming tendentious.

With historical and archaeological topics, modern discoveries sometimes overturn older knowledge and beliefs. The modern views of reliable sources reflect the latest known facts. This NOT "counter to common sense", it is basic scholarship.

Gitton NEVER acknowledged that AN had "natural" black skin – in fact exactly the opposite. He noted that the earlier tombs showed her with Egyptian skin, and that only in later tombs was she shown with black skin – among other colours.

Barbara Lesko wrote about 15 years later than Gitton, and noted that the black skin was symbolic. She is also very clearly NOT supporting the black skin as being natural at all.

Both Petrie and Davies, while being far out of date, still noted that the black skin was NOT accompanied by any of the other typical features of a black or Nubian person. Modern reliable sources also do NOT support a conclusion of AN being a "naturally" black person.

You make it very clear that you prefer any source which supports your POV.

I think you are coming to the end of this road. Wdford (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

On whether sources addressed the subject of the natural skin color of AN (which Mr rnddude questioned), the literature (including modern literature) is quite clear that they did. Your statement concerning Petrie, and according to which he "noted that the black skin was NOT accompanied by any of the other typical features of a black or Nubian person" is puzzling, albeit consistent with your other uncited opinions contradicting or misrepresenting reliable and notable sources WP:NOTE (including modern works by Gitton and Lesko) in favor of your personal views.

The Nubian Mixture.—The later Hyksos were obviously decadent, and at last an invasion from the south threw them back northward and established a black queen as the divine ancestress of the XVIIIth dynasty. Thus again a southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani IIIrd dynasty and the Galla XIIth dynasty. [...] the main sources of the XVIIIth dynasty dynasty were Nubian and Libyan, depicted black and yellow (L.D., III,i) but not the red of the Egyptian.—Flinders Petrie, The Making of Egypt, p. 155 (1939)

The editorial bias seeking to omit aspects of the discussion of a very significant topic concerning the subject of the article (her natural skin color) is unfortunate. It would be preferable to avoid bias in favor of a neutral perspective WP:NPOV. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall calling into question the existence of sources discussing her natural skin colour. That accusation is particularly baffling given that I referenced the five sources that you cited most often and referred to the discussion being between the 'phenotypic' and 'symbolic' views. What I do recall asking is if you could point to modern scholarship, since the most recent reliable source you were citing was Alan Rowe (1940) – Diop (1974) and Bernal (1987) being outside the mainstream – between which now stands eight decades of advancement in the field.

With regard to Gitton though, could you provide a direct quote (in the original French) and which of the two sources (1973 ; 1981) it's in? The bit is mentioned in the article, but there are numerous mistakes in the Gitton citations referencing pages that don't exist in one or the other source, but I need to confirm their location to repair the citation. A quote would be ideal as that would make it directly searchable.

As a final comment, I have a guess, but where exactly have you drawn this conclusion from: I believe it would be useful to highlight the “pure genealogy” of AN, and also hence her family ties to the 12th dynasty of Egypt. Source and page number, please. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect Mr rnddude, scroll up minimally and you will find your own statements in which you defended your opinion that the subject of AN's natural skin color is not very significant based on the assumption that it is not discussed in modern works. As I demonstrated, the subject is discussed by modern scholarship and pointing to it is not difficult.

I preferred to reference Petrie (1896), Davies (1925) and Rowe (1940) which are all notable WP:NOTE. Diop and Bernal’s views, albeit showing consistency in several respects with other works, are controversial. Your continued attempt to associate me with controversial figures specifically throughout our discussion is evident and disrespectful.

Concerning Gitton (1981) referencing Davies and acknowledging his estimate that AN is depicted in natural black (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions, the direct quote (in the original French) is as follows,

“Davies (94) évalue à 4 pour 1 la proportion des représentations « sombres » par rapport aux representations « claires » [Davies (94) evaluates the proportion of dark representations to light representations at 4 to 1.]” —Michel Gitton, L'épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary, p. 74-75 (1981)

“older reports tend to have the most detail and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing.” Age matters. The passages by Davies which Gitton (1981) is referencing are as follow,

“So far as I have been able to control the instances, the employment of a black complexion in preference to yellow or red is about four to one. […] The tone is not always coal-black, […], but a purplish black, reached by painting black over red”—Norman de Garis Davies, The tomb of two sculptors at Thebes, p. 33 (1925)

Some other relevant quotes by Gitton are as follow,

“Malheureusement nous n'avons jusqu'à présent aucun portrait contemporain de la reine. [Unfortunately, so far, there is no contemporary depiction of the queen]” —Michel Gitton, L'épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary, p. 23 (1981)

“on a été frappé par la couleur noire que certains documents utilisent pour rendre le visage et les autres parties visibles du corps de la reine. Nous reviendrons plus loin sur l'origine probable de cette coutume (ch. XVII § 2). Nous savons déjà qu'elle est inconnue de son vivant (dans la tombe de Tétiky, elle a les chairs claires comme les autres personnages) et qu'elle ne sera jamais systématique. [the black color that some documents use to depict the face and other visible parts of the queen's body has caught the attention of observers. We will come back to the probable origin of the custom later (ch. XVII § 2). We already know that the custom was unknown during her lifetime (in Tetiky's tomb, her complexion is light colored like that of the other characters) and that it was never systematic.]”—Michel Gitton, L'épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary, p. 74 (1981)

The genealogy of AN is mentioned in the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt,

“Hatshepsuty had the same pure genealogy as Ahmose-Nefertari, Ahhotep, and Sobekneferu.”—The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, p. 229 (2003)

Petrie also discusses his observations on the origins of the 12th dynasty, and (as I highlighted previously) how it relates specifically to AN,

“The XIIth dynasty was undoubtedly descended from Amenemhat, the great vizier of the XIth dynasty. It seems, then, that he married the heiress of the Uah-ka family, as stated in the pseudoprophecy, “A king shall come from the south whose name is Ameny, son of a Nubian woman.” She called her son by the family name Senusert, and he was the founder of the XIIth dynasty, according to Manetho.” —Flinders Petrie, The Making of Egypt, p. 126 (1939)

“an invasion from the south threw [the Hyksos] back northward and established a black queen as the divine ancestress of the XVIIIth dynasty dynasty. Thus again a southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani IIIrd dynasty and the Galla XIIth dynasty.” —Flinders Petrie, The Making of Egypt, p. 155 (1939)

Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I said it was a minor, if not fringe, viewpoint, not that it doesn't exist, which is what you're attempting to insinuate by stating that I called into the question the existence of sources. I did not, I asked for more recent sources, which I'll get back to in a moment. Moreover, [y]our continued attempt to associate me with controversial figures specifically throughout our discussion is evident and disrespectful, is questionable. They are mentioned immediately above because they are more recent than Rowe.

Read the policies and guidelines you cite fully, as WP:AGEMATTERS also states that [e]specially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. An example of this happening would be Lepsius' and Borchardt's views on pyramid construction techniques in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty. They had both concluded that the pyramids were built by layering limestone vertically, in the same manner that the Third Dynasty had built their pyramids. See the famous illustration of Sahure's pyramid on Blatt 7 here. This was the accepted view from the mid-1800s until the 1960s when Maragioglio and Rinaldi failed to confirm those observations and found evidence to the contrary, before finally being debunked in the 1980s by the Czech mission in Abusir under Verner when they demonstrated that Neferefre's unfinished pyramid been built with horizontal layers of limestone. There are more recent examples to hand to me, but that one always sticks out because I've had to address it in several Wikipedia articles.

I'll get around to addressing Gitton and your other points later today. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to cite WP:AGEMATTERS fully. I read it in its entirety and in the particular case I highlighted the passage from WP:AGEMATTERS which you are citing is not relevant (or perhaps you should highlight why it is relevant, instead of citing seemingly at random to support a POV). Gitton referenced Davies, and Davies provides more information about the statement than Gitton, i.e., black complexion (not simply "dark" representations), 4 times more than yellow or red complexion (not "clear" representations). The statement is clear and there is no need to conflate natural and symbolic representations of AN, as the article does currently in a way that reflects bias. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The 'at random' is the very first sentence of the guideline. Charles, you're fooling nobody. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. I would also prefer to discuss content. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

In cases of archaeology, definitely WP:AGEMATTERS. Another example would be the ancestry of Tutankhamun, which was the source of much speculation for decades, and was recently clarified with DNA testing – which was obviously not available to the generation of Howard Carter.

The subject of "natural" skin colour is NOT "discussed" by modern scholarship. Modern scholars know that AN was Egyptian, not Nubian, and they mention the black skin colour from her later representations only as being symbolic of deification. There is no "discussion", the matter is resolved.

I do not see anywhere that Gitton mentions "natural" skin colour, far less agrees that the black colour is AN's "natural" skin colour.

Instead Gitton wrote that the custom of portraying her face and hands black was "unknown during her lifetime", and that in earlier portrayals "her complexion is light coloured like that of the other characters". It is clear that Gitton DISAGREES that black was AN's "natural" skin colour. What exactly are you trying to achieve by twisting Gitton's words?

It is probable that the coffin portrait of AN was only discovered after Gitton wrote this comment – another reason why WP:AGEMATTERS.

Your "pure genealogy" argument involves a great deal of synthesis, which is itself based in turn on assumptions and "old" understandings:

• Petrie specifically describes AN as a "divine ancestress", clarifying again that he was well aware of the deification issue;
• In Egyptology, the "southern" people are from Thebes, not Nubia, far less Ethiopia;
• The Hyksos were driven out by a Theban king, not a Nubian king;
• The 12th dynasty were not Galla people – the so-called Galla come from Ethiopia, not Nubia;
• Amenemhat moved his national capital north from Thebes, not south;
• The 12th dynasty warred extensively with Nubia;
• There is no evidence that Amenemhat married a Nubian woman;
• Amenemhat probably had numerous wives, but the dynasty descended from the wife Neferitatjanen, and there is no evidence that she was anything other than Egyptian;
• In his own tomb, Amenemhat is shown in ordinary Egyptian skin colouring – see [18];
• A pseudoprophecy is called a pseudoprophecy for a good reason;
• The family tree from the 12th dynasty to the 18th dynasty is not continuous, so the genealogy is far from "pure".

Why do you "prefer" to reference Petrie, Davies and Rowe? Is it because some of the things they have said happen to (sort of vaguely) support your POV? Wdford (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

At this point I believe the subject of whether the natural skin color of AN is discussed in modern literature and by notable authors WP:NOTE has been addressed. As I demonstrated, the subject is discussed by modern scholarship and pointing to it is not difficult. Indeed, AN is depicted in natural black (including purplish black) complexion four times more frequently than clear (yellow or red) skin complexions. Again, the article currently deliberately conflates symbolic representation and natural representation in a way that reflects bias. The additional information you are highlighting which relates to the topic is again consistent with your other uncited opinions contradicting or misrepresenting reliable and notable sources in favor of your personal views.

Concerning your statements that “In Egyptology, the "southern" people are from Thebes, not Nubia, far less Ethiopia;” and “The Hyksos were driven out by a Theban king, not a Nubian king;”,

“in the XVIIth Dynasty (c. 1600–1580 B.C.E.), the princes of Thebes, welcomed the Medjay Nubians as allies when the Thebans sought to overthrow their Hyksos (Hurrian-Semitic) overlords, who ruled from Avaris in the northeastern Delta (c. 1674–1566 B.C.E.)”—Frank Yurco (1989)

“[Regarding] the mummy of Seqenen-Re Tao, who died on the battlefield about 1580 B.C.E. He was from Thebes, much farther south. He had tightly curled, woolly hair, a slight build and strongly Nubian features.”—Frank Yurco (1989)

Concerning your statements that “The 12th dynasty were not Galla people – the so-called Galla come from Ethiopia, not Nubia;”, “The 12th dynasty warred extensively with Nubia;” and that “There is no evidence that Amenemhat married a Nubian woman”,

“When members of the royal family were descended from [...] foreign populations or from border areas, pharaonic sculpture and reliefs clearly display their ethnic features. For example, the XIIth Dynasty (1991–1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region. As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work.”—Frank Yurco (1989)

“Especially interesting, it was a member of this dynasty that decreed that no Nehesy (riverine Nubian of the principality of Kush), except such as came for trade or diplomatic reasons, should pass by the Egyptian fortress at the southern end of the Second Nile Cataract. Why would this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban other Nubians from coming into Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies.”—Frank Yurco (1989)

A Wikipedia administrator instructed me on my talk page to “Please stop talking the hind leg off a donkey at Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari.” While the recommendation is not made entirely clear, I assume that he would like me to stop addressing the misrepresentation of reliable and notable sources displayed throughout the discussion on this talk page. I intend to abide by the recommendation of Wikipedia administration (until further clarifications can be provided by the administrator). I would also like to note once again that the editorial bias seeking to omit aspects of the discussion of a very significant topic concerning the subject of the article (AN's natural skin color) is very unfortunate. Thank you all again for an enlightening talk, and I wish you all the best with your editing. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You cited two more recent sources Lesko (1996) and Gitton (1981) to support your view. With regard to Gitton which I said I'd get back to you later today on.

Your select quote: Davies (94) évalue à 4 pour 1 la proportion des représentations « sombres » par rapport aux representations « claires » [Davies (94) evaluates the proportion of dark representations to light representations at 4 to 1.] and the remained of the sentence: un sondage personnel nous amènerait à penser que cette proportion est nettement moins forte, mais, faute d'avoir pu vérifier les couleurs sur place, notamment dans les tombes pour lesquelles les publications sont inexactes ou incertaines, nous ne pouvons donner de chiffre général.

The bit you selected says that according to Davies there is a 4:1 ratio in the 'dark representations' to 'light representations', but nothing about 'natural skin colour'. Gitton then says from his own survey that the ratio is much lower, but cannot say how much lower because he can't always verify colours on the spot or to check for inaccuracies/uncertainties in other publications.

Gitton's view as a whole, which I pointed out 4 weeks ago (I have not forgotten), as stated in the introduction of his work is that the 'black colour' attributed to 'black flesh' perpetuates approximations or untruths: Il n'en est que plus urgent de combler une lacune grave dans la recherche égyptologique, qui laisse se perpétuer des approximations ou des contre-vérités, comme celle qui concerne la couleur noire attribuée aux chairs de la reine (9). As it's part of the quote, I provide also footnote 9: Rowe, ASAE 40 (1940), p. 39, croit encore que la couleur noire de la reine sur certaines représentations vient d'une origine africaine, alors que Maspero avait déjà constaté sur la momie qu'A.N. était de race blanche (cf. infra, Première Partie, ch. VII).

That you think you can pull out half-quotes to push a POV and that nobody will notice is frustrating. That you then level accusations of POV pushing and misrepresentation of sources is infuriating.

So now we come back to the original request I made several posts ago: [p]oint to some modern scholarship by recognizable experts in the field that support your view. Neither source you have presented supports the view that the representations in black are of her natural skin colour. Lesko says only that she is 'sometimes portrayed by later generations as having been black' ; Gitton states that she is not black. What was it you were snidely saying to me? Oh yes, finding them was not difficult.

To put this discussion to an end. Present a modern source published by an Egyptologist that espouses the view that the representation of Ahmose-Nefertari in black is of her natural skin colour. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay? "pull out half-quotes to push a POV"? (what is this supposed POV you are attributing to me?) And there's no need to shift the conversation away from your original inquiry (or lose your temper). You tried to defend your opinion that the subject of AN's natural skin color is not very significant based on the assumption that it is not discussed in modern works. Yes, it is discussed in modern works and finding them was not difficult. Thank you for supporting my statements by addressing the modern literature in which the subject of AN's natural skin color is indeed discussed.

To very clearly reiterate the NPOV, the literature supports that AN was depicted with natural black skin (sometimes purplish-black), as well as symbolically. There is no need to conflate the two, AN was a real person. I pointed to scholarship including modern scholarship which reflects the NPOV. The NPOV is consistent with the pure genealogy, and direct lineage of the subject of the article which is expressed by modern scholarship.

There is nothing to hide here. Thank you for providing the full Gitton reference to Davies. I also believe it's important to emphasize that Davies provides more information about the original statement than Gitton (it is his evidence, after all), i.e., black complexion (not simply "dark" representations), 4 times more than yellow or red complexion (not "clear" representations). Like Gitton, Davies discusses the natural and symbolic representation and he does not conflate them. Even beyond the fact that black, red and yellow are natural skin tones, it is clear what he is referring to,

"The tone is not always coal-black, as here, but a purplish black, reached by painting black over red [...] The black hue may be due, apart from any racial traits, to the idea that the dead or the dweller in the dark underworld should be of that color, or to the influence of a well-known and popular black cult-statue of the deity in question. [...] Even if the black color were personal to Nofretari, it might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt"—Norman de Garis Davies, The tomb of two sculptors at Thebes, p. 33 (1925)

This is directly from the source Gitton is referencing. Are you suggesting that "racial traits" are symbolic? Once again, there is nothing to hide here. Concerning AN iconography, the full Gitton quote in which he admits that (translation), "a personal survey would lead us to think that this proportion is much lower, but, for lack of having been able to verify the colors on the spot, in particular in the graves for which the publications are inaccurate or uncertain, we cannot give a general figure." is useful. Gitton admits that he wasn't able to check the colors on location himself ("lack of having been able to verify the colors on the spot"), and defers to Davies' figure. He provides Davies' figure, and he does not give one himself (period).

Concerning the mummy of a female (not the iconography) contained in a sarcophagus with no inscriptions (by Gitton's own admission), of which the identification is now disputed, Gitton's conclusions are quite fringe, and inconsistent with the literature which already addressed her phenotype and genealogy. I oppose your pursuit of fringe views. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you stop using the {{talk quote}} template as a highlighter. It's supposed to be used for direct quotes. Pick any other colour if you need a highlighter, blue, green, orange, purple, or any other colour that contrasts well against a white background (so not, for example, yellow).

You tried to defend your opinion that the subject of AN's natural skin color is not very significant based on the assumption that it is not discussed in modern works - 'My opinion' is based on the simple fact that the majority of the sources that I have gone through that discuss Ahmose-Nefertari do not discuss her skin colour. I went through more than a dozen articles about her on JSTOR and not one said anything on it. I gave four broad level sources (OEAE, Oxford History of Egypt, Grimal, and Dodson & Hilton) when I made that comment, one of which contained a single sentence about her representation in art and one which contained a note under an image caption, but neither discussed skin colour. The only in-depth source I found on the subject was Gitton while trying to work out why the 1973 source is cited throughout. As we've long since established, he does not agree with Davies that the black represents her skin colour.

Your best source is then Davies, since you quote him extensively. Davies' view might be acceptable under WP:RSOPINION, but as a source almost 100 years old now, his views could not supersede those of Gitton, Bryan, Tyldesley, Hodel-Hoenes, Singer, Dodson & Hilton, Vassiliki.

I oppose your pursuit of fringe views - What does this have to do with me? Where have I cited 'the mummy' as evidence in any of my comments? You're not harping on the fact that I am trying to resolve the citations to Gitton are you? Heck, the article itself already notes that the provenance of the mummy is disputed. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Mr rnddude I am not harping on the fact that I am helping you resolve the citations to Gitton. Answers below concerning your fringe views. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break 2 - A second sweep of the literature

I've done a second sweep of the literature that I could think of. I went through JSTOR a few days ago, and while there are a few dozen articles that mention Ahmose-Nefertari, none that I identified discussed representations of her in art. I then went to BIFAO which gives publicly accessible academic articles, though these are usually in French. All I was able to muster were this and this. From there I visited the equally publicly accessible Encyclopedia of Egyptology on UCLA. I found an article on the transition from the Eighteenth to Nineteenth Dynasty starting at the reign of Akhenaten, too late for our purposes. I also found an article about the queens of Egypt[19] but it only makes one vague reference to her via Ahmose. The bibliography looked promising though.

I did find a very recent work published by Kara Cooney, an Egyptologist and professor at UCLA, titled 'When Women Ruled the World'. The most relevant passage of which is a summation of the period: Dynasty 17, clearly viewed itself in opposition to a dynasty of foreign, so called 'Hyksos', kings in the north (comprising Dynasties 15 and 16, concurrently) as well as Nubian kings to the south now allied with the Hyksos. She also states that the women of the Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Dynasty were Theban, and she specifically goes on to cite Ahmose-Nefertari and her brother-husband Ahmose as an example. (See pp. 100–104 here.

I also came across a NationalGeographic article which has this passage: The southern city of Thebes served as the base of the Egyptian challenge to the Hyksos. The city sat on the banks of the Nile, more than 400 miles south of the modern city of Cairo. The kings of the 16th dynasty survived as vassals of the Hyksos, but the 17th dynasty began to fight back with the help of three women, all queens of Thebes: Tetisheri, daughter Ahhotep, and granddaughter Ahmose Nefertari.

Yet another source edited by Egyptologists Betsy Bryan, Catharine Roehrig, and Janet Johnson here similarly states that In the early fifteenth century B.C. the family that dominated Egypt was Upper Egyptian and as a result was devoted to Thebes ... Wars conducted by the southern kings Sekenenra, Kamose and Ahmose eventually succeeded in defeating the Hyksos, establishing a reunified Nile valley and solidifying the Seventeenth Theban Dynasty as the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty (p. 30).

If somebody has access to Brill, then there's this article by Gay Robbins that may be helpful.

In any case, not one of the sources I came across suggested that Ahmose-Nefertari was anything other than an Egyptian woman. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what purpose your "second sweep of the literature", or the quotes serve here. It's important not to ignore content previously highlighted in the discussion. Anyways, mainstream scholarship is consistent with the idea that AN was an Egyptian woman, with pure genealogy and Nubian heritage.

“in the XVIIth Dynasty (c. 1600–1580 B.C.E.), the princes of Thebes, welcomed the Medjay Nubians as allies when the Thebans sought to overthrow their Hyksos (Hurrian-Semitic) overlords, who ruled from Avaris in the northeastern Delta (c. 1674–1566 B.C.E.)”—Frank Yurco (1989)

About AN's father,

“[Regarding] the mummy of Seqenen-Re Tao, who died on the battlefield about 1580 B.C.E. He was from Thebes, much farther south. He had tightly curled, woolly hair, a slight build and strongly Nubian features.”—Frank Yurco (1989)

About AN specifically,

The Nubian Mixture.—The later Hyksos were obviously decadent, and at last an invasion from the south threw them back northward and established a black queen as the divine ancestress of the XVIIIth dynasty. Thus again a southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani IIIrd dynasty and the Galla XIIth dynasty. [...] the main sources of the XVIIIth dynasty dynasty were Nubian and Libyan, depicted black and yellow (L.D., III,i) but not the red of the Egyptian.—Flinders Petrie, The Making of Egypt, p. 155 (1939)

Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what purpose your "second sweep of the literature", or the quotes serve here - To establish the views of modern mainstream academics. Something you have refused to do. It's important not to ignore content previously highlighted in the discussion - I am not entertaining your misuse of sources further. Anyways, mainstream scholarship is consistent with the idea that AN was an Egyptian woman ... - Yes ; ... with pure genealogy ... - If you know what that means, then yes, but your comments in the previous section indicate that you think that means that she is a blood-relative of Sobekneferu, which no that's not supported by the literature ; and Nubian heritage - which would mean she's not Egyptian. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's try again.

Who disputed the identification of the mummy of AN - and on what grounds? Please provide a reference to a reliable source. Not a link to another article which merely contains an uncited statement, cite a reliable source please.

Nowhere do the reliable sources support the POV that AN was depicted with "natural black skin". Please cite specifically an instance where a reliable source supports the POV that AN was depicted with "natural black skin". Not a waffle, not a bluster, not a deluge of WP:SYNTH, just a reliable source please.

Thank you. Wdford (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wdford I created a section concerning the disputed fringe mummy identification specifically with links below. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Mr rnddude I can help you further resolve the views of modern mainstream academics (something I have already done at your request). There is no need to look for sources that specifically discuss Ahmose-Nefertari and do not discuss her natural skin color. Many reliable and notable sources including modern sources already have discussed her natural skin color (as I have already demonstrated). Mainstream scholarship is quite consistent with the idea that AN was an Egyptian woman, depicted with natural black skin, including purplish-black (also symbolically, as she was deified), with pure genealogy and a father with strongly Nubian features. As was the case with her father and has is the case with AN, Nubian heritage and Egyptian is compatible.

You should also read WP:AGEMATTERS, concerning how much more frequent the natural black skin (including purplish-black) is depicted than red and yellow, Davies is more detailed than Gitton (personal interpretations and opinions are unnecessary).

"So far as I have been able to control the instances, the employment of a black complexion in preference to yellow or red is about four to one." "The tone is not always coal-black, [...], but a purplish black, reached by painting black over red" "it might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”— Norman de Garis Davies, The tomb of two sculptors at Thebes, p. 33 (1925)

Fringe is determined with reference to scholarship (according to Wdford). I reviewed the evidence supposedly in support of the likely fringe exclusively symbolic depiction of AN view, and it is indeed quite fringe (an understatement). One of the sources was modified during the course of the present discussion, and it is actually the only one which proposes that the black skin of AN is exclusively symbolic.

None of the remaining authors (supposedly in support of the fringe exclusively symbolic depiction of AN view, including Emili Vassilika), claim that AN’s depictions are exclusively symbolic. None of the sources discuss the distinction by Norman de Garis Davies that the tone in iconography is not always coal-black, but also purplish-black, which according to Davies "might only indicate a very dark complexion, such as now often occurs in Egypt”.

While it is surprising that the article in its current form conflates the natural and symbolic observations regarding the skin color of AN, I am not surprised to find that there is virtually no reliable, or notable WP:NOTE support for the exclusively symbolic depiction of AN fringe view.

It is curious Mr rnddude and Wdford, given that there is virtually no reliable, or notable conflict (except fringe) with the views of Davies (or Petrie, or Rowe, or Lesko), that when he comments on the fact that AN is depicted with natural black skin four times more frequently than other natural skin tones, you oppose his view and try to undermine it. You have no qualms referencing Davies when his evidence concerns AN’s brow ornament. Evidently, it seems you have a problem specifically with AN’s natural black skin color, and your qualms are unrelated to Davies or the age of the evidence. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerning Gitton’s statement that "there is no known depiction of her painted during her lifetime (she is depicted with the same light skin as other depicted individuals in tomb TT15, before her deification)", there are important additional considerations (and it would seem that Gitton is right in this case) given that,

"In utilizing Egyptian reliefs and paintings to assess ethnicity and racial characteristics, a cautionary note is in order. In the Old Kingdom period (c. 2755–2230 B.C.E.), artistic canons governed the color for people shown in statuary, relief work and painting. Reddish brown was used for men, yellowish white for women."—Frank Yurco (1989)

"By the Middle Kingdom, and more certainly in the New Kingdom, the color strictures of this artistic canon partly gave way. Often in these periods, people were depicted with their actual skin color, men and women alike, and with distinctive facial features. Not surprisingly, most tomb owners in the Theban New Kingdom necropolis are depicted with brown complexions, as we see among their modern-day descendants."—Frank Yurco (1989)

"Foreigners in this period are depicted realistically, in both features and complexion. In summary, the peoples of the Nile Valley present a continuum, from the lighter northern Egyptians to the browner Upper Egyptians to the still browner Nubians and Kushites and to the ultra-dark brown Nilotic peoples. Millennia of slow, gradual intermingling with neighboring populations of Nubians and Libyans, and from time to time with foreigners from more distant areas, created this population."—Frank Yurco (1989)

The more highly relevant literature and evidence is uncovered, the more the very fringe POV that AN is depicted exclusively symbolically falls apart. The literature supports the NPOV WP:NPOV that AN was depicted with natural black skin (sometimes purplish-black), as well as symbolically. There is no need to conflate the two, AN was a real person. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: No, that isn't how this works. Wdford asked you to provide a recent source that explicitly argues that the black-skinned images of Ahmose-Nefertari are a reflection of her actual appearance. Instead, you bring up the same sources you've brought up a dozen times before, even though those sources say nothing about Ahmose-Nefertari, and then you use your interpretation of those sources to declare that what the recent reliable sources actually say about images of Ahmose-Nefertari is a "fringe" position.

What you've been doing this whole time is known as bludgeoning the process: trying to exhaust those who disagree with you by overwhelming them with verbiage. It's what User:Bishonen meant when she asked you to "stop talking the hind leg off a donkey". In your case, the verbiage is mostly sheer repetition, which is an exceptionally poor substitute for actual evidence. Everyone who has looked at this page has read your arguments, multiple times. They haven't found them sufficiently supported by the sources, and they won't unless you bring new and better sourcing to the table. You won't win the argument by repeating yourself yet again, and the repetition passed the point of disruptive editing quite a while ago. A. Parrot (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I’m not sure what points you are making here except for ad hominem attacks. Relevant quotes (including the very recent ones) and common sense, refuting (you and Wdford’s) fringe are not “verbiage” or WP:BLUD. I have supported my proposals with reliable and notable sources which directly and explicitly reference AN’s natural black skin color. The NPOV WP:NPOV that AN was depicted with natural black skin (sometimes purplish-black), as well as symbolically is directly supported. Your opinion WP:RSOPINION of what constitutes support is unnecessary here.

Likewise, there is virtually no reliable, or notable WP:NOTE support for your exclusively symbolic depiction of AN fringe view. If you and Wdford would like to push fringe WP:FRINGE on editors to oppose proposals, you should support your fringe. That is how it works WP:CONS. Now if you wouldn’t mind and as User:Bishonen instructed, I would prefer to continue to comment on content (please comment on content). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The utter lack of self-awareness. You are in no position to talk about ad hominem attacks. You have no qualms referencing Davies when his evidence concerns AN’s brow ornament. Evidently, it seems you have a problem specifically with AN’s natural black skin color, and your qualms are unrelated to Davies or the age of the evidence. The double uraeus is not cited to Davies (1925). It is cited to Gitton (1981) [using the quote you provided], Dils (1989) and Eaton-Krauss (1998). Mr rnddude (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please comment on content. Also, it is cited to Davies "In the tomb of Tetyky (18.3/2; pp. 123a and 129b) Ahmose Nefertari does not wear a brow ornament with a double gazelle, but with two uraei (see N. d. G. Davies, JEA 11 [1925], p. 14 and pl. II)"—Peter Dils, Review of Patterns of Queens hip in ancient Egyptian Myth and History (1989) Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reliable source that explicitly supports the POV that the black-skinned images of Ahmose-Nefertari are a reflection of her actual "natural skin colour". Wdford (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)