Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

RfC

It is currently under dispute as to what the content and subject of this article should consist of. The main point of contention seems to be as to whether this article should center on the race/ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians or if it should focus on controversy surrounding this.

• hah, "currently"? This "dispute" has crippled this "article" since its inception in 2005. It is high time it is {{split}} into decent articles with well-defined foci, one on actual archaeogenetics and Egyptology, the other on Afrocentrist ethnic nationalism. dab (𒁳) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: That sounds like a good idea to me.--Woland (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly well established that the northern part of Egypt was a mixing pot of Middle Eastern and Black African with the Southern and Eastern part being Nubian. The Northern part was routinely invade and brought in people from every part of the Empire to work on their extensive construction. I like splitting the postings so that the information that is relevant gets out there. Ultimately the race of the people and whether or not they were light brown or dark brown skin matters less than their contributions to society. (Aethercracker (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

If I'm understanding you, you do think that it would be a good idea to split this into two articles; one about the archaeogenetics and one about...something else. My problem is that I have no idea what the 'something else' (i.e. Afrocentrist ethnic nationalism) would be or even how we could go about writing it without creating the same problems that this article has.Woland (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could have a separate article "Controversy about Race of Ancient Egyptians", which is what some want this article to be. LuxNevada (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maiherpri

I think we should include Maiherpri (he was Egyptian noble from Nubian background) papyrus in the discussion, Maiherpri papyrus show him offering to the Gods and whilst he is shown with the normal profile of men of the period, his skin is painted dark brown rather than the usual red ochre and his hair is shown as being short and curly. This papyrus clearly shows how different skin colors were accurately depicted and that a darker skin was the exception rather than the rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiherpri --Anubis233 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the article on original research. --Woland (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Weird material

This is Wikipedia. Not essay-pedia. This is classic {{essay-entry}} stuff. I agree with it, actually, but it just doesn't belong here. Sorry. See also WP:SYNTH. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I totally agree. Wikipedia is not a place for essays. The deleted section starts with "If one accepts the UNESCO statement on the race question from 1950, it should not matter what skin colour a person has, even if the person in question is the head of state of a mighty nation." This is tortured language! Wikpedia is certainly not the place for well written essays, let alone badly written ones! LuxNevada (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

this is not an article about facts

Ok, probably it is to much to ask a newcomer to an article to read up on a long discussion like this. On the other hand, with all those disputed notices, etc. around I wonder why at least the attempt to do this is not even made. Anyway, if'd read thea rchives, you would finde this comment by User:John Carter: "The numerous previous discussions regarding this article, and the ArbCom, came to that conclusion, that this article is about the current controversy, yes." Based on my knowledge on Nazi and related ideology I had added a section on why this question is so controversial. The whole point is that the controversy is not about facts. Seriously, if it was about facts the Nordicists could not have attempted to deny that the ancient Egyptians had a darker skin colour then the Northern Europeans. Only ideology that is completely detached from the facts would attempt such a thing. On the other hand: If 'white people' had not claimed that the ancient Egyptians were white, 'black people' would have no reason emphasize that the ancient Egpytians were black. This is the reason why I had added the stuff about the 'Nordic Egypt' at the top of the article. If you wan an article about *facts*, sorry, then this is the wrong place. Seriously, we should move a little content then to Origin of the Nilotic peoples and delete the remainder. The issue is notable, but apparently we will not be able to have an article on it, because we lack an editor the is able to write about it from a neutral perspective and willing to battle such a version through.

And especially: If you thing the race and culture section is to essayistic, please consider, that this is not an article about facts. An article on a controversy, on the other hand, has to give all viewpoints, give the arguments for and against them, and, to be useful for the reader, come to a weighted conclusion. wp:NPOV is a policy, and I am willing to brake all style guidelines to have an article that complies with it. This doesn't mean that you'd have to accept that section as it is, but you have to specify to which sentences you object and we can see how we can reword it. Zara1709 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a article about "Nordicists", which is what the deleted section reads like. Also the style of the section is quite like an essay, rather than encyclopedic. Also I just cannot get my mind round to your "this is not an article about facts". Are you saying that this article should ignore facts? LuxNevada (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Zara does have a point. This article should primarily be about how the "race of ancient egyptians" meme has developed within Afrocentrism. The actual (non) debate itself can go to some other articles (though actually Origin of the Nilotic peoples is itself a massive {{essay-entry}}). What I don't agree is that the section I've just removed again is the way to fix this. As LuxNevada points out, it does read as being related to a different topic, quite apart from the original synthesis problems. Moreschi (talk) (debate)

At least you see one point of my argument... But what about the other points? I read the section again. The only sentence that I personally consider obviously problematic was the one about the ancient Egyptian paintings, because it would need a citation. In the light of what I have written previously an article on a controversy needs to some extend imitate an essay: Some Nordicists believed the ancient Egyptians to be white. Is this view sustainable? No. Afrocentrist believe that the ancient Egyptians were black. Is this view sustainable? Yes. Conclusion: The ancient Egyptians were black, what some white people would find hard to believe. This is a typical thesis-antithesis-conclusion scheme, but there isn't any other way to write an article about a controversy.

This section isn't any more an essay than the history book I referred to. Texts about controversies can't be written any "more encyclopaedic" than this. I don't have to spell out wp:NPOV, do it? If you are to give all significant views and weight them, people who want to have an article "XY is fact." are going to be disappointed.

And also: There is a very good reason to include the Nordicist view in this article. Otherwise the reader might fail to understand why this question is an issue for Black People. It would appears as if out of nothing Blacks started to talk about the "Race of ancient Egyptians". The white racism pre-dates them a 60 years or so should be mentioned with a few sentences. The "Hamite-hypothesis would be more important, but as it happened I started with the Nordicists. It would actually be possible to include this, too, and probably reword a few sentences, but this has to wait until tomorrow, because I am already at 3 reverts. Zara1709 (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that an article titled "Race of ancient Egyptians" should have a focus on the controversy about what various sides of the race debate claim. That article should be titled "Controversy about Race of ancient Egyptians". However if there is a majority of two (Moreschi and Zara) then I am not going to debate this point and you can focus on Afrocentrism. I know enough about Wikipedia to know how these things can drag on.

I really came to this curious to know about the race of ancient Egyptians and was instead treated to statements like "To allege a relation between race and culture is common in Racism". If you have to have this Afrocentrism, then write it better so that it reads like an objective description of the debate rather than an essay. And also move it down to within the article instead of being right at the top. I would support a re-write by Moreschi. LuxNevada (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You still have not replied to my argument that it is impossible to write an "objective description of a debate" that doesn't emulate the structure of an essay. Since you have at least have stated what wording you object by now, I can see how we can reword this... I think I will also have to restore one passages removed by Miskon - the current Egyptian self-view is no less relevant than the view of contemporary afro-Americans. Zara1709 (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "it is impossible to write an "objective description of a debate" that doesn't emulate the structure of an essay." No, that is incorrect, it is possible to objectively describe a debate without making it into an essay. There, I have answered your question. The entire section is essay-like, by far the worst case of un-encyclopedic writing I have seen on Wikipedia. Please don't restore. If Moreschi wants to re-write, I will support him/her. LuxNevada (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey wouldn't it be cool if the gods came back and walked the earth. You know that would put and end to all this bickering. Well one would only hope it would.--204.118.241.234 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, LuxNevada, now the ip's who adhere to certain myths are back on this talk page. It is kind of hard for me to go on working on topics related to white racism, when some people call my mother a 'nigger' on my talk page and other people bash my style of writing as un-encyclopedic when I am trying to point out that the ancient Egyptians were black. If you haven't done so, read the talkpage archives here. The disputed section was written after a longer discussion with someone wouldn't see the problem of a theory of the Aryan race originating in Atlantis. There are still ideologies out there that most people will now find completely absurd, but which were once common ground in Nazi Germany. Zara1709 (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I am sorry that someone abused your mother, that's completely out of line. My intention is not to abuse you, nor to get into arguments about superiority or inferiority of any race. What concerns me here is that the section reads like a bad essay and is definitely not written in an encyclopedic style. LuxNevada (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if you want to call the disputed section "the worst case of un-encyclopedic writing I have seen on Wikipedia" you are confusing a textbook on the history of ideas (racism, in this case) with a biology textbook. The lines: "To allege a relation between race and culture is common in Racism. Historically, the adherents of the concept of a Nordic race went as far as to declare the presence of 'their' race the necessary condition for any culture, a tendency that was already reminiscent in the work of Georges Vacher de Lapouge and reached its climax at Alfred Rosenberg. Consequently Nordicist like the Norwegian-German eugenicist Alfred Mjöen alleged that the Nordic race had formed the ruling class in ancient Egypt." were basically translated from Lutzhöft's dissertation on Nordic thought. The style of writing that you call un-encyclopedic might not pass in a biology paper, but it will pass definitely at religious or political science departments. Zara1709 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

So, I am actually attempting to rewrite the article. Of course, the efforts will be sabotaged if the edit war continues. But please consider this: I didn't remove any content at all (only a few lines that were redundant because the part on the languages had previously been debated in two different sections)! Before I would remove a section, I would discuss it here first. Furthermore, consider that the question whether the Nordicist's view should be included or not is a separate issue from the one of rewriting the article. If you are of the opinion that it shouldn't be included, we can discuss it here. But I think that there are good reasons for its inclusion. 1) It is notable as a minority view. Aside from wp:NPOV considerations: If we don't include it there will be occasional rants about "Nordic Egypt" on this talk page. 2) It is a perfect example of the ideological core of this controversy. It is even based on a first class academic source, a dissertation at a history department that even won an award (only drawback is, that it is in German.) 3) If there was no section on the Nordicist, one would have to explain the ideological content of the controversy on the basis of the dynastic race theory and the Hamitic hypothesis. There will be literature on this (most likely), but I wouldn't know where to find this, but more importantly one would be faced with the question whether these theories constitute scientific racism and then way we will never be able to get this article out of the dispute. For the Nordicists, this is clear and undisputed.

So, if we all attempt to write an encyclopaedia here and don't take concerns about an un-encyclopedic tone as a warrant for disruptive reverting, (feel free to use inline tags), I will continue the rewrite as soon as I find time. We can then move this article to Controversy about the race of ancient Egyptians and see if we can merge Origin of the Nilotic peoples. On the other hand, if you want to continue the edit war, you might achieve it that I withdraw from the article. But that won't help the article, I'd guess... Zara1709 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The re-written version is much better. However this part "This was part of a general tendency to declare the presence of the 'white' race the necessary condition for any culture, which was already reminiscent in the work of Georges Vacher de Lapouge and reached its climax at Alfred Rosenberg.[19] However, the Nordicist's attempt to claim the achievements of ancient cultures for 'their' race was already highly controversial when it came to the Roman Empire;[20] For the ancient Egyptians the Nordicist's claim is not worth any serious consideration at all,[21] but it illustrates why this topics is an issue in modern society. White people, who were unable to accept the historic achievements of people with a darken skin than themselves, felt the need to rewrite human history in racial terms. In this extreme case the element of ideology is clearly visible. However, even within the scientific community, the question of the Origin of the Nilotic peoples was, until the 1970s, overshadowed by a debate about "race"." is still essay-like and un-encyclopedic, which I have accordingly deleted. LuxNevada (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING OF WHAT I HAD WRITTEN ON THIS TALK PAGE? Why do you think I write a 12 line discussion entry on, among other, why the Nordicist's view is relevant here? Could you at least have the courtesy to state whether you consider it relevant and only demand that it should be rewritten completely or whether you don't consider it relevant at all? And of course I have understood by now that you consider my style of writing as "un-encyclopedic", which is why I have made efforts to explain that it is appropriate to this content. Instead of just repeating "essay" and "un-encyclopedic" you be should looking at my arguments and trying to substantiate your point. Otherwise we are just stuck at the point that we obviously have different ideas of what an encyclopaedia article is. I think I have repeatedly made clear that we can discuss this issue here (of course, a paragraph about such a topic is difficult to word). It is difficult to get it right the first try, but unlike other editors I am actually doing something here. For wp:civil and all that stuff, removing the disputed passage was unnecessary. If you don't want to discuss it, you simply give that impression you just don't like this topic to be mentioned, for whatever reason. I would just revert, but I am to bored of this to count whether another revert would be within the limits of wp:3RR. Zara1709 (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read what you have written, and there is no need to YELL. I understand you think that an essay style is appropriate, but it is not. That is not something I made up, but the way Wiki works. I appreciate you wanting to "doing something here". My efforts are also to make Wiki better. I just feel that essay like rantings about racism is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. LuxNevada (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the controversy about the race of ancient Egyptians. Some white racists believed that the ancient Egyptians were 'white' (more white than the Mediterranean people). I asked you to to tell me whether you think that this is relevant in this article (considering wp:NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." ) Is the Nordicist's view, which academic literature of the 70s has analysed as ideology, relevant? Even writing in caps did not help you notice this question, so I guess this is the end of the discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

i think the Nordic view is legitimate to mention. you have at least 3 references in there and it is part of the record of egyptology and racist views hsitorically. it has historical interest. i think the language can be modified a bit so it is more neutral, rather than just taking it out, but also you have left out the guiseppe sergi views which are also part of the record. i think a compromise can be arranged in rewording rather than editors just removing things they don't like. that does not show good faith.Zapnathpantwo (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's try to be constructive. I am leaving the section largely as it is. I am only taking out the sentence "Before the UNESCO statement on the race question from 1950, theories of scientific racism frequently alleged a relation between race and culture." It is hard to believe that an "UNESCO statement" brought about a sea change, that racists theories changed overnight and stopped alleging a relation between race and culture. LuxNevada (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My last post referred to the prior version of Zapnathpantwo. In the newer version I find this completely un-encyclopedic "Such claims illustrate why the topic remains an issue in modern society. White people, who were unable to accept the historic achievements of people with a darken skin than themselves, felt the need to rewrite human history in racial terms. In this extreme case the element of ideology is clearly visible." Come on! Besides reeking of particular editors' opinions, it is unsourced. I am sure you can find a source that says "White people, who were unable to accept the historic achievements of people with a darken skin than themselves, felt the need to rewrite human history in racial terms". Cite such a source and I will make it clear it is that author's opinion. LuxNevada (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I will help out here. Improvements do seem to be in progress. The good parameter of this is as a "history of controversy" article, possibly renamed to Race of ancient Egyptians controversy. The actual "were they black or not" stuff should probably go Origin of the Nilotic peoples - which itself I would like to see massively trimmed and incorporated into a new Nilotic peoples article (which, you note, doesn't actually exist yet). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Moreschi, looking forward to your re-write. LuxNevada (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Give me another month and I'll give it a go. I'm still working through some of the relevant reference material. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So what. If you are concerned about a sentence being original research, then there is the or-tag. The whole point of this controversy here is not that I am saying that my writing is perfect, but that LuxNevada shows no intent of criticizing it in a civil form. Seriously, repeated removal of the content in question when a discussion is being asked for appears to me more uncivil that a lot of things that are sometimes said on discussion pages. I know how to deal with the usual pov-pushers by now, but I don't know how to deal with this. Anyway, whereas LuxNevada apparently doesn't trust me to write something encyclopaedic, I'd have to insist on some REALLY important distinction here. "Nordic" is not the same as "White", it is not even the same as "Aryan". (Thus the material on Gobineau.) One of the previous versions explained the core of the 'Nordic Egypt' argument as "the claim the the ancient Egyptians had a skin as white (or as pale) as the contemporary Norwegians," before I removed that to take the concerns about an encyclopaedic tone into account. So currently the explanation is longer and and not as direct, which might make some readers overlook it. Nobody (except the adherents of such 'myths') can take a 'Nordic Egypt' seriously into consideration; It is on the same level as that Aryans-out-of-Atlantis theory (and quite different from the Hamitic-hypothesis). Even Lutzhöft, who is on the level of the discussions about race from the 1960s, bashes it as pseudo-science. His study is, btw. the only one detailed enough, so I'd say that it is authoritative. I would really like to work out the details of the development of 'scientific' theories about a Hamitic Egypt, but I don't know if I want to put up with it if the bickering here continues. Zara1709 (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Zara, I cannot agree with what you think "civil" means. You write "repeated removal of the content in question when a discussion is being asked for appears to me more uncivil". That is not uncivil, what it really means is that you haven't convinced me that your essay-type writing is acceptable on Wiki. You write "essay or not-essay", but no, "not-essay" is not-acceptable. I am leaving the section about Hamites, even though I think it is kind of irrelevant to the article. Other sections, like un-sourced statements, and discussion about the "Nordic" race are being removed. LuxNevada (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is uncivil, of course. Some of the lines of the the section were written hastily and definitely needed to be reworded, but others took me quite some time to formulate. (Not counting the time that I spend on reading the sources anyway.) It is not a great prospect for an encyclopaedia that is a collaboration when the efforts some people make are undone by others.

You are demanding that my arguments instantly convince you that the content in question should be kept? Have you stopped for a minute to think what this means? If both sided take not being convinced as a sufficient reason for a revert, then the edit war just continues. If we go by wp:consensus, not being convinced can only mean that further discussion is necessary. That is just a specific problem of this discussion; there are several other editors out there who are worse.

I don't know if it would be worth it to continue the discussion whether the sentence on he UNESCO statement on the race questionshould be kept, but I do it anyway: From the articles on The Race Question and Scientific racism I obtained the information that: "Such theories [of Scientific racism], and associated actions, have been strongly denounced since World War II and the Holocaust, in particular by a 1950 UNESCO statement, signed by an international group of scholars, known as The Race Question." To give the reader a broad chronological context, I found it necessary to include this here. That is why I used the word 'before' to state a temporal relation. The UNESCO statemant was not the reason scientific racism disappeared, but it marked the turning point.If I want to say that "the UNESCO statement brought about a sea change," that would be a causal relation an I would use the word 'because'. So I'm adding it back in. We can discuss the general issue of "objectivity" tomorrow. Zara1709 (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Issue as I see it

Other than essay-like writing, there is another issue that I have a problem with in this article.

The topic is "Race of Ancient Egyptians". Leaving aside racial biases, a reader may be actually interested in knowing the answer. If I found the answer to be "Caucasoid" I would think "great", if it was "Negroid" then I would think "wonderful". There are indeed readers who would like an objective answer to this question.

I think Zara brings into this article a number of fringe racist authors, whose usually "Nordicist" etc fringe views he then proceeds to criticize. My point is, should we even care about these fringe views?

Take for example an article on, say "The Origin of the Aids Virus". Should all fringe authors who believe that the Aids virus was created by the CIA to kill African-Americans feature on this article? Obviously not. Similarly I think we shouldn't give prominence to fringe racist views on the question of "Race of Ancient Egyptians" but rather concentrate on answering the question objectively citing scientific work.

LuxNevada (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree but think that belongs in a (rewritten and trimmed) Origin of the Nilotic peoples article (which itself should become part of a new Nilotic peoples article). This article (or a slightly renamed version) I think, needs to focus on the controversy surrounding the Afrocentric meme. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I think a re-naming to "Controversy about Race of Ancient Egyptians" would be appropriate, also with a link to the other article about Nilotic people for those interested in the scientific evidence. LuxNevada (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I actually just logged in to talk about renaming this. I really think that the word 'race' needs to be taken out (since it is a loaded term, etc) and that the article should focus on the afrocentrist view and responses to the view and that the title should reflect that, e.g. Afrocentrist views of Ancient Egypt (that title sucks though, but something like it). During the RfC (Where was everyone? You people have lives or something?) there was also the idea of splitting off some of the information into an Archaeogenetics of Ancient Egypt article, which I think is a really cool idea. As for the Nordicist view. No, I don't think that it belongs at all, unless its in the context of what afrocentrists have said about it or some junk.--Woland (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't think the "Nordicist" views belong here (I had never heard that word before I came across this article), but as a practical matter am willing to let Zara keep some of it in.
  • Woland, I like your idea of re-naming the article Afrocentrist views of Ancient Egypt. If you do it, I will support you.

LuxNevada (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Afrocentrist views of Ancient Egypt would be quite a monster! That would have to incorporate as well the whole "how much did the Egyptians influence/colonize/whatever Ancient Greece" (ergo, was European society founded by Egyptians). Then we really are into Black Athena territory proper. Now, I'm completely in favour of having an article on that debate, but IMO that should be kept separate (although the two are obviously linked) from the "Race of ancient Egyptians" article. I don't see a problem with using the word "race" in the title, either: obviously it's "loaded", but then again the whole debate basically started with anachronistic and wrong use of the term "race" as applied to ancient Egypt.

• In a couple of days I'll be starting a sandbox in my userspace for the rewrite. I'll link to it here when I do. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW, yes, there is too much of this "Nordicist" stuff, although it does have a limited place. I plan to trim most of it but definitely keep some. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • User:Moreschi/ROAE is the start of my rewrite. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Moreschi, the article is well begun, thanks LuxNevada (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I've done a bunch more today: thoughts? I am planning to keep it all relatively brief in accord with Wikipedia:Summary style, leaving room for dedicated articles such as Tutankhamun race controversy and even Cleopatra race controversy. A brief summary, but one that's accurate and neutral, is generally preferable to a vast sprawling mess such as the current article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I like the direction you are taking, I think it is good to leave room for further dedicated articles. Thank you for your work on this. LuxNevada (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, nice work man.--Woland (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Update: I've done a bunch more on the "in academia" section. Comments are welcome. If there are no overwhelming objections I'll move this into the mainspace soon. I know the "Origins" section needs better citing, but it's not easy. What you really need is a "History of Afrocentrism" source, but most good sources are concerned with countering specific Afrocentric claims and not with writing histories of the movement (partly this is due to scholars countering Afrocentric claims not wishing to mirror their Afrocentric counterparts and step outside their specialization). Moreschi (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo of "Egyptians" and other ancients at the top of the article

I am new here, with regards to adding content, and am not sure if I should make this suggestion here. Nevertheless, I would respectfully request that whoever is in charge of changing content for this article remove the pic with the Egyptians supposedly on the bottom. I am requesting that a more factual representation of the tomb drawing be posted in its place. This photo is to be found at this site:

http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

This page goes into detail concerning fradulent photos such as the one currently on the page of the "Race of the Ancient Egyptians" article. The current photo partially explains the controversy over this subject, as it is but one example of many frauds perpetrated to obscure the origins of the Kamites (you know them as Ancient Egyptians).

Moreover, the page shows the actual drawings from the tomb of Rameses III. IMO, it does not get more authentic than that, and the case is closed on this subject for myself. I just wanted to share knowledge with others who may be unaware of this.

Truthseeka (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthseeka, for your post. I knew about this falsification. Nice to read again on the subject. It reminds me about the translation of the word Kmt when it applies to the population. Egyptologists have distorted all the grammatical rules to avoid translating it into the Blacks. Ancien Egyptians can be anything except Blacks. But this is not science. It is ideology. I am sorry for Erik Hornung. He is a great Egyptologist. But on the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians, he failed to be objective.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture me rolling my eyes right now. Please keep your POV off of the talk page. Thanks.--Woland (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do. This is just another Afrocentric meme, and a rather tiring one. I think we might need a FAQ here eventually explaining what's been done to death already, and what hasn't been. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 07:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That got me thinking. Maybe even a List of Afrocentric memes would be useful, though that's probably too difficult too keep neutral for mainspace. I might write one up for my userspace, though. Moreschi (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, this is a rather open-ended topic. I think you are doing great till now, and don't think you need to push yourself to include much more material. LuxNevada (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Very true, particularly when what's here already needs cleanup so badly. Extras can wait for another day :) Moreschi (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)